Obama is the most shockingly inept negotiators to occupy the White House

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,009
Likes
147,623
Points
115
Is Obama the Worst Legislative Negotiator of the Last Century?
by Joseph J. Thorndike

Some day, I’d like to get President Obama at my poker table. Whatever your feelings about the fiscal cliff and its optimal resolution, one thing is clear: Obama doesn’t know a winning hand when he sees it.

On the merits, yesterday's fiscal cliff deal is pathetic. It does nothing to solve the nation’s long-term fiscal problems, it guarantees an immediate rehash once the debt limit runs out next month, and it ensures that pretty much every American will still see a substantial tax hike (since it doesn’t include a payroll tax cut extension or similar replacement), That means middle class Americans can expect to see their after-tax incomes fall by about 1.5 percent. Which, in turn, should shave about 0.6 of a percentage point off GDP growth. So we've got that to look forward to.

But what’s really amazing about this deal is how completely Obama bungled it. He entered this fight with a biggest political edge than he's had at any time during his presidency. And probably a bigger one than he will ever see again.

Judged simply in terms of governing skill, the deal is a remarkable self-inflicted wound. It's not the deal you make when you hold all the cards. It’s the deal you make after calling the GOP bluff. After you let the tax cuts expire. After you introduce your own plan to cut taxes for The 98 Percent,. After you’ve dared the Republicans to vote against that tax cut. And after they've inflicted even more political harm on themselves by doing exactly that. At that point, and only then, do you make a deal like this.

Maybe Obama knows something I don’t know. Maybe he knows to a certainty that a week or so on the far side of the fiscal cliff really would send the economy into a tailspin. Or maybe he’s just a better person than I am.

But speaking as an historian -- as someone who’s spent a lot of time examining the partisan politics of previous decades – I think it’s safe to say that Obama is among the most shockingly inept negotiators to occupy the White House in a century. Maybe shockingly is the wrong word, because he seems almost deliberately inept. By the time most presidents get to the Oval Office, they know a thing or two about how to win a political fight. But even after a full term of on-the -job training, Obama still doesn't get it. Even Jimmy Carter -- in my estimate, the reigning champion among lousy negotiators during the last 75 to 100 years -- could have done better than this.

Obama entered this debate with impressive advantages. He has now obliterated all of them. And he's certainly reassured Republicans that he is still the same easy mark he’s always been.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/JTHE-93JKVW?OpenDocument
 
Governing skill, self inflicted wound, inept.

Goes right along with hastening our demise.
 
true, you could give them all the marbles and they would bitch about you not producing more for them..

That's the fun of watching MSNBC. The "winners" are incredibly unhappy all the time. I don't get it.
 
That's the fun of watching MSNBC. The "winners" are incredibly unhappy all the time. I don't get it.

yah.like listening to NPR last night..the big party over 300 points on wall street...news comes on and the dollar is down, gold is up..they just dont know where to focus..polar shift..
 
Dude, how can anyone with eyes not see that Obama is in the back pocket of the financial elite? Either that, or he is one of the stupidest presidents in history!

He wanted to end the tax cuts for the wealthy, great. So why did he allow them to be renewed? The republicans had NO LEVERAGE, Obama didn't need to compromise, he could have just let them expire, then introduced a new bill to cut taxes for those making under $250,000. But that's worse, under Obama's plan these cuts don't ever expire.




Also, watch the documentary "inside job" about the banker bailout. The wall street and fed people responsible for that were appointed to his cabinet. It's insane!
 
George Bush was stupid, I can tell that Barak Obama is not. I don't believe he made this deal out of stupidity. For some reason, unknown to me, he wants to cater to the rich. The financial elites of our country seem to be controlling things behind the scenes...
 
He doesn't want to unilaterally force his horrible agenda on us all. When it fails or when the bills come due long after he's left office, he doesn't want the blame.

He also has a debt ceiling bill he needs passed so he can continue his reckless (massive) borrowing and spending ways. What happens if the house refuses to pass an increase, period?

(I say nothing but good things if they do).
 
He doesn't want to unilaterally force his horrible agenda on us all. When it fails or when the bills come due long after he's left office, he doesn't want the blame.

He also has a debt ceiling bill he needs passed so he can continue his reckless (massive) borrowing and spending ways. What happens if the house refuses to pass an increase, period?

(I say nothing but good things if they do).

If he doesn't want the blame for the deficit, then why would he continue the Bush tax cuts which were in large part responsible for them?

And what do you mean "his" crazy borrowing and spending ways. Where you hibernating during the Bush administration? Jesus.

Obama and Bush are carrying out the same policies! And the majority of people in this country are blindly cheering on their chosen party while too few point out the absurdity of it all.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't hibernating during the Bush years. The way govt. grew under his presidency and republican congress was outrageous. Obama's taken it to a new level.

No amount of tax cuts are ever responsible for deficits. If the govt. taxed nobody and spent nothing, there'd be no deficit. If the govt. taxed nobody and raised money through fees (like toll roads), and spent just that amount, there'd be no deficit.

Why would he continue the Bush tax cuts? Because the economy would tank without them.
 
A deficit is the difference between income and spending, so of course, both of those things count. Our deficit grew the same amount that taxes were cut.

I supported his plan to maintain the cuts for those who make under $250,000, but it's just a baseless assertion when the richies say it will help the economy to give them tax breaks. Oh yeah, they are going to invest that money in jobs right? HAHA! We had a good economy under Clinton's tax rates and it's continued to be in the hole since Bush cut them.

Our economy will suck worse if millions of americans become destitute for lack of unemployment or social security.
 
A deficit is the difference between income and spending, so of course, both of those things count. Our deficit grew the same amount that taxes were cut.

I supported his plan to maintain the cuts for those who make under $250,000, but it's just a baseless assertion when the richies say it will help the economy to give them tax breaks. Oh yeah, they are going to invest that money in jobs right? HAHA! We had a good economy under Clinton's tax rates and it's continued to be in the hole since Bush cut them.

Our economy will suck worse if millions of americans become destitute for lack of unemployment or social security.

Our deficit did not grow the same amount that taxes were cut. Nor did it grow by the same amount of the taxes and the cost of the two wars combined.

http://costoftaxcuts.com/about/
10 years was $955B not taxed, or $95.5B/year

We were running $250B+ surplus in 2001, not a deficit. $250B - $95.5B is still a surplus. $250B - $95.5B - $100B (cost of the wars) is still a surplus.

E21-debt-chart.png
 
A deficit is the difference between income and spending, so of course, both of those things count. Our deficit grew the same amount that taxes were cut.

This premise is entirely flawed and not necessarily true. Until you reconcile that, your arguments don't hold any water.
 
You are the most shockingly inept thread title makers to post on S2.
 
I haven't read the thread, but I see the outline. The original article criticizes Obama from the left for not trying harder to get Republican concessions. Jumping onto the bandwagon, Republican posters then pretend to agree.
 
Barack Obama's strategy isn't to win the individual negotiation battle; it's to destroy the GOP to eliminate opposition to his programs. In that sense, he's winning and winning big. At every step, the GOP folds and says we'll fight the next battle.

Our firm's decision to just bail looks better and better.
 
It's a quote from the article.

From the article:

Obama is among the most shockingly inept negotiators to occupy the White House in a century.

From you:

Obama is the most shockingly inept negotiators to occupy the White House

You took out two important qualifiers, in the process making the pluralization of 'negotiators' incorrect.
 
One more thing: Does anyone really believe Obama wants to raise taxes on everybody to pay for his Big Government programs? He got exactly what he wanted: Huge government spending without having to pay for it through his presidency. What happens afterward is someone else's mess.
 
From the article:



From you:



You took out two important qualifiers, in the process making the pluralization of 'negotiators' incorrect.

When posting any political article on S2 it's best to go for shock value.
 
I know! Now they let Negros, Micks, Wops, and kikes have all these rights! Wait we're using 1920s american views, right?

I notice the only actual slur you shied away from using applies to "Negros". LOL

How wimpy.
 
How bankruptcy happens: gradually and then all at once.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top