Looks like people have weighed their options and now a not insignificant number of people have decided we haven’t had enough brinksmanship. I would not be surprised to see the debt deal blow up, or maybe it is all just kabuki.
Comments are closed.
Can we send Tunch as a negotiator? What this blog needs right now is a generous helping of his majesty’s calm and grace. Plz we can has Tunch?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see it blow up either. There’s a part of me that wants to see it blow up because it’s so bad, but for me it’s like the bank bailouts. Eat a shit sandwich, or watch the world blow up?
I’d suggest deploying Rosie, except now she’s all rehabilitated. Darn.
Addendum: I ought to have linked this as a reply to schrodinger’s cat, but due to my lowered centrist expectations, I forgot to look for the Reply option.
My guess is that Nancy Pelosi will withhold almost all of her votes, to make the Republicans own it. She will wait to see how many Teabaggers sit it out, and only let enough Democrats vote to have it squeak by at 218.
She’s won’t kill the deal, but she will want the final score to show that Democrats mostly voted no.
(That’s my best guess at the kabuki)
Neither would I, and the reason is that the commission actually has some equal pol weapons for each side with the trigger. No, that isn’t quite correct. Dems actually have better weapons because a no agreement means they get to protect entitlement benefits, and the wingers have nothing protected from defense cuts. Which would be like having their tiny dicks Bobbitized.
And if there is one thing the wingnuts don’t like, it’s a fair fight.
I have my cans of sterno, and hamburger helper. So bring it on mo fos.
@Larkspur: We can send Tunch with his mighty paw of doom.
I see on TPM that Grover Norquist is on board. I think this means that we can count on Jane and FDL to support the deal, as well.
I vote for Kabuki. I wrote in a thread last night that I expect to see the dems scream loud and blame the GOP for this dreck. If the dems came out for it, the TPers would reflexively vote against and there would be no deal. In addition, the TPers cannot write or even read complex legislation and there is next to no time for this deal to be examined in detail. My expectation is that Reid had language at the ready (even if McConnell signed off on it) that somehow limits the worst of the bill’s possible effects. I think it is still a $hit sandwich, but I think it will turn out softer on the economy than what the GOP would (treasonously) like.
I blew up on Twitter last night after the deal was announced (in the “what the fuck would you have done differently” sense), but I should have waited. With this Congress, you shouldn’t start crapping on the deal until it’s actually in the President’s hands, because there’s never any guarantee it’ll actually get there.
Pelosi can’t stop the Blue Dogs from voting for this one. The only way this could be stopped would be a filibuster by the Senate Progressive Caucus… wait, I’m getting a page, apparently there isn’t one. Fudge.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m sorry but I just can’t support Grover Norquist here. That’s where I draw the line.
HA! You made a funny about FDL! Good for you.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, and if it does get there and you never said anything, you can be accused of not giving a damn until it was too late. It’s a win-win.
I don’t see why Republicans wouldn’t be overjoyed to just let the trigger happen. The 50% which is cuts to discretionary domestic spending are something that all Republicans want, and the 50% which is cuts to defense spending… is something that most Republicans want.
I wouldn’t sign on to this thing unless there was a big tax increase in the trigger.
@General Stuck: I’ve seen you express this sentiment over and over; entitlements are ‘safe,’ so it doesn’t matter what else happens. It’s just painfully stupid to think that another trillion dollars in automatic cuts to discretionary domestic spending is acceptable policy. And the ‘threat’ facing the republicans is defense cuts. You’re a decade behind in thinking these are problematic for the new brand of conservatives. Many have been advocating that, and pulling out of both wars on that, and general isolationist, grounds.
You demonstrate how thoroughly the “cut deficits” meme has been absorbed.
My only forecast is continuous high-pitched whine everywhere no matter what happens, so consider this my “Biohazard” sticker on the internet and I’m off for the day. BBC’s off anyway, although actually, less news there today might just tilt it marginally into the yellow zone, esp if I keep to the radio side of things.
I have a six words for the GOP re:the economy.
You broke it, you bought it.
I have a six words for the GOP re:the economy.
You broke it, you bought it.
Anything short of a ‘clean’ bill is ‘kabuki’.
Is there time to set up a pool on how many Republican House members vote for this?
If the Blue Dogs are voting then Democratic votes aren’t needed.
The Blue Dogs have been sitting out on these deals because they won’t vote for a deal unless the Tea Party is on board. Period. They are (and always have been) deathly afraid of primaries from the right, and if there are Tea Party members who are refusing to vote for the deal then they won’t vote for it either.
This is why Boehner couldn’t just cut a deal with the Blue Dogs – they won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling unless the Tea Party has bought in. And if they Tea Party has bought in then their votes aren’t needed because Boehner has enough votes to pass it.
That’s what all this drama over the last month has been about in the House – if the Blue Dogs were just going to cave one of Boehner’s earlier plans would have worked and it would have gone to the Senate. But the Blue Dogs have been refusing to budge without Tea Party cover.
That’s why when I heard about this deal yesterday I was surprised – I wondered how they’d managed to break the hold of the farthest-right Tea Party radicals in the House. Turns out they haven’t – and apparently this all comes down to how well Boehner controls his caucus and how much Pelosi is willing to give.
My guess is that Pelosi will give enough to pass it, but not enough for House Democrats to own it. This will all be Boehner’s baby. But then again, Pelosi may just tell her people to vote their consciences and fuck it if it doesn’t pass. I guess we’ll find out.
ETA: I didn’t realize how much I missed that Reply button – thanks for getting it fixed John.
And how will all the blue hairs that voted them in so stop the socializing medicare take it?
The only thing that can happen to this deal if it doesn’t pass is to get worse. I’m regularly amazed at the GOP’s ability to negotiate with virtually no clout. In a sane world, every Tea Party Hero would be scared shit-less of a default. But they’re all ready to fall on their swords for the pure satisfaction of fucking up the Democratic Party.
And, of course, the media is so far in the bag that “Blame the Democrats” pieces are already writing themselves. This will not end well for anyone who isn’t already a billionaire.
You know, most of this shit sandwich is scheduled to get served over a ten-year period not starting until fiscal year 2013, which means if we can get off our whiny asses and take back the House, we would have a chance of preventing most of it.
Just a thought.
ramadan mubarak Cole!
its going to pass, the cat wranglers are already out in force.
@Just Some Fuckhead: Sadly true. I mean, I’m not a fan of this bill, but it was inevitable we’d get something along these lines when “independent voters” decided, for instance, that Ron Klein was so liberal that they had to vote for a sane Republican like Allen West in 2010, and when that scenario was played out all over the country. When you elect people who thrive on expelling shit, pretty soon all you’ll have to ear is a shit sandwich.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@CaptainFwiffo: One of the areas I heard would be cut is farm subsidies. Maybe Congress can use the trigger to cut something everyone wants cut but no one will touch.
@Larkspur: I am replying to this simply because I can.
There’s two problems with this statement. One–the words “sane” and “Tea Party Hero” should never be used in close conjunction. Two–they don’t think they’ll be falling on their swords. They think the economy will improve after a default, thus explaining why point one is so important.
the GOP reminds me of that scene in the Usual Suspects where Keyser Söze is willing to kill his wife and kids rather than make a deal.
Methinks you misunderstand the idea of kabuki. What everyone (except me) is suggesting is that the outcome is still undetermined. Kabuki is when it’s all over but the sobbing, heaving, santorum-running-down-your-shorts public spectacle.
@Bob L: The Blue Hairs will be fine – there won’t be cuts to Medicare benefits in the trigger. From every description I’ve read, there is nothing in there that won’t make a Republican happy.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Oh so that’s the “Ben Nelson says fuck you – no FUCK YOU BEN NELSON” pill that Reid stuck in there eh?
Well it’ll put some fire under Nelson’s feet to figure something out if that’s true – might give Reid a bit of leverage to pull him into the fold. And yeah, I would believe that Reid would stick some payback in there after Nelson showed that he didn’t have Reid’s back last week.
It’s kabuki AND the end of the world. Of course.
Meanwhile you have a butt-load of BJers sitting down to dine on their tire rim and anthrax lunch while discussing if it would be better with some Bearnaise sauce or a nice Chianti.
Then, when the meal is completed, these same BJers will only tip 12% and call it a victory.
At this point I would prefer to see the deal go down in defeat and have Obama us the 14th Amendment. The economy is going to be shit until the election, the GOP will make sure of it. So let Obama use the 14th, and the GOP can impeach him.
The Republicans won a total victory IMO, and they will not even have to own the negative parts of it. The people in this country are so stupid they don’t understand any implications of policy, that things like infrastructure do matter and Pell loans allow poor people to go to college.
I saw Mike Lee of Utah, a major Teabagger, being interviewed and that fat piece of shit sat there and talked about huge waste and fraud as if that is 50% of the budget. Its aggravating that this fat bastard will be instrumental in having anything to do with public policy.
@John Cole, I may be dreaming, but I recall you advocating for default, blowing up the talks at one point. I don’t know, seems reasonable on some level.
Just Some Fuckhead
Anything else means we’re working with Grover Norquist. I can’t have that on my beautiful conscience.
The thing is, the trigger just creates another opportunity for the Democrats to capitulate even more. There will be something in there that they won’t be willing to let happen, because it would be a disaster, so the crazies will be able to get something even more insane by playing chicken with the trigger.
It’s like negotiating with a hostage taker, then getting them to give up one hostage by giving them two more.
I have always been something of a deficit hawk, no matter who was president, dem or repub. So I am being consistent with those beliefs here and not jumping on the Church of Krugman bandwagon, and choosing to think for myself. And I am not flip flopping like so many good progressive are for once being deficit hawks, WHEN a republican was president that they hated. There are no to few cuts in the first year of two of this deal, and I am flush for long term deficit reduction, as are nearly every dem in congress, and elsewhere. If you folks want to follow a progressive shadow government with imaginary officials like Krugman and Delong et al, then have at it. It is a free country
@El Tiburon: This is the best of all possible worlds.
No, I get that. My point is that the narrative right now is trending towards “this is a deal the Teahadists will accept”. Now, I don’t know why this one would be any better than the last eight they rejected, from their perspective, but media narratives are tough things for astroturfed populocorporatists to buck.
I see on TPM that Grover Norquist is on board. I think this means that we can count on Cole and Balloonheads to support the deal, as well.
For all the conservatives out there who mock Obama as “The One,” it’s really liberals who see him that way. Not in the blind hero worship sense that conservatives put on it, but rather they apparently felt that all we had to do was elect this one guy president, and it would all work out.
Sorry, but Obama can’t do shit unless he gets a lot of support in the House and the Senate. We got The One, and now we need A Couple Hundred More.
@Zifnab: In a sane world, every Tea Party Hero would be scared shit-less of a default. But they’re all ready to fall on their swords for the pure satisfaction of fucking up the Democratic Party.
And here we have the crux of the matter. They are sane by their own principles; it’s just that for the rest of the Universe those principles are a disaster. Our reasons, to them, are heresies, and heretics have to be burned at the stake for the sake of purity.
So….I’ve read several pundits & blogs and now I pose a question:
What is it that progressives attained in this ‘compromise’? If you answer progressives gained a debt ceiling bill, you are not being serious. The deal was supposed to have some revenue. This one has none. This deal allows republicans to do and agree to nothing in the future where then automatic cuts will cut entitlement programs no matter what.
I don’t see any compromise here. I agree with Krugman. The President surrendered.
What amazes me, is that Republicans are getting through policy changes that they couldn’t get through when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.
BREAKING: Romney won’t support the deal!!!!
ZOMG! Now what will happen?
Sigh, okay I made the mistake of reading Sully today and wish that his argument on the debt didn’t amount to “numbers are really big!” He’s actually reading Krugman and Bartlett, but still not arriving at the right conclusions.
Note that the reaction from the stock market wasn’t quite as exuberant as advertised. Somebody’s gotta know something.
@TooManyJens: That’s too hard. It’s better to blame the guy in the White House, primary him, and then lose the general election. And we can then go back to our favorite “whine, kick, and scream loudly” state. Hey, we retained our moral purity and that’s all that matters.
We gave the guy a majority on the house and sixty votes in the Senate. That should have been plenty.
I would love to see you print the email Glenn Greenwald sent you and your response to it.
I know the Obama apologists hate to hear this, but…..
Bush, Cheney and their evil minions used a propaganda campaign to get the US into a war we didn’t need to fight and they got a large portion of the country to believe or at least think that tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves. Yet, with the truth on his side, Obama can’t convince anyone that Keynesian economics actually works.
President Obama is the best we can do for the next 5 1/2 years but he certainly isn’t the best person for the job, and that is terrible.
Althouse has, for once, an interesting point:
Be back in a few, have to scrub that site off my fingers.
I’ve had a nagging feeling for a while now that this is the GOP’s desired result. There were even some hard right/Freeper types (can’t find the damned link) who thought they had Obama boxed in: in the event of no deal being reached, he violates the Constitution if he uses the 14th, but also violates the Constitution if he doesn’t.
@CaptainFwiffo: They’re a lot crazier now. Also, the policies that they did get through then, like starting a couple of wars and making huge tax cuts, weren’t exactly good for the country either.
@zmulls: He did that before the vote? This just illustrates his willingness to take a bold stand.
This. And even if you can’t prevent it. If the policies are really terrible, run on a platform of repealing them and make that a mandate. This isn’t a one time proposition. It’s like a reverse UHC scenario. The left thinks that if we can get UHC in place, people will realize how good it is, then fight to keep it like they do their Medicare. Likewise, the Teabaggers think the drowned corpse of good government will entrench itself if they can ram it through. Are they right? Only if liberals throw up their hands and stop fighting them over it.
Blah blah blah, YAWN
reading the details of the agreement, I’m tired, I’m fed up. what’s the point of voting democrat when we control 1/2 of congress and the executive branch, and the Right’s agenda is furthered more than it was under GWB? I’m to the point where I’d rather see the deal blow up and we either default, or Obama goes all 14th Amendment on their a$$. right now it’s death by 1000 papercuts. I think I’d rather just have my head chopped off….
I keep reading that the deal includes “$1 trillion in cuts now” (see Drum, Kevin).
But the $1 trillion in cuts “now” is actually spread over the next ten years. And I’m not sure how enforceable that is. Future congresses/president(s) can just revise that if needed.
Not that the $1 trill in cuts are good no matter how they’re spread out. We have an aging population that will require more gubmit services, and discretionary cuts of this magnitude will adversely affect our ability to meet those needs.
But I’m not sure the deal is as drastic as it appears.
I’m not confident about this 12-member super congress panel, but that’s another story.
Do you think the fact that the Bush agenda coincided with the agenda of the owners of virtually all major media outlets has anything to do with the disparity? I’m not trying to sound like “give up, the media’s against us, it’s hopeless” Nick, but it is helpful to keep our eyes on what the real problems are.
Ah. Well the reason that the narrative is going that way is because in a sane world it gives them everything they asked for with no penalties. Reporters and their corporate masters therefore say there ya go – this will work.
But since we don’t live in a sane world, and the Tea Partiers were already given everything they asked for a week ago and then they moved the goal posts again, I don’t see how this works.
On the other hand – apparently according to the Great Orange Satan Pelosi has said that about 66 Dems have signed on to vote for this. So it isn’t going to gain Tea Party votes, it’s going to gain votes from the “Responsible People Party” who would rather choke down a shit sandwich than throw the country into a government shutdown (Democratic politicians are really, really averse to government shutdowns because they really, really fucking hurt people across the economic spectrum. Republicans love them for the same reason — which is why they were able to use the debt ceiling as a hostage, and why they’ll use the 2013 budget as a hostage too).
Which means it’s going to pass unless Boehner loses more Republican votes than he gains from Pelosi. Which … he might. I could see some of his asshole caucus deciding that they just can’t vote for something that has 66 Dems agreeing to vote for it.
You’re just adorable!
Why do you think the Blue Dogs in the House are chomping at the bit to vote for this? There’s been all kinds of posturing from the Senate Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson, but I haven’t heard a peep out of the ones in the House.
Of course, membership for the House Blue Dogs was cut by more than half after November, so it may just be that no one cares what they think anymore. Boehner doesn’t need them and in fact has said all along that he doesn’t want their votes.
A bad deal, all round.
a. Surrender to the hostage takers, over what should be a pro-forma vote.
b. A small hit to GDP, at a minimum.
c. Obama and company talking about how ‘bipartisan’ this is, so the hostage takers are not only getting what they want, but also being given cover by Obama.
How does this end well?
If you actually think the Republican caucus was crazy enough to vote down the debt ceiling increase, isn’t this a huge red flag for this country, in the fact that they can get away with this ransom? That this ransom is then papered over by the press (bipartisan deal, debt reduction is a good thing, etc)?
I think the above is uncontroversial, whether you are an Obot, a firebagger, or somewhere in between (which is most of us).
Now, for perception purposes, but arguable, I think the following:
a. The drag on the economy of this, especially as will be repeated in the budget negotiation, will mean that unemployment will be high come next year.
b. In politics, dramatic victories count. When Gingrich backed down on the budget deal, it had an impact. Yes, Clinton had begun to have a roaring economy, which made it easier. but the victory helped him.
This was a dramatic victory for the Rethugs, from what has always been a pro-forma vote. Are there any examples of that type of victory from nothing, this surrender (call it necessary and moral surrender if you wish, but surrender it is), that a President has made to a Congress, who then goes forward and wins the next election?
So this is a loser for:
a. the ‘low information’ voters, because this deal dims the economy a bit.
b. The Beltway, and the political junkies, who know the magnitude of the Rethugs victory here.
It would be nice if the Beltway woke up, and realized the danger this episode has been to the country, and to good government. But as was mentioned earlier, they have settled on ‘the Tp’s migh have gone a bit too far, but the debt needed to be dealt with’.
So that’s enabling this dangerous behavior.
Because Obama is certainly given the same ability to speak to the public as Bush and Cheney were. We established this a long time ago.
Sixty votes which included Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, etc. What are you, twelve?
I’m not in the “primary him” crowd, but I don’t look forward to knocking on doors of registered Democrats and only being able to say “the Republicans are worse”.
It was inevitable as soon as Obama unilaterally put entitlements on the chopping block – as he’s been trying to do since the day he was inaugurated.
Start choking down your shit sandwich, ‘bots. Obama made it just for you.
the tea partiers wanted the HCR dead dead dead. And medicare cut to the bone and privatized. They didn’t get that, and they won’t accept this deal cause they actually didn’t get what they wanted. We will and are seeing this. Whether it causes the bill to fail in congress remains to be seen.
And anyone who said it should have revenue, also, not being serious.
And notice how, for all the imperfections, much better things were done for the country in 2009-2010 than now.
no, no. the approved progressive message is that they got EVERYTHING they wanted, and then some, and that Obama has not only been symbolically castrated but will actually be actually castrated, live, on prime time TV as penance for making the teabaggers stay up late.
actually you gave him 59 votes in the Senate, one guy switched parties, and there were only ever 60 votes for about four and a half months.
So no, you didn’t GIVE him 60 votes in the Senate, and no, it wasn’t plenty.
As Nony pointed out, the House Blue Dogs have been clammed the fuck up this whole time. They just want this to go away. And it’s not going to go away without some form of debt ceiling increase passing — so my prediction was that the Blue Dogs would vote for whatever the first bill is that they think they have political cover for.
The Other Bob
Can someone tell me how quickly the agreed upon initial $900 billion in cuts kicks in?
If it is soon, isn’t this the anti-stimulus? It is about the same amount of $, but the stimulus was 36% tax cuts.
I am usually called an Obot, but I think I have to agree with the Krug-meister on this one.
Dude, the country already agrees with Obama. Poll after poll has shown that what people want is a balanced approach and they want to see taxes raised. The Bully Pulpit has already done as much catapulting of the propaganda as it can.
You’re confusing things. The propaganda being catapulted wasn’t to convince Congress to go to war – Congress is almost ALWAYS ready to go to war. And after the first Gulf War Democrats in Congress were leery about voting against the war. So all Bush needed to to was cover for a vote that Congress was already going to make.
And the tax cuts? He didn’t convince anyone. A sustained campaign of 30+ years to convince people that cutting taxes is always good for the economy was piggy-backed onto by Bush to support his tax cuts. That the Congress was going to vote for anyway because Congress loves voting for tax cuts.
The Bully Pulpit that Bush used was never about forcing a recalcitrant Congress to do what he wanted – it was always about pushing Republican propaganda to get the people to come along afterward. Obama is in EXACTLY the opposite situation – people generally agree with him and Congress is saying “fuck you people we don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.” The lessons from Bush the Lesser don’t apply here because the situation is exactly the opposite.
Maybe what might have helped was the organization of a mass protest in DC – a million man march to tell Congress to stop fucking around. But I doubt it – when you have a portion of Congress that fundamentally hates democracy and thinks that they are only responsible to the handful of people who voted them into office (rather than representing all of their district/state/country) then no amount of Bully Pulpit is going to fix that. the only thing that fixes that is winning elections and throwing people like that out of power so they can’t do any harm.
No, I’m somebody who’s worn holes in his shoes to get Democrats elected.
It just seems the current standard is that Republicans can get their agenda through with just one house of Congress and Democrats need both, plus the the White House, plus two thirds of the Senate. Sixty would be enough if Democrats played hardball.
You mean they got the country to believe the exact same things that Republicans had been telling them over and over and over again for the past 30 years? Who’d’a thunk it?
Seriously, if you think that it was W and Cheney who got Americans to believe that tax cuts on the rich pay for themselves, you missed a whole lot of other events leading up to 2000.
and those 59/60 votes counted blue dogs and guys like lieberman. ugh.
One thing that can unite dems, with a few exceptions, is assault on medicare and SS by the right wing.
It was bracing to wake up to all the negativity this morning. I’d gone to bed thinking of it as dismal but the best that could be achieved but sometime in the middle of the night I’d been struck by the realization that the deal is an act of devilish genius, at least if I understand it correctly.
Key to the conclusion is that the enforcement mechanism is made up of cuts to defense and medicare provider payments.
Yes, these are funds fiercely protected by lobbies closely associated with each side, so in that sense the threat of cutting them is a sword, but to an objective person trying to run the country right- say, perhaps Obama- they are perhaps the two areas most in need of cutting but impossible to cut because of how lobbies control our government.
“Please don’t make me cut defense and heath care costs, Brer Fox!”
The lobbies haven’t time to swing into action, and may think the cutting mechanism is only there as a threat, so can be ignored.
This can achieve a decent chunk of the cost reduction that was stripped from the health care bill and start to decommission the imperial-era military that, untouchable, was to drain us until we were only had pictures of our mighty carriers to decorate the walls of our mud huts.
Getting the sword to drop is, or should be the goal.
Let’s recap: a few years ago the Republicans threaten the Nuclear Option to blow up the Senate to guarantee their Supreme Court picks get confirmed.
Outcome: a John Roberts Court. Epic Victory.
Today: Republicans threaten to blow up the entire country to get their spending cuts with potential to slash SS down the road.
Outcome: Got most of what they want. Epic Victory.
Obama punts on the public option, fires Van Jones and same with Shirley Sherrod. Continues Bush wartime policies and we are now up to 4,5 or 6 wars. We tortured Bradly Manning. Millions without jobs while CEO stock options through the roof.
Fact is Obama could have used 14th Amendment or other tools to avoid default. IN FACT the Constitution compels him to do so. Yet is was OFF THE TABLE. He never even threatened to use it. His only threat: “don’t call my bluff”. Fucking please.
Outcome: country no closer to adding more jobs, more people will get kicked out of homes, and Republicans in charge.
This is no longer on George W. Bush or the Republicans. Obama owns this shit. It is all on him. He is not powerless. And as Greenwalds says in his column today (where he calls out Cole – chirp chirp) this is not a bug with Obama, but a feature: it’s not that he is a weak negotiator or an idiot – this is what he wants.
So stick a fork in it.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@The Other Bob:
i’ve been trying to figure that out. i keep hearing numbers but not dates.
i mean, it’s all austerity, but immediate cuts are going to put the patient back in the hospital.
Shawn in ShowMe
@The Other Bob:
The $900 billion in cuts is phased in over 10 years, starting in FY 2013.
the fix is in.
the teabaggers will vote against it, but Pelosi can whip enough dems to make up for them.
im surprised that Krugman doesn’t see the gamespace.
i thought he was smarter….so disappointing.
if you think this is the Republican agenda, you’re being overdramatic.
I agree, but for “Independents”, the “fillibuster proof majority in the senate” for the first half of the administration is their perceived reality…it is for my boss, and it’s like pissing in the wind trying to explain to him why this just wasn’t true…
The Democrats never had 60. At any point. Remember Franken’s contested election keeping him out of his seat for months? Scott Brown? Any of that? Bueller?
So, yes, if the Democrats had had a filibuster-proof majority, a lot of problems would have been avoided. And if I had a unicorn that farted rainbows, I’d be a rich woman today.
not really. the 14th amendment is a no-go. the treasury even said so.
So we didn’t just dream that long list of accomplishments? Also, too, remind me how many shutdowns the Dems forced during that time and how much they had to fight President Obama to sign progressive legislation?
Oh? Obama signed everything the Dems sent him? Against his super secret desire to gut Medicare and force seniors to eat their cat food?
I don’t understand. What could have possibly changed starting January 2011 that would have caused all this awful legislation?
Those same majorities bucked on a debt ceiling vote before the 2010 elections because they thought the optics hurt their chances.
The Dem Congress kicking the can down road set the stage for all that has followed re: the debt ceiling.
1) I dispute your fact about the major media outlets, but it is irrelevant. The media is what it is. If [fill in any Democrat eligible to be President] were President instead of Obama he/she would still have to deal with the media as it is. You are just making an excuse.
2) Getting the message out is the real problem. If Obama can’t get his message past the Beltway dipshits of the world then he isn’t doing a very good job.
Neither did the Republicans, but they got to do whatever they want. They’re doing half of what they want right now with a minority!
This morning feels a lot like Thursday did. Everyone assuming that a bill is going to pass the House, because that’s the sensible thing to do. I don’t see where the votes are going to come from that passes this bill. I’ll stand by my prediction yesterday, the bill dies in the House, world-wide market panic, scaled back bill passes in a couple of days.
@Blue Neponset: You don’t think the owners of major media outlets wanted shiny wars to cover, tax cuts on the rich, and pro-corporate policies? OK.
I’m not quite sure you understand the definition of “fact.” There’s a reason people keep pointing out that using the 14th Amendment theory is extremely likely to get Obama impeached, and it’s not because it’s so very clearly legal for him to do it.
I know that you really really want it to be legal for him to use the 14th Amendment, and you’re fine with him being impeached, but that doesn’t make it a “fact” that using the 14th Amendment is perfectly legal.
dems are going to whip up enough votes in the house, i reckon. even the dems who hate this bill are not going to vote ‘no’ on the 11th-hour bill that averts a full-on default.
Here are some steps Obama could have taken to give himself leverage in this negotiation. They are all 100% legal and Constitutional:
I knew the 14th amendment bullshit would become gospel on the left. Could someone please explain how this 14th amendment thing was going to work, exactly?
I think some smart-aleck Dem should write a bill that after 2012, the debt ceiling is to be raised to eighty gazillion dollars. Just so we don’t have to do this again until 34,582 AD
@El Tiburon: you obviously don’t understand Holtzman effect.
How do you raise revenues in a recession when the electorate is adamantly opposed to raising taxes?
Use stealth and trickery to make congress do its job.
The supercommittee can raise taxes. Or if they fail to Obama can veto an extension of the Bush taxcuts. That is 3.6 trillion in revenues according to the CBO.
you will have a hard time finding a single partisan Republican who will agree with you. every single argument you see people making about the Dems being weak pushovers has been (and currently is being) made by the GOP base about their representatives. partisans are always angry at their leadership because the US government is not designed to give any party everything it wants – there are so many ways to stifle legislation that it’s nearly impossible to get anything through without compromise or bi-partisan buy-in of some sort.
Ya’ll are so blinkered by your fear of President Bachmann that you refuse to believe this deal contains much of what Obama wants, as opposed to something he was forced to accept. What actions has Obama taken that lead you to believe he doesn’t think spending and tax cuts drive the economy?
The real thing that will get Republicans to the table is that entitlements are protected from the trigger. The idea that Medicare and Social Security might not be cut will get them to deal. I think they might agree to increased revenue if they could feel assured that the middle class would suffer for no reason.
Davis X. Machina
I for one was bitterly disappointed when Obama had to pull his HCR effort before it even came to a floor vote, just like Clinton had to in ’94.
@chopper: Doesn’t stop Krugman from saying it is, sad to say.
It’s almost like the rules of the Senate make it easy for a minority to block legislation, right? But that’s not possible since everything is Obama’s fault, so there must be some other reason why the minority in the Senate is so powerful.
If this was so obviously legal, why have Presidents sought a debt limit increase instead of simply minting platinum coins? Gospel is right. If it was this simple, they’d all do it.
So imagine the scenario where we don’t get a deal, Treasury defaults, Obama mints up 2 trillion in coins, Teabaggers impeach him.
This staves off economic disaster…how?
It’s the opposite of “clap harder”. They want Obama to “yell louder” as if that’s achieve something.
I still get the feeling enough hardliners are going to want to vote against this “deal” just to watch the world burn.
A trillion dollar stimulus bill and a new health care law that subidizes poor people to get insurance?
first you take an anachronism from reconstruction times which was never intended to apply to a debt ceiling (which didn’t even exist for another 40 years or so), ignore the great constitutional weight that would be given to the actual debt ceiling legislation (since the constitution granted sole borrowing power to congress), and throw in some magical pony dust.
let’s face it, if that bit in the 14th had any real weight we would have nailed W to the wall when he called the SS trust fund bonds ‘worthless IOUs’.
Interesting. And he supports the Cut, Cap and Balance approach which means that he is positioning himself for the Balanced Budget Amendment debate of 2012.
Well… I think that the debt ceiling deal kills Romney’s campaign. Deficit hawks should be pleased with the bill and the only way to attack Obama now, from the right, is on social issues and with irrational stances (Tea Party burning-down-the-house attitude). Perry looks like the logical challenger. Hell, probably even Perry/Bachmann.
I wonder if Republicans are going to kill the bill once they feel that this bill takes the budget debate off the issue list of the campaign.
Shawn in ShowMe
If there are say, 30 Tea Party holdouts in the House, only 8 Blue Dogs would be needed to pass the bill. That sounds doable.
Davis X. Machina
Steely resolve. It’s in all the macro texts.
well, it’s only gospel on the part of the left that is giddy that they have yet another reason to hate their fantasy world-Obama. it’s a perfect device: it would solve everything, stymie the GOP, it requires Obama to whip his cock out and wave it in Boehner’s face, and (best of all) it’s completely implausible so real world Obama can never use it; it’s a fairy tale that reinforces the myth of Obama the wimp.
@wrb: yup, and its a stealthy way to bring increasing revenue into the discussion. The supercommittee can raise taxes. Or if they fail to Obama can veto an extension of the Bush taxcuts. That is 3.6 trillion in revenues according to the CBO. remember, the GOP was ADAMANT about not raising taxes, and wouldn’t even discuss it. But they aren’t smart enough to see this as stealth revenue discussions.
i <3 Obama.
ramadan kareem Obama!
@CaptainFwiffo: “We gave the guy a majority on the house and sixty votes in the Senate. That should have been plenty.”
That sixty votes in the Senate included Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Jim Webb and Ben Nelson.
Plus Joe Lieberman.
When they say “I have your back,” to Harry Reid, I am sure Nancy Pelosi is relieved.
ETA: Also Evan Bayh.
Large bipartisan majorities signed tO the shut sandwiches that Bush passed so the filibuster was a non-issue.
Iraq War passed with over 60 votes. NCLB and Patriot Act passed with over 90. The tax cuts were passed through reconciliation.
I think that’s pretty much it for the major stuff Bush got done? Everything else was budgetary or executive fuckery
The MSM would eat Obama for lunch if he uses the 14th Amendment option and they would do so even if it was unquestionably consitutional. My god, do some of you just ignore how the media operates as a tool of Capital. Criminey. the TPers got away with extortion because the MSM wanted them to.
ETA…just look at the utter lack of real reporting on the FAA and the anti-labor animus driving the GOP.
Davis X. Machina
@catclub: Go look at a good — not Open-Left delusional — whip count on the public option.
That is your ’60 seat Senate Democratic majority’…
40, on a good day, with a tailwind.
@Unabogie: “If this was so obviously legal, why have Presidents sought a debt limit increase instead of simply minting platinum coins? Gospel is right. If it was this simple, they’d all do it.”
Because IN EVERY PREVIOUS CASE, they simply got a clean increase. No heavy duty threats needed.
And yet… the little turnips keep voting Republican (if/when they even bother to vote at all).
Right now, it’s looking like Romney’s Great American Fire Sale starts Jan 2013, right on schedule.
@Shawn in ShowMe:
Last I saw, there were almost 100 Tea Party holdouts. Given that there are only 26 Blue Dogs left in the House, there’s no way to get it passed only by peeling off the Blue Dogs.
Read the amendment. It only talks about payment of debts and pensions. As has been pointed at Balkanization, he already committed to using it when he told bond holders there would be no default. There is enough money coming in to pay the items that qualify under a literal reading of the amendment. There isn’t enough to pay all the stuff that doesn’t: the wages of air traffic controllers and everyone else, purchases of paper and fuel etc. Not paying that stuff will crash the economy, a default isn’t needed.
Some have advanced an imaginative theory under which everything is covered, but whether an investor would by a bond only legal if such creativity holds up is at least questionable.
As usual Captain Doom John Galt Cole has to throw in his sawed in half penny on all the doomers and gloomers. Because that is what Captain Doom John Galt Cole does and he he loves it. They absolutely love the illusion of gloom.
Well at least he didn’t link to Kthug like the rest of the wankers around here who seem to think Kthug whining because Hilary lost is somehow something new.
mike in dc
If the Tea Partiers vote it down, then the Blue Dogs will too. The House Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus are both already on record in opposition. Boehner would need half his caucus, plus about a hundred Dems to vote for this piece of crap. Not a given that the votes are available. If it goes down in flames, Obama needs to invoke the 14th and just raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, come what may.
Then why is there a video of Ronald Reagan begging congress to pass a debt limit increase in order to stave off disaster? Why didn’t he simply order up some new coins?
So no one has heard of Keynesian economics for the last 30 years? If Dubya and Cheney can lie about the Laffer curve why can’t Obama tell the truth about what austerity does during a recession/slow recovery? Instead he doesn’t even try to get that message out and the Democratic platform/brand is weakened. Someone else is going to have to fix this because Obama dropped the ball.
Not really. Part of Gingrich’s government shutdown was delaying the debt increase vote for several months. There have been several other standoffs over the debt limit, including during St. Reagan’s day.
The real difference now is that you have crazy Teahadists who don’t understand economics (or even simple math) and genuinely think that there would be no downside to not increasing the debt limit.
Well, the markets, after initially being up on the debt deal news, have fallen by just as much as they were up this morning.
Is the news of the debt deal greatly exaggerated or is it the poor manufacturing data like the Google headline says?
Davis X. Machina
@Unabogie: A thorough-going respect for the rule of law, no doubt.
Davis X. Machina
Everyone laughs for some reason when you say ‘Matt Yglesias’, but I’ll link this anyways:
When Did Keynesian Economics Live?
That’s about where I am. No tax increases on the wealthy is a deal-breaker for me.
Can y’all wait for the last act or have we been truly invaded by the “little people” here?
So quick to judge the president and impatient to see how it all finally plays out.
Yeah – it does depress me, too, to realize Grover and his minions drove this bus. Then, too, it’s better to wait and see how it really forms and ends.
Lastly there is no one the Republicans can nominate that will have my vote ever. Why? They (the ones I expected to be grownup) embraced the the raving TPs.
Keynesian economics has been in disrepute for the past 30 years. Have you really never heard the meme on the right that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse? Really?
Yes, it was Dubya and Cheney who sold the idea of the Laffer Curve to the country. No one had ever heard of it until Dubya was elected. It certainly wasn’t something that Reagan promoted, no sirree.
@TooManyJens: I don’t, but let’s assume what you say is true. If the media wants those things, they will always want them. Therefore, the media’s desire for war and tax cuts is a constant that has to be addressed and dealt with. Obama doesn’t seem to be doing a good job of dealing with that constant. Are you saying no Democrat could? If so, then maybe it would be more productive to start a liberal media empire instead of giving a billion dollars to Obama in 2012.
@Mnemosyne: So only the Republicans can create memes?
well, for a while. bond holders would get paid while everything else shut down for a bit, but i think even that tank would run dry after a while. i can imagine large holders of bonds freaking out and cashing them in would not help the situation, especially if we lost our AAA credit rating and large funds holding AAA bonds as ‘cash equivalents’ had to unwind their holdings.
of course they have, but that’s all liberal nonsense to them
Oh he tried, he tried when Democrats were still in the majority. He tried and his press conferences were either not covered, hijacked by questions about racism, or ignored. Hell, even when Nancy Pelosi stood up to give a Democratic speech, the news turned around when she decided not to talk about Anthony Weiner.
Obama never had the ball to begin with. Anyone who thought the best person to sell the Democratic brand is a black guy who barely won his own party’s nomination needed their head examined.
I am saying anyone who opposes that agenda would have a huge uphill battle. You seem to be blaming the people trying to run uphill for not being as fast as the people running downhill with a tailwind. I don’t get that.
That is about where I am at. I will do my bit, but I cannot say I am even remotely enthusiastic about Obama at this point.
I agree with this.
Shawn in ShowMe
Yikes. I’d heard about the 38 baggers signing the pledge, but I didn’t figure that translated into 80-100 no votes. I’m with Dan, then. I don’t see where the votes are going to come from.
Oh noes! Not impeachment! Oh my, sounds so very scary. Well then we better not do that then, wouldn’t want impeach the guy.
So now we don’t save the country for fears of republicans impeaching a democratic president. Instead we cave to hostage takers. I wonder do your lips quiver and hands shake when you get scared like this?
I may become a republican so I can at least reach down and be able to grab my balls.
What a bunch of whimpering pussies over here. God, you people have no spine.
There is enough in tax revenue to pay the things clearly mandated under the 14th forever, including the bond interest assuming not paying the rest doesn’t so collapse the economy that tax revenue declines due to the difficult of collecting from our gypsy Mad-Max rigs.
you know, for being accused of being an Obot, perhaps you’d be surprise to hear…I never was.
I don’t think he’s a bad guy or weak or whatever, I think he’s the absolutely worst person to tie the future of progressives to, because just being who is and how we gained power rendered him the most powerless president in generations.
how many House votes does a spine get?
The POTUS would win an impeachment battle, politically, if he goes all Constitutional on their asses, but it’s not going to happen.
@Mnemosyne: Is that the same number that signed the “Reid-McConnell can eat a dick” letter last week?
@Davis X. Machina: Reagan and Dubya both borrowed a ton of money to finance gov’t spending during bad times they just didn’t call it stimulus. The effect is the same though. Ask any Republican why we can’t cut defense spending and after pledging allegiance to the flag they will tell you defense spending is stimulative. They just won’t use those words.
Keynesian economics is alive and well. The only reason Republicans pretend not to like it is because it affects their ability to cut taxes.
Perhaps, but this still doesn’t keep the country out of economic chaos. The problem with the 14th amendment is that its uncertain territory. No one knows if the move would be help up constitutionally, there would be court battles, the uncertainly over the economy would remain. If we ACTUALLY care about the economy, and I don’t believe for a second many on the left do, then we need to do what damages it the least. This does.
@TooManyJens: Results matter. They people trying to run uphill might be working hard, but so do washing machines.
depends. we’d have enough tax revenue to pay off bonds that continue to mature on a regular basis, but not enough if there’s a huge bond sell-off. which there would be if tuesday comes and goes and no bill is passed.
we’d have to sell lots more bonds to get the money to cover the bonds being cashed in en masse, but the treasury wouldn’t legally be able to issue more bonds to do so. we’d be boned, unless some drastic shit happened that basically amounts to creating a fuck-ton of money out of thin air. which would probably cause the bond market to shit even harder.
I know. If someone has your kid as a hostage, it’s tough to negotiate. Still, I’m so sick of it I would just say, “shoot.” As someone noted up thread, I would, at this stage, prefer the economy just to crater right away to change the landscape a bit, and let the country see what the TPers have wrought.
Can someone in the “Bush did whatever he wanted” crowd name a major piece of legislation he signed that didn’t get 60 votes to pass cloture and didn’t pass through reconciliation?
If that’s not a Dan Rather-ism, it should be.
Not quite true. Both spending and cutting taxes are count as Keynesian stimulus. Keynes argued for running deficits when the economy weal and paying them down when it was strong. So it argues against cutting taxes when the economy is strong.
Cutting taxes is likely the only stimulus possible with the current make up of the house, so, considering the severity of the crisis, we should cut them aggressively and temporarily.
If “progressives” are as principled and courageous as they say they are and the President is not, they have a clear course of action: Blow the deal up! Show Republicans, teabaggers, the President and the country alike that they are not to be fucked with! If they want the President to fall on his sword by invoking the 14th amendment and face certain impeachment then force him but falling first. Blow the deal up, which will force him to invoke the 14th Amendment, and they all go down together. Stop talking all of this big shit, and do it!
But intelligently. Some tax cuts are more stimulative than others.
Although strategic intelligence matters too. What package will pass, soon?
Your complaint seems to be that Obama has not magically smashed through 30-year-old memes with the power of Truth. Welcome to reality, where memes take time to set up and pulling down “truths” that have been in place for 30 years is a long, hard struggle.
Though your complaint seemed to be that he hasn’t successfully smashed memes that you thought were put in place by George W. Bush, but at least now you seem to have some faint recognition that maybe you were wrong and they weren’t something that W and Cheney came up with theirownselves and may actually be something that’s been in operation for a while now.
After all, the last impeachment of a Democratic president worked out so well for all of us, what with the 8 years of Bush that followed it.
But I think we’re all aware that you think the best possible outcome of the 2012 election is President Bachmann because then you can dance around going, “Ha ha! I was right!” as we’re led into the camps.
This seems to be a common misperception. There is no prohibition on selling new bonds, only a cap on the total outstanding at one time. So as bonds are cashed more can be sold.
Woohoo! The good news for me from all this is that I now won’t have to donate to the Democratic Party until 2013, at the earliest. That is money in the bank, as far as I’m concerned. Or money in Colbert’s SuperPAC, depending on how much Republicans piss me off over the next year and a half. Either way, it will be nice to see my money doing something useful for me.
@Unabogie: He got a clean debt limit raise, right? What shit sandwich was Reagan forced to eat in 1983? Besides being married to Nancy.
If anything other than a clean bill passes it will be because everyone at the table wished to institute austerity measures without being held responsible for playing a role in the final outcome. Kabuki.
riiiiiiiigghhtt…Clinton’s impeachment led directly to 8 years of Bush. Are you being serious or are you on drugs?
What we might get with a Bachmann presidency is maybe a hint of protestation from the Democrats in Congress.
Tell me something: what exactly is it you are fighting for? It can’t be the end of stupid wars or bailouts to Wall Street or job creation because you sure as shit ain’t getting it from obama.
@Shawn in ShowMe: Blue Dogs aren’t necessarily conservative, they are simply spineless. Don’t count on Blue Dogs to EVER take a difficult vote.
Dragon-King Wangchuck, firebagger (apparently)
,,,rendered him the most powerless president in generations.
How so? On the Supreme Court, he’s two for two, having not even had to withdraw trial balloons. Like the following or not – HCR is a pretty big fucking deal piece of legislation;
he’s presided over moving the Freedom bombing from Iraq to Afghanistan and been fully involved in a fresh new Freedom bombs campaign; he’s made some pretty sweeping edicts about the limits of a Preznit’s power to fight the War on Terra (i.e. there aren’t any).
You may not like what he’s done with this or any of the other shit sandwiches, but calling him “weak” seems to be ignoring the evidence.
Ahh, so many Constitutional Scholars here today….
The 14th Amendment gambit: Whether you think it would be constitutional for the President to tell the Treasury to sell more T-bills without Congressional approval has nothing to do with how this gambit works, or should have worked. What it would have done is
a) avert catastrophe in a way that showed actual leadership and willingness to put country above partisainship.
b) give a giant fuck you to the Teabaggers & their MSM helpers.
c) would have caused the House Republicans to issue impeachment articles which the Senate would/should have slapped down & told the WATB Teabaggers & Republicans to get back to work.
Simple, elegant and allows for Democratic gains in the 2012 elections as it would be easy to portray Republithugs as amoral and only interested in themselves.
Now, many of you can disagree with me on this but at least I’m looking long term. This ‘compromise’ isn’t. We all know Repubs will not agree to anything in this new supermajority club where they agree on revenue & cuts. They won’t because they’re fine with just cuts which is what’ll happen when no agreement is forth coming.
30 years ago I gave up drinking and drugs so I could live longer and see how the country evolved. Now, Michelle Bachman is my Congresscreep, Planet Bizarro runs the House, and behaving stupidly and callously is required behavior for the President. Jesus, what was I thinking? Wonder if I still have my bong . . .
How would it have averted catastrophe?
Who would have bought these bonds?
That is the feature. The sword consists of highly desirable cuts to normally untouchable items.
Dragon-King Wangchuck, firebagger (apparently)
Also too, DOMA and DADT. Sure he didn’t do the heavy lifting here, but a “weak” President would not have acted the way he did on those two points.
I don’t know if someone has said this before, but one can only pray that it blows up. That is the least disasterous out come.
I think it’s time for a TRUE Progressive to save our Country – send up the Nader Sign!
Purity Ponies, assemble!
A thoughtful critique from Jonathan Cohn at “Even The New Republic” –
It appears that te progressive solution gothic is to let the Republicans kill the hostages and then wait for them to embrace liberals in gratitude. Awesome.
or white Southern war hero Democrats.
that’s true. i’m guessing that that would be so fine a wire to walk we’d be sure to fall off. i’m also hazarding a guess that if our bond holders sell off en masse, we’re not likely to find as many willing to buy that much, even with higher rates. might be wrong tho.
The constitutionality question is very relevant because if there’s a question on whether or not doing this was legal, the uncertainly would still hang over the economy.
nobody. i mean, high rates are great, but not when the legality of the instrument is questionable.
@Dragon-King Wangchuck, firebagger (apparently):
None of this stuff charms liberals, who find fault with all of the above, but that’s not the point. I’ve said multiple times that I think he’s been far more successful than I ever though he could be, and I think he’ll pay the ultimate political price for it.
The entire tax code should be burned in effigy and started over with.
Pelosi wouldn’t get my vote. I would say, “no taxes on the people who got us into this mess, no vote from me.”
Not understanding the MSM seems to be rampant in liberalville.
15 months of impeachment trials would not have been a win.
The MSM is in charge. Obama is trying to go over their heads. But the MSM is going to continue to promote the Republican agenda. Despite a few moments yesterday of talking heads being flabergasted the Repubs might choose default, not even this terrorism changed them.
Most of America never heard of the ideas behind the Laffer curve until Bush, Cheney & Co. told them about it less than ten years ago. Very few people were screaming for the invasion of Iraq until Bush, Cheney & Co. told us the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud and Dubya lied about yellow cake in the SOTU address. I reject your idea that these ideas were 30+ years in the making. Bush & Co. saw an opportunity and they took it.
Yet, when the housing bubble and the financial mess reared it’s head it was the teabaggers and not Obama who took advantage of the situation.
Also, if you are correct and it really does take decades to get your message heard then what message is Obama sending to the good voters in 2038?
Blowing up the deal would be the best possible outcome considering how our guys played the game.
The good voters of 2038 aren’t going to care what Obama said. That’s like asking what message does Ronald “we should raise the debt ceiling and protect Social Security” Reagan sending to voters in 2011.
Guess you are young.
The Laffer Curve was Reagan’s economic pony. Heard about it endlessly during those years
Dragon-King Wangchuck, firebagger (apparently)
Yeah sorry about picking anti-Obama talky points as my examples. I did mention DADT and DOMA (and while I wish things were moving faster, I acknowledge that they are moving).
It’s just that citing Obama’s “weakness” seems like a dodge to make sure none of the shit from this particular sandwich ends up on him.
Are teh Republitards crazy assholes that have been “negotiating” in bad faith and are intentionally trying to torpedo the economy in order to improve their 2012 chances? Basically, yes. Yes they are. But that’s not where the buck stops.
But, but, co-equal branches &c. &c. I don’t care what rationalizations you care to dig up – this is Obama’s mess.
But, but what could he possibly have done? I don’t know – but then again I’m not President of the United States.
Obama is pretty blatantly: 1. very capable and 2. presiding over this disaster.
But, but, he nevar claimed to be Liberal Jesus. He’s always maintained that he’s a consensus building moderate. Okay sure, but in this political climate, that’s not a feature.
That was my exact reaction: “Sounds like someone who wasn’t alive during the Reagan Administration.”
@wrb: Not young. I got too caught up in my hyperbole.
I may have to stay away from here and other sites a while.
Too many people do not seem to understand that we are supposed to have representative government that relies on compromise and consensus rather than dictates. Too many are marginally informed and want to stay that way. Even others seem happy to stay at home in 2012, “saving their money”, as it were. Ha,ha,ha!
Too many assholes and unfortunately, they are all on “my” team. Just like work. sigh
Here’s what he could have done: Last year when that terrible tax cut package was passed, he could have said he wasn’t signing anything unless it had an increase in the debt limit. If they refused, the Bush tax cuts would have expired automatically. If not, he would have gotten a debt limit increase. Either way, we get something, and Republicans would know he was willing to play hardball.
That’s not a 20/20 hindsight thing. I was saying at the time that he should do that. I predicted that Republicans would again win the game of chicken when the debt limit came up, because they knew Obama was a pushover.
But nobody could have predicted…
Fun from John Quiggin
So, are you a Gollum or a Smeagol?
You know, the sad thing is, that I am still enough of an Obot, to believe that Obama surrendered for the good of the country, rather than this was the option that he wanted.
Thing is, I think Obama is quite quite smart, and quite quite capable. If I follow the logic of that, then it seems to me, that Greenwald is right – Obama wanted a deal, for the bipartisan benefits, and to set himself up for 2012. Very similar to the December deal, that earned him all the Beltway love.
Yes, he wanted revenues as well, which at the last minute Boehner and company yanked.
But Obama wanted the deal.
It’s either that, or simply Obama is powerless in the face of forces arrayed against him – the Ned Stark analogy.
I’m not sure which is better.
Interesting tweet from Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight crew:
@Just Some Fuckhead: I like you better when you’re funny.
Of course he wanted the deal, what he didn’t want was a Republican congress in the first place.
Just Some Fuckhead
@shortstop: I like you better when yer not monopolizing the threads like Stuck.
What color is the sky in your world? It must be interesting to be from an alternate universe where Ronald Reagan never existed and no Republican policies were based on “trickle down” until 2000.
Never heard of Project for a New American Century (PNAC), had you?
I really don’t understand why people who only just started following politics in 2003 think that all of this is brand-new policy implemented by W and not the culmination of 30 years of Republican rhetoric. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you start making foolish, ahistorical claims.
Good. Then Obama will have no choice but to pull the 14th and we can all live happily every after.
Is it crazy to hope that?
so, you’re advocating both ending UEI for the long-term unemployed AND raising taxes on everyone during a weak recovery.
In favor of “Republicans would know he was willing to play hardball.”
I am, as always, stunned at the fact that a policy and political genius of your caliber is posting on some shitty blog instead of working in the west wing.
@eemom: Maybe just a little crazy to hope that, but I’m right there with you.
No, I’m completely serious. Was it the drugs you were taking that made you forget the campaign of 2000 and the Republicans’ implicit promise that they would impeach Gore if he was elected? Maybe you were in a coma during the recount and forgot about things like the “white collar riot” in Florida?
Honestly, do you have a single memory that extends back before 2003, or am I dealing with an amnesiac here?
Notorious left-wing Hamsherite “Firebagger” and Obama-hater John Cassidy at The New Yorker chimes in:
That’s not what would have happened. After a short panic, a better deal would have been negotiated.
Just Some Fuckhead
From the article:
Beyond that it is hard to see anything very positive about a deal in which President Obama finally persuaded the Republicans to accept a Republican plan.
Ha, good one.
I am just so thankful that 10 years from now we will be $16 Trillion dollars in debt and not the unthinkable $18 Trillion.
A $16 Trillion dollar bill I am confident my kids can pay for me.
But an $18 Trillion bill, well that would have kept me awake at night – that’s just selfish.
After all, the Republicans of December 2010 were completely different than the Republicans of August 2011 are and we would definitely have gotten a completely different result from the John Boehner of December 2010, who was a completely different person than John Boener of August 2011.
Mnemosyne – it’s not really very convincing to argue that PNAC had made any inroads into promoting an invasion of Iraq among the general populace UNTIL Bush hijacked the environment of fear around 9/11 to, in fact, up the ante with some seriously duplicitous hype, generated for that particular atmosphere of “crisis.” You’re trying way too hard here and have no credibility. Weak stuff.
@Just Some Fuckhead: Wake up, Sammy; I’ve made, I think, two comments in two days.
ETA: Now three.
On what basis do people believe this? Are Republicans terrorists or not? Make up your minds.
Then he screwed the pooch. Should have said from the getgo, that ONLY a clean debt ceiling would be acceptable, again, and again, and again, and again. Instead, he gave the Republicans cover by talking up a ‘deal’.
And electing a House in 2010, doesn’t mean that Obama is powerless, contrary to your claim.
The thing is, he had set the frame so beautifully. Everything laid up nice, and in a row. Compromise plan, revenues, showed the madness of the House. Only to fold, at the last.
At any rate, you are wrong.
Krugman, Klein (both), The New Yorker, New York Times editorial, the various smug right wingers, Yglesias, Daily Kos, Hullaballoo, Andrew Sullivan, Fallows, pretty much everyone through the political spectrum and the commentariat, thinks that the President and the Senate surrendered.
Not to mention of course, the Firebaggers, Greenwald, Hullaballoo, etc.
But you keep believing you are right – and that everything else that we see is false, and we are all stupid.
You keep believing that those who called this right – Digby and Greenwald, funny enough, who said this would be Kabuki that would end up pushing something like the Gang of Six or worse – you keep believing that there ACCURATE predictions are worth nothing.
I’ll stay rooted in the facts.
Ironic that OzoneR circumvents any discussion of whether Obama engaged the strongest strategy in this case that he might have by simply contending that he’s totally the wrong guy for the job and the weakest President in generations.
Wow! And this is one of the folks who attacks his critics on the left? I’ve criticized Obama’s strategy and tactics on particular issues, totally reserve both the right and necessity to do so or cede everything to the folks who are attacking him from the right, and get called all sorts of neat names and lumped in with the absolutely essential-or-some-folks-here-wouldn’t-have-even-bare-bones-of-an-argument Jane Hamsher, but I actually still think he’s the best President in my memory (which is long) and worked hard to get him into office. Then I read that one of his “defenders” thinks he’s a total piece of crap as President. There is some shit that goes on here that’s a little too convenient in recycled resentments, a little too reductionist in creating “sides” and more than a little reminiscent of a playground…
So basically, the argument is that Obama and Democrats in congress are actually keen negotiators and could never have done any better than they have so far. The fact that Republicans have been willing to walk away from the table, while Democrats never would, has nothing to do with the outcome of negotiations.
It was not in the interest of Republicans to let long term UEI expire, or the tax cuts expire, any more than it’s in their interest to let the country default. The only reason the madman negotiation strategy works is because Democrats surrender in advance. I’m not expecting ponies that shit gold, I’d just like to see at least a few concessions from the other side.
it is indeed surprising to learn that a guy who has hated Obama for years, a guy who admits he likes punching hippies, a website overrun by the permanently outraged and delusional left, a website that only seems to know one tone: screech, a British conservative, and someone I don’t read, all think Obama has failed.
“in advance” of what?
if they surrendered “in advance” why did it take three fucking months for this to work itself out?
why doesn’t this narrative have to fit the actual timeline of what it purports to describe?
So, if Nate’s calculations are right, there is probably some room for Nancy to get a sweeter deal.
again, the ones who predicted this outcome at the start, were correct. The predicted outcome was Kabuki, with a deal that was Simpson-Bowles or worse.
In my view, that counts.
also, no one has been kinder to Obama than Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, Josh Marshall, or Chait.
Their views also count.
In any event, as has been said, it’s a ‘shit sandwich’ deal.
No getting away from that.
“Surrendered in advance” – Democrats never pressed for additional stimulus, even as it became obvious that it is necessary. They immediately embraced the idea of deficit reduction and austerity without making any kind of counterargument. When Republicans demanded a big deficit cutting package, Democrats could have suggested ending some of the Bush tax cuts, but instead started with something that was almost entirely spending cuts, with only token tax increases. The benchmark of a debt limit increase equal to the amount of deficit reduction over the next 10 years was accepted without contest, even though it’s completely arbitrary.
What concessions did Democrats get in this? What elements of the trigger do Republicans or the Tea Party want to avoid?
Obama has advanced a LOT of the ‘liberal agenda’. Regarding gay marriage, DADT, Lily ledbetter, and health care.
But a serious question for a moment. Has he really challenged the 1 percenters, in terms of challenging the corporate overlords?
What has been passed, or supported, that has done this?
you mean, like this:
What is it with some of you people?
Why is it that if someone criticizes a Democratic President that person is immediately a fdl BFF? You know, I don’t see too many progressives here saying they won’t vote in 2012 now. Apparently speaking ones opinion on policy matters now needs to be vetted by some amorphous group to hold any validity?
Man….sucks to be you all. Get a clue though. How we are governed matters. It matters on how the next elections go. Not just the hype or the media meme but more importantly the attitude. I’ll vote for Obama in 2012 most likely as I think a Perry/Bachmann reicht will bring armageddon. But I will be holding my nose voting and you can’t take that away from me.
Now wait one damn minute! So now, the Clinton impeachment is why Gore lost? Not Nader’s spoiler campaign? Not Jeb Bush’s voter suppression tactics? Not the fact that Gore foolishly refused to allow the still popular Clinton (who would have cruised to reelection if he hadn’t been term-limited) to campaign for him. Not Gore’s idiotic decision to embrace the thinking behind the Impeachment by picking the loathsome Joe Lieberman as his running mate when picking Bob Graham would have locked Florida into the D column? You know they make pills that will silence all those voices in your head, right?
Blue Neponset claims that no one had heard of the Laffer curve until Dubya and Cheney took over and I’m the one with no credibility? What’s next, claiming that Gulf War I never happened so therefore no one in the US had ever thought that attacking Iraq would be a cakewalk before Dubya and Cheney started selling it?
I think your ideology may be weakening your relationship to reality.
Actually, Cleek, that’s not bad. But where’s the rest of the quote?
I’ll say this again – what did the Rethugs give up?
You do notice that you used two examples of Gore actions that are attributable to the aftermath of the impeachment to try and shoot down the idea that the impeachment had anything to do with Bush’s victory, right?
Sole factor? Of course not. There is no one sole factor that led to Bush being installed by the Supreme Court. But the impeachment was absolutely a contributing factor, particularly in the ways that Gore ran his campaign to try and distance himself from Clinton.
Without the impeachment circus, Gore would not have felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and choose one of Clinton’s biggest scolds as his VP. So, yes, the impeachment had a whole lot more influence on the 2000 election than you’re willing to admit.
I’m not contending it, I’ve always believed that.
and yet most of them said that it was unavoidable
They raised the damn debt ceiling until after the next election, they gave that up. That’s what they didn’t want to do.
And don’t tell me Wall Street would’ve gotten them to do it, because then the whole “terrorist” analogy is blown to shit.
Every time I think I’ve read the most asinine BJ post ever, you post again! Gore lost because the Repukes tried to impeach Clinton and threatened to do it to Gore even before he took office?!? And for that reason, Obama should never do anything for which Republicans might conceivably try to impeach him even if they can’t possibly succeed and even if doing so will most likely increase his popularity?!? Newsflash, lady! If Obama somehow manages to get reelected next year but the Repukes take the House and Senate, OBAMA IS GOING TO GET IMPEACHED FOR SOMETHING. This will be true not matter how much time he spends groveling on the floor doing his best Neville Chamberlain impression! So he might as well do what’s in the best interest of the country instead of acting like a gutless wonder.
“I’m not contending it, I’ve always believed that.”
In that case it’s clearly not a contention but the gospel truth.
If it played a factor in 2000, it was only because of Gore’s own catastrophic failures as a candidate. He should have been out on the stump railing about how Clinton had been the best President in decades in terms of benefits for the American people and about how the Republicans had tried to prevent the Clinton Boom through what I consider to be an attempted coup d’etat. Instead, he adopted a mealy-mouthed position of “well, maybe the Republicans had a point about how much Clinton sucked” and then picked the second worst Democrat in the party to be his running mate (I guess Zell Miller turned him down).
None of that explains in any way why Obama should refrain from performing his constitutional duties out of fear that the Republicans will impeach him, WHICH THEY ARE GOING TO DO ANYWAY ON TRUMPED UP GROUNDS IN 2014 IF OBAMA GETS REELECTED!
I want to make clear that I won’t even be “holding my nose” in supporting and voting for Obama in ’12. I’m glad he’s President and he’s done a lot of things well – while disappointing on some. It’s called “President of the US” not leader of the liberal wing of his party. He’s also in a hellishly tough spot and has some “lessons” ingrained from his experience in the Illinois legislature that may not be appropriate to what he’s actually facing. But I have learned enough from the last several years to know that he’ll be able to raise plenty of money from the usual Democratic suspects this time around and that my money and a good chunk of my volunteer time needs to go to helping elect Dems who can help hold the line in Congress. That’s where the action is. It’s also self-evident to me that making noises to the President’s “left” doesn’t hurt him, it helps him. Certainly a whole lot more than marveling at whatever actually happens is ever and always the best we might be able to get. That’s brain-dead IMHO.
And how old was the trickle down meme when Reagan used it successfully? Make your mind up, does a meme have to be 30 years old before it will work or not?
I have heard of it. How many American voters do you think knew about it before 2003? Can you give me a few links to the 2000 Presidential election debates where anyone discussed invading Iraq?
It’s a good thing that none of you know me, because the next time I hear the words “shit sandwich” I’m going to fucking kill myself. And I’m not a bad dude, so I’d be missed by people who know me. Well, most.
But before I begin work on a pitcher of Drano Max dacquiris, I would implore you all to analyze that particular metaphor. I mean, it’s the constant unthinking repetition that’s brought me to my current state of envying the dead, and that would be the case whether or not the analogy held up, but it doesn’t. A shit sandwich implies a bad thing flanked by (“sandwiched between,” if you will) two not-so-bad things; what this is–say it with me, fellow frequenters of Middle Eastern restaurants–is a shit platter.
Oh, and yes, I realize I could probably avoid hearing the term if I were to just stay off the internet for a while, but then I’d have to get my news from the TV. You can see why death is preferable.
232 – Mnemosyne: I made no reference to the Laffer curve.
What’s laughable about your post is that I actually remember the Gulf War. You might have been in grade school, given the knowledge demonstrated. We did not attempt to topple Saddam in the Gulf War. That was totally off the table, even for Cheney, because of the fairly obvious fact that toppling Saddam would be a “win” for Iran. The notion that invading Iraq and pushing to Baghdad to topple Saddam would be a “cakewalk” was explicity NOT part of the agenda during the Gulf War. Quite the opposite. I actually believe we should have given air cover to the Shiite uprising, but that’s another argument and one that wasn’t even coming from Cheney and certainly not from the military. You might remember that in the run-up to the Iraq invasion of ’03 there was significant push-back from the Pentagon on the “cakewalk” notion.
Don’t condescendingly attempt to preach “history” when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Can you give me a few links to the 2000 Presidential election debates where anyone discussed invading Iraq?”
It’s pretty obvious to me that when Bush spoke of a “humble” foreign policy and criticized Clinton/Gore for “nation-building” the electorate understood that as his promoting an invasion of Iraq on behalf of PNAC.
No, it’s being done in stages, which is exactly what Republicans wanted. Democrats wanted a big, one-step increase to get it over with. There’s another fight in a few months. If the big concession is having congress vote to disapprove of a debt ceiling increase, instead of voting to approve one, that’s mighty slim pickings.
they gave up the BB Amendment. they gave up a large amount of what they wanted to cut, and the time frame is now much longer than what they wanted. those two things really rankle them. they wanted another debt ceiling vote. they wanted to tie a repeal of ACA to this. they wanted all kinds of things.
just go scan down the front page of a wingnut blog (RedState has the following headlines “9 Reasons to Oppose Boehner 4.0 Debt Deal”, “Not Playing the Fool”, “Ignore the Media Spin, We Lost the Debt Ceiling Battle”, etc.)
basically, when asserting that “they” got “everything they wanted” it really helps to know if they feel the same way. if they don’t, then maybe they didn’t.
odds are good it’s much older than that. it’s probably as old as the idea of wealth itself.
“And how old was the trickle down meme when Reagan used it successfully?”
The Laffer curve itself was a mid-to-late ’70s gleam in the eye of Jude Wanniski and Irving Kristol at the Wall Street Journal and of Jack Kemp in Congress. It was actually rejected by Dick Cheney when proposed to him during his tenure as aide to Gerald Ford. That was about it when Reagan began to run with the concept, insofar as it had a “public face” and constituted an “economic theory” to increase federal revenues using “magic tax cut beans”, as opposed to the perpetual raw opportunism of the wealthy elites who hate paying taxes and resent government/social spending/etc.
We also didn’t dismantle the Department of Education (yet) or implement a national VAT tax or ban abortion. Failure to implement elements of the Republican platform don’t exactly add up to concessions to our side.
as lefties, what we think they can count as a concession and what they can’t is irrelevant. they feel like they gave up a lot. and they’re pretty pissed about not getting everything they wanted, immediately, and think their leadership caved to a bunch of immoral, lying, hostage takers. because that’s how all hard-line ideologues feel about negotiations with the other party.
They didn’t give up anything! They just got a bunch of goodies, all sorts of spending cuts, with more promised in the future.
Here is what would have counted as a concession by Republicans to Democrats:
1) Implementing anything Democrats wanted but Republicans didn’t want.
If it’s something that had to happen, or something both sides wanted, or something neither side wanted, it’s symmetrical and therefore not a concession by either side.
EVERYTHING – and I mean EVERYTHING that you list, that the Rethugs ‘gave up’, is what is the current baseline.
They didn’t GIVE UP anything that is the current baseline – yes, they didn’t get total wingnut fantasy utopia – but is that REALLY the standard you are holding to??
That is horrible thinking, and a horrible position to stake out.
i’m not holding to any standard – i’m not even sure what a standard would mean in this situation (i don’t know what you’re asking, in other words).
what i am doing is pointing out that actual, real-life Republicans think they got the worst of this deal. and i’ll take their word for it over the imaginary Republicans that live in the skulls of lefties.
i think they got the best of it, by far. i think most people here agree. but they disagree. clearly, they did not get everything they wanted. and they don’t think their leadership got the Dems to give up all that much, either. everybody hates this deal.
it’s almost as if there’s some kind of universal principle at work here…
Echo Chamber. Both sides have em.
And again, this doesn’t matter. Everyone in the world thinks they are getting shafted, in some way, in some manner. Hell, real life Mafia, when they don’t get the full payment from the local deli owner, beat him up, after the 80% payment, and then say, “don’t f**k me next week, I’m being a nice guy. don’t treat me badly!”
Bullies have their own warped logic.
I’m not here to enable their reality creation, and neither is the Democratic party.
Notorious FireBagger and Obama-hater Jared Bernstein thinks that the GOP might not have gotten “the worst” of this deal and that while “negotiating skills” aren’t THE problem, they might be improved.
My advice to the “Purists Against Purism” caucus who consider Obama’s critics on his left to be worse than the TeaTards: lump this Bernstein guy touting his “questions” and “criticism” of this deal as a “Feces Foccacia” in with Progressives Against Obama (in the interest of party unity and winning in 2012) – if only for the car-buying remark.
An idea isn’t a meme. As you know, the Laffer curve is actually a sound theory. The Republicans just lie about which side of the curve US tax rates are on.
If, as Bruce S. notes above, the R’s can create a meme from scratch like ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’ then why can’t Democrats do something similar? Instead we get Obama praising austerity (and reinforcing Republican ideas and memes) during a glacier slow economic recovery.
I don’t understand how anyone can be at all pleased with Obama’s performance. Peak wingnut is a myth. The teabaggers are not going anywhere. If Obama can’t do anything to counter Republican spin and obstructionism then the R’s will keep winning these battles. Some other Democrat is going to have to clean up after Obama. He has set our arguments back decades.
“i’m not holding to any standard”
Odie Hugh Manatee
I guess that this deal that has been hammered out is a “Satan Sandwich”, as per Pelosi, and yet she is going to vote for it. Obama can’t sign a damned thing until it’s handed to him. If this is passed through the House and Senate, he’ll probably end up signing it because it represents the best he can get with the lame Democrats he has ‘behind’ him.
Too bad so many manic progressives believe that all legislation starts and ends with Obama. Teabaggers focus on the House and Senate and force ‘change’ while the manic progressives attack the president and ignore the House and Senate members who are letting this happen.
The stupid fuckwits deserve to lose as much as they do.
“As you know, the Laffer curve is actually a sound theory.”
I’d have to say that while it’s based on an observation so “sound” it could almost be described as self-evident, unless the curve is backed up with some compelling evidence related to actual tax rates and projected growth rates it’s just a slogan pandering to people’s wishful thinking (as well as your implication that it’s a “lie” to cover for policies that the economic elite will ever and always push for under any and every circumstance.)
Proponents of the Laffer curve as their policy agenda never bother with anything much more than the purported sketch on a napkin that no less a right-wing fanatic than Dick Cheney didn’t take seriously when it was offered to him as a rationale for advising President Gerald Ford against any tax increases.
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Pelosi is not the one who called it a satan sandwich.
heh, good one. context? it is for losers.