I don’t know what I think about using the 14th amendment to go around Congress on the debt ceiling, my gut instinct is to oppose it, because it seems like one more place for the executive branch to grab power. That said, this is the worst argument I’ve heard against using it:
If he had cited the 14th Amendment and simply ordered Treasury to pay the bills, he would have been impeached by the radical Republicans. This would have guaranteed that the next 16 months would have been overwhelmed by an even worse version of the silliness visited upon our nation by the poisonous Limbaugh-Tea Party nihilists.
As you know, I wish a motherfucker would try to impeach Obama. It would blow up in Republicans’ face, I am confident of that. More generally, we can’t allow Republicans to intimidate us into being a banana republic. Obama can’t raise the ceiling on his own, because crazy Republicans would impeach him. We have to have short-sighted spending cuts, because otherwise Republicans will cause a default. Women can’t exercise their reproductive rights, because wingers will harass them and murder their doctors if they do. We can’t have an honest press, because they’re afraid of complaints from teahadists when they tell the truth. Public Broadcasting has to turn itself over to Paul Gigot and Juan Williams, otherwise they’ll be targeted by James O’Keefe.
Where does it end? You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much til you spend half your life just covering up. There has to come a time to bite back.
On that note, the Wisconsin recall elections start in earnest on August 9.
I first supported using the 14th amendment to quash this nonsense, but have changed that some after reading others arguments against it.
But as a very last resort to prevent an economic meltdown of possible biblical proportions, I still do support it. And if the wingers can’t pass this deal in the House, for whatever the reason, then I think Obama will have the pol cover to invoke it.
Obama has done a lot to advance the liberal agenda – from Lily Ledbetter, to DADT, to ACA.
But a serious question – is there anything that has been passed – or that Obama has strongly supported – that actually impacted financially the 1 percenters?
Seems to me that he basically has been pursuing a very liberal, technocratic – but also plutocratic – agenda.
Talk to me as if I’m stupid (which I am a lot of times) but without being insulting, if you can avoid it.
Where has he gone against the plutocrats in a real way, that impacted their bottom line?
Don’t mean to kidnap the thread, because of course, yes, where do you stop giving into threats? If the Rethugs continue to be willing to put a horse head in the bed, in a variety of fights, in a variety of ways, at what point do you do something?
blah blah blah
Yup. The only way that Obama would have won this confrontation is if default had occurred. Then the blame would have flown to Republicans. Now we’re back to both sides blah blah blah.
I’ll repeat: Obama never should have done this dance without being ready to allow default. Tough shit on our full faith and credit, and old people not getting their checks for seven days. One 700 point Dow drop, and the Republicans would have caved. But not two days before the deadline. And now if there is default, it will be the Progressive Caucus’ fault.
And no, Obama will not get his revenue increase. Ever. Stupid fuck. Extension of unemployment benefits is next. After that, the budget. The hostage taking will never end.
Born in the USA! Born in the USA!
I am of the opinion that even if Obama invoked the 14th, Fat Nino would have whispered sweet nothings into Justice Kennedy’s ears, convincing Kennedy to tell Obama to go fuck himself.
Davis X. Machina
@General Stuck: The speed and timing of the meltdown are the variables, not whether there’d be a meldtown.
If I’m The Market, and I’m assessing the creditworthiness of the US, there’s one underlying problem with all of these ploys — platinum coins, intra-governmental credit swaps, direct issue of new debt without the ceiling being lifted. They’re all ploys.
I don’t mind, really, if you pay your mortgage with gold bars that a little man spins for you out of straw every night — the mortgage is paid.
But if you try to refinance, and your documentation package is that strange little man, well, then I might mind. And I don’t think you get the best rate.
The alternative — paying the ransom — is guaranteed to work. And because I’m the Market, I don’t really care about the consequences it has on you. I certainly don’t care about the consequences it has on the poorest among you.
This a fair question, and I don’t know of any single policy proposed that would hit the plutocrats hard. He tried to decouple the rich Bush tax cuts from the middle class ones, but the wingers controlled that decision, forcing him to extend them all to keep his campaign promise to the 98 percent of Americans who aren’t rich and would have been hit with a lighter paycheck in a recession/recovery.
I can recall Obama saying from the beginning when asked about major Wall Street reforms from the get go, and his hiring on Geihtner and Summers that I fiercely opposed, that he thought it necessary to first breath some life back into an economy that was flat on its back and near some kind of depression like death. Before taking on serious reforms, of the deeply structurally kind.
And in considering that accurate summation of where we were, and where we are now. With an economy at least breathing on its own, with some movement in its appendages, I can’t find a way to dispute Obama turned out right. or at least some right.
usually I bash on Doug but man this kicks ass:
Amen – the Democratic party as a whole is suffering from Battered Wife Syndrome. Time to fight back…
What’s the point of being a liberal if you’re not willing to defend the entitlement programs. You’re supposed to care about old folks not getting their checks, or EPA getting their funding, and all that.
Saying let it all burn down, and then telegraphing to the world that you’re political system is so fucked up that buying our bonds is not reliable anymore is a very dangerous precedent.
On the other hand, it would weaken Israel.. I suppose we would no longer be able to pay those guys anything.
Damn, I can hear the post title sung in my head but for the life of me I can’t remember the song or artist…
Obama may or may not be able to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, but he can’t spend unilaterally (the Judiciary can compel spending, though). The current Continuing Resolution from the last brinksmanship game ends in September; I’m unclear as to whether this is still the case or not with the current bill. Had Obama acted unilaterally, there’s no way he’d get a new Continuing Resolution in September with anything remotely as good as the deal we have now. You’d have a worse deal or government shutdown. This could maybe work out well politically, but it’d be a wreck for the economy.
What I don’t get is why some outside group doesn’t challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling. I presume that some of the moves that Treasury’s been doing to skirt the limit actually injure some people — wouldn’t they have standing to sue?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@dollared: Now you’re arguing from the opposite side of most liberals. Most, including Glenn, think he caved from the get go. You’re arguing that he wasn’t planning on caving, just playing a game.
He was trying to do one thing: Prevent a default. He first asked for a clean bill, and the House said no. So he said fine, here are some cuts that you, Boehner, should be able to sell. And they said no. Because the purpose of the wingers was to force a default.
As for the 14th amendment, I don’t want any other president thinking they just have to look for a creative solution to their problems inside the constitution. It’s the purpose of the courts to declare a law unconstitutional, and the purpose of the legislature to change the law if it needs to be changed. But, if he had decided he had a leg to stand on, or just needed to do something, then worring about whether he is going to be impeached by these Republicans should not be his concern; they’re still looking for a legal way to impeach him for being a Democrat. If I had to do it, I would actually tell the Congress to impeach me just to make sure that it was challenged.
I had a kind of insane thought. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the Treasury would have to reallocate funds to pay bond holders, etc. Is there any reason (other than decorum) that Obama couldn’t instruct the Treasury secretary to pay these obligations with money that would have otherwise gone to Republican districts?
Jeebus man, nobody wins in a default, NO fucking buddy. And Obama WOULD get blamed for not using his high office to stop the certain catastrophic chain reaction of it. Under the auspices of the unwritten section of the constitution, that says it is not meant as a suicide pact
I can’t believe some or many of you think like this.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@gbear: John Hiatt/Bonnie Raitt
(Are You Ready For) A Thing Called Love
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
Not really, but he hasn’t really had the tools- the Senate or, since last November’s elections, the House- to have impacted the 1 percenters had he wanted to.
But that’s become a secondary problem. Those 1 percenters are Dr. Frankenstein, but they have no control over their monster at this point.
No doubt. Some meth-head on one of the prior posts on this topic trotted out this tired argument as well. He then accused me of amnesia or some sort.
Although, Dirty Doug, I do find it very amusing that this type of Executive power-grab concerns you at this point in time. We can all rest assured that the President has all the powers that can be had. He can wage war, kidnap and kill US citizens, enter our homes and collect our e-mails and record our phone calls. He can stop you from getting on a plane, take your computer and throw your ass in prison for exposing crime and corruption.
So, grabbing the ability to pay the nation’s bills. Meh.
I have been completely out of the news loop since Friday, so I’m playing catch-up. Has a bill actually been passed through Congress yet, or is that later today? From the descriptions I’ve seen getting tossed around, this seems like a pretty lousy deal but I suppose it could be worse.
well, if i remember right, he raised payroll taxes on the wealthy to help pay for hcr. and he had the irs up their scrutiny on overseas accounts, and worked with the swiss to crack down on some substantial tax evasion. and he continues to aspire to raising taxes and cutting loopholes and subsidies on the wealthy and progressivizing the tax code.
so that’s something. but yeah, the statistics say the top 10% have done pretty goddamn well for themselves post-recession.
@Davis X. Machina:
From my readings of what would be affected most, it would be the states and their dependence on US borrowing and AAA credit rating.
@Cain: You defend the entitlement programs by going to the mat for them. You hold up the checks for a week so that they can’t be cut to pay for the Bush Tax Cuts.
Did you notice that Obama did the exact opposite of defending the entitlement programs? He said please reform them now.
I wonder if Obama thinks rewarding hostage-takers is a worse moral hazard than mortgage principal-reductions?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
OT, and I don’t have a link because I’m at work, but CNN reported that Miley Cyrus got a same sex marriage tattoo.
@Ooparts: No, but Democratic voters don’t roll that way on the whole. My mom lives in a red district. If you’re going to delay or cut her SS payment, it had better be because you are delaying everyones payment, not just those for red districts. I would not look too kindly on that.
David Brooks (not that one)
If he had hinted, just for one second, that he might use the 14th, then the pressure would have been off, and the Republicans would have been delighted in standing down the last few days, and letting him do it. Because then they could place the blame on him for everything that follows, from the weather to the Washington Nationals not making the World Series.
I think he would have exercised that authority, myself. But he bluffed them into thinking he wouldn’t, and they didn’t call him.
We aren’t anywhere near a default.
We are in a situation where we can Pay the Credit Card, Buy more Ammo, Get a Cavity filled, Contribute to our Retirement, or Pay the Help.
The 14th Amendment forces us to pay the credit card first, then we have to decide which of the two of the remaining 4 we pay.
nobody actually knows what the deal is because nobody really knows how the newfangled trigger would work, or what exactly it would cut this winter. but that hasn’t stopped the kneejerk triumphalists and defeatists and cynics from being respectively triumphant and defeatist and cynical all over my interwebz this morning. as usual.
but no, it hasn’t passed yet. the house might not pass it today. it isn’t a good deal for anybody involved and nobody likes it. which means it will pass eventually, but it might take some work.
Cain gave you the answer @7. The next line in the song is “Born in the U.S.A.”
I never wanted Obama to default. I just wanted him to play his hand to make clear he had less to lose than the House GOP members did.
To be coldly political about it: a President has a max career of 8 years, and even a “failed” one-termer is a Made Man for life.
A House monkey (with no term limits) has a potential 20-, 30- year career on the line. An unsuccessful ex-Rep has far fewer options than an ex-President.
Obama blinked when he didn’t have to. And we all will suffer from the effects of an even more emboldened GOP.
@General Stuck: You would have said exactly the same thing about government shutdown in 1994.
You have to pay with pain to get the gain. Hold the checks up 48 hours? 1000 point Dow drop? Who the fuck cares?
Now we have cuts, with more cuts, with Obama looking weak and rollable. I would rather have had an all-out confrontation now, with Obama looking presidential and the Republicans looking completely irresponsible.
Obama bailed them out. I just don’t get it. There is no reward for being “responsible.” Ask any Catholic.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Pat: Don’t get so attached to the “hostage taker” analogy. It fails for a couple of reasons, the most obvious being that if they do nothing, the gun goes off. It’s more like they have lit the fuse on a stack of dynamite and are standing in front of it with a gun, fully armored. Not only do you have to convince them to give up, but do it before the dynamite goes off. And they don’t mind dying in the explosion.
What they sound like are terrorists.
lacp @ 20:
That seems to be the consensus opinion. Nate Silver and Brian Beutler both have articles stressing that point of view.
Personally, I don’t know. On the one hand, Silver and Beutler both spend time analyzing the deal, and I’m inclined to agree with their analyses. Krugman doesn’t provide such an analysis, but he’s probably a lot smarter than either of them and has a good track record on economic and political predictions.
Yeah, even though Obama seems hell-bent on appeasing “independents” by supporting awful policies, I always thought the absolute easiest way he could win the next election was to get impeached.
“Independents” get confused by policy details, but they would clearly understand that the GOP overreached.
I agree that using the 14th amendment is probably a bad idea, though. Even though our government is currently broken, I still believe in a robust legislature, and I would worry about the precedent.
Frankly, I’d prefer if the Republicans impeached Obama. They are incapable of passing any sane, useful, legislation so if they were distracted it would be all to the good. And Obama has shown that he can walk and chew gum at the same time so I daresay he would continue to do the (very good) things he’s done administratively very successfully without allowing himself to be distracted. Meanwhile, the center/left of the country would finally rally around and top bitching. I’m not happy about this debt ceiling deal, I’m disgusted with the stupidity and incompetence of the negotiations and the inability of Obama and his team to grasp that they really need to do a better job of explaining why any of this is a good idea. But that being said I want to win this next election for Obama and the Dems and what disgusts me the most is how hard its going to be to explain this tangle of cuts/lifts/triggers/taxes to the ordinary person.
Everybody needs to work to get a better Congress in 2012. If a person’s home district and state already in good hands, people need to work for or contribute to other races.
@El Tiburon: What fascinates me is the fact that I’m as annoyed with this current government as I’ve ever been, and yet I can still find it within myself to consider you and yours phenomenally tedious. Find a goddamned functioning civil liberties coalition for chrissakes or shut the fuck up! Asshole.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Judas Escargot: Well, I’m glad you’re not president. I’m glad someone is in there who cares more about the country than what you are implying.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
So glad to see our national reporters reporting the reports that matter to real Americans.
I wonder if Obama thinks rewarding
hostage-takersterrorists is a worse moral hazard than mortgage principal-reductions?
No I wouldn’t because a US government shutdown is nothing like the national and world wide devastation a US debt default would let loose. There is no comparison. Are you really this dense, or is it some kind of spoofery?
Only to high brow liberal punditry. To a lot of others he looks like a cool calm customer that averted disaster. But you keep fucking that Obash chicken. That is what you do best.
We are talking about you, and your attitude regarding the default. You can’t talk about defending anything if you’re okay with a default because everyone loses.
This isn’t a matter of holding up the checks for a week. This is the prestige of holding up our obligations on the world market that is at stake. You don’t trade that in for this kind of crap. Seriously, you’re taking this like any of these other games of us vs republicans and then framing it with the usual win/lose for liberals. This is lose lose for everyone, the entire country, the entire globe.
people who need those checks to buy food.
what a thing to say.
Well, that’s something – anyone have any links supporting this?
I really want evidence, in order to know if Obama is a liberal plutocrat, or a progressive pragmatist, doing the best he can.
I’ve always thought the 2nd, and thought maybe he’s made mistakes, as anyone would when faced with the level of opposition he has.
But the repeat of December, in terms of tax priorities, and who the burden falls on, with the using of the debt ceiling to push a plutocratic line, well, it’s the first time I have seriously considered he is a liberal plutocrat.
Treasury legally can’t prioritize like that. And it’s not decorum that’s the problem here but politicizing who gets paid. What you’re proposing is voter intimidation – vote for our guys or we won’t pay you. As onerous as the Ohio and Wisconsin shenanigans are, the left would go fucking nuclear if Bush had done the same thing by denying funds to Massachusetts simply because of how their Senators voted.
I can’t say I’m thrilled with this outcome, but for anyone who was railing on Congress failing their duties by giving Bush blank check after blank check a few years ago, you all should be thrilled to have any legislative solution over an executive one. The only reasonable goal of an executive solution would have been to eliminate the double authorization of spending (budget + debt ceiling). Barring that, this is the preferred process resolution, even if the actual result sucks.
But elections have consequences, and while this solution isn’t horrible (it does a good job overall of protecting entitlements by putting virtually all of the consequences on the marketplace, rather than on beneficiaries, which is going to put a lot of lobbying pressure on Congress to balance the pain better) I suspect anyone who is up in arms will be hard pressed to point to any specific cost to the public from this plan. If it’s a loss, it’s a political, not an actual economic one. Only metaphorical catfood will be eaten because of this, and if anyone abandons the party or Obama over this, it’s because they were looking for an excuse to do so. Instead, they should be looking at this as the consequence of Dems not voting in 2010 – and that lesson really needs to be directed most strongly at 18-30 year olds. They turned out for Obama in 2008, but not for Dems in 2010. Obama can’t carry the nation on his shoulders. Congress can either help or hurt, and voters went for hurt last round.
There’s still 15 months till the next Federal election. And this is where the GOP is at now. Imagine how insane they’ll be in another six to twelve months.
You may yet get your wish.
The Next Step
by Steven D”
@aimai: This. Word for word. I’ll just add my professional opinion as a negotiator on complex semipublic negotiations: completely fucking mismanaged, especially the external communications part.
This isn’t some kind of pol experiment in the extract. And it is not comparable to a US government shutdown. We were on the edge, and once we go over, nobody knows for sure how far we fall, and take the world with us. The GOP started out promising to kill “obamacare” and gut medicare, or not approve any debt ceiling raise without that. They didn’t get it. Unless you believe their motive was actually to reduce spending and the debt.
Obama did this because its the best move available to him in the gamespace.
you liken dems to a beaten dog….but the teabaggers are more like more like frightened stubborn mules. they are going to run in the opposite direction you want them to go.
They already closed the door on revenues– so Obama opened the door for them. they get the cover of the BBA, knowing it wont pass, and the gang of 12 will have to decide what happens next. The six repubs will have to decide between defense cuts and tax raises. the six dems will support tax raises over medicare cuts, right?
and if the repubs on the supercommittee cant force themselves to raise revenues, the Bush tax cuts are the hostage. O can just let them expire.
that is 3.6 trillion in revenue.
the stupid mules have been outgamed again.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): “As for the 14th amendment, I don’t want any other president thinking they just have to look for a creative solution to their problems inside the constitution.”
I hear this from responsible people a lot, but do you think that the current GOP cares about following precedent? I mean, and I ask this seriously: is it never a good idea for the Democratic party to get out in front of these baroque legalistic loopholes before the other side does? Is there any reason to think that a Republican president wouldn’t take advantage of this kind of thing, just because his Democratic predecessor didn’t? At one time, I would have said “yes”, now…I doubt it.
my gut instinct is to oppose it, because it seems like one more place for the executive branch to grab power.
Power grab? you want a power grab… at this point I’m all for Obama using his executive power to declare all the Teatards in congress enemy combatants / economic terrorists and hauling their asses off to Gitmo for a little ‘R & R’ AND invoking the 14th Amendment to pay the damned bills…
let the Kochsuckers try and impeach him, it’ll work out just like it did for Clinton… because really the only real support for that kind of nonsense is centered in the Beltway press and R party…
You mean like the Republicans just did: Vote for our policies or we won’t let you pay the country’s bills.
I don’t think you can blame people for angrily wanting to fight fire with fire. It’s an understandable reaction, though, obviously, the policy consequences of arbitrarily abusing the political process like Republicans are not desirable.
@ABL: And I’m going to need those checks to retire. Can’t you see the path we’re on?
@JGabriel: i think, having failed to crash the economy, the conservatives, libertarians, and the teabaggers may try to start a war….get Bibi to launch on Iran.
in September when the UN votes on Pali statehood.
we have to give up the Iraq airbases in December, and bring all the troops home.
its the best time.
What the Republicans are doing amounts to terrorizing their country from their seats in Congress. I doubt you could blame that on Obama’s spinelessness;the spinelessness of Democrats in Congress, maybe, but I don’t think Obama himself could be accused of that. Although you could fault him for giving the Republicans too much credit for acting in good faith.
This Republican behavior is not like anything I’ve ever seen in my own country’s politics. Well, not in the national Parliament, anyway. The issue of a debt ceiling would never arise in the first place, it wouldn’t arise anywhere but in America. If the opposition coalition here threatened to trash the country’s credit rating — over anything — that would be the end of its public credibility. I imagine this would be true for the opposition in most countries.
As far as I know, a country is usually much more screwed up than America is right now before things get that FUBARed at the national legislative body. Failed-state level screwed up, I reckon. The rest of Earth is getting worried about you guys.
Looks like the deal also ensures that the 2012 budget is passed with only $7 billion cut, which has been identified by Biden. Here is the relevant info Via Booman and Swampland:
So no government shutdown after September.
OT: IMO, this piece by Jake Tapper needs some serious sunshine
You mean tax cuts don’t increase revenue and the GOP has been lying about it for
yearsmy entire lifetime?!?!? I’m stunned.
lacp @ 20: Please disregard where I said above that Krugman doesn’t provide such an analysis …
It’s more about the politics than the bill, but Krugman’s editorial today, which I forgot about, is a little more thorough than the blog post I linked.
@Dexter: That’s a good thing, if true.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@TD: I agree with your general statement. I think the Senate should have ended the 60 member cloture rule, because the Republicans were using it to block everything. But in this case, I think the president has to do what Obama is trying to do: Defer to the branch of government that should be writing laws.
@General Stuck (also Belafon):
From where I’m sitting, we’re on that path anyway. And by caving, Obama’s made it just a little more likely that a Romney or a Bachmann will be in the driver’s seat come 2012. Kiss ACA goodbye if that happens.
Yes, those unfortunate millions would have missed a few checks come August 2nd. But (IMO) that’s a minor inconvenience compared to the future of pain they’ve just been signed up for.
@JGabriel: Nate Silver’s analysis is interesting, but this will almost certainly depress an already weak economy, and Silver doesn’t really deal with the consequences of that.
Krugman is not the only evidence that this deal will have negative impacts on the economy.
DeLong estimates this will depress the economy by 0.4% in 2012.
On a more current, empirical level, the UK has already tried the “Growth through Austerity” Plan, and it’s not working well for them.
Finally, the comments by CEO of PIMCO are also negative on this deal’s effect on the economy.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Samara Morgan: di di mau
@Martin: I see your point, but I can’t get the image of a smiling Bobby Jindal handing out stimulus money he and his party so railed against out of my head. I wouldn’t advocate cutting social security or vital services to republican districts, but there are a lot of buildings where I live with senators and representatives names on them. It would be gratifying to see those voting against things (then stimulus, now raising the debt ceiling) be made to feel pain for their decision.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@JGabriel: You’re allowed to target everyone equally. You can’t pick on a certain group for their political beliefs. It’s OK to destroy America, but you cannot destroy Real America.
People somehow think that this deal should have included stimulus.
It was worth a try but always unlikely, because the Republicans don’t want it, they control the house, and- as became apparent- enough of them want to damage the economy because they see a bad economy leading to their electoral triumph, and that is all they care about. In this deal there is no leverage.
The place, and the only place as far as I can see, where there is leverage is the Bush tax cuts.
What we should be fighting for is not their expiration, but getting the maximum in exchange for their extension. Sure it would be more just and feel good if they expired and if upper income taxes were raised substantially, but while important in the long term, it just doesn’t fucking matter when we are on the verge of a depression and we can borrow money at fixed, negative interest rates.
Sure, payback would be sweet but it is nothing compared to the pain of a major depression lasting ten or twenty years at the end of which we are a second or third world nation with no chance of ever catching up with the Asian giants that by then are so far beyond us they are as gods.
That is what we are looking at and that is the choice: We can choose payback now and poverty for the future or defer payback and save our economy.
Most likely the left will fuck up and not get payback but will also not save the economy because in the focus on payback it will miss opportunities to cut deals for stimulus.
I can’t believe you said this. It is something I could easily read at Redstate. It won’t be just missing a check, it will be old folks and the poorest among us who won’t be able to buy groceries or pay their rent.
The first year of cuts in 2012 will be a whopping 7 billion from the debt deal. And you are claiming the pain from that on the poor and elderly would be greater. jeebus man.
I’ll be civil and kind, for a change. And just say I don’t in the slightest way agree with your analysis of the situation as stated in this comment. Time will tell
Honestly, I think that’s one of its advantages. Along the lines of what Martin says above, there’s something very arcane and ethereal about the whole arrangement. It’s not clear what’s been agreed to in terms of cuts now, or when, or how, or how later ones will happen. It kind of feels like everyone involved decided to agree on a meta-framework that’s pretty much incomprehensible, and we’ll see how it shakes out over a very long time. When it turns into _actual_ cuts, services that used to be offered no longer being offered, it’ll surely feel different. But right now it’s a Rube Goldberg contraption, and I don’t quite understand the intensity of the complaints, because they’re meta-complaints about how not to conduct a negotiation that establishes the form of a future negotiation and sets benchmarks for future cuts to undefined programs. I feel like in six months the vast majority of the public will say they barely even remember what the issues were or who won.
I’m completely in favor of an attempted impeachment, but for a different reason. Since the GOP sets the agenda and the President/Senate placate it we need to get them interested in something that doesn’t destroy society. This would fit the bill and would go on for months. If Obama truly cares about the country he should give them a reason to do this.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
Malaysia, right? IMO, it helps when the your country is closer to having a monoculture than when you’re in one where there are so many cracks which can be exploited to divide the population. That’s been a problem here since the beginning (puritanical New England versus the Cavalier and Borderlander south), and it’s gotten worse as immigration swelled the nation with more cultural perspectives. The US is like the blind wise men and the elephant, except that the blind wise men in the US would rather fight to the death to defend their original opinion than try to figure out why the others have different opinions.
haters gonna hate.
That’s the real lesson here.
Although I do think that some people won’t learn without suffering real consequences, you can’t give them an object lesson without punishing everybody else. That’s the real problem with having to be the grown-up in the room.
yeah, tough shit. that’s all it would be, somebody saying ‘tough shit’ on the internet.
It’s permanent ground hog day here on the liberal blogs, when this one blows over, that rodent will look for his shadow the next time, and the time after that.
This was devised by Mitch Mcconnell, mostly, as an alternative to the journey down the prim rose path the house teatard were leading all us down, and as Mitch stated at the time. It will be republicans that get blamed for a default. He was right for starting it
It is not the first time a big brewhaha was ended with a mutual punt into the nethers of process. Just to clear the board and avert disaster from gridlock. Won’t be the last time either
@Dexter: SHHHHHHH! The GOP will go nuts if they find out they’re next hostage has been rescued.
@jacy: Yup, and every time you give in to the bully, they become a bigger bully. So you take the hit now.
@cleek: There are real complaints too, I’m sure, but they’re being swamped with a lot of talk about memes and optics and rhetoric and hippie-punching. It clearly can’t be the case that all spending cuts are harmful to vulnerable people, just like it clearly can’t be the case that all tax increases are harmful to good, decent everyday folk. It seems kind of rational to think, “What we really need to be doing is jump-starting the economy, but we’re off on this stupid tangent about overspending, so let’s work on finding _actual_ overspending [duplicative spending, ineffective spending, spending that’s basically loot and money-laundering] and stick it in their faces.” Politically I have a hard time seeing that as a huge concession to Republicans. The concession is having that conversation at all instead of a conversation about how to get the economy moving.
Hopefully making an important gesture in the direction of “cutting spending” opens up the political space for talking about jobs and the economy by negating the counterargument that we first need to get our house in order and tighten our belts and all the rest. It’s like, OK, I know I need a car loan to be able to commute to my job, but my credit rating sucks, so I need to close some credit cards and do some refinancing, get that score back up, and then get the loan to get the car. Now we have a better credit rating. Now we can do some investing. I hope.
Eh, I think the impeachment of Obama would be more successful than the Clinton impeachment, because Obama has zero media support and little Congressional support. I imagine the liberals with mouthpieces wouldn’t do jackshit to support Obama.
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
Malaysia is definitely not a monoculture, any more than America is — in ethnic, religious or political terms. Accordingly, political parties here have an ethnic, religious or ideological base. In Sabah and Sarawak states, the political rivalry is between the parties of the many different native ethnic groups. These divisions in our politics are one reason we didn’t have a broad enough based opposition coalition until 2007, fifty years after independence, to challenge the one that’s been in power from the beginning. And I for one still fear that the opposition coalition, whose member parties are anything but natural allies, might not be able to last. So we do know something here about a fractured political culture.
What I haven’t seen before is a long-established mainstream political party take hostage its country’s (and the world’s) economic well-being.
It’s all moot after Obama’s Weekend in Munich.
I hope and pray:
1. That after our President extended the Bush Tax Cuts and says we must cut spending somehow Americans will agree that we can raise taxes.
2. That after our president extended the first war and started the third war, and otherwise raised military spending, that he will someday end a war and cut military spending.
3. That after our president undershoots on stimulus and doesn’t even ask for jobs programs, he will find a way to address massive unemployment
4. That after our President says repeatedly that we must address our long term debt and reform entitlements, including Social Security, and though every pundit except the ones on this blog think that means benefit cuts, he really means stronger funding and
5. That our president will be re-elected so he can continue his C+ efforts on our behalf.
And then I’ll pray that the one after him really wants to help ordinary Americans.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
How dare you say President Obama’s behavior is an insult to cheap suits? There isn’t a cheap bone in the man’s body. Also too, expensive suits fold just as easily.
I’m pretty depressed, but for a bit of dark humor, note that 72% of Americans describe the whole budget/debt ceiling negotiations in negative terms. Of course, 100% – 72% gets you well within the margin of error for the crazification factor.
Hadn’t checked in on Benen in a bit, but, to gauchely follow up on my own post, here’s his sketch of the potential “pivot” in the making…
Eyeing the real crisis, not the manufactured one
I like this article about Job-Killing Spending Cuts:
If only the media would start asking “How?” and “Why?” and “When?”
From my understanding, most of this is very meta: it’s trying to tie Congress’ hands in the future with the usual bunch of triggers and committees and crap that Congress ends up ignoring. We had Gramm-Rudman; we’ve got Medicare payment triggers that get overridden in the yearly doc fix, and we’ve got an AMT system that gets ‘fixed’ every damn year too. We’ve got more committees that won’t do anything. It’s like hiding the cigarettes from yourself. I’m writing off these triggers and committees as meaningless sops, but it sure inflames the usual bunch.
No. I’m claiming that the draconian cuts to come in 2013, 2014, 2015 and on (at the hands of a GOP House, Senate, WH and SCOTUS) will make a few late checks the least of those peoples’ problems.
IMO this was the last chance to break the proverbial back of the radical wing of the GOP. Now, emboldened, their vision of the US as Wisconsin writ large is that much closer to becoming real.
But, of course, you’re right: Time will tell. May I be wrong on this one.
How about the expectation that elections we appeared to have won result in consequences that do not make us puke in disgust? Hmm … mmm?
But Obama is the executor of the federal government, not the legislator of the federal government. Sure, Congress can come out and say ‘we’re going to steer the money for this military contract to this state’, but Obama isn’t supposed to do that.
Shit like that is why we hate Republicans. Shit like that is why we demanded Congress do their fucking job for 8 years, and now that our guy is in the WH, many of those same people want to bypass Congress simply because they aren’t getting the result they want. Well, that’s bullshit. It sucks to get stuck with hostage takers in the House, but that’s why we have elections.
This has moved from where Doug asked originally, and I’ll rephrase:
If the Rethugs continue to be willing to put a horse head in the bed – AND – in the bed of your children – in a variety of fights, in a variety of ways, at what point do you do something?
Maybe I’m partisan over this default issue because my husband is disabled and we’re in debt because of his (fortunately life-saving) treatments. And I’ve got enough for one more round of groceries in the bank. After buying nothing but food since this thing started, because we don’t have a lot to throw around in the first place.
We need that check.
If it were a matter of hanging in there for a week or two while the Dow takes one of its roller coaster drops; we’d do it. Our landlord is a nice fellow. We’ve got some family to call on for emergencies. Good friend has a restaurant and would comp me a few meals. Etcetera. We’d do it if it meant the Tea Party would be beaten back.
Apparently this is some people’s vision of default. Some belt-tightening, a few days of not looking at the 401k; and then it all bounces back. But that’s not so.
Because when the check does come, and I pay our rent with it; it’s all pixels on a screen. It shows up on my screen and I tell them to send it to my landlord’s screen. Everybody above the level of getting their paycheck cashed in one of those strip malls by the Interstate works that way. It’s all an agreement to call those numbers on the screen, “money.”
Default would mean no one would believe that any more.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Are you referring to the 2010 elections? or if you’re talking about 2008, which consequences are making you puke? the ACA? two new Supreme Court justices? the drawdown of troops in Iraq? the bail out that saved the auto industry and a couple million jobs? the stimulus bill that saved a couple million more? the repeal of DADT?
Did you say that you are a professional negotiator?
Am I the only one way worried about the vote tonight… a last-minute vote requiring John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi’s whip counts to add up to a majority. I remember the last time this happened and both were certain that together they had the votes to pass TARP. The vote failed and global equities lost about $3 trillion in value a few hours. Hopefully they shoot a little bit above a majority this time around.
What what would “progressives” do to stop the impeachment? Not a got damn thing! If anything, they would help Republicans! President Obama would be a damn fool to fall in that trap. If “progressives” want him to invoke the 14th amendment, they need to blow the bill up first. That will ensure they were willing to fall on their own swords, and take the President with them.
You said it as authentically and meaningfully as it could be said.
Unfortunately, some of us are neo-Jacobins. To them, its ok to spill a little of YOUR blood.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I heard the Dems aren’t going to whip the vote. They want the Boner to have to work for this.
because if there’s anything we know that makes congress more productive, it’s another artificial deadline in six months that if not acted on, results in 1.5 trillion dollars in spending cuts that can’t be deferred or hidden or else the trigger is abandoned and congress looks like frauds (well, more so than usual). obstinate brinksmanship in the face of trillion dollar consequences is totally when congress rises to the occasion and forges grand bargains for the good of us all, right?
this fucking country. i look forward to hearing from the president about how we need to cut the payroll tax some more as our new job creation engine. because that’s worked just swimmingly here in 2011…
he went to the Keyser Söze International School for Hostage Negotiators.
Sing it Brother!
Not that I think it will penetrate the bedrock granite in some of the skulls around here, but its the gawd’s truth.
I thought so! LOL
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
the progressive caucus is promising to vote no. that’s 74 nos on the dem side. hoyer is talking about only 66 dem votes or so, and if they’re not whipping then it’s all up the the teabaggers. enough of them vote no and the whole thing goes down in flames.
boehner’s ‘aaaaahhhh’ may be a bit premature.
Congress has already authorized ALL of the expenditures causing obligations in excess of revenues. That Congress has contradicted itself by passing a debt limit law should be of no consequence to the Executive charged with enforcing the legislation Congress has passed. While the President can’t raise taxes, he can print money and sell assets to meet the requirements of legislation passed by Congress. (Maybe China would be interested in buying some slightly used aircraft carriers and fighter jets.)
@Elie: Thanks. I know a lot of the frustration is that Obama is determined not to be a King.
But times like these is when I can see the comforting side of that :)
However, historically, people got rid of kings because it’s just too dang unpredictable. Luck of the draw!
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
In its utterly shallow and brain-dead way, this is good news; people pay attention to what Ms. Cyrus does, and she is setting a good example. One more chip in the wall..
That’s the other thing I hate about this – Boehner goes on TV, in his boozy, slurring arrogant speech, issuing orders for MY PRESIDENT, who is 5 times the man that Boehner is – and then I have to listen to this mothef**ker gloat about it???
This guys disrespects the President, issues ORDERS to the President, GLOATS about it, and THEN, his caucus basically force DEMOCRATS to take the hit, by voting for it??
Like we have to go find and prune the branch, into a switch, that we then bring back for Boehner to hit us with??
But the GOP, whether they are the majority or the minority in Congress, do everything they can to stifle any exercise of presidential power. Change rules, assert dormant privileges, use crazy procedural tactics, attempt to usurp presidential authority. And yet we are only supposed to be concerned about presidential over reaching? This fails the common sense test.
And yeah, I can even see some in the GOP trying to provoke a constitutional crisis. And while the president wisely refuses to be baited by the Republicans, he should be able to fight back.
The three branches are supposed to be co-equal. If Congress tries to upset the balance, it is reasonable that the president take action to restore it.
I wish she had got a “Democrats Should Stop Compromising” tattoo.
Well, I’m of a slightly different mind on this one. I fully agree that had Obama gone the 14th Amendment route, the House would’ve started impeachment proceedings. And the House would’ve impeached him on a party-line vote. (No, really, if you can find me the 20 or so sane Republicans who wouldn’t vote to impeach Obama, please list them.) And then the Senate would not vote to convict, meaning we’d have the same conclusion as we did during Clinton’s presidency.
Where I disagree is with DougJ’s belief that it would blow up in the GOP’s face. Look back at 1998 as an example. Sure, most Americans thought the GOP went too far. So they kicked ’em out of power, right? Ah, no. Dems only picked up a measley 5 seats in the House, leaving the GOP in control, and Dems actually lost three Senate seats. (They also picked up 3 Senate seats, leaving it a wash in the end.)
Sure, it would blow up in the GOP’s face if Americans were actually smart and knowledgeable. But I have almost no faith they actually are.
God, I really can’t believe you believe this. This is very very naive.
The problem with the 14th is not the effect on Obama, it’s the effect on the economy. No one is sure if it’s a constitutional move, it would keep the uncertainty over the economy out of fear Obama’s move would be rebuked by a court and suddenly the country is in default.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
And that would be the flipside of ‘elections have consequences’. And I think it’s a good call. Boehner has only been working for the tea party, but he’s the speaker, not the majority leader. It’s Boehner’s job to get this through the House, not Nancy’s or Cantor’s.
Speaking of 11-dmensional chess: IN 17 months or so, the debt limit will have to be lifted AGAIN – Call it march 2013.
If there is a GOP president and GOP congress, then no problemo. The math demands it.
If Obama is still president and there is a GOP house or senate, then there will be a demand for ANOTHER $2.4T in deficit cutting over ten years, and so on and so on, every 18 months or so for the rest of his term. That should get us to cutting spending at the rate of $6T/ 10 years instead of the present rate of $2.2T/ten years. Wonderful.
Davis X. Machina
@OzoneR: I remember the fall of ’08, and all the banks of the world looking at the other guy, and wondering if his paper was any good. It was a hoot. But the various nation-states and their central banks managed to stanch the bleeding.
I can’t wait to see the same thing happen when the various nation-states and their central banks all stand around looking at the other guy, and wondering if his paper is any good. Two hoots, at least.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
as long as we’re playing counterfactual speculation… do you think the GOP would be smart enough to not impeach Obama? to merely ramp up the Wurlitzer and hope the chaos fell on him, without taking it to the extreme and going for impeachment. It was Tom DeLay’s insistence on impeachment that saved Clinton’s ass, IMHO.
Well, it’s a double-edged sword. Right now, the economy can’t trust the budget because the debt ceiling can veto it. That’s bullshit. The budget should trigger an automatic debt ceiling increase, as it used to. Congress shouldn’t get to double-dip here – losing the first fight requiring positive action (doing something) only to get a veto a few months in through a negative action (doing nothing).
Legislative bodies are biased toward doing nothing, because it reduces the chances to hold hostage. And if you look at most Republican demands being issued they’re also biased toward doing nothing ‘If we don’t get an agreement, then…’. It’s really, really bad policy to have a positive and negative trigger at odds like this – it invites the kind of bad behavior we’ve just seen.
But remember, he is a professional negotiator!
@Elie: OK, I’ll bite. Tell me your credentials. I already have a sense of your ability to manage your emotions, due to your dispassionate response to Krugman’s policy analyses.
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): @Amir_Khalid: Malysia is mo’ bettah because they already HAVE shariah law.
ramadan kareem, brother maftoon!
@OzoneR: Tell me what I’m missing, rather than labelling me “naive.”
Remember, we would not default on our debt. We would either do 14th amendment, or cut 50% checks on SS and pay our interest payments, or make coins. And the 1000 pt drop in the Dow would have the needed effect to make clear whose fault it is.
All you scaredy-cats tell me is that the GOP was exactly right to hold our country hostage. And now that Obama has agreed to a deal, two days ahead of the deadline, the only party that can be blamed for default is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Awesome.
@catclub: Well, no, because this will reset the deficit baseline, and the 2011 and 2012 deficits won’t be in the calculation any longer.
So, the two worst projected deficit years will be behind us, and the deal we just cut will be factored in. The projected deficit 10 years out is half the current deficit. So, by 2013, assuming everything goes according to plan, the future 10 year aggregate deficit baseline won’t be $10T like it is now, but down to around $5T. That means by 2013, the amount of the debt limit will be much, much less to get us through the same period of time. Toss in hopefully the war spending winding down by then, and we might be down as low as $4T or less.
Yeah, expect them to do this again, and yeah, expect them to rewrite the rules for next time, but in big number terms, things should be quite a bit better. And the timing of this puts the next debt limit fight beyond when the Bush tax cuts need to be fought over, which the GOP was certainly hoping to use as a bargaining chip. Now they’ll have to hold other stuff hostage to extend those cuts.
How? Will the DJIA spell out ‘TEAPARTY’ when you hold the NYSE upside down or something?
Anyone whose retirement already got clobbered in 2008 and was holding onto any gains whatsoever will blame everyone. I don’t think partisans understand this at all, but most people don’t fault Obama or Congress for not meeting the needs of liberals. They fault Obama and Congress for not doing their job. Period.
People that are in charge don’t get to point fingers. Either they get the job done or they don’t. If they don’t, they’re at fault. Full stop. Only people that have taken sides care about the finger pointing, and most people haven’t taken sides.
I was really hoping that you’d quit calling me “brother”.
Ramadan Kareem to you too.
PS: Non-Muslims in Malaysia are not subject to Shariah law, for the obvious reason.
Just Some Fuckhead
This is the best news I’ve heard all day. Can we get a Flog Your Congressperson thread to encourage everyone to call their Congresspersons and encourage them to vote no?
Or are we on Norquist’s side here?
@Martin: Well, then acting completely irresponsible and assholish has no consequences. When do we get Obama to do that? What’s stopping him?
The Worst Person In the World
Find a goddamned functioning civil liberties coalition for chrissakes or shut the fuck up! Asshole.
How do you know he/she already hasn’t? And why is he/she obligated to do so? Typcial Bot: “STFU!”
Of course it has consequences. One consequence is it increases the likelihood that opposition voters turn out. Tell Wisconsin Republicans being recalled there are no consequences for being assholes.
But how many direct consequences are there in life for assholes, anyway? You’re just now discovering this?
@The Worst Person In the World:
Here, let me answer that for you.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
There is a difference between not negotiating with terrorists who kill hostages, and killing hostages. If the terrorists are foolish and depraved enough to kill the hostages, the terrorists can themselves then be killed – to public acclaim. If they are not killed, the next time they will take and kill 10x as many hostages.
@Martin: No, I’m just exploring the depths of your Battered Wife Syndrome.
@Just Some Fuckhead: You are funny. Why don’t you suggest that eemom start it?
Explain my battered wife syndrome.
I don’t see how Obama acting like an asshole helps Dems. I don’t see how that gets Republicans to stop acting like assholes.
Show me a battered wife that actually gets a functioning household by battering the husband back. It doesn’t happen. Ever. Maybe if you cut his dick off or shoot him in the head, but mostly it happens when the battered wife gets a 3rd party of authority involved (the courts) or more likely, flees the situation.
I know it’s an appealing analogy, but it’s a completely wrong analogy. A more apt analogy would be to explain how war crimes will prevent your enemy from committing war crimes. Show us when that’s ever worked. Why oh why did FDR capitulate to the axis by not stuffing those Japanese interred in California into ovens himself! Why couldn’t that chickenshit fight boxcars with boxcars?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
What you’re apparently missing is a sense of reality and a shred of humanity for the less well-off.
Luckily for you, there’s a candidate for that.
Oh, the Drama Queenery! Get thee to the Fainting Couch, you’ve got the vapors!
Ball-Juicer: “Yeah, the Tea Party are just like terrorists and hostage takers! Except for the violence. Well, obviously. And the congressional procedures they must follow. B-b-b-but besides that!”
Keep going with it. It makes you look not-at-all insane to those outside the 21%-er HiveMind. Trust me.
The New Civility! The Adults In The Room! 21%-ers unite!
The next election?
Or maybe before, when you stop attacking our side and spend all your energy attacking theirs?
Because it matters?
Because it is long past the time for self-indulgence?
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
This misses a number of things. Every major tax proposal on the table assumes a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. The focus will be on eliminating middle class deductions and on providing more benefits to corporations.
In addition, this foolish capitulation on spending cuts will make any future stimulus plan impossible, no matter what happens to the economy.
Worse, the president and the Democrats have ceded any argument about tax policy to the Republicans. They can talk all they want about how they believe in the need for revenue or in limiting tax cuts to the middle class, but the bottom line is that they did not “compromise,” but assented to Republican demands.
And as Krugman has pointed out any number of times, “solving” the deficit problem was more a political issue than an economic one.
Also, if the Democrats lose more seats in the next election, or lose the White House, none of this supposed strategy will mean anything.
@Brachiator: If the Democrats win the House and the Senate in 2012 with wide enough margins, we won’t be having this discussion, no matter who is in the White House. While I understand the outrage people are feeling, I feel way more threatened by what the tea-partiers just did than I do about the Dems response and I will do my damndest to make sure that many of those tea-partiers get to be one-term congresspeople. It has to be rank and file voters that show them that economic terrorism does not pay.
it’s called elections
Oh it would, would it? Just like that, suddenly the public is going to “get it.” That’s going to be the point where they stop saying “both sides do it” and say “Republicans suck, Democrats are awesome”
How in hell do you reason that will happen?
Right now, that’s a mighty big “if,” and the GOP have the momentum. And if this compromise really has provisions for automatic spending cuts, the Republicans will have further eroded the authority of a future Democratic president, and also that of a future Democratic majority in the Congress. If a minority can stall on a budget bill and trigger a spending cut, then life is good for Republicans.
The title of this post is very apt. Too many people who rationalize this crappy deal want to live in fear. They appear to be willing to settle for an impotently accommodating, do nothing Democratic Party as long as they are “saved” from the Tea Party. But if the Tea Party get most of what they want anyway, and you get nothing, then what have you really accomplished?
@Martin: The plus side of the deal is that the debt ceiling is raised until 2013, that gives the economy some breathing room, there will be an election before that.
They didn’t get most of what they want.
@Brachiator: I wouldn’t dismiss a Dem win out of hand – there are a lot of people having buyer’s remorse over the tea party, believe it or not.
The triggers seem to be more nuanced than first thought – defense spending cuts, eliminating tax loopholes, reducing Medicare *provider* payments by two percent. I see a lot of unhappy Republican members of the American Medical Association (including a certain Rand Paul), defense contractors, and corporate tax loophole users who might not be so happy about the triggers. And they’ll be putting pressure on the Republicans or trying to get the tea party freaks out. Let’s watch this over a few months.
@Amir_Khalid: well, if you’re not muslim, you aren’t my brother.
WTF was that bastardized definition of jihad about then?
Top post: Like.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Samara Morgan: @Amir_Khalid:
Haha….Sorry that I had to comment and run!
Yeah, Amir, I realize that Malaysia isn’t exactly a monoculture in the strict sense, but it seems to me that the the different peoples of your nation have been living in close proximity for long enough that they understand from where each is coming from.
@OzoneR: They didn’t get anything they wanted. They only wanted a default. Bachmann is still out there cheerleading for a default, and she’s an honest to God credible GOP presidential candidate for 2012.
@Martin: Battered Wife Syndrome: “I can’t fight back” “The police (media) will just take his side.” “I have to do what he says to protect the children.”
And of course, “I have to be noble and endure this suffering.”
And especially of course, “Who, me?” “No, I know what I’m doing.”
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: If you can’t see that a desperate week of the US fighting to stave off default because of a Republican hostage taking wouldn’t be better than a new Republican sweep of the presidency and both houses (which is now greater than 30% and closer to 50% odds, to be optimistic), then you really are a moron.
I don’t want anybody to suffer. But ask any Social Security recipient who is 70 years old: would you prefer one week when the checks are late, or would you prefer a 10% across the board cut in benefits? That’s what chained CPI will do.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to any progressive/liberal/democrat. Clinton only won the shutdown WHEN IT ACTUALLY SHUT DOWN.
@Felanius Kootea: Democratic win? Are you f-in kidding me? With unemployment over 9% at election time, 1% higher because of the cuts?
I can just see it now: the media will suddenly discover the vast misery of the American public right around July 1, and it will be the Summer of Unemployed Americans who Just Want to Unleash Business to solve the Problem. President Romney will be just the man for it.
Read the political science. The last President re-elected with greater than 8% unemployment was FDR in 1936.
You know what is really bothering you folks?
The real story of the US debt deal is not the triumph of the Tea Party but the death of the Socialist Left
That’s has to go down hard.
MUP – RIP
And what? This wouldn’t happen if we defaulted?
I did, prefers cuts, actually prefers white president over the Kenyan Muslim n*gg*r.
This isn’t a government shutdown, this is far more dangerous and destructive