I think this paragraph by Alex Knapp at OTB gets Obama’s attitude towards policy making about right:
I think this [the Treasury deciding whom to pay] is worrisome. But on the other hand, it goes to a trend in our politics that has been escalating since the 1960s. More and more, Congress has been willing to simply forego its role in making policy to the President. This trend has only been highlighted during the Obama Administration, because Obama, more than any President in recent memory, has been deferential to Congress’ role as policymaker. We saw that in the Health Care Bill and Stimulus Packages, and we’re seeing it now in the debt ceiling fiasco. The result is an almost desperate flailing by Congress to get the President to do something. That’s a bad thing for Constitutional governance.
This is true as far as it goes, though I don’t know how Obama could “do something” when even routine votes like the debt ceiling are seized upon as part of a hostage crisis.
The other side of this dysfunctional relationship is Boehner, who realized that the only way for a semi-moderate Republican (by current standards) to become Speaker was to genuflect in front of his teatard caucus. Steve Benen:
It’s as if Boehner, desperate and afraid, temporarily forgot not only what he was doing, but why he was doing it. The point, after all, is to work towards a solution that would prevent a disaster the Speaker himself says he’s eager to avoid.
Instead, Boehner has spent at least two weeks tending to the self-esteem of right-wing lawmakers, telling them how great and important they are, and reinforcing their belief that they’ll never have to compromise with anyone on anything.
That’s all true, but the hard-core crazy in his caucus makes it hard to lead. Is there any better Republican leader who could get that herd of cats to compromise? Certainly Cantor couldn’t.
JPL
Boehner made a decision to go it alone with republicans only. If he wanted the tea party to have less influence, he could have ruled from the center. Ruling from the center just might help the reelection of Obama, so imo, a decision was made to go it alone. Back to square one.
Country first, my ass.
hildebrand
Here is the ultimate irony – Obama’s respect for the separation of powers (when it comes to legislation and the power of the purse) undermines his ability to get stuff done in this country, but the teabaggers and other assorted ilk believe him to be a totalitarian soshulist type.
Also, too, the firebagger or other ‘disappointed’ type Dems ‘wish’ he was a totalitarian (except for his war-mongering) – or at least as much of a totalitarian as Bush was (even though they hated that in Bush).
I don’t envy Obama. What a ghastly environment in which try to get things done.
Baud
What makes the dysfunction possible is the inability of our polity to hold Republicans accountable for their actions. They have no need to fear because they know that whatever harm they cause, the response will be “both sides do it,” its “government” that’s the problem, or “it’s all kabuki, there’s no difference between the parties.”
General Stuck
Great perception mistermix, and something I hope liberals and progressives keep in mind with Obama and dems dealing with the seditious and reckless tea tards and generally wingnuttery that has entered a dark and menacing zone.
What we are seeing with republican treatment and use of and taking hostage the debt ceiling, is an unprecedented escalation of partisan politics that is completely removed from any notion of a loyal opposition. And must be factored in to the potential for epic national and world destructive consequences of letting the hostage be shot.
If we lived in a smart and engaged country, with a principled press, the wingnuts would pay a dear price for their contemptible tactics. But we don’t, we live in a country that a majority wants very much to support republican leadership. And only turn away from that desire, when GOP greed and avarice in power, reaches the point of imminent catastrophe.
arguingwithsignposts
@Baud: I am especially getting tired of the “it’s just kabuki” contingent.
This is not fucking kabuki. The teaidiots are really intent on doing the stupid shit they say they want to do. Nafta was kabuki. This is more like “old boy.”
Tom Hilton
Cantor wouldn’t want to. He’s one of them.
Maude
@arguingwithsignposts:
The teatards are as serious as a Cheney heart attack. It’s enough to make me feel despair at times.
hildebrand
@Maude: Likewise, the pouting Dem contingent is equally as serious, and we have already seen what happens when they act (or don’t act as is usually the case). See 2000 and 2010.
Ken
Ronald Reagan could.
I do not refer of course to the actual Reagan, who nowadays would be burned in effigy for what he did. I refer to the semi-divine figure of Republican mythology, descending from his heavenly throne to provide us with that one solution to every problem which is simple and obvious.
Either that or zombie Reagan, ripped from the grave and munching teabagger brains until the problem goes away. I’m not picky.
Maude
@hildebrand:
Good point.
General Stuck
Congress is a separate and co equal branch of government, and as it stands now, near paralyzed from doing the most simple elements of its constitutional duty. Obama has made plenty of mistakes in tactics, but he is not responsible for the malfunction of congress. That is the wingers fault, from abusing minority rights provisions in our democracy.
It is not up to Obama, or any president to make congress “do something”. It is up to congress to function properly and do its duty. And if they don’t, it is up to the voters to get some new congress that will.
mai naem
Look, nobody in this country is gonna give a crap until their social security,va,retirement check, medicare payment, medicaid payment – basically a stop in some kind of government service they expect and then they will be paying attention real quick. I remember talking to a woman when the budget apocallypse was coming around and told her that her medical billing(her business) may not go through because of the budget situation she actually told me she doesn’t pay attention to the news. ALso too this is the reason Republicans win.
Cat Lady
There is nothing about the Republican stance on anything that is or should have been a surprise – McConnell’s stated goal from jump street was to have Obama be a one-term president, and the only path forward for them is to be as obstructionist as possible, and to use every committee hearing, appointment and legislation battle as a ratchet toward that end.
I have no idea what Obama’s thinking is and neither does anyone else, but I’m fairly confident, given the way the bin Laden deliberations went that he and his advisors have decision matrixed this whole process out for months. It hasn’t been stupid so far to let the Republicans wave their freak flags right up to the edge of the default cliff. It’s just too bad that our FAIL media thinks its all just entertainment.
Baud
I actually think a majority of people prefer Democrats over Republicans in the abstract, but the constant in-fighting of our internal party politics (progressives v. Blue Dogs, pro-business v. pro-regulatory, etc.) drives them away. I’m a pretty committed Democrat, but there are times I just want to walk away. I can’t imagine how people who don’t follow politics regularly must view things, especially with all the nonsense noise they hear from the media (both right-wing and mainstream).
Scott
What worries me is that there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone can do about the teabagger caucus.
They’ve already decided they want the country destroyed, no matter what — and no one, no amount of concession or compromise, is going to get them to turn away from that. They’ll ignore calls and letters from constituents, because anyone who tells them to raise the debt ceiling is an Evil Obamunist.
The right thing to do is to get as many of them as possible un-elected in November 2012. But that won’t do anything to fix the current problem, and I really doubt the country will exist after 15 months of no money and no government.
RossInDetroit
The GOP taking a routine vote hostage for partisan reasons is the scariest thing I’ve seen in government in my lifetime. And I was in high school during Watergate.
The only explanation for this is that they care more about defeating Democrats than about governing. That’s been said over and over on this blog, but it bears repeating for its stark cynicism.
Republicans are not there to do the country’s necessary business. They’re there to keep Democrats out. Governing is a distant second to the land grab of political power.
I don’t know what other conclusion I could draw from the way they’re acting.
General Stuck
They prefer the policy of democrats, but the all powerful emo tribal impulses, the majority prefer those that look and act like them. The disconnect comes from a lack of deprivation, and general prosperity we have mostly benefited from since WW2.
The Ithacan
I agree that WYSIWYG. The end product is uncertainty and fear. Holding the debt ceiling hostage was especially useful for the right because it is especially well suited to sowing discord.
The Greeks had a goddess named Eris. From the Wiki…
Strife whose wrath is relentless, she is the sister and companion of murderous Ares, she who is only a little thing at the first, but thereafter grows until she strides on the earth with her head striking heaven. She then hurled down bitterness equally between both sides as she walked through the onslaught making men’s pain heavier.
“Getting” Obama is just a bonus, the real purpose to is to make us fearful and wary. Those who serve the needs of the oligarchs sow strife because doing so serves the interests of the oligarchs and their right wing allies.
Many people find this manufactured fearful wariness (racial, ethnic, religious, economic) especially distressing because it is being inflicted on the Middle Class and it is eroding our familiar American thoughtless feeling of stability and comfort.
Middle class anxiety is good for the oligarchs and, in this sense, the final “deal” is irrelevant, the debt ceiling “crisis” has already done its work for them.
John Puma
Let’s get “the math” correct once and thus reveal the absolute nihilism of the beltway, debt ceiling Kabuki dance.
We are currently running an ANNUAL deficit of about $1.5 trillion (with a “T” like teabag.)
The largest budget “cuts” suggested were $4 trillion – OVER TEN YEARS. The first problem in political: noting how drastically the “tone” of congress has changed since January, HOW can ANY 10-year promise be taken as meaningful? The second problem is, $4 trillion over ten years is 0.4 trillion PER YEAR. Therefore the most drastic suggested budget “cuts” still leaves us with over a $1 trillion yearly deficit.
The absurdity is compounded by the senseless mantra: “no-new-taxes, and only INCREASES to the bloated annual defense budget which roughly EQUALS the annual deficit.”
The Ithacan
Jobs reduce the deficit better than anything else.
Where are the jobs?
Kathleen
I am so depressed right now. I appreciate all the comments I’ve read so far. I believe you all are very insightful. I’ve left messages with Sherrod Brown and Congressman Combover Chabot and sent email to the White House, saying I do not support this proposed “deal”. I am most angry with the so called “mainstream media” and its plutocratic botcast minions like Brian Williams and Diane Sawyer and their ilk. But, hey, you all have expressed how I feel much more cogently and succinctly. I’ll go back to sputtering in impotent rage. That is all.
MattF
‘Herd of cats’ in this context is a libel on cats.
MazeDancer
@Scott:
Saving us from that sure death may be what the President chose as his goal. And chose “by almost any means necessary” as how he’d reach it. Making sure there was at least a tiny glimmer of revenue possibility. And would consider that a huge achievement.
Watched Gene Sperling on Fox Sunday and he refused to blame TParty, or call this political, not financial. He helped people think this is a financial crisis. That debt got us here.
Now it’s pretty tough to demonize the TParty on Fox while the vote hasn’t been taken in either Chamber of Congress.
But started to think that the President may actually believe hate is not the answer. That he truly wants all parties to come together. Even if he knows one won’t. That he’s just going to get their toenail in the door of the Big Tent. And keep cajoling.
Maybe all that happens is he disarms them a little until the next election. Or he gets the public ready to fight for tax cuts. Or something incremental.
Not sure how the President could have “stood up” to the TParty and gotten anything but armageddon. Which may still happen. My emotional choice: “kill” them all, would not have been productive.
Do think he could have done a much better job of explaining how debt ceiling vote and deficit reduction are not the same thing. He could have made clearer that not paying our bills is welching. Shameful. And that the US doesn’t do shameful of that kind.
Most people think US ran out of money because of big debts. They don’t understand this is an accounting situation.
I do feel let down and betrayed. And scared and worried. But I will fight like a maniac for his reelection. But I’m not sure how Mr. Obama could have made me “happy” and saved the nation.
RossInDetroit
@The Ithacan:
That’s the most depressing part. Growth in this country depends on the middle class having secure jobs with advancement, good prospects for educating their kids and a safe environment.
The poor and underemployed are a drag on prosperity instead of driving growth through their productivity and consumption.
But instead of supporting policies that would help the economy create jobs and expansion, they’re attacking unions, allowing health care costs to eat up greater proportions of people’s income and resisting steps that would spur demand and get consumer spending up.
The GOP may think that they’re doing the right thing for their billionaire masters by lowering their taxes, but in the long run the cash flow will dry up as growth and consumption stall in an increasingly under educated and over burdened populace.
William Hurley
Worry not about who is paid and why if the debt ceiling is not raised before cash-flow drops below obligations.
The President does not enjoy the Constitutional authority to exercise such power.
See Clinton v. New York City, a 1998 decision by the SCOTUS that determined “line-item” veto powers granted (gifted) the President by Congress unconstitutional. The majority’s opinion pivots on the principle of separation of powers and the lack of any explicit or implicit Constitutional language endorsing such broad exercise of Executive authority.
The irony the present manufactured kerfuffle presents us with is that BWO will likely exercise (and litigate if need be) summary line-item powers by picking & choosing which appropriations to honor with the limited cash-flow revenues provide instead of exercising Executive authority in service of the Constitutional obligations to defend the nation’s finances as articulated – again explicitly – in the 14th Amendment.
In the end, its shitty politics aided by shitty legal preferences.
hildebrand
For the chorus of folks who tend to think that Obama botched this whole business – a request. I would for them to provide a step by step process for doing it their way. I really am curious to see an alternate path that would have gotten us out of this manufactured crisis without resorting to Underpants Gnome solutions.
As my Geometry teacher often intoned – Show your work!
JPL
Steve Benen has up Pelosi’s speech and it is worth watching.
yup! country first
Cats
Yes. We are affronted. We will studiously ignore the whole sordid affair, much like Fire-Dog-Lake readers, except that we are not paid Republican ratfuckers, simply cats.
We suggest that you draw analogies between cats and a better class of humans, such as exotic dancers or union garbagemen.
Hmph!
wrb
It is just astonishing that there are no serious loud calls for doing what we should be doing- borrow two trillion and putting everyone back to work. Obama can’t do it without a complete turn about from the public. We could have ended this 3 years ago, we could end it within a year. This is self-imposed suffering. From Krugman’s blog this morning:
chart
People should be marching in the streets and burning shit. Instead all we get is passivity and infighting.
rikyrah
I have to admit. I’m sad right now. I’ll go and just sigh, and be ready to fight again in a few days hopefully.
matthewegsmith
@General Stuck:
This lets Obama off way too easy, in my opinion. It seems to me like Obama was all too eager to tie the debt ceiling to his Grand Bargain:
If Time has it right, this was astonishing hubris on Obama’s part, and our economy is going to suffer for a long, long time because of it.
gbear
I was going to post about Pelosi’s speech but JPL beat me to it. Here’s a link to the Benen post with a video of the speech. It is great to see her double down on her ‘dark side’ comment. ‘Oh, you didn’t like that? Well fuck you, here it is again’.
RossInDetroit
@rikyrah:
I’m giving up on this for a while. Need some time to get the stress level down after weeks of worry.
Gonna drive across the state to visit Mom. Hang out where it’s quiet and low key. Check out the corn fields and see how the tomatoes and cukes are doing.
Everyone on the Left is so outraged and wound up about the debt ceiling debacle. In 2012 I hope this translates into will and energy to pound the GOP into a rat hole where they belong. The other alternative is defeatism. Then we’d really be screwed.
MazeDancer
David Plouffe on ABC Morning Show was very emphatic about revenues. And how the commission will examine revenues. And how angry and clear Americans are about everyone paying their fair share.
If this deal passes, we don’t default, and tax loopholes get closed in December, progress will have been made.
But jobs better happen or all this mess will not have helped Mr. Obama’s relection.
And if Americans watch the TParty not tax the rich in December, it will help the election.
But Lindsay Graham is making it seem like even this deal won’t pass.
cleek
@hildebrand:
“stand up”
“stand firm”
“bully pulpit”
“no pre-compromise”
“line in the sand”
“14th amendment”
“magic battle ponies”
dr. bloor
@hildebrand:
“Washington, D.C., April 2, 2011: In a statement to the nation this afternoon, President Barack Obama directed Congress to send him a so-called “clean” bill authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion dollars, which would carry the Treasury through 2012.
The President pointed out that the debt ceiling has been raised 89 times since 1939 as a matter of routine, adding that Senator Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner both voted for increases in the ceiling 19 times during the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
‘Linking the debt ceiling, which authorizes the Treasury to pay for expenses already incurred, to projected deficits, which deals with money not yet spent, is the equivalent of playing with matches in our current polarized political environment,’ the President stated. ‘We must not–cannot–allow the full faith and credit of the United States to become a politcal football.’
President Obama did acknowledge that projected budget deficits over the next decade are a concern, and pledged to work with Congress after the August recess to outline a plan that will rein in spending without placing the country’s fragile economic recovery at risk.”
Rinse and repeat, until “19 times under Bush” is burned into every American’s brain.
There’s your geometry: he thought Boehner was a credible bargaining partner who had the authority to make a deal. He thought he could slip some of his agenda past a clinically insane opposition caucus. To paraphrase Bluto in Animal House, he fucked up. He trusted them.
Trollenschlongen
@hildebrand:
Ummm…for the hundredth time, this is OBAMA’S job, not mine or anyone other average citizen’s, to figure out and achieve results. I already have a job, which I perform to an acceptable degree, at least. Obama isn’t doing the same.
As a suggestion, however, if he had any balls or a remnant of a partisan spine, he could do as prez clinton suggested and invoke the 14th.
Oh, oh, oh…you say, the SC will rule against him! The repukes will impeach! Well, fucking let them. Then they own the catastrophe and he has done all he could. This constant capitulation IN ADVANCE is maddening.
JPL
MazeDancer – What I have heard is closing loopholes and raising the rates for millionaires and billionaires equals class warfare. Taxing the lucky duckies trying to raise a family of four while earning under 30,000 a year is okay.
I love the Atlanta area but Fox news and talk radio has poisoned the minds of otherwise fine people.
Trollenschlongen
@MazeDancer:
That is some cosmic-level cognitive dissonance. The essence of balloonbaggery.
wrb
@MazeDancer:
I think they are making the mistake of fighting yesterday’s battles here. Yes people were outraged about the bankers getting off scott-free and it seems like it should be important for Obama to be seen to claw some money back. But that is swamped by the overwhelming need for stimulus and if that can be had by extending the tax cuts for a few more years it is worth it. Increasing taxes os the wrong thing on which to be spending capital at this time.
fasteddie9318
@Ken:
That sounds like a good way for a husky zombie to drop some unwanted pounds.
OzoneR
I hear the same shit in New York, don’t feel bad. The “the rich and the poor both take advantage of us, bust mostly the poor” is everywhere.
gnomedad
It looks like Obama has caved. As an Obot, here’s what I’m hoping he will say:
“I’ve tried my best, but the Republicans have won the day. This is a bad deal, but it’s better than default. Whatever happens to the economy now, the Republicans own it.”
Baud
@Trollenschlongen:
That true, and in the real world there is no way for him to do his job in a way that will satisfy certain people, whether they be teabagger or firebagger. He should therefore ignore them, IMHO.
jheartney
WRT most of the policy challenges the country faces, the way forward is clear; in the near term we need stimulus, not cuts, and over the longer term we should see climate change as an existential threat, our military (which is for the most part a bloated parasite that sustains pointless conflicts and gobbles money) should be cut way back, and our health care sector is dysfunctional and ought to be replaced with something based on what actually works in other parts of the world.
But none of these things is politically possible. Incumbent interests can and will block any positive action, and the polity is too ignorant and disengaged to overcome them.
Part of the reason for this is that the U.S. constitutional structure doesn’t work anymore. As the post above notes, Congress is supposed to be a policymaking engine. But that engine has seized up, and so there’s a desperate call for the president to step in and take over that function. However he can’t; the Senate’s filibuster rule makes it impossible to get useful policy through, whether initiated internally or by the president.
On top of this one of the two main political parties has been seized by ignorant extremists. These were brought to power originally as a strategy on the part of incumbent interests to block (to them) damaging policy changes, but the extremists have become self-sustaining,and will, unless stopped, crash the economy.
It’s an astonishing landscape of dysfunction and failure, and it’s hard to see how it ends non-catastrophically. I should have bought gold.
Kathleen
I just spoke with a friend who forwarded me a petition requesting Obama to exercise 31 USC 3102, a provision passed in 1941 which gives president the authority to pay national debt. Here is a link: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1082.php
She also reminded me that fear only feeds into and supports Rethuglicans. They want, no, they NEED us to be afraid. And we are not impotent. If citizens paid enough attention and cared enough more people would be putting energy into contacting our representatatives and the President. Many of us are doing this to ourselves (and I include me in this category because I feel I don’t do enough, and I know many posters and commentors here are very engaged and active).
gbear
Outstanding response.
MazeDancer
Norquist on ABC saying plan is “right direction”. Emphasizing it has no revenues. (Plouffe emphasized that it did.)
So maybe Grover will let a few sacrifice themselves so that default won’t happen. Grover knows he can’t grift if default destroys everything. He needs a solvent audience and a breathing enemy.
George and Christianne have not been able to keep their faces straight this morning. When Lindsay Graham was speaking – with eloquent fire, by the way, and e-z, albeit untrue, fire being why the TParty keeps deluding public – how this may not be enough, and how dangerous debt is – they both were “You’re not going to vote for this deal???!!!???”.
George and Christianne keep saying: But you got everything.
It’s like they’re finally understanding the TParty are maniacs.
OzoneR
yet an ever clearer reason you failed as an activist.
Trollenschlongen
@gnomedad:
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
THE AUDACITY OF HOPE!
HE’S GOT THIS!
JPL
@OzoneR: I looked at someone and responded that I was shocked that so many people were earning so little. If I remember the number correctly 40 percent of those not paying taxes earn less than 15,000. I also mentioned I didn’t mind everyone paying something even if it were under $100.00 a year but WalMart might be concerned with that.
DecidedFenceSitter
@Trollenschlongen:
So you are saying, despite all evidence to the contrary that there must be a way that Obama could get a clean bill through Congress?
Previous statements made applicable –
* A game of chicken is only fair if both sides care about living through the game.
* The wisdom of Solomon requires that there to be an authoritarian judge to determine whether the baby will get cut in half.
Trollenschlongen
@Kathleen:
This would be awesome. THIS would be creative, aggressive leadership in a time of peril.
Baud
@Kathleen: The problem with 31 USC 3102 is that 31 USC 3101 establishes a debt ceiling. That’s what this whole issue is about.
gnomedad
@Trollenschlongen:
You’re a troll’s schlong? I’ll buy that.
MazeDancer
@jheartney:
It’s true. Congress has become a talking points generating engine.
The Repubs understand this. They aren’t playing the old game. They’re simply seizing the only engine that matters: TV. And they have all the players on TV on their side.
TV Focus on debt, not jobs is their long-term victory.
It’s possible the President understands how much has changed and what the real playing field is, and that while he has to keep default from happening, the real game is public opinion. That’s why he got the public involved in faxing, calling, tweeting. Hope so.
But this morning is the first time I’ve seen TV talking heads talking truth. George S just said outloud: There are 50 Republicans in the House willing to send US into default, he (Prez) doesn’t have any leverage.
wrb
@JPL:
Median HOUSEHOLD income in the US, including those who pay taxes is just $31,111/annum.
Trollenschlongen
@DecidedFenceSitter:
Ummmm…maybe not. So he finds a way to go AROUND congress in this matter. There have been two or three credible suggestions I am aware of, so I would guess there might be a few more ideas inside a white house that wanted to get the ceiling raised at any cost, and by any means.
General Stuck
The news services that I am reading on this proposed deal are not the GOP getting all they wanted. There will be no medicare cuts for beneficiaries, and only maybe for providers. The agreement will raise the debt limit till past the election. And the trigger will include defense cuts, along with medicare cuts for providers.
So it’s a mixed bag, that both sides got something of what they wanted, but certainly not all GOP. Listen, the republicans had the option of using the debt ceiling raising to fight their battle on, and that is true no matter what Obama did, to include nothing but ignore them till the last minute, and then they would have the upper hand to put out the fuse they lit to destroy the world.
Personally, I’m not as disappointed as some at deficit reduction, long as it doesn’t cause steep spending cuts in the next year of two, but is mostly backloaded toward the ten year span of this deal. And does not impact entitlement benefits. And the biggy of not repeating this shit until after the election. That part was a win for Obama.
OzoneR
This is idiocy. This part of the law doesn’t allow the President to “raise” the debt ceiling, just pay off the debt, which the President has said for weeks would happen if the country defaulted and that’s why SS checks may not go out.
Trollenschlongen
@OzoneR:
hahaha…so are you REALLY saying it is MY job as an average citizen to figure out for President Obama how he should do the job to which he was elected and for which he claimed to be qualified?
I know you’re not REALLY saying that, so I’ll just assume you’re casting pissy, desperate, bitter little insults as per usual.
arguingwithsignposts
@General Stuck:
Pardon me for going all firebagger, but how is this exactly supposed to work in the real world?
Baud
@General Stuck:
After going through this about 20 zillion times now, I don’t trust any reporting (or blogging) when it comes to breaking information. That said, I appreciate your attempt to provide some balance to the noise.
Trollenschlongen
@gnomedad:
EXCELLENT illustration of balloonbagger reaction to uncomfortable questions.
4tehlulz
@dr. bloor: You conveniently forgot this profile in courage from House Democrats, which made any call for a clean bill irrelevant.
dr. bloor
@arguingwithsignposts:
Lower reimbursement rates for health care providers. A number of mechanisms have been proposed as to how to do this without having physicians abandoning the program en masse.
terraformer
I get that Obama cannot do anything with the co-equal Legislative branch completely dysfunctional. And I know this “complaint” has been bandied about and denigrated and shunned from polite, “serious” discourse, but what I’m not seeing from Obama – and which could help and which seems to be the only play he can do that he’s not really doing – is what Gore recently wrote about, his capability to be the persuader in Chief.
Yeah, I know, bully pulpit yada yada yada, but really, one wonders if the polity would be so misinformed and supportive of conservatives in the face of a concerted, continued, and vocal effort by Obama to persuade people why conservatives are wrong, and why liberals are right? I mean, since things aren’t working, what is there left to lose? Don’t get me wrong – I’m an Obama supporter, I vote, and I would never consider voting for a Republicans – but I am continually wondering why he is not going after conservative mantras with the factual, rational ammunition of liberal thought? Okay, attack away, incoming, etc.
lllphd
the word that worries me most is “trigger,” which is being tossed around so casually but which is the key to a “deal.” the “deal” on the table is nothing less than a death pact for everyone concerned, even the damn teatards who’ll call it their victory.
i’m hoping no workable deal will happen so that obama can push further into the 14th and simply call out the teatards for the fact that their actions are in violation of that key section in our constitution, and that it is incumbent upon him to see to it that we do not default.
more and more very public folks are decrying this situation for what it is (i mean, krauthammer, fer chrissake, and mike pence!), and those republicans who have more than one neuron to rub together (i suppose this is ‘the sound of one neuron firing’ in the teatard brainlets) recognize just how devastating this entire event will be for the country, and for the GOP. if we do default, hell hath no fury than the voters who can’t afford bread and toilet paper with the government checks that are no longer coming in.
but i don’t think obama will allow that to happen. i do believe that, despite his insistence on deferring to the legislative powers of congress (heroically, given how far we’ve swung toward accepting royal- over self-governance for so long), he will reluctantly save the day by utilizing the 14th. and then i think the teatards will demand his head – almost as if it’s a setup (sully has posted a bit on this, fwiw) – and either sue or try to impeach.
i say, bring it on. lance the boil and get this festering pus out in the open. my larger fear is that a deal, especially if it capitulates as much to the teatards as we’re hearing, will only embolden them further, and we’ll just confront this again, and very soon.
the thing about bullies is, you have to smack them down immediately, because any ground you give up to them is taken as legal empowerment, and they then just push for a broader boundary, again and again, until they swallow you up.
i’m hoping obama has been hoping these economic traitors would come to their senses before the bomb goes off, like all of us have been hoping. but true to bully form, they’ve brought us to the brink. now obama’s faced with the fatal choice, but he knows that he’ll have to impose the 14th; he must now, however, wait until the 11th hour.
i’m hoping he announces at that hour that he cannot give over so much to individuals who do not understand the constitutional process or its meaning, who are willing to dictate from the minority the destruction of the country just to make their “principled” point, the fate of the nation and its most vulnerable citizens be damned. i’m hoping he uses this teaching moment, david brooks and his concerns about feefees from such uppity condescension be damned.
i’m hoping he’s suspected, even known all along it would come to this, but also recognized that in this climate, he could no more employ the 14th until the last minute than he could crown himself emperor. i’m so hoping he will openly confront the political risks and do this brave thing.
therefore, i’m hoping each and every one of you/us will call the WH first thing in the morning and beg him to do this constitutional thing, and promise to cover his back. he’ll need; we’ll all need it.
Trollenschlongen
@terraformer:
Nah. That couldn’t possibly work…
dr. bloor
@4tehlulz:
No, actually, I didn’t.
Congress throws serial tantrums in response to Obama’s directive? What a shocker. WH dismisses out of hand by referring back to President’s initial statement, thereby giving them yet another opportunity to reiterate “19 times” meme. As deadline draws closer, pressure from the money boys grows increasingly intense on Boehner. Tea Party is wholly irrelevant, as a clean bill will draw more than enough votes in both chambers.
Thanks for playing, though.
General Stuck
@arguingwithsignposts:
Don;t know what the specific cuts to providers would be, but it does mean that the traditional “fee for service” model of benefits is not altered, nor any big premium hikes from it. I would suspect. But granted, we don’t the devil in the details, beneficiaries though, would still be able to go the doctor and pay only 20 percent after the yearly deductible, and the same with hospital provisions for beneficiaries. If those things are on the table, then that is a bad thing, imo. Don’t think they are though. Plus, the tripper also includes the wingers sacred cow of military spending, so I suspect they will find the cuts that are the least politically painful for both parties. And both parties have voters that use entitlements, so bennies are likely safe. And I see no pathway for the wingers to get at the ACA, which is primarily what this bullshit was about from the beginning.
Baud
@terraformer: Most polls indicate that Obama has persuaded people that his position is the correct one, but until people start voting the way they answer poll questions, there is very little Obama can do.
And to be honest a lot of the stuff he speak about tends to get misrepresented by the right-wing media, ignored by the mainstream media, and criticized as not good enough by left-wing blogs. Pretty hard to persuade in those circumstances.
gnomedad
@General Stuck:
Thank you for your scholarship. Still, I think the more the Repubs are perceived and having won this, the better it will be for Obama and the Dems in 2012.
General Stuck
LOL, you and me both, and everyone that is close to these reports emphasizes that it could all easily go south in a heartbeat, and that until everything is agreed to, nothing is.
I did just want to push back some on the usual firebagging freakout when these things start to unfold. That it isn’t Obama quite the capitulating as the Obama bashers start screaming about.
gnomedad
@Trollenschlongen:
Sorry; you had a question?
4tehlulz
@dr. bloor: Thanks for ignoring the point that House Democrats ran like rats away from the ideal outcome.
But that’s fine; it’s not like I’ve never seen it before..
MazeDancer
This morning I realized Mr. Obama doesn’t believe in fighting hate with hate. He won’t demonize any faction. But he doesn’t have to use the labels of conservative and progressive, he can use “American”.
I agree he has to dial up his persuading game. And help Americans understand that while there is so much that unites us there are important differences.
He’s missing the value of understanding differences. Also, strangely, for one of the best speakers that ever lived, he holds the power of his fire. He doesn’t seem to understand that he can use his persuading fire without demonizing others.
I sincerely hope the White House understands that they cannot prop up the failing legislative process without also fighting in what is currently the only real arena: TV. Mr. Obama can dial up the fire behind “balance” and “fair share”.
The Republicans understand they can kill the Constitution. Hope the White House understands where the game has moved.
Being a champion does not require demonizing the enemy, it requires rallying your troops using things that make their heart lift and sing.
This White House is supposed to understand the image game. They’re working on the only solution there is: Public Participation. (Tweet your Senator now).
But they have to harness and use the fire. E-Z Egalitarian Talking Points R Us. It’s time. Ignore the left – including me. Fire up the passive middle. Expose the Right for what they are. Smile when you stick in the shiv.
General Stuck
@gnomedad:
The more the wingtards holler about slashing entitlements is always good news to democrats. I have no idea how this will play out in the election 18 months from now. I do have a suspicion, this episode of insanity will be soon supplanted by the next one in short order. Delivered by ignorant assholes in the House of Reps. And then that one supplanted by the rest to follow. Long as dems don’t give them the benefit structures of these programs, then they should be okay with most their voters.
Baud
@General Stuck: You’re doing yeoman’s work. Keep up the good fight.
kay
No one really wants constitutional governance, least of all the Tea Party, who are amending the constitution to throw their budget and spending authority to the states.
Congress have been abdicating their power on foreign policy for 30 years, and (completely unsurprisingly) the President picked it up. The President has all of the accountability and responsibility for foreign policy (because Congress ably dodges it) so of course the President wants all of the power to affect the result.
They’ve spent the last 20 years making sure they have no accountability on domestic policy, seating these ridiculous commissions with “triggers” or whining that the President needs a line item veto.
Congress has plenty of power. They deliberately and carefully gave it away to whomever and whatever would pick it up, whether it’s the executive branch thru the President or administrative agencies or “commissions” they seat, or (most ludicrously) a constitutional amendment that throws the whole mess to the states. I love that, by the way, that Tea Partiers somehow think having states ratify their accountability dodge makes it somehow more in line with “The Founders”. What a joke.
There’s a connection between power and taking responsibility. Congress and media want Obama to take responsibility for a congressional process and (eventual) outcome he has very little power to influence. Why would he do that? Why would he pick up all the accountability without the power to substantively affect the outcome? That’s crazy.
Baud
@General Stuck:
That reminds me, one of the most depressing things about this whole thing is that a lot of people on the left (not just firebaggers, but almost everyone I’ve read) have been equating the possibility of some type of “cut” in Medicare with Paul Ryan’s “voucherization” plan. Even if one think sthat cuts are bad policy or bad politics, it’s not the same thing as killing Medicare’s current structure by any means. I’m sad to see that distinction blurred.
Bullsmith
In the end, for behaving like a terrorist, Boehner will get what he wants: a massive redistribution of wealth and of government services away from the masses and toward the wealthy. As a bonus, his party will get to, correctly, blame the Democrats for actually enacting a libertarian’s wet dreams of extremely right-wing cuts.
The Republibcan position is “if you don’t shoot the kids, we’ll shoot the kids.” The Democrats appear to be ready to go ahead and do the shooting. Good luck campaigning on how much “worse” things would be under Republicans. The fact is Republicans would NEVER take sole blame for the class war. It’s the Democrats who make such massive cuts for everyone along with the lowest tax rates in modern history for the rich (estate tax anyone?) a possibility. It took Nixon to go to China, it’s taking Obama to destroy the social contract. I wish, desperately, that I could see things otherwise, but as the lesson of Watergate says, “Follow the Money.”
dr. bloor
@4tehlulz:
They ran away from a clean deal on May 20, and most of those votes were politcal cover.
You don’t think things would go a little differently this morning? Really? Let’s play cards sometime.
cleek
@Baud:
it’s impossible to sustain that delicious anti-Obama hatred unless such things are blurred.
long time lurker
Every lament from the left about Obama’s lack of spine, balls, whatever, reinforces the right wing authoritarian frame. We hate it when the MSM covers all issues in terms of who is winning and losing, but are doing it ourselves. How depressing.
TK421
Okay, I’ll tell you how he could do something. He could have the US Mint create a two trillion dollar platinum coin and pay off that much debt. Or he could announce that, since the United States Constitution clearly and expressly forbids putting into doubt the country’s debt, he is going to pay every single outlay his country owes. Or he could order the US Treasury to default on the US debt it sold to the Federal Reserve–in other words, tell the government not to worry about paying back the government.
Take a look at this video:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/we-discuss-the-manufactured-us-debt-crisis-at-the-real-news-network.html
And please don’t tell me how much Obama respects separation of powers when he unilaterally launches a war against Muammar Qaddafi without any input from Congress.
arguingwithsignposts
Plouffe:
We aren’t putting fucking construction workers to work building bridges NOW! head/desk
Also, sometimes, when a family is living beyond its means, it tries to increase revenue by getting another job (i.e., raising fucking taxes!)
4tehlulz
@dr. bloor: There is no vote today because they ran away on May 20.
Thankfully, in cards, I wouldn’t have to worry about whether someone has my back.
Bullsmith
As for those who feel Obama has had no choice, that’s plain BS. He signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts, his act, his choice, and now it’s his policy. If he signs a bill with trilloins in cuts and zero in revenues, it’s his choice. He is the fucking President of the United States. The argument that he is simply held hostage to the House of Representatives is simply an argument that he’s weak and ineffectual. He didn’t even need to veto the Bush tax cut extension, it would’ve expired without Dems doing anything at all,and earned them some modicum of respect for not giving to terrorists. Instead, as with so many things, he takes the actions that make Right Wing Dreams into actual policy, and then allows the Republicans to run against the Dems from the LEFT! Anyone doubt the word “Jobs” won’t be Republicans talking point #1 in 2012? After all, it’s not like it’s being used by the Democrats.
FlipYrWhig
@terraformer:
Three reasons:
1. He likes to try to bring people together, even the assholes, rather than taking sides and banging heads. That’s the whole community organizer shtick.
2. He needs votes from Republicans and right-leaning Democrats, and bashing conservative dogma offends both of those segments.
3. Even if he won over the public, the Congress wouldn’t behave differently, because Congressional Republicans have cultivated a view that they do what they want and if you don’t like it you’re welcome to vote them out. So persuading the public doesn’t actually switch their representatives’ votes to Obama’s side.
arguingwithsignposts
London 2012 Olympics, bitchez! (npr link)
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@arguingwithsignposts: I’m trying to recall the last successful American politician who got anywhere by telling American voters “you’re wrong”.
The framing is disappointing, but, ugh. What a mess. California here we come… o/`
FlipYrWhig
@Bullsmith:
Then again, there’s a minor chance that the “modicum of respect” he gained for negotiating strategy might possibly be offset by the fact that he would just have raised taxes on everyone.
kay
Pelosi is the only congressional leader in my memory who accepts the power she has, and doesn’t dodge. All the endless reams of blather from conservative scholars and the one true constitutionalist turns out to be on the Left.
She should run around in a fucking powdered wig. Maybe a visual would help.
dr. bloor
@4tehlulz:
Oh, there sure would be. And had the President taken control of this earlier, I doubt that May 20 vote looks anything like it did.
But you hit on something that I think is relevant here. If you’re the POTUS, you have to be willing to try something every now and again where you know nobody has your back at the outset. Obama’s always been more of a legislator than an executive.
Benen has a good piece up this morning on the new “Politics of Extortion.” This fiasco will only feed that beast.
Quiddity
@hildebrand:
1) Obama gets the debt limit raised as part of the December 2010 Bush tax cut extension – which increased the debt.
2) Obama does brinkmanship back in May when the limit was “officially” breached (but still while the Treasury could shift funds around for months – keeping the gears of government turning).
3) Obama goes 14th amendment.
Look guys, Obama is no different on policy than Harold Ford, Blue Dog Democrat. Both talk of austerity and cutting entitlements. And we’re going to get it.
Trollenschlongen
@Bullsmith:
Thank you, Bullsmith. I just had a common-sense gasm.
General Stuck
@kay:
Teehee, nice one Kay :-)
gnomedad
@Bullsmith:
Rhetorical point for consideration: When the Repubs talk about “jobs”, they’re selling the impression that gov’t in “in the way” and the required remedy is tax cuts and deregulation. When the Dems talk about “jobs”, it’s way too readily spun by the right into “expanding government” aka “government jobs”. It ain’t fair, but it’s the reality. So IMO, the Dems need to talk about “getting the economy going” via relief for the middle class, education, infrastructure, and similar initiatives which the Repubs demonstrably oppose.
kay
Do you want a congress? If the President (any President) uses the 14th amendment (or whatever legal mechanism you prefer) what about the next President and next congress?
Should congress be permitted to abdicate one more responsibility to the President? He gets domestic spending now? Why have them at all?
General Stuck
@rikyrah:
Think I will do about the same for awhile :-)
kay
Stuck:
Love her.
She said “I’m taking impeachment off the table”. NOT “I’m pretending we have a unitary President and I have no power, so I’ll just throw this to the courts and hope you don’t notice”.
MazeDaner
@FlipYrWhig:
This is the essence of the new playing field. This is reality now, folks.
And I, too, up until this week, had some old-fashioned notion that the legislative process was still reality.
The election process is the only battleground, now. The TParty understands this. They hope Progressives won’t.
The TParty only has to convince a few deluded, angry, racist people who they make feel powerful for the first time in their sad, powerless lives. And use hate to do it.
Mr. Obama may understand this and is trying to prevent Armageddon until 2012. When there is only one hope: Voter Participation. And reducing the number of TParty elected.
ETA: Not sure why, but this comment went to moderation. Too much reality?
arguingwithsignposts
@kay: The debt ceiling itself is an abdication of responsibility, imho.
Frankensteinbeck
@gnomedad: amd @General Stuck:
Amazing article. ‘We have word that maybe some kind of deal has been reached and Reid delayed a vote because of it. We will assume that this deal must be Obama giving the GOP everything they want and yell OBAMA CAVED!’
Hill Dweller
Congressional Dems should balk at this deal, saving Obama from himself and his utterly clueless political advisers in the process.
Scott P.
But you seem to have very clear ideas on what Obama should be doing. We’d like to hear them. Or is this just an expression of an inchoate desire for Daddy to Make the Bad Men Go Away?
And presumably next week, when we have another crisis, he goes around Congress again? And again, and again? Just rule by fiat, ignoring Congress, and find some stooge in the Justice Department who will sign off on the legal justifications? Sounds very progressive to me.
If there’s anything that the last week has shown us, it is that the “money boys” are not running the show. Boehner knows that if he did as you ask, he would lose his speakership, followed by his House seat. Now, if he were an honorable man, he would be willing to take the personal hit for the good of the country. But the hitch is your plan requires Boehner to be an honorable man.
phoebes-in-santa fe
ELECTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES as our TeaBagging friends pointed out after Obama was elected in 2008.
And because the Democrats stayed home in 2010, either because they thought the job was done or they thought Obama and the Democratic-led House weren’t “progressive” enough (OMG – there’s no public option!) or through sheer laziness, the Republicans elected 90-some odd TeaBaggers to the House.
And those “consequences” of the 2010 election are what we are suffering through right now. As much as I hate all – yes, that’s right ALL – Republicans, I have equal contempt for Democratic voters who let this happen. I’m being blunt here.
I am a life-long Democrat from a long-line of Democrats. I consider myself “progressive”, but I am also a political “realist”. When I read about the “disappointments” some Democrats have with the Obama administration, I have a small part that says, “Fuck you, idiots!”
These people who thought Obama would get into office and just wave his arms and all progressive ideas would be put into action were as stupid and deluded as their counterparts on the Right who thought Sarah Palin could do the same thing if SHE was elected.
We are now living through the “consequences” of November, 2010. With any luck, this debt ceiling problem will be resolved in the next two days and we can move on with an intact economy. BUT, if so, then we – the sane ones – have to come together and get those TeaBaggers out of office in Nov 2012.
And I swear that I won’t be able to control my temper in months going forward if I hear one more fucking whining Democrat moan about Obama’s lack of “progressive values” and the fact that he has to work with the other side.
DID I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR!!
Texas Dem
I suspect many, if not most of those who are screaming about how Obama sold them out with this debt deal will be lining up to kiss his ass in 2012, when the GOP nominates Rick Perry. Take it from someone who has been watching Perry for a good long while, he’s someone you should be very, very afraid of, because he combines Tea Party fanaticism with appeal to the Wall Street/Chamber of Commerce crowd. And he’s an excellent campaigner. He’s every bit as dangerous to the future of the country as Bachman or Palin, but will be much harder to defeat.
And by the way, no one understands this better that Obama. That’s why he can keep kicking progressives. He realizes they’ve got nowhere else to go.
Reality, folks. Deal with it.
Stillwater
I dunno about this. For all the supposed flailing going on, the TP sure seems to be successful in achieving their goals. Are we sure that ‘flailing’ is the right word to use here?
Frankensteinbeck
@FlipYrWhig:
Reason #4: Obama HAS done that. The media isn’t reporting it. The public isn’t listening to it. But worst of all, YOU aren’t listening to it.
EDIT – By ‘you’ I mean terraformer to whom you are replying.
TK421
@kay:
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the President should ignore the Constitution, or ignore the parts of it that he does not like? Or that we might as well not have a Congress if the President–who is duty-bound to uphold and execute the United States Constitution–does his job?
Obeying the law does not make a person a dictator. If one does what the law says they can do, they are not a tyrant or a despot or a totalitarian. Rather, doing what the law says you can do is what a citizen of a democracy is SUPPOSED to do.
We have three branches of government. They are supposed to keep an eye on each other. And some duties–like waging war–require two or more branches to cooperate. But each branch also has options it can carry out without resorting to the others. Not every single action requires two or more branches to cooperate.
One branch of government doing something on its own does not necessarily warrant hysterical cries of “tyranny” or “dictatorship”.
Judas Escargot
@MazeDancer:
Obama just lost his second term: They’ve won, at least at the federal level.
Democrats and liberals should probably now focus on ways to disable the GOP power base through non-political, non-violent means at the state level, because after this it’s clear that they’ll never win rhetorically/electorally/nationally with the current fantasy-narrative MSM and mouth-breathing public.
TK421
@Texas Dem:
In a country where a majority of voters do not vote, any politician who thinks he is due a certain percentage of votes is a fool.
gnomedad
@Frankensteinbeck:
Point conceded. If the article is premature, that’s great.
kay
@arguingwithsignposts:
Congress is broken. It’s been broken for a long time. I sort of admire Obama’s efforts to force them to do their job, but it may be impossible.
This is the saga of the doc fix.
Medicare is huge, so this triggered mechanism would have really helped control health care inflation in the private system.
Congress over-rides their own trigger every single year. Every year. They’re lobbied by providers and they do a “doc fix” every single year.
The doc fix is the reason there is a mechanism in the PPACA to limit increases to providers and thus control the growth of health care spending. Just control, mind you. Not cut.
Because there’s a recognition that Congress is broken.
gnomedad
@phoebes-in-santa fe:
Hear, hear! Amen! Tell it! etc.
ETA: That, plus the general cranky-voter meme of throwing out whoever’s in whenever you’re unhappy. Which is always.
jcricket
So what happens with this ridiculous trigger in 2012 (2013?), when Obama and the Dems then get the blame for gutting SS and Medicaire?
We really stand for nothing at this point. And I say this as a complete O-bot Democratic partisan.
Frankensteinbeck
@TK421:
True. But the actions that would fix this problem do. At this point the only actions that he might be able to do unilaterally are great big ‘might’s, like invoking the 14th, that do something as dangerous as saying ‘I’m going to ignore an actual signed law because *I* think it’s unconstitutional, not the courts’. He might still do that if things get bad enough, but we’ll never know until that moment comes. There are no positives to doing it or even talking about it ahead of time.
dr. bloor
@Scott P.:
The Money Boys don’t run the Tea Party caucus, but they sure have the Dems and the handful of Republicans needed to pass a clean bill. Are you suggesting that Boehner simply would have refused to hold a vote with Wall Street and the Senate Republicans breathing down his neck? Boehner’s intransigence has been about saving his ass and getting a bill through on Republican votes alone. If the first step is never taken in linking the debt and the deficit, that dynamic isn’t in play.
WereBear
In the grand tradition of complaining that the President isn’t doing what he has actually already done, we get a brand new wrinkle where people complain that he’s not fixing it, and it’s not the complainer’s job to do so!
I might as well complain that scientists haven’t solved global warming yet. How? Hey, I’m not the scientist here!
And it’s not like the President doesn’t explain what is going on. Every single week he makes an address and press release about it. And judging from the Youtube stats when this household tunes in, there’s about a thousand people in the nation who care.
Me? I blame the Republicans for being parasitical morons. And that’s somethng I do know about.
TK421
@Frankensteinbeck:
False. See the video I linked at #86 for a nice one-stop explanation.
But if Congress passes a law telling the government to spend a certain amount of money–which it has–the president has to ignore a law no matter what he does. And since the US Constitution says no one may cast into doubt the debt of the government…
It’s a strange time we live in when following the US Constitution is considered “dangerous” or “radical.”
WaterGirl
I have been feeling as discouraged as everyone else this morning, but I just read a short summary of what David Plouffe had to say this morning, and it made me wonder if Obama will get his “grand bargain” after all.
TK421
@WereBear:
Again, I’m not sure what is being said here. The law of the United States does not say that I can mint a coin of any value I choose and pay US debt with it; it DOES say the president can do that. So why is it up to me to fix this problem?
Comments like this are why we should take a look at what we’ve written before hitting “submit”, although I think we’ll all take the most charitable interpretation ;)
TK421
I hope he doesn’t, and thus is forced to use one of the options I cut-and-pasted above, rather than paying for rich peoples’ tax cuts by reducing my parents’ Medicare and Social Security.
Elie
I think that it brings to my mind that representative governance is a pretty damned hard thing to achieve in governance over the long haul. Humans seem to want to regress to authoritarian model pretty quickly and unfortunately seem to reward approaches that involve dominance and coercion, winner take all approaches. I think that a population must be unusually engaged and aware to ferret out would-be leaders that display that predisposition. After two-three decades of Darwinian economic and social policies driven by runaway capitalism and the destruction of public eduction and true public media, we have a horrible crisis. Fix it? I don’t see how without a lot of suffering first. We brought ourselves here and things will have to play out. In some ways, its a miracle if we can keep the system basically intact. We have demonstrated that the system is not really stable anymore.
Just my two cents anyway
TK421
What happens when Congress passes a law (like the Debt Ceiling) then passes a law that contradicts it (like a budget that goes over the debt limit)? Keep in mind that contradicting laws is not some brave new world:
Thanks lawyers.com. I love the internet.
Keith G
Oh come the fuck on. I am so tired of this narrative line. These cats will,in the end, get most of what they want and put in place changes that will take a decade or more to reverse.
I voted for a party leader who would audaciously fight for the poor. Better luck next time, it seems.
kay
@TK421:
I’m the last person in the world to cry “tyranny” or “dictatorship”. I didn’t do so under Bush, because I know the power (the then Democratic) Congress has, and I refuse to allow them to dodge accountability for action (or, much more commonly) inaction.
I’m simply saying that each and every time a President relies on a legal construct to override Congress, Congress loses power. There’s a cumulative effect here. We’ve seen it in foreign policy. It’s real.
I am of the opinion that Congress doesn’t want the power, because dodging their constitutional role insulates them from political risk. I think they should be subject to political risk for decisions they make, including when they choose not to make a decision.
If the majority of the House want to not raise the debt ceiling (not technically default, because Obama has specific constitutional authority to pay bondholders first, and he will) I think the majority of the House should be held responsible for that decision.
I know they won’t be held responsible politically, because they’ve set up an elaborate cover story, and the chumps in the media will promote the cover story, but I don’t know how we fix a broken congress if we keep handing more and more power to the President, and insisting he pick it up, when he’s OUR President.
I don’t think that will work. It doesn’t work now.
Carl Nyberg
I’ve long theorized that the international economic elites are transforming the international political system.
The real decisions–economic decisions–will be mad in institutions far removed from democratic accountability. Domestic politics will be a food fight over social issues.
The observation that Congress is abdicating its policy making role is consistent with this observation. Congress wants to be a body to play out fights over gender, ethnicity and sexuality as long as it can avoid the big decisions, economic decisions especially.
Davis X. Machina
In 2008, I didn’t vote for “No King!”, I voted for “Our King”, dammit!
Frankensteinbeck
@TK421:
The President DOES NOT GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION. Do you understand? That is not within his powers. That power is very specifically given to the courts, not the executive. The other ideas floating around merely threaten economic chaos, because the entire financial system is based on the illusion that no one is, say, minting a coin and saying ‘I’ve just created two trillion dollars’.
These are things you do when you are A) desperate, B) power mad, or C) stupid and impulsive. I’m quite happy to let Obama wait for A, thanks.
@TK421:
Note the use of the word ‘courts’.
@gnomedad:
Really, this is the most textbook case of Obama Derangement Syndrome and why it’s a problem I can recall. A purity troll hears a rumor, assumes the interpretation that puts Obama in the worst possible light, and reports that interpretation as fact while yelling about how evil it is. Then, and this is what roasts my giblets, reasonable liberals read these articles. They have no reason to think people on their own side are lying to them. The reaction to this ‘fact’ is one they can relate to. They swallow the ‘fact’ (like I said, why wouldn’t they?) and spread it around. Enough of these ‘facts’ start looking like a narrative, and suddenly OBAMA ALWAYS CAVES.
Hill Dweller
I sat through Plouffe’s bullshit(which was absurd) to get to Krugman, who was great.
Plouffe claiming progressives should want this deal because we can’t have the things we want otherwise was insulting. The republicans are going to be emboldened after this latest successful extortion plot. They will continue to tear down the safety net/New Deal policies until we return to the Gilded Age.
How did the Obama political team become so fucking clueless this quickly?
I hope congressional Dems vote this down.
Carl Nyberg
phoebes-in-santa fe:
What happened to the name list the Obama campaign built in 2008?
It seems like those names went to the DNC and weren’t used.
Did the DNC or Obama mobilize those people in an effective way to make Congress move the agenda forward?
Did the DNC make an effort to engage people and keep exercising their activist muscles?
The activist community became disengaged either because Obama and the Democrats wanted it or because Obama and the DNC are inept.
kay
@TK421:
It really is a different way of looking at this, so I’ll try to explain.
To you, the President picks up a power that’s laying around. To me, Congress set theirs down first.
I want to go back a step, because I don’t see how I get to where I want to go looking exclusively at the President. I can’t get there your way.
The President already has absolute (effective) control over foreign policy. How did he get that? Did he “take it”? Why was it going unclaimed? What happened first?
The Tea Party are even worse. They want to set up a constitutional process that limits congressional power. We’ll never get back to what is our system their way. They’re on a whole different field. They make the line-item veto folks look brave, and the line item veto folks were extra-constitutional when they sought to hand over spending decisions to the Prez.
Texas Dem
A good rule of thumb for dealing with the so-called “constitutional option,” or as I like to call it, the “unconstitutional option,” is to ask yourself how you would feel about it if George W. Bush had tried to do the same thing. I suspect a lot of progressives would be screaming bloody murder. The President is not free to disregard laws he doesn’t like. It was wrong when Bush did it, and it would be just as wrong now. I know that’s inconvenient because we’d all like to give our President more power to deal with a radical congress, but turning him into a dictator is not the answer.
Carl Nyberg
Texas Dem:
It’s tough to organize for progressive issues in the United States.
The Democratic Party and other groups often rely on big contributions from people who are really rich or ensconced in the system in a way that means when the bosses say, “turn it off,” they kill the progress.
We have to develop a way to keep ourselves organized.
We have to be a check on the Democratic Party. And we have to primary–successfully primary–more Democrats.
Keith G
What, there is no other choices?
cleek
@Frankensteinbeck:
this is the truth.
burnspbesq
Don’t feed Trollenschlongen. He’s sitting at his computer laughing at you for actually caring about the quality of the lives of average Americans. He’s laughing at you for believing that anything you do can make a difference. He’s the worst kind of cynic. And every time you take his bait, you reinforce his smug belief in his own superiority.
He’s the worst person in the world. I won’t play his fucked-up game any more.
Trollenschlongen, please just crawl into the nearest corner and die a slow, painful death. It’s everything you deserve, you twisted little piece of shit.
Carl Nyberg
kay:
This is a key dysfunctional element of our system.
Enabled by the media and courts, Congress is making itself irrelevant, except on emotionally charged issues that are good for fundraising from the rubes.
wrb
@Carl Nyberg:
The “activist community” became disengaged because the Huffington Post, Hamsher, the “only the gay matters” crowd and a whole lot of other juvenile and self-centered assholes worked hard at disengaging them by repeatedly misrepresenting and misunderstanding what was going on while demanding the impossible.
We’re only seeing the first fruits of their work. And they are still beavering away, even in this thread.
Elie
You can see how attractive the authoritarian, monarchy (I selected the King) model is for our own side. Its absolutely scary — to me MORE scary to read the comments from our side that seem to ignore the way our government is structured and the role of the Congress vs the Executive. No matter how many times a careful explanation is made about how the system is structured and supposed to work, we still have a strong contingent saying that Obama should basiically unitaterally wrest power and go to war with the Republicans. Comments like ” I voted for Obama to save Medicare, or clean up the Financial Sector, or put the Republicans in their place”, completely make a mockery of understanding our structure and how power in this system is supposed to be used. The people who vote ultimately have the power. No excuses. People who do not vote, get what they get. Over time, that dictates what we have leading us and the policies that end up winning.
Those of you who think that the best way to get what you want is to somehow punish Obama, well, you are driving this, not him. That is your choice. Stay the fuck home and applaud Mitt or Bachmann. They will definitely make it better for you..
Elie
You can see how attractive the authoritarian, monarchy (I selected the King) model is for our own side. Its absolutely scary — to me MORE scary to read the comments from our side that seem to ignore the way our government is structured and the role of the Congress vs the Executive. No matter how many times a careful explanation is made about how the system is structured and supposed to work, we still have a strong contingent saying that Obama should basiically unitaterally wrest power and go to war with the Republicans. Comments like ” I voted for Obama to save Medicare, or clean up the Financial Sector, or put the Republicans in their place”, completely make a mockery of understanding our structure and how power in this system is supposed to be used. The people who vote ultimately have the power. No excuses. People who do not vote, get what they get. Over time, that dictates what we have leading us and the policies that end up winning.
Those of you who think that the best way to get what you want is to somehow punish Obama, well, you are driving this, not him. That is your choice. Stay the fuck home and applaud Mitt or Bachmann. They will definitely make it better for you..
gnomedad
@Frankensteinbeck:
As I said, point conceded and my picking up on that article was sloppy. It’s just hard to see how Obama can win this one; if he comes through with anything less than a turd, I’ll be delighted. But my feeling still is that anything within the realm of possibility right now is going to suck, so I’m kinda hoping the Repubs will be perceived as the terrorists who won.
Elie
@Elie:
OMG!!!! The Magic Reply Button appeared for me for the first time in weeks and weeks!!!!
Elie
@Elie:
OMG!!!! The Magic Reply Button appeared for me for the first time in weeks and weeks!!!!
Carl Nyberg
wrb, does it make sense that HuffPo and Hamsher have the kind of influence you ascribe to them? Does this seem plausible to you?
The Democrats had sixty votes in the U.S. Senate.
What did the Congressional Democrats do to move the Democratic Party’s agenda forward?
The Democratic Party always seems to have an excuse why it doesn’t accomplish much.
1. “We don’t have the votes…”
2. “It will get vetoed…”
3. “The filibuster….”
4. “Public opinion isn’t with us….”
And even when you take away all the excuses, the Democrats still move forward so slowly, it’s hard not to get the feeling they are waiting for the GOP to regroup so they can invoke “we don’t have the votes”.
Carl Nyberg
Is it unilaterally resting power from Congress to spend the money Congress has already authorized and appropriated?
Keith G
@wrb:
So a group of second rate, often nameless hacks over powered the messaging abilities of the White House? Really?
Thank god the Soviets are gone or we’ld really be fucked.
phoebes-in-santa fe
Carl Nyberg@134, you’re right about Obama and the DNC not keeping it up after the 2008 election. I suspect they didn’t want to be accused of “constant campaigning” instead of governing by the Republicans. But the problem was that the Republicans were going to attack him every such way anyway, they might as well have been better communicators to their base. They really did drop the ball on listing their accomplishments and saying what still needed to be done by a Democratic president and Democratic Congress.
And wrb@142, you’re also right about the complaining and grexing of the HuffPo and FDL. Nothing was going to be good enough for them that Obama and the congress accomplished. I despise them almost as much as the TeaBaggers.
By the way, how do you “reply” to someone? I can’t find the button.
jayackroyd
Eventually, you have to consider the possibility Obama is getting the policy outcome he prefers.
Just sayin’.
Corner Stone
@wrb:
Do you ever take a step back and see how stupid this sounds?
There was no unusually low voter turnout in 2010. Turnout was at previously expected levels.
Corner Stone
@phoebes-in-santa fe:
Well you made it clear you are wildly misinformed.
This is simply not true. It’s a zombie lie we do not seem able to drive a stake through. It’s not true. Not accurate. It didn’t happen this way.
cleek
@Carl Nyberg:
for roughly six months, non-contiguously.
and those 60 included the Blue Dogs and Lieberman.
wrb
@Carl Nyberg:
Together with the myriad of individuals who prefer to stamp their little feet on line and demand the impossible? Yes it does, as it only take a few people staying home or switching sides to swing an election.
Elie
@Carl Nyberg:
Carl, you are right in many ways but managing our power is always a huge challenge whether we are in or out of power.
On a smaller case study here in our County in WA state, we had majority progressive Council people for almost six years. They accomplished a lot of ground breaking legislation and policies but did not manage how to gradually convince the opposition that they weren’t just being smashed flat. The last election, they swept power back, recapturing the council and are now systematically doing their thing the opposite way. What a waste!
I think its critical to move to do the things that are promised and valued by progressives. We also have a responsibility to yes, compromise and somehow sell it enough to the other side so that we do not get what I just described above. It is extremely difficult to keep your side energized and motivated while also bringing along folks who do not completely support your policies and may also strongly oppose what you are trying to do. We thought (those of us progressives), that we were supporting the best for the people — ground breaking environmental and social policies — but that was not the perception and now we are fighting back from a big big hole.
Not saying there is an easy answer, just that reality is always a little more complicated than theory that has a simple dichotomous, good vs evil, premise.
gnomedad
This is the Source of Our Troubles, IMO:
1. In 2010, lazy Democrats stayed home and crabby, ignorant voters “sent them a message” by voting in random cranks.
2. Teabaggers told themselves this was a mandate.
Lesson for Republicans: be sure to trash the economy so thoroughly that it’s impossible to fix it in less than 4 years.
Elie
@phoebes-in-santa fe: Put the cursor over the right lower corner of the comments and “Reply” should show up. Click on it and it allows you to reference that comment in your comment
Trollenschlongen
@burnspbesq:
Wow. Aren’t you a decent, well adjusted person.
That you can be driven by an anonymous commenter to such bile reveals a great deal more about your heart than you intended.
I’ll pray for you.
Carl Nyberg
If the Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate for four months, how much of the GOP agenda would they advance during this time?
The Democrats send the message they want to be in power. They yearn for the 1933-94 period where a Democrat could percolate up the committee ladder and then milk the big contributors as a committee chair.
Republicans want to move their agenda forward.
Here’s what low information voters see:
1. Republicans believe in the GOP agenda.
2. Democrats not only don’t believe in the Democratic agenda, they quietly believe in the GOP agenda.
Trollenschlongen
@burnspbesq:
Worse than…Hitler? Or are we talking living persons only?
In a twisted way appropriate to the state of your psyche, I’m sort of honored by your hysteria.
kay
@Carl Nyberg:
I don’t know, but it surely lets Congress off the hook, both Republicans and Democrats, so we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief and vote for them again.
I don’t even know how they think these “trigger” mechanisms are going to effectively cover their asses. Congress can (of course) change any law they draft. They do it all the time. They trumped every magic budget-cutting trigger thus far.
I’m certainly going to question why the trigger they wrote trumps their power to repeal or over-ride it, in 2 years, or 4 years, or 10 years. Is a trigger like a pinky-swear? Inviolable?
Trollenschlongen
@jayackroyd:
GASP! :o
Corner Stone
@gnomedad:
Can we please stop repeating this false zombie lie?
This isn’t backed up by any polling, exit polling, reporting or any other metric.
Keith G
@Elie:
Again: No other choices?
I want Obama to succeed. The country needs the progressive agenda to be fought for and that fight, so far, is not going well.
micah616
@Quiddity: Harold Ford, eh? How…illuminating.
Chris T.
@MazeDancer: The problem here is that most people are not listening.
Only once they don’t get their Social Security checks will they start listening.
I wish I were kidding, but NBR interviewed some Miami retirees on Friday, and all of them were saying “enh, it’s just kabuki, none of it means anything.”
gnomedad
@Corner Stone:
Your version, please. No snark intended. Educate me.
Elie
@Carl Nyberg:
No, I don’t think so. I think that the democrats try to govern from consensus – you know, representative government, negotiating, consulting with the opposition. Otherwise, you are right, the Republicans cram it in. You are advocating that democrats do that. I gave you a real life (though local) example of us doing it to them.
You just get see-saw policy and very very strong opponent psychology — winner takes all. That is not helpful to our country, no matter how satisfying it feels. It is always temporary. The most profound and lasting changes work best when there is broad consensus over the policy. That is poly-sci 101. Right now, that consensus is shifted very hard right and its very difficult to shift it back by just screaming or trying direct coercion. You can see, its just not going to work and its not because Obama can’t punch their lights out.
Some of y’all want revolution, not governance. I have a certain sympathy for that, but you don’t do revolution from your laptop on a blog. Those of you who want that, get going. BTW — it starts at the grass roots — ya know, out there with all the “stupid americans” that so many of you despise. Good Luck!
Carl Nyberg
@Trollenschlongen:
You started off making points about policy, but then descended into personal attacks–giving and receiving.
Is this the arc you sought?
Davis X. Machina
They would have sixty Republicans, even if they didn’t have sixty Republicans….
Even when the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, they have 35-40 votes. Go back and look at a hard whip count for the public option — that’s them.
There are three parties in the Senate, but only two labels.
There are Democrats who are Democrats, Democrats who are Republicans, and Republicans who are Republicans. (There used to be Republicans who are Democrats, but they’re exinict.)
So you might get the odd filibuster — from the Democrats who are Democrats, if they all managed to hang together — but a coalition of Democrats who are Republicans, and Republicans who are Republicans would be pretty hard to stop.
Jc
I’m no longer able to buy this “tea partiers are crazy, and they are leading bosh er around”.
Results matter.
And in results, boehner was able to use the “madmen” tea partiers to get the deal he wanted over a manufactured crisis.
Bottom line, if this deal goes through as being reported, Obama caved.
If this goes through as reported, then this party that controls the House only, was able to issue marching orders for the Senate and the president.
This is the exact OPPOSITE of 11th dimensional chess.
You cave to the demands
You show yourself as weak.
After exposing these guys as crazy, then you show them as canny bargainers.
You encourage this hostage taking behavior for next time. Which there will be.
Big Dog – for all his issues, he fought. He took a stand and stuck to it. Gingrich threatened him, he said “no, go ahead, shut down the government”.
And he had less support. as there wasn’t a blogosphere to make a small dent in the lies of the right wing, and the beltway.
This is failure. I love Obama, but you had Obama coming out all meek and mild, boehner coming out, all bluster and disrespect, “GIVE US WHAT WE WANT OR ELSE!!”.
And Obama does.
Weak.
Weak
Weak.
Politics is a rough and tumble, especially the way the Rethugs play.
Obama should have stayed strong, people will choose a bully over a weakling.
I dont even understand this behavior on any level. What do they have on Obama, that he is disrespected so by crazy thugs, on national television, and he gives them what they want?
Elie
@Keith G:
You are right. It is very very difficult, I will say that.It may be even more difficult soon. Unfortunately, there is no way to make it easy. Yelling that it should be easy doesnt make it easy.
Emma
drbloor: and the Tea Party Congress will bow down to the President and accept his instructions. Sure.
A have a bridge to sell you. Easy installment plan.
Keith G
@Jc: You are absolutely right sir, but why do you secretly hate Obama so?
Or do you just want him to be your king, lord, and master?
Bill Arnold
Earmarks are basically gone. The leadership has less leverage than it used to.
JC
Both from a politics and a policy perspective, there is a losing proposition.
Where are the revenue enhancers?
Where is the stimulus?
Where is some backbone?
I know the Rethugs are doing everything they can to Carterize Obama – but it looks like it’s working.
Emma
Christ on a Harley, I give up. THE PRESIDENT HAS EXPLAINING. He has given interviews, done townhalls, held televised press conferences. HE HAS TRIED. Nancy Pelosi has tried. People have tried. They are battling against twenty years of brain-washing by Fox News and news radio with the assistant of a cowardly mainstream press who would rather be part of the In Clique than explain anything to the American public.
You want to beat this? Beat the press into paying attention. We need to shift that. For the last two decades whenever they spoke against the conservative talking points they got clobbered. They didn’t get anywhere near the same reaction from liberals.
You want change? Take back the press.
(added after reading another comment) and no, I don’t mean “the left blogosphere.” We’re talking to each other. Friends of mine who don’t follow politics as I do and who don’t read blogs don’t know crap about any of this. AND THEY’RE THE MAJORITY.
Elie
@Keith G:
You know, that is the complete abdication of thought.
Keith, you don’t want to bother to convince the opposition through interaction and consensus starting right at home. You and JC just basically want in reverse what the Republicans are doing. You want war or some big Rugby scrum with the Democracts and Republicans just duking it out until hopefully we win, right. Forgit about convincing or moving folks over. Just punch them in the nose hard enough and often enough and they will magically accept your policies.
Sad. You aren’t a progressive. Progressives believe in working forward and the hard work of bringing people along, building consensus for change. You are a revolutionary. You just want it your way and are willing to accept destruction as a means to an end.
dr. bloor
@Emma:
Oh, snap.
I’ve been as patient as anyone, but Obama has played his hand horribly. He’s managed to hang Pelosi and Reid out to dry with their caucuses.
Hey, remember Obama’s call to have everyone phone their representatives to demand A BALANCED APPROACH? How he did that only after the only two options left on the table were reduction only bills? Remember how everybody crashed the switchboards and servers, and nothing came of it?
Good times. What a fucking genius.
JC
Even Graham is getting in on it – the new thing Republican thing is get everything you want, then bluster you haven’t given enough. And then still get more.
Not only is Obama caving, he then gets disrespected FOR caving, as these guys say ‘we didn’t get what we want’, but we’ll deign to pass this bill, for the good of the country. Next time, we EXPECT MORE CAVING”. Chop-chop!
Strength matters.
Strength matters.
The President is giving us the opposite of strength right now, and it’s also a failure on the policy front.
No matter how intelligent he is, no matter how deep his understanding of complex issues – where he seems to know more than the ENTIRE Republican House – that knowledge does you no good if you can’t find your strength, or your spine.
Davis X. Machina
@JC:
If I’m a GOP rep, and I’m sitting in a +6 R district, in a caucus of 240, after a blow-out election, why do I even listen to your questions? Because it’s patriotic? Because my constituents will punish me if I don’t?
WereBear
True, but they didn’t throw in default on top.
Default is like the sun going supernova. I realize most people don’t understand what that means. I’m certain the TP’s don’t know that’s what it means. It cannot be done. Like a supernova, there is no going back.
What would you give a bunch of crazies who actually want to pull that glorious Armageddon switch? Because we don’t burn up in a blaze of glory. We grind down to dust, Weimar Republic wheelbarrow full of marks get you a loaf of bread thing that will destroy us as a country and individually as people.
I understand that’s what the TP is screwing with. I know they do not.
JC
Elie,
That simply isn’t true – when you stand for something, you have to stand for it – you don’t cave to a bully. You don’t. Especially when millions of people who have nothing are going to suffer for it, when our money, that should go to them, shifts even more to the wealthy.
Obama didn’t start this fight.
He has bent over backwards and more, to find a compromise.
I don’t want a scrum, who does? But when the Rethugs are pilfering the wallets of our grandmothers? Would you stand there and say “I don’t want a scrum, please leave enough in their wallets for bus fare”.
And we’ll call that a compromise?
But you can’t compromise with these guys. All along they have been saying – mocking even – ‘Obama will cave’. They knew it in their bones.
And if this deal goes through, he did cave. And looks so so weak.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Well, if anything, we’re continuing to separate between those who still want a functioning constitutional republic and those that want a Fuhrer for ‘our side’.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Jc:
Sincerely,
Welfare recipients, healthcare reformers, and gays in the military
Elie
JC — you sound scarily like the post Weimar Germans…
You want power cause you must feel weak. It is very hard to work for difficult things when you feel weak. That is when you default to coercion… you don’t believe you can do anything but to make things happen by force. There is no tolerance for the work or time it takes. To you, toughness only exists as a coercion, not hard labor to convince.
You actually may not know real strength. Real strength is not coercive. Applying it requires brains — not your fist or agression.
JC
You know, maybe fundamentally good, moral men, like Carter, like Obama – maybe they just can’t be successful in politics.
You need to essentially be an asshole – and you just choose the asshole that will fight for you.
The problem with assholes is that they have personality problems – ala Clinton, or Johnson – but at the end of the day, politics is a blood sport, and not a civics class.
Corner Stone
@gnomedad:
All exit polling indicates that Democratic turnout for the 2010 election was within statistical norms averaged out over the last three midterms. Some groups like youth, and dare I say African Americans (10% versus a previous 13%), did turnout at lower numbers. But overall the voter enthusiasm for the elderly to vote R overwhelmed an average turnout by Ds and that’s by and large why they took the election.
The R’s demagogued the hell out of Medicare and old people listened to them and then acted on it.
Which is why going into 2012 the best thing the D’s had was to harp on the Ryan Plan. Which they will no longer be able to do if this deal passes.
Elie
@JC:
Your comments are sincere so I will answer sincerely. You have the wrong focus. Its not our leaders but the people — the “Joes” at home that will ultimately shift this thing. Watch. It will not play out fast, or clean, but its coming. I will remind you.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
And of course more fellatio of Johnson.
‘Hey hey LBJ how many progressive bills did you get passed over the bodies of dead Vietnamese today?’
JC
Elie – results matter. That is all.
Look, it take all of it – the ability to create consensus, intelligence to make the right choice, and also, a spine of steel.
You think that FDR didn’t have strength? ‘I welcome their hatred’.
Without that fundamental base though, of being able to stand up and be counted, as we see, people cave.
OzoneR
revisionist history is entertaining.
I can’t wait for 2025 when Democrats complain we need a President more like Obama.
Davis X. Machina
Funny, that ’37-39 second depression suggests it was more “I welcome their hatred, but I buy their economic analysis.”
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@JC: ‘Eisen und Blut!’
OzoneR
what the hell do you think happens if he doesn’t “cave to the bully”
What happens is millions of people who have nothing are going to suffer for it.
Trollenschlongen
@JC:
Yup.
OzoneR
Votes weren’t there
Votes weren’t there
It got us to 36 hours before default.
JC
Again, for all those criticizing me –
This is a BOGUS issue. It’s a fake narrative. They are getting everything they want.
They retain the ability to do this again in the future.
It looks like they rolled Obama.
The only possible explanation for the cave, is that really the Rethugs were willing to hold the grenade to the country’s head, and blow it up.
But no one realizes it’s a grenade.
That seems unlikely to me, however. If that were true, no one would ever listen to the grenade holder, once the crisis was over. As soon as the grenade was put down, the guy would be rushed, and imprisoned. Not listened to on Sunday morning talk shows.
kay
@WereBear:
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. Bill Clinton’s statement was dishonest and self-serving.
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling and “shutting down” the federal government are not at all the same thing, and he knows it.
It’s not even logical, as an argument, because it’s contra to the Democratic argument.
The Democratic argument is that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is 1. unprecedented, 2. catastrophic and 3. long-term and profound.
We all know they shut down the government once, and we all know the results weren’t anything close to catastrophic or profound (in a long-term sense).
He’s making the conservative argument. No biggie, this action by conservatives. It’s just like when we couldn’t get a passport for 2 weeks!
Thanks, Bill. Good going.
In addition. Furthermore. There is a section of the federal government that is shut down, now today, the FAA, and the issue is one of collective bargaining rights. Obama threatened to veto the GOP union-busting provisions, so they de-funded a portion of the FAA.
Bill Clinton knows that, too.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@OzoneR:
Personally, I think that’s the quick and dirty way to discredit the Teahadis, but who knows. I’m just some guy on the internet with a good paycheck, a good neighborhood, and a fast internet connection. Maybe there are folks smarter than I who know a better way.
JC
Sheriff,
The strength to stand up to a bully, is not the same as being a bully, or wanting a fight.
OzoneR
They’re already discredited, but if they can discredit everyone in government along with them, they’re fine with that.
They don’t want to popular, they just want everyone to be unpopular.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@JC: Great, you stand up to the bully.
The bully doesn’t back down. Now what?
Shawn in ShowMe
@JC:
Considering only 1/4 of the House of Represenatives was Republican at the time, their wasn’t much hatred to welcome.
OzoneR
You know, the whole bully scenario is ridiculous. I was the victim of bullies in school. I told on them, it didn’t work. I fought them back, it didn’t work. Eventually, I just decided to ignore them. I let them push me around and steal my money and whatever and just pretended it didn’t bother me, and you know what, it stopped. The bullies realized they weren’t effecting me. People stopped paying attention cause it stopped being entertaining to them.
I don’t know how to handle a bully that way in the real world. My suggestion is let the GOP do what they want and let the people decide if their goals are worth supporting. I do know that fighting back NEVER WORKED because that reaction is exactly what bullies want. They want to be noticed, they want to see that they effect you. The only time fighting back even has a chance to work is if you can win.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Shawn in ShowMe: And given FDR’s austerity kick later in his term, it sounds like he folded even easier than anyone could accuse Obama of doing.
OzoneR
They did roll Obama, they rolled Obama because he has no means to fight for himself. He’s backed into a corner, he has been since Nov 2010.
We can changed that next November, if we want to.
JC
Sheriff,
I also don’t know. What I see:
a. A fake manufactured crisis.
b. By those that came off as assholes and liars.
c. Obama retreating again and again on terms.
d. Obama disrespected, again and again. Not called back. DEMANDED of. Told ‘we aren’t going to work with you. A week later – Wait! We’ll ONLY work with you.
e. All the demands, caved to.
Maybe this was the ‘best of bad options’. What do I know?
It doesn’t LOOK that way, I do know that. I assume the president and the Senate are not that powerless.
And it looks weak. I know that as well, as does every talking head, Firebaggers, gloating conservative, triumphant Teahadi.
The best you can say, is that Obama is giving into a conquering power for his people, because he has no choice.
That is basically what OzoneR is saying above.
EDIT: And result matter.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@OzoneR:
You remember the Green Lantern Theory? I guess we now have the Will Kane Theory of Domestic Politics.
OzoneR
what’s your other option? I mean really, I have no other option for you except start killing some Republicans. I don’t know what else you want to do? Let the global economy implode just because it shows you didn’t cave. I guarantee you no one is going to care about Obama’s fucking backbone if the country defaults.
Davis X. Machina
The Senate ain’t all that and a bag of chips. No real help coming from that particular quarter… not so long as those big square empty states get their two senators.
JC
That’s what you do when you are the MINORITY PARTY! Not when you are PRESIDENT and have the SENATE!!
If your argument is that ‘even though I’m the President and we have a majority Democratic Senate, we have to give the House exactly what they want, or else’.
That is NOT GOING TO BE A WINNING ARGUMENT IN NOVEMBER.
It just won’t.
OzoneR
they didn’t give the House exactly what they wanted. They didn’t want to raise the debt ceiling at all.
There is no winning argument in November. For incumbents, winning arguments are always “dangle one or two success and tell the public the other guy will be a disaster”
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@JC:
In other words, you want the President to look ‘strong’ just so he looks ‘strong’ without knowing exactly where the consequences of doing what entails looking ‘strong’ would lead to. Right-o.
I’m getting flashbacks to 1978 and I wasn’t even old enough to remember how bad things went down in Cleveland City Hall back then.
Elie
@JC:
Roosevelt had the “benefit” of a 8 year depression that swept a Democratic Congress into office with very strong popular support and a consensus about the need for the profound economic and social policy that he followed. He was following them, not the other way.
Obama took over right after the 2008 economic collapse, but before that, we had over three decades of increasing bubble economics where a lot of Americans not only behaved as though they were rich, they actually believed that they were entitled to being rich. They are still trying to adjust to the reality that happened and they are very afraid and therefore very angry and emotional. They are 6 years away from the psychology that Roosevelt inherited and are not nearly ready to understand that things have changed for good.
I was thrilled when Obama was elected, but knew he would have a hard time. Don’t know if you or others remember his inaugural speech but many chided him for having such a dark, sober speech instead of an upbeat, optimistic “good times are coming back” speech. He cited George Washington and the privations of the country as it struggled to clarify its destiny during the revolutionary war. He was spot on, it turns out.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@OzoneR: PPACA is also still standing.
OzoneR
they’re powerful enough to convince the House to raise the debt ceiling.
OzoneR
The problem with this is that even if the President looked “strong” when it goes bad for him, the same people who wanted the backbone would criticize him anyway, for “losing the message war” or whatever.
It’s better for him to not try to appease his left critics because they’ll always be critical. Always. It’s who they are.
FlipYrWhig
Corner Stone is right about the 2010 elections. 2008 saw a spike in turnout by, in essence, new Obama-specific supporters. They didn’t particularly sign up to be permanent fixtures in Democratic party politics, so they didn’t turn out to support Alexi Giannoulias and Roxann Conlin and Paul Hodes. And IIRC Democratic bigwigs, like the Hillary Clinton people, had been raising warnings all throughout ’08 that the OFA model might not be sustainable in the long run.
signifyingmnky
@Baud:
It’s not an inability, it’s a stubborn refusal by some in this country to accept the reality that electing people who don’t believe in government to run government undermines their own interests.
Otherwise, I agree.
OzoneR
I agree with this. The Obama coalition is not sustainable because it’s not issues or party-centric. This is because Obama didn’t run as a “Democrat,” he ran as a postpartisan candidate. People registered as Democrats to vote for him, then went back to independent after he won. They’re not interested in Democratic candidates other than Obama. That’s why they turned on, he wasn’t part of some Democratic club.
This is why I get so pissed at the left complaining Obama isn’t acting like a Democrat, he never intended to. That was pretty clear from the primaries.
Now this type of thing may work for a war hero like Eisenhower, but it probably doesn’t for some black dude for Chicago.
FlipYrWhig
OTOH, like OzoneR, I’m tired of the “bully” analogy, which seems to originate from old Archie comics. The “Dad” argument is always that you need to stand up and fight back, and then the bully stops (or finds another target). Well, what if he’s not just a bully, he’s a psychopath and a masochist, and he likes being hit as much as he likes hitting, and there’s no other target? How would Jughead stop that?
Davis X. Machina
@FlipYrWhig:
No one really knows what to do about the mid-term drop-off, particularly the drop-off in new voters. This came up in county committee a couple of times.
Many of the new voters are young voters, in a highly mobile demographic. As it is about a quarter of our walk lists are already useless for more than one election, and that’s with decent database support from the state party, and the national organization (thanks, Howard!) There were a couple of cynics — e.g., the wise-ass who suggested drafting down-ballot candidates named ‘Dolce’ and ‘Gabbana’ — who also pointed out that that’s a highly brand-oriented demographic, and Obama wasn’t on the ballot.
Mike Lamb
JC–what is the option? Obama demanded a clean bill. House GOP told him to pound sand. Then what? Same thing with a balanced approach. So what’s the play?
Elie
@OzoneR:
I think affiliations with party can be plastic over time. Note that Lincoln, to our minds a liberal, and Teddy Roosevelt, by his own definition, a progressive, were Republicans. So what?
It is the job of progressives to bring progressives along. Some, probably most will be Democrats, using our current paradigm, but who cares if they are like Teddy or Lincoln, right?
We have to figure out how to transition the majority of the population out of the false identifications with wealth and hegemony that they were spoon fed for so long. How? I think that its a stretch to think that this will happen without pain. The people have to be motivated to change their paradigm and until that happens, they are suspicious of new directions.
I have been wearing Invisalign dental braces for the last year in order to straighten out teeth that are negatively impacting my chewing and oral health. Man, at first they were really easy to wear but in time, and by now, the suckers on the bottom row just really are uncomfortable — putting a lot of pressure to turn the last hold outs. My dentist gave me more techniques to increase the pressure to turn those last teeth but the majority turned with constant but less “coercion” once the new frames were inserted. Same thing here.
It is our responsibility to keep the new frame in place. Not just some organization that someone else put together. Its on us.
OzoneR
@FlipYrWhig:
I have never seen this work in real life. Ever.
Hey, the reply button is back!
OzoneR
and anyway, this is all initial knee-jerk reaction. Once more details about the deal come out, the left will see them and say “oh this isn’t so bad” and the only one left trying to present it the worst thing ever are the shit flingers who still think we could’ve gotten a bigger stimulus if only Obama used the bully pulpit.
JC
That makes no sense. The big business interests would have made sure that was done.
That was a GIVEN.
That is what makes this SO FRUSTRATING.
I’m not going to be relieved about that, which is a given.
The person who has been right on about this, early on, was Digby.
For months now, she has been saying that this is kabuki, with the deal already set to cut into Medicare, and maybe SS.
Cornerstone has also been saying ‘this is all kabuki’.
The question is then – this will be the 2nd time that Obama has made a deal, that tilted towards the wealthy, and screws the middle class. First last december and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and now, this, assuming this goes forward as it looks like it will
For all the other good that Obama has done, from the health care act, to Lily Ledbetter, etc, there is one thing that he has never challenged.
From keping Geithner, to Bernanke, to not holding deeper investigations of the banksters, to dropping all of his progressive economists, to not challenging on tax issues, Obama has either been WEAK – or has been co-opted, decided not to fight, the big money elites, in terms of tax issues.
That he is instead choosing Medicare, Social Security that are first in line for cuts. tells a lot.
FlipYrWhig
@Mike Lamb:
The theoretical play is to hold firm the whole time and wait for Big Money to yank John Boehner’s chain. But if Congressional Republicans really do believe, in a faith-based way, that there’s only one way to handle the debt ceiling and that’s massive, immediate spending cuts that only hurt the Bad People, and they’re confident that their constituents will keep voting for them, there’s not a lot that Big Money can do to stop that. It’s like being a passenger in a plane whose pilot is positive he’ll be raptured a split second before impact, and he’s a friendless, orphaned loner who feels like he has nothing to lose… and if you try to take the controls, that blows up the plane.
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
I always thought this was a valid argument.
Our county chair made it to me. He was supporting Clinton because she had a long-term relationship with her base of supporters and a lot of powerful people in the Democratic Party.
He predicted things would get really tough for any Democrat, and she’d have built-in bed-rock support through Democratic Party surrogates and such, because he knows relationships matter in politics. Maybe they shouldn’t, but they do.
We talked about it. I think it’s true. It just wasn’t a strong enough reason to nominate her, for me, anyway. But it was a strength she had that Obama didn’t, and doesn’t.
Mike in NC
@OzoneR:
I couldn’t see it until I just happened to install Internet Explorer 9 today.
OzoneR
Oh you still believe the tea party was going to listen to Wall Street.
Ok, well I get back to you when you realize what we all realized last week, that the tea party doesn’t give a shit what the business interests say on the debt ceiling because if they did, they would’ve taken the President’s offer to cut even more money and raise the Medicare age.
Elie
Last Paragraph or so of Obama’s inaugural address:
Emma
Dr bloor: bull…. feathers. You still didn’t answer my question. How do you get the REPUBLICAN HOUSE, controlled by the Tea Party numbnuts, to take the right actions? How?
Elie
@Elie:
Ugh — block quote fail
OzoneR
this makes sense. Clinton would have had an army to send out to protect her in these instances. Obama does not, so he’s forced to cave. He asked his army to send a message and 50,000 people stop following him on Twitter.
Clinton probably would’ve been forced to cave too in some scenarios, but she would’ve had backup.
Shawn in ShowMe
@JC:
Maybe we’re not getting through to you. Reality Show Nation, who wakes up every four years to vote in presidential elections, doesn’t care about the sausage making process in Washington.
They do notice, however, when they don’t get their government checks. They do notice when the stock market crashes 1000 points in one day. They do notice when their employers start handing out pink slips due to the economic uncertainty resulting from default.
All so the President doesn’t appear “weak” to the 10% of the country that’s actually paying attention.
General Stuck
Reading this blog and other liberal blogs today, I am comforted in the knowledge that the center left coalition has no gap of nihilists to the center right. There is ample support for ‘the no deal, let it burn” caucus that should be a hit for the voters in 2012, and provide a clear choice of methodology for mass national and world economic suicide.
Besides, sanity in politics is much over rated. The manly men tell us so, as they yearn for return of electric cowboys to the WH.
FlipYrWhig
@JC:
I’m not so sure about that. Remember that one of the things various pundits said could provide a common ground between teabagger types and lefties was resentment at the bank bailout. IMHO a huge proportion of teabagger activism is cooked up (or Koched up), but some of it isn’t. And if that’s true, there are some number of teabagger politicians who relish spurning Big Money overtures.
If you think of anti-establishment Republicans as a kind of mirror image of (the caricature of) militant Islamic “jihad,” what they do in politics makes more sense. And how to handle them becomes rather challenging.
JC
Ozone,
I’m looking at results.
Digby was right about the tax deal – that the Democrats would pre=compromise the Bush ta cuts away.
Digby was right about this – that the deal was set, with no incentives, and with cuts to Medicare, SS, on the line first.
She doesn’t think that Obama is weak – she thinks he is bought and pad for, like any other good corporate Democrat.
Do you realize, that for all my wailing and gnashing of teeth, your calm acceptance of this, is actually much much more pessimistic?
If Obama, with the Presidency, with the Senate, with a standard housecleaning debt ceiling raise, can’t hold the line, must continually retreat in his bargaining position, and must grin and bear the alcoholic slurring, bullying behavior of John Boehner, the know-nothing fantasies of Teahadists, and the shit eating grin and faux outrage of McConnel, AND GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT, then the possibilities of ever interrupting, or modifying this government by the 1%, of the 1% and for the 1%, is impossible.
It’s been said before, I read it somewhere – only Nixon could go to China. And only Obama could sell the beginning of the dismantling of the safety net.
And he has.
Elie
@FlipYrWhig:
JC did not answer the question though.. He just says what he says again, and again but more strongly. sigh.
How can we possibly influence the other side when we can’t seem to come to a common understanding with portions of our own team?
kay
I just think it’s really interesting. I have no patience with counter-factuals, and that (now) is a “what might have happened” but I believe it.
We had good discussions locally during the primaries, we weren’t at each other’s throats, and the biggest thing I heard from Clinton supporters was “I know her”.
They of course don’t “know her” but they have followed her for years. That’s a powerful thing, “knowing” someone. It means “I trust her”.
I think the same is true of Democratic surrogates. They “know” her too.
She developed those relationships, she built that trust, and she could have drawn on it when she (inevitably) stumbled, so it’s an earned advantage. Obama doesn’t have it in the bank. It’s just not available to him.
But I knew that going in :)
Elie
Okay, JC, Obama is a failure — has given up everything and got us nothing. Lets vote him out of office!!!!
ok. So, now what do we do for the next year and a half? Like Mike Lamb asked you upstring, “what’s the play?”
Queen Digby by acclamation?
JC
Elie,
I hadn’t had a chance to respond, and was doing something else.
As FlipYrWhig says, the play is to wait till the Big Money Boys yank the chain.
To my eyes, I had bought into, or at least was hopeful of, the O’Donnell view that Obama was giving the Rethugs the rope to hang themselves, making their fantasy demands and extortions transparent.
And I thought he was doing a pretty good job, actually, and coming off as the only adult in the room.
So, he holds the line. When we go into default, and the checks stop going out, push back hard, saying again, ‘clean debt bill’.
The Rethugs give up their hostage demands, the debt ceiling gets raised.
Obama looks like the adult in the room.
Rethugs look like chumps.
Rethugs also have lost the confidence of the business community, and they realize that these guys are crazy.
Rethugs LOSE. Because winning is all the Beltway respects.
And regular people know, that Obama stood up for Medicare and Social Security, while Rethugs were willing to blow up the country, and runs on that.
It’s a win all around.
Now?
We’ll hear about how the Rethugs ‘tough negotiating stance’ allowed them to get what they want, the democrats can’t use the Ryan bill to hammer Republicans next November, Obama looks weak, and Obama LOST.
AND – the track is laid for small, cumulative cuts for the safety net, over the years.
OzoneR
Did Digby also predict the sky is blue, because thats only slightly less obvious than her other predictions.
We all knew Democrats would give up on Bush tax cuts, that was clear after the respond to President Obama’s demand for a vote on them was “nah.” We all knew there would be cuts to Medicare, though it looks like they’ll be on the supply side anyway, because its either that or the whole economy goes kablooey and people get even more hurt.
It’s the political equivalent of “do you want to bullet in your hand or your foot”
President Obama made a campaign last year of not giving the keys to the car back to the Republicans. The left mocked him. The country gave the keys back to the Republicans, now Obama has to do whatever he can to keep them from driving off the cliff, that may include sacrificing a lot.
General Stuck
@Elie:
Queen Digby wouldn’t last, she would overthrow herself in about two seconds.
phoebes-in-santa fe
@OzoneR: Let’s hope we still have a country next November.
Elie
I have no idea why I bother responding but there will be cuts to Medicare and SS. There will have to be and particularly to provider payments on Medicare. We have to reign in costs to that program and ALL healthcare as the healthcare reform bill is implemented. It is necessary because the docs and providers are a disproportionate share of the budgets for health. This is without a doubt, going to be really really hard to do, and as kay and many others have pointed out, the Congress just has not been willing to do this. It is also a horrible political third rail as the “cuts” to paying the providers gets spun into cuts to actual services (of course the docs and providers know this and immediately use that argument)
Now JC, you can’t be a good revolutionary if you don’t really know what you should be revolting agsinst. All your anger and energy seems to be against Obama rather than applying energy to building the awareness of the facts. Those facts include that Obama is trying to do just what I described on the provider side (this is way oversimplified but just helps to make for a less long winded explanation). You in fact, are undercutting his efforts and that is going to help how? We need to get healthcare to all and without exploding the cost to do that. You aboard or gonna come out of Digbyland with some other crazy assed statement of “fact”?
Its all work, baby. Not sit on a throne and make pronouncements (like Digby and KTHUG and other intertube royalty).
wrb
They retain the ability to do this again in the future.
They retain the ability to do it in the future regardless. There is no macho response now that would take that away. There are macho responses that could result in 40% unemployment and people starving in the streets.
I read some insider who said that the reason they are so crazy now is because they didn’t get their way last time- they were inflamed, not discouraged.
These self-certain proclamations of how the TPs will respond to some preferred strategy are baseless- they are bullshit.
Elie
@General Stuck:
LOL!!!!
FlipYrWhig
@JC:
But why would the Republicans give up their demands at this point? Wouldn’t they just say, “You’re not getting your check because Obama wants a blank check of his own”? Or, “You’re not getting paid, but we all know the government has plenty of money, so who’s getting _your_ share?”
General Stuck
Oh please, melodramatic much. Of course dems can run on the wingers wanting to slash, destroy, beat medicare with a hammer, and SS. They won’t be able to shut up about it and it will be on full display in the supercommittee, or whatever it’s called, as will the dem side of that committee being on full display with closing tax loopholes of the rich and famous. That is a debate we want, and benefits will be off the table for them. Would you rather have that, or an Obama that was forced to declare a law unconstitutional and all the bullshit memes that will give rise to.
The wingers won’t be able to use this particular venue to do their hostage taking, but will likely try it with domestic budgeting for running the government, to shut that down if they want. That is within the rational world, defaulting was square in the irrational world. And very much quite insane.
There are not going to be immediate spending cuts, and Obama will now be to a large degree inoculated from tax and spend liberal complaints from the right, and able to say, we already did that, and make the wingers look even more extreme. It doesn’t work the other way around, unless you simply have no confidence or faith in Obama job performance at the present time. And if that is the case, then maybe you folks should hook up with another candidate, rather than flopping around in despair on blogs.
FlipYrWhig
@General Stuck: I also have been thinking that, from what I’ve read about The Deal, Obama must be pretty confident that he and/or the Democrats can _win_ a discussion of how best to structure spending cuts that reduce deficits and debts. They’d apparently rather shape the discussion of cuts than fight for revenues and against cuts. Seems like a gamble, but it’d be an interesting act of political ju-jitsu.
Davis X. Machina
@General Stuck: Guilty of the sin of leadership.
Consistent progressives have to. Because power corrupts, and the moment you accept power, you’ve become complicit in your own corruption. You have to do the right thing — accept your election, or acclamation, or whatever, because that validates the voters who sent you. But then you have to immediately resign before you lose your soul.
Paradoxically, I think Obama is a little bit infected with this mind-set, and it helps to explain his reluctance to bigfoot things. LBJ, a guy whose name comes up a lot here, had the opposite problem — but apart from that, they’re a lot alike. A lot. Right down to the community organizer bit. LBJ did something not a lot unlike as the state’s NYA head.
JC
There are simply NO REASONS to have cuts to SS. Really, none. You can raise the cutoff point to take in funds, and we’ll be fine.
Medicare – yes, this is correct, you have to ‘bend the cost curve’. You think the Rethugs who are so powerful, they turn a housekeeping vote into their best leverage in years, are going to accept provider based cuts?
Because at this point, Big Business will weight in – ‘what are you guys doing?? Raise the debt ceiling in the dead of night, I don’t care, get it done!!’
Or, as Clinton had said, who also is a constitutional scholar, go another route, like Constitution.
they will keep making outrageous demands, unless there are consequences for not doing so.
That’s what no one here is willing to admit.
G Stuck,
I like you buddy, but you were simply wrong this whole last two weeks. You can either choose to have a bit of humility in the face of that, or be a troll and not. Your choice.
EDIT: I’m going outside, bye for now.
General Stuck
@FlipYrWhig:
This the Obama style. Engagement with your adversary. Not pounding a lectern about being a decider. It is controlling the debate, and effort to neutralize potent winger memes against dems. And it is always a gamble doing it this way.
The thing about the “my way or the highway” style of presidenting, is that it works great when you have minions of your own party leading the congress, that will fall into lockstep with dear leader. PLUS, and a big plus, whatever dictates you dictate without involving the other side, you had better be damn sure they are the right dictates and offer success for governing the country. Because whilst enjoying all of the accolades of that success from your dictates, the flip side is you will get all of the blame if you fuck up, doing everything by fiat and not engaging the opposition. see one GWB
Davis X. Machina
Take them out back and have them shot. It’s in the 14th amendment. Any strong president would do it.
The Ship of State is presently the Kobayashi Maru. There is no answer.
JC
ONe last thing – read Greg Sargeant.
This would be a stunning political failure for Obama and the Democrats Stunning.
General Stuck
WTF you talking about? I been saying i don’t have a clue how this will turn out. And I am not opposed to long term deficit reduction, and have been since the beginning. My two bugaboos were no benefit cuts to entitlements and that raising the debt ceiling had to be past the coming election.
Far as I know, both of those concerns have been met, if reports are accurate.
Elie
@JC:
I completely disagree that your SPECULATION about the outcome prior to the actual, you know, REAL outcome is necessarily a failure.
Speculation aside, rather than use your chrystal ball, can we wait to see the REAL outcome? I know you love to HATE Obama and love to love the mythical other President who would have done so much better, but I want reality.
kay
I am FOR cuts to Medicare providers and to defense.
I don’t know how you “bend the cost curve” on health care w/out slowing the rate of growth of Medicare spending. Medicare is giant. It’s the elephant in the room. The whole point of having single-payer is the government can control costs with their massive federal buying power. The first thing Vermont did in their single payer law is start making rules on who pays what, to whom. Vermont can do that, now. They have single payer. They didn’t go to all that trouble setting up single payer and then say “oh, just bill us whatever, for whichever. Covered!” They’d go bankrupt in a year.
Without cost controls, we may as well just hand everyone a voucher and let them fend for themselves. I want feds to use their power to negotiate a better deal on buying health care. They have enormous clout. They insure everyone who is over 65.
Davis X. Machina
@Davis X. Machina: I wouldn’t want to be thought to be inciting violence. The appropriate consequences are for the President to dissolve Congress and call for new elections. That’s in the 14th amendment, and any strong president would do it.
dr. bloor
@Emma:
Try reading through the thread, rather than jumping in at post 174.
Elie
@kay:
kay, I got that from your past comments. Maybe I did not come across clearly in characterizing your opinion, but my intent was to say that — cuts to provider payments. I went on to say that this is really difficult, as the message by providers in defending themselves is that cuts to their payments will always result in cuts to services to beneficiaries. Its their spin. Totally agree with your statement about the costs and the necessity of managing them in regards to providers. Defense also.
Emma
dr. bloor: So. No answers. I thought so.
Emma
jc: Ah… check the update. It’s a single sentence…. “oops. but we should kvetch anyway” (my paraphrase).
kay
We generally agree on health care. Republicans want to cut payments to beneficiaries, and Democrats want to cut payments to providers. I don’t think cutting payments to beneficiaries will work (even if it were well-intended, and it’s not) because people are simply tapped out on health care. They can’t cover any more share of the cost. They won’t be able to buy anything else they need.
That leaves providers.
That’s the start of the policy debate, though, not the end.
hildebrand
I understand the impulse of those who say that Obama should hold firm and wait for the checks to actually stop – and then swoop in with the 14th. I get it, he would have everybody’s attention and folks would see that he was ‘serious’ in his negotiations.
One problem. Real people suffer when those checks don’t go out. Real people. Maybe it is easy to turn them into abstractions so that we can see the cause of the greater good. I rather think that it would be harder to do that than one might think. I know this doesn’t register for a great many on this site, but maybe, just maybe, Obama would rather not inflict that kind of pain. And make no mistake, it is real pain.
Too many of my students cannot afford it if the government stopped sending checks. Too many.
Maybe, just maybe, Obama actually gives a damn about the people today, and while the deal is horrifying, you do what you need to do when you need to do it.
Nah – he is the soul-less monster that the teabaggers and right-wing commentariate say that he is, so screw him. Plus, he is probably just a corporate stooge anyway. The short-term? Pshaw. We have real concerns to worry about, the poor and needy will understand. This is all for their long-term good, right?
Yes, I understand – the decision made today will reverberate for years. I also understand that they will have an impact tomorrow. Trying to find a balance is hard work, and any one of us, if we were in the Big Chair, would face excruciating choices that all suck. And so you look for the one that sucks the least. That’s it. That’s all you get. To think otherwise, with this opposition, is pure fantasy.
Elie
@kay:
I think that this is where the “pay for performance” part comes in: the belief that good performing providers should receive more payment as they save the system more money through better outcomes… still unproven completely but is the optimistic opening gambit — if they can figure out how to do it and survive the politics….
When Medicare started, there were no specialists and far fewer docs. Hospitals dealth with the poor by providing charity care on a very limited basis. That changed and everyone got real fat and used to being fat. Dieting is always difficult and while watching my butt shrink ultimately makes me happy, the hunger pangs and heavy workouts to shrink it (much less the time), make me real conscious of the hard work. No less here. We have a lot of hard work ahead in a country that hasnt really known hard work and suffering in a long long time.
Elie
I have no idea why my comment is under moderation, but so be it! Must be something about paying providers for performance..
Clever moniker
@hildebrand
Depending on the substance of this deal, your students might not be getting checks (or checks of equal value) anyway.
OzoneR
Well that’s good, cause there won’t be cuts to SS
No one is saying this is a political victory for Democrats, there will be no victories as long as the tea party control the House.
Seriously, why are you people shocked by all this, this is the LARGEST Republican majority in 64 years!
OzoneR
Yes, they will keep making outrageous demands BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT DOING SO. Democrats can’t create consequences. People will continue to vote Republican to screw black people regardless of what Republicans do, so they are extraordinary powerful.
Mike Lamb
@JC: I’m pretty sure (if reports are correct–yes, I know this is a huge assumption) that Big Money tried to rein in the Teatards and the Teatards told them to suck it.
I’d also point out that your approach also inflicts a lot of pain on people in the name of optics. That’s pretty cynical.
Finally, the idea that this is all kabuki to cover for a pre-negotiated deal strikes me as near the “9-11 was an inside job” conspiracy theory. It just doesn’t pass the smell test and no one is that good of an actor.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@hildebrand: Bear in mind that some of our friends on the left don’t really give a shit about how individuals are affected.
See, for instance, the constant bleating about Obama extending the Bush tax cuts without ever once mentioning that in return for that extension he also got an extension of unemployment benefits.
The people who needed those benefits? Some of our so-called progressive colleagues really. don’t. care.
edited for clarity.
Emma
Someone pointed me to the summary at TPM. Though it’s short on details, except for the nice part about Social Security, Medicaid, and programs for veterans and the poor being exempt. A number of my elderly relatives and their friends get to eat next month.
Corner Stone
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: Extending the Bush Tax Cuts was a horrible mistake, and a horrible Deal.
That Deal is a big part of why we are where we are now, and paved the way to steal revenue from the system so we’re now fighting over the less rotten fruit on the ground.
Need revenue? Make the changes to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire with the needed tax fixes. Otherwise, what are you going to say is worth it when the deal to extend them this next Fall is made?
stinkdaddy
They’re counting on being able to take you guys for granted no matter what, and if this thread’s any indication they’re making a safe bet. Why you’d pledge to ‘fight like a maniac’ for people who leave you feeling betrayed is beyond me. Personally I figure the President can go ahead and earn my vote, and I think if more people felt the same we wouldn’t be in quite the shitfest we’re in. ymmv.
john
@stinkdaddy: Well, all I can say is he has earned my vote and hasn’t left me feeling betrayed at all. Of course, I went into his Presidency knowing that he wasn’t perfect and not expecting everything I would like to see happen. See, that is what makes me part of the reality based community.
General Stuck
@stinkdaddy:
Yes, but you’re a rare and delicate flower