Perhaps taking the benefit for Obama off the table will be enough. I’m doubtful. It’s more likely that what we’re really doing now is wasting time until the markets plummet and Boehner’s members decide that a deal is better than no deal. And there’s a very good chance that the first major show of market concern could come tomorrow night, when the Asian markets open. Boehner is hoping to present a plan by then, but a plan is very different from a deal. A plan is something politicians can come up with. A deal, we’re increasingly finding, is something that we need the markets to force.The latest news from Boehner's office suggests Republicans are preparing a vote for short term increase to the ceiling, a move Obama has previously suggested is unacceptable. (previously)
I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.This sums it up for me. The Republican's starting proposal is to burn the country down and dance in the ashes and Obama seems to be trying to negotiate with them as if there's only a few minor little sticking points between the sides.
Is there really anything to stop the formerly traditional raising of the debt ceiling with no other strings attached?Uh, Republicans? That's what this whole thing is about. They refuse to do it. And they control one of the means necessary to do it - the House of Representatives.
Lincoln's inability to compromise resulted into bloodiest war in American historyWhat do you mean by this, exactly and specifically, please?
Zimvabwe's problems have little to do with currency. Zimbabwe is grappling wig crippling HiV and a dysfunctional land reform policy which has destroyed the principle source of export earnings.humanfont, first of all, Zimbabwe is completely incidental to my question: If we simply started declaring enough dollars to exist such that the federal government could pay its budget, what would the effect on inflation be?
...And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we doposted by symbioid at 10:12 AM on July 24, 2011
"Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the ConstitutionYes it is: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings".
Honestly, if it'd get rid of the filibuster I might support the plan regardless of of it's other flaws.Doesn't really seem like it would end it to me, though. I mean, obviously in the strict "sixty votes in the Senate" sense, it would, but instead it would give the ability to stop legislation from going through the "super congress" to six members of the minority party, no matter how far in the minority they are.
My jackass Republican representative's voice mail box is fullFor anyone in this same situation: I eventually wound up getting through to voice mail in his local office, rather than his (full) Washington office.
We didn't need any to get the revenue, which is the Democratic demand that is holding everything upOh, baloney. Yes, Obama is refusing to cut spending without also raising revenues, but Republicans are refusing to raise the debt ceiling without cutting spending. And that's the actual immediate problem: the debt ceiling. Neither spending nor revenues are short term problems.
In early 2001, the 10-year budget forecasts projected large and growing surpluses, indicating rapid reduction in debt held by the public. Some experts expressed concern about consequences of retiring all federal debt held by the public. Most long-term forecasts computed at that time, however, showed large deficits emerging once the baby boomers began to retire. Short-term forecasts projected continuous growth in debt held by government accounts, largely due to the difference between Social Security tax revenues and benefit payments. The combination of falling levels of publicly held debt and rising levels of debt held by government accounts moderated the expected growth of total debt. The moderate growth in total debt those projections had forecast was expected to postpone the need to increase the debt limit until late into the decade, when accumulating debt in government accounts would overtake reductions in debt held by the public.What happened in the meantime? Wars were declared, and Bush sent out his first round of "thank you for voting for me"
New budget projections released in early 2002 smashed expectations of large, persistent surpluses, and hopes for reductions in debt held by the public collapsed. The return to large federal deficits accelerated the growth of total debt. Increases in the debt limit would be necessary much sooner than previously expected.
I refuse to believe that you can't find 26 Republicans who are pro-business enough that they won't let the nation default.Then one -- or preferably 26 -- of them should stand up and say so.
Meanwhile, with gold at $1600 the ounce, Ft. Knox is filled with 147.2 million troy ounces of the stuff, collecting dust, watched over by paid guards, while the FAA furloughs 4000 workers. That's something north of $235 billion at market valueCongratulations, you have postponed default until September.
"This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result."
I've asked this before, but didn't notice a response from anybody, so I'm going to try again:Ironmouth wrote: Weimar Germany called. They want their idea backI think it's cute when you repeat yourself without addressing earlier refutations of the claim.
It could be offset by demand destruction (moar taxes, which would reduce the need for money printing) if we didn't have the obstinate Republicans in the way.It could also be offset by demand destruction if we found a genie lamp.
(Debt default) will create not only an economic crisis, but a constitutional one. That is because of a little-known section of the 14th Amendment, which says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
The leading authority on the Public Debt Clause is Prof. Michael Abramowicz of the George Washington University law school. In a 1997 law review article, he discussed the history and interpretation of it at length. Abramowicz‟s conclusion is that any government action “making uncertain whether or not a debt will be honored is unconstitutional.”Republicans are pretty good at this, aren't they?No. Hence the annoyance with the Dems
I would love to see Obama and Boehner's respective BATNAs.I don't know about Obama's and Boehner's, but the Tea Party Caucus's is "glorious return of Jesus now that we have proven our worth".
Later tonight Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will begin briefing Senate Democrats on a plan that would raise the debt ceiling through the start of 2013, cut $2.4 trillion in spending and include no new taxes. It is designed to be a deal that Republicans would have a hard time turning down, but the cuts will include things Republicans don't like either because they aren't "real" (interest savings, future war savings, etc) or they come out of the defense budget.posted by Rhaomi at 2:42 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
And the politicians throwing stonesposted by mikelieman at 4:16 PM on July 24, 2011
Singing Ashes Ashes All Fall Down...
In a conference call Sunday with Republican House members, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) sharply criticized President Barack Obama for opposing a short-term debt increase, one that must be renewed next year instead of lasting through the end of 2012.WHARGARBL.
"The president's position of forcing us to give him a debt limit increase through the election is purely political and indefensible," Mr. Cantor said, according to someone familiar with the call. "He cannot sustain or defend putting politics above the country's instance in this situation."
Many Republicans have been arguing recently that Mr. Obama is simply trying to avoid having the debt limit issue come up again in the thick of his re-election campaign.
But people familiar with the bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joseph Biden said that in those talks, Mr. Cantor repeatedly stressed that he himself would not support a short-term debt-ceiling increase.
And Mr. Cantor also told reporters last month that he opposed a short-term increase. "I have said all along, as you know, that it is my preference that we do this thing one time, again, based on the notion that we have to make some tough decision," he said at the time. "Putting off tough decisions is not what people want in this town."
So, America inches toward its debt limit, and bond rates start going up. The interest rates on our car loans, our mortgage loans, our student loans, and our credit cards, to name a few, are tied to bond rates. So if bond rates increase, the interest rates on our personal debt also goes up.posted by saulgoodman at 6:39 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]
As long as bond buyers feel confident that America will always be willing and able to repay them, they tolerate low interest rates. Zero risk, small reward. But if the world starts to get nervous about America's ability to repay, the markets will demand a higher interest rate on our bonds before they're willing to buy them -- and because the nation relies on borrowing for cash flow even during good times, if Uncle Sam can't find buyers for those bonds at low rates, it will have to offer higher ones.See... This it the kind of shit that bothers me. It's like... "I trust you, I won't charge interest, because you have a lot of money and I know you're good for it, so I won't demand a lot of money in interest..."
If you have spent, raise the debt ceiling to cover it.I would go beyond that: There seems to be no good reason for the debt ceiling in the first place. If you legislate spending, either legislate income and/or money creation to cover it, or else the borrowing is implied in the legislation.
According to reliable sources, negotiations are underway which would have Mullah Muhammad Omar loan President Barack Obama enough money so that the United States does not default on its financial obligations. During the secret debt relief talks Mullah Omar reportedly lectured President Obama on: “How to wage war and still make a profit.”posted by symbioid at 10:02 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
The Taliban have no debt and do not need any debt limit increases as they are flush with millions in opium revenues and “acquired” U.S./NATO aid funds. The massive diversion of Afghan aid funds to the Taliban is detailed in the Kabul Press’ April 17, 2011, investigative report: “Petraeus Fired Admiral Who Tried To Stop Taliban Funding.”
This all fits with another development in the Obama White House. According to another close observer, David Plouffe, the manager of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, who officially joined the White House staff in January 2011, has taken over. “Everything is about the reelect,” this observer says—”where the President goes, what he does.”Fuck
Plouffe’s advice to the President defines not just Obama’s policies but also his behavior. Plouffe tells the President, according to this observer, that the target group wants him to seem the most reasonable man in the room. Plouffe is the conceptualizer, and Bill Daley, the chief of staff who shares Plouffe’s political outlook, makes things happen; Gene Sperling, the director of economic policy, and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, are smart men but they come out of politics rather than academia or deep experience in their respective fields. Once Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, departs later this summer, all of the President’s original economic advisers will be gone. Partly this is because the President’s emphasis on budget cutting didn’t leave them very much to do. One White House émigré told me, “It’s not a place that welcomes ideas.”
Because of the extent to which the President had allowed the Republicans to set the terms of the debate, the attitude of numerous congressional Democrats toward him became increasingly sour, even disrespectful. After Obama introduced popular entitlement programs into the budget fight, a Democratic senator described the attitude of a number of his colleagues as:
Resigned disgust at the White House: there they go again. “Mr. Halfway” keeps getting maneuvered around as Republicans move the goalposts on him.
According to a report in The Hill newspaper in late June, the tough-minded, experienced, and blunt Democratic Representative Henry Waxman of California told Obama in a White House meeting that he’d asked several Republicans about their meeting with him the day before, and, “To a person, they said the President’s going to cave.” Then the congressman said to the President of the United States, “And if you’re going to cave, tell us right now.” The President was reported to have been displeased, and responded, “I’m the President of the United States; my words carry weight.”
"The bomb scare comes just days after Norquist was in the news after he told the Washington Post that allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire wouldn’t be a violation of his no-tax pledge, which was signed by many Republican lawmakers."I'll bet it was Eric Cantor. That's a man who can only be pushed so far. Or maybe it was Trump. Anyone cold enough to precipitate a financial crisis just to damage a President could put a hit on Grover like a stone killer.
The thing with the 14th is that Obama and his lawyers both think it is unconstitutional.I've seen him quoted as saying "I have talked to my lawyers; they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument." I have not seen him quoted as saying that he or his lawyers think it's unconstitutional.
Flunkie, I think that should be read as "Not a winning legal argument."I am aware that what he said is compatible with or perhaps even likely to be indicative of what you claimed that he said, but I am asking whether or not you know that he said what you claimed that he said.
the analysis doesn’t argue that the $2.3 trillion of cuts in defense spending are a reduction in public investment that reduces economic growth. In essence, the EPI analysis implies that, at the margin, nondefense spending is all investment but that defense spending is all consumption. Both sides of this proposition might be closer to the truth than not, but if some nondefense spending is consumption and some defense spending is investment, the EPI calculus on the growth effects of the People’s Budget can be quickly undermined.There's a lot more.
"Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years"[emphasis added]
"ThePart of that quote is built on a bit of slight of hand, in that their charts are labeled "Debt Held by the Public as a Share of GDP". First, only about 1/2 of the U.S. national debt, is held "by the public" meaning individual investors, pension funds, etc. for about $7.2 trillion. Second, their assumptions are built on growing GDP, and level debt, so that the trend line in the out years is negative, even though nothing much has really been done about actually retiring debt.
People’s Budget is projected to bring debt as a share of GDP in 2021 to 64.1%, compared with
debt at 67.5% of GDP under the House Republican Budget and 87.4% of GDP under the
president’s budget."
Yes, I am sure my Congressweasel will listen to reason.They sure won't if it's not spoken to them.
Ironmouth, serious question: when was the last time massive civil action resulted in meaningful change in voting habits in congress?Not long ago at all:
he spoke softly - but where's the big stick?Times have changed, it's not one big stick but millions of little ones.
First, it was always going to be difficult to round up the necessary Congressional votes. Republicans didn’t want the tax increases. Democrats didn’t want the entitlement cuts.posted by BobbyVan at 5:52 AM on July 26, 2011
Second, the White House negotiating process was inadequate. Neither the president nor the House speaker ever wrote down and released their negotiating positions. Everything was mysterious, shifting and slippery. One day the president was agreeing to an $800 billion revenue increase; the next day he was asking for $400 billion more. Spending cuts that seemed to be part of the package suddenly seemed hollow. Negotiating partners disappeared.
...
Obama’s Friday appearance had a gigantic unintended consequence. It brought members of Congress together. They decided to take control. The White House is now on the sidelines. Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders are negotiating directly with one another.
...
Furthermore, the negotiating process has changed. On Monday, both Boehner and Reid produced proposals. The main points were written down and available for all to see. Each side not only represented its own views, it sent signals about where future agreements could be found.
House Republicans are predicting that Pelosi will bring health care to a vote in a few days. This is our LAST CHANCE to stop it.Our enemies use contacting congress like a club. This is exactly how 13% of the electorate is leveraging all of this power. If we would only do it ourselves instead of being so damn cynical every time, we'd stop them in a heart beat. Again, the problem is us.
We need funds desperately and immediately to run ads through the districts of swing Democratic congressmen. As soon as you donate, money will go directly on the air where it will do the most good.
Already, our ads are having an effect and have induced several congressmen who previously voted yes to announce that they are undecided. It is vital that we keep pouring on the pressure.
This is our last chance to stop total destruction of the health care system for our families.
GO HERE to donate.
GO HERE to see a sample ads.
Ever since the election of Scott Brown, Obama has lulled us into a false state of security by playing dead on health care. Now, he is hoping to make it law next week.
Frankly, donations have been disappointing and only a small fraction of what they were earlier in the year.
Please GO HERE to donate…even if you have donated already. Our health care is on the line!
THANK YOU!!!
PHONE NUMBERS FOR SWING VOTE CONGRESSMEN:
PLEASE CALL! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411
Gabrielle Giffords(202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107
Jim Hines (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1145
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462)
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150
Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657
Earl Pomneroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…-- John Adams
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.
It's been said many times. But it's never enough: the conventions of journalistic 'objectivity', as currently defined, frequently make journalists violate their biggest duty, which is honesty with readers. The top headline running now on CNN reads: "They're all talking, but no one is compromising, at least publicly. Democratic and GOP leaders appear unwilling to bend on proposals to raise the debt ceiling."(emphasesis mine)
By any reasonable measure, this is simply false, even painfully so. It might be right to say they are not agreeing, that's demonstrable. But I don't think any observer -- one who has actually watched the specifics of the debate -- honestly believes that neither side is compromising. Indeed, even the firebreathers on the Republican side aren't suggesting this. Their argument is that the nature of the 'crisis' is so great that there can be no compromise on their basic demands. That is what it means when they say they will not support any new taxes as part of a global deal.
The current offer from Sen. Reid (D-NV), even if doesn't quite add up to the $2.7 trillion because of its assumptions about future spending on wars, is more dramatic and Republican-leaning than what Speaker Boehner was demanding a few months ago and has zero revenues, which has been the primary demand of Republicans from the beginning.
It is not partisan or spin to say that the Democrats have repeatedly offered compromises. The real driver of the debate is that the fact that Republican majority in the House can't agree to win. Even Fred Thompson is urging Republicans to declare victory and get out. But that's the point. Their leaders cannot control their caucuses. The real problem at the moment isn't that neither side's caucus can accept the other side's 'plan'. The real issue is that Speaker Boehner doesn't have the votes in his caucus for his own 'plan'.
That tells you almost everything you need to know about what's happening and where we're going. And journalism should be about communicating these highly salient facts to people who come to news organizations seeking to understand what's happening in the world they're living in.
A week or so back I was talking to a guy who's a big time investor. The sort of person who has more money than you or I could ever imagine -- and knows all the market side of this stuff -- but doesn't have an intimate feel for Washington. And this person basically asked: What's the story? What's actually happening here? Is this theater? Are they actually going to do this? Run us off this cliff?
I hemmed and I hawed because I'd been thinking about the question myself for so long and I wasn't sure I had any good answer. And what I finally came up with was this. Yes, at some level it's a game of chicken. Something we can all understand pretty intuitively in human nature and game theory terms. But to really get what's really going on you've got to understand one key point: one of the two cars doesn't have a driver in it. Which changes everything.
Here’s the game plan, as seen by Senate Dem aides: The next move is to sit tight and wait for the House to vote on Boehner's proposal. The idea is that with mounting conservative opposition, it could very well be defeated. If the Boehner plan goes down in the House, that would represent a serious blow to Boehner’s leadership, weakening his hand in negotiations.posted by Kevin Street at 2:53 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
“The Senate will wait to act until we see if Speaker Boehner is able to pass a bill in the House,” a senior Senate Democratic aide says. “At the moment that’s an open question.”
It’s unclear as of yet where most Tea Partyers will come down on the Boehner proposal, but House conservatives are privately expressing serious reservation about the plan, arguing that it doesn’t cut spending enough, and the Republican Study Committee is dismissing Boehner’s plan as not “a real solution.” Dems hope that if conservatives do sink Boehner’s plan, it will reveal clearly that Boehner does need Democratic votes to get anything passed.
At that point, the Senate would then pass Harry Reid’s proposal, and then kick it over to the House, which would increase pressure on Boehner to try to get it passed, since he was unable to pass his own plan.
The second alternative possibility being gamed out by Senate Dems would take place if the Boehner plan does manage to sneak through the House. Aides say Dems would then vote it down in the Senate. And here’s where it gets even more interesting.
Senate Dem aides say they would then use Boehner’s bill — which passed the House but died in the Senate — to expedidate their own proposal. Here’s how. They would use the “shell” of the Boehner bill as a vehicle to pass Harry Reid’s proposal, because for various procedural reasons House messages get expedited consideration. Senate Dems would vote to “amend” Boehner’s bill by replacing it completely with Reid’s proposal — which the Senate could then pass more quickly than they otherwise could.
After that, Reid’s proposal — having passed the Senate — would then get kicked back to the House. Having proved that Boehner’s plan can’t pass the Senate, Democrats would in effect be giving House Republicans a choice: Either pass the Reid proposal, or take the blame for default and the economic calamity that ensues.
I feel a twinge of pity for Boehner of Orange. He didn’t volunteer for being corralled with the lunatics. He just wants to smoke, drink, and do business on the golf course.posted by Trurl at 5:56 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
You know, the way politics used to be.
Events have overtaken him, and he’s fumbling to catch up.
In the past 48 hours I have had call after call after call from members of the United States Congress. They’ve read what I’ve written. They agree. But they feel the hour is short and the end is nigh. So some are calling looking for alternatives. Some are calling looking for energy. Many are calling looking for absolution. And so I address them and put it here so you can see my advice. I can give no absolution for what you may be about to do. I can offer no alternatives. ... And now, at the moment of crisis you are worried and second guessing yourself and looking for alternatives, ways out, and most of all a clear conscience. Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only plan that can save our credit rating and our financial integrity. I can offer you nothing else, nor should you waver from fighting for it alone. You should, however tired you may be of hearing me say it, hold the line.posted by jokeefe at 6:18 PM on July 26, 2011
where's the "let's just raise the debt ceiling for now, and debate all these other measures properly and one at a time when there's time to do so" plan?
This is not a game and you are a madman for treating it like one. There is time yet to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt, using a balanced approach including both spending cuts and tax increases as any sane person can see is required.
What there is not time for is grandstanding on the floor of the House over the debt ceiling. Forget Moody's and S&P for the moment and think about my mother, your constituent, who absolutely needs her Social Security check on August 3rd.
Georgia expects you to introduce the following resolution _this morning_:Resolved, That subsection (b) of section 3101 of titleFailure to do so will indicate that you don't care at all about your constituents or the real issues but would rather score political points at the American people's expense. Not all of us are dumb enough to fail to see the difference.
31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the
dollar limitation contained in such subsection and
inserting in lieu thereof $16,700,000,000,000.
I await your introduction of this resolution.
Everyone who talks shit about the south always forgets places like Arizona and Alaska. This is *our* problem.If the states that seceded in the 19th Century seceded again tomorrow, and the rest of us just let them go, Democrats would control the House of Representatives and have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And the debt ceiling would be raised immediately, without idiotic strings attached. This is true regardless of "places like Arizona and Alaska".
If we didn't have the South then the politicians we did have would still be aligned into two opposing camps and each side would still make up idiotic issues to yell at each other over in the hopes of getting themselves elected instead of their rivals.That may be so. Do you think that whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised would be one of those issues?
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the party’s vote counter, began his talk by showing a clip from the movie, “The Town”, trying to forge a sense of unity among the independent-minded caucus.I'm pretty sure it was just the initial exchange between Affleck and Renner's characters that McCarthy showed, and not the subsequent beatdown...
After showing the clip, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), one of the most outspoken critics of leadership among the 87 freshmen, stood up to speak, according to GOP aides.ugh
“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,You can imagine the subsequent backslapping hilarity in the comments.
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican.F
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama-Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are -- or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
Memorandum, Re: Down to the Wire[PDF] by Howard Marks, Chairman, Oaktree Capital Management, July 21st, 2011.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:35 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
- There’s no way to change these facts in the short run. In particular:
The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on federal debt…accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending.Thus revenues (which equate to 64% of spending) just slightly more than cover the 59.3% of the budget that went for these inescapable expenditures. What about cutting programs that are unpopular and more discretionary? That wouldn’t accomplish much:Foreign aid…amounts to less than 1 percent of the entire budget. …All agriculture programs – including farm subsidies – make up just over one-half of 1 percent.- When deficit spending is unavoidable, we have to borrow.
- Since we’re at the current debt ceiling, continuing to borrow requires that the ceiling be raised.
- If the ceiling isn’t raised and we can’t borrow, we won’t be able to make good on all of our obligations. Someone will have to go unpaid: employees, creditors, soldiers, retirees, vendors, etc. I don’t think anyone believes we can make good on all of our obligations without borrowing.
- Thus we have to solve this immediate problem. We can enact spending cuts and/or tax increases, but invariably these things will only take effect over the long run. In the short run we have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling and keep borrowing.
Scrambling for votes on his troubled deficit package, Speaker John Boehner bluntly told wavering GOP lawmakers Wednesday morning to “get your ass in line” behind his debt ceiling bill.posted by BobbyVan at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
Boehner predicted Senate Democrats will fold and pass the Boehner debt bill if it can get through the House.
“This is the bill,” Boehner informed a closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Wedneday morning. “I can’t do this job unless you’re behind me.”
The hard line from Boehner came as there was a serious internal blowup over the Republican Study Committee, a bloc of conservative lawmakers chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio). Jordan, who is opposed to the Boehner plan, was forced to apologize on Wednesday after RSC staffer sent out e-mails to conservative outside groups asking them to target GOP lawmakers to oppose the leadership proposal. A number of House Republicans were infuriated by the RSC tactic, with some new threatening to quit the group.
Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a conservative who announced his support for the Boehner plan earlier this week, said he'd bet his retirement savings that the legislation will pass the House Thursday.posted by BobbyVan at 8:50 AM on July 27, 2011
As per WSJ, if Boehner loses five more Republicans, the thing is dead in the House.Well, maybe, but then again they just might present their caucus with a cogent argument in favor of the Boehner plan that will surely convince them through its undeniable logic and astute reasoning. For example, this.
yeah, i think a good chunk of the republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards, who are desperately afraid of the tea party people, and rightly so.Yeah, it's seeming more and more like people like Boehner were just caught completely blindsided by their useful idiots transforming into just plain idiots.
Yeah, it's seeming more and more like people like Boehner were just caught completely blindsided by their useful idiots transforming into just plain idiots.I think that I've found out where the Republican leadership made their mistake -- the Tea Partiers were never actually useful.
These folks aren't in the business of doing Wall Street's bidding. They're in the business of bringing the system down to create their own new order, no different from a Maoist or Leninist revolutionary on the other side of the aisle. It's a market fundamentalist cult. They are a sizable and growing minority of the Republican caucus, and the ones who don't toe their line are terrified their heads will be the next to fall before the Tea Party guillotine.posted by Trurl at 5:56 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]
Digby wondered earlier whether the Tea Party were more political construct or real grassroots movement. I guess the best answer is that it doesn't really matter. The Tea Party has always been fear-based mobilization of the ignorant on whatever issue Rove, DeMint, Limbaugh, the Kochs, etc. wanted it to be about. It doesn't have to be grassroots movement for rank and file Republicans to fear a primary challenge if they step at all out of line.
As much as there has been "good cop, bad cop" bipartisanship played over austerity (and there has been), there can be no doubt that the GOP is transforming from a corporatist entity slowly hollowing out America's middle class, to a truly malignant revolutionary entity.
Meanwhile, the pundit class continues to whistle past the graveyard and act as though this is all partisan politics as usual. One would think that David Brooks and George Will would know enough history to realize that when revolution hits, people like them are usually the first ones to be culled, both politically and physically.
This old proverb reminds me of our current congress. Pardon me if it's overlong:posted by Skygazer at 6:40 PM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]
When the body was first made, all the parts wanted to be the boss. The brain said, "since I control everything and do all the thinking, I should be the boss." The feet said, "since I carry man where he wants to go and get him in position to do what the brain wants, then I should be the boss." The hands said, "since I must do all the work and earn all the money to keep the rest of you going, I should be the boss."
And so it went with the eyes, the heart, the lungs, and all the other
parts of the body, each giving the reason why they should be the
boss. Finally, the ******* spoke up and said it was going to be the boss.
All the other parts laughed and laughed at the idea of the ******* being the boss. Then the ******* got so angry that he blocked himself off and refused to function. Soon the brain was feverish and could barely think, the feet felt like lead weights and was almost too weak to drag the body anywhere, the eyes grew bleary, and the hands hung useless at the sides. All the parts pleaded with the brain to let the ******* be declared the boss. The brain finally gave in.
The moral of the story? No matter who thinks they're in charge, *******s that refuse to budge can poison the process with their toxic sludge and shut the whole system down.
It's really not difficult, at least in concept. Getting the votes for it is a different story.Don't bills amended in such a way have to go back to the other house to vote on it again?
It would work like this:
(1) Senate gets House bill
(2) Senate amends House bill by deleting everything after the enacting clause (ie, deleting all the stuff that matters)
(3) Senate amends their version of the House bill, which is now just a bit of introductory text, by inserting everything that matters from the Reid bill.
(4) Congratulations! You now have a bill whose name is HOUSE BILL and that has all the rights and privileges thereunto pertaining, but that looks, smells, walks, and talks like the Reid bill.
how many more sane GOP House would it take to join with the House Dems to get something the fuck done?The House of Representatives currently has 433 members with voting privileges. Presumably Gabby Giffords won't be voting, so say 432 votes, meaning 217 are needed for a majority. There are 192 Democrats other than Giffords, so (presuming they all vote the same way) they'd need at least 25 of the 240 Republicans. Which should be totally doable, except for the fact that congressional Republicans generally act as a giant insane monolithic bloc.
Common Peopleon repeat until it sunk in to their thick, stupid, pointed heads. But I don't.
Did S&P flip flop on US debt target?By Alex Chambers, Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:08am EDT
Just when the rating agencies were starting to win some kudos for standing firm in the face of increased regulatory pressure and posturing by politicians, one of their number goes and ruins it.posted by ob1quixote at 4:59 AM on July 28, 2011
It appears that the perception Standard & Poor's seemed to harbour, that the U.S. needed to find a $4trn sized package in order to keep its triple A rating, is unfounded.
The bond market is gigantic, incidentally. The equity markets are very small compared to the amount of money invested in bonds. If we end up in a situation where Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and the US technically defaultsI actually kind of doubt that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will lead to a default, at least not in the short term. The interest on the existing debt is a lot less than the amount of money that comes in via taxes and such, and I think it's one of the first things that they would make sure gets paid.
No, sorry, that's wrong. That's not the "definition" of not raising the debt ceiling. The definition of not raising the debt ceiling is that the federal government will no longer be allowed to borrow money.I actually kind of doubt that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will lead to a default, at least not in the short term.This doesn't make sense. Isn't that the whole reason this conversation exists? Come August 2nd, if there is no rise in the debt ceiling, by definition we default on the debt.
Read the whip count. He needs 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it.This assumes that all of the "leaning no" members will vote "no".
This simplified analogy doesn't work, though, because the amount you can charge to the card is always under the limit, whereas with this situation we have obligations beyond the current limit, which necessitates raising it.I don't really see what this has to do with anything. We will have bills that we will not be able to pay, yes. That doesn't mean we have to stop paying interest on the existing debt.
It also assumes all the leaning yes will vote yes.No it doesn't. It says that all leaning yes are needed to vote yes. It assumes that all leaning no will vote no.
If all Democrats vote no, Republican leaders will have to minimize defections to about two dozen members.22 are leaning no.
Oh, please. It does not precisely say that. It says, precisely, exactly what I precisely quoted it to say: "He needs 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it."It doesn't say any of that. It says, precisely:It also assumes all the leaning yes will vote yes.No it doesn't. It says that all leaning yes are needed to vote yes. It assumes that all leaning no will vote no.
If all Democrats vote no, Republican leaders will have to minimize defections to about two dozen members.
…But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. … I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government's investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub-optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise.Basically, Republicans--and the Bush administration in particular--were for creating government deficits before they were against them.
Members are advised that the House GOP Leadership has postponed the votes on the motion to recommit and final passage of S. 627 – Speaker Boehner’s Short Term Default Act (amending the Faster FOIA Act of 2011). Following general debate on S. 627, the House will consider the eight bills listed for consideration under suspension of the Rules.posted by Rhaomi at 2:32 PM on July 28, 2011
cutting social security for seniors and extending the wealthy tax cuts (... is ...) what the Reid plan is all aboutWhere did you get this information from*?
Yeah, but P_L isn't talking about the "Reid plan,"Then maybe she shouldn't have said that cutting social security and extending the Bush tax cuts are "what the Reid plan is all about".
Yes, I will bet $20 that the agreement will include an extension of Bush tax cuts and a cost of living recalculation for SSN recipients (which is how the cut will be done) . Sure, I'll agree to that if you will.And that if no agreement is in place by August 2, then the bet is off.
psyche7, please. It's not my fault that Poet_Lariat made a seemingly unfounded claim in an authoritative manner, and I think it's not unreasonable of me to ask her to back it up, and no amount of vague speculation about what some hypothetical future plan may or may not include changes that.Then maybe she shouldn't have said that cutting social security and extending the Bush tax cuts are "what the Reid plan is all about"."True, sorry. Do you think that's all they've been talking about?
Right now that team you are talking about is talking about cutting social security for seniors and extending the wealthy tax cuts.(which is true) before she qualified it with her mistake. Obama's apparently preferred solution, the "Grand Bargain" certainly appeared to put those on the table. What will be on the table when the Bush tax cuts expire again next year?
Under our constitutional system, you cannot govern from one house alone. Today’s resurgent conservatism, with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be particularly attuned to this constraint, imposed as it is by a system of deliberately separated — and mutually limiting — powers.posted by BobbyVan at 5:14 PM on July 28, 2011
...
I am somewhat biased about the Boehner plan because for weeks I’ve been arguing (in this column and elsewhere) for precisely such a solution: a two-stage debt-ceiling hike consisting of a half-year extension with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, followed by intensive negotiations on entitlement and tax reform. It’s clean. It’s understandable. It’s veto-proof. (Obama won’t dare.) The Republican House should have passed it weeks ago.
...
Obama faces two massive problems — jobs and debt. They’re both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment — and a staggering debt burden. Obama is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis precisely serves that purpose — if the Republicans play along. The perfect out: Those crazy tea partiers ruined the recovery!
Why would any conservative collaborate with that ploy? November 2012 constitutes the new conservatism’s one chance to restructure government and change the ideological course of the country. Why risk forfeiting that outcome by offering to share ownership of Obama’s wreckage?
You guys have got to stop trying to lay the entire debt at Obama's feet. You're making us look like assholes!
House Rules Committee will meet tonight.What does this possibly indicate, and why? Thanks.
Then again, a lot of them seem like True Believers, so maybe they actually are basing their political futures on divine intervention...BREAKING : 12 Republicans found dead in Congressional church. Police say wounds are consistent with smiting.
The Worst Negotiators
Friday, July 29th at 4:46AM EDT
I cannot decide who the worst negotiators are, Republican leaders or House conservatives.
John Boehner’s plan couldn’t get the votes last night so Boehner had to agree to add language conditioning a vote on a balanced budget amendment — an amendment House Republicans said could not pass so there was no reason to pursue Cut, Cap, and Balance. . . The vote now is all about fear and messaging — fear of blame and a very weak message. . .
Frankly, the House Republicans have turned this vote into a cult of personality vote. It is not about saving the Republic, fighting Obama, or cutting the debt. And you remember that when they vote for it. "Since Boehner dubbed the TARP bailout the “crap sandwich,” it’s only fitting that this debt compromise be dubbed the GOP Crappy Meal. . . After more than 2 hours of debate, House GOP leadership postponed the vote. They don’t have the numbers. . . Cue arm-twisting and re-districting threats on steroids. the bill will be sent back to the rules committee for “tweaks” to win more votes. . . Yep, they’re adding crapples to sweeten the GOP Crappy Meal deal. How about tweaking it into the trash and sending Cut Cap and Balance back to the Senate?"The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012[PDF], Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., Parameters: U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Vol. XXII, No. 4, 1992.
In the not too distant future, the United States government is virtually bankrupt and in danger of being foreclosed on by a group of Native Americans, now owners of the massive Nike Corporation. A desperate President decides to make a last-ditch effort to save the country... by raising money with a telethon!
Yeah that's great and all but that's not getting through the Senate.Of course it's not. By "Boehner may still pull this off", I meant that he may successfully get his caucus to vote for some bill. I don't think he much cares if it will clear the Senate or not, and I think the most intransigent members of his caucus care even less.
More importantly, this package must tackle the biggest source of our burgeoning debt — growing entitlement spending. That means it must slow the growth of healthcare and make Social Security sustainably solvent.And on preview, as for the 14th Amendment, see my comment above for why it won't work.
Obama: You see that?? You see that Tea Bitches? Oh snap! Oklahoma is NOT OK anymore!!! HA HA HA!! ETC....
So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.
They couldn't allow an actual cash position (I don't know if this is a Vanguard thing, or if it's because my employer is a not-for-profit so certain types of securities aren't allowed in our retirement funds).I have a Vanguard account that I was also looking to liquidate recently. Mine is just a regular account, though, not a retirement account. I was surprised to find the same thing - they don't let you just keep a cash balance. So I guess it doesn't have anything to do with your particular employer; it's a Vanguard thing.
Ironmouth, perhaps I worded my question awkwardly. What is a possible-- within the scenarios currently in play-- outcome that a liberal/lefty type like myself would consider acceptable?I don't know what a liberal/lefty type like yourself would consider acceptable, but a liberal/lefty type like myself would consider the following acceptable (which is not to say I would consider it particularly good - just that it would be way better than not raising the debt ceiling):
Though Obama considers (the 14th Amendment option) illegal, yes?Again, I have not actually heard him say this. I have heard him say ""I have talked to my lawyers; they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument."
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that it is Congress that has the power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." The Constitution thus could not be clearer that borrowing money requires congressional action. Nothing in Section 4 of the 14th Amendment takes this power away from Congress or assigns it to the president. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says only that the debt of the United States shall not be questioned; it says nothing about who gets to determine the size of the debt or in any way shifts this power from the legislature to the executive.Dude's a genius and the best overall constitutional scholar in the country. And a raging liberal. So, no, the 14th gives no succor.
The power of the purse -- including the authority to tax, spend and borrow -- is quintessentially legislative. Not even a dire financial emergency would allow the president to take this over. The Constitution, thankfully, has no provision allowing for its suspension even in times of crisis.
Moreover, the debt ceiling is set by statute. Unless this law is unconstitutional, which it obviously isn't, the president cannot unilaterally repeal it and replace it with another law setting a higher debt ceiling.
Historical practice also matters in interpreting the Constitution. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has said that a long, unbroken tradition is given great weight in determining the Constitution's meaning. As the court often has said, "History has placed a gloss on the Constitution." Throughout American history, the debt ceiling always has been set and raised by statute, not executive decision-making.
Unilateral presidential action to raise the debt ceiling also would not solve the financial mess caused by congressional inaction. If the president acted on his own to increase the debt ceiling, the bonds that would then be issued would certainly be questioned and challenged in court. During this time, it is unlikely that this questionable borrowing would satisfy credit markets or rating agencies. It is estimated that decreasing the credit rating of the United States from AAA to AA would cost the federal treasury $100 billion a year in additional interest payments, to say nothing of the higher interest rates everyone in the country would pay on loans. It is highly doubtful that unilateral presidential action would provide sufficient confidence to rating agencies to avoid this dire consequence.
I wish it were otherwise and that the president could simply increase the debt ceiling and make this issue go away. It is a financial crisis that could easily be avoided, as it always has been in the past, by Congress routinely increasing the debt ceiling. But there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that allows the president to do this on his own.
Levity: the debt ceiling debate in picturesWow, Mitch McConnell has a suggestion that I think might actually resolve the problem! Both Republicans and Democrats would get what they're hoping for!
“Absolutist” lawmakers aligned with the Tea Party movement have put the U.S. “on the brink,” Senator Lisa Murkowski said.Murkowski is a Republican. Fight! Fight!
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said, "Speaker Boehner's theme song should be 'It's my party and I'll cry if I want to."posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:59 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
But surely even the Tea Party representatives can understand that they would make fools of themselves by declaring that a president is guilty of “a high crime or misdemeanor” whenever he interprets the Constitution in a way they believe wrong, particularly when a substantial number of the nation’s lawyers agree with him.then no, I don't find that persuasive at all. The Tea Party is filled with people who make fools of themselves at the drop of a hat, who treat the constitution like a piece of religious dogma (in the sense of 'you go to hell forever, while I get to sin 6 days a week and before midday on Sundays'), and don't give a flying fuck about what the nation's lawyers think.
I mean what then is really preventing the so-called Balanced Budget Amendment from reading basically, "yeah, we thought this over, and we don't think we need one."Then it wouldn't pass the House, and passing the House is one of the requirements.
Its amazing what the new centurians (newly-elected conservatives) can accomplish if they stick together.posted by Rhaomi at 4:47 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
What’s the big deal about the House passing this. The buffoons in the Senate said they aren’t going to pass it and the Kenyan said he’d veto it. This is nothing but an exercise in stupid.
God Bless them! This is about saving our Constitutional Republic from a bunch of commie thugs and it is time to put it all on the line. Let the record show that OBAMA and his socialist minions trashed what real Americans want and need for their country. And there is no doubt.
"Let's roll."
It reminds me of the Israelis giving up more and more land for peace! HA! It never works ... they just keep getting bombed. Republicans keep compromising-- and for what?? "no good deed" and all that.
This time if the House passes it they need to leave town immediately. Make the Senate Rats deal with it, without compromise. Boehner still has the power to sell us out and I believe he will try.
Is there any reason I shouldn't just imagine that everything in this country not originally constructed of shit has been turned into shit by reverse alchemy, Republican rhetoric, and Democratic cowardice? ...posted by Trurl at 6:17 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Listen: my Social Security taxes went up during the Reagan administration in order to solve the "insolvency" "problem". Take it away from me now. I'm ready. But at least one of you fucks is dying in the gutter before I go.
The best part about the coin trick is that it's not even like it has to be made of metal or look like a coin. Couldn't Obama just pull out his own front incisor with a rusty set of pliers in the middle of a press conference and then have the appropriate directors of the Treasury and the Mint declare that Obama's tooth is now a $2T coin, thereby solving the problem?No, it relies on a specific law which says that the Secretary of the Treasury can, of his own volition, mint coins of values of his choosing, as long as they're made of platinum:
The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.That's section (k) of US Code 31 section 5112, "Denominations, Specifications, and Design of Coins".
If no debt limit increase is in place by Aug. 2, the first real test of U.S. liquidity after August 2 occurs August 4, when $30 billion of existing debt comes due, and would normally be rolled overI'm not convinced that this is actually an issue. The debt limit doesn't imply that they can't roll over existing debt. If the limit is $100, and $10 comes due, rolling that $10 over doesn't put them at $110; it keeps them at $100. Not rolling it over would bring it down to $90.
Hit 'em where their hearts (supposedly) lie: in the wisdom of the constitution and the Founding Fathers, where moderation and compromise rule.They don't care what the Constitution says, or what the founding fathers said. They care about what they assume the Constitution says, and what they assume the founding fathers said. And pointing out mere facts won't change that.
Hit 'em where their hearts (supposedly) lie: in the wisdom of the constitution and the Founding Fathers, where moderation and compromise rule.They don't care what the Constitution says, or what the founding fathers said. They care about what they assume the Constitution says, and what they assume the founding fathers said. And pointing out mere facts won't change that"
In Kansas City listening to local talk radio. Mainstream Midwestern conservative hosts. They couldn't be more fed up with the Tea Party.posted by Rhaomi at 10:36 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]
You didn't put that money into Social Security, you put it into the US government's big pool of money, which has been spent down to zero to fund wars and tax cuts for filthy rich people and corporations.You do put money into Social Security -- it has a dedicated tax the proceeds of which go into the Social Security trust fund and not into the general fund -- and it has accumulated trillions of dollars.
In God We Trustto
Fuck you! You're on your own!
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, wanted the troops to let him know what problems they faced in this war. They were more worried about other battles - the political ones far away in Washington.My eyebrows are suitably raised. Seriously, what the fuck are you lot playing at.
One after another, the soldiers asked: "If the government defaults on its debt, will we still get paid?" The first time it was raised, the admiral paused for a long moment then said: "I don't know the answer to that question." That raised worried eyebrows across the room.
For President Obama's top military adviser knows this is a minefield he must avoid. Tell the troops there is a plan and Republican critics back home will attack the president's doomsday scenarios if they don't reach a deal. He told his troops he understood their families were living "pay check to pay check" but added: "You should still keep showing up for work here."
Only slightly worse than a failure to raise the debt ceiling is the prospect of watching both sides smugly claim victory after a settlement.—Peter Waldron
did Reid just vote against it?I don't know if that happened or not, but it's not uncommon for the majority leader to vote against a bill that he wants passed. It's some sort of procedural thing that's done if they think the vote is going to fail - it allows him to reopen the bill later with less hassle, or something like that.
In a nutshell, what’s going on is something that hasn’t happened in American politics for 50 years: an ideologically coherent social movement with clear political aspirations has taken shape out of murkier antecedents and disparate tributaries and at least for the moment, it has a very tight hold on the political officials that it has elected. The movement is not interested in the spoils system, its representatives can’t be quickly seduced into playing the usual games. And the movement’s primary objective is to demolish existing governmental and civic institutions. They’ve grown tired of waiting for government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub, so they’re setting out with battleaxes and dynamite instead.I also like this piece: Obama as James Buchanan.
Social movements that aren’t just setting out to secure legal protection and resources for their constituency, but are instead driven to pursue profound sociopolitical transformations are unfamiliar enough. What makes this moment even more difficult to grasp in terms of the conventional wisdom of pundits is that this isn’t a movement that speaks a language of inclusion, hope, reform, innovation or progress. It speaks instead about restoration of power to those who once held it, the tearing down of existing structures, about undoing what’s been done. This movement is at war with its social and institutional enemies: it has nothing to offer them except to inflict upon them the marginalization that the members of the movement imagine they themselves have suffered.
The basic error was that Buchanan approached American politics in procedural or legal terms at a moment when the reigning political conflicts in American life were no longer in any sense shaped or resolved by procedural or legal processes.posted by gerryblog at 10:41 AM on July 31, 2011 [7 favorites]
Failure by that committee would trigger automatic cuts in programs beloved by Democrats and Republicans, respectively, unless Congress later this year passed a Constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets.So I'm guessing the GOP game plan if this passes is to deadlock the commission by demanding radical action, then avoid the painful cuts that would be triggered by getting a balanced budget amendment through, which if ratified would put the United States government in a fiscal straitjacket similar to California. And with majority GOP control of state houses after 2010 and the long (seven year?) window for ratifying amendments, this would require a vicious, long-term, state-by-state battle to stop at a tier of politics most Americans pay scant attention to.
If 55% of the tax cuts went to 10% of the people (more or less) .... this is 6th grade math.Yes, it's 6th grade math. And the answer, which you notably do not say, is that 45% of the tax cuts went to 90% of the people.
overall burden of health care costs on the budgetI mean the Federal budget. However, indigent care is a tremendous cost at the local hospital level, and a single payer system seems to address a great deal of that on its face.
Why This Crisis Isn't Going Anywhere--And What To Do About Itby Umair Haque, Eudaimonics, 30 July 2011
The clanking, wheezing institutions of the industrial age are beset by a titanic flaw. They overcount real benefits, and undercount real costs. What happens to an economy built on such institutions? Simple: instead of authentic value being created anew, wealth is merely transferred from party to party. Hence, corporate profits spiking--while nearly every other party in the economy stagnates. Hence, Wall St growing fat off the public purse, while the government slowly goes into illiquidity.posted by ob1quixote at 7:18 PM on July 31, 2011
A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.posted by homunculus at 8:07 PM on July 31, 2011 [6 favorites]
For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.
As grim as the situation was at the time of Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, it simply doesn’t compare to the magnitude of our problems precipitated by the growth of the federal government, the insolvent debt, and rampant government dependency. Reagan came to power and fought for limited government in order to preclude the very eventuality that we are experiencing today. Today, in 2011, we are suffering under every pernicious effect of a tyrannical government; the magnitude to which Reagan did not experience, but presciently attempted to avert.Jesus wept.
Even an apparent capitulation by Obama helps present him to voters as a reasonable compromiser doing battle against rigid ideologues, his aides say.I just... can't. even
“In the short term, everyone suffers politically,” Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod said in a recent interview. “In the long term, I think the Republicans have done terrible damage to their brand. Because now they’re thoroughly defined by their most strident voices.”
Unemployment insurance needs fixing, but the truth is that 56% of unemployed get work within the 26 week benefit period. It's bad, but not the end of the world.I would assume you're not speaking for the 44%.
Let's say Congress does reach a deal before the deadline on Tuesday night, do you think the markets are going to be forgiving?So, in this deal, we just shrank the US economy by another $3 trillion (ungefähr) in government economic activity, and then even after all those jobs are thrown onto the scrap pile just as the recovery is showing signs of faltering, we're probably going to end up with a lowered bond rating, higher interest rates, and most of the other immediate consequences of a default anyway. Nice work, Washington! Could you have screwed us any more thoroughly at a single go? It's like you're trying to show us by example that compromise really is a bad idea.
SALMON: No. No. The damage is done at this point. Everybody knew that the debt ceiling is going to be raised eventually. There was a small chance, and there still is a small chance, that it won't get raised before August the 2nd. But managing to raise the debt ceiling is not something which anybody should be applauded
This is something which you automatically do, and it's a no-brainer.
...
RAZ: Let's talk about the issue of a potential downgrade of the U.S.' credit rating. Is that a possibility?
SALMON: It's almost a certainty at this point. In terms of credit ratings, the agencies worry about two different things. They worry about your ability to pay, and they worry about your willingness to pay. And the United States has the ability to pay, there's no doubt about that. We can easily cover our debts. But what we've seen in Congress over the past couple of weeks is a decided lack of willingness to pay. And if you don't have that, you don't deserve a AAA credit rating.
Look, here’s my expectation — and I’ll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen.-- President Barack Hussein Obama, December 7, 2010.
As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced - not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table," he said in a statement. "President Obama's leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama's lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.It never ends.
Discretionary spending, which excludes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, would be cut by only $7 billion in 2012 and $3 billion in 2013, according a summary by Senate Democrats. That's a tiny fraction of the nation's $14 trillion economy.Lol.
Really? Crap. This is a lot worse than I thought, then.Right, because the thing to do now is to make it even easier for the GOP to get what they want.They are already getting everything they want.
Seriously Flunkie, I mean you look great in that little skirt with the PomPoms and all but mindlessly cheering bad ideas get tiresome very quickly.Poet_Lariat, I understand that you're mad at me because you're incapable of responding to the simple question of where you get your mistaken information from, but really, homophobia? Nice.
[T]he cuts are heavily back-loaded, so the deal is unlikely to have much direct effect on the economy in 2012. [...] The first round of cuts include “only” about $22 billion in reductions in 2012 spending — the same as the bill proposed last week by Representative John A. Boehner, which provided some of the outlines for this deal. That would reduce 2012 G.D.P. by just 0.1 percent, other factors being equal. [...] The bill, in short, is not likely to have a profound effect on the recovery in the near-term.With caveats that the negotiation was messy and muddled and the end product difficult to sell, but that's just optics. Considering the actual policy outcomes (mediocre to good, depending on how the commission goes) along with the significant amount of credibility damage Republicans and Tea Party types have suffered, that's not too bad at all.
[...]
[G]iven that Democrats were willing to accede to the constraints demanded by Republicans, they were able to exert a lot of control over the substance of the cuts. In particular, the first round of cuts will include $350 billion in defense savings, while the second round would include between $500 and $600 billion in defense cuts if no bipartisan agreement is reached. [...] the bottom line is that the deal will take a big bite out of the Pentagon’s budget. Close to half of the overall cuts, not counting interest savings, will come from defense and related areas.
[...]
If you’re a Democrat and you must accede to $1.5 trillion in cuts — and that’s literally the situation that Democrats will find themselves in if the deal passes through Congress — it’s going to be hard to do better than this $1.5 trillion in cuts. They are very heavily loaded with defense cuts, while containing few changes to entitlement programs or to programs which benefit the poor.
– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]posted by crayz at 1:27 PM on August 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]
– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” [7/17/09]
– During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]
– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]
1) Obama gets his full lifeline, long-term debt limit increase that will take him beyond the election ($2.1-2.4 trillion), without making any transformational concession. There is no realistic roadmap to entitlement reform; not a single agency or program, domestic or mandatory, will be eliminated; Obamacare is off limits; there will be no balanced budgets, ever. We will still add trillions more to the debt over the next ten years. Yes, there is a second tranche that will trigger the latter $1.2-1.5 trillion increase, but unlike previous versions of Boehner’s plan, Republicans have no control over that trigger to use it as a precondition.Of course he's posting at Redstate.com and he got 1,000 likes on facebook for that single comment.
2) The only real cuts will be in 2012, when we cut $21 billion in outlays (just $7 billion in budget authority). The rest of the $917 billion will be baseline cuts that permanently lock in the fundamentals of the Obama era. This will overwrite and override the House-passed budget that remanded spending to pre-Obama levels. In addition, the extra faux cuts create self-fulfilling fake interest savings, thereby double counting total savings. Furthermore, how much of the discretionary cuts agreed upon for the first tranche of the debt increase will be from defense? The White House put out a memo saying that “the discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending.”
3) What about the $1.2-$1.5 trillion in savings and entitlement reform from the super duper debt commission 19.0? Does anyone really believe that this commission will be more successful than Simpson-Bowles? That blue-ribbon panel identified policy changes that both parties liked and hated; it called for some cuts and entitlement reform – and more taxes; nevertheless, Obama threw his own commission under the bus. We are really to believe that Obama would approve a commission report that calls for the good entitlement reforms without tax hikes? Oh, but then there would be an automatic sequestration that would cut a commensurate amount of spending. Really? See #4
4) So Obama’s punishment for raising the debt ceiling without adopting real cuts is that he must suffer a sequestration. This sequestration cuts 50% from defense spending, while exempting all welfare programs from the process. Keep in mind that much of the discretionary cuts triggered from the first tranche will include defense cuts. Some of the remaining cuts will come from the government’s obligations to healthcare providers. This will force many providers to dump Medicare patients, thereby forcing them into Medicaid and other Obamacare programs, which are conveniently firewalled from the sequestration process. That’s some concession from Obama. More precisely, it appears that he will be able to have his cake and eat it too.
5) At the very least, we should never lose ground from a deal that was forced by our superior leverage. However, this plan paves the way for the committee to impose massive tax increases, including the expiration of Bush tax cuts [see Dan Mitchell's article and Erick's post]. The White House is explicitly saying that the commission will pursue a balanced approach. There are times when no deal is better than a bad deal.
What if GOP leaders appoint those who will only propose cuts and no tax hikes? Let’s just say they appoint Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann, and Jeff Flake. There certainly won’t be any tax hikes, but Democrats will never agree to any entitlement reform. See #1,3, and 4
6) This bill dramatically increases mandatory spending for Pell Grants – a pet stimulus handout to Big Education that Obama has fought for.
7) As we pointed out last week, Boehner’s budget authority for 2012 is higher than the authority granted in the House-passed budget. Most of the 12 appropriations bills have already been drafted, while half of them already passed the House. This means that extra spending will actually be inserted into the remaining bills. The two largest non-defense appropriations bills; the Labor/HHS/Education and Transportation/HUD bills, are being saved until after August. The Ryan budget blueprint achieved the most savings from these bills; $26 billion of the estimated $47 trillion in discretionary savings for 2012. Boehner’s plan would allow liberal Republican appropriators to reinstate some of the spending to the most undesirable activities of some of the worst government agencies. Congressman Steve LaTourette, a shill for Big Labor, is already agog over the opportunity to spend more on Labor.
8) The one ancillary benefit of coming up with an agreement and avoiding the default Armageddon was that we would supposedly avoid a credit downgrade. Yet, S@P has announced that this plan might not be sufficient to prevent a downgrade of our AAA credit rating. Moody’s announced that they will take and wait and see approach; however, once the future cuts fail to materialize, and the debt continues to rise, they will inevitably issue a downgrade. The bottom line is that we only addressed the debt ceiling crisis in this bill; not the debt crisis. Remember that this debt deal is being portrayed as a victory for John Boehner and even the Tea Party. As such, we would totally own any responsibility for a downgrade.
9) This bill will do nothing to help the economy because it doesn’t actually limit government. Cutting spending is not just about saving money; it is about eliminating job-killing programs and government agencies. How ironic that, despite the breakthrough debt deal, the market enthusiasm has been tamped down by a terrible report on manufacturing. The languishing state of our manufacturing sector, as well as other major sectors of our economy, are endemic of the onerous regulatory state that costs our economy $1.75 trillion a year. Consequently, even those who advocate for Wall Street at the expense of the rest of the economy, will be disappointed in the coming days.
BY NUDNIK on 08/01/2011 at 09:55posted by Ironmouth at 2:45 PM on August 1, 2011
Anyone who votes for this piece of crap needs to be thrown out. Or better yet tarred, feathered & ridden out of DC on a rail. This bill assures a tax increase on everyone since the Bush/Obama tax cuts and social security tax cut will expire while Obama is still president (even if he loses in 2012). Cuts in spending are, at best, mere cuts in the rate of projected growth and, more likely, will never happen. It also lets Obama off the hook on this issue until after the election. Hairy Roid only has to hold a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, but HE gets to amend the amendment first. This is a total cave-in by Boehner, just like the fiscal 2012 spending cuts that Obama got whittled down from $100 BILLION to $300 MILLION simply by waiting for the Cowardly Lion to whimper and fold. This deal should be summarily rejected. Vote this thing down and we'll have an immediate balanced budget on Wednesday, after which the libs will become increasingly amenable to REAL spending cuts as opposed to the simultaneously miniscule and fictional "cuts" imagined in this Hairy Roid/Obama fantasy package.
Obama’s punishment for raising the debt ceiling without adopting real cutsAstounding.
Obama had nothing to do with DADT going away. He all of a sudden found himself having evolved views at the same time that activists and their political allies had made so much headway.Obama campaigned on getting DADT repealed. Here's an open letter from him, written at the end of February of 2008, calling for the repeal of DADT and DOMA, among other things.
"Take Idaho's license plates - they say 'Famous Potatoes.' Then there's New Hampshire - their license plates say 'Live Free ... or DIE!!' I don't know, I think that somewhere between 'Famous Potatoes' and 'Live Free or Die' the truth lies. And I think it's closer to 'Famous Potatoes.'"posted by Room 641-A at 12:25 PM on August 2, 2011 [8 favorites]
-- George Carlin
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.And now we get to another comment that I think really sums up what pisses off some people so much about Obama. He's not a semi-literate, ill-mannered dick, and they wish he were a bit more of a dick. It's not about what President Obama does/doesn't do, or what he does/doesn't say. It's about a certain faction's desire to see a president deliver fire and brimstone sermons about the hidden menace among us. See this other comment, for example:
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses.
For the first time in history, our country's AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.
So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.
But there's an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we've seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach.Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.
This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It's a dangerous game that we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare.
So that's why I think Obama should have been stringer in that speech. Stronger and harsher. He should have put the fear of god into that 70% of rational thinkers out there . He needed to polarize people . He didn't do that because he was too reasonable. Too mild. He wasted an opportunity.Personally, I don't mind if the president doesn't consciously choose to further exacerbate the already dangerous political divisions in the US with deliberately provocative rhetoric, but YMMV.
Sixty five percent approve of deal’s spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven’t gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal.This is all my fault for not, I guess, voting for the Democrats in 2010 twice or something. Yep.
Yes, the poll also found that 60 percent disapprove of the deal’s lack of high-end tax hikes. Yes, approval of the GOP is lower than that of Obama or Dems. Such findings have led many, myself included, to conclude that Dems were winning the P.R war in this fight in particular.
But the public disapproves of everyone’s handling of this mess. And while the public wanted the rich to kick in more, the poll finds that a plurality (49-42) believes the deal will help the economy, meaning a plurality believes the Republican argument that spending cuts are good economic policy.
The debt ceiling crisis is the latest case in which the radical right in the South has held America hostage until its demands are met. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to appease the Southern fanatics. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress chose not to follow their example and instead gave in. In doing so, they have encouraged the neo-Confederate minority in Congress to find yet another opportunity in the near future to extort concessions from America's majority by sabotaging America's government.posted by Skygazer at 3:56 PM on August 2, 2011
OK, so, get the largest majority in the House of Representatives in the history of either the Democratic or Republican Party. Sounds good.What is your plan?Concentrate on a 50 state plan, putting as many Democrats as possible in state legislatures, Representatives and Senators. The goal? 65 or so Democrats in the Senate, 350 or so in the House.
That's a platitude, not a plan.What's your plan for the meantime?Do the best you can with what you got while making gains that'll work in the long term.
What sort of specifics are ya looking for?I don't know, but "do the best you can until you get a majority bigger than any since the Federalist Party got trounced" is definitely not it.
Progressives should look in the mirror before blaming Obama for economic hostage crisisby Egberto Willies, Coffee Party USA
The ball was dropped in the 2010 election when progressives stayed home, allowing the right to assume they had a mandate with their massive victory, not only federally but throughout the individual states. Many blamed President Obama for not sufficiently giving progressives a reason to vote. The debt ceiling debacle is a direct result of the progressives' failure to turn out the vote in 2010.posted by ob1quixote at 7:04 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Others are more critical, comparing Obama unfavorably with presidents who made broad use of their executive powers in times of crisis: Harry Truman, who nationalized the steel industry in 1952 in the face of a steel strike, for example, or John F. Kennedy, who denounced steel executives for price increases and threatened them with an antitrust investigation.
"I am just sorely upset that Obama doesn't seize the moment," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said as the final deal was coming together. "That's what great presidents do in times of crisis. They exert executive leadership. He went wobbly in the knees."
Unfortunately, the Democratic political establishment, timorous and afraid of their own shadows as always, are petrified that Real Americans might make that same absurd connection. So nearly forty years on from the chaotic '72 Democratic convention, the left, whether Netroots or "Professional" are still seen as disruptive, scary hippies and it is assumed they are loathed by all decent people. Just like the idiotic right wingers, they conflate "the left" with that carefully nurtured anachronistic wingnut fantasy of the "smelly, dirty, hairy" leftist and are scared to death of being tarred by it. And it is why many in the left blogosphere defiantly took the moniker "DFH" which stands for Dirty Fucking Hippie.Attacking the left is a bad policy. Trying to convince the mythical independent voter to vote Democrat by attacking the left does not work. It's a stupid, bad, plan.
The blogosphere's subsequent adoption of the term "hippie punching" is a shorthand to describe how Democrats like to debase the left in order to appeal to so-called Real Americans. It's a sort of proxy bullying, in which the Party attempts to prove their middle of the road bonafides by attacking what they believe Americans see as their out-of-the-mainstream fringe. (It's like a gang initiation where you have to beat up your childhood best friend to prove your loyalty to the new crowd.)
Needless to say, this is neurotic and delusional. Nobody is ever convinced and the Republicans spend huge amounts of time and money to make sure of it. No matter how much they distance themselves from the left, they will never be able to escape being associated with it and by demeaning their own largest political faction they ensure that a certain number of Real Americans continue to believe there is something truly distasteful about them --- and by extension, the Democrats in general. After all, if the party leadership is repulsed by their own voters, even if they aren't literally "fragrant, hirsute pie wagons," there must be something awfully wrong with them. What kind of party would even associate with such people?
Kucinich was elected Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 and served in that position until 1979.[16] At thirty-one years of age, he was the youngest mayor of a major city in the United States,[5] earning him the nickname "the boy mayor of Cleveland".[17] Kucinich's tenure as mayor is often regarded as one of the most tumultuous in Cleveland's history.[17][18] After Kucinich refused to sell Muni Light, Cleveland's publicly owned electric utility, the Cleveland mafia put out a hit on Kucinich. A hit man from Maryland planned to shoot him in the head during the Columbus Day Parade, but the plot fell apart when Kucinich was hospitalized and missed the event. When the city fell into default shortly thereafter, the mafia leaders called off the contract killer.[19]posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:45 PM on August 4, 2011
Specifically, it was the Cleveland Trust Company that suddenly required all of the city's debts be paid in full, which forced the city into default, after news of Kucinich's refusal to sell the city utility. For years, these debts were routinely rolled over, pending future payment, until Kucinich's announcement was made public. In 1998 the council honored him for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995.[20]
This is the bill Senate Democrats objected to because it cut off subsidies to 13 rural airports.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:01 PM on August 4, 2011
So, did Democrats cave? After all they are agreeing to pass the Republican bill approved by the House.
They caved, but not entirely. Once the deal is passed and signed, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will use his authority – granted in the bill – to issue a waiver allowing at least some of the subsidies to continue.
The Debt Ceiling Deal: The Case for Caving
[The Tea Party Republicans] made it clear they were not only willing to bear the catastrophic consequences of a U.S. default, but that they might actually welcome it. Trapped in a classic game of “chicken”—a term game theorists use, too—in which both players entertain the option of killing everyone, the President did what game theory suggests a rational actor would do. He recognized his potential maximum losses were greater than his opponent’s. He caved.posted by ob1quixote at 4:50 PM on August 4, 2011
…
And yet for all the collective self-loathing that attended the debt ceiling talks, it’s important to remember that, like just about everything in human behavior, it was still reducible to a game. Looked at through the prism of game theory, it’s hard to see how the outcome could have turned out any other way.
Obama and the House Republicans, says Steven Brams, were playing chicken this summer, a noncooperative, non-zero-sum game in which both players can lose. A compromise outcome is difficult to achieve in chicken, because it’s not stable. Brams says that each player has an incentive to dissemble, because he will achieve a better outcome for himself if he does.posted by ob1quixote at 7:22 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]
A game theorist would say that the President is trying to play a cooperative game in a town that can’t play along with him. The trouble for the White House is that the Republicans aren’t playing a game called “fix the budget deficit.” They’re necessarily playing one called “defeat Barack Obama.” A reasonable offer seldom works in a divorce; there’s no reason to expect it would in Congress.
30 Years Ago Today: The Day the Middle Class Died, Michael Moore, August 5th, 2011
I have often wondered what would have happened had we all just stopped flying, period, back in 1981. What if all the unions had said to Reagan, "Give those controllers their jobs back or we're shutting the country down!"? You know what would have happened. The corporate elite and their boy Reagan would have buckled.posted by ob1quixote at 2:29 AM on August 11, 2011
But we didn't do it. And so, bit by bit, piece by piece, in the ensuing 30 years, those in power have destroyed the middle class of our country and, in turn, have wrecked the future for our young people. Wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. Take a look at the statistics and you can see that every decline we're now suffering with had its beginning in 1981 (here's a little scene to illustrate that from my last movie).
It all began on this day, 30 years ago. One of the darkest days in American history. And we let it happen to us. Yes, they had the money, and the media and the cops. But we had 200 million of us. Ever wonder what it would look like if 200 million got truly upset and wanted their country, their life, their job, their weekend, their time with their kids back?
Have we all just given up? What are we waiting for? Forget about the 20% who support the Tea Party -- we are the other 80%! This decline will only end when we demand it. And not through an online petition or a tweet. We are going to have to turn the TV and the computer and the video games off and get out in the streets (like they've done in Wisconsin). Some of you need to run for local office next year. We need to demand that the Democrats either get a spine and stop taking corporate money -- or step aside.
« Older Bret Victor on WorryDream... | Subsidizing Healthy Foods by T... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by exogenous at 7:07 AM on July 24, 2011 [82 favorites]