home

Obama, Dems Fumbling Away Debt Ceiling Win?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:06:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Apparently, Obama and the Dems are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the debt ceiling negotiation:

The Senate's top two officials are working on what one aide called a "hybrid," fail-safe solution to the debt ceiling debate that could garner enough political support to pass Congress.

The plan, which is being hatched by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would ensure that over $1.5 trillion in cuts over ten years be passed into law. It would also grant President Obama the authority to extend the debt ceiling through the 2012 election season while requiring him to propose -- but allowing him to ultimately veto -- cuts beyond those initial $1.5 trillion.

WTF? McConnell offered to do a clean raise of the debt ceiling (with some pointless votes) and Dems say no to that? They INSIST on spending cuts? In the middle of a recession? They deserve to lose.

Speaking for me only

< Tour de France Open Thread | The Mythical "Long Term Deficit Deal With Teeth" >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama, Dems Fumbling Away Debt Ceiling Win? | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by athyrio on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    totally agree!! They indeed deserve to lose but the country doesn't deserve either party at this point IMO...

    Reality is sometimes is less pleasant (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    than fantasy.  

    President Obama does not want a clean raise of the debt ceiling. He wants a "Grand Bargain" which includes cuts to the safety net programs and he is more than willing to keep the Bush/Obama tax cuts in place to seal the deal.

    This is why I could not get excited (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    on this roller-coaster ride for the last couple of days.  I just knew that Obama still would feel the need to be all bipartisan to appeal to Independents, as apparently he and his apparatchiks think that Independents all used to be Republican voters and still do not realize how many former Democrats are Independents now, too.

    That is, we are the real Democrats who still act upon principles rather than personalities.  And we cannot be so easily appeased, nor are we going to be at all pleased by any spending cuts to social services needed now more than ever in this economy that Republicans, Nu Dems, and their almost-indistinguishable ilk have wrought upon us.

    And if we can remember what the real Democratic Party and its principles used to be, we sure can remember all of this come 2012.  

    Parent

    somebody, someday (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    should write the history of this development:

    he and his apparatchiks think that Independents all used to be Republican voters and still do not realize how many former Democrats are Independents now, too

    just sayin'


    Parent

    Yes, if he wanted a clean debt ceiling bill, (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    he could have taken the gift that McConnell offered up to him.  Maybe it did not have the wrapping or bow of his choice, but it got the job done.  The job, by the way, we have been told by Geithner, Bernake, and the president, himself, is to  avoid default of the US government with all the ominous consequences articulated for us.

    As president this is his primary responsibility at this point, not to mention that the urgency conjured up for deficit reduction is betrayed by both parties, e.g. Obama's Medicare age eligibility is rolled out starting in two years, Ryan's Medicare privatizing starts in eleven years, social security, of course, is most pressing with concerns for only paying out 80 percent benefits in 27 years.  Of course, the Republicans are shifting the decision on debt ceiling to the president and will blame him for it, but we know that are not always nice.  He has the campaign, after all, to present his side, including going to the American people to say how he has gone further than even Ronald Reagan, to no avail.

    Parent

    It's mind-boggling (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    isn't it?

    Parent
    It is because Obama wants Soc Security (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    cut. He has said it so many times it isn't even funny.  He has said it unprovoked so many times, it is obvious that he came into office with this being one of his goals.  He will have it cut, chained, tweaked, trimmed, pruned, saved for future generations.......blah blah blah blah.  There is still that line from his book where he said that New Deal Economics don't work, and he believes that to the core of his being.  And there will be no public option or medicare for all as long as he is President, even if the votes ARE there.  

    That's not happening (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    Not now at least.

    No one will sign up for that.

    Parent

    If not now, it will not be (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    for the president not trying.  After all, the cuts to the social safety net were the real difference between the miserly Biden negotiations and the Grand Bargain.  And, I still believe, that is what is standing in the way of Obama accepting McConnell's gift---the chance to use this ginned up crisis to effect, at least, some of the failed Cat Food Commission's recommendations.  Other "discretionary spending" can be dealt with later, but social security and medicare need to be dealt with while the heated iron is hot.  

    Parent
    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    I've got fingers, toes, everything crossed.

    Parent
    It's not a fumble (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by observed on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    Can you accept now that Obama went into office determined to end the New Deal, as much as possible? He sees his opportunity, and he is running with it.

    Schumer. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    Even Sen. Schumer's on board with pushing for spending cuts! He's acting like it would be unfortunate if McConnell's deal went through without tacking on $1 trillion in cuts or something. What is going on here?

    "We would like to see, even if we can't get a grand deal, that some real cuts be added to Senator McConnell's proposal and perhaps Senator McConnell's proposal be modified," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). "That is another possibility, not as good as a larger deal, but certainly better than just avoiding default."

    The "Grand Bargain" has become a goal unto itself, it seems. Perhaps lilburro is right and the Democrats are trying to lessen the number of debt ceiling votes, and trading that for spending cuts? But I tend to think they really are just looking at 2012 and honestly thinking that this single vote for some cuts will insulate them from being called tax-and-spend liberals. Bizarre and foolish.

    If Chuck Schumer is changing his tune (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    from the previous position, the fix is in.

    Parent
    I guess this could work (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    if you are thinking that the GOP wants so badly to deny Obama anything that they don't pass a McConnell-Reid plan out of spite.  And you have to go back to a clean debt ceiling bill because of that.  And the GOP looks terrible, again (but haven't we made that point?).  

    Obama gets to say

    "The GOP has no policy except pure hatred of me.  They won't even let me responsibly cut spending."  [Not that the cutting is responsible, but you get the point].

    But are they really that crazy?  

    Parent

    But we were already at that point! (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    We'd already gotten to a clean bill (with some pro forma votes). That narrative arc was concluded -- the GOP is insane and so we can't tackle the deficit. Fin. Now we're getting an entirely unwanted and unneeded sequel. It's like the Democrats' Cars 2 without the merchandising deal.  

    Parent
    I sort of expect (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    the final solution to be dropped like a big stinky turd in the friday news dump.

    if this goes into next week hide the children.

    I just (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    read in the Times that neither the Obama administration nor the folks in Iraq want our sordid participation in their affairs to end in 2011.

    The money this continues to cost us - over two billion bucks a week - is the kind of money we could surely use to help pay our debts.

    But no political party is interested.

    Anne asked the other day, "who are we?".
    At this point, I think my short answer would be, "a bunch of chumps."

    Bahaha (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    the Hill:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said earlier Thursday that Cantor should not be involved in the White House talks because his presence has not been constructive, and other Democrats have said he has dominated the Republican end of the discussions while Boehner has kept quiet. Cantor said he understood Reid's frustrations but otherwise laughed off the criticism.

    When Cantor was finished, Boehner walked over and put his arm around him.

    "Let me just say that we have been in this fight together," Boehner said. "And any suggestion that the role that Eric has played in these meetings has been anything less than helpful is just ridiculous. We're in a foxhole.

    "I'm glad that Eric's there, and those that have other opinions should just keep them to themselves."

    And then, furiously, he wept.  

    this is (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:15:27 PM EST
    good

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    one of their major goals. to split the republicans

    Parent
    Are there (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    any to split off in congress? I know the rank and file GOP might not like some of the stuff but the congress seems to be dominated by the tea party.

    Parent
    we now have the senate minority leader (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    saying the house majority leader should not be allowed to go to the meetings

    for me that seems like a split

    Parent

    Umm, that was Reid that made that statement n/t (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:40:14 PM EST


    Parent
    daaaaum (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    I miss read it.  thats what I get for doing 3 things at once.

    still.  there is a split.

    there is definitely a split.  I expect we may see more of it.

    Parent

    The GOP (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    has been split since the 90's but no one has really admitted it, at least the beltway has not admitted that it has happened. The coalition has been collapsing ever since the cold war ended. It has no reason for being right now so they are hanging onto this austerity crap because it's all they have. Too bad Obama has been preaching austerity too. But remember it's only austerity for the middle class who don't "deserve" what they have because the middle class is just a bunch of "slugs" according to the beltway idiots.

    Parent
    What? Eh? (1.25 / 4) (#142)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:21:12 PM EST
    From this side of the tracks, we have our disagreements but a split since the 90's, don't think so.

    Methinks PUMAs shouldn't throw stones.

    Parent

    Methinks you should be aware (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    the P word is frowned upon here . . .  :)

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    talking nonsense. Look at the numbers for the GOP since 1992. In the last 20 years the GOP has only broken 50% once since then. It's been a downward trend for the party and the glue that was holding the party together--the Cold War--is done no matter how many times the party tries to revive it.

    Parent
    the fact is (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    the rich wing of the party (think Koch) just ran smack up against the alternate reality wing they created.

    Parent
    They are not fumbling away a win. (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by mjames on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    This is what Obama wants - to gut Social Security and Medicare.

    How many times - and in how many ways - does he have to tell you that?

    Thank You, Thank You (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    I'm not alone.

    Amazing

    Who you gonna believe, moonstruck Lawrence O'Donnell, or your lyin eyes?

    How many times must I tell you, Obama is a petulant spoiled brat. This Presidenting business is not for him. This is just like the Primaries where he signaled over and over and over again who, and what, he was. But the Obama love was so great the people just put their hands over their ears, lit their candles, and made complete fools of themselves.

    He has told you, Michelle has told you, He told Cantor just yesterday. He will be a one term President, but he is going to wipe out Social Security & Medicare. Think about it; why was he so pi!ssed off while everyone was breathing sighs of relief, fellating their screens as they typed, "Obama's a genius!"

    BTD is perplexed because he's "pulling defeat from the jaws of victory." When will everyone get it? Obama's idea of victory is not a democrat's idea of victory. That's why he's been getting so testy in the past few days. He wants that Grand Bargain, and he doesn't care what is lost or who loses it. His legacy will be "Barrack Obama, the only Democrat with big enough Ba!!s to smite SS & Medicare.

    Economy, E-shmonomy

    Parent

    its not about winning and losing (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by pluege2 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    obama is fulfilling the plutocrat's agenda. getting thru the republican nonsense without losing is not obama's goal. obama's goal is the republican agenda. astounding the number of otherwise smart sounding liberals/progressives still are in denial about that.

    IMO (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    its a sham

    its an attempt to make it look like O and the dems are trying to be reasonable and govern.  they want voters to think they are serious about deficit reduction.  and I am sure they are on some level.  just not this one.

    nothing will happen because the republicans will accept not one revenue increase.    if they do not there will be no deal.

    there will be no deal.  its still Mitch.

    This has no revenue increases (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:15:56 PM EST


    Parent
    correct (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    and Obama has said more than once there would be no deal without them

    Parent
    Then what's the point of this (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    if it passes Congress after being drafted by McConnell and Reid, he vetoes it?

    Parent
    Obama is not vetoing anything (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:28:59 PM EST


    Parent
    If he vetoes this (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    he looks unreasonable.  

    Parent
    I repeat (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    He;s not vetoing ANYTHING.

    Good or bad.

    Parent

    Final packages are often combos. (none / 0) (#153)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:15:59 PM EST


    Parent
    see below (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:30:37 PM EST


    Parent
    That makes no sense (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    Just take the McConnell Deal.

    WTF are you talking about?

    Parent

    Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is right (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by tworivers on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    Just quit while you're ahead...

    Jeebus, does he really think enacting huge spending cuts is going to create jobs?  If so, he's bought into the Republican argument hook, line and sinker.  Never mind that both Hoover and FDR's brief flirtation with deficit hawking in 1937 show that austerity in a time of depression is a disastrous policy

    Contrary to what the media would have people believe, the vast majority of people aren't lying awake at night worrying about the national debt.  They're lying awake at night worrying about either finding a job, or holding on to the job they have, or whether or not the economy will ever improve enough for the bottom 98% to see their long-stagnated wages finally increase in a meaningful way.  

    How is cutting spending in the way he's proposing going to create jobs?  The whole "well, the market's uncertain and feeling insecure, and we just have to work the debt down and make the market feel all happy and secure again, and then businesses will just start hiring like gangbusters" argument doesn't cut it for me.  Just reassuring the markets by reducing the debt will in and of itself, magically lead to huge job creation numbers?  Really?  

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    Jeebus, does he really think enacting huge spending cuts is going to create jobs?  If so, he's bought into the Republican argument hook, line and sinker.

    is precisely what's going on.

    Parent

    Yes, he does, Sort of. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:04:08 PM EST
    Jeebus, does he really think enacting huge spending cuts is going to create jobs?

    Sort of. What he actually seems to believe is that enacting spending cuts will finally summon the Confidence Faery (which he believes in mightily) and once the fabled faery appears, she will sprinkle everyone with magical confidence dust and that is what will create massive numbers of jobs.

    The way magical confidence dust works goes like this: Businesses will just suddenly be really sure of a glorious future and therefore will immediately set about hiring workers to fill demand that does not exist. And the masses will suddenly set about spending money they do not have in order to create that demand. All because Obama proved to the Confidence Faery that we are "serious" and was able to summon her and her magical confidence dust.

    It's the perfect plan. Bound to work. Only people who don't believe in faeries and magic dust can doubt it.

    Parent

    Ahem, you left out a key ingredient. (none / 0) (#146)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:08:50 PM EST
    Unicorns.  Fairies/faeries are impotent without their unicorns.  

    Parent
    I just assumed... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:15:03 PM EST
    ...that the Confidence Faery would show up riding on her unicorn (his name is Rainbow) when summoned. Goes without saying. ;-)

    Parent
    I am talking about costructing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    a narrative of childish intransigent republicans and reasonable mature democrats.  every time they make an off that is refused its a brick in the wall.

    its the same reason Reid made the republicans yesterday vote against the concept that those making more than one million dollars a year should possibly contribute more to the recovery than they currently are.

    Parent

    Narrative Shmarrative (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    It's the economy stupid!

    Parent
    and btw (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    its working.  if you have been paying attention to polls you know that the public supports the democrats positions 80% to 20%

    let me repeat that.  80% to 20%

    they are very effectively making the republicans do things that 80% of the voting public think is insane.  again and again.  and again.

    I think some one in the white house finally looked up the meaning of "framing"

    Parent

    What's the Dem position? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    Cutting spending to tank the economy?

    You think that is going to win votes?

    Parent

    The Dem position is (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    cut spending, save the economy. They are idiots.

    Parent
    that would (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:42:41 PM EST
    be blogosphere speak.  THAT is what most regular people are clueless about.  

    Parent
    Huh? n/t (none / 0) (#55)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:45:18 PM EST


    Parent
    right (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:47:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    the result is not going to be pretty and could hand the GOP all the government in '12. And the results are what people are going to be voting on in November of '12 and I think that's what most people here are thinking about.

    Parent
    you are aware (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    that Obama just broke his own fund raising record?

    with more than a quarter million new contributors?

    Parent

    you really don't get it do you? (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:43:52 PM EST


    Parent
    the response was (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    about "handing" something to somebody.

    right?

    Parent

    i will stop (none / 0) (#120)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    engaging with you today

    before i become even ruder

    Parent

    Okay, who are you (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by sj on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    and what have you done with the real Capt Howdy?  You know, the one with the critical thinking skills?

    Parent
    sj, I think he's filling in for ABG; (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    someone else who was/is convinced that this is just brilliant political theater that will result in Obama's re-election.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    So it seems (none / 0) (#130)
    by sj on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    But, I'm not happy being an extra in this bit of theater.

    Parent
    if I had (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    a nickel . . .

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    he broke his own fundraising but so what? Every incumbent does that. I don't believe the thing about all the new donors. They said that in 2008 and it turned out not to be true.

    Who is going to care about that if they don't have a job?

    Parent

    Aaah, it's back (none / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    Just like the first time, I'm sure Obama will be re-elected with small donors. snort.

    He wants to break a billion dollar mark and his supporters think this (the corruption of the political party) is a moral good because?

    If he breaks his record and then loses, you'll have to excuse me while I laugh and point.... of course, I sniggered when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, when he refused to close Guantanamo, when he took out hits on US citizens, and on an on.  Yes, I sniggered again when Obama rejected a debt ceiling vote and is back to demanding those recalcitrant Rs cut SS for him.

    Parent

    cut spending -- enrich Wall Street (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by dandelion on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    That's the Dem position.  And the Repub. position.  I've already read in the NY Times that one of the goals in cutting SS was to get more people to buy annuities.

    We won't just be forced to buy health insurance products; we'll be "forced" to buy life insurance products too.  

    Obama has said repeatedly that he thinks people need to be "nudged" into taking greater responsibility -- isn't that what he got from Cass Sunstein.  

    He's not a New Deal Liberal and he's not even really a Rockefeller Republican.  He's more like a "paternal libertarian."  The goal of government isn't to provide support, it's to scold us into supporting ourselves in the proper fashion.  And of course, that proper fashion enriches Wall Street, since insurance companies are some of the biggest players there.  

    (Remember the life insurance companies wanted a bailout too, but the WH balked at that.  Remember that the banks are insolvent and must be recapitalized from the blood of the people.)

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    there will be no cuts without revenue.  there will be no revenue so there will be no cuts

    Parent
    and this is based on Obama's (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    past performance on revenue? The I Ching?

    Parent
    So you think (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    this dies before it reaches Obama's desk?

    Senate Dems are onboard and I think enough House Dems would be as well.

    The only person who can kill this is Obama.

    It has no revenue increases so I don't know why the GOP would kill it.

    Parent

    who knows. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    I need to know more about what they are passing.  I didnt notice if there was a link or not.  if there isnt maybe you could provide one.

    Parent
    Spending cuts will make the economy (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    worse though Capt.  It is the worst thing, the very worst thing, that could be done right now.  Not raising the debt ceiling could usher in a Great Depression but so can spending cuts right now.  We are so unbelievably fragile at this moment.  And if the markets plunge and they start QE3 that will cause more inflation in the bare necessities, the wipe out will be huge.

    Parent
    the ceiling will be raised (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    there is exactly zero chance it will not be.  O is now in the drivers seat.  he has positioned himself to kill the republicans if this even goes into next week.  Mitch said the same thing yesterday.

    he walked out of a meeting yesterday just to remind them of that.

    Parent

    If he raises the ceiling though (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    and cuts spending, he just gets economic contraction, more job loss, more pain and suffering for Americans.  But he's the one insisting on cuts, he's crazy, he has bought fully into the Wall Street bull$hit that if we get our "fiscal house in order" the economy can fix itself.  He is as crazy as the day is long about economics, and susceptible to the words and beliefs of incompetent people who subscribe to the unregulated greed is good philosophy.

    Parent
    There's a link above (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    from the link

    As the dual plan is envisioned, House Republicans would be able to claim that they passed a deal without including revenue raisers or tax hikes. The president, meanwhile, will be able to move the debt ceiling debate into 2013, albeit while having to hold a largely pre-determined vote for a second extension (once the $1.5 trillion in cuts run out) before the election. Democrats would have to swallow a deal that didn't include revenues, but they will have protected entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare from cuts.


    Parent
    WTF Is Reid Doing Then? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    Why not just negotiate on the number of votes r some other silly thing?

    Why in Gawd's name raise spending cuts again?

    Parent

    Reid is Obama's point man; it's the (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    only thing that makes sense, really.  

    It has to be clear that, in the face of an opportunity to get a clean bill with meaningless votes and hypothetical spending cuts - which would actually be the best thing for the economy - this tweaking of the McConnell plan by adding spending cuts and resurrecting a new Deficit Commission is Obama's way of getting to where he wanted to go all along - which is why he convened Simpson/Bowles in the first place.

    Would that Obama worked this hard to push actual Democratic policy, but I think it's time to admit that that's not going to happen.

    Maybe someone needs to whisper, "be careful what you wish for" in Obama's ear, because bullying his way to some version of his Grand Bargain is not going to end well for him - and it's going to be disastrous for us, which is supposed to be the part that actually matters.

    As if.

    Parent

    Obama gave up (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    on good economic policy the moment he agreed to a small stimulus package and claimed he could ask for more later if necessary, back in 2009. It's been all downhill since then.

    There is NO CHANCE that Obama will see the light. He's drunk the kool-aid. He's aware of the stimulus argument and he has rejected it.

    This episode should finally put to rest the idea that Obama was just being a brilliant negotiator who backed the GOP into a corner by only pretending he wanted to cut social security. Obama is demanding spending cuts because he wants spending cuts.

    Parent

    see below (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:37:47 PM EST


    Parent
    there are different audiences (none / 0) (#154)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:26:57 PM EST
    and different messages. E.g., it is entirely possible to "cut" that which is already cut/moved/disappearing in order to advertise how responsible one is...how one resolves things like a reasonable person & demonstrates a step toward what can be framed as "fiscal responsiblity."  

    As you noted in an earlier thread: Not all cuts are equal, etc. Guessing here: But, a possible combo of McConnell with only 1 check-in before the election with some previously agreed upon "cuts" that are uncontroversial. Why? Because when you win, you can afford to share a wee bit of acclaim...esp when doing so enhances your position all the more. The Gracious Victor!

    Who knows? But, as with so many agreement packages at the end, a combo would not be unexpected.

    Parent

    the dem postion (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    is that deficit reduction should include revenue increases taken from the super rich.

    simple.  easy to understand.

    Parent

    And yet (none / 0) (#58)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    the huffpo article states: "Democrats would have to swallow a deal that didn't include revenues, but they will have protected entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare from cuts."

    Parent
    IF (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    if passes

    IF if passes yes they would

    Parent

    Whatever n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:53:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Right now...all is speculation (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:28:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I think he's trying to get re-elected (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    getting some Conservatives on board with him like Reagan did Democrats.  Because he won't be able to run on the economy, that is going to drive voters away from him.  And he's screwed the liberals and Dem voters over so badly, he knows lying to us for a second round isn't going to excite us :)  It doesn't work that way though with the Republican voters. Either he doesn't want to run on being a tax and spend Democrat I'm assuming when the economy is in the toilet, or he doesn't want a second term. He's going to give Conservative voters what they keep asking for though, and when the economy is worse I don't know what he'll do.  He's either really dumb or he's really dumb.

    Parent
    F*ck what Obama wants (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    Do Dems in Congress want to get elected? Cuz this is the quickest NOT to get elected.

    Parent
    let me ask you something (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    do you think what Reid yesterday (S.1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice) was in any way related to this?  it also was a point less exercise from the point of view of actually "doing" anything.

    Parent
    I don;t know (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    and I don't care.

    You know who knows less and cares less than I do? The American People, that's who.

    I repeat, it's the economy, stupid.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    its now the narrative.  the economy effects it.  so do many other things.  

    Parent
    here's your narrative, Capt (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    BREAKING, DECEMBER 2010
    Obama cuts "Deal" with GOP

    BREAKING, NOVEMBER 2012
    Economy in Tank
    Unemployment Rising
    Democrats Nationwide Lose in GOP "Wave" Election


    Parent
    It gives me hope (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:36:57 PM EST


    Parent
    me also (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    it feels like they have finally learned how the game is played maybe.

    Parent
    I am at a loss (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    as to the appropriate gambling metaphor to apply to this situation...

    Handing your money over after you've won the bet (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    is the phrase you are looking for.

    Parent
    It's like a used car salesman saying (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    'OK I'll accept your price, but only if you let me throw in a set of free brand new tires.'

    Parent
    Folding the Royal Flush (none / 0) (#131)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    because you have some sick desire to be mediocre.

    Yes, there are gamblers like that.

    Parent

    The pointless votes go out? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    That is a TERRIBLE tradeoff.

    Absolutely TERRIBLE.

    Not for him (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    He thinks he's positioning himself to target independents for his re-election campaign.

    Some people want to to important things, others just want notoriety.  He's always been very clear about his republican beliefs.  He will be remembered for being the dem responsible for the republican dream of collapsing wages.

    Parent

    Terrible for who? (none / 0) (#25)
    by lambert on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    If it's not terrible for Obama's owners, it's not terrible.

    Parent
    Ya know... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    the more I hear that Wall St. is petrified of an Uncle Sam default, the better it sounds.

    As a rule of thumb, whatever Wall St. wants do the opposite...its hard to go wrong.

    My grandfather who was self made (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    and made a lot of money for himself and his retirement through investing and realestate told me that.  If I'm doing what "everybody else" is doing, I'm doing the wrong thing where making investments comes into play.  If I'm doing "what everybody else" is doing, I'm the dumb money.

    Parent
    Well, real estate is gone (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:33:20 PM EST
    Won't be an average person making any money in real estate for a long time, 'til I'm pushing up daisies I'd guess.

    Tell your gramps to channel us.  We needs him.

    Parent

    Maybe I'm mistaken... (none / 0) (#29)
    by sweetthings on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    But I was under the impression that the McConnell plan was not viable with the Republican house. Cantor and the others seem absolutely opposed to it.

    If that's true, it makes sense for Reid to be exploring other options. If McConnell can't deliver the votes to pass his option, then it doesn't matter that he's willing to propose it.

    So Canotr deputized Reid (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    to do his negotiating?

    That makes no sense.

    Parent

    That's not what I'm saying. (none / 0) (#46)
    by sweetthings on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    Reid and McConnell are trying to come up with SOMETHING that can pass both houses and that the President can sign. McConnell put his plan forward on Monday, and the Republican house shot it down hardcore. So they have to start looking for a new plan.

    I'm sure Cantor and McConnell will do their own negotiation, (if they're still talking to each other, anyway) but that doesn't mean Reid has the option of sitting back and doing nothing. The US just had it's credit rating put on review - the time for political posturing is rapidly running out.

    Parent

    I repeat (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    then you negotiate with the House.

    You do not pre-negotiate cuts and then go and negotiate MORE cuts with the House.

    This is senseless.

    Parent

    Isn't that how Obama deals though? (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    Start off by giving them more than they want, and end with giving away the store . . .

    Parent
    The Senate is a good ol' boys club. (none / 0) (#87)
    by sweetthings on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    Tradition demands Reid work with McConnell, at least on the surface. It's assumed McConnell will then get his plebes in line.

    Parent
    Unless you are tasked by the Big Guy (none / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:34:09 PM EST
    to finish what has mostly been agreed to...McConnell plus. (Example: Get a bit more leeway than the presented 3 report-ins before the election; in exchange for lessening potentially negative exposure, pull out some pseudo cuts already agreed to in order to show that both sides made some progress under Obama's direction.)

    Parent
    In case you didn't know... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    ...the credit ratings agencies are corrupt and criminal organizations who exist for no other reason than to telegraph their ratings to their cronies so insider trades can be made.

    Parent
    The McConnell deal would not pass the house. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:39:41 PM EST


    it would pass (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    the house with democrat and sane republican votes.  

    and if Bones corporate masters tell him to bring it to a vote, he will.

    Parent

    Sane republican votes? Oxymoron (none / 0) (#54)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    Cantor has made it very very clear it would not pass the house.  This does not mean Obama should not have embraced it, just that I think they are working on something else they think will pass both houses.

    Parent
    cantor (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    correctly said it would not pass with republican votes.

    it would pass.

    wanna bet?

    Parent

    It could... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    ...possibly pass with a combination of Dems and Boehner-aligned Republicans. But Boehner wants more Republicans in that coalition so that he's not immediately kicked out as Speaker. So if it's a question of House support, I think the underlying concern (among all persons Dem and GOP, save Cantor) is to protect Boehner somewhat from the political fallout within his own party. Cantor, of course, would love to see Boehner pilloried by the GOP because he's semi-successfully riding the Tea Party tiger right now.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:08:54 PM EST
    seems to clearly be trying to make Cantor the bad guy.  "dont call my bluff Eric . . ."

    but then the head spins with the layers of possible bullsh!t.

    is this some freaky good cop bad cop?

    Parent

    oh jeez (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    analyze this statement:

    Don't call my bluff, Eric.

    weak, petulant & stoopid

    what's next, "Nanny nanny, boo boo . . . "?

    Parent

    you know what (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    he meant it.

    Parent
    yes! (none / 0) (#92)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    he did

    & you are making my point

    forgot to add this part:

    Don't call my bluff, Eric.
    [takes ball & goes home]


    Parent
    correct (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    and the president is the one with the really big balls.

    Parent
    paper towel, Capt? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:29:53 PM EST
    (h/t lambert) ;)

    Parent
    Clinton issued the same type of message (none / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:40:12 PM EST
    to Newt prior to Newt's pre-Cantor debacle. (I've occasionally heard the phrase--and used it--in hard talks. Not unusual as negotiations enter the last hard-fought phase.) Depending on tone & delivery & context, a measured "Don't call my bluff" is a "Do not push any further, or you'll lose big." "Don't even think it."

    Parent
    cantor (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    know he meant it.

    his bluff will not be called

    Parent

    I think they are (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:22:42 PM EST
    (or were) doing a great job making Cantor look like a jack@ss.  

    But what Reid-McConnell are proposing makes Cantor look like a winner.

    Parent

    the "meeting" (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    is at 4

    I will wait

    Parent

    I don't mind waiting (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    my crystal ball is apparently broken so I'm going to have to.

    Parent
    they just said on (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    msnbc that the subject of todays meeting is taxes.

    like I said.

    Parent

    Right, Obama will agree to extend (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by observed on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    Bush's tax cuts even further. Big whoop

    Parent
    Obama lready offered that (none / 0) (#119)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    They turned them down because there were other tax tweaks that may have meant more money in years way out as if a Repub isn't soon going to be in office soon and dump any future tax adjustments anyways.

    Parent
    Sounds like (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    a short meeting.

    Parent
    damn (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    I LIKE it when he fights back.

    today is all theater.  and I expect thrills and chills

    Parent

    This is theater (none / 0) (#133)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    but this is not fighting back -- and definitely not fighting for the Democratic plaform and principles.

    Confusing a flurry of theater with really fighting back -- and fighting for -- is the intent of such pseudoevents.  Don't fall for it.

    Parent

    Obama wants (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:09:44 PM EST
    a clean debt limit increase. that is what and all he has ever wanted.

    he will get it.

    there will be no deal.

    it seems to me that if you are going to play this game there cant be a deal.  the whole point it how stupid and intransigent the republicans are so any deal would muddy that.
    there cant be a deal.  no deal is the whole point.
    the message being we offered them the world and all the sacred cows and the would not take it if it involved closing the corporate jet loophole.

    Parent

    Abdicating responsibility (none / 0) (#137)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    for this by saying that the whole point is owing to the Republicans does not even acknowledge the portion of the onus that is on Democrats, much less begin to take responsibility for putting on pressure for your own political party to fix it.

    Above all, the whole point is not about political parties.  The whole point is about the American people.  Getting sucked into the drama, the theatrics of it all is how they try to make us forget that.

    Parent

    responsibility for this (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    belongs with the people who took this issue hostage.  certainly not the president.

    as far as the people the president seems to be fighting for them as hard as he can.

    at last.

    Parent

    Good Lord, Captain (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:42:06 PM EST
    He gave away the house with those Bush Tax Cuts.  

    Who cares what this spineless piece of horseh*t d wants for himself, he is not a good actor, there is NO good theatre here, unless your taste is B-movie melodrama that will benefit NO ONE outside the theatre.

    Cantor is an as*hole, and so is Obama, or we would never be here.

    Obama has made ZERO attempts to genuinely fix the economy, deal with the rampant corruption at the controlling top, and that says it all for me.

    This is an excercise is jerking off.  That is all.

    And let's be honest, defualting in a fiat economy, and saying we can't survive it and get better and reorganize, is like saying that pair of dirty pants on the ground is going to jump up and strangle us.

    Money is fake, humans are real.  Humans are going to change this country, money never will.

    Parent

    Are you in the room (none / 0) (#158)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:42:23 PM EST
    with the negotiators:)

    Parent
    The McConnell deal would not pass the house (none / 0) (#44)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:39:46 PM EST


    Fine (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    Then you have to negotiate with the House.

    Why would you pre-negotiate spending cuts BEFORE you started negotiating with the House?

    My call on this is that we will get the Biden spending cuts for the debt ceiling.

    But if start there, you are going to get the Biden cuts PLUS more cuts demanded from the House.

    Parent

    Well, you always said we would get (none / 0) (#68)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    the Biden cuts.  

    Then you have to negotiate with the House.
    Why would you pre-negotiate spending cuts BEFORE you started negotiating with the House?

    If defense of the Dems, we have not been in these meetings dealing directly with Cantor and the house.  They have been negotiating with the house and probably already know McConnell's deal was absolutely 100% DOA and had zero chance of passing and was not worth trying.  You wrote about that yesterday believing it will not pass the house.

    It looks like neither side wins with a default.  The compromise will be the Biden cuts (less than what GOP wants) without tax increases (less than what dems want).  The GOP believes raising the debt ceiling at all is their compromise (they don't want to).  They will want the dems to "meet them halfway" and pony up spending cuts w/o tax increases.

    Parent

    No dice (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    The headline should read Reid negotiating with whomever can deliver the votes in the House.

    Not with McConnell. McConnell made his offer. Reid shoudl say yes and then go and negfotiate with whomever he neds to in the House.

    Why negotiate with McConnell?

    Parent

    Surrender? What surrender? Have some ammo! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    The GOP believes raising the debt ceiling at all is their compromise (they don't want to).

    No, they don't believe that. They're just saying that. And they absolutely DO want to raise it. McConnell's plan was the end of that particular bluff -- the GOP's donor base will not let them cause a default. Now Democrats are idiotically pretending like they didn't notice McConnell giving in.

    Parent

    They are not idiotically pretending (none / 0) (#93)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    There is a reason why they are not negotiating with the house.  

    Furthermore, what do you mean GOP donor base?  The dems have a donor base to that will also apply pressure to them.  The gop and dems probably also have influencial donors fighting the elimination of the loop holes Obama wants.  It is convenient to call it idiocy, but there is more to this I believe.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    if they are not going to negotiate with the House, how exactly will it get passed by the House?

    Parent
    They are going to give the house (none / 0) (#112)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    what they want...spending cuts and no tax increases.  McConnell or Obama's plans will not pass.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    They will make a proposal with spending cuts and the House will demand more.

    This is just stupid.

    Parent

    but they know they have to (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    The GOP believes raising the debt ceiling at all is their compromise (they don't want to).

    at least the non-Tea Partiers know it

    Obama getting rolled . . . again?

    Parent

    He doesn't think (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    he's getting rolled because he wants the spending cuts. People who voted for him thinking he would fix the economy got rolled.

    Parent
    Worth repeating: Who is getting rolled? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    The voters for Obama who thought that he would fix the economy.

    And yeh, it's also worth repeating your header that he doesn't think . . . like a Democrat.

    Parent

    Never let a crisis go to waste (none / 0) (#100)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    Heard that somewhere once.

    The second part of that is (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:38:11 PM EST
    If a crisis doesn't exist, create one to push through an agenda that wouldn't be tolerated otherwise.

    Parent
    this is exactly what is meant (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    by the term "shock doctrine"

    If a crisis doesn't exist, create one to push through an agenda that wouldn't be tolerated otherwise.


    Parent
    Matt Yglesias (none / 0) (#110)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    offers a wonky explanation of why deficit cuts are back on the table, without revenue increases.  Regarding the fact that spending cuts will endanger growth:

    It's generally wise to assume that the White House isn't blind to that obvious potential political problem. Part of what they're thinking is that a 2011 agreement to long-term spending cuts is the best way to avoid the need to reduce spending during the election season. How's that? Well, it's because the fiscal consolidation plans being discussed are for trillions of dollars worth of cuts over a 10-year horizon. Since you've got that horizon, it's not strictly necessary for any of them to come between September 2011 and November 2012. On the contrary, in principle spending could go up in the short-term consistent with any long-term cuts. By contrast, what happens if the White House winds up getting a "clean" debt ceiling increase is that we then head into the September lapse in appropriations. It'll be a replay of the "government shutdown" fight in which the GOP goal has to be short-term cuts. And the White House isn't going to get away without giving something up in that fight. In other words, clean debt ceiling increase = guarantee of fiscal anti-stimulus, whereas a 10-year spending cut plan leaves open room to avoid that.
    Yeah (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    the GOP does not under stand that. Riiiight.

    Meanwhile, Paul Ryan has a budget proposal . . .

    That has to be the stupidest post of all time.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#126)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:53:03 PM EST
    Obama believes in the confidence fairy.

    Parent
    He killed that phucking fairy (none / 0) (#151)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    And he knows it.  Buried the body under the White House garden, where it's fertilizing Michelle's cucumbers.

    Parent
    I dunno... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    ... to me that sounds less like wonk and more like contortion.   But obviously YMMV

    Parent
    Obama, Dems Fumbling Away Debt Ceiling Win? | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment