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

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.

 

Calm down, liberals. The White House won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eal-on-the-fiscal-cliff/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

 

Which is worse, sore winner or sore loserman?

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

It's a quote from the article.