More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Smirniotopoulos

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Smirniotopoulos

Too Little, Too Late: The President's "Big Jobs Speech"

Posted: 09/08/11 10:40 PM ET

After weeks and weeks of build-up, made that much more tense by political sniping about a First Family vacation in Martha's Vineyard and last week's dust-up with the Speaker of the House over whether last night's GOP Presidential primary debate should take precedence over the opening-season NFL game between the Packers and the Saints, President Obama's "Big Jobs Speech" has finally come and gone. I feel -- much as I did as a twelve-year-old, having finally mustered up the courage to see if I could get past the box office of my local theatre to see the R-rated Easy Rider (after pretty much everyone else who mattered in my peer group already had) -- somewhat disappointed but not overly surprised.

After inheriting an economy already well into the Great Recession, the president has now had 33 months to both create a bold narrative -- a vision, if you will -- for a brighter future for our country and chart a course to see us well on our way toward the fulfillment of that vision. For twenty-four of those 33 months, the Democratic Party controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. And yet, here we were, waiting with much anticipation and after prolonged hand-wringing, for our problems to be solved (or, at the very least, for the solution to our problems to be delivered to us by from on high). As I am fond of saying in such situations, "our headaches are over; here comes Moses with the tablets."

But, alas, our headaches are seemingly just beginning, in part because the prescription that has been delivered by our Physician-in-Chief is, to continue the analogy, half an Alka-Seltzer (or as a devoted Liberal friend of mine likes to say, when presented with a lacking opposing argument, "weak sauce"). When what we really needed was a new vision for America and a clear path forward, what we received instead was a collection of tepid, "been there/done that," short-term fixes that, while they may result in some modest increases in employment, will surely do nothing to solve our long-term economic and fiscal problems. A Band-Aid on a shotgun blast.

Just in case you didn't see the president's Big Jobs Speech, and I don't know that I would blame you if there was an ESPN NFL pre-game extravaganza on opposite the President's address, here are some of the highlights:

1. An estimated $450 billion in new government spending (the "American Jobs Act"), to be paid for with a combination of some government un-spending (i.e. cuts) and the revocation of some tax benefits for the rich and big corporations, all pretty much back-loaded to later years (where "later years" means after the 2012 election), funding:

a. A payroll tax holiday, estimated to put over $1,000.00 in the pockets of those Americans fortunate enough to still be employed;
b. An extension of unemployment benefits;
c. An infrastructure bank, the mechanics of which -- as someone who understands public finance and sophisticated financing structures pretty thoroughly -- either have escaped me entirely or just have not been presented because they are lacking at present;
d. Funding for school construction and infrastructure projects, to be funded directly to the states;
e. A payroll tax cut for employers;
f. Aid for state and local governments;
g. A new-hire tax credit;
h. Job training for long-term unemployed; and
i. A mortgage refinancing initiative for homeowners.

2. An assurance that we are a resilient people who have overcome such Herculean obstacles in the past, so we will do so in the future as well;

3. A mild but sternly delivered threat to Congress that, having presented them with such a tepid bundle of milk toast economic fixes to goose the economy -- almost all of which have had either bipartisan or Republican support, in one form or another, in the past that it would be almost impossible for them to be objectionable -- they'd better act swiftly; and

4. A vague and somewhat idealized promise about exciting things to come for a more-promising future.

So, what, exactly, is wrong with the president's Big Jobs Speech and the solutions contained therein? Pretty much everything. This country, and the other countries whose economies rely upon the success of ours, have heard the reassuring talk from this Administration far too many times for it to any longer be effective. Spending $450 billion seems anemic when you've already spent almost $2 trillion between the February 2009 stimulus package and the December 2010 extension of the Bush tax cuts, with precious little to show for it other than perhaps stopping the economic bleeding. It seems highly unlikely that the American Jobs Act is going to -- what's the president's catch-phrase -- get the car out of that ditch.

The measures that have been proposed are extraordinary only in how ordinary they truly are. There is nothing new here, and neither the message nor the handful of remedies is sufficient to bolster the confidence of the American people, our financial institutions, our trading partners and the rest of the world, much less inspire anyone to greatness.

The president's Big Jobs Speech was impassioned to be sure; almost fiery at times. And it received more than the requisite amount of applause and standing O's from the Democratic members of Congress, to whom the president threw plenty of red meat. But the good feelings generated by such a speech are unlikely to last more than a week or two at that, particularly at a time when the bad economic news spigot continues to flow freely.

I wrote more than two-and-a-half years ago, in a piece for the New Geography, that the country needed a bold vision that would provide the framework for the recovery from our economic crisis. I re-emphasized that call for a bold vision in a piece that appeared on NewGeo and also in the Huffington Post this past weekend. I stand by that call for a new vision for America; something that tells us not only that we are capable once again to aspire to greatness -- something the president did eloquently this evening -- but tells us where we're going and lays out the roadmap for getting there by creating a narrative for our future.

Having seen nothing coming from the eight GOP presidential hopefuls in last night's debate at the Reagan Library, and now having been let down, once again, by a president who seems to be able to inspire the American people best only when he's running against someone else, I'm just going to have to lay that vision out myself, in a future blog post. Watch this space.

 

Follow Peter Smirniotopoulos on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@PSmirn

After weeks and weeks of build-up, made that much more tense by political sniping about a First Family vacation in Martha's Vineyard and last week's dust-up with the Speaker of the House over whether ...
After weeks and weeks of build-up, made that much more tense by political sniping about a First Family vacation in Martha's Vineyard and last week's dust-up with the Speaker of the House over whether ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 238
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ta2t2o
Ask Osama Bin Laden
02:52 PM on 09/11/2011
Too little, too late? That's about one of the dumbest comments and indicative of a Congress and a media constantly looking for a magic pill to solve all this at once. Too little too late was the same nonsense mindset that caused Congress to take so long to do anything about healthcare.

Remember, the greatest flood starts with a single raindrop. I'll take anything that helps - no matter how small or trivial you may feel it is.
10:16 AM on 09/12/2011
It's "too little" because it is focused only on short-term fixes for jobs that may not even be permanently viable in the current, global economy, *and* because it sets up an ideological battle between the Democrats and Republicans about what's the *best way* to create jobs. Both parties seek political cover for going into the 2012 election being able to say they did their best to try to create jobs, even if they manage to do nothing.

The largely unrelated amalgam of jobs incentives in the president's plan, even if it were passed wholesale (which is highly unlikely) will not create more than 500,000 to 1 million jobs, at best, and those jobs may be fleeting. What is needed is a new economy for the United States; something in which consumers and businesses alike can believe. Only when confidence in the future of our economy is restored will we see *real* job creation and an emergence from our economic woes. This entire process is more likely to undermine confidence in our government's ability to make things better and, hence, hurt the economic recovery than it is to make a positive difference.

A milk toast jobs program really puts the cart before the horse.
07:44 PM on 09/09/2011
At the end of the day, it's easy to sit and say a vision should be "bold" and proclaim that what's been proposed is milk-watery. But the fact, is, even this "band-aid on a shotgun blast" almost certainly won't pass, because it's "too controversial" or "too expensive" or "not detailed enough" or "too specific as an entire package."

If you can't get anything bold passed, pass what you can, and try to bring the conversation back to where it should be by taking a moral stand against our current "race to the bottom" and hope the public follows you. It's all that can be done, and it's what the President did.
11:05 AM on 09/12/2011
Harlequin115, clearly I disagree, and I've been advocating for a bold plan for the country since March 28, 2009, so this isn't the first time I've suggested this. Because of the current political climate--which can best be described as toxic--and where we are in the 2012 election cycle, I don't think Congress could pass a one-sentence piece of legislation that says "The sky is blue." So, since *nothing* the president proposes is going to pass, at least not in the form he presents, then *why not* try something completely different. Why not try to be bold, particularly when bold solutions are truly what are needed? All of the president's efforts to the the Great Conciliator have not only fallen short, they've pretty much back-fired. The country and the Democratic Party need bold and strong leadership from the president. I don't think his jobs package reflects either.
07:44 PM on 09/09/2011
This is exactly the sort of wishy-washy whining that makes me hate punditry so often. You repeatedly call for a "bold vision" while failing to acknowledge both that you haven't put one forward yourself and that any actual "bold vision" which would be more long-term or more effective would have no chance whatsoever of being signed into law. I appreciate your claim that you will propose your own vision--when I see it, I'll retract the first part of my complaint, but the second will almost certainly still stand.

This country is so incapable of enacting a "bold vision" right now that itNEARLY defies explanation--not only can we not agree on even what the framework of such a vision should be, we can't even agree on how impartially evaluate the qualities of any such vision. we can't even agree on what "qualities" means--beyond the platitude that such a vision should "strengthen" the economy.

There is no agreement on who can impartially measure likely economic impact--estimates issue forth constantly from the OMB, CBO, and countless think-tanks. No single report is acceptable to both sides, and frankly I see the Republicans blowing off any estimate that doesn't issue forth from Heritage. A public which is fairly ignorant of the minutiae of economic policy, has no idea where to turn for intelligent advice. Popular news media play every policy proposal as nothing more than an attempt to change the next electoral horse-race, again failing the public.
11:09 AM on 09/12/2011
harlequin115, I have been called a lot of things in my life but "wishy-washy" has never been one of them. We have profound structural problems with our economy. Only a bold new vision for the direction of the country, with an articulate and holistic plan to get us there, is going to solve our problems. It's ironic but I've always thought of the Democratic party as the party of bold ideas, yet I've taken more heat for this blog post from Liberals and Progressives than I have from anyone else. It seems to me that the more damning negativity--the defeatist attitude destined to keep us mired in this economic malaise--is the one I've heard echoed in many of these comments, that we're just not capable of embracing a bold vision for our future. That's certainly not the America I know and love, so why are you so willing to accept that as our fate?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ranveig Elvebakk
Innovator, author and lecturer on weight and nutri
04:47 PM on 09/09/2011
The fabric of America is being destroyed at record speed: Laws are being bought and sold. Banks are free to continue their games. The job exodus continues while politicians roll their eyes in surprise over the unemployment numbers, the botched health care, military spending. Apres nous, le deluge, and let them eat cake, except is is coming faster than the Belt way crowd had anticipated and is inconveniently showing up in the polls --
01:48 PM on 09/09/2011
"When what we really needed was a new vision for America and a clear path forward."

Wow. Can't wait for the specifics. Be sure when you lay them out that you also tell us how you would pass that through today's congress. I've read that Dennis Kucinich has sponsored 107 bills of which 102 never even made it out of committee. Liberals love his progressive vision, but if the way you implement your vision keeps dying in committee, it's a little hard to see how that does anyone any good. Kind of falls into the "what a concept" category.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact MyBKTeam
contact MyBkTeam
11:27 AM on 09/09/2011
Go home Peter. We actually have heard all of your naysaying before and it's old and tired and negative. Get with the program and stop the partisan speeches and work with your President on ideas you don't agree with. Be a part of the solution, not a continuing part of the problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Osmona
Its GREAT to be alive and SANE.
01:07 PM on 09/09/2011
Very well said. I could not have said it better.

F/F
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Peter Smirniotopoulos
Saving the world 1 Tweet @ a time; HP blogger
11:15 PM on 09/28/2011
It's truly unfortunate that you believe that the President, or any president for that matter, is always so "on track" with the best answers that there is no room for constructive criticism. It is this kind of negative attitude (yours, not mine) that prompted my blog post that followed this one, questioning whether it is no longer possible in America any more to a have a new and/or big idea and actually have it discussed before it's shot down. I find your attitude--or at least the attitude expressed in this comment--to be emblematic with what's truly wrong with our political dialogue. You're so sure that you're right, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, that there's never any room for improvement; never any opportunity to make things better through critical review and analysis. I really don't think that's what the framers of the constitution had in mind when forging this Republic; do you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GoDems2012
I've got the POTUS' back!
11:04 AM on 09/09/2011
Big Tents = Big Problems. If the Democratic party fell in line like the GOP did maybe we could steamroll the repubs in Congress. But in reality, there are progressives, liberals, moderates and conservatives within our spectrum. We had alot of moderates and conservatives before the 2010 elections that made us have to negotiate with ourselves. Then we didn't even bother to vote in 2010 midterms. So you can only blame the President for so much of this. The rest of the blame is shared among the voters, the repubs and the divided dems in Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Peter Smirniotopoulos
Saving the world 1 Tweet @ a time; HP blogger
11:19 PM on 09/28/2011
I would say that's a pretty accurate synopsis of what transpired. In retrospect, if the Democratic party and its leadership in Congress knew then (January 20, 2009) what we know now, do you think they would have done things differently, including finding ways to quietly compromise so that, in committee and floor deliberations the party would have appeared more monolithic, like the GOP always manages to whether it's in the minority *or* the majority? Or do you think that the internal differences within the Big Tent are just too great to permit that kind of cooperative undertaking by the party?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:55 AM on 09/09/2011
But it sounded good, didn't it? Washington DC does know how to do grand theater.

What will actually bring back "jobs?" It will take much more than government spending or non-spending. It will take a fundamental attitude-adjustment, and I believe that this is one that is ready to take place.

The proposition of Government is always that "Government, and only Government, must Act" in order to address a problem. We have no jobs, say, so the Government Must Act in order to Create Jobs.

But the simple truth is that jobs will create themselves when the conditions are made proper for them to do so.

What can we do?

(1) Neuter the Military Industrialists. Pay attention to "Ike" Eisenhower. He was right.

(2) Change business taxation rules to cause money earned "out of the country" to be subject to, say, triple-tax. Separate money earned outside the US from money earned inside, for all US corporations.

(3) Require that "undocumented" ("guest" workers) are subject to the same minimum wage and working condition laws of everyone else. Consider workers "by census." At any moment in time your factory can be surrounded and no one can leave until every head inside that building is counted.

(4) Remove all causes for preferring "imported" labor, and "imported" sources of goods and supply, over "domestic."

You won't get fit if you don't get off the couch, and you won't get off the couch unless somebody makes you.
Oginikwe
I think therefore I'm dangerous
12:58 PM on 09/09/2011
I find it ironic that some J-1 Visa workers at a Hershey's plant walked out this summer and one of their "demands" was that the jobs they had should be given to the local people. That's really something when FOREIGN workers stand up for us more than we do.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/1/alleging_captive_labor_foreign_students_walk
10:20 AM on 09/12/2011
While I may not agree with your proposed solutions, you are certainly more on the right track than most of the comments I've read here. You at least want to think about the bigger picture. We have fundamental, structural problems with our domestic economy and where it fits into the global economy. Until we fix that, we won't be able to fix anything. Like I said, a Band-Aid on a shotgun blast.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GoDems2012
I've got the POTUS' back!
10:54 AM on 09/09/2011
Why didn't progressives fight to keep us from losing the House of Representatives? MIA. Now just look at what republicans have done nationally to advance their agendas because you were having a pity party. Dismay and disillusionment is all around us, however, we had a better chance to go bold before the Great Progressive Tantrum of 2010.
11:00 AM on 09/12/2011
GoDems2012, I agree that both the President and the party squandered an enormous amount of political capital in 2009 and 2010, including laying the groundwork for the emergence of the Tea Party in the 2010 mid-terms through the healthcare reform town halls in the summer of 2009. I also agree that the President should have presented a bold vision for the future of our country shortly after taking office on January 20, 2009. He instead chose to defer to the Congressional leadership on both the stimulus package *and* healthcare reform (which eventually morphed into health insurance reform, if you can even call it that). Liberals and Progressives completely misjudged the mood of the country, and the inherent appeal of the Tea Party's message (which is fundamentally different from its actions) at a time of economic uncertainty. Scott Brown's victory in Mass, winning Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat should have been a very loud wake-up call, but it wasn't.

The people need to take the power back from Congress and find leaders who will help move the country forward, and do so without being beholding to special interests.
photo
ewldest
I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now
10:32 AM on 09/09/2011
Beneath the rhetoric, Obama's proposal amounts to 1/3rd Reagan, 1/3rd Bush I, 1/3rd Clinton - Conservative Republican, moderate-consrvative Republican, Conservative Democrat - all tried before, and occasionally successful given ordinary maket cycles of recession, retrenchment, innovation, new growth.
Unfortunately, the days of 'ordinary market cycles' is well past. Wealth is now concentrated in insurance, investment, and the liesure class (and of course the military, as always) - none of these areas of the general economy are productive, with the possible exception of the military (which is now also very destructive and wasting of wealth as well), and with the majority of wealth circulating amng these sectors, there is little available for general recovery. UNLESS we have a president and congress devoted to using the leverage of government to redistribute wealth into productive markets.
Which, apparently, unfortunately, we don't. So don't expect any recovery soon. Unless we get a new group of HONEST politicians who sincerely want change.
10:23 AM on 09/12/2011
Well-said. We need a new mind-set in Congress and the White House. Everyone is too focused on the short-term solution--the "fix du jour"--that which will either gain them some traction in the next election cycle or at least do no harm. These are vexing and entrenched economic problems and they need to be solved through bold new thinking about our entire economy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Validusername
Caught in the thick of thin things
10:28 AM on 09/09/2011
Peter, will 2013 be soon enough??
09:38 AM on 09/09/2011
I agree that this is more of the same ol' same ol'. These ideas are just that-ideas. They are NOT a bold vision for the Country, for the future. First of all, we still need to get to November with the supercommittee. Lest we fool ourselves into believing that Congress is going to pass this American Jobs Act, get ready for contentious battle number two which really is a signal for a nasty 2012 election in which none of us wins. Secondly, money going to the states for school construction and infrastructure doesn't mean it will be spent that way. With all the monies that have flowed into the states from the Federal Government over the years are we better off in terms of education OR infrastructure? Third, we already have been through the Welfare to Work Program which was a miserable failure. Why? Because the Program provided job training which allowed people to obtain jobs WITHOUT transportation subsidies and child care expenses and THAT put people back onto WELFARE. Before I run out of space, just this morning a W. Post ed. reported that President Obama's "green jobs" monies, $535 million of which in a government backed loan (Energy Dept.) went to a company named Solyndra (solar-energy) is now IN DEFAULT. The Company is bankrupt and the FBI has raided their offices. So much for the FUTURE where the Federal Government is involved. So much for a "BOLD VISION."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Validusername
Caught in the thick of thin things
10:30 AM on 09/09/2011
But it will work! Even reasonable Republicans can't deny that. I suspect you don't want it to get a chance. You probably are financially sound. Some of your countrymen are not. It's the Congress' job to do something more than ask the President, Where are the jobs?" In a crisis, a plan is always better late than never.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Osmona
Its GREAT to be alive and SANE.
01:10 PM on 09/09/2011
THANK YOU!!!

F/F
10:30 AM on 09/12/2011
A couple of thoughts here. First, at least you get the concept that our solutions need to be holistic, not piecemeal (at least that's one of my takeaways from your initial comment). Second, I'm certainly no more financially secure than the average American; I was and continue to be hurt financially by the Great Recession. Third, I want the president to succeed but I am a pragmatist. What the president put on the table--which is perhaps too clever by half politically--is doomed to failure because it does nothing more than set up the "battle of the jobs plans," where the GOP response is "all we need to do is lower taxes and eliminate unnecessary government regulation (in which statement "unnecessary" means pretty much all)." My fear is that because the president's plan is not bold enough, and not differentiated enough from the GOP "plan," it will both not move through Congress towards adoption *and* erode consumer and voter confidence in the process, which will make matters worse, not better.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
11:37 AM on 09/09/2011
Bold vision or not, it is something we could, and should be doing. Get off the criticism of the delivery or otherwise and on board with actually doing something. The GOP/TP obstructionism and craziness must stop.
10:53 AM on 09/12/2011
GrayMouser, if you think my blog post is about "the delivery" you really haven't take the time to understand what I'm advocating. Perhaps it was the title that offended you? What the president has proposed is unlikely to work because it will be all too easily opposed by the GOP and the Tea Party, who will counter with their "jobs plan" (i.e. lower taxes and reduce government regulation, which opposition has already begun). We don't have a "jobs problem"; we have fundamental, structural problems with our economy, and until we fix those, and restore domestic and international confidence in our economy, no set of unrelated jobs incentives is really going to fix our current malaise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam1USA
08:43 AM on 09/09/2011
Nero.
08:35 AM on 09/09/2011
Posted 5/30/2009

The recovery won’t be a recovery. Obama has made three fundamental mistakes, Summers, Geithner and Bernanke. He has allowed his policies to be focused on propping up those who caused the financial carnage. Every dollar that has gone to refill the coffers of the craven warlocks of Wall Street has been diverted from rebuilding the economy. The overt fraud that brought this Nation to its knees has been swept aside like so many other crimes of the preceding eight years. A strong and lasting recovery cannot be built on such a shoddy foundation.

Despite the pretty words our Foreign Policies of War and Empire continue. These affronts to reason exist only to insure continued waste of blood and treasure in the name of security. This is the moral and financial albatross round our necks that keeps our heads down and shoulders stooped.

We are coddled and corrupted by our tax and social systems giving too much to too many for too little. From those paying themselves a King’s ransom to oversee fraud to those who expect support for the results of their procreation we reward misbehavior and punish virtue.

We selected leaders who betrayed us and we availed ourselves of the indebtedness they offered for crass comforts. We were oblivious to reality until it was thrust upon us and now we are nonplussed. Until we as a Nation demand and accept the truth we are destined to wander aimlessly in the wilderness of wanton denial.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Validusername
Caught in the thick of thin things
10:34 AM on 09/09/2011
The mistake was a lack of a second stimulus when we relaized the first one didn't do enough. It did, howver, save over a million jobs - considerably more than Texas. The President called for a second stimulus. He, in retrospect, should have pushed harder, but who knew what fools we were destined to elect? Nevertheless, the President made the call and Congress (Democrats included) didn't answer.
10:41 AM on 09/12/2011
The president erred in turning over the first stimulus to the House Speaker, who together with the Democratic leadership looked more like kids in a candy store (with Daddy's wallet) than like responsible leaders *and* he squandered his considerable political capital from the election on healthcare reform, which he also punted to the Congress instead of taking leadership of the concept of universal healthcare. What we ended up with is health insurance reform, written largely by the health insurance lobby. Had the 2009 stimulus package been twice as large, better targeted, and supported by an accompanying narrative and holistic plan for how we would emerge from the Great Recession, it would have worked much better and more people would likely be working today.

And I have to agree with Oliphart that true reform of our financial system--which we did *not* get with the FinReg legislation--is something that would restore confidence of investors worldwide in investing their money in the United States and with our domestic companies. These are the kinds of long-term, structural strategies we need to be pursuing (putting aside that we should have been pursuing them all along); not some cobbled-together, untethered, short-term jobs program.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
08:29 AM on 09/09/2011
The President does the will of the public, the majority. Not the will of radicals who support him, then delude themselves that they elected him. As if there are that many of you.

Americans are not liberal, they will never adopt your ideas. The Left should stop trying to blackmail Obama into pushing minority views, ensuring Repubs are elected. Guess what: the Left hasn't supported Obama from the get-go. Obama won by 9M votes, Nader got 1.6M, Obama doesn't need your vote or support. Disdain from the Professional Left does help him though, helped Truman win in 1948.

Dems outnumber Repubs, but Conservatives outnumber Liberals 2 to 1. From Jan 2011:

The new Gallup poll asking party affiliatio­n reads:
Democrat - 31%
Independen­t - 38%
Republican - 29%
When Gallup uses the terms "conservat­ive" and "liberal" it reads:
Liberal - 20%
Moderate - 35%
Conservati­ve - 40%

http://rac­kjite.com/­archives/6­247-Gallup­-Poll-38-p­ercent-of-­Americans-­claim-to-b­e-Independ­ents.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AsISaid
08:42 AM on 09/09/2011
Sorry, but if you break polls down into questions about programs and policies - like Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compensation, workers' rights - EACH of these are supported heavily by the American people. So, your contention that Americans will 'never adopt your ideas' is inane.

Party affiliation in polls is not a good metric to gauge anything.

Besides, even tea baggers don't want the government to mess with their Medicare.

The Left isn't blackmailing Obama, they will be there to support him for the most part.

The same can't be said for the Republican Party that is being held hostage to the 'tea' people.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:11 AM on 09/09/2011
SS and Medicare are old and accepted. Bush signed extending Medicare, added Part D.

Americans strongly support SS and Medicare, don't consider those Liberal. Favoring single-payer, that's Liberal, and not supported by most Americans, because they already have insurance from employer. Liberals want change, Americans don't. Those in the poll who say they are conservative don't favor eliminating SS or Medicare, that's Tea Party stuff. Read my micro-bio, Americans are mostly unaffiliated. Being a partisan is as absurd as being a rabid sports fan.
10:50 AM on 09/12/2011
I agree with your challenge to the say TheWayItIs would like to interpret polling data. I also believe it is very natural during a time of prolonged economic uncertainly for poll respondents to identify with Conservatism but that won't necessarily translate directly to strict party labels in an election context.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam1USA
08:46 AM on 09/09/2011
Definition bias. Most Americans know that we live in a society where we should help each other when we're down. That's where the Left live. The Right are, for the most part, Milton Friedman acolytes despite the fact that his ideology has never worked in any place where the CIA and other henchman have delivered it, including the USA.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:04 AM on 09/09/2011
Disagree. Conservative by definition means conserving the past, lack of change. That includes SS, Medicare, all the benefits we already have. Progressive means change, presumptuously labeled "progress". Americans don't want major change of any kind, Left or Right. They reject Tea Party and Progressives equally. Most want to just go back to 2000. Change is frightening, Obama is making sure Repubs are the scary ones, making them look like the agents of change.