home

Monday Night Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 09:24:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread.

< UK Phone Hacking Whistleblower Found Dead | British Hearings Underway: Murdochs to Appear >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Night Open Thread | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This is "rich": (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    chihuahua thwarts armed robbers of smoke shop

    Probably a brown dog (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    Not blue.

    Parent
    I find it bizarre that (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    Obama uses Lincoln and slavery as an example of the centrality of compromise to political progress. Lincoln and slavery?? Talk about missng the point.


    I find it fascinating (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    that he thinks that using the suffering of border state slaves as a bargaining chip to a "greater goal" is a really neato thing to do, especially since he's been using the minimal wellbeing of the poor and particularly the elderly poor as a bargaining chip with insane GOPers.

    Parent
    Personally I'm horrified at the message (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    he is trying to teach the young people of today.

    Because here he doesn't just acknowledge the need for compromise. He glories in it. He sees it as "part of the process of growing up." It's juvenile to act on your own beliefs, to draw bright lines that cannot be crossed, to express core convictions. "Don't set up a situation where you're guaranteed to be disappointed," Obama says. That's the worst thing that could ever happen. He makes an enemy out of disappointment, when it can just as easily be a rallying point, an opportunity to show a better path next time. link

    Take a few minutes and think of all the things that would never have changed for the better if people never acted on their core beliefs and persisted time after time to right the situation. Think of all the achievements that would never have been made if people never set up a situation where they were guaranteed disappointment until at last the discovery was made or the victory was achieved.

    Parent

    Great point. It does seem like he's making (none / 0) (#33)
    by observed on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    an apt analogy though, given what he's telegraphing.

    Parent
    slavery or the holocaust (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    not quite the flip rhetorical pocket cards.  but par for the curse with Obama, sic intended.

    Parent
    must ask Jim about the (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by observed on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:32:59 PM EST
    War of Northern Compromise.


    Parent
    It's too late (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 01:00:39 AM EST
    at night to double me over this way in uncontrollable giggles.  This cracks me up.

    Parent
    more noise being made (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    about a possible senate run by Elizabeth Warren since she wasn't nominated for head of the Consumer Protection board.

    Reading this makes me think it's going to happen.  There is no front runner yet on the Dem side, not even close.  I think most people have been waiting to see how she's gonna jump.  Sounds like she'll jump in.

    Although this is just funny:
    "She is clearly on the GOP radar. Yesterday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a news release attempting to undermine her credentials as a true Red Sox fan, pointing out she grew up in Oklahoma."

    If I grew up in Oklahoma, I'd probably become a red sox fan too.

    that would be most excellent (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    I'm a firm believer in primary'ing the incumbents

    Parent
    well the incumbent (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    in this case is Scott Brown, not John Kerry.  But sure, I hope they primary him too.  If the republicans in this state are stupid enough (they're not), they'll give us a real tea-partier to run against :)

    Basically it's one of the few republican seats in the senate that has a possibility of getting picked up for Dems.  The odds for that are longer than I'd like to admit, but Elizabeth Warren might help.

    Parent

    Ooops, I misread there (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    I thought she might be running for POTUS! I hope she takes on Brown. That would be great.

    Parent
    letsgetitdone (none / 0) (#5)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 11:28:21 PM EST
    is making a full on push for the coin seigniorage idea to get past the debt-ceiling nonsense. Give it a read at Yves Smith's blog.

    I've been following the increasing (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 07:09:19 AM EST
    discussion about coin seigniorage, but always come back to the same essential problem: I don't believe any option that works - without imposing some kind of "sacrifice" on people who are already suffering and those just barely hanging on - will be given any consideration because the real goal here is not to raise the debt ceiling - something that has been routinely done in the past, and could certainly be done again - but to use the debt ceiling to further an ideological agenda - one that both Obama and the GOP share.

    When all that is being argued about is the size of the cuts, you know the battle is lost - and it doesn't bode well for the "war."

    Parent

    This IMO sums up the situation (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:30:44 AM EST
    .... the real goal here is not to raise the debt ceiling - something that has been routinely done in the past, and could certainly be done again - but to use the debt ceiling to further an ideological agenda - one that both Obama and the GOP share.


    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#20)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    But even Moody's has come out and said Congress needs to just get rid of the debt ceiling entirely.

    Obama listens to people like Moody's. If they are saying the debt ceiling is less than useless and should be eliminated entirely then he has a bit more cover to do whatever he can to get around such a foolish contraption. Coin seigniorage is the quickest and easiest way around it.

    Parent

    Obama listens to people like Moody's (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:59:51 AM EST
    Now there is a sad and pitiful reality.  Hilarious if it weren't so inexcusably stupid.

    Parent
    Everything about (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    Obama's economic policies is inexcusably stupid. The truly pitiful thing, imho, about these negotiations is that Obama thinks he's being tough and will get something really good out of this. Unfortunately what he wants to get out of this, spending cuts, is the absolutely wrong thing to be doing in this economy.

    Two things to keep in mind - the federal government does not borrow or tax in order to be able to spend. It spends first, then borrows/taxes back money it has already spent. There would be no money for the government to tax or borrow if it hadn't spent that money into existence first.

    Secondly, the annual deficit represents everyone's savings of US dollars for the year to the penny. If the government reduces the deficit in any year, it reduces everyone's net savings. No one ever has to 'pay back' the deficit. 'Deficit' is a loaded word designed to make it sound like a negative thing. It is really a form of equivocation. A better term would be 'money creation'. What Obama wants to do is slow down money creation and ultimately turn it into net money destruction.

    Parent

    But getting rid of the debt ceiling (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:07:12 AM EST
    is a tough argument to make for someone like Obama, who has been lecturing the country for months about "getting our fiscal house in order," and would likely be very afraid of being branded as a "typical" Democrat, paving the way for an historic Dems-Gone-Wild spending spree.

    I wonder how he's feeling about Clinton's reminder that, Congress having approved expenditures for the current budget, it does not now get to not provide the funding for them, and that, if he were president, he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the constitutional option to ensure those expenditures are funded.

    What's interesting to me is that while Clinton's comments were directed at Republicans, his "if I were president" can only have been directed at one person: Obama.


    Parent

    And yet (none / 0) (#26)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling and keeps telling us that failure to do so would be a calamity. I do not see the consistency in that position and a desire to keep the debt ceiling on the books. I'd love to see Obama come out and say 'Moody's is wrong'. That would be amusing.

    Obama favors the existence of the debt ceiling because he honestly thinks he can get something good from the GOP in return for raising it, because he knows the sane members of the GOP know that the ceiling must be raised.

    But the debt ceiling is one of the dumbest contraptions on the books. You would think that a man who claimed to understand how tired people are of the way Washington works and who vowed to change it would see that this fight over something as utterly stupid as the debt ceiling is precisely the kind of Washington B$ that people hate.

    Parent

    If the issue was just the debt ceiling, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    as it should be, all Obama would have had to do is declare that we have to raise the debt ceiling.  Period.  He could have recited the long list of times it's been raised in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.  He could have invoked Saint Ronnie and reminded the Republicans that the debt ceiling got upped something like seven times during his 8 years in office.  

    For that matter, he could have gotten an agreement for a clean bill back in December, 2010, when he was extending the Bush rates.

    But, no.  Remember that last November/December, the Deficit Commission failed to vote out recommendations to the Congress for a no-filibuster, no-amendments, up-or-down vote.  Obama did The Deal, extending the Bush rates and getting very little for them.  We had the Gang of Six that vowed to try to get those Deficit Commission ideas through the "normal" way, and meanwhile, this debt ceiling was looming.  Originally, the date was in early May, then it was projected out until early August.

    Which is two weeks away.  Push is coming to shove, and Obama wants to go big - he wants that commission in the worst way, and my guess is, he's going to get it.

    He's doing what he loves best: taking principles and ideas that have long been protected by Democrats - for good reason - and offering them up for sacrifice to satisfy a psyche that may be even more damaged than that of George W. Bush.

    And that's saying something.


    Parent

    I learned on a radio show (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    that prior to the Gingrich GOP takeover in '94, there was a rule in place called the Gephardt Rule, that automatically tied the debt ceiling to the congressionally approved budget, without a need for a separate vote. Gingrich got rid of it to be able to put Clinton on the spot.

    I think getting rid of the debt ceiling or going back to that practice are the best ideas. This ridiculous political game we have been living through is posturing only a pol could love.

    Parent

    For sheer giggles (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:11:48 AM EST
    Catch Martin Short as Nancy's new lawyer in 'Weeds'. Brilliant.

    Zerohedge says (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:38:27 AM EST
    Germany has pushed the hardline in bailing out Greece, and Greece has now defaulted.  The European Central Bank is calling it a temporary default.

    Former President Clinton on the debt ceiling (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation's debt ceiling "without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me" in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.

    Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, "I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy."

    Lifting the debt ceiling "is necessary to pay for appropriations already made," he added, "so you can't say, `Well, we won the last election and we didn't vote for some of that stuff, so we're going to throw the whole country's credit into arrears." link
    Finally... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    An adult in the room.  LOL

    Parent
    I saw that, too, and it made me ask (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    more questions.  Has Clinton already talked about this with Obama?  Is this an ambush - a way to force the public to see that, rather than Obama being the reasonable adult in the room, he - Obama - is absolutely holding the debt ceiling hostage to advance an agenda he hasn't been able to get through other channels?  If not, does he - Clinton - realize that's what it looks like?

    I cannot, no matter how I contort my brain, make myself believe that Obama does not know what his other options are, so what is Clinton's move all about?  Part of me thinks that this will further harden Obama's position - that he won't take kindly to Clinton publicly eating his lunch.

    So, now what?  Does Obama invoke the Wisdom of Tim Geithner and condescendingly reject Clinton's idea on the basis that we HAVE to DO SOMETHING about our profligate and irresponsible ways, and a perfunctory raising of the debt ceiling is no way to do that?

    I keep wondering how different things would be if we had someone in the WH actually making the Democratic argument, instead of weaseling his way down the GOP/conservative path we know leads straight to hell.

    And no, I am not pining for Bill Clinton, just utterly frustrated at where we are, how we got here, and where we're headed.


    Parent

    Not sure why Clinton came out with this (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    statement or whether it was approved by Obama. A completely wild a$$ guess: Could be that he is throwing it out there to put pressure on the Republicans during negotiations. IOW, Obama can now say he is being pressured by members of his party to use this option.

    Bottom line I have given up trying to discover why politicians do certain things and just concentrate on what they actually do.

    I found Clinton's comment interesting on its own merits and was glad that it became part of the public discourse. One of the few Clinton comments that I agreed with lately.  

    Parent

    MO Blue: your first para....yes, of course (none / 0) (#34)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 04:06:33 PM EST
    Added to that: It is part of the offset--a strong statement--that telegraphs that the President just might do that. Clearly, the coordination by the Dems on this debt-ceiling roll-out has been superb from a negotiating standpoint. (See Americans attitudes in today's ABC/WashPo & NBC/WSJ polls.)

     Coming through loud & clear, as the media now repeats, is that Obama has out-maneuvered Repubs in the trust department...being seen by large margins, and among Independents too, as the one to trust for the middle class.  No matter one's prediliction, the strategies surrounding this tedious process---guessing that the WH deduced that they could dangle all kinds of compromises in public & look like the adult compromiser in the interests of the nation because "no way the Repubs could defy Grover--these strategies are brilliant.

    IMO, the timing by Clinton has been impeccable, as usual. While I understand that you start with a different perspective than myself, nonetheless these giant (time-consuming) performances happen from time to time in our nation's political history. Noone likes them, but they happen. Sometimes the "whys" of getting to the "wherefores" take lots of time...and try our patience.

    Here is a funny thought, in a political way: The Repubs orchestrate their performance this week to show that they really want a "balanced budget" (which can be quite the siren for a significant part of the public...we in CO saw the infamous Tabor Amendment that sung about cutting & balancing; it passed some years back, and people regretted it very soon as they tried to devise ways for funding schools, other state obligations)
    ....Meanwhile, the President professes to swoon over a not-so-draconian bipartisan "Gang of Six" proposal as a strong possibility...and, the Murdoch mess is gathering loads of front line, front page.  My, my...maybe viewers won't notice the Repubs Act III, Scene 1 with that red-haired lady testifying before the Brits & the President here making positive sounds about bipartisanship.

    Yep, intricate coordination & staging.

    Parent

    Not so not-so-draconian (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    proposal? I guess if they didn't effect me I might view them as not-so-draconian either but then again I probably would. I'm sure there must a verse in the bible and a passage in the Torah and the Koran that says it is duty of every person to steal whatever is not nailed down from the poor and give it to the uber-rich.

    ...Peter Peterson has not promised to give up anything, but he will stand to gain tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in additional pocket change over the next decade thanks to the Senate Gang of Six's new tax breaks.

    In case you missed it, this is how leaders in the Senate reduce the deficit these days. Give more tax breaks to the Peter Peterson and other Wall Street types and then turn around and cut Social Security and Medicare for ordinary working people. For the Senate's Gang of Six (Democrats Kent Conrad, Dick Durbin, and Mark Warner, and Republicans Tom Coburn, Saxby Chambliss, and Mike Crapo) the biggest problem facing the country was the rich did not have enough money and ordinary working people have too much. Their deficit reduction plan is a big step forward toward addressing this imbalance. Dean Baker



    Parent
    More on the not - so - draconian (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    bipartisan "Gang of Six" proposal.

    A $500 billion immediate down payment would be achieved through discretionary caps imposed through 2015, by instituting a new measure of inflation known as the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), freezing congressional pay and selling federal property.

    The down payment would also repeal The Class Act, a long-term-care insurance plan.

    Chained CPI would cause Social Security benefits and tax deductions to be lowered, the use of which has been loudly opposed by seniors' lobbying groups. To address senior concerns, the plan exempts Supplemental Security Income from the shift for five years and provides a minimum benefit equal to 125 percent of the poverty line for five years.

    Part One of the plan would also require the Government Accountability Office and Labor Department to find a new way to administer unemployment insurance.

    What would the savings from reducing income to seniors be used to offset? Tax cuts to corporations and the rich of course.

    Finance would be required to reduce tax rates to three tax brackets of rates: of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent.

    The corporate tax rate would be between 23 percent and 29 percent, and tax reform would cease taxation of oversees profits. link



    Parent
    I appreciate your concern; it is genuine, clearly (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    But, doesn't it make sense to hold fire until we see the actual, in-writing proposals and who actually supports what individual position.

    My approach has become one of letting some things play out, first. The reason: Most of my life, I jumped right in in opposition or support and, too often, it would have been less emotional and more accurate to wait just a bit. That is only my experience.  Why I state it here is because this situation is so obviously very much in flux---proposals, rumors, counter-proposals, general support by specific disagreement, rumore, abrupt changes in direction, etc.  To me, MO Blue, this has all the characteristics of one of the most hard fought negotiations (on more levels than I can pinpoint) that I have ever witnessed. It is frustrating, emotional, scary, and fascinating. (And--tho, I'm quite sure that you would disagree--an illustration of a President truly in charge of the direction of these talks.)

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    There aren't enough meds or wine in the world that can make me take a "wait and see" attitude when it comes to stiffing those who already have the least.

    But you might be surprised to learn that I agree with you that O is truly in charge of the direction of these talks.  One reason why I'm horrified.

    Parent

    Heh - yeah, what are they going to do? (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    Impeach me?

    Parent
    Thank God for jurors (none / 0) (#17)
    by loveed on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 10:05:28 AM EST
     I can still hear the prosecutor shouting at Cindy Anthony "84 searches for chloroform"
     Turns out there was only one. The defenses tried to point this out. The prosecution continue throughout there closing, knowingly presenting false evidence.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaperlse    

    and wasn't the search (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 19, 2011 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    months before the baby disappeared? The amount of pre-trial publicity and weight given to that chloroform theory was unbelievable here in Orlando. Until the trial, I was under the impression they found chloroform at the home and traces in the remains of the baby.

    Parent
    Monday Night Open Thread | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment