Winning!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:05:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Booman writes:

On this whole debt limit deal, the White House seems to be supremely confident that they'll get something done and that it will be the Republicans who will blink. [. . .] The thing I am still worried about is that Boehner won't be able to figure out how to get this done. It's basically a suicide mission, as I can't imagine him surviving in a leadership position if he passes a Democratic-majority debt limit bill. But it doesn't appear he has any other choice. The White House just isn't buying his threats. They know his masters expect a deal, and soon.

I'm not seeing that. Instead, I see the White House resigned to $2 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years) and no tax increases as the deal to raise the debt ceiling. The GOP demanded bigger cuts it is true, and in that sense they will not have delivered, but now Boehner can trumpet his "no tax increases" win. Of course the problem here is that the GOP won on taxes in December - yes, The Deal. Andrew Leonard of Salon writes:

Polling suggests that the majority of Americans do "agree with [raising taxes on the wealthy]." Unfortunately, there is zero evidence that Republicans elected to Congress agree with that. There is zero evidence that any Republican legislator has either the incentive or desire to act as a "leader" -- at least insofar as Obama defines it.

And just as important, there's zero evidence that Obama is willing to force them to the breaking point -- to actually risk a debt ceiling-induced default by refusing to agree to a deal. [. . .]There's only one way to get the Republicans to agree to a compromise that raises revenues, and that's to push the debt ceiling negotiations to the absolute limit -- to be more willing to risk the "full faith and credit" of the United States than Republicans are.

And everything we know about Obama says that he will not take such a step. He's not going to play games with the possibility of default. Republicans are well aware of this, and that insulates them from the need to make any concessions whatsoever.

[. . . A]t a press conference last November [. . .] National Journal's Marc Ambinder asked him why he didn't make sure a debt ceiling deal was included in the negotiations to avert a government shutdown. Wasn't it likely that the Republicans would play the same game of budget showdown chicken all over again ? "Here's my expectation, and I'll take John Boehner at his word. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen.... Once John Boehner is sworn in as speaker, then he's going to have responsibilities to govern. You can't just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower."

Obama could not possibly have been more wrong then, and he's utterly wrong now. [. . .]

Obama had a strong chip - in December - the Bush tax cuts. He gave it up for next to nothing.

And yes, I told you so.

Speaking for me only

< New Jobless Claims 428K | D*ck! D*ck! D*ck! D*ck! D*ck! D*ck! >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Winning! | 85 comments (85 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This made me laugh out loud: (5.00 / 10) (#1)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:18:47 AM EST

"Once John Boehner is sworn in as speaker, then he's going to have responsibilities to govern. You can't just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower."

Oh yeah? Really?

All they have done since Obama was elected was throw bombs.

It is one thing to be unflappable, but completely different when one is totally disconnected from reality.

At what (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Jackson Hunter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:35:21 AM EST

point of the beating do you realize the person beating you is not a bipartisan partner, but an enemy? I don't mean 'beating' as in winning, although right now the Regressives are ahead on the cards.

Jackson


If the situation were reversed, I would (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:59:13 PM EST

expect - no, demand - that the Democrats throw bombs at the GOP 24/7, because the point isn't to get along, the point is to get what you want, and what Obama hasn't figured out is that throwing bombs is exactly how the GOP has managed to get most of what it's wanted in all the big negotiations - and usually without even having to vote for it.

I laugh because Obama thinks he's the Dad-in-Chief, lecturing the GOP on their behavior; meanwhile, they own his a$$.


He's one of those Dad-In-Chiefs who (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:14:34 PM EST

thinks that his kid really isn't that bad - meanwhile the kid is terrorizing the entire school and carrying out all sorts of horrible attacks on people.

Blinded by fatherly love?

It is really weird, imo.

But he's not the only one. a few years ago I had a Hill staffer say to me with a surprised, wide-eyed look, "You know they're {the Republicans} really mean!"

I thought to myself, "No sh*t Sherlock."

For some reason the Democrats are afraid to go there. I don't for the life of me understand why not.


Not sure throwing word bombs (none / 0) (#64)
by oculus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:11:29 PM EST

accomplishes much either way. But sharply articulating why the admins. rejects GOP and some Dems. proposals--that's worth alot.


There have been very few occasions (none / 0) (#66)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:33:09 PM EST

where Obama has sharply articulated and defined the Democratic position, or laid out a comprehensive assessment of what's wrong with GOP proposals (although his tongue is plenty sharp when he calls out his base); he's about facilitating some amorphous, mushy, mediocre middle position where everyone can use their inside voices and no one breaks a sweat.

It's the Dad-in-Chief thing - Republicans and Democrats are children who don't get along, and his answer to everything seems to be to get in the middle and make sure each sees the other's side and when that fails, takes the "okay, one of you can cut the last piece of cake, but the other one gets to choose which slice." Remember that answer to "he got a bigger piece than I did!"

We all want harmony, congeniality and peace, but sometimes you have to slug it out first - rhetorically, strategically, ideologically - to get there - and Obama's not wired to do that. The few times he comes on strong, it rings hollow - one can almost hear the unsaid "and this time I mean it!"

Sure he does, until he doesn't, which might be the next day, or the next week, when word of secret meetings leaks out and we find out it was all for show.

He probably belongs in the diplomatic corps, and not in this kind of leadership position.


: Sharply articulating a position (none / 0) (#78)
by cal1942 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:07:20 PM EST

has been a consistent weakness for Democrats.
To many people the Democrats no longer stand for anything.
Hearing Max Baucus say Medicare cuts are in the works and the next day hearing Obama say Medicare beneficiaries won't suffer more out-of-pocket expenses is confusing and unclear. Obama should have said unequivocally that Medicare would not be cut and is not a negotiable item.
The out of pocket thing is unclear to most people and is really quite weasily.
Hammer away with no cuts to Medicare would drive the point home that Republicans want Medicare cut and make clear that Democrats stand for something.
I'm not holding my breath.

There is this assumption (none / 0) (#75)
by cal1942 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:38:33 PM EST

that Obama has regarding Republicans that's completely absurd.

Republicans have absolutely no interest in governing and haven't for some time. Their lack of interest in governing predates Obama's inauguration by many years and standing on the sidelines throwing bombs is exactly what they've done.

I believe it's interesting that Obama has included Republican type elements in the legislation he's put forward and they still won't support anything. Did he get even one Republican vote on the health care bill or the Recovery Act?

IMO, a prime example is the tax cuts included in the Recovery Act. The tax cuts weakened the potential effectiveness of the Recovery Act.

What does it take for him to learn?


: I wish I knew what it takes for (none / 0) (#86)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 08:30:54 AM EST

him and so many others to learn because if I did, I'd pay for their class tuition myself to get them up to speed.
Their failure to learn after such a long time logically gives rise to questions about their real intentions, unfortunately. I mean how thick can they really be? This President was sold as really smart - super-duper smart - and yet he's missing the mark on not just the policy, but almost more astoundingly the politics as well.
If nothing else, this President looked like a clever and astute political operative, but he has put his political fortune into unbelievable jeopardy and it only looks like it will get worse.
I mean, you've got to be a right political idiot to think that you can ignore extremely high unemployment and deep economic crisis and get elected a second time. I vacillate between thinking that they and he think that he's so great that he can't be beaten and thinking that they are doing exactly what they want to do to this country because it is not possible for anyone to be this stupid on the politics in Washington - it just isn't.
I may have loathed much of GW Bush's policy, but I knew enough people who LOVED his policy to know that he was operating on a basically sound political basis. Few people LOVE what Obama has done - everything this administration has put forth has been so compromised that no one has any real passion for his accomplishments. No one is really over the moon. Even DADT is still being enforced and won't be changed until the Secretary of Defense and the President have decided to enforce the repeal process. When's that going to happen? Are the Obama people waiting to use it as some sort of "ta da!" moment on the eve of the election? Or will they hold its enforcement as a carrot for the supporters of the repeal so that they go vote for Obama? How cynical is that?
Anyway, I'll stop now.

Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Jackson Hunter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:32:55 AM EST

Totally agree with you on this, he gave up a lot for very little.

Not to go too far OT, but did you hear that Halperin called the President a "D*ck," or at least said he was acting like one yesterday at the Presser. He did it this morning on Morning Joe. It's on top of the Rec list at the GOS.

I've been critical of Obama, but that is over the top. But watch, we Liberals will probably be forced to apologize to him. LOL

Jackson

The GOP (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:37:03 AM EST

is going to get Obama to cut Medicare and then they're going to run against Obama cutting Medicare. That's their game and he's playing a fools game.

As far as Halperin goes, just more proof that being devoted to the beltway media and high broderism is just plain foolishness.


I agree! (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Jackson Hunter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:48:08 AM EST

Obama's centist sucking up routine is getting really, really old. I've always hated Halperin (who doesn't, he's a Regressive tool) so I just want to stick a shiv into him a little. I hope he loses his job, but I won't hold my breath. Wouldn't mind seeing the President lose his job either, but let's face it, no one is going to effectively Primary him. The only one to do it would be the SOS, but despite her rampant racism that I was told about in '08, she won't run against Pres. Obama.

I wish she would though. She's not really that more Liberal, but she does hate the Regressives and would fight them more on principle.

It's ironic (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:32:43 AM EST

the way everything has turned out. Obama ran to the left of her on foreign policy and to the right of her on the economy. He's continued his love of conservative economics but adopted her foreign policy. So what we got for all that was the same foreign policy and terrible economic policy.


The centrist routine, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:01:42 PM EST

the emphasis on let's play nice, etc. are all themes that worked well for Pres. Obama in the '08 primaries and the election. I do not think he or his team have realized that these themes are no longer working....


I blame (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by cal1942 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:46:37 PM EST

Democrats who supported Obama.

Democrats certainly know that Republicans simply will not cooperate in any way and buying the unity schtick from someone who had been in DC for no more a cup of coffee was embarrassing.

Inasmuch as the unity schtick working the the general, I have to disagree. McCain was leading Obama before the meltdown.

After the meltdown we could have won running the donkey.


No (none / 0) (#80)
by Politalkix on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:21:26 PM EST

McCain's internal polling showed that he was going to lose the election, he needed a gamechanger to win. He chose Palin but it misfired. All this happened before the financial meltdown.
You are very misinformed.


Excuse me (none / 0) (#81)
by cal1942 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:33:03 PM EST

I read the state by state polls every day.

McCain led the national polls and the electoral vote (state by state) until the meltdown.

You're the misinformed one as were all Obama supporters.


You are excused for your faulty memory (none / 0) (#82)
by Politalkix on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:44:27 PM EST

McCain was always behind but got a little boost after the Republican Convention (after SP was chosed VP nominee).
You want people to believe that none of the debates matter, that McCain was not behaving erratically before debates, etc. That is not going to happen outside the malcontent circle of friends you have.


: "Malcontent circle of friends"? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Yman on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:11:34 PM EST

Where do you dream up this stuff?

They are Just Going Through the Motions (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:33:39 AM EST

What Obama fails to realize is the R's will do it and they have the ability/infrastructure to make sure the blame is laid at Obama's feet, and rightfully so, he is after all the President.

What troubles me most, is the D's in Congress seem to have all gone mute. Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone speak out specifically about the limit. They'll mention it in an interview, but no press conference, no lines in the sand, just eerie silence.

So his plan is to play chicken with a group that doesn't seem to care about crashing. IMO, Obama could save himself a lot of stress and just do the inevitable, give them everything, keep the pen and call it a grand nonpartisan compromise.

House Dems have spoken out. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:46:39 AM EST

Nancy Pelosi was out demanding that the White House - the Democratic White House - give her and the House Dems a seat at the debt limit negotiating table. Sigh.

Apparently, they agreed to stay out of the government shutdown talks and found themselves having to vote for a bill that they were very unhappy with having left it to the White House to do the negotiating.

More signs of dysfunction...


The Senate Dems (none / 0) (#13)
by lilburro on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:56:47 AM EST

have finally come up with a budget. It doesn't sound terrible, but I'll wait for the fine print:

The deal cannot cut Medicare benefits or slash Medicaid. It must raise tax revenues. It should make investments in infrastructure and green-energy technology to spur job growth. It should cut defense as well as domestic social spending.
"The message is we know what our priorities are; we've said them over and over again; let's make sure we're on the same page with those priorities. Our understanding is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the middle class will be protected and everyone will pay a fair share," Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), a senior member of the Democratic Conference, said of the message leaders would take to the president Wednesday.

I simply do not trust the language (5.00 / 6) (#28)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:13:08 AM EST

of "protecting" entitlement programs; it doesn't do much good to protect the existence of something if you aren't going to protect the integrity of it in order to protect the people who depend on it, and the things I am hearing bandied about - increased cost-sharing, raising the eligibility age, "blending" rates and "chaining" to CPI - all represent cuts to benefits.

I wish I could take what these people say at face value, but I've learned that reading between the lines, and checking my politispeak code book has become an essential part of figuring out where things are really headed. And I don't like the feeling I get about this particular ride.


: The pentagon (none / 0) (#50)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:02:28 AM EST

should have to fund itself entirely through bond issues. That way the people who claim they support the troops can really show their true patriotism by their bond purchases. This will be a terrific investment for defence contractors.
The bonds will be redeemed through the oil and other resources seized by US troops and through the awarding of business contracts in the conquered territories. This will make the Pentagon have to pay for itself, which as every good conservative knows is the only test of whether a government program is worthwhile.
If CBO projections show that the Pentagon will run out of money 75 years from now, then that's no problem, we'll just declare the Pentagon bankrupt and shut down the military now in order to save it.

"....said of the message leaders (Senate (none / 0) (#22)
by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:41:47 AM EST

Democrats) would take to the president Wednesday." Democrat v. Republican strategies: If the president does not listen, they will hold their breath and stomp their feet. Now, if there are tax increases in the deal, the Republican senators will hold their breath, stomp their feet, for two seconds and proceed to filibuster.


Today Chuck Schumer (none / 0) (#77)
by cal1942 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:50:53 PM EST

finally said the obvious; the Republicans will happily destroy the economy to get back in power. The GOP feels making the economy scream will all go on Obama's head.


And the Added Bonus of... (none / 0) (#84)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:58:06 PM EST

... being financially unable to fund anything resembling social programs. They could go deeper than anyone had ever dared to dream and Obama gets blamed.


: The problem is that where the GOP may (none / 0) (#87)
by Anne on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:17:02 AM EST

want to do the equivalent of euthanizing the patient, Obama just wants to cut an artery or two, and insist that he's saving the patient, even as the patient slowly bleeds out and dies.
It's Obama who has given permission to open the door to this insanity; he's not drawing any lines in the sand, not putting these programs in a lockbox, and even when he talks about "protecting" them, or "saving" them, he's doing it in much the same way one would talk about "saving" a tree by hacking at it until it's a stump and pointing to the fact that - look! it still has roots! - to prove it's still a tree.
If it's happening on his watch, accompanied by his clear signals that he's open to it, I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't get the blame.

While who is winning the war (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by MO Blue on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:02:38 AM EST

of who can be the biggest deficit hawk is undecided, the losers in this war is abundantly clear.

The poorest are going to be the biggest losers and more and more people will be forced into poverty so that the Masters of the Universe can gobble up even more of the pie.

Too bad our Constitutional (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:10:38 AM EST

lawyer-president isn't aware of - or is choosing to ignore - that 14th Amendment language about the validity of the public debt. And too bad he hasn't taken any opportunities that I'm aware of to counter the unbelievable amount of fear-mongering garbage being pushed almost everywhere one looks - you'd think he'd want the people to know the truth, wouldn't you?

But...no. Could it be ignorance, is he getting bad advice, or is it possible that, bad advice or not, he's on board with the cutting and the sacrifice, with an occasional dollop of "the rich need to pay more" to convince the average person he's on their side, and all this fear is working very nicely to get people on board with decisions that are going to hurt them? I'm going with Door No. 3, Alex.

It's the Iraq war template: build a frightening case built on garbage, on manipulation and outright lies, and never let up on the message until people give in, until it becomes truth just by virtue of being repeated over and over and over.

Here's what's going to happen: all the things Joe Biden has been "negotiating" on the basis of "we'll do this, if you agree to that," will end up in the Debt Ceiling Deal - but without the "that" part of the agreement; there will be no "quo" for the "quid." Again. Shoulders will shrug, sighs of relief for avoiding a default that was never in danger of happening will be heard on every major media outlet, and the Masters of the Universe will soldier on. Jobs will not be created, unemployment will not decline, more people will lose their already-tenuous grip on financial security, the income gap will widen.

We've seen this movie before, and it isn't going to have a better, happier ending this time.

2 trillion over ten years... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by kdog on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:30:43 AM EST

piece of cake...cancel the occupations, disband the DEA, additional say 20% cut to defense and we gotta be at 2 trillion over ten easy , right? maybe enough left over for an increase in SS benefits and/or improving the safety net.

I mean no one could be so cruel as to suggest the occupations and the war on our own people trumps caring for the sick and the old on the priority list.

Wha? They are that crookedly cruel you say? Damn we really vote for some winners don't we.

I would add to this list (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by MO Blue on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:38:10 AM EST

Eliminate tax payer funded pensions and health care for W.H., Senate and House of Representatives.

That would be my version of "shared" sacrifice.


In CA, state legislators don't get pd. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by oculus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:17:57 AM EST

if they don't pass a budget by the deadline. They did. Gov. Brown vetoes it. State Controller won't pay the legislators.


: This happens when you are a d*ck (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:55:30 AM EST

and you have balls too. I'm going to go sit in the corner now.

Kevin Drum (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by lilburro on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:49:09 AM EST

is funny today by the way. He writes a post about Obama's ideology (his friend says center, Drum still thinks center left, more or less).

His very next post is on the debt ceiling negotiations, and how the deal the GOP rejected is what they wanted in March 2011 and what a Republican think tank saw as the GOP vision.

He then writes

Right or wrong, this is what Republicans were touting as recently as three months ago.
So what happens when the president proposes a plan that's almost exactly 85% spending cuts at 15% tax increases?

I don't know...you write a post about how he's center left??

Aside from just finding that funny I think the cognitive dissonance there is worth talking about.

Sit back and enjoy (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:16:07 AM EST

the Kabuki theater in process. At this performance you will see that all the big decisions have been made, save for a $l billion here or there. The president and speaker used their recent outing to walk in each other's golf shoes. The "hysteria" of it all has made it almost impossible for either to be seen as caving in the classical definition of the term, so we just need to make new and bifurcated definitions that each can sell to keep his job.

Of course, we all know what needs to be done when we are spending $2 Billion a week in Afghanistan and that if we allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of the DD Day (December Deal) extension it would yield $4 Trillion, the very same amount that would be gained by implementing every draconian recommendation of the Catfood Commission.

But that will not happen. There will be "reforms" to Medicare, cuts to Medicaid, and age-adjustments for social security (after all, we are living so much longer--after reaching 67, you may soon survive to 120). There will be no tax increases, although maybe some new fees on things like private jets. Obama will be disappointed in Boehner, and has set that up with his honest expectations of the Speaker's leadership. So what is the president to do? Boehner can tell Cantor to stop breathing down his neck, and can trumpet his successes, while he may have given up a new fee or two, he manipulated the president into starting the killing process of Social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Curtain down.

The President is resigning to cuts (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:53:40 AM EST

obviously, since he stood up in front of all of us yesterday and said that the economy is actually going to get worse. He knows what he is doing is going to cause more contraction and still he is going to do it. The UK is now feeling the brunt of its austerity measures taken.

Please explain why, when GOP wouldn't (5.00 / 5) (#54)
by oculus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:23:48 AM EST

raise the debt limit in the past (or was it failure to pass a budget?), consequence was federal government shutdown, except as to employees deemed "essential." Why are the predicted consequences of failing to raise the debt limit at this time that markets will crash, etc.?

You'd think the president who can (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:41:40 AM EST

make arguments that he has the constitutional authority for the Libya involvement - along with a number of other things - would be able to argue that he is constitutionally obligated to uphold the validity of the public debt.

Via Corrente:

There is another perfectly legal way, legislated by Congress, for the President to create the revenue he needs to pay US obligations, however, and to make the debt limit irrelevant. And because there is, there isn't any kind of constitutional crisis here. There is only an obligation for the President to use the means that Congress, in its wisdom, has already provided to pay our debts.
What is that way? It is called Jumbo Coin Seigniorage. Congress has granted to the Executive the authority to employ jumbo coin seigniorage to replenish the Treasury General Account (TGA) at the Fed and pay all of the obligations of the United States without issuing more debt or even, technically, doing any more "deficit spending."
[snip]
What else is there to say? The President has no choice in this matter. Congress has appropriated money for particular purposes. It has also passed a debt ceiling, and passed a law providing the Administration authority to engage in jumbo coin seigniorage to get revenue necessary to spend appropriations in the presence of the debt limit. The President is also bound to uphold the Constitutional mandate in the 14th Amendment that no one may question the validity of the debts of the United States, which certainly also implies, in the context of the debt ceiling, that it is the obligation of the President to remove any basis for such questioning by using the authority granted to him to raise all revenue necessary to spend Congressional appropriations. So, what is he waiting for? He should end the faux "debt ceiling crisis" by ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately use jumbo coin seigniorage, while ignoring the inevitable teeth gnashing by those holding the nation hostage, to provide the TGA with a balance large enough to cover all appropriations already passed by Congress!

But, hey - why do what one has the right and authority to do to avoid a "crisis" when generating one is so much more fun?

: I doubt Obama (none / 0) (#57)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:45:52 AM EST

has even considered the jumbo coin idea. But if he ran it past Geithner, Geithner would immediately tell him that it would be inflationary, just like quantitative easing. Oh wait.

calling the (none / 0) (#2)
by observed on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:23:49 AM EST

GOP children was a horrible idea, worthy of Jimmy Carter.

The (none / 0) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:33:45 AM EST

GOP has Obama's number. They know he will be the one that blinks so they have nothing to lose by going to the mat.

Actually, Obama set himself up for this even before the deal with his fetishness for bipartisanship. If he had not advocated for that and instead advocated for issues he might not be in this bind.

: It's Not Even That (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by The Maven on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:52:31 AM EST

While BTD states in the post that "the White House [is] resigned to $2 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years) and no tax increases as the deal to raise the debt ceiling," it's important to keep in mind that Obama affirmatively wants those $2 trillion in spending cuts so as to burnish his re-election credentials as being fiscally "Serious". And the tax increases he's seeking are effectively just window dressing in this context, still leaving a ratio of roughly 5:1 for spending cuts to tax increases. Indeed, for its failure to include raising the debt ceiling, The Deal was an unmitigated disaster (it was awful in other ways, too, obviously).

Hmm (none / 0) (#7)
by lilburro on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:36:34 AM EST

do the bankers actually care about the debt ceiling? I mean, fundamentally, it's just some stupid thing that may not be constitutional. I am not sure I buy the suggestion that this is the thing the bankers really care about.

Booman's analysis on this has been interesting and will be more interesting if they scrap the debt ceiling deal on spending cuts and go back to square one to focus on a "Democratic-majority debt limit bill." I don't think they will though.

Finally, the debt ceiling not being part of The Deal...yeaaaaaah. I remember reading at the time how important striking a deal was so we could get some of these conflicts out of the way. So after being browbeaten into taking The Deal seriously I was surprised to learn that it didn't include the debt ceiling.

Obama praised The Deal as an example of the virtues of a practical compromise. And yet it didn't include the debt ceiling. If you're going to be practical at least don't be short-sighted.

: Well (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:26:37 AM EST

they do love the free money at zero risk that would otherwise come with owning government bonds, if it weren't for the debt ceiling nonsense.
Even Bill Gross of PIMCO, one of the biggest investors in government bonds, says the debt must be raised or there will be hell to pay. So the people who rely on these things for income do seem to think a default would be a big deal.
Interestingly, Gross, a conservative not known for his socialist or liberal leanings, has also said that the economy needs stimulus, not austerity, and he even supports the radical notion of a government job guarantee. Obama, otoh, is Herbert Hoover II.

It seems (none / 0) (#8)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:36:50 AM EST

It seems from Obama's presser is that a keystone of his revenue raising is to increase taxes on corporate jets. This is a backtrack on his earlier "Stimulus" that lowered those same taxes.

What a zerk fitting!

Anne your post is dead on ! (none / 0) (#21)
by samsguy18 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:40:50 AM EST

Obama is the great manipulator.....and he's certainly not above distorting the truth and fear mongering. This has been a pattern of behavior for most of his political career. The manipulation , gaffes and truth distortions are piling up......

Don't We Do I Told You So's (none / 0) (#24)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:52:01 AM EST

After the event predicted has occurred? Premature I-Told-You-So-ulation.

Here is the thing I and others also said last December:

We are dealing with crazy people who are willing to destroy the economy to get their way. The job of a responsible leader is not to allow crazy people with guns to shoot the hostages even if it means they get away with the crime.

So if your prediction was "Obama will not crash the economy to beat the GOP" then yeah, you predicted that well. Same prediction held in December.

At the end of the day I think Obama pushes this to the brink and when it is clear that the GOP is crazy, he cuts the best deal he can even if it means his base will kill him for it.

That's leadership.

Obama has shown no ability... (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by Dadler on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:08:12 AM EST

...to take anything to the brink, and he has proven time and time again to the R's that he will fold when even lightly pressed. So THIS is the time Obama is really going to put the foot on THEIR throat? Listen, if that were the case, we would've seen some indication before today, when things are so sh*tty, that he possessed that inclination, even a smidgen. Obama's clear and predictable act is this: talk about how crazy the Republicans are, and how he just can't play hardball with them because too many people might suffer, then he gives the Republicans essentially what they wanted and they are empowered a little more. He NEVER cuts the best deal possible, because he never TRIES to cut the best deal possible. To do so would require hard and principle fighting, and standing up to threats, not continually backing down for some kind of perceived common good. But the term "best deal possible" is soothsayers gold and allows one to say something while saying nothing at all. Whatever the deal, I have a feeling you will think it's the best. So here, right now, let's hear it: what is the best deal to you? What would you be satisfied with? What would you think stinks?


: Simple Question (none / 0) (#31)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:33:43 AM EST

We aren't playing a video game her. In a few weeks the markets are going to start to rumble and a few weeks after that, sirens are going to go off and people are going to freak out.
Do you want the country to default to keep the GOP from winning?
Bottom line question. I do not. I think the con-law arguments are reasonable but completely irrelevant for purposes of the markets. I think that checks to people who need them will immediately be in question. I think people in the real world who can't afford to spend weeks or days waiting for things to work out will be hurt.
My answer is no. you play the game as long as you can and then you cut a deal.
You can be angry that the other side isn't being adult about the whole thing but it doesn't remove your responsibility to be one.

Hmm (5.00 / 6) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:10:02 AM EST

Two points:

(1) Will Obama crash the economy to beat the GOP? Depends on whether he will accept the GOP debt ceiling deal. Because if he does, he will be hurting the economy significantly.

If he stands up to them, he can win the battle and implement a policy better for the economy.

You obviously see this differently.

(2) The President had the biggest chip in the game in December - the Bush tax cuts. He needed a global deal right then or he needed to save the chip for win that deal would be struck.

The Deal was a terrible mistake. Frankly, I do not see how anyone can deny it now.

As for predictions, the President predicted Boehner would not hold the debt ceiling hostage. I predicted he would.

I was right. Obama was wrong.

I told you so.


The Deal (none / 0) (#32)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:36:49 AM EST

was not a mistake. Numerous defenses for it, none of which you will accept or acknowledge.

In any event, please find an economist who believes that defaulting will not create immediate and serious economic consequences. I always hear that Obama should not bend and push to the limit, but I never hear a clear indication of what happens if he chooses to do that.

So the country defaults, the markets go insane, the GOP continues to hold firm and then what. Just let it burn?


If the markets allow their pawns the GOP (5.00 / 5) (#37)
by TJBuff on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:50:40 AM EST

to crash them, then they're probably too stupid to exist anyway.

And Obama giving away the store just to kick the debt ceiling can down the road for another year sounds like a total loss to me.


Contradictory (none / 0) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:41:59 AM EST

The Deal (none / 0) (#38)
by lilburro on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51:37 AM EST

(in this instance) was a mistake for not including the debt ceiling. Whether you agree with The Deal as a whole or not, this particular battle could've been resolved.


There are numerous defenses for being able (none / 0) (#41)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:54:45 AM EST

to beat your wife with a stick no larger around than your thumb too.


Texas, right? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by TJBuff on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:35:55 AM EST

Tracy (none / 0) (#43)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:55:32 AM EST

or once I am speechless. I don't know how to respond.


: Just because someone can pull a defense (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:59:29 AM EST

for something out of their backside, it doesn't make it right.

markets go insane (none / 0) (#42)
by CST on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:55:10 AM EST

or we lose critical funding for social services (not to mention JOBS)? That's the choice?

I would put it on the markets for a few days, honestly.

You are not recognizing that the alternative is also a catastrophy. If a slower, "bleed to death", kind of catastrophy.

When choosing between "immediate" or "long term" serious economic consequences, I would probably choose immediate. Rip it off like a bandaid.


Do we lose critical funding? (none / 0) (#45)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:56:41 AM EST

Do we even know what the nature of the cuts are, or are we just assuming that they are terrible.

Criticisms are being lobbed at a deal that hasn't been struck and for which we have no details.


well I was operating under the assumption (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by CST on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:01:18 AM EST

that we are all speaking hypothetically here.

What cuts are you hypothetically defending? If there are no cuts to important services than I am just fine with them raising the debt ceiling. I would obviously take it as a stand alone agenda item.

But in a hypothetical scenario where we acede to GOP demands to raise the debt ceiling, I am assuming that critical funding to social services is on the table. Obviously if that's not the case it's a different issue.


: Notice how ABG didn't respond (none / 0) (#61)
by shoephone on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:33:01 PM EST

to your straightforward question:
"What cuts are you hypothetcially defending?"

All government spending (none / 0) (#52)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:07:15 AM EST

is critical to the economy in a time of massive job loss.


No (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:17:22 AM EST

that's not leadership. Being willing to walk away from a bad deal is leadership. Not constantly compromising what you say you are for is leadership.

You're basically saying that we have to let the GOP have their way even if it destroys the country and Obama blows himself up in the process.

You don't deal with economic terrorists. They can't be dealt with.


I believe it is easier (none / 0) (#33)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:39:12 AM EST

for Obama to walk away from the bad deal than to accept the deal with the cuts and no tax increases.

His base is going to going freaking insane. You already know BTD's blog title ("Wimp, Traitor, etc,").

He's going to piss the whole party off.

Way easier not to cave.


If it's so easy, why hasn't he used (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:56:00 AM EST

that strategy all along?

Maybe if he had, there would not be this general assumption that, just like every other time that push has come to shove, he will largely accede to the GOP's demands, with some minor exception that will be hailed as a liberal triumph by those who would say that if it was learned that Obama puts his pants on both legs at the same time...

His base doesn't matter, or hadn't you heard? How could it? - It's wrong more than it is right, which is why he has to stand up to it so often.
He doeesn't care if the party is ticked off - I mean, he's all they've got, right?

Come on, ABG - the history and pattern is not on your side; "this" is not going to be the time Obama takes a stand.


When Pres. Obama wants something, (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:16:12 PM EST

it seems to me, he's not afraid of doing what he has to. For example, in order to get the stimulus bill passed, the WH engaged in lots of arm-twisting to get members of Congress to vote for the bill. My take is that statements by the President that he wants to compromise and play nice are code words for his not having a major problem with the Repub position. We saw during the primaries, that when he had to push back hard, he did so. I'm just not buying this cumbaya interpretation of his refusal to take a forceful stand on things that life-long Dems have always viewed as so clearly necessary and important for the country. If the President truly wanted to protect the social safety net, he would not have set up the CAT Commission as he did, and he would be pushing back against the Repubs in Congress now on the debt ceiling, etc. But he's shied away from playing his hand -- the 14th Amendment, and in doing so, he's providing cover for the Repub position.


I don't see the same patterns you do (none / 0) (#47)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:58:43 AM EST

: Perhaps you should take off (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by nycstray on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 11:59:04 AM EST

those rose colored glasses then. . . . ya might see a bit better.

Never used those words (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:41:21 AM EST

You must have me confused with someone else.


Well (none / 0) (#36)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:44:37 AM EST

above you're saying that he has to take it because the markets will go crazy.


Leadership would be getting a clean bill (none / 0) (#40)
by TJBuff on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:54:05 AM EST

just like he originally asked for.


Perfect description of Obama's (none / 0) (#60)
by MO Blue on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 12:28:27 PM EST

leadership style.

Obama's governing style (i.e., fold early, fold often)


In the world of arbitrary and ... (none / 0) (#62)
by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:52:36 PM EST

made up things, that is politics, the debt ceiling is one of the most arbitrary and made up things going.

If they completely ignored it, absolutely nothing negative would happen.

: Yup. That is my suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 03:02:08 PM EST

Tell Treasury to just ignore it and carry on. I doubt the ceiling would survive any legal challenge that was made. From what I have been reading, the constitutional imperative to pay the bills should trump it.

: Can't someone find (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:18:12 PM EST

statements by most of the leading Repubs favoring lifting of the debt ceiling during the Bush Admin? Why is no one calling them out for their hypocrisy?

What if we take the politics (none / 0) (#68)
by NYShooter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 03:22:49 PM EST

out of it and substitute patriotism in its place? I'm being serious now, and I really don't want to get into a flame war, or answer things like, "It'll never happen, no way, who's gonna do it, they're all chicken $hit, yadda, yadda.
But, if we here sincerely believe we're going through a critical, life or death, transformative period in our country's history, where our way of life, the country we all love, democracy itself, is at stake, please hear me out.

What if a group of real patriots met privately and held a meeting similar to the one Senior Republicans held during the final days of Watergate? I'm talking about when they realized all hope was lost for Nixon's Presidency, and told him to resign as they wouldn't support him any longer.

I think we're at that stage with Obama's tenure, that if some senior Democrats would speak up and say to him what I'm sure they're thinking to themselves privately, that is, the country made a terrible mistake, he's simply not up the task. The country is at a crossroads and with tens of millions of Families having their lives reduced to serfdom, protocol and feelings have to take a back seat to saving our country.

Other countries do it all the time, voting "no confidence."

I'm scared to death at the thought of where we're heading. I really would rather die in battle than live under an administration headed by the likes of Ryan and Cantor.

I think the way you feel is a measure of (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 03:41:42 PM EST

the helplessness we all feel - or at least quite a number of us feel - faced as we are with a president on one side, who has proven to be exponentially worse than many of us ever imagined, and on the other side, the possibility of a Republican in the WH in 2012 who, in no way, shape or form, is going to be better, or pull us out of this abyss we're falling into.

Even worse is my feeling that there simply aren't enough senior Democrats who could be persuaded to do this, and that we haven't reached the stage where Obama is sitting in forced solitude in the WH, head in hands, and looking for a way out.

Even if he agreed not to run in 2012 - who would stand in his place who would give us a snowball's chance in hell of reversing our course? One thing the Obama presidency has done is show us how many so-called Democrats are corporatists to the core, willing to sell out for the big bucks over any semblance of serving the greater good. I love Bernie Sanders, and I could support him, but at this late date, how would his - or anyone else's - candidacy be viable? Who else is there?

I don't honestly see a way out. And that's more depressing - and frightening - than I have words to express.


Your response, (none / 0) (#74)
by NYShooter on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:38:00 PM EST

of course, is the default answer that I also come to. That's why I used the term, "patriot." Its impossible, in the age of Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan, to even utter the word without immediately following it with, " wtf, who am I kidding?"

The thing is, I just refuse to believe that in a country with over 300 million people that there aren't any heroes; someone who doesn't need the money, or the power. Someone who truly loves America and can't stand what's been allowed to happen to her.

Someone like Ronald Reagan was for the other side.

I just had an idea; now don't laugh............Elliot Spitzer.


: I won't laugh (none / 0) (#85)
by Nemi on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:33:33 AM EST

but don't you think he has irreversibly ruined his own chances? I would hope not but ... hope is so 2008.
And as for those who don't "need the money, or the power" I don't think they neither seek nor want it either. :(

I think there's something else Dems could (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:32:28 PM EST

do short of asking Pres. Obama to resign. They could, instead, find their backbones, and tell him if he wants their support, he has to follow more traditional Dem policies on the social safety net, taxes, etc. Although I do not agree with many of the President's positions on issues, I do not think he alone is to blame. I think the rubber-stamp Dems in Congress have enabled the Admin's ability to to ignore time-honored Dem values. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, they have also failed to speak about the real meaning of shared sacrifice. I'd like to know why the only sacrifices that have been shared are the sacrifices of the armed services, our Veterans, and those of the middle and lower classes who are paying more and getting less, finding health care costs sky-rocketing -- thanks in large measure to a so-called health care bill that required no quid pro quo from the health insurers and failed to place any ceiling on the price of health insurance. I feel our country no longer has any moral compass, whether in government, in industry -- financial or otherwise, and.... Accountability has long ceased to be a fact of life -- unless, of course, you are Rep. Weiner who dared to speak out against the health care bill, the tax deal, and so on; then the moral high ground has many takers.


Assuming there are Democrats in the (none / 0) (#79)
by Anne on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:21:23 PM EST

Congress who actually do disagree with Obama, they could do what they think is right, act as part of the independent branch of government they are, and let the chips fall where they may; that's what they would do if there were a Republican in the WH, so, again, assuming they are Democrats because they don't subscribe to the Republican world view, they could push the president to where they believe things should be, and force him to veto his own party's bills.

Yes, that would be confrontational, a clear fight for power, but at this point, I know of no other way to change the track we're on. As long as Congressional Dems continue to do Obama's bidding, all I can assume is that they share his point of view.

It would be hard to find a larger collection of hollow people than those currently walking the halls of Congress; I don't see much indication that that's going to change anytime soon.


: I feel (none / 0) (#88)
by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:12:21 PM EST

as though we're reliving in modern times the period before the fall of Rome.

Default (none / 0) (#89)
by Doc Rock on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 04:57:13 PM EST

The US will never again within the lifetime of anyone alive today reach its current height of comfort, power, and economic viability if we default in August and we will be able to thank the ideological idiocy of "starve the beast" and the "no tax pledge."

Winning!

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment