But he was the editor of Harvard Law Review, so obviously he's experienced at bringing opposite sides of the table together and working through tough negotiations. Should be a piece of cake for a post-partisan leader the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetime.

Oh, you mean - he wasn't, he isn't . . . never mind. I hear the WH's new economic advisor is Ted Mack.

Obama is about two things right now:

1) Re-election
2) Expanding dependency on the central government through the expansion of programs and spending.

The reason he seems so contradictory, but isn't, is because to advance #1 he has to hide #2 without doing anything that would seriously jeopardize #2. Therefore, it is important to primarily talk about reigning in government and spending, so that he can be re-elected, so that he can expand government and spending. He seems like he's contradicting himself but really he's just lying.

Schumer keeps talking about sacrifice. How about sacrifice by federal employees and the Congress? Many of us in the private sector have experienced salary reductions, layoffs and benefit cuts. I haven't heard of any of those afflections being experienced by the feds. Schumer, it is easy to talk about sacrifice as long as it is the other fellow doing the sacrificing. Two bit hypocrite!

There are plenty of greedy companies, because they are made up of people, who are also selfish, grumpy, mean, cheap, cruel and have any number of other poor character traits and vices. Government cannot and should not even try to improve these faulty characteristics. The private sector is driven by self-interest and survival, which is a necessary human trait. Capitalism within a nation of laws is not a perfect system, but as history has shown time and again, it is the best one known to maximize freedom and minimize genocide, corruption, and poverty. The best results come from allowing the individual to reap the consequences of their decisions, good or ill, as directly as possible. Public sector jobs and government programs consistently remove effect from cause and thus no correction is ever made.

VDH wrote:
"The sad thing now is that no one knows what the president will say about deficits on any given day, other than a rough (and often wrong) calculation of what he thinks will win in November 2012."

There is no 'other'; he will only say what he thinks is politically expedient. If he and his progressive/statist stooges had their way, we'd have ramped up spending, the deficit, and debt, while whistling pass the graveyard as we try to emulate Greek (current, not classical) 'exceptionalism'.

Obama and his ilk are pathetic and one could logically claim that they are anti-American in that their policy prescriptions will destroy America.

I'm a negotiator and can tell you that if you want to cut a deal you don't cause people to become polarized at the last minute like this. Obama is purposely trying to alienate the other side with his ascerbic comments. He is confusing when speaking in public so it is hard to sense where he is coming from with the exception of tax increases. I don't buy the argument that he is just playing to his base. I think he is just running for office in 2012 and laying the groundwork for that. Unfortunately, what is critically needed now is his leadership. Too bad he doesn't possess that trait.

The President argues in bad faith. His aim(s)--which can be known only by the results of his efforts and not by (almost) anything he says about anything--are a moving target. How do you negotiate with that?

And, for this, he's called "pragmatic," which ought to offend even dead pragmatists.

"No one can name one present time spending reduction that Obama is willing to do."

That's not true. He is willing to cut defense and national security. He always has been willing to cut defense and national security. He always WILL be willing to cut defense and national security.

He's a leftist. Defense and national security are the first place leftists ALWAYS want to cut. As well as the last. It is the ONLY place they want to cut, whether we are at war or at peace, whether they are the party in power or out, whether we're having economic good times or are in a recession.

It's true; we have no idea what Obama will say concerning deficits on any given day.

To me though, this President is indeed communicating volumes verbally and non-verbally. When you put it all together, the president is essentially saying, that he is confused and therefore unconcerned about what all the debt/deficit, macroeconomics stuff means as it relates to his ideology. When I hear B. Hussein Obama say “eat our peas", or regurgitate "full faith and credit of the United States government" I feel a need to walk though a decontamination chamber.

Debt/deficit issues only need to be addressed because it may effect re-election. He is fundamentally unserious about this and he is handicapping his side winning this.

The strategy is to get the GOP to cave.

. . . That may happen.