Occupy Wall Street.

[txlaw]

Well, sure -- you're not going to get many conservatives on the record in CQ putting forth any analysis of the situation that disses the Tea Party in a straightforward manner. 

 

But I would note that they did not just quote liberal sources, as your post implies.  They also talked to and quoted the President of FreedomWorks, a former adviser to and biographer of Ronald Reagan, and a senior adviser to Boehner.

 

Here's a quote from the article:  Tea partiers at the grass-roots level are organizers who, Kibbe says, study the writings of the famed leftist agitator Saul Alinksy.  That's Matt Kibbe that said that, not some left wing institution.  Read up on Saul Alinsky, and you'll see why I believe that if the Tea Party actually has the sway they seem to have, they'll will do anything they can to destroy any compromise because they don't believe in it.

 

Regarding Obama, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

I don't think it's Obama's lack of trying or pure incompetence that has resulted in an inability to obtain compromise.  Nor is it Boehner's lack of trying or the Senate GOP's lack of trying.  It's just the cards that have been dealt to these guys as a result of the rise of the radical right wing.  There's no way to build coalitions with these folks who are exercising a disproportionate amount of power in the House.

 

You're assuming the problem is because Obama can't get along or work with these other guys.  But that's just wrong.  Obama can certainly broker compromise in the Senate.  But working with the Tea Partiers in the House is very difficult -- reminds me of recalcitrant union bosses who actually cause harm to their workers in the long run by refusing to compromise in the face of reality.

[Parsad]

Sanjeev - I disagree.  Maybe I am niave but in the case of our great Presidents, they all have had the ability to work with the opposition to build a coalition to make the extremes irrelevant.  Romney has at least the experience of being a successful Rep governor in a blue state - an example of what can happen.  Just because Obama says he can't doesn't mean it can't be done just that it can't be done by him.  Very similar to Jimmy Carter.

 

That was my point Packer.  I don't see any "great" presidential material in anybody interested in running today.  I don't think Romney is it either.  Usually the people that would make great presidents rarely run.  Although, Romney is better than anyone else the Republicans have fielded thus far for 2012. 

 

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is probably one of the dumbest plans I've ever seen...about as stupid as the corn for biofuel movement!  I'm worried that Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry would ever been considered for presidential material.  And I think Obama is exhausted and disillusioned by what he thought governing would have been like and what it actually is...almost thrown in the towel, so I'm surprised he's even running in 2012!  Cheers! 

[Packer16]

What evidence do you have that he can get along with foks who have differences of opinion?  He may be able to but he hasn't shown it.  His I won the election line to McCain is more typical.  He hasn't been forced to compromise on someone else's terms before the mid-terms.  Before he was President, he was a Dem in a very blue state.  When he has had to negotiate, he has had no relational capital as none was ever built.

 

Why didn't he invite the moderate Repubs to the White House or better yet go and see them about his budget proposal?  Instead he goes around the country blaming everything on the Republicans.  Does this show he understands that relationships with the opposition are important?  The Tea Party may be stubborn but they do not have the numbers 60 to 80 to run things.  If Obama had developed good relations with moderate Repubs, this would not have occured.  He had his chance but instead tried to something for history that a minority asked him to do (expand coverage versus control costs).  He thinks if he wins the policy debate (which he is usually on the side of public opinion) that is it.  Contrast him to Clinton.  Clinton was a relationship builder and a policy guy.  From a policy prespective you are right about Obama but I think the relational side is lacking and he didn't and as far as I can tell still doesn't realize the importance of it.  Unless he starts to build relationships with Repubs, I think his time is limited because the argument that situation is unsolvable will not fly with most of America.

 

Packer

[txlaw]

I could ask a similar question: What evidence do you have that he can't get along with folks who have differences in opinion? 

 

Did Obama not compromise and extend the Bush tax cuts in order to keep lower rates for middle income households?  This is just one example of his ability to deal with the Republicans -- both very conservative and moderate -- and anger his base.

 

There's a difference between caving and compromising.  With compromise, typically both sides come to the table and give up something to reach a deal.  Here's what we got from the House GOP in the debt ceiling debacle:  We want spending decreases, but no revenue increases.  Absolutely no revenue increases. 

 

Compromising on someone else's terms, indeed!  You give us what we want, and we'll give you . . . nothing.  The political reality is that Obama cannot possibly cave in that way.  Nor should he from a policy standpoint, IMO.

 

 

[txlaw]

The thing is, building relationships with moderate Republicans can only go so far because their influence in the House is waning.  I think that's the same with the Democrats. 

 

Underlying my defense of Obama is the notion that the polarization in the House has made it impossible for the President to broker compromises that will allow us to move forward.  If the House were controlled by Dems and Romney were the President, I think he'd face the exact same problems. 

[txlaw]

The funny thing is that the more I learn about Romney, the more I am considering possibly voting for him in the next Presidential election.  Which might explain why conservatives don't really like him.

 

I just think it's wrong to scapegoat Obama for problems caused by the House.  To me, that's party politics speaking -- let's blame it all on Obama because we really want to get him out of the White House.  No better than blaming George W for all the ills of our nation, which a lot of Dems did in the last Presidential election.

[Packer16]

The evidence I have is how treats his oppostion as enemies and not with respect.  His McCain comment and never ending blaming of Republicans for the problems of the country.  Has he talked and hung out with a group of Republican legislators?  Did he spend any time trying in private trying to work with moderate Repubs before submitting his jobs plan?  Not to my knowledge.

 

As to the extention of the tax cuts, he did that without involving the House Dems (again missing the relational aspect of the Presidency).  I would say this is the only true compromise he has made that both sides agreed was a compromise.  One is not very many given how evenly split the electorate is. 

 

I guess my point is he did not build up or realize the importance of relational capital until it was too late.  If he had developed good relations with moderate Repubs from the start, the Tea Party would not have the power it had in the negotiations.  The neglect of the moderates of the opposition when you held all the cards (1st 2 years) has come home to roost.  The only way out I now see is for Obama to start to develop the relationships with moderate Repubs.  The pandering to the left wont help as these folks will vote for Obama anyway.

 

I think many of the situations Obama finds himself in are not his fault but that what the Presidency is about - fixing problems that were not of your making.  I don't blame him for his inexperienced mistakes.  But once he sees things are not going as expected, he needs to examine the reason why.  If he put out an honest effort to reach moderate Repubs, I would consider voting for him and he may actually turn his fortunes around because I think alot more folks still want him to succeed versus fail.  I do.  Thanks for the discussion.

 

Packer

 

[Myth465]

Packer I think you have a point, but the issue is you put absolutely zero blame / credit / or weight on the fact that we have one of the most polarizing and uncompromising houses of my life time. That in and of itself makes you appear as a partisan. Most left of center liberals are annoyed / angry with Obama and disgusted by the House and Senate. You seem to always place 100% of the blame on Obama for his inability to herd cats, while not acknowledging that cats arent herd animals.

[Packer16]

I agree some of the cats may be unheardable but you need to at least try and if that fails try again.  Some of out greatest Presidents did not quit despite continued failure.  I think that is what makes them great.  The Tea Party does deserve some of the blame (everyone knows that) and the President saying that just belittles his poistion but he has to act as the adult of everyone and continue to reach out.  He appears to have given-up and is starting his campaign.  I think a novel idea would be to hold a summit with the Republicans and get to know each of them personally versus campaigning for a few months.  Think about Lincoln reaching out to the Confederates that he knew hated him and providing citizenship by just an allegence oath.  That is the type of longsuffering we need.

 

Packer

[Myth465]

Ultimately I agree with you, but would put the blame 45% on Obama, and 55% on the House. Obama has been played like a fiddle, and his adult in the room back room channel strategy has been disastrous. His only saving grace is the Republican platform is on the other side of the planet from the Country's and from most rational people. Obama should be dead in the water, but the Republicans are choosing between (Another Texan who cant effectively string together a sentence that makes sense (a bit too soon eh), a Mormon (the base is Christian and considers Mormons members of a cult, and an African American Conservative (suicide given the base and Obama's corner on the black vote).

 

I would vote for Romney especially after his comments on China, but he is going to have a hell of a time getting the nomination, and an even worse time bringing out the base. If we deserve the leaders we get then what does that say about us given the last 12 years, and the next 4......

 

[bargainman]

I haven't seen this posted here yet:

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

 

it's a very shocking view of what's going on, by a previous GOP guy who quit cause he couldn't take it anymore.

 

How Obama was meant to get past this sort of stuff is pretty hard to see.  But maybe if had better relationships it wouldn't have happened in the first place.  I remember reading a book call "After the fact" on why some presidents were a lot more effective than others, even though it shouldn't seem like they should be.  I think they used Jimmy Carter as an example.  The main point was that presidents who had been around the legislature for a long time, had done people a lot of favors.  As a result they had a lot of political capital coming into the presidency.  As a result, those presidents tending to be rather effective, whereas the others did not.  I guess it's just Cialdini's reciprocity principle. 

[Parsad]

I'm as left-wing as they really come when it comes to social issues, but this "Occupy Vancouver" is a complete joke, and I dare say, will probably collapse within a week.  You should hear some of the comments coming from some of the people who are getting on the news.  They have no idea what they are doing!  It's a farce!  And as a left-wing nut, I'm kind of insulted by the morons who are running this thing.    ;D

 

I think they would do far more good by setting up non-profit corporations, where the profits are directed to improve social issues, instead of saying how corporations are all about greed.  They probably would have more input if they put their efforts behind something more legitimate and actually made an attempt to improve things, rather than sleep in tents on the Art Gallery lawn and then wake up with a cup of coffee and bark about how bad they have it while sitting in their lawnchairs.

 

One of the organizers speaking about her 99%, was shouted down by this same crowd!  They are fighting amongst themselves because there is no plan or next step.  They are "taking it one day at a time" as they've stated.  Lord of the Flies had more hope for their society than these goofballs!  Cheers! 

[nwoodman]

"Lord of the Flies had more hope for their society than these goofballs!"   

 

That is gold! Nice reference to one of my favorite books from high school days :)

 

 

Similar lack of cohesion in the Land of Oz which has seen the movement  fizzle somewhat, not to mention that as a nation we are still a few rungs up Maslow's hierarchy  on the USA.  It could be a different story in a couple of years time.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-17/kohler-occupy-wall-street-as-they-fight-for-change/3575064

 

It was interesting to see a few of these graphs made the the7pm news on the ABC tonight. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I think they would do far more good by setting up non-profit corporations, where the profits are directed to improve social issues, instead of saying how corporations are all about greed.

 

This is true.  They should start more "Newman's Own" corporations where all the profits go to charity.

 

Start a bank where all the profits go to charity, instead of bitching about banks.  Have a rule in the corporation where the top executive is paid no more than 5x the lowest employee.  Whatever.  The products of such corporations may develop a cult following and loyalty.  Anyways, that's always something that could be tried.

 

Weet-bix is a very popular breakfast cereal in Australia.  The company that produces it, Sanitarium, is a non-profit.

 

Don't have a job?  Start one of these companies -- the people out on the streets protesting will buy the product.  You can call it "F* Wall Street" or something like that.  Naturally it won't make you a billionaire, but you can make 5x the lowest employee and be famous -- maybe Poppy Harlow will still talk to you.

 

Pay the guy at the bottom $70k and you'll take home $350k yourself.  Employ your wife as another top executive and you've got $700k total household income.  The Christmas parties will be fun because the rest of the employees won't despise you -- you can cut the bodyguards from your budget.

[Hawk4value]

Unfortunately human beings don't operate this way. Humans want to make money, we want to accumulate wealth, we want to follow our dreams unencumbered. The best system that brings out our full potential is not Soviet style, its not a non-profit style, its not socialist, its capitalism. If we operated under a non-profit sytem we would still be making campfires in caves.

 

[biaggio]

Unfortunately human beings don't operate this way. Humans want to make money, we want to accumulate wealth, we want to follow our dreams unencumbered. The best system that brings out our full potential is not Soviet style, its not a non-profit style, its not socialist, its capitalism. If we operated under a non-profit sytem we would still be making campfires in caves.

 

Hawk, I think he meant that those protesting should be involved in non profit companies-organizing, leading, working for non profit-rather than protesting.

 

You re right that human nature does not operate this way---if they had well paying jobs or opportunity to make a lot of money then most would not be out there protesting, though I could be wrong for some that are truly altruistic.

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

How many of the protesters are on $50k a year, which puts them in the global 1% bracket?

 

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

[biaggio]

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/04/when-is-the-99-really-the-5/

 

When Is the 99% Really the 5%?

 

 

Here's a lesson in economics for OWS. Explain to the "99%" that they are actually in the 5% of richest people on the planet. Then take their wealth and redistribute it to the 95% of the world that is poorer than them.

See how they feel about wealth redistribution then.