Endgame
July 24, 2011 6:58 AM   Subscribe

The talks between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner "collapsed" Friday with little more than a week to go before the United States may effectively default on its debt. The two parties have been in ongoing negotiations for months over GOP refusal to raise the legal limit on national debt unless tied to a significant package of spending cuts - with some members and activists opposed to any increase whatsoever

The President gave an uncharacteristically heated 30 minute press conference blasting the Republicans behavior as "inexcusable" and saying "[o]ne of the questions the Republican Party is going to have to ask itself is can they say yes to anything?". Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added that "[t]heir unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default on the full faith and credit of the United States"

Boehner quickly responded to the President's press conference, pointing the blame for the impending crisis back at Obama

Ezra Klein at the Post summarizes the current negotiations and speculates that one of the major stumbling blocks to a deal is the GOP's reticence to let Obama appear to be a deficit-cutting deal broker, and considers what might change the Beltway calculations:
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)
posted by crayz (3183 comments total) 51 users marked this as a favorite
 
Since the Tea Party wants to destroy the government, they should probably be called anarchists.
posted by exogenous at 7:07 AM on July 24, 2011 [81 favorites]


It is like the day the Feds refused to peacefully surrender Fort Sumter.
posted by humanfont at 7:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Very dog in the manger attitude. If they can't have the government, they want to break Obama's.
posted by arcticseal at 7:15 AM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


This shit is so exhausting. I remember when I was young hearing about 30 or 40 year olds who had just stopped listening to politics. It never made sense to me, but after listening to this non-stop crap for 30+ years, it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense now.

It's amazing that the current crop of politicians make me look back at George H.W. Bush as an even-handed, sane statesman. When you look back fondly at any Bush presidency with any nostalgia, you know things have gone completely off the rails.
posted by milarepa at 7:16 AM on July 24, 2011 [114 favorites]


I love how Boehner is pointing the blame at Obama, when the budget is Congress' responsibility according to the Constitution. The fact that Obama is a Black Democrat may be his fault. The fact that the White Republicans in Congress don't like that about him is THEIR fault.
posted by hippybear at 7:16 AM on July 24, 2011 [23 favorites]


When I was in high school, people promised me that the petty histrionic bullshit going on around me was something that everyone would outgrow. they were wrong.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:19 AM on July 24, 2011 [17 favorites]


Look, it's simple. The Republicans dug this hole. They are the ones who attached all these conditions to increasing the debt limit. This simple fact needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.

Does the debt need to be dealt with? Absolutely, although IMO now is not belt-tightening time. Not even close, in fact. The Republicans are holding the economy hostage. There's simply no other way to put it.

(And as long as Republicans' idea of compromise is "take our position completely", there is no getting anywhere.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:19 AM on July 24, 2011 [14 favorites]


  • water
  • non-perishable food
  • gasoline
  • guns and ammo
posted by Meatbomb at 7:20 AM on July 24, 2011 [10 favorites]


water
non-perishable food
gasoline
guns and ammo


No literature? How could you forget Penthouse?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:21 AM on July 24, 2011 [15 favorites]


There is a parallel between what is happening now and the Clinton-Gingrich power struggles of the 90's. Obama has to find a way to make Boehner look like the bad guy and make it stick. One America sees Boehner as a weepy, tantrum throwing toddler, the GOP loses its lock on power and Obama coasts through the 2012 election. Dems might even take back Congress.
posted by Renoroc at 7:22 AM on July 24, 2011 [11 favorites]


And as long as Republicans' idea of compromise is "take our position completely", there is no getting anywhere.

I should point out that it seems that a lot of Democrats also are disappointed that "take our position completely" is not Obama's policy. Every FPP for the past two years that deals with Obama features comments from people that say he's wrong to compromise.

I'm a Democrat myself, and I disagree with that kind of "our way our else" thinking. That's the kind of bullshit Bush Jr. did, that's the kind of thing I Understood Obama was going to avoid, and that's the reason I voted for the guy.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:22 AM on July 24, 2011 [25 favorites]


I rarely comment on these kinds of political issues, but in this case I'm not sure I can stop myself. Because, honestly, it's truly here that we see how repulsive and childish the Republican party is, and how devoid of sense or reason are Tea Party "economics".

To these people, it's all just symbolic gestures removed from political or economic reality. America defaulting on its debt would result in a goddamned CATACLYSM. It would literally destroy the American economy --- the causal chain here is pretty easy for anybody with even a mild curiousity in economics to follow --- but for the Republicans (and especially their militant Tea Party wing), they are incapable of seeing beyond a few poorly defined ideological sticking points. There is a not-small contingent in the party that does not want to raise the debt ceiling at all; they would happily destroy the country in order to maintain the purity of their childish ideology.

At this point, it's impossible to ignore the fact that all of this commitment to tax cuts and funding cuts is completely divorced from reality (or even reason), and is being perpetrated for its own sake. In a recent issue of the Economist, it was pointed out that 70% of Republicans do not support raising the debt ceiling at all. I want you to reflect on that for a moment: the majority of the party supporters are so committed to the party's narrow ideology that they are unable or unwilling to make even the most basic predictions about where that ideology might take them.

I had always felt that there was an almost evangelical zeal among the most ardent of tax cuts and spending cut supporters; that they felt that the cuts were somehow morally right in and of themselves, and that even if it clearly harmed the economy and everybody came out much worse off, then regardless, they needed to be made anyway because they were still somehow the right thing to do. And here we are, and it looks like I was right.

Sorry for the ire in this comment; I may have gotten carried away. But somehow, I've grown accustomed to evil and mendaciousness in politics; apparently it's when a party of supposed grown-ups acts like mewling children refusing to put on their shoes that really gets the blood pumping.
posted by Tiresias at 7:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [116 favorites]


I'm sure the party that wants to get the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" is negotiating in good faith here.
posted by Legomancer at 7:29 AM on July 24, 2011 [19 favorites]


I have been of the opinion that the longer the Republicans hold out, the more justification and indeed moral duty President Obama has for 1. Invoking the 14th Amendment, 2, Taking all compromise with the Republicans OFF the table.
It would be a good lesson to them to just negotiate in good faith.
I really do think the Republicans need a spanking and sent to their room.
But not before changing their dapers!
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:36 AM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


The Republicans are truly playing with fire here, because not only do they risk alienating independent voters and the more sane wing of their own party, they are thumbing their noses at their Wall Street masters, too.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:37 AM on July 24, 2011 [12 favorites]


There is a parallel between what is happening now and the Clinton-Gingrich power struggles of the 90's.

Unfortunately, it's Obama in the White House this time.
I like the guy. I voted for the guy. I had moderate hopes for the guy. But, he just isn't the sly political player Clinton was. I keep thinking that maybe, just maybe, Obama's going to pull some brilliant, unforeseen political maneuver out of his pocket and win the day while putting the "radicals" in their place.

But, alas, the only "radicals" I see him putting down are the ones in his own party, as he compromises further and further to the Republicans.

I'm beginning to see the 2012 election as coming down to a choice between the Chamber of Commerce candidate (Obama) and the Fox News candidate (whichever crazy gets the Republican nod). It will be that classic "least of two evils" choice between the one that will cut Medicaid by 20% and the one that will cut Medicaid completely.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:37 AM on July 24, 2011 [19 favorites]


One America sees Boehner as a weepy, tantrum throwing toddler, the GOP loses its lock on power and Obama coasts through the 2012 election. Dems might even take back Congress.

And then they get to dig out from a financial crisis that'll make that little difficulty with the mortgages and the insurance companies from '08 look like a minor accounting error, and lose Congress again in 2014. For an ideology its proponents barely even understand America will default on its debt before Greece, which made a bunch of not-so-wisely loaned money disappear on such things as a state railway system so famously wasteful that it would lose less money if it simply paid for each of its passengers to go everywhere in taxis.

Playing with fire over the tactics of a two-year election cycle is a game for whining, idiot children, regardless whether their snot-covered T-shirts are red or blue.
posted by Vetinari at 7:38 AM on July 24, 2011 [14 favorites]


I'm done.

The political system is completely broken in this country. I helped elect a man who has only managed to keep a few campaign promises, the main one being compromise. And he's compromising with crazy fucking assholes. And if I vote next year there will be no choice, as I will be choosing between the president I'm not very happy with and an utter lunatic. The two party system is awful.
posted by graventy at 7:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [42 favorites]


Considering the fact that McConnell has openly said the Republicans' main objective is denying Obama any kind of "political" victory thus paving the way for the next Republican presidential nominee.

And Grover Norquist's statement in 2003 about a future democratic president We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a democrat. Things appear to be going exactly as planned by the conservative establishment.

This isn't about America or "the will of the people" this is about the Divine Right of one party to distribute U.S. tax payer dollars to THEIR benefactors not some unwed mother living in a trailer park or tenement building somewhere.
posted by Max Power at 7:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [28 favorites]


I should point out that it seems that a lot of Democrats also are disappointed that "take our position completely" is not Obama's policy. Every FPP for the past two years that deals with Obama features comments from people that say he's wrong to compromise.

Yes, middle of whatever road we happening to be standing in is truly the most wise political philosophy at all times. My unwillingness to compromise my desire for a social democratic state such as exists in the rest of the western world with half our country's desire for some incoherent form of anarcho-theo-fascist nihilism truly is one and the same with that half's unwillingness to compromise on the idea of having a functioning democratic government whatsoever. Truly the same. Is that you David Brooks?
posted by crayz at 7:44 AM on July 24, 2011 [35 favorites]


The Republican Party is now officially the party of magical thinking. Forget different economic theories- this is a party that believes if we pray hard enough; ban abortions; and put the Blacks, Mexicans and Gays back in their place, God will fix everything.

This is apocalyptic politics, and they may just get their wish.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:45 AM on July 24, 2011 [22 favorites]


Not raising the debt limit will *not* "destroy the government" or "destroy the country"... don't complain about the histrionics in Washington, as it appears that nobody here can discuss this issue without getting overly dramatic with their references. The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations. I am tired of hearing all the bullshit about this. And it is *all* coming from the Democrats. Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry. All of this underscores the fact that the Democrats cannot approach power in a balanced fashion, and it appears that they have no political prowess whatsoever. They appear to just hate the fact that someone is telling them they cannot spend as much money as they want to.
posted by midnightscout at 7:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


cut half the military budget

raise debt limit

problem solved
posted by LogicalDash at 7:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [19 favorites]


And Grover Norquist's statement in 2003 about a future democratic president We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a democrat. Things appear to be going exactly as planned by the conservative establishment.

Most of us following the progression of Grover's plans didn't quite grasp a key feature that would be part of the endgame: the treasonous complicity of a pseudo-progressive president.

I am a life long Dem, and a moderately activist one at that. Barring some double-reverse backflip political jiu-jitsu from Obama (not bloody likely) I will not vote for him again. Period.
posted by mondo dentro at 7:50 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry.

This is where you are dead fucking wrong. Cutting benefits and raising contributions is exactly the same as raising taxes. On the people who can least afford it, to boot.

Pushing that agenda and refusing to look at defense or corporate subsidies or tax rates for millionaires is immoral, at best
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:53 AM on July 24, 2011 [79 favorites]


The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations.

On August 2, the U.S. will have 176 billion dollars to pay off debts, and will OWE 360 billion. Plenty of money really?

posted by Max Power at 7:54 AM on July 24, 2011 [20 favorites]


Who ya gonna vote for mondo? Bachman or Romney, maybe Rick Perry is more your speed?
posted by Max Power at 7:56 AM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


Trying to cut spending by using a debt ceiling is like trying to lose weight by wearing tight pants.

In a country with as many debts as the USA, it's not exactly hyperbole to say that intentionally defaulting on your loans and driving up interest rates is a crazy person's idea.
posted by Winnemac at 7:57 AM on July 24, 2011 [27 favorites]


"That thing you burned up isn't important to me. It's the fluid catalytic cracking unit economy. It made shoes for orphans jobs and stuff for everybody. Nice job breaking it, hero."
posted by Happy Dave at 7:57 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


But, alas, the only "radicals" I see him putting down are the ones in his own party, as he compromises further and further to the Republicans.

This video of Obama talking about compromise is interesting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:00 AM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


Some in Washington hold Norquist directly responsible for the inflexibility of House Republicans in the budget debate. He disagrees. "They're not against taxes because I asked them to. They're not against taxes because that's the politically popular thing to do this week. These are true believers."

The amount of disgust that I have for this man is not healthy. Diane Rehm interviewed him last week and he did not give a direct answer to her repeated question, "Here's what I want to know. I'd like to know exactly what programs you would like to get rid of." She asked that question over and over! He has no plan. None.

I was so furious that I wanted to throw my radio through my kitchen window. And then I watched Inside Job that evening and I haven't been the same since.
posted by futz at 8:00 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


Of course both sides want this issue to be polarized. Nobody (in politics) stands to lose when they can point fingers when the smoke clears.
posted by plinth at 8:00 AM on July 24, 2011


So, who's up for some nihilistic sex and drugs?
posted by The Whelk at 8:02 AM on July 24, 2011 [48 favorites]


Not raising the debt limit will *not* "destroy the government" or "destroy the country"..

I guess we'll find out. Asian markets will open in a few hours. There isn't going to be a deal. There might be a plan about a deal, but there are too many people who share your opinion to expect anything other than a failure.
posted by humanfont at 8:02 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations.

On August 2, the U.S. will have 176 billion dollars to pay off debts, and will OWE 360 billion. Plenty of money really?

This is the problem, isn't it? No one on the right really believes that there's no money left, so there's no risk on pushing Obama to the edge. It's the same here in Europe regarding eurozone contagion, and perhaps also the case with things like climate change: no one believes the worst case scenario.

The problem being, of course, that there's really no money left. And worse than that, the world economy is so globalised that a US default won't just destroy the US economy, but will bring down a good deal of the rest of the world too. So, yeah, you know, thanks for that.
posted by DangerIsMyMiddleName at 8:02 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry.

Yes it is. The tax rates on the rich are as low as they have been in pretty much everyone's lifetime. Preserving these low rates, rates which are very very low compared to the both the rest of the industrialized world and our own nation's past at the cost of bankrupting our government is exactly zealotry.
posted by I Foody at 8:03 AM on July 24, 2011 [72 favorites]


If it's not zealotry how come republicans now are physically incapable of saying the word "rich" and will only use the phrase "job creator"?
posted by Talez at 8:05 AM on July 24, 2011 [21 favorites]


These are the same fuckers who shut down the FAA. 4000 people furloughed and enough operating funds to pay for air traffic control through august 15th or so.

THe government is no longer collecting taxes on airline tickets, costing them around 200 million a week. The airlines reacted to this by raising their ticket prices 7.5% to compensate for the new savings.


This is the new fucking norm.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:07 AM on July 24, 2011 [37 favorites]




Oh, and I'd like to mention how fucking rich it is that the budget shortfall in Minnesota was 'solved' by borrowing from the future. Surely that's a wise decision! I can't believe they can get away with this utter bullshit.
posted by graventy at 8:11 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


This wouldn't have happened with Hillary.
posted by Ardiril at 8:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [15 favorites]


As I said previously, there isn't any legal basis for the 14th Amendment option, but the courts would prevent default either by dragging out that debate or by taking control over the budge themselves. Ergo, Obama should implement the 14th Amendment option, not by issuing new debt, but by cutting $200m off defense & other spending in Tea party states.

If the court doesn't order new bonds issued, then Obama can force the Tea party to the table by destroying their state's economies. If the court orders new bonds issues, they must invent the currently proposed 14th Amendment option themselves, which'll help long term.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


What bothers me most about the term "job creator" is that, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the rich haven't created jobs in any significant numbers. You want to be called a job creator? Create some jobs.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [64 favorites]


Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry. All of this underscores the fact that the Democrats cannot approach power in a balanced fashion...

Wow. You actually have no idea what's really going on, do you?

In a way, I envy you the rightist* bubble you live in as the world marches off of one very, very big cliff.

*Let me guess: you self identify as a "centrist".
posted by mondo dentro at 8:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [14 favorites]


Tiresias wrote: It would literally destroy the American economy

The more I've thought about it, the less I think that's entirely true. Or wouldn't be true if we didn't have Obama and the bumbling idiots in charge. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the reasoning why we can't monetize the debt in the traditional manner or use coin seignorage to make up new money goes out the window. Thus, the government could easily enact a massive stimulus program to help repair the damage in reasonably short order.

We'll never do that, though, and the lack of will to have government pick up the slack in demand will ensure that a default will indeed cause severe economic problems.

midnightscout wrote: Not raising the debt limit will *not* "destroy the government" or "destroy the country"... don't complain about the histrionics in Washington, as it appears that nobody here can discuss this issue without getting overly dramatic with their references. The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations.

Please show your work. Thanks!
posted by wierdo at 8:13 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


Not raising the debt limit will *not* "destroy the government" or "destroy the country"... don't complain about the histrionics in Washington, as it appears that nobody here can discuss this issue without getting overly dramatic with their references. The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations. I am tired of hearing all the bullshit about this. And it is *all* coming from the Democrats.

If the country defaults and our economy is excessively harmed - meaning markets drop 10% or more in value, government agencies are shuttered (however briefly), states don't get promised assistance, interest rates rise, credit freezes up, unemployment rises, the value of the dollar sinks, or some combination of the above, will anyone on the right admit they were wrong? Or will it simply be that the country *should* be fine, but the economy is being dragged down by the histrionics from the political party they oppose?

I believe that if the country defaults on its debt obligations, our economy will be damaged quite severely. But I'm also not an idiot who thinks he knows everything about everything and is willing to shape global events to fit a narrow worldview. If we default and, a week later, a compromise is found and the markets recover as though nothing has happened, I will readily admit that I was wrong and that I need to find new or at the least additional sources of news and commentary.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:14 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


What bothers me most about the term "job creator" is that, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the rich haven't created jobs in any significant numbers. You want to be called a job creator? Create some jobs.

I'd actually be pretty happy if there were big tax breaks on job creators. You know... giving rich people X% off their taxes for each new full-time employee with benefits they put into the workforce during a year, and a continued tax break as long as that job is in existence and filled by the same person.

That way, all those Wall Street bankers who have been raking it in hand-over-fist by gambling with other people's money will finally have to pay their fare share as leeches upon the economy, and the people who actually contribute value to the greater good can get the encouragement they need.
posted by hippybear at 8:16 AM on July 24, 2011 [27 favorites]


The two party system is awful.

The two party system is a relatively inexpensive, high-return investment for moneyed interests.
posted by fatllama at 8:20 AM on July 24, 2011 [34 favorites]


I'm thinking tomorrow might be a good day to move my IRA into a 100% cash position. I'd rather miss out on the possible 3% bump on the announcement of a realistic deal over losing 25% in the greatest one day drop in history on Aug 2.

Yeah, I know, timing the market is bad. But this one seems pretty damn obvious, especially in light of the fact that the relative stability of the market over the last month would indicate that Wall Street is expecting a deal to happen. When they are blindsided by the failure, the markets could be really ugly.
posted by COD at 8:20 AM on July 24, 2011


Hey, if the US defaults on it's debt, how can I benefit? Like, would I be able to buy certain US bonds and get higher than normal intrest back, since the credit rating would be lowered?
posted by hellojed at 8:21 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"pay their fare share"

Yeesh. FAIR share, thank you.
posted by hippybear at 8:24 AM on July 24, 2011


Deep down, the little anarchist in me is saying that a 24-hour US default is just the lesson this entire world needs. Let everyone get a taste of just how much power has been concentrated in our itty bitty District. Oddly enough, the Republicans are the ones trying to diminish that power.
posted by Ardiril at 8:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


So the republicans want to destroy Obama and don't mind taking the country to hell with them and Obama just wants to make massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare in order to appease this ethereal "deficit" god. I feel like a winner already.
posted by jake1 at 8:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


"Reticence" doesn't mean "reluctance" or "hesitance." It means "reluctance or hesitance to speak." It comes from the Latin "taceo," "to be silent."
posted by edheil at 8:25 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


hippybear wrote: I'd actually be pretty happy if there were big tax breaks on job creators. You know... giving rich people X% off their taxes for each new full-time employee with benefits they put into the workforce during a year, and a continued tax break as long as that job is in existence and filled by the same person.

We kinda sorta did that (albeit not a permanent tax break), but it didn't do much good.
posted by wierdo at 8:25 AM on July 24, 2011


And it is *all* coming from the Democrats.

Yeah, right. Playing that childish temper-tantrum blame game is exactly why we're in the position we're in at this moment.
posted by blucevalo at 8:26 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


We're making plenty of jobs. Just not here.

Multinational US corporations are not our friends.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:26 AM on July 24, 2011 [22 favorites]


I'm thinking tomorrow might be a good day to move my IRA into a 100% cash position. I'd rather miss out on the possible 3% bump on the announcement of a realistic deal over losing 25% in the greatest one day drop in history on Aug 2.

You are too late. The market will likely collapse tomorrow if there is no deal. If it doesn't the it isn't going to collapse august 2nd.
posted by humanfont at 8:27 AM on July 24, 2011


move my IRA into a 100% cash position - Yes, you pretty much missed the gold opportunity.
posted by Ardiril at 8:28 AM on July 24, 2011


Hey, if the US defaults on it's debt, how can I benefit?

I don't know the answer to that but I think the people who bought gold and gold correlated securities when the price was 500-600/oz (which seemed awfully high at the time) stand to gain from all this. They have been all along, in plain sight. I argued back when it was at 900 that the government should come in and diffuse the situation. I don't think anyone could benefit much by buying those things at this point, but I could be wrong.
posted by nervousfritz at 8:28 AM on July 24, 2011


Tin Foil Hat Prediction:™ The too-much-coffee edition.
• The debt ceiling will not be raised.
• Panic will ensue.
• The private sector, in the form of a giant Wall Street-based consortium, will eventually ride-in and "rescue" the government by either buying the debt or floating the largest loan in world financial history (at very advantageous rates). Either plan will include a large number of provisions which, in the end, will hand-over nearly all social programs to the private sector. Many programs will be cut completely.
• This will later be seen as the moment when the US adopted a completely unregulated, free-market world view and ceased to exist as a representative democracy. Markets will respond favorably.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:28 AM on July 24, 2011 [35 favorites]


We're making plenty of jobs. Just not here.

Multinational US corporations are not our friends.


Well, corporations in general are not our friends. They worry only about one thing, and that doesn't concern the wellbeing of people in general. If they could find a way to make money while paying nobody and destroying the health of everyone they come in contact with and not suffer any negative blowback while doing it, they'd take that tack if it meant the profits were as large as possible.
posted by hippybear at 8:29 AM on July 24, 2011 [10 favorites]


The political system is completely broken in this country.

this could well be the final test - if they fail to come up with a compromise, then it's broken

but some have said that this whole debate is irrelevant - that the u s treasury could invoke its ability of coin seigniorage to step around the problem

i have no idea how exactly this works or what the consequences might really be
posted by pyramid termite at 8:30 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'd actually be pretty happy if there were big tax breaks on job creators. You know... giving rich people X% off their taxes for each new full-time employee with benefits they put into the workforce during a year, and a continued tax break as long as that job is in existence and filled by the same person.

Which would you rather do, hire an American for $30,000 and get a $5,000 tax break or hire someone in China for $5,000 to do the same job?

Anyway, it seems to me that people hire employees when they need to hire employees. There is always a certain amount of flexibility there, but you don't just hire people because you have extra cash lying around. You hire people because your business needs indicate that it makes sense to do so.

I'm neither an economist nor a small business owner, however, but it seems that stimulating the demand side would do more for hiring than stimulating the supply side.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 8:32 AM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


Not raising the debt limit will *not* "destroy the government" or "destroy the country"... don't complain about the histrionics in Washington, as it appears that nobody here can discuss this issue without getting overly dramatic with their references. The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations. I am tired of hearing all the bullshit about this. And it is *all* coming from the Democrats. Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry. All of this underscores the fact that the Democrats cannot approach power in a balanced fashion, and it appears that they have no political prowess whatsoever. They appear to just hate the fact that someone is telling them they cannot spend as much money as they want to.


Michelle Bachman is this you?

I suppose Jon Kyl and John Boehner are Democrats? Because they both predicted dire events this morning.

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney. Republican right?

Balanced eh? Taxes are at 60 year lows. We've had tax cuts for 2 administrations now (with 2 terms of Bush in there). The mighty Reagan raised taxes 6 times. Including having rates for higher income brackets over 50%. We argue about raising them 3%. We are willing to default on obligations over 3% for the rich. The Bush Administration (Republican, last time I checked) had two wars, a tax cut and a entitlement program (Medicare Part D) without trying to fund any of it. ANY of it.

The major initiative of the Democrats? 'Obamacare'? Tax increases and incentives to pay for it. Some will argue with the math but there is an attempt to pay for it. I think that's what balanced means but maybe that's just me...
posted by dig_duggler at 8:32 AM on July 24, 2011 [30 favorites]


a deal is coming down Sunday 7/24 before the Asian markets open
hmmmm
save the markets and throw the rest of us under the bus
nice
posted by robbyrobs at 8:34 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


The private sector, in the form of a giant Wall Street-based consortium, will eventually ride-in and "rescue" the government by either buying the debt or floating the largest loan in world financial history (at very advantageous rates).

They don't have enough capital, and most of them are still up to their eyebrows in hock to the Federal Reserve Bank from 2008. There is no white knight available - either debt ceiling is raised, or we're in the Great Depression II. The economy is still fragile, and a sustained market shock will completely nuke it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:34 AM on July 24, 2011


pyramid termite, don't feel bad, I've been mulling it over for days and am still not sure what I think about that option. It's clearly legal, based on what I've read, but I'm not entirely sure what the effect would be, other than allowing the government to spend more money.

I guess it might be inflationary, at least once the new money is spent on something other than repaying bonds, but I don't think that would be a terrible thing anyway, as we're seeing inflation trend downward again, and lord knows the last thing we need is deflation.

If we were just to pay off bonds with seignorage "profits," it wouldn't really be inflationary as we'd just be replacing one debt instrument with another. A treasury bond is, after all, used essentially the same way as cash in a lot of transactions.
posted by wierdo at 8:36 AM on July 24, 2011


You are too late. The market will likely collapse tomorrow if there is no deal. If it doesn't the it isn't going to collapse august 2nd.

Which is why, from the Republican perspective as the long-standing party of Wall Street, failing to raise the debt-limit is the political equivalent to holding a gun to your own head and saying "Stop or I'll shoot."

This circus was created because Obama wanted a "grand compromise" where "indepedent" voters see that the Democrats are willing to bleed SS and Medicare.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:37 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm beginning to have second thoughts about getting a degree that's mainly only applicable to jobs in the public sector. I'm watching this whole thing with weary resignation.
posted by codacorolla at 8:37 AM on July 24, 2011


The Republicans are going to raise the debt ceiling, McConnell has already showed his hand. Just from a pure negotiation standpoint, judging from Obama's past dealings with Republicans, what do the Republicans have to lose by standing firm until the last minute? Obama's history is to cave cave cave until a compromise is reached. A good negotiator would start moving in the opposite direction when being pushed like this. If you don't start taking things off the table what is there to lose on the other side?
posted by any major dude at 8:38 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


I am glad that some patriots are staunchly defending our right not to have to pay the federal government for any services. Taxing the job creators would be a terrible thing right now for our country. It would keep them from opening up all the hardware stores, auto plants, restaurants, movie theaters, nurseries, shoe stores, butcheries, record stores, bars, concert halls, furniture makers, grocery stores, stationary stores, book stores, and dry cleaners that they have opened up like a thousand points of light in my community ever since the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
posted by TheTingTangTong at 8:38 AM on July 24, 2011 [23 favorites]


Every FPP for the past two years that deals with Obama features comments from people that say he's wrong to compromise.

When a Republican compromises, it's usually something like, "Okay, in exchange for NOT demanding that you decrease taxes for the wealthy, we'll agree to funding unemployment benefits, but only 50% of what you actually asked for." When a Democrat compromises, it's usually something like, "Okay, in exchange for getting you to stop acting like crybabies and actually pass this budget that has already been slashed to the bare minimum for all social services, we'll let you turn the nation into a freaking Christian theocracy."

Republic compromise means going from "100% my way" to "75% my way." Democratic compromise means going from "50% my way" to "25% my way".

It's a good thing I'm a pacifist who doesn't actually believe in violence as a way to solve problems, because this sort of bullcrap makes me want to start punching faces and never stop.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [20 favorites]


midnightscout: " I am tired of hearing all the bullshit about this. And it is *all* coming from the Democrats. Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry. All of this underscores the fact that the Democrats cannot approach power in a balanced fashion, and it appears that they have no political prowess whatsoever. They appear to just hate the fact that someone is telling them they cannot spend as much money as they want to."

midnightscout, are you completely fucking ignorant of the fact that this debt ceiling has nothing to do with future expenditures (and thus "spending money as 'they' want to") and EVERYTHING to do with previous budgets that are due, and that it is a bill put in the previous year by the REPUBLICAN leadership who authorized these expenditures in their legislation and now refuse to pay up when the bill is due. And yet you talk about histrionics. Indeed. Who is the one saying "no compromise" on even a slight increase? Who is the one refusing to play ball or budge a goddamned inch? Which party is the one actually making massive cuts to programs that they believe in (albeit (supposedly at least) grudgingly) while asking for a small amount of the balancing to come from an increase in income (i.e. closing tax loopholes). In other words, now is not the time or place to make demands on the future issues. If the Republicans wanna play ball with the US credit rating (not that I have any love for the fucking ratings agencies, considering their role in the massive bubble we saw burst a few years ago), then they ARE playing the wrong game, because again. The proper time and place for this is DURING THE BUDGETING PROCESS when future funds are to be voted on, not when past funds are due.

Someone somewhere gave an analogy that it's like you and your Republican friends all phone up and order some pizza. The delivery guy comes to the door, you get everyone together to pitch in for the pizza you all agreed on to buy, and the Republican friends now refuse to pay for the food they ordered previously.

Like I like to say people who think the dems are some radical crazy left-wing socialist commies wouldn't know fucking socialism if it dragged them out to a ditch and shot them in the head.

And Empress... Really? Nice strawman. Jesus fuck. The dems aren't negotiating? The dems are the crazy stubborn fools? Or do you mean the few really left-wing folks like kucinich who are trying to prevent the Overton Window from being ripped completely out of their hands and spun so far to the right it makes your neck whiplash as you watch, completely stunned and disoriented, as the Republicans (with the collusion of a president who not only continues to compromise but starts from the center and compromises further to the right) do it yet again?
posted by symbioid at 8:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [47 favorites]


You know what's really freaking annoying? How both Obama and Boehner constantly used "The American People" as a euphemism for "Me and my party". The American People want this, the American People want that. Gimme a break. As if its that simple.
posted by lazaruslong at 8:41 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


As a leftist cripple who is dependent on payouts from the feds to survive (SSD, Medicare), let me say how completely fucking depressing it is to read statements along the lines of:

1) Oh, a little anarchy is good for the soul.
2) This is Obama's fault because he didn't display some imaginary level of political jujitsu that is completely undefined.

This is aside from that blurt of nonsense that was: "Don't worry, all those checks are going to go out. And grown-ups pay their bills."

This is not directed at anybody, only the situation

KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL
posted by angrycat at 8:44 AM on July 24, 2011 [24 favorites]


We kinda sorta did that (albeit not a permanent tax break), but it didn't do much good.

Yeah, we should have coupled with with a giant tax hike on everyone who is in the top percentiles and isn't a job creator. Make it basically mandatory to create jobs and hire people in order to maintain current or even lower tax levels -- everyone else gets hit for more money.

We would have seen jobs.

it seems that stimulating the demand side would do more for hiring than stimulating the supply side.

While I agree with you here, I think that encouraging hiring in a REAL way would stimulate demand. Because having 20% of your population out of a job isn't really helping increase spending much. Put them to work, and you'll suddenly find there's a class of consumer out there who now have money to spend which they didn't before.
posted by hippybear at 8:44 AM on July 24, 2011


The NIKKEI opens at 8PM EDT, right? 5PM on the west coast?
posted by BeerFilter at 8:45 AM on July 24, 2011


If that's right, it would be 2PM on the East. I suggest at that balmy time of the day that Boehner and the rest of the House Republicans discuss this issue in the middle of the Mall, outside of shade, without water. Sorry, you want to bring down the country, NO WATER OR SHADE FOR YOU
posted by angrycat at 8:47 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Right wing dominates debt ceiling ad war. Politico suggests that right wing groups are outspending liberals by 5 or 10 to 1 ratios. That kind of money backing your politics gives you kits of leverage.
posted by humanfont at 8:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Not raising the debt limit will *not* "destroy the government" or "destroy the country"... don't complain about the histrionics in Washington, as it appears that nobody here can discuss this issue without getting overly dramatic with their references. The chance that social security checks will not go out is zero. The gov't has plenty of money to meet all obligations. I am tired of hearing all the bullshit about this. And it is *all* coming from the Democrats. Paying bills and meeting obligations without increasing taxes on ordinary citizens is not zealotry. All of this underscores the fact that the Democrats cannot approach power in a balanced fashion, and it appears that they have no political prowess whatsoever. They appear to just hate the fact that someone is telling them they cannot spend as much money as they want to.

Since you refuse to believe the facts the leaders of your own party have been repeatedly pointing out to you this last week, let me put it to you in language you do understand:

failing to raise the debt ceiling will add to the deficit significantly by raising the cost of borrowing for the US.

That's right. We're gonna have to pay higher interest rates on the debt if we default. Simple math. Failing to pay your bills means that people require more interest when you want to borrow again.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


This is Obama's fault because he didn't display some imaginary level of political jujitsu that is completely undefined.

It's Obama's fault because he is using his political jujitsu against an imaginary enemy: the whims of the "independent voter."

Somewhere, back at the Harvard Legal Review, or in Hyde Park at some cocktail party, back when people had jobs, Obama decided that what the Democrats needed to do was show that they were "responsible" and "serious." And the way to do that was to show that they were willing to cut the last remaining programs of the New Deal (if you count LBJ's program as the last extension of the New Deal.)

This is completely insane.

The root of the current "crisis" is that Obama wants to exploit the situation to push a historic shift in the politics of the Democratic party. Absent this, the Republicans would put on a good show, bleating and braying about the deficit, and then raise the debt limit when everyone gets tired of the performance.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:53 AM on July 24, 2011 [10 favorites]


The NIKKEI opens at 8PM EDT, right? 5PM on the west coast?

Yes. For real-time stock quotes there is a 20-min delay, though the press will announce exchange opening right away.
posted by stbalbach at 8:53 AM on July 24, 2011


pls define "effectively default on its debt". is the treasury planning to not pay its interest coupons? How is this time different from the previous 40 times the debt ceiling has been raised?

Why does political discourse have to sound like the sky is about to fall in a few hours? If the answer is "for the pageviews", do you think blowing things out of proportion is going to help in any way?
posted by 3mendo at 8:55 AM on July 24, 2011


Something I liked about the video Brandon Blatcher links to is this from Obama: He's talking about the need for compromise in politics, and how Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation outlined that the states in the Union could keep their slaves, and then he says, "Can you imagine how the Huffington Post would've reported on that?... 'Lincoln sells out slaves'. And there would be protests, we'd want a third party guy...."
posted by Houstonian at 8:56 AM on July 24, 2011


I wish someone would run for President under the platform, secret or open, that they would only seek one term. There would be no more games about the reelection or appealing to independent voters. Just get in there and Bulworth the shit out of the place.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:56 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


jake1: "So the republicans want to destroy Obama and don't mind taking the country to hell with them and Obama just wants to make massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare in order to appease this ethereal "deficit" god. I feel like a winner already."

That's just Charlie Sheen's patented Tiger Blood(R) hitting your system.
posted by symbioid at 8:57 AM on July 24, 2011


How is this time different from the previous 40 times the debt ceiling has been raised?

I believe the primary difference would be it not being raised
posted by crayz at 8:58 AM on July 24, 2011 [14 favorites]


We're making plenty of jobs. Just not here. Multinational US corporations are not our friends.

Until one realizes that both parties are working for the same employers, one hasn't even grasped the true nature of the problem.
posted by Trurl at 8:58 AM on July 24, 2011 [20 favorites]


The two party system is a relatively inexpensive, high-return investment for moneyed interests.
posted by fatllama at 8:20 AM on July 24 [3 favorites +] [!]


Is it, though? The impression I'm getting is that if there's a default a lot of people on Wall Street will lose a lot of money. That sounds like a pretty crappy investment if you ask me.
posted by Ndwright at 8:59 AM on July 24, 2011


How is this time different from the previous 40 times the debt ceiling has been raised?

S&P has said it could cut US bond rating from AAA to AA+ in 30 to 90 days .. this has never happened before. Bond markets around the world will have to recalibrate and the ripple effect is unknown (contagion).
posted by stbalbach at 8:59 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Democrats would accept a "deal" wherein the debt limit is raised, thus avoiding default. The Republicans would not. All else is just details. I therefore suggest that we start calling this "the Republican Default of 2011".
posted by Flunkie at 9:00 AM on July 24, 2011 [17 favorites]


Maybe the US bond rating was too high anyway.
posted by swift at 9:02 AM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


John Cole from two years ago:
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.
posted by octothorpe at 9:03 AM on July 24, 2011 [81 favorites]


I believe the primary difference would be it not being raised

No, this is the problem. Even if the debt ceiling is raised, if there is not a plan to address the massive debt, S&P will cut the bond rating, which is serious shit. So it doesn't help to just raise the debt ceiling, they have to cut spending and/or raise revenue.
posted by stbalbach at 9:03 AM on July 24, 2011


Dear lord the Tea Party is frightening. They ran as anarchists (except w/r/t gay marriage and abortion, I suppose), and that is what they still appear to be. You can't cut a deal to govern with people opposed to governing as a thing in itself.
posted by J. Wilson at 9:05 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm neither an economist nor a small business owner, however, but it seems that stimulating the demand side would do more for hiring than stimulating the supply side.

This is why the stimulus package didn't work. It should have been mostly "Okay, there's no demand for labor in the private sector, so therefore let's throw all our money into job creation by the government." It's not like there aren't plenty of things in the country that people could do if someone was willing to pay. There just isn't a ton of free-market demand for unpolluted wildlife, clean inner cities, smaller classroom sizes, expanded after-school programs, etc.

Instead, a lion's share of the stimulus package went towards tax cuts, which softened the blow of the recession but didn't solve it at all, because it didn't do anything about the low demand of labor in the free-market.

You cannot stimulate the demand for labor in this economy.

You cannot stimulate the demand for labor in this economy.

You cannot stimulate the demand for labor in this economy.

I don't know how much more this truth needs to sit out there before people actually incorporate it into decision-making, assuming that anyone on the right is not disingenuous about their desire to actually make things better.

The only way to get out of this recession is by creating jobs, and the only entity that can create jobs in this economy is the U.S. government, and the only way that the U.S. government can create jobs is if it does a whole big thing of government spending. But never mind, that needed to have happened 3 years ago. So now, you know, whatever.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:06 AM on July 24, 2011 [63 favorites]


My tinfoil hat theory is that the Republicans had wanted to craft a narrative where Obama raised the debt ceiling without Congress' consent. That narrative never really caught on, so now the Republicans feel emasculated. They pumping up the drama, with last-minute negotiations and ridiculous demands, in an attempt to steal a heroic role from all this nonsense, but that heroic role is never coming, so now they're just pumping it up and up and up.

It's like a guy at a bar who wants to get into a bar fight, so he calls out some dude for looking at him funny. The dude defuses the situation, but the guy wanted a fight, so he keeps trying to ramp up the situation in front of everyone else, but it doesn't work, so he starts threatening other people at the bar for no really good reason, but people aren't having it, so he just keep pushing people's buttons until someone's dumb enough to punch him.

No, this is the problem. Even if the debt ceiling is raised, if there is not a plan to address the massive debt, S&P will cut the bond rating, which is serious shit. So it doesn't help to just raise the debt ceiling, they have to cut spending and/or raise revenue.

Cut defense, raise taxes. The Republicans will never go for it. Democats want to sell the Hummer and get a job, Republicans want to update the Hummer's stereo system and get another credit card.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:07 AM on July 24, 2011 [13 favorites]


Every FPP for the past two years that deals with Obama features comments from people that say he's wrong to compromise.

Oh, come on. There may be a few people like that, but the vast majority are just upset because he doesn't actually compromise by any real meaning of the word. You know, as in the parties reach an agreement that accomplishes things they both want, in addition to some of the things one party wants and some of the things the other party wants.

In this particular instance, there are some teabaggers who don't care if we default, but their leadership gets it. Boehner and Cantor said months ago that they knew we were going to raise the limit. McConnell said on last week's Sunday morning talk shows that there's nobody talking about not raising the limit. They get it. They're just pretending they really want to let us default to have more leverage over Obama.

So in a negotiation where neither side wants the country to default on its debts, one side wants to slash social programs to cut the budget, and the other side wants to raise taxes on the rich, what would an ACTUAL COMPROMISE look like? Let's say, an equal mix of tax increases and budget cuts and no default. What have the past several Obama deals all had in common? MASSIVE budget cuts, involving substantial cuts to social programs, and zero tax increases. None. They're talking about raising $800 billion - $1.2 trillion through, like, tax code reform or some shit. Which is "about a trillion dollars less in revenues than the Simpson-Bowles/Gang of Six deals advocated, and about $2.6 trillion less in revenue than simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012." Which would automatically happen, unless Congress votes to extend them another time.

What the fuck kind of compromise is that? And Republicans frame it as "we get spending cuts, and Democrats get to raise the debt ceiling," as though that shared goal is something the Democrats can put in their "win" column. THIS is the kind of thing we're upset about, and I sure as shit wouldn't call it "negotiating"
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:08 AM on July 24, 2011 [36 favorites]


So, is this pretty much win-win for the Republicans? The debt ceiling gets raised and the narrative becomes "Obama is pillaging the future with more government spending and bigger government!" It fails, the economy tanks, and the narrative becomes "Obama let the economy tank under his watch because he didn't do enough to placate us." I'm not optimistic here.
posted by synecdoche at 9:09 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


No, this is the problem. Even if the debt ceiling is raised, if there is not a plan to address the massive debt, S&P will cut the bond rating, which is serious shit. So it doesn't help to just raise the debt ceiling, they have to cut spending and/or raise revenue.

Why would this be true? Why is August 2nd the date when the country needs to deal with our 75 year outlook on unfunded liabilities, a problem that's been growing steadily over time for years?

It needs to be dealt with in a serious way in the near future, but until the GOP decided this was the summer to throw their steering wheel out of the car and play chicken with the global economy, the conventional wisdom was the US had another 5-10 years to get its act together before its creditors started seriously pulling the rug out
posted by crayz at 9:11 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, is this pretty much win-win for the Republicans?

On the one side you had someone who wanted to cut Social Security. And on the other side...

Oh, well. At least DADT repeal got certified.
posted by Trurl at 9:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


We have seven hours? Is there anything anyone can do other than put up supplies of water and food? Seriously, what are people doing to prepare for this?
posted by Surfurrus at 9:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Houstonian: "Something I liked about the video Brandon Blatcher links to is this from Obama: He's talking about the need for compromise in politics, and how Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation outlined that the states in the Union could keep their slaves, and then he says, "Can you imagine how the Huffington Post would've reported on that?... 'Lincoln sells out slaves'. And there would be protests, we'd want a third party guy....""

And at some point, Lincoln stopped compromising and went to fucking war. Can you imagine that, Obama? You? Going to war and fighting an actual fight against an enemy instead of compromise every last inch. If Lincoln was like you, slavery would still exist.
posted by symbioid at 9:13 AM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


Oh, and I'd like to mention how fucking rich it is that the budget shortfall in Minnesota was 'solved' by borrowing from the future. Surely that's a wise decision! I can't believe they can get away with this utter bullshit.

This.

For all the hemming and hawing the GOP do about our debt levels, it should be pointed out again and again that after the recent Minnesota shutdown, they opted to BORROW MORE MONEY rather than tax the top 2% of people in the state. And it should be noted that the effective tax rate of the top 2% is only 9%, compared to the effective tax rate of 11% paid by almost everybody else.

So, in summary, the Minnesota GOP would rather that we take on more debt than make the millionaires pay their fair share. If this doesn't make your head fucking explode than you're just not paying attention. I haven't take taken the GOP or any of their ridiculous and unrealistic proposals seriously for years, but for the people who still find them to be reasonable.....surely this.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:14 AM on July 24, 2011 [34 favorites]


We have seven hours?

I thought they had til August 2nd? If they're anything like me they won't get serious about working on it until the evening of the 1st.
posted by Flashman at 9:17 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm gonna take a nap.
posted by cavalier at 9:18 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


It needs to be dealt with in a serious way

Agreed.

But anyone not suggesting an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan is not dealing with the deficit in a serious way. They're just trying to loot entitlements.
posted by Trurl at 9:19 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop calling Tea Party people "anarchists". It's like calling Obama a "socialist". It offends us people who are sympathetic with real actual anarchists (who actually go by that term) and real socialists (again, who actually go by that term).
posted by symbioid at 9:20 AM on July 24, 2011 [16 favorites]


We need to organize the biggest Flash Mob in history, right in front of the Capitol.
Go Arab Spring on these stupid motherfuckers.
posted by Flashman at 9:21 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop calling Tea Party people "anarchists".

"nihilists" works for me, what about you?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:22 AM on July 24, 2011 [13 favorites]


We believe in nothing Lebowski. Nothing!
posted by Happy Dave at 9:23 AM on July 24, 2011 [12 favorites]


pyramid termite, I've come to appreciate the term "spiteists".
posted by symbioid at 9:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [16 favorites]


I am getting sick Republican budget blocking. The GOP has been testing this tactic at state level. Minnesota and Iowa both had delays caused by GOP trying to ram through nonbudget items in the budget bill. They are using a classic "Overton window," they'll give up conservative ideological issues like defunding women's health clinics, if they can just get a budget with major caps and cuts. They're prepared to destroy government institutions that support the public interests, just to reduce government and neutralize the ability of The People to use their collective political power.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's Obama's fault because he is using his political jujitsu against an imaginary enemy: the whims of the "independent voter."

Somewhere, back at the Harvard Legal Review, or in Hyde Park at some cocktail party, back when people had jobs, Obama decided that what the Democrats needed to do was show that they were "responsible" and "serious."


Somewhere, in the bowels of the White House, Obama looked at the last election and saw that we lost. Then, he looked over at the House and saw the GOP had a majority. Then he realized we don't have the votes. Then he opened up his U.S. Constitution and the Rules of the House and saw how that majority counted. Then he looked at the Gallup exit polling and saw few liberals showed up. So he realized the left was WEAK and that he could not count on them for THE LONG HARD JOB OF GOVERNING. Apparently they were too busy engaging in activities designed to make them feel good about being leftists, like breaking into Michelle Bachman's dressing room, throwing glitter around, or having protests with giant puppets, or putting red paint on someone, rather than registering voters or calling and writing their congress person on key issues, or you know, voting in every election.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [34 favorites]


hey now I purposed a very solid and concrete nihilistic sex and drugs platforms.
posted by The Whelk at 9:25 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


The biggest news here:

1) John Boehner does not return the president's phone calls.

2) This entire debate has taken place behind closed doors between a small number of senior legislators. One senator admitted last week that his knowledge of the talks comes entirely from the New York Times and Huffington Post.
posted by schmod at 9:26 AM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


or having protests with giant puppets

Heh, so very true.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:27 AM on July 24, 2011


"nihilists" works for me, what about you?

Americana cosplayers.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:27 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Hippie punching, it's like Godwin's Law for centrist democrats!
posted by symbioid at 9:28 AM on July 24, 2011 [13 favorites]


We need to organize the biggest Flash Mob in history, right in front of the Capitol.
Go Arab Spring on these stupid motherfuckers.


In this heat? Lawd have mercy, I'll be watching from the Burger King down the street.
posted by TheTingTangTong at 9:28 AM on July 24, 2011


And at some point, Lincoln stopped compromising and went to fucking war. Can you imagine that, Obama? You? Going to war and fighting an actual fight against an enemy instead of compromise every last inch. If Lincoln was like you, slavery would still exist.

Huh. You know, 50k people died in the battle of Gettysburgh alone.

That's what you want? Oh go you.
posted by angrycat at 9:28 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


angrycat, my point is that Obama kept praising "compromise" but Lincoln didn't win the Civil War by compromise. My point is that sometimes, compromise doesn't work, and there comes a time to fight back.

I'm talking metaphorical. Or was your "KILL KILL KILL" literal, too?

Jesus fuck.
posted by symbioid at 9:30 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


"nihilists" works for me, what about you?

I prefer "shitheads," but I've run out of charity and patience.
posted by lydhre at 9:33 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


So he realized the left was WEAK and that he could not count on them for THE LONG HARD JOB OF GOVERNING

Do you just copy/paste this same comment into every political thread? It seems there's nothing wrong with this country you can't blame on liberal weakness, like some inverted self-loathing stockholm syndrome
posted by crayz at 9:33 AM on July 24, 2011 [11 favorites]


And at some point, Lincoln stopped compromising and went to fucking war. Can you imagine that, Obama? You? Going to war and fighting an actual fight against an enemy instead of compromise every last inch. If Lincoln was like you, slavery would still exist.

You fundamentally do not understand Abraham Lincoln. He personally wanted slavery abolished, but his only desire was to keep the Union. He was hammered from his left by full-on abolitionists, and yet did not free the slaves. Finally, when he saw advantage and need to deflect British and French pressure, he freed only those slaves he had no physical power to free, leaving those he could actually free in bondage. Knowing he could not uncross that line, only then did he make the abolition of slavery in the Confederate States a condition of victory.

He only did things when there was support out there for them. He did not try to foist things on people, or not listen to the electorate. Kind of like Obama.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:33 AM on July 24, 2011 [13 favorites]


The difference between hyperbole and a reference to a historical analogy is that WOW, history actually happened, so that's the difference. Have fun with your fantasy Civil War 2.0, though.
posted by angrycat at 9:33 AM on July 24, 2011


The Civil War analogy seems pretty apt, though.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:33 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


They appear to just hate the fact that someone is telling them they cannot spend as much money as they want to.

Allright, I am leaving the thread before I get too angry, but I will just say this:

midnightscout, I really really REALLY hope you were one of those rare conservatives who opposed going into the war in Iraq (and by opposed, I mean, actually was against it BEFORE it happened, instead of some kind of revisionist reimagining of your original position).

Because if you weren't -- if you didn't march against the war, send letters to your senators or congresspeople, talk about it to your friends and neighbors; if, G!d forbid, you actually supported the war like so many conservatives did back in 2003, then you:
  • Were complicit in effectively wasting over $3 trillion dollars on a war that probably never needed to have taken place
  • Have the blood of
    • Every man, woman, and child directly killed as "collateral damage" in the war
    • Every man, woman, and child that died because of a lack of adequate resources in the aftermath of the war in Iraq
    • Every American soldier who died in battle
    • Every man, woman, and child in the United States who died as a result of violence by servicepeople psychologically damaged by the war
    • Every man, woman, and child in the United States who has died due to lack of access to sufficient healtcare, or due to a lack of resources that could have been provided by federal, state, or local funding that has been cut because of a need to "tighten" budget spending
    on your hands.
So don't talk to me about a little bit of fucking SPENDING.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:33 AM on July 24, 2011 [50 favorites]


I think the silver lining to all this is that it may begin to swing even corporate support toward the Dems. For all their free-market, tax-cutting bluster, if the Republicans are seriously considering a move that would be so devastating to American business, they are becoming too erratic and ideological even for business interests.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 9:34 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The right wing is anathema to civil society.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:36 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


To add onto Ironmouth, Lincoln believed that slavery was evil. He said this repeatedly in the Senate election of 1858. To highlight the difference between knowing something is wrong and the difficult process of governing.

Do you just copy/paste this same comment into every political thread? It seems there's nothing wrong with this country you can't blame on liberal weakness, like some inverted self-loathing stockholm syndrome


I really hope people in the U.S. are generally more sensible than the substance of the above comment. Otherwise, we are well and truly fucked in 2012, let alone this month.
posted by angrycat at 9:37 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


That 'super congress' story is pretty terrifying. Did they get the ghost of Sinclair Lewis to come up with that one?
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:37 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Is there really anything to stop the formerly traditional raising of the debt ceiling with no other strings attached?

That doesn't seem in opposition to the "no new taxes" pledge the Republicans are on about, and I'd think you'd get 100% Democratic support. Is there a filibuster threat in the Senate, or is it just that the House leadership is unwilling to allow it to proceed out of committee?

Whatever the political histrionics, this remains the right thing to do and I'm not clear that there isn't a majority who haven't painted themselves in the corner on this.
posted by meinvt at 9:38 AM on July 24, 2011


I really hope people in the U.S. are generally more sensible than the substance of the above comment. Otherwise, we are well and truly fucked in 2012, let alone this month.

Because the best thing for liberals to do is talk about how weak with infighting their own side is? I guess the irony of this is lost on you?
posted by crayz at 9:39 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


How about this: tie the debt ceiling to the budget that gets passed!
posted by ifandonlyif at 9:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


The right wing is the lifeblood of corporatism.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:40 AM on July 24, 2011


Is there really anything to stop the formerly traditional raising of the debt ceiling with no other strings attached?

Whatever one's feelings about the debt rating agencies, I don't think anyone disputes their ability to make borrowing more expensive for us. Given how much borrowing we do, that's not a minor issue.
posted by Trurl at 9:40 AM on July 24, 2011


Do you just copy/paste this same comment into every political thread? It seems there's nothing wrong with this country you can't blame on liberal weakness, like some inverted self-loathing stockholm syndrome

You refuse to listen, therefore im compelled to repeat myself. I note you refuse to engage the substance of my comment. I would love to be wrong--I would love for us to have won the 2010 elections and happily executing the wish list. Since we didn't, I merely suggest we act rationally by helping our guy. But some people think the plan is not to vote and then think we have some power we dont.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:41 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ironmouth: " (Lincoln) only did things when there was support out there for them. He did not try to foist things on people, or not listen to the electorate. Kind of like Obama."

------------

So. We try to push for support on our direction from the left, then you tell us we shouldn't push him and don't be so hard on him.

Make up your mind.

We're too noisy, loud and we don't let the man do his "responsible centrist leadership" or we're not loud enough and it's our fault for not pushing harder (and how do we do that? vote for him if he doesn't do what we want, and then we complain and it's our fault because...? or don't vote for him because he doesn't do what we want and then it's our fault because we didn't vote for him...)

Yeah. Great logic.
posted by symbioid at 9:42 AM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


So, let's say that there is no deal. What do people think the budget will be?

If this is to be believed, there is enough to pay interest on the existing debt, social security, medicare, vesterans' benefits, and "the narrowest definition" of national defense (by which I presume he means the narrowest definition under CBO scoring or whatever, as opposed to "enough to defend ourselves from invasion" or the like). And nothing else.

Which would mean that if all of those are to be covered, then "No Medicaid, no FAA, no border patrol, no FBI, no embassies, no highways, no disaster relief, no SEC, no court systems, no prisons, no national parks, no CIA, no school lunches, no medical care for children, no SNAP, no flood control, no student loans, no medical research, no nothing." And no IRS, which is where the assumed money to cover at least some things is coming from.

So what's it going to be? To be clear, I'm not asking "what do you think it should be" - I'm asking "what do you think it will be".

Another question: Alternatively, I suppose we could just start printing money a la Zimbabwe. Let's assume we just start declaring enough dollars to exist so as to cover the shortfall in the federal budget. How much inflation would that cause? I imagine it (or at least a lower limit for it) could be worked out mathematically, from the amount of the shortfall, the existing money supply, and so forth.
posted by Flunkie at 9:43 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Lincoln's inability to compromise resulted into bloodiest war in American history and terrible war crimes like Andersonville, Shermans March as the sacking of Charleston. Is this what you want?
posted by humanfont at 9:43 AM on July 24, 2011


Because the best thing for liberals to do is talk about how weak with infighting their own side is? I guess the irony of this is lost on you?

If I was a sane Republican a la David Brooks, I would tell Republicans that they are destroying their party -- as Brooks did.

There is a wee wee wee difference between the statements "Obama is responsible for all because he caved" and "No, actually, that factually nonsense."
posted by angrycat at 9:43 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


angrycat: "The difference between hyperbole and a reference to a historical analogy is that WOW, history actually happened, so that's the difference. Have fun with your fantasy Civil War 2.0, though."

I'm not the asshole who mentioned Lincoln, FFS. It was fucking OBAMA who did that, I was only responding to the comparison that HE made.

Oh god, I'm not gonna respond to you or Ironmouth anymore you're just trolling me.

Bye.
posted by symbioid at 9:43 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


What a lot of us object to is not that Obama compromises, but that he does it so badly. You don't START at negotiating at your opponents starting position. On health care, for example, he said he was for single payer. But the Republicans were hot for public option. That was one of the things McCain/Palin was running on "Medicare for All!". So he starts negotiations by asking for public option, which immediately becomes a total anathema. He wanted regulations on Carbon Emissions, but the Republicans were all for Cap & Trade. "Let the Market regulate it!" So he started at Cap & Trade which the Republicans now claims is a socialist idea and totally his own. And on, and on. I don't think he has the credibility any more to get tough with the Republicans -- they are convinced he'll cave again if they just put on a little pressure.
posted by pbrim at 9:44 AM on July 24, 2011 [20 favorites]


So he realized the left was WEAK and that he could not count on them for THE LONG HARD JOB OF GOVERNING. Apparently they were too busy engaging in activities designed to make them feel good about being leftists, like breaking into Michelle Bachman's dressing room, throwing glitter around

Yeah, except raising the debt ceiling isn't an issue the electorate votes on, and Democratic Congressmen were too busy learning about Obama's deals with Boehner from Jack Lew, since they weren't actually invited to the negotiating table.

And if Obama does all his decisionmaking by polls, as you suggest, he'd notice that 71% disapprove of the GOP's handling of the debt crisis and that more people favor raising taxes than cutting the deficit only and that 60% are opposed to benefit cuts take all that into account when formulating plans that include no tax increases, include benefit cuts, and coddle Republican Congresspeople while excluding their Democratic counterparts. Or else he can look forward to even worse results in the next election, after which point he'll surely conclude "That's the problem! I must not have swung hard enough right!"
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:46 AM on July 24, 2011 [10 favorites]


The tone of this thread has spiraled into fark politics territory.
posted by Silverdragonanon at 9:46 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 9:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Here is what i propose:

Call your representatives TODAY. I dont care if they are red or blue. BUT CALL THEM.

Tell them you dont want social security or medicaire cut and that you want the debt ceiling raised until 2013 and tell them you think taxes should be raised on those making over $250,000 a year. Do it EVERY WEEK UNTIL THE 2012 election. EVERY WEEK. Everytime you have the urge to throw glitter on a homophobe, CALL YOUR CONGRESS PERSON, no matter how right-wing they are. Dont sign ANY online petitions--Call your member, write him or her letters, send E-mails. But do something that actually has an effect.

Stop bitching and start fighting!
posted by Ironmouth at 9:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [38 favorites]


Given the generally loose grip Tea Party Republicans have on their emotions and rhetoric, I'm not too comfortable with these Civil War similes. I mean, it's not hard to imagine Tea Parties cheering the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Nor, is it hard to imagine a good many of them being totally cool with openly advocating for armed revolt.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Trurl wrote: Whatever one's feelings about the debt rating agencies, I don't think anyone disputes their ability to make borrowing more expensive for us. Given how much borrowing we do, that's not a minor issue.

It's not unreasonable to think that the Chinese would double down on their Treasury purchases to keep their currency weak relative to the dollar. I think owning the debt is secondary for them; they're more interested in the immediate effect of maintaining/improving their export sales.
posted by wierdo at 9:50 AM on July 24, 2011


I would love to be wrong--I would love for us to have won the 2010 elections and happily executing the wish list. Since we didn't, I merely suggest we act rationally by helping our guy. But some people think the plan is not to vote and then think we have some power we dont.

"We lost" only one house of Congress. Traditionally the government works through compromise when there is a split between control of the executive and one or both branches of Congress. What seems different now is the GOP willingness to use their control of a single branch to take the rest of the country hostage to their raving mad demands

You seem to be saying well obviously half the country is going to act as political terrorists any time they get an ounce of power, and the only solution is to give them a 747 and beg them to let the women and children go free, and shame on us for not guarding the place better
posted by crayz at 9:52 AM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


I've been having to read a lot of Ernest Becker recently, and it's been putting all this Republican and Tea Party nonsense through a weird lens.

All these appeals to the fear and disgust of "liberal weakness" are happening as the USA-as-sole-hyperpower era is ending, and as much of the blame can apparently be laid at George W. Bush's feet, and as much of the decline happened during his tenure. So much of George W. Bush's reign was devoted to traditional conservative imagery made real - he was not merely a cunning player of images like some of his cohorts or predecessors, but instead he really did believe in his God-given mission and all the rest.

When he was powerful, both the true believers and the image-playing cynics of the Republican party were all too happy to associate with him, but now that the 2000s are mostly regarded as a terrible era for American governance, the Republican electorate has been left with no productive role. What had been an untenable ideological alliance - big business corporatism combined with populist social conservatism - fractured under the stress caused by the unwelcome intrusion of reality into their narrative.

When we cannot have a respected, productive role in society, our creative energies often twist. People who had staked their entire identities on the economic, political, and military dominance of the USA are no longer being rewarded. As a result, they are now going through a very peculiar extinction burst, cycling through all their favorite moments of American history and ideology, both real and imagined, no matter as to whether this parade of fantastic images is actually helping them or helping the country. They're like Miss Havisham in her dusty dress, with her dusty cake, except without the isolation and without a daughter.

So now they have to double back on their principles (always lower taxes! always reduce benefits! always more defense!), except they can't, because to do so would destroy their group identity. Rather than negotiate this ideological transition, they have retreated into denial. They are willing to hold the entire nation hostage, because if they can deny the death of the Republican party, then they can also deny the death of the USA.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2011 [31 favorites]


I really really REALLY hope you were one of those rare conservatives who opposed going into the war in Iraq (and by opposed, I mean, actually was against it BEFORE it happened, instead of some kind of revisionist reimagining of your original position).

I hate to continue this derail, but it's a bad analogy. We were sold a case for war that was predicated on lies and bad intelligence. I feel that it's unfair to blame members of the public for this, given that the lies promoted a strong case for going to war, and there were virtually no credible sources in the media voicing their opposition to it.

In hindsight, we were lied to, and the military leadership didn't actually have a fucking strategy for winning the war. However, even highly educated members of the public had no way of knowing either of these things. It's wrong to blame them for it, especially if they reversed their position once the deception became apparent.
posted by schmod at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2011


Another question: Alternatively, I suppose we could just start printing money a la Zimbabwe.

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.
posted by humanfont at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2011


Obama had a clear shot during the first 2 years of his presidency.

He had a high approval rating and both the house and the senate. His administration should have hammered home job creation and the economy during the first 2 years. That's all we should have heard about. Instead, they spent that time dicking around with that morass healthcare, which was run into the ground. You know why it was run into the ground? Pretty much everyone during that time was all, "Hmm, healthcare is nice, but my 401K was just gutted and I don't have a job." Republicans leveraged that shit to high hell and it worked splendidly. Democrats could have fought back if it was about the economy and job creation. I think if his administration would have stayed focused on the economy for those two years through the last election, the current political landscape would be quite different. He might have even been able to let the tax cuts expire because then at least it would make some sense in relation to the rest of what he was doing. But all people heard was big new program, new taxes. It was shitty message control and strategy. Republicans learned on healthcare that they could win as a minority so that only emboldened them. Now the whole process is a hopeless bog of supernatural stupidity and obstructionism.

I mean, who the fuck am I, but as an outside observer the first two years of his presidency made no sense.
posted by milarepa at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2011 [14 favorites]


Lincoln's inability to compromise resulted into bloodiest war in American history
What do you mean by this, exactly and specifically, please?

I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure that states had seceded before Lincoln had even assumed office, and that Lincoln did not initiate hostilities against these seceded states until they actually attacked United States soldiers.
posted by Flunkie at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


(Lincoln) only did things when there was support out there for them. He did not try to foist things on people, or not listen to the electorate. Kind of like Obama.

except that Obama is proving himself far more courageous than Lincoln, since no majority of Democrats or Republican wants to cut social security and Medicare...
posted by ennui.bz at 9:55 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


The tone of this thread has spiraled into fark politics territory.

hey don't go all tone argument on us, that is for conservatives and frat boys
posted by LogicalDash at 9:55 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


It's not unreasonable to think that the Chinese would double down on their Treasury purchases...

I wouldn't bet on that.

Of course, the Democrats could have avoided this predictable mess if they had raised the debt ceiling back in January when they still controlled both houses of Congress.

Some might argue that the failure was deliberate - to give them this "shock doctrine" opportunity for cutting entitlements. But at best, it seems like spectacular incompetenece.
posted by Trurl at 9:55 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


I thought they had til August 2nd?

The current debate is with Congress, once they do a deal, it then has to pass the Senate, and that's a whole another round of negotiations at least another week. So if Congress can't come up with a deal by today.. markets will assume the worse.
posted by stbalbach at 9:55 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The majority doesn't want a default.

The original Tea Party wanted no taxation without representation. The current Tea Party wants no taxation and no representation.
posted by twoleftfeet at 9:59 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


He did not try to foist things on people, or not listen to the electorate. Kind of like Obama.

What a joke. Obama has been not listening to the electorate through this entire crisis - the public is massively opposed to benefit cuts and in favor of tax increases, and every plan he has supported in the past few weeks has attempted to foist unpopular cuts to social programs on the nation. And the purported justification is never that it's what the people want, it's that we need to give the markets more confidence so that business, which are sitting on stockpiles of massive profits already, will deign to create more jobs.

Obama has no flaw with you - he's always either doing what the public want, which always means whatever you personally interpreted the 2010 election to mean, or he's constrained by votes, despite circumstances like the present one where the Democrats will meekly vote for whatever plan he settles on and leaders in the opposition party have telegraphed that they will vote to increase the debt ceiling and are just using obstinance as leverage to score political points (they tried to attach fucking HEALTH CARE REFORM REPEAL to a recent draft, jesus, they couldn't be more transparent). So he has votes and popular support is behind the opposite of what he's doing. What's your excuse now? Please frame it in your usual condescending tone and imply anyone who disagrees is a child who doesn't understand politics.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 9:59 AM on July 24, 2011 [12 favorites]


Trurl wrote: I wouldn't bet on that.

That's the same bunch of BS that's been peddled to us for the last several years. Seriously, what are they going to do? The importing nations in Europe aren't in any condition to be importing at the moment. Even in its present state, the US has more capacity to consume their goods.

And the whole domestic consumption thing hasn't worked out for them that well so far.
posted by wierdo at 10:00 AM on July 24, 2011


I hate to continue this derail, but it's a bad analogy. We were sold a case for war that was predicated on lies and bad intelligence. I feel that it's unfair to blame members of the public for this, given that the lies promoted a strong case for going to war, and there were virtually no credible sources in the media voicing their opposition to it.

In hindsight, we were lied to, and the military leadership didn't actually have a fucking strategy for winning the war. However, even highly educated members of the public had no way of knowing either of these things. It's wrong to blame them for it, especially if they reversed their position once the deception became apparent.


Wait, what? There are people out there who console themselves in the wee hours of the morning with thoughts like this?
posted by KokuRyu at 10:04 AM on July 24, 2011 [16 favorites]


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?

Second of all, ignoring that, Zimbabwe definitely was printing excess money at an astounding rate, regardless of whether there were other factors involved in its fiscal problems.
posted by Flunkie at 10:04 AM on July 24, 2011


What a joke. Obama has been not listening to the electorate through this entire crisis - the public is massively opposed to benefit cuts and in favor of tax increases, and every plan he has supported in the past few weeks has attempted to foist unpopular cuts to social programs on the nation.

Hey! That sounds like what happened to the Public Option.

Maybe it's a pattern.
posted by notyou at 10:06 AM on July 24, 2011


The Public Option was DOA. Republicans and "moderate" Democrats would not accept it, full stop. And they were necessary to pass any legislation at all. Blaming Obama for the lack of a public option is asinine.
posted by Flunkie at 10:08 AM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


Deep down, the little anarchist in me is saying that a 24-hour US default is just the lesson this entire world needs. Let everyone get a taste of just how much power has been concentrated in our itty bitty District. Oddly enough, the Republicans are the ones trying to diminish that power.

the world already learnt that lesson a little while back when you guys caused the financial crisis. i don't think we we need another lesson, thanks. that's probably why the euro is still strong against the us dollar despite all the problems eu member states are currently having.
posted by canned polar bear at 10:09 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Call your representatives TODAY. I dont care if they are red or blue. BUT CALL THEM.

CALL NOW! operators are standing by... you will remember what happened when a Cat. 5 political shitstorm erupted over the first attempt to pass TARP: the first vote failed after everyone called in, then they tried again and passed it.

A better plan is to find out when the next local Republican or Democratic (whichever party you are a member of) party committee/caucus meeting is and find 5 friends to attend it with you, you might find you have a majority voting block. Bring a bottle of whiskey for historical realism. (though you might find that local rules discourage participation but one way or another there should be a path...)

But honestly, the politics for the 'debt ceiling crisis" were mapped out years ago... there's little the average person (IMHO) can do right now to change any of it: it's too damn late. if you want things to be different you need to plan for what happens in the next X years.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:09 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


Seriously, what are they going to do?

they're going to stand pat with what they have - they're not going to dump their holdings, as that would be suicidal - they're not going to double up, as that would be stupid

they're going to quietly reduce their holdings in a small way that won't be disruptive and wait to see what happens

what happens will probably be them losing money
posted by pyramid termite at 10:10 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


pyramid termite wrote: they're going to stand pat with what they have - they're not going to dump their holdings, as that would be suicidal - they're not going to double up, as that would be stupid

So they're going to do what with all the dollars they keep getting in return for the stuff they send us? Or are you saying they're going to stop selling stuff to us?
posted by wierdo at 10:12 AM on July 24, 2011


ennui.bz...

It reminds me a little of the "reality based community" thing...
...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 do
posted by symbioid at 10:12 AM on July 24, 2011


we were lied to, and the military leadership didn't actually have a fucking strategy for winning the war. However, even highly educated members of the public had no way of knowing either of these things.

And yet, some of us managed to figure it out.
posted by adamdschneider at 10:14 AM on July 24, 2011 [29 favorites]


The laws enacted by Super Congress should be known as Super Laws, making any offender a Supercriminal.

I guess after that we'll need an Arch Congress.
posted by heatvision at 10:19 AM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


While I'm generally not a fan of Obama and his policy of surrendering under the guise of compromising, and I'm still so furious about his proposal to slash Medicare and Social Security that I get upset even thinking about it, I'm going to have to (very reluctantly since Ironmouth et al seem to vicously hate real liberals and I don't like joining with people who hate me) join Ironmouth et al on this one.

The Republicans are clearly the bad guys here. And they have been since the beginning. The whole object of the exercise, from the Republican POV is to ruin Obama, crash the government, and generally make things so awful that in 2012 people vote Republican out of a sense that Obama can't accomplish anything. We are seeing the first real action on Norquist's plot to drown the government in the bathtub.

Problem is that, completely laying aside my animosity for Obama, I have absolutely no idea what he can do at this point. Nevermind doing something I'd be happy with, but I have no idea what he can do to avoid economic collapse even if it involves stuff I'll be furious with. He's already tried total capitulation, not just that but total capitulation combined with offering the Republicans their greatest political desire of all time (ie: killing Social Security and Medicare) with nothing but a vague promise to look into closing a few tax loopholes in exchange. And they told him to fuck off. The Republicans are completely insane on this, and I can't blame Obama even slightly for what is to come.

Even if he completely and utterly capitulates to the Republicans, which will make him look weak and not only seriously piss off the left [1] but also make him look completely ineffectual to the independents I don't think it'll save anything. And they'll probably turn even total and unconditional surrender at this point, I don't think they'd pass a debt ceiling increase unless Obama resigns. Plus, of course, it'd screw the whole country. If he doesn't do that the Republicans will smash the economy, which is also a pretty bad thing.

Possibly the 14th Amendment option, but that'll create a shitstorm that will make the hate the Republicans had for Clinton look like a polite disagreement, and give them an excuse to start an impeachment hearing.

I'm hopeful that this might serve as a wake up call to Obama, he's been operating under the delusional idea since 2008 that the Republicans were reasonable people with whom he could do business if only he'd give them enough of what they asked for. To me and the other liberals it's been obvious that the Republicans never had any intent of negotiating in good faith, but no matter what they did Obama kept acting as if they were. Maybe now he'll stop pretending they are and start fighting. It'd be nice to hope so. But even if that happens it still won't solve the problem.

But either way, I'm seeing the whole economy crunching, and it being pretty much 100% the fault of Republicans. Obama gave them their fondest dream (ie: killing the last Great Society programs) and they said they'd rather kill the economy instead of take his utterly disgusting capitulation to their long term political dreams. It's hard to see the coming economic catastrophe as anything but Republican generated.

And maybe that really was Obama's intent when he put Social Security and Medicare up on the chopping block. If so I still think it was a bad idea, cuts to those programs are now on the table forever, while prior to his Grand Bargain proposal they weren't. But in the short run it may let him pin the blame for the coming catastrophe on the Republicans. I hope so.

I'll also second Ironmouth's urging to call your reps, even if they are Republicans. It almost certainly won't change the way they vote, but you never know. I've called all three of mine (and all three are crazy Texas Republicans and thus pretty much guaranteed to vote to crater the economy). But regardless, its the right thing to do and it might actually accomplish something.

@Slap*Happy: How do you figure this isn't already Great Depression II? Yeah, Wall Street has been doing fine, but in the real world people are out of work in staggering numbers. I measure depressions by how the lives of real people are affected, not by the Dow Jones average.

[1] Who, I must point out, are shown by exit polling to have voted in 2010 in roughly the same numbers they did in 2008 and I'd appreciate it if Ironmouth et al would stop lying and claiming that the loss in 2010 was because the evil left screwed the Democrats.

What threw the 2010 elections to the Republicans was a failure of the first time voters that Obama managed to drag out back in 2008, I'll suggest part of that is simply that casual voters of that nature don't often vote in the mid-terms, and that another part is that they were disillusioned by Obama's continued insistence on surrendering everything and calling it compromise. But liberals voted in about the same numbers in 2010 as they did in 2008, so please stop blaming us.
posted by sotonohito at 10:23 AM on July 24, 2011 [22 favorites]


But honestly, the politics for the 'debt ceiling crisis" were mapped out years ago... there's little the average person (IMHO) can do right now to change any of it: it's too damn late.

This is always the story with politics. These kinds of political showdowns have happened for decades, periodically. They are a way for the parties to get the base riled up and get them all ready for the big fight against the other side of the fence.

This may not be the intention. In fact it probably isn't. But the big between-election fight over some essential thing it would be unthinkably stupid to do/not do, with one side attempting to leverage the other side into doing their bidding, is a tradition. It's happened before and it will happen again.

This doesn't make it any less dire if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Just that the term "political calculus" is telling, because it does really look like a math problem. One side is using their political power to force concessions from the other side. They figure the election is far enough off that when this is all over the public will have forgotten sufficiently about this that they'll be insulated from electoral blowback.

Well, this is what I think anyway.
posted by JHarris at 10:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution
Yes it is: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings".

If they pass a law saying that this committee exists, and that its recommendations are afforded up-or-down majority votes in both houses, that's perfectly constitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that, for example, filibusters have to exist, or that Congress can't act on the recommendations of other bodies.

This is not necessarily to say it would be a good idea. But implying its unconstitutionality doesn't seem well-founded to me.
posted by Flunkie at 10:25 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


the left was WEAK LEADERLESS.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:25 AM on July 24, 2011


He's already tried total capitulation

He has not, the holdup from the D side has been his demand for revenue along with the cuts. The reason this whole thing is so flawed is that the time to sack up on that was before he fucking extended the Bush tax cuts. If he had done that, the revenue situation would be already handled and we could give the Republicans some spending cuts and even tax cuts if we wanted.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:29 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


we were lied to, and the military leadership didn't actually have a fucking strategy for winning the war. However, even highly educated members of the public had no way of knowing either of these things.

Highly educated members of the public do not assume the premises of the argument are true, that we must attack any state that has chemical weapons or WMD.

The war made no strategic sense. From the get-go, even if he had WMD.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:31 AM on July 24, 2011 [18 favorites]


Meanwhile.. China's property bubble is going pop.. should be an interesting week. Buy gold!
posted by stbalbach at 10:31 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I say we let the worst case scenario play itself out. The Republicans secretly want it because they think it will play in their favor, but they were never right about anything they did. In fact, they can't survive it and continue to represent investors. China will be so angry they might even confiscate all the Walmarts in the mainland, because they really are a retail extension of the communist Chinese economy in America, so they might as well own theirs with full faith and credit.
posted by Brian B. at 10:31 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Re Lincoln see: the Crittenden Compromise, VP Breckenridge Comittee of 13 Senators, the Peace Conferece of 1861
posted by humanfont at 10:31 AM on July 24, 2011


My jackass Republican representative's voice mail box is full.
posted by Flunkie at 10:34 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


He's already tried total capitulation

He has not, the holdup from the D side has been his demand for revenue along with the cuts. The reason this whole thing is so flawed is that the time to sack up on that was before he fucking extended the Bush tax cuts. If he had done that, the revenue situation would be already handled and we could give the Republicans some spending cuts and even tax cuts if we wanted.


The exact opposite. Congress refused to put it on the pre-election agenda. Obama asked for it, they said no. Obama wanted to be sure to preserve cuts for those making less than 250k. He couldn't do that without congress.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:36 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


@Flunkie: Honestly, if it'd get rid of the filibuster I might support the plan regardless of of it's other flaws. Right this second I'm about halfway convinced that ending the filibuster is the single most crucial political goal that exists. Possibly even more important than the debt ceiling and avoiding a total and utter collapse of the economy. Economies can recover, but the presence of the filibuster seems as if it will soon lay the foundation for a civil war.

@furiousxgeorge: He tried utter capitulation with a fig leaf. The revenue increases were in the form of a nebulous promise to close a few loopholes at some future date. So, yes, while I agree that allowing an extension of the Bush tax cuts was a bad idea [1], but regardless of that, the point is that Obama already tried total capitulation with only he tiniest of fig leaves. And they declined.

Think about that. Obama offered them, without even their asking for it, the ultimate Republican fantasy: a breakdown of the idea that Social Security was sacrosanct and the opportunity to eventually kill the program entirely by whittling away at it. And they turned him down.

It's clear at this point that there is absolutely nothing Obama can do to dissuade the Republicans from their plan to crater the US economy.

[1] Especially since that two year extension was matched by only a one year extension in unemployment benefits, that wasn't a good deal for us, and also especially since it put the next fight over the extensions taking place just before the 2012 elections when the Republicans can make the most political hay from the issue
posted by sotonohito at 10:37 AM on July 24, 2011


So they're going to do what with all the dollars they keep getting in return for the stuff they send us?

they can buy european, japanese or other bonds; invest in various foreign or domestic enterprises - all sorts of things - maybe even buy our real estate when it gets cheap enough

they don't seem convinced that u s bonds are that great a deal for them anymore and are diversifying
posted by pyramid termite at 10:37 AM on July 24, 2011


they're going to stand pat with what they have - they're not going to dump their holdings, as that would be suicidal - they're not going to double up, as that would be stupid

I'm about 6 hours we'll find out. I hope you are right.
posted by humanfont at 10:39 AM on July 24, 2011


Ironmouth et al seem to vicously hate real liberals

I think this is a very uncharitable reading of Ironmouth's position. He (in this thread and elsewhere on Metafilter) consistently expresses frustration with liberals who fail or refuse to understand political realities, and consistently proceeds to get hammered by liberals who are reflexively offended by it. Obama's presidency hasn't been all that a lot of people hoped for; the blame for some of that may fall on him personally, but he also simply hasn't had the political capital to accomplish what he and his constituents hoped. The utter disdain and contempt that people have for him are bizarre, in my opinion, and a result mainly of inflated and unrealistic expectations.

I'm hopeful that this might serve as a wake up call to Obama, he's been operating under the delusional idea since 2008 that the Republicans were reasonable people with whom he could do business if only he'd give them enough of what they asked for.

Likewise, this seems a very uncharitable reading of Obama's political savvy. The chances are almost nil that people commenting on an internet forum are more cognizant of the inner workings of inter-party relations in Washington than Obama is. The man is an extremely intelligent, educated individual who is being advised by dozens of people who are similarly if not better qualified on these matters. To say he has been "delusional" about what he can and can't accomplish politically is unbelievably naive; he knows everything you know and more about the political realities. You can take issue with the efficacy of his calculated decision to portray himself as the reasonable compromiser in the room; however, there can be little doubt this was a calculated decision, informed by the advice of many extremely smart people after an extremely searching examination of his options.

The guy doesn't have a majority in Congress. He can only sign the bills that they will pass.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 10:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [25 favorites]


Anybody good to follow on twitter about this? And what exactly is happening at this moment? Obama is with the Congressional leaders, or is everybody with their respective caucuses?
posted by angrycat at 10:41 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The exact opposite. Congress refused to put it on the pre-election agenda. Obama asked for it, they said no. Obama wanted to be sure to preserve cuts for those making less than 250k. He couldn't do that without congress.

He didn't need to, let them all expire and if the Republicans really won't support a new bill for under 250k they get the blame. We are hours away from a financial collapse because of this, the consequences for standing firm to the end on this issue now are significantly greater than they were before.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:41 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


My jackass Republican representative's voice mail box is full

Im glad to hear you're out there. Try the website to email them. Thanks!
posted by Ironmouth at 10:42 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


For all their free-market, tax-cutting bluster, if the Republicans are seriously considering a move that would be so devastating to American business, they are becoming too erratic and ideological even for business interests.

I am beginning to suspect that beneath it all, there is a serious divide in the 'business interests', with Obama getting more support from Wall Street than the R's want any D to have, 'Main Street' (small business) resenting Wall Street and not savvy enough to see that hurting Wall Street this way will hurt them too and International Business ("No Street") having some quiet way to rise above or even profit from the chaos. I suspect the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch will emerge from this crisis even more rich and powerful, not to mention China Inc. (which ceased to be a Communist country long ago and is now just another multinational corporation - with nukes).

As for the Tea Partiers, there is no existing term to describe their policies which are, effectively, Fascism On the Cheap. Walmartism?
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:43 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


The Crittenden Compromise as an example of Lincoln's inability to compromise. That's fantastic.

Ignoring that it was proposed and rejected before Lincoln took office, under its terms, not only would the Constitution itself be amended to enshrine slavery even further than it had been, but it would in fact be amended to say that future amendments to cut back on slavery could not be made.

Some compromise.
posted by Flunkie at 10:43 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


I am wondering if most 'real liberals' are under thirty.

'Cause I moderated in 2002-3, when it was like, oh that's what batshit insane looks like. And I happened to be 32-33. And I was like, 'Jesus the stuff I hated Clinton for pales in comparison.'
posted by angrycat at 10:43 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Not the Onion: Boehner began a conference meeting Friday morning by deadpanning that Republicans, the White House and Democrats had reached a deal, according to a lawmaker in the room. The response from his conference was nervous silence before Boehner eased the tension by letting them know he was only joking.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:44 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


pyramid termite wrote: they can buy european, japanese or other bonds; invest in various foreign or domestic enterprises - all sorts of things - maybe even buy our real estate when it gets cheap enough

they don't seem convinced that u s bonds are that great a deal for them anymore and are diversifyin


Um, we give them dollars. You can't buy a Euro-denominated bond in dollars unless someone else wants dollars. If nobody wants dollars, which seems likely in the event of a default, what are they to do? Keep it in cash? I guess they could buy real estate, but that won't stimulate export demand or keep their currency low relative to the dollar. Besides, that just ties them to future streams of dollars even less reliable than the Treasuries were in the first place.
posted by wierdo at 10:45 AM on July 24, 2011


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.
posted by Flunkie at 10:46 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]




My jackass Republican representative's voice mail box is full
For anyone in this same situation: I eventually wound up getting through to voice mail in his local office, rather than his (full) Washington office.
posted by Flunkie at 10:47 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


And at some point, Lincoln stopped compromising and went to fucking war. Can you imagine that, Obama? You? Going to war and fighting an actual fight against an enemy instead of compromise every last inch. If Lincoln was like you, slavery would still exist.

Probably worth pointing out that Obama has actually gone to war already.
posted by empath at 10:49 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]




The guy doesn't have a majority in Congress. He can only sign the bills that they will pass.

Exactly! I want the things you want! But we dont have the votes. And we dont do the things to help ourselves that we could do. And we dont help ourselves by stabbing our own guy in the back. Its stupid.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:52 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


The US can't really default, btw. We'll just print money if it comes down to it. Which will cause inflation, but whatever.
posted by empath at 10:52 AM on July 24, 2011


Well, I've left voice mail for both my senators and my representative, urging them to stay strong and not compromise all their values away. (My senators are Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and my representative is Jay Inslee, so they at least start off on the right side of the issue.) And I told them that me and my household, which includes our local Democratic PCO, are getting fed up with the Dems' willingness to capitulate and that I'm getting increasingly tired of funneling my time and my dollars towards an organization that won't fight for me.

Let's see if that makes any difference. I mean, obviously just my message won't, but I'm just one person.
posted by KathrynT at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


@dixiecupdrinking: I'd rather not derail into a discussion of why the left is more than somewhat disappointed with Obama.

But I think there's one important thing that must be remembered: I'm not a politician. Neither are the voters on the left who are disappointed. You can argue, and I'll agree even, that as politician Obama's job is to compromise, even if that compromise is well below what many of his supporters think is tolerable. The job of politicians is to compromise, it's what the Republicans seem to have completely forgotten.

But we on the left aren't politicians. We're voters, citizens, activists. Our job is not to compromise, but to do everything we can to advance our political position. Including being sharply critical of politicians nominally on our side when they don't do what we want.

Where Ironmouth et al seems to go wrong is in assuming that since politicians are supposed to compromise, then so too must we citizens, voters, and activists embrace compromise as a positive good and not complain, gripe, and otherwise express dissatisfaction when our policies are tossed aside.

Obama's job is not merely to compromise, but to try and make the optimum possible compromises, giving away as little from our position as he can while getting the other guys to give up more. The job of us on the left is to do whatever we can to urge Obama to make better compromises for us. That, by definition, includes criticizing his job performance and those compromises he's made.

Division of labor. Remember FDR's famous quote about "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."? Well, how are we supposed to make Obama do it without complaint?

Complaining about Obama is not stabbing him in the back.
posted by sotonohito at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2011 [30 favorites]


Michael Hudson, economist and author of Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire is interviewed on Democracy Now , saying ... 'Wall Street received secret loans from the government (in addition to 'bail outs') ... and they know the game is over.' The present crisis is a diversion for the wealthy to now just get what they can - as much as they can - before everything collapses.

The big loosers are the people who think there will be any social security, medicare or social programs (let alone public property and or institutions/agencies) after the dust clears. Look at Greece, selling off their public beachfront land.

If the discussions online are any indication of public "tone," there will be little sympathy for the soon-to-be-elderly (those arrogant boomers). Soylent green, anyone?
posted by Surfurrus at 10:55 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]




Paul Krugman: What Obama Was Willing to Give Away
posted by homunculus at 10:57 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The US can't really default, btw. We'll just print money if it comes down to it. Which will cause inflation, but whatever.

Dear empath: What will happen to me is that I will not be able to pay my rent. This is because I am dependent on my SSD check to pay my rent and have no savings. Please do keep me in mind if we do default, because I promise I'll be thinking of you.

HuffPo paints it as GOP forcing Dems into short-term agreement (filed 12:30 today)
posted by angrycat at 10:57 AM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


HuffPo link.
posted by angrycat at 10:59 AM on July 24, 2011


the time to sack up on that was before extending the Bush tax cuts

By doing nothing and simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, we would generate the $4 trillion that was proposed as cuts to entitlements and other things.

At this very moment, Social Security is being looted to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. Class war doesn't get much starker than that.

Are you sure which side people are on?
posted by Trurl at 10:59 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Where Ironmouth et al seems to go wrong is in assuming that since politicians are supposed to compromise, then so too must we citizens, voters, and activists embrace compromise as a positive good and not complain, gripe, and otherwise express dissatisfaction when our policies are tossed aside.

That's blaming Obama for the fact that there are a lot more old conservatives that voted in 2010 than young liberals. That's on the voters. Not voting hurts us heavily. More people self-ID as dems, more GOPers step out and take responsibility to vote. Stupid!
posted by Ironmouth at 10:59 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


When I first heard about Super Congress I thought I was reading the Onion.
posted by madcaptenor at 11:00 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Republicans are clearly the bad guys here. And they have been since the beginning. The whole object of the exercise, from the Republican POV is to ruin Obama, crash the government, and generally make things so awful that in 2012 people vote Republican out of a sense that Obama can't accomplish anything. We are seeing the first real action on Norquist's plot to drown the government in the bathtub.

except that Grover isn't driving the bus here: Anti-Tax Crusader Speaks Out Against Default "Experiment"

As I said before, this "crisis" is being pushed, ultimately, by Obama. Yes, the Republicans are acting like howler monkeys, yelling and hurling shit. But, in the end ___THEY WILL VOTE FOR A DEBT-CEILING INCREASE____ (because Wall Street will tell them too.)

What's driving them right now is the perception that they can score points now that Obama seems to think he can run against BOTH parties in 2012.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:00 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Let's stop saying that the President doesn't have the votes. He does.
- All Democrats would vote to raise the debt ceiling
- A few freshmen Tea Party Republicans would not, out of True Believerism
- The rest of the Republicans pretending they won't raise the debt ceiling to get leverage in these negotiations.

McConnell admitted it two weeks ago on the Sunday Morning programs: "Nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling. I haven’t heard that discuss by anybody. ... We’re talking about using this request that the president made of us to raise the debt ceiling as an opportunity to do something really significant for the country about spending and about debt. And that, of course, would also be good for the economy."

i.e. "we're saying we won't raise the debt ceiling, but really we will and we're just pretending that we won't so that we'll have Obama by the balls"
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:00 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Exactly! I want the things you want! But we dont have the votes.

We didn't need any to get the revenue, which is the Democratic demand that is holding everything up. We gave up on that demand before because they held two hostages. Now they hold ten.

They do in fact have Obama by the balls.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:01 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


empath: "...Probably worth pointing out that Obama has actually gone to war already."

I didn't want to muddy issues, here. I was speaking specifically about the Republicans. I had almost mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and god knows where else), and tried tying it into the budget *cough*trillions spent on war*cough*... But avoided it to focus on the political front (which apparently, some people misread as me advocating a literal war, even *after* I had disavowed such a stance).

But yeah. Heaven forbid we should cut money from the military in a way that actually matters. *sigh*
posted by symbioid at 11:03 AM on July 24, 2011


angrycat, I believe that empath is claiming that your check will go out, as the federal government will simply print money to make up for the budgetary shortfall.

I don't necessarily agree that that will happen, but in any case, I do think that SSD will be unlikely to be affected, at least in the short term, because it is paid for by a dedicated actual income stream.
posted by Flunkie at 11:04 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm a big-D Democrat, and I consider myself a big-L Liberal. Obama is certainly more conservative than I'd prefer, but his biggest impediment in pushing a more progressive-friendly agenda, IMO, hasn't been the liberal left or the conservative right. It's been too many blue dog Democratic senators.(or quislings, if you prefer)

PS- I'm a lifelong Virginian, so I know a blue dog when I see one.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:05 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


"Our nation’s staggering $14.3 trillion debt, mainly from spending under President Obama, is holding us hostage from a strong and prosperous recovery. As we continue to debate the President’s failed..."

This little quote is from the Republican Party home page.

I have come to know ending war is harder than starting a war. My local economy is an all war, all the time economy. Even with Obama still waging wars he didn't start, he is unpopular in Utah. Oh dang! Endgame is the game these days, because the Job Creators just need to die Job Creators, then they have won the game. The Job Creators are all propped up by Need To Believers who want the world to end, so they are at last, right about something. So between these two powerful camps, we the people are in deep...

If you stand against these artificially created end times, then you are in league with the devil! Boehner is going home to cry into his martini, and crash our way of life, over ideology. He was fine with Bush crashing our economy.

Harry Truman had that "The Buck Stops Here" plaque on his desk. Obama should raise the debt limit with out anyone's permission, and summarily get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Libya, and spend our money on the American People, not multinational corporations, chasing the oil and mineral tail to our demise.

We need to get back to basics in this country, make our own food, clothing, shelter, electronics and everything else. Let us start treating the US as our oyster, rather than the world.
posted by Oyéah at 11:06 AM on July 24, 2011


I've heard talk, not news/official sources, that the software that handles this kind of thing is pretty old and does not even know how to handle paying some of the bills but not some of the others. Anyone know about this stuff?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:06 AM on July 24, 2011


When I first scanned over this FPP, I only saw the phrase "John Boehner collapsed," and thought Xmas had come early.
posted by LMGM at 11:07 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


If nobody wants dollars, which seems likely in the event of a default, what are they to do?

what is anyone to do? - i might remind you that euros aren't guaranteed to be all that great a thing to have these days either

you seem to think that their options are all or nothing - i see them as hedging their bets without taking drastic measures and without losing too much of their capital in the process

people may not want dollars at the current exchange rate, but they will want them at some price - and it's better to lose a small percentage in hard times than to lose everything
posted by pyramid termite at 11:09 AM on July 24, 2011


Those who say we have the votes, do you have a whip count? Because i don't know if we do or not. Gonna need to see names of for and againsts.

And if you cant come up with that list, that's the difference between having the actual responsibility to do the thing and being the dude on the internet who isnt spending today in a nail-biting negotiation with the fate of 318,000,000 hanging in the balance.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:11 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


But we on the left aren't politicians. We're voters, citizens, activists. Our job is not to compromise, but to do everything we can to advance our political position. Including being sharply critical of politicians nominally on our side when they don't do what we want.

That's fine, but it still doesn't mean that they're going to do everything you want, nor does it make it reasonable to expect they will, nor does it mean that people describing the political realities are doing so because they "hate" you. Further, you're welcome to criticize Obama, but I object to the rhetoric directed at him from the left that seems to come from one of two places: (1) personal feelings of betrayal, and (2) the idea that anyone else would have been able to accomplish more. I think (1) is silly and (2) is just wrong.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 11:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


We didn't need any to get the revenue, which is the Democratic demand that is holding everything up
Oh, 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.

If the "deal" was "raise the debt ceiling, no strings attached", Democrats would take it in a heartbeat. Republicans, on the other hand, would not, and in fact there's a vocal and sizable portion of Republicans who do not want to raise the debt ceiling no matter what strings are attached. That's the issue.
posted by Flunkie at 11:12 AM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


angrycat wrote: Dear empath: What will happen to me is that I will not be able to pay my rent. This is because I am dependent on my SSD check to pay my rent and have no savings. Please do keep me in mind if we do default, because I promise I'll be thinking of you.

It's a matter of willingness, not ability. The government could have no deficit tomorrow if it decided to use all of the tools at its disposal for raising money, whether it be created money, or money sucked out of the economy. The same thing goes for debt, for that matter. Many people's thinking is still based on a gold-backed dollar.
posted by wierdo at 11:13 AM on July 24, 2011


If the "deal" was "raise the debt ceiling, no strings attached", Democrats would take it in a heartbeat. Republicans, on the other hand, would not, and in fact there's a vocal and sizable portion of Republicans who do not want to raise the debt ceiling no matter what strings are attached. That's the issue.

Amen. We dont have to do any of this.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:14 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's a matter of willingness, not ability. The government could have no deficit tomorrow if it decided to use all of the tools at its disposal for raising money, whether it be created money, or money sucked out of the economy. The same thing goes for debt, for that matter. Many people's thinking is still based on a gold-backed dollar.

And what? Create Weimar-style inflation?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:16 AM on July 24, 2011


*cue rage-induced projectile vomiting*
posted by sinnesloeschen at 11:17 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Very interesting times. Keeping on the sunny side, I think we should all be happy that we are witnessing history! Future generations will sing great songs about this age around the campfire!
posted by fuq at 11:18 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


sigh

My representative is apparently going to be busy with something else this week...
posted by dragstroke at 11:18 AM on July 24, 2011


Oh, 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.

That was not posted in context of exclusively blaming the Democrats beyond noting they are in this position because of previous strategic blunders.

Obama recognizes the Bush tax cuts on the rich have to go as well as I do, it's both a short and long term problem that our revenue is lagging. He also supports some spending cuts as long as they aren't benefit cuts, he only offered the crazy benefit cuts in context of getting the revenue.

Both sides share the blame for using this situation to try and get something they consider crucial. If the Republicans will only raise the ceiling in with a spending cuts only deal, then Obama has to capitulate as usual of course. Bringing up revenue was a strategic blunder that wasted time, why didn't Ironmouth do a whip count for him?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:19 AM on July 24, 2011


*this situation referring to needing to wheel and deal to get the revenue, not the crisis itself.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:20 AM on July 24, 2011


For everyone who says Obama is not a good negotiator, wait to see the result. He has said recently that he wants the big deal but that he would accept just an increase in the budget ceiling. His original position was that he wanted an increase in the budget ceiling. He has also managed to shine a bright light on the fact that the Republicans are planting their flag on protecting the interests of the most wealthy above the economy itself. This may fly within the party but independents are not on their side, and poll after poll shows that the vast majority of all voters favors increasing taxes, particularly on the top incomes.

Refusing to raise the budget ceiling on the basis that taxes should never increase is not tenable as far as accounting and politics, and not at all when the other issue they raise is the debt itself. Like they think we're that stupid. It's a matter of time before reality makes them back off, probably at the last minute. In the meantime the Republicans are destroying their remaining political credibility in the name of a pure ideology that favors the interests of the wealthy. They don't even try to hide it anymore.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:21 AM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Hm. I'm presuming the 11th Amendment would preclude any civil effort to hold the Congress of the United States jointly liable for the several trillion dollars of wealth they're going to cause to be destroyed this week?
posted by Vetinari at 11:21 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


This may fly within the party but independents are not on their side, and poll after poll shows that the vast majority of all voters favors increasing taxes, particularly on the top incomes.

So what? Do a whip count. Republicans will still be able to fillibuster no matter what the public says.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:22 AM on July 24, 2011


Ironmouth wrote: And what? Create Weimar-style inflation?

I'm looking at excess reserves, and I'm looking at inflation. I'm seeing unprecedented amounts of the former, and a complete lack of the latter. We don't have the shortage of resources necessary to spur significant inflation. We, in fact, have far too many idle resources, which is keeping inflation in check.
posted by wierdo at 11:23 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


We've already pumped about 2.5 trillion into the economy via QE1 and QE2, and we might even have another round of quantitative easing. If you haven't noticed, we are not actually at threat of massive inflation even with such massive injections of (short term) cash.

I'm not going to argue whether such an injection was wise or not, I don't know enough about it, but to make a claim that printing money to deal with the issue would result in hyperinflation is... well... hyperbolic. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but why would printing money like this be any more inflationary than getting some sort of pre-auth from congress? I'm not being snarky, I'm legitimately curious.
posted by symbioid at 11:23 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Both sides share the blame for using this situation to try and get something they consider crucial. If the Republicans will only raise the ceiling in with a spending cuts only deal, then Obama has to capitulate as usual of course. Bringing up revenue was a strategic blunder that wasted time, why didn't Ironmouth do a whip count for him?

Really? Except the Dems would take a clean bill right now, no questions asked. What are you for? Im confused. You're for the benefit cuts to save us from the GOP?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:24 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


And if you cant come up with that list, that's the difference between having the actual responsibility to do the thing and being the dude on the internet who isnt spending today in a nail-biting negotiation with the fate of 318,000,000 hanging in the balance.

I'm just saying, the negotiation shouldn't be that nail-biting when the people that you're negotiating with have repeatedly said in public and to the media that they will raise the debt ceiling. But whatever, since I'm not privy to whatever whip counts the Republicans are running internally, as neither are you or anyone else in this thread, I can't meet your stupid demands for the debate.

But if you want to talk about actual responsibility, great. Some of us wish that the people in the negotiations would realize they owe an actual responsibility to future generations, and safeguard proven, efficient programs like Social Security from opportunistic plunder to score some political point that will be negated by the end of the next election cycle. You know, responsibility for something more than one's own re-election chances.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:24 AM on July 24, 2011


So what? Do a whip count. Republicans will still be able to fillibuster no matter what the public says.

Yes, but somehow I think the interests which have the most money, power and influence will win out over an obstructionist freshman House.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:25 AM on July 24, 2011


Really? Except the Dems would take a clean bill right now, no questions asked.

Do a whip count, the Republicans won't. Get out of your fantasy world, crazy liberal, we are negotiating spending cuts not the debt ceiling because the Republicans say so and there is no way to avoid it. WHERE ARE THE VOTES IRONMOUTH?

Seriously though: S&P said that, even if Congress raises the debt limit in time to avert a default, it might lower the U.S. sovereign rating to AA+ with a negative outlook if it isn’t accompanied by a “credible solution” on the debt level.

A clean bill is not an option.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:27 AM on July 24, 2011


And if you cant come up with that list, that's the difference between having the actual responsibility to do the thing and being the dude on the internet who isnt spending today in a nail-biting negotiation with the fate of 318,000,000 hanging in the balance.

I'm just saying, the negotiation shouldn't be that nail-biting when the people that you're negotiating with have repeatedly said in public and to the media that they will raise the debt ceiling. But whatever, since I'm not privy to whatever whip counts the Republicans are running internally, as neither are you or anyone else in this thread, I can't meet your stupid demands for the debate.


The question is do those leaders have enough votes. Im only saying that you'd better be god-damned 100% sure you're right. This isnt a game of Risk with you and your buddies. This is the 100% REAL DEAL. People are just assuming Boehner can deliver his caucus. Im not so sure and i think we are being dumb just assuming it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:28 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I was googling around, and found this PDF from 2008 about the history of the debt ceiling, and this paragraph from the conclusion seems to pretty much say (directly and indirectly) everything I'd like to point out about the debt ceiling and the national debt:
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.

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.
What happened in the meantime? Wars were declared, and Bush sent out his first round of "thank you for voting for me" retroactive bribes tax refund checks to everyone who was middle class or better (ignoring again the most needy).

I wonder sometimes how much better shape we'd be in if, instead of declaring the budget surpluses "the taxpayers' money" and issuing checks, Bush had declared the budget surpluses "the Nation's money" and used it to pay down the debt we had at that time.

Have we EVER applied national income to actually paying off the debt? Or is it all about the current fiscal year and never a look backward? Even these current talks are all about the NOW and never about actually raising enough revenue to pay off what we owe.
posted by hippybear at 11:29 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Oh, crap. forgot the link. "this PDF from 2008"
posted by hippybear at 11:31 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


and poll after poll shows that the vast majority of all voters favors increasing taxes, particularly on the top incomes.

So what? Do a whip count.

Yes, but somehow I think the interests which have the most money, power and influence will win out over an obstructionist freshman House.


Those interests don't want their taxes raised.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:32 AM on July 24, 2011


To be fair, there is one Republican out there who has been constructive in this debate. Unfortunately, he's not elected to office.

Bruce Bartlett *still* considers himself a Reagan Republican. He served as a domestic advisor to Reagan and in the Treasury Department for Bush, Sr. He just feels that the current crop of Republicans have completely lost the path, and have moved away from any semblance of reality.

He was asked to speak before the Democratic Steering Committee of the US House of Representatives recently, outlining the desire amongst many "serious" conservatives to default, all of the likely risks of defaulting, and the alternatives available to the country, should Republicans force default.

It was very sobering. It was also hopeful, however, in that it it pointed out that there was a strong Constitutional argument that could be made which will allow the President to act unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling.

It has also been shaping the debate, in that Bartlett concluded his presentation with a quote by Reagan that has been making the circles lately, used by people such as Speaker Pelosi.

"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."
- Ronald Reagan, 1983
posted by markkraft at 11:32 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


Yes, but somehow I think the interests which have the most money, power and influence will win out over an obstructionist freshman House.

Don't be so sure. Those monied interests have beaten their heads bloody against that wall of freshmen House members, and not made a damned dent. Those freshmen are true ideologues and they know with full certainty that this is their moment. Make no mistake...They will crash the US Government if they have to (perhaps, even, because they can.)
posted by Thorzdad at 11:33 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Some experts expressed concern about consequences of retiring all federal debt held by the public.

Bill Clinton, why have you forsaken us!
posted by KokuRyu at 11:34 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner doesn't have to deliver his entire caucus. He's Speaker of the House, where you need 218 votes to pass something. Democrats have 192. Boehner only has to deliver 26 of his 240 members for a deal to pass. I don't have a whip count but I refuse to believe that you can't find 26 Republicans who are pro-business enough that they won't let the nation default.

McConnell has said he hasn't heard anybody talking about not passing an increase. I linked it above.

Burden of proof is on the person making an outrageous claim, and you're the one implying Boehner won't be able to get ~10% of his caucus to vote for a debt ceiling increase, so why don't YOU produce the fucking whip count now.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:35 AM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


Those interests don't want their taxes raised.

Consider that the fallback position is the debt ceiling gets raised with no changes to the budget. Both sides save face but the debt ceiling gets raised all the same.

China just publicly announced they do not believe there is any other option than raising the debt ceiling. I just don't think the Tea Party carries more weight.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:38 AM on July 24, 2011


Holy crap!
GOPTweets4u Susie Komar
With a debt ceiling deal, dodging a bullet. Without a deal, hysterics and anarchy. @whitehouse ...remember what happened to Mubarek #obama.

posted by angrycat at 11:39 AM on July 24, 2011


I just don't think the Tea Party carries more weight.

Or owns more US Treasurys, to be clear.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oh, well. At least DADT repeal got certified.

What? Jane Hamsher told me Obama hated the gays!
posted by octobersurprise at 11:40 AM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


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 value sitting in the middle of an Army base that continues to prepare our military to fight large tank battles with a Soviet Union that no longer exists, while the FAA lays off some people whose jobs it was to collect $200 million a year in user fees from commercial and general aviation.

But that's government asset management for you, and just 2 examples out of hundreds I could post.

The fewer assets we give this government, or any conceivable successor, to manage, the better off we, the American people, are bound to be.
posted by paulsc at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Geithner uses airplane crash analogy

Also, Tokyo markets open at 8 EST, so there's that.
posted by angrycat at 11:42 AM on July 24, 2011


GOPTweets4u Susie Komar
With a debt ceiling deal, dodging a bullet. Without a deal, hysterics and anarchy. @whitehouse ...remember what happened to Mubarek #obama.


I'm pretty sure there's a rule that says you can safely ignore anything called "X4u" for all X.
posted by Vetinari at 11:46 AM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


If you ask Boehner to deliver 26 votes you are asking him to end his political career. He should, if it comes down to that, but if it was Obama in that situation some would be making excuses.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:46 AM on July 24, 2011


As per the NYT, Boehner's short-term plan is paired with one trillion in cuts. So the crazies would get a big somethin for a short-term increase.

And what I've read a short-term increase would have its economic costs, as it highlights the increasing banana-republic state of our country.
posted by angrycat at 11:47 AM on July 24, 2011


Remember how we were talking about a $2 trillion plan before Obama went for the big kahuna? Good times.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:48 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Vetinari: "GOPTweets4u Susie Komar
With a debt ceiling deal, dodging a bullet. Without a deal, hysterics and anarchy. @whitehouse ...remember what happened to Mubarek #obama.


I'm pretty sure there's a rule that says you can safely ignore anything called "X4u" for all X.
"

OHHHHHHHHHH Is that why I haven't been able to get any responses on those personals ads?
posted by symbioid at 11:50 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The fewer assets we give this government, or any conceivable successor, to manage, the better off we, the American people, are bound to be.

Having no gold reserves is not considered to be a financially sound position for any country with an economy like the US. Our gold reserves are not enough to plug the holes in the budget and is not as large as it used to be. The total held today is less than 1/4 what it was during WWII.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:50 AM on July 24, 2011


And what? Create Weimar-style inflation?

I'm not sure there's a significant difference, economically, between printing money and borrowing money.

Dear empath: What will happen to me is that I will not be able to pay my rent. This is because I am dependent on my SSD check to pay my rent and have no savings. Please do keep me in mind if we do default, because I promise I'll be thinking of you.

Did you miss the part where I said the US can print money to pay its bills?
posted by empath at 11:50 AM on July 24, 2011


Wow, people on twitter are referring to Obama as 'The Kenyan.' When did that become a Thing?
posted by angrycat at 11:52 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


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 value
Congratulations, you have postponed default until September.

Assuming that you can sell ten million pounds of gold at once without driving its price down. Which is ten times the amount that the IMF allows its members to sell over the course of an entire year.

And now we no longer have that gold.

But, you can name "hundreds" of examples. What's next? How much do you think Mount Rushmore would fetch for us?
posted by Flunkie at 11:52 AM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Then one -- or preferably 26 -- of them should stand up and say so.

It's not unheard of.

The current congressional Republicans are so pro-finance that they rail openly, at length, against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We're not 3 years past a crisis that left tons of people with empty IRAs and upside-down mortgages, and furious about TARP and the bailouts, and these guys are vocally, publicly anti-consumer protection against banks. And these are the guys who are supposed to not care if there's a default with devastating consequences to the financial sector? Because some people in the Tea Party, a political group whose constituent support has waned so rapidly that their rallies attract mere dozens of people these days, think it would be better?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:53 AM on July 24, 2011


angrycat: "Wow, people on twitter are referring to Obama as 'The Kenyan.' When did that become a Thing?"

Since the first territorial primate with a rock started stamping its feet at the other territorial primate with a rock.
posted by symbioid at 11:53 AM on July 24, 2011


krinklyfig wrote: Having no gold reserves is not considered to be a financially sound position for any country with an economy like the US.

Serious question: Why does it matter if the US Government holds gold?
posted by wierdo at 11:53 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Burden of proof is on the person making an outrageous claim, and you're the one implying Boehner won't be able to get ~10% of his caucus to vote for a debt ceiling increase, so why don't YOU produce the fucking whip count now.

So the entire political class and all the reporters and talking heads have it wrong and you have it right. My only point is we do not know and that those, such as yourself, who claim certainty on this need to back that up. Where has Boehner said he will raise the debt ceiling no matter what? Nowhere. He's described the McConnell plan as "interesting." That's about it. You've got morons like Louie Gohmert out there saying insane things out there--it wont affect anything, etc. You can believe what you want based on assumptions. Obama's gotta work with realities. If you aint got the facts to back it up, I cannot help you.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:54 AM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


It would make it harder to return to the gold standard?
posted by HLD at 11:54 AM on July 24, 2011


"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."

Reagan said DEFAULT WAS AWESOME

\m/ (*-*) \m/
posted by fullerine at 11:55 AM on July 24, 2011 [29 favorites]


people on twitter ...

There are people on twitter? Wow, when did that become a thing?
posted by Surfurrus at 11:55 AM on July 24, 2011


LOLSOHARD @fullerine
posted by symbioid at 11:56 AM on July 24, 2011


Did you miss the part where I said the US can print money to pay its bills?

Weimar Germany called. They want their idea back.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:57 AM on July 24, 2011


Serious question: Why does it matter if the US Government holds gold?

It is a hedge against inflation, which in the worst case scenario runs up quickly. It's really just insurance. There is little chance they would sell a significant amount unless we ended up at the worst case.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:57 AM on July 24, 2011


I hope the republicans due default it will give me the opportunity to move into the neighbourhoods of these job creators as the massive deleveraging event rolls up their already week mortgage companies.

Free Housing FTW!!!
posted by Rubbstone at 11:58 AM on July 24, 2011


"Yes, but somehow I think the interests which have the most money, power and influence will win out over an obstructionist freshman House.

Those interests don't want their taxes raised."


Only some of them. However, they are the ones who are most ideologically to the right and most active in shaping the debate. They do contribute a significant portion of the money that the Republicans typically raise, however.

It should be remembered that President Obama has been raising a *ton* of corporate cash lately -- more than all the Republican candidates combined -- with much of it from Wall Street interests.

If you take a look at the donors that are most strongly backing the Republicans here, most of them are on the Libertarian end of the party. Unfortunately, that's a pretty loopy, dogmatic end lately.
posted by markkraft at 11:59 AM on July 24, 2011


"Having no gold reserves is not considered to be a financially sound position for any country with an economy like the US."

China, one of our biggest net creditors, with a population 5x our own, has gold reserves about 1/8 our own, by weight. Better still, their gold reserve, as a percentage of their total forex reserve is a measly 1.7% whereas our gold reserves represent a whopping 74% of our total forex reserves.

I'm thinking China has hella more progressive national asset management than we do.
posted by paulsc at 11:59 AM on July 24, 2011


Weimar Germany called. They want their idea back.

The Weimar Republic didn't have fractional reserve banking but literally printed money to pay off government workers, and had major political issues due to blockades of exports and repayments due to the Versailles Treaty. Japan didn't become the Weimar Republic, even though they had to finance a lot more debt.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:02 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Oh, so we should only sell off seven-eighths of our gold reserves, instead of all of it? That's a week sooner till we reach default. I don't think Mount Rushmore is going to cover that week.
posted by Flunkie at 12:02 PM on July 24, 2011


The FAA doesn't have statutory authority to operate at the moment. The FAA shutdown has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Other than as another example of congress failing to pass legislation necessary for the continued sound operation of government.
posted by humanfont at 12:03 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm thinking China has hella more progressive national asset management than we do.

Dumping the gold at Ft. Knox seems like someone's axe to grind and not really viable as a solution to the problem at hand.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:04 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


I'm thinking China has hella more progressive national asset management than we do.

No, China simply has the ability to hold Treasuries as foreign reserves, which the US doesn't. The Renmimbi's not convertible, so the US can't return the favor.
posted by Vetinari at 12:04 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... And now we no longer have that gold. ..."

posted by Flunkie at 2:52 PM on July 24

So, um, could we fire it's former guards and inventory clerks, and use those savings to hire back some of those FAA guys to collect that aviation revenue? 'Cause I'm thinking that the first thing you try to do on a sinking ship is try manning some bilge pumps...
posted by paulsc at 12:05 PM on July 24, 2011


Yeah, ignore the absurd short-term nature of your grand plan, paulsc.
posted by Flunkie at 12:06 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... Dumping the gold at Ft. Knox seems like someone's axe to grind and not really viable as a solution to the problem at hand."
posted by krinklyfig at 3:04 PM on July 24

Like any real world example, stacked next to the nearly unimaginable abstraction that is the U.S. National debt, the Ft. Know example is mainly a rhetorical device. But count on MeFi regulars to take it up as a serious proposal to save the nation.

You guys slay me.
posted by paulsc at 12:08 PM on July 24, 2011


And in any case, it sure seems like the first thing Republicans do an a working ship that needs some maintenance is blow a hole in the hull and yell EMERGENCY!
posted by Flunkie at 12:08 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


So, um, could we fire it's former guards and inventory clerks, and use those savings to hire back some of those FAA guys to collect that aviation revenue? 'Cause I'm thinking that the first thing you try to do on a sinking ship is try manning some bilge pumps...

We're not on a sinking ship. Stop listening to politicians or anyone else who makes this claim. We're financing our debt, and our economy is growing. This is really not the time to freak out about the debt, and the only reason it's become an issue is because fear is a powerful tool, but not because there's anything worth all this sturm und drang.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:08 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, if you have "a serious proposal to save the nation", feel free to mention it.
posted by Flunkie at 12:09 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


You guys slay me.

What are you on about? Are you having a conversation in good faith or just trying to troll me?
posted by krinklyfig at 12:09 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


(And that is why America's fake default is waaaaaaaaaaaaay scarier than Greece's real default. At this point the damage from Greek government bonds is concentrated in a few European banks, which have basically zero chance of failing from a Greek bond write-down in isolation. But nobody knows exactly what happens when the debt everyone holds because there is no better guarantee isn't safe anymore. The US defaults, banks might fail in countries you haven't even heard of.)
posted by Vetinari at 12:10 PM on July 24, 2011


So the entire political class and all the reporters and talking heads have it wrong and you have it right.

Uhm, probably? The entire political class is wrong about things with alarming regularity.

My only point is we do not know and that those, such as yourself, who claim certainty on this need to back that up.

Yeah, I get it. This is just where we differ. If a dude came up to me and pointed a gun at my face and said "This is a watergun, and it's empty. But give me all your money or I'll shoot!" I would tend not to give him my money. Others would prefer to cut a deal where you give him all the money in their wallets, go to an ATM and take more out, and call it a day because hey, you can never be too certain about these things.

Similarly, I believe that going into a negotiation with leaders that have announced that they will vote to raise the debt ceiling and want to use these negotiations to extract political concessions from the Democrats, then believing them when they say they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless the Democrats make concessions, and then coming back with a counteroffer that puts MORE concessions on the table than the Republicans originally asked for, is not the shrewdest negotiation strategy.

No, I'm not 100% certain. But default would have devastating consequences on the economy, disproportionately felt by the banks and hugely invested corporations that Republicans suck off incessantly. Polls show that the majority would place blame for the default on the Republicans, not Obama. Crazy Tea Party representatives make up a small fraction of the Republican caucus, and their popular support has diminished precipitously since 2008. Even Grover Norquist, alleged source of the "let the nation default so we don't have to raise taxes" meme, says we shouldn't let the nation default. Default is against every single interest the Republicans have, in terms of financial support, popular support, and perceived political points. And their leaders have said they won't let it happen. That's certain enough for me, and it's sure as shit certain enough to tkae a stronger negotiating stance.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 12:10 PM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


We're not on a sinking ship

Yeah, t's a country!
posted by fuq at 12:10 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"I refuse to believe that you can't find 26 Republicans who are pro-business enough that they won't let the nation default."

Unless, of course, they were a party that rigidly held on to dozens of other dogmatic, faith-based beliefs that have been shown not to work at all in actual reality... and unless they are likely to lose either money or votes as a result of being moderate and sensible on the debt ceiling issue...

(Doomed!!!)
posted by markkraft at 12:11 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


My alternative solution involves the arrival of Dr. Who.
posted by angrycat at 12:13 PM on July 24, 2011 [17 favorites]


It's Never Lurgi: "I'm neither an economist nor a small business owner, however, but it seems that stimulating the demand side would do more for hiring than stimulating the supply side."

Which is why, of course, supply side economics is a pile of horseshit. Has been since GHW Bush called it "Voodoo Economics".
posted by notsnot at 12:14 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


What are you on about? Are you having a conversation in good faith or just trying to troll me?

I think paulsc's point was that while this high-decibel debate on the "debt-ceiling" is going on, the fucking FAA has partially shutdown because no one in congress bothered to pass legislation authorizing it to continue.

but it's the same meta-problem: the "debt-ceiling" crisis is a manufactured problem and we are an incredulous audience.

now, it's possible the republicans will cross the 4th wall and actually trigger a default. but it will be because of their own avant-guarde theatrical ideas, not in response to anything real.
posted by ennui.bz at 12:14 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Is Ft. Knox where Obama keeps all his Danegeld?
posted by fullerine at 12:15 PM on July 24, 2011


Ironmouth wrote: Weimar Germany called. They want their idea back

I think it's cute when you repeat yourself without addressing earlier refutations of the claim.
posted by wierdo at 12:17 PM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


Yeah, I get it. This is just where we differ. If a dude came up to me and pointed a gun at my face and said "This is a watergun, and it's empty. But give me all your money or I'll shoot!" I would tend not to give him my money. Others would prefer to cut a deal where you give him all the money in their wallets, go to an ATM and take more out, and call it a day because hey, you can never be too certain about these things.

Except this gun is real and on a timer to go off in your face and you're relying on a drunk to make sure it doesnt. A watergun can't hurt you. A real gun can. Calling a real live loaded gun pointed at your face doesnt turn it into a watergun. If the US does not raise the debt ceiling, we aren't going to get spritzed with water.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:21 PM on July 24, 2011


Ironmouth wrote: Weimar Germany called. They want their idea back
I think it's cute when you repeat yourself without addressing earlier refutations of the claim.
I've asked this before, but didn't notice a response from anybody, so I'm going to try again:

How much would it affect inflation? I imagine that it, or at least a lower bound of it, could be calculated mathematically from the known budget shortfall, the amount of existing money, and so forth.

The budget shortfall is something like $125 billion a month. If we were just to start adding that amount, month after month (and, presumably, adjust it for inflation as inflation increases), what would the effect on inflation be?
posted by Flunkie at 12:21 PM on July 24, 2011


The Weimar Republic didn't have fractional reserve banking but literally printed money to pay off government workers, and had major political issues due to blockades of exports and repayments due to the Versailles Treaty. Japan didn't become the Weimar Republic, even though they had to finance a lot more debt.

But how does fractional reserve banking prevent inflation if we keep printing money? I mean really, they'll be no effect on the value of the dollar if we start printing money we neither borrowed nor obtained through taxation? Dont you think the GOP would have already done this if it was consequence free? So the dollar wouldn't plunge in value relative to other currencies and everything wouldn't cost more? The stuff from Wal-Mart made in China wouldn't cost more due to a devaluation?
posted by Ironmouth at 12:28 PM on July 24, 2011


Thank you for focusing on the part of my comment relevant to the matter in discussion.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 12:29 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Well, if you have "a serious proposal to save the nation", feel free to mention it."
posted by Flunkie at 3:09 PM on July 24

How about we agree to raise the debt ceiling enough to keep our credit, and in lockstep, agree to spend $20 trillion less in the next 15 years, (starting in FY 2012, with about half a trillion in savings over FY 2011), than we would have, had we spent at the FY 2011's budget level in each of those years, while keeping the same tax rates we have today throughout that 15 year period, and sending any resulting surpluses, or increases in tax revenues we might get in that time due to growth, to our creditors, to pay off our debt at the earliest possible date?

It's a lot of pain, but with a foreseeable horizon to make it bearable. And if by 2015, we've taken a trillion dollars a year of borrowing pressure off the world's lenders, the resulting downward pressure on interest rates ought to keep even Wall Street busy looking for places to put the money, other than Treasuries. That money might even create a real job or two, right on Main Street.
posted by paulsc at 12:30 PM on July 24, 2011


then coming back with a counteroffer that puts MORE concessions on the table than the Republicans originally asked for, is not the shrewdest negotiation strategy.

Well, he put tax increases in there, which he knew the Republicans couldn't accept no matter what they were. But the public can accept them and indeed welcomes them, particularly closing loopholes and asking the top bracket to put in their share. Since this is unacceptable to the Republicans, whatever else he put in there wouldn't be taken anyway. He ends up looking like the side most willing to make a deal in good faith and for the benefit of the country over his own political interests, even though he gave up nothing, because there was never going to be a deal like that.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:30 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


As a household of those mythical "job creators" bringing in over $250K/year, my husband and I are both all, raise our damn taxes, you morons. Because either way, we'll be paying - if it isn't taxes, it's our parents' bills when their Social Security checks either stop coming or stop covering what they have been covering because of inflation.

And, sweartagawd, if Obama fucking blinks on this ... man, I wish I had something good here. I am just full of white-hot rage at all of these posturing jackasses. The fucking idiots lead by Boehner do NOT speak for us, no matter how much they claim to do so. Income doesn't define our politics - but I don't know if that's because we're odd, or because we're sane. Or both.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 12:31 PM on July 24, 2011 [13 favorites]


He ends up looking like the side most willing to make a deal in good faith and for the benefit of the country over his own political interests, even though he gave up nothing, because there was never going to be a deal like that.

But what's the benefit of looking good if you don't actually pass a deal? If it was a throwaway he knew they wouldn't take anyway he just wasted a ton of negotiating time for...what?

He thought he gave them enough for them to swallow the tax increases, he was wrong but this kind of stuff is somewhat unpredictable which is why it is silly to rely on imaginary whip counts.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:34 PM on July 24, 2011


According to the AP (via NYT) , "Boehner hoped to outline at least a framework of a deal by 4 p.m. EDT that could get through a divided Congress and avert panic before Asian financial markets opened hours later."
posted by mauvest at 12:34 PM on July 24, 2011


But how does fractional reserve banking prevent inflation if we keep printing money? I mean really, they'll be no effect on the value of the dollar if we start printing money we neither borrowed nor obtained through taxation?

It would be about the same effect as borrowing that much money and paying interest, from what I understand, but instead of bankers making piles of money from t-bills, they'll be eating shit. Everyone else will be fine, though. Especially all the consumers in debt.
posted by empath at 12:34 PM on July 24, 2011


Thank you for focusing on the part of my comment relevant to the matter in discussion.

I'm pointing out that your bad analogy shows the weakness in your argument. It is a real gun. Obama has to deal with the possibility it will really go off. You say you can't be 100% sure. Well, given the magnitude of what will happen if it does happen, what do you do? Act like it has no effect? A bad move. 1 in 100 is too high here.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:34 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


I mean really, they'll be no effect on the value of the dollar if we start printing money we neither borrowed nor obtained through taxation?

Also, where do you think money comes from? The government prints it.
posted by empath at 12:35 PM on July 24, 2011


And at some point, Lincoln stopped compromising and went to fucking war ...

Uh, pretty sure he did that before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, bro. So your vitriol seems a bit misplaced if not just misinformed.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:36 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


But how does fractional reserve banking prevent inflation if we keep printing money? I mean really, they'll be no effect on the value of the dollar if we start printing money we neither borrowed nor obtained through taxation?

It would be about the same effect as borrowing that much money and paying interest, from what I understand, but instead of bankers making piles of money from t-bills, they'll be eating shit. Everyone else will be fine, though. Especially all the consumers in debt.


Upon what do you base this rosy forecast? You seriously posit no effect on exchange rates?
posted by Ironmouth at 12:36 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


How much would it affect inflation?

Okay. The math here is total garbage, but if you assume a linear relationship between money supply increase and money value decrease (i.e., flat demand...an actual economist can tell me why this is wrong), then the 3.6% annualized increase in M2 over 2 years to 9.1 trillion, linked to an average annualized inflation rate of 1.5%, a creation of 1.5 trillion dollars out of thin air (a 16% increase in money supply) would be expected to contribute about 8% to the annual inflation rate.

Or, in other words, quite a lot.
posted by Vetinari at 12:38 PM on July 24, 2011


Nicholas Kristof: Republicans, Zealots and Our Security
posted by homunculus at 12:38 PM on July 24, 2011


From the WSJ liveblog
post 3:36 EST

White House chief of staff Bill Daley said the U.S. government's creditworthiness has already been damaged by the prolonged debate over how to raise the debt ceiling, with the Obama administration girding for volatility in global financial markets as soon as Sunday evening.

"You've got markets around the world ready to react," Mr. Daley said Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press." "It's time to get some certainty into the system."

Mr. Daley, also speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation," predicted "a few stressful days coming up, and stressful for the markets of the world and the American people."

Treasury Department officials have said the U.S. must have a deal in place by Aug. 2 to raise the debt ceiling or the country could begin defaulting on its obligations. Numerous proposals to raise the debt ceiling in the past few months have fallen apart or been blocked.

Administration officials would like to make significant progress toward a deal by Sunday evening to ensure that Asian markets open calmly.

For the most part, stock and bond markets have mostly ignored the debt-ceiling talks as typical Washington posturing. But that began to change last week when investors began worrying that the White House and Republicans might not reach a deal, with markets fluctuating markedly on several days.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on "Fox News Sunday" it was difficult to predict how markets would react on Monday but that "the longer the politicians take," the more investors will "wonder whether this place can work again."

"At some point, they'll get more worried," he said of investors.


posted by angrycat at 12:39 PM on July 24, 2011


Ironmouth wrote: I mean really, they'll be no effect on the value of the dollar if we start printing money we neither borrowed nor obtained through taxation?

Why has there been no effect on the value of the dollar from all of the money the Fed has printed? I suspect that in a healthy economy, printing money would indeed be inflationary. In what we have now, we seem to be able to shove as much money as we want in the barrel and it won't make a lick of difference.

As I mentioned before, in Germany there was a lack of available productive capacity to sop up the excess currency. We don't have that issue at the moment.


paulsc wrote: And if by 2015, we've taken a trillion dollars a year of borrowing pressure off the world's lenders, the resulting downward pressure on interest rates ought to keep even Wall Street busy looking for places to put the money, other than Treasuries.

Why would they be looking to invest in a deflationary environment? If we were to start paying off debt today, we'd almost certainly move from near-zero inflation into full on deflation as the value of each remaining dollar grew.
posted by wierdo at 12:39 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Everyone else will be fine, though. Especially all the consumers in debt.

Most people who have 401(k) accounts own US Treasury bonds. So do several countries in large reserves.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:40 PM on July 24, 2011


Vetinari wrote: Or, in other words, quite a lot.

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.
posted by wierdo at 12:40 PM on July 24, 2011


krinklyfig wrote: Most people who have 401(k) accounts own US Treasury bonds. So do several countries in large reserves.

Which is why you continue to pay existing bonds.

(sorry for the fast and furious posting!)
posted by wierdo at 12:41 PM on July 24, 2011


I mean really, they'll be no effect on the value of the dollar if we start printing money we neither borrowed nor obtained through taxation?

Also, where do you think money comes from? The government prints it.


Most money creation occurs without printing. You are acting as if inflation does not exist. Econ 101 says that if you dump money into the economy like you propose, the value of existing money goes down. People exchange for dollars based on a rate indicating how much they think they will buy.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:41 PM on July 24, 2011


China loves oil. Can't get enough of it. Maybe we could sell off Alaska to China to pay our debts, like the Russian Czar did to the US in the late 1800s. With a proviso that the Chinese have to take Sarah Palin, I think this would solve several problems at once.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:42 PM on July 24, 2011 [24 favorites]


Which is why you continue to pay existing bonds.

Except the market will go short US bonds if there is any real question about the debt ceiling being raised. There will be massive dumping.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:43 PM on July 24, 2011


Okay, here's my proposal: Zombie LBJ
posted by angrycat at 12:44 PM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 12:44 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


You know, he'd drape his rotting arm over one of these House idiots, and said idiot would both recoil from the smell of his rotting flesh and his tremendous ability to git R done.
posted by angrycat at 12:45 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Why has there been no effect on the value of the dollar from all of the money the Fed has printed? I suspect that in a healthy economy, printing money would indeed be inflationary. In what we have now, we seem to be able to shove as much money as we want in the barrel and it won't make a lick of difference.


What? Uh they just don't print money without trying to make sure that it will not make a difference in how much a dollar buys. You do know the government shreds old bills, right? They don't just keep bulking up the money supply for no reason.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:46 PM on July 24, 2011


but instead of bankers making piles of money from t-bills, they'll be eating shit. Everyone else will be fine, though. Especially all the consumers in debt.

Well, all the consumers in debt who don't have any of their household operating budget in a bank. I'm as much for hitting bankers in the face with a brick as the next guy, but if you try to punish bankers by dicking with the money, you're only screwing the customers. And I don't know about you, but my mattress is kind of thin, and I sleep like crap if there's bars of gold wedged into it, not to mention you have to hire good, trustworthy goons to guard the bed, so I keep my money in... a bank.
posted by Vetinari at 12:46 PM on July 24, 2011


The Public Option was DOA. Republicans and "moderate" Democrats would not accept it, full stop. And they were necessary to pass any legislation at all. Blaming Obama for the lack of a public option is asinine.

Not the point. The PO was a winning position among the voters, same as hiking taxes are now. And yet no politician -- Obama included -- found a way to deliver it. It was good policy, and it was good politics.

The pattern revealed is that the political leadership is not as sensitive to the will of the voters as Ironmouth suggested. Why not?
posted by notyou at 12:47 PM on July 24, 2011 [10 favorites]


Econ 101 says that if you dump money into the economy like you propose, the value of existing money goes down. People exchange for dollars based on a rate indicating how much they think they will buy.

As long as the debt can be financed, it's not a problem, and there may not be an environment for inflation. For instance Japan. It's not always Zimbabwe. The money supply is not all concentrated in the hands of consumers. QE2 did not result in an increase in M2.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:47 PM on July 24, 2011


krinklyfig wrote: Except the market will go short US bonds if there is any real question about the debt ceiling being raised. There will be massive dumping.

Well, a smart Congress would change the rules on pension funds and the like allowing them to hold Treasuries regardless of their credit rating, such that anyone holding to maturity wouldn't be effected. (although taking all those Treasuries out of circulation might lead to deflation) Clearly, we don't have a smart Congress, given that the obvious solution is to raise the fucking debt ceiling.

Problem is, too many people don't get it and think that we can just stop spending money on things and not raise the debt ceiling.
posted by wierdo at 12:48 PM on July 24, 2011


krinklyfig wrote: Most people who have 401(k) accounts own US Treasury bonds. So do several countries in large reserves.

Which is why you continue to pay existing bonds.

(sorry for the fast and furious posting!)


With what money do you pay existing bonds? We are out of it.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:48 PM on July 24, 2011


I'm pointing out that your bad analogy shows the weakness in your argument. It is a real gun. Obama has to deal with the possibility it will really go off. You say you can't be 100% sure. Well, given the magnitude of what will happen if it does happen, what do you do? Act like it has no effect? A bad move. 1 in 100 is too high here.

My point is that the chance should affect your fucking NEGOTIATION STANCE, Ironmouth. How are you seriously not getting this? I'm saying, if there's a 1 in 100 chance of a default, that's low enough that you should not be offering Republicans MORE concessions than they're asking for, or extracting less revenue than we'd get by letting the Bush tax cuts expire next year. Or do you really think that a 1 in 100 chance is worth that fucking bullshit?
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 12:49 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Well, a smart Congress would change the rules on pension funds and the like allowing them to hold Treasuries regardless of their credit rating, such that anyone holding to maturity wouldn't be effected.

Maybe, but the market would still go short. In other words, interest rates would go up.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:51 PM on July 24, 2011


Most money creation occurs without printing. You are acting as if inflation does not exist. Econ 101 says that if you dump money into the economy like you propose, the value of existing money goes down.

It does. But it's not as if that's the only thing that happens, because you're also not paying interest on new debt which has to be paid for in taxes. So the value of money goes down, so what? People get higher salaries, prices on everything go up, and a lot of people get out of debt cheaply.
posted by empath at 12:51 PM on July 24, 2011


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.

uh.. wait (mental math, carry the ∏...) if you create more money, you need more demand to offset that, not less. The only ways I know of to create demand for the dollar are 1. export more stuff so people need dollars to settle the current account (not happening) or 2. make everything else foreign investors can buy crash faster than the dollar... I don't know, like unleashing genetically engineered weasels on the world that eat copper, gold, and Swiss francs.

That's my proposal. Gold-eating weasels (herded of course by zombie LBJ).
posted by Vetinari at 12:51 PM on July 24, 2011


Ironmouth, I actually do believe you've been making some pretty solid and substantial points throughout the thread, and I don't want this to be seen as some sort of fray-joining jumping or piling on of you. But I do want to address two of your points.

On the default specific issue of "Obama's gotta work with realities" here, while a healthy dose of realistic expectations is preferable in these sorts of situations*, and while I'm pretty sure this is like entering the Sistine Chapel and murdering a child in a pentagram of gay people, I think we (intelligent folk/allies trying to avoid horrible economic apocalypse or whatever) need to look at Karl Rove. Vile can also be genius.

---"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities"---

Obama holds enormous power just by virtue of his position as head of the biggest empire in the world and the keystone of global order. He has a monopoly on what that power does. He has proven to be admirably terrified of the imperial executive that has been created and one of the greatest legacies of his presidency will be that he was handed enormous power and took repeated actions to give it back. He has worked with congress, in good faith, and shown enormous deference to that separation of powers idea of the constitution. Civil Liberties (which is no small issue but is irrelevant right now) and some aspects of war powers aside, he has been restoring restraint to the executive branch. But I'm comfortable arguing that this is the exact wrong time to weaken yourself on principle. There is clearly too much at stake. Obama needs to pull a Catholic, plain and simple. Do the thing you not supposed to and don't like and get absolved for it later.

He has the power to irreparably and immediately change the political reality and scrape the operative political calculus simply by acting. Talk is necessary but also not action. He has gotten very far on intelligence and charisma. But this time, he needs to choose Power. He needs to use Power. He is the President of the United States of America. He is the goddamn Caesar of the American Empire. Words that he says can destroy tens of millions of dollars in seconds. He has tried negotiating. Not to drag back to the Civil War analogy, but Lincoln, FDR and even Reagan all showed that it is entirely possible to a Tyrant, a Hypocrite, a consummate Statesman and (be perceived as) a great President simultaneously. Polling shows that he has the clay to shape this new reality and as soon as he takes action - whatever that is - the markets will see confidence, the voters will see a leader and the chattering class will be unable to talk away what just happened.

On the larger issue of a 'weak' or voterless Left, especially young liberals not voting: The expectation of votes just because the other person sucks has always proved to be a horrible and Democratic stategy. An adriot strategist would see that if getting kids out to vote would win you an election (as you said it would, and could have in 2010), then you need to gin up something to get them to vote for. MAYBE Public Option was dead on arrival, MAYBE the wars are entrenched, MAYBE gay marriage would make people mad, MAYBE student loan reform isn't high on people's priorities list. But all those maybe's imply a fight. Obama has shown a knack for negotiating and compromise - keys to governing - but not fighting, the key to winning. Young people, we want something to vote FOR, not just against. We're silly, idealistic, caring folk who want hope and are willing to fight for it. Even if we lost the public option debate, we still would have fought, and voted. Even if gay marriage failed, we still would have fought and voted. We need to be asked to fight, and then vote as a weapon, not asked to follow a hard to see leader and then vote as a theoretical defensive measure. If the Dems would stop taking their base for granted and would start coveting them, they'd win a hell of a lot more.

*Livelihoods, world order, and economic solvency hanging in the balance sorts of situations
posted by Chipmazing at 12:52 PM on July 24, 2011 [23 favorites]


Spudlovr Spud Lovr
Can we get 1 million emails to Boehner? I think we can! speaker.gov/Contact/ #fuckyouwashington #fuckyougop #effinggop #fuckwashington

posted by angrycat at 12:53 PM on July 24, 2011


Vetinari wrote: if you create more money, you need more demand to offset that, not less

Reducing demand for things necessarily reduces their price.
posted by wierdo at 12:55 PM on July 24, 2011


(to be clear, I don't think printing money is the best solution, and it's still essentially a default (since we'd basically be shafting everyone holding debt), but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

I think the best solution would be to tax the shit out of the rich, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen. But printing money is generally better for people on the lower end than cutting spending on social programs would be, since a bunch of money floating around makes it a lot easier for everyone to get out of debt. It's almost by definition progressive because it devalues dollars, and the more dollars you have, the more you're hurt by it, and the more in debt you are, the more you're helped by it.
posted by empath at 12:56 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sorry for the slight derail, but this seems like it might be a good place to ask: Anybody have any recommendations for good basic fundamental overviews -- book or web or whatever -- on macroeconomics? If it matters, the level of required math is not an issue.
posted by Flunkie at 12:56 PM on July 24, 2011


Joining the military looks better and better.

Be all you can be, when the coup d'état comes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:57 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


speaker.gov/Contact/

I don't know if "RAISE THE DEBT CEILING YOU FUCKTARD!" was a very convincing e-mail, but I had fun composing it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:58 PM on July 24, 2011 [16 favorites]


According to the WSJ liveblog, Boehner arrived at the U.S. Capitol about 10 minutes ago.
posted by mauvest at 12:59 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Anybody have any recommendations for good basic fundamental overviews --book or web or whatever --on macroeconomics?

It's pretty damned fundamental, and half of it focuses on micro, but the other half is macro, and everyone seems to think Economics for Dummies is s really good intro.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:01 PM on July 24, 2011


Imagine a million people emailing Zombie Raygun's call to stay solvent over to Boehner. His head would explode from the cognitive dissonance.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:01 PM on July 24, 2011


The past few hundred comments, are they worth reading, or are they just largely uninformed wank? I don't want to waste my time here if I should be looking elsewhere for facts and reality.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:02 PM on July 24, 2011


Oooooh. Thanks adamdschneider, but long ago I resolved to never purchase a "for Dummies" book, just on principle. Any alternatives? "Economics for the Uneducated", perhaps? I'd be down with that.
posted by Flunkie at 1:03 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Polling shows that he has the clay to shape this new reality and as soon as he takes action - whatever that is - the markets will see confidence, the voters will see a leader and the chattering class will be unable to talk away what just happened."

Yes, but first the public -- and the markets -- must see a serious risk, in order to make that determination... and the other party has been saying that the risk is overplayed.

Chances are that the POTUS will act unilaterally and go with the Constitutional argument to raise the debt ceiling, only if he can reasonably show that there is a serious risk of economic failure by not acting.

In other words, the Asian markets might have to take a dump first.
posted by markkraft at 1:04 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


But default would have devastating consequences on the economy, disproportionately felt by the banks and hugely invested corporations that Republicans suck off incessantly.

I think the key problem is that you seem to assume that the Republicans are deeper in hock to the banks than the Democrats are. In truth this is not so; Wall Street has been very careful over the last few years to do their best at buying both parties.

Actually, I think that Wall Street in large part sees the Democrats as "their" party, strangely enough, while it's really the big slave-labor industries (agribusiness, meatpacking, non-union manufacturing, anything made in or outsourced to China) that prop up the Republicans, along with lots of help from small businesses. Go to any small or medium-size town and sit in at a Chamber of Commerce or Rotarians meeting and you'll find some of the most orthodox conservatives you'll ever meet. That's the backbone of Tea Party / conservative power in the U.S., not Wall Street. So they are not really biting the hand that feeds quite as obviously as it might seem -- because the real hand isn't, in general, that savvy on economic matters.

The New England / New York "Roosevelt Republicans" have, as far as I can tell, mostly jumped ship and now form the conservative wing of the Democrats. So it's not totally surprising that the 'party of Wall Street' moniker deserves to change, as well.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:04 PM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


Five fresh fish, everything was riveting until you showed up.
posted by angrycat at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


Again, from the WSJ, timestamped 4:04pm:

President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) are still talking after all. The two men have spoken on the phone twice since congressional leaders gathered at the White House Saturday morning, a congressional official said.

Messrs. Obama and Boehner spoke Saturday night and briefly on Sunday about the budget deal congressional leaders have been discussing, the official said.

Negotiations shifted to Capitol Hill after talks between Messrs. Boehner and Obama broke down Friday night. "As he said he would, the speaker has kept the lines of communication open with the bipartisan, bicameral leadership in Congress and the White House," Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner said.

An administration official would not confirm the phone calls, but said there are "a range of ongoing conversations at a range of levels" between the White House and Congress.

posted by mauvest at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2011


He has the power to irreparably and immediately change the political reality and scrape the operative political calculus simply by acting. Talk is necessary but also not action. He has gotten very far on intelligence and charisma. But this time, he needs to choose Power. He needs to use Power. He is the President of the United States of America. He is the goddamn Caesar of the American Empire.

I don't know what to say about this.
posted by Trurl at 1:06 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


People get higher salaries, prices on everything go up, and a lot of people get out of debt cheaply.

Except for no. Often what happens in a devaluation is prices of goods involved in foreign trade (i.e., most things) go up, and salaries stay the same: the devaluation button is a way to rebalance the economy by decreasing everyone's standard of living without having to actually cut their pay.
posted by Vetinari at 1:07 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Vetinari wrote: Except for no. Often what happens in a devaluation is prices of goods involved in foreign trade (i.e., most things) go up, and salaries stay the same: the devaluation button is a way to rebalance the economy by decreasing everyone's standard of living without having to actually cut their pay.

Sure, but the manufacturing economies aren't very interested in letting our currency devalue relative to theirs. I guess Swiss watches will get more expensive...
posted by wierdo at 1:11 PM on July 24, 2011


Often what happens in a devaluation is prices of goods involved in foreign trade (i.e., most things) go up, and salaries stay the same: the devaluation button is a way to rebalance the economy by decreasing everyone's standard of living without having to actually cut their pay.

Prices on foreign goods go up, which increases demands for exports, and products produced internally, which creates manufacturing jobs, etc.. .
posted by empath at 1:11 PM on July 24, 2011


He has the power to irreparably and immediately change the political reality and scrape the operative political calculus simply by acting. Talk is necessary but also not action. He has gotten very far on intelligence and charisma. But this time, he needs to choose Power. He needs to use Power. He is the President of the United States of America. He is the goddamn Caesar of the American Empire.

I don't know what to say about this.


Well, if one is going to ignore the whole separation of powers thing, you might as well go full-bore moral realism and call for an imperial coup. Not endorsing this, of course, but it makes explicit the logic underpinning a bunch of this Obama-should-be-capable-of-accomplishing-legislative objective x-despite-the (quite insane, that is to say: destructively obstructionist)-opposition party-controlling-the-House stuff that always crops up in threads about the Obama presidency.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:20 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


The logic underpinning the "Obama should be able to..." is that a president should use his power to win the negotiations and get the votes. What a total load of horseshit to say that is the same as wanting a coup.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:23 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


4:23pm (EDT) update from WSJ:

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) just emerged to announce to assembled reporters that Mr. Boehner is in his office preparing for his 4:30 p.m. conference call with GOP House members.

The spokesman said reporters had been asking him whether everyone from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to Elvis Presley was huddling inside Mr. Boehner's office with him. But in fact, the spokesman said, the House speaker is simply preparing for the call.

He didn't specifically deny that Elvis was in Mr. Boehner's office, though. Given the apparent state of the talks, maybe lawmakers could use his help.
posted by mauvest at 1:24 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Prices on foreign goods go up, which increases demands for exports, and products produced internally, which creates manufacturing jobs, etc.

well, yes, everything's dynamic, which is why armchair economists, like actual economists, are generally terrible at predictions. point being, "devaluation fixes the consumer debt problem" is not the most unequivocally true statement in this thread. dollar weakness to my knowledge has not yet generated a restart of America's industrial export economy, as far as I've seen, but I admit I haven't researched thorougly.

(Switzerland does indicate the converse of this: Swiss watches will get expensive because Swiss everything is getting expensive: the Franc, already overvalued, is soaring on instability in the dollar and euro. The strong currency is generating worry of a general economic downturn driven by a collapse of manufacturing exports and tourism.)
posted by Vetinari at 1:24 PM on July 24, 2011


Truri, I say that it sucks and its scary. Someone with that much power could invade nations, torture innocents and put themselves and their co-conspirators above legal reproach. They could even us it for class stratification and profit. And while I'd prefer a President who undid that already-done damage, I'm grateful to have one who is at the very least and I do mean very making a number of positive steps in rolling it back. But, in this particular instance, I can know that this is not the right time for those steps. It is precisely the wrong time. I can know that I hate violence yet acknowledge that there are times fighting is necessary.
posted by Chipmazing at 1:24 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) are still talking after all. Messrs. Boehner and Obama agreed that they needed more "time just for the two of us, you know, to reconnect."

"I've been left at the altar."
posted by Trurl at 1:25 PM on July 24, 2011


In fact, taking the opposite position that we just have to give in to whatever the controllers of one house of congress demands when they take hostages is far closer to an undemocratic ideal.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:25 PM on July 24, 2011


[NB: "humor" was WSJ's, not mine]
posted by mauvest at 1:26 PM on July 24, 2011


Someone with that much power could invade nations, torture innocents and put themselves and their co-conspirators above legal reproach.

We wouldn't want that.
posted by Trurl at 1:27 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


What a total load of horseshit to say that is the same as wanting a coup.

Yeah, I did not phrase my point clearly at all. My bad, furiousxgeorge. I will try to reformulate what I was trying to say.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:28 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I forgive you.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:29 PM on July 24, 2011


Beer summit?
posted by joe lisboa at 1:29 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm having a DAB at the moment, and refusing to believe Dortmunder is a distinct style from Pilsner.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:31 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am waiting for the Nikkei to tank in light of the debt ceiling issue and then stocking up on Sapporo.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:34 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Beer hall putsch!
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:38 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


The Nikkei is open, right?
posted by codacorolla at 1:41 PM on July 24, 2011


8:00 PM EST, I think?
posted by joe lisboa at 1:41 PM on July 24, 2011


It's currently approaching 6:00 AM Tokyo time. The Tokyo Stock Exchange opens at 9:00 AM Tokyo time.
posted by Flunkie at 1:43 PM on July 24, 2011


Boehner is a hard-on.
posted by Splunge at 1:43 PM on July 24, 2011


From another forum: Foreign Exchange Markets open at 4:00 PM EST, in five minutes. Asian markets open at 7:00 PM in three hours.

Anyone who knows about this stuff want to take a look at the exchange markets for us?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:43 PM on July 24, 2011


furiousxgeorge wrote: Anyone who knows about this stuff want to take a look at the exchange markets for us?

I don't know shit about forex, but I'm watching a live feed and it seems that the drop in the dollar relative to other currencies was less than 1% at open and the dollar has been rising since.
posted by wierdo at 1:48 PM on July 24, 2011


Oh, I should give a link.
posted by wierdo at 1:48 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's currently approaching 6:00 AM Tokyo time. The Tokyo Stock Exchange opens at 9:00 AM Tokyo time

It's like watching 9/11 in slow motion at this point. You know the planes are going to hit the financial center, but there's nothing you can do about it.
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:49 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Now a "source familiar with the talks" says Pelosi and Reid will meet with Obama at the White House at 6pm.
posted by mauvest at 1:50 PM on July 24, 2011


Time to consider the Constitutional Option.

From the Bruce Bartlett statement before the US House of Representatives:

(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.”


Yes, the President / the Treasury Dept. can act alone to raise the debt ceiling. If things start to look bad, they certainly should do so.
posted by markkraft at 1:51 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


mauvest wrote: Now a "source familiar with the talks" says Pelosi and Reid will meet with Obama at the White House at 6pm

The cynic in me says that Obama will be convincing Pelosi and Reid to take the boning that Boehner is about to give them.
posted by wierdo at 1:52 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Twoleftfeet, there must be a better and more accurate analogy.
posted by datawrangler at 1:53 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


We wouldn't want that.

51% is such a slim 'we' that is scares me to the very core.

joe lisboa, I really don't think its on the same moral level as an actual coup at all, if pursued correctly. I think any straightforward reading of Section 4 allows the constitutionally uncontroversial but politically MARXIST-TYRANT! action of making the public debt of the United States unquestionable. It was just this sort of anticipated political usage of default that led to that provision. The players are different but the Constitution is the rules of the game. Just because no one has tried this Flee-Fly-Flicker outside of Student Congress simulations, doesn't mean its not allowed. Now, if Obama based this action on the Posner/Vermeule arguement that "Presidents can just do shit, you know, cuz they're Presidents jeez", then that would be morally coup-y and bad tyrannical.

And I'm not legally allowed to join the beer summit :(. Can we make it a lethal weapons summit or a porn summit instead?
posted by Chipmazing at 1:53 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Time to consider the Constitutional Option.

The Republicans ought to like this option, as they could then craft the narrative that Obama made an "unprecedented" executive power grab in order to raise the debt, even though a Republican deal was "on the table."
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:56 PM on July 24, 2011


I think the people who claim that the ceiling will be raised no matter what are being far too optimistic.

Yes, the various Republican leaders have at times in the recent past said things that seemed to imply they'd raise the debt ceiling and avoid the crisis. But that means squat. They lie, and worse they sometimes say things that they'd like to be true but aren't. I think none of the Republican leadership has really absorbed the total ideological dedication of the newly elected Tea Party Republicans.

I'm fairly sure that when Boehner and his fellows started this mess they did truly intend it to be nothing but the standard Washington Kabuki. They'd bluster, Obama would give them more than I think he really has to, and in the end the debt ceiling would be raised.

But the Tea Party true believers never thought of this as kabuki, they see it as a golden opportunity to really do something big, something dramatic, to make a statement, to do what they were elected to and make change. All the crazy rhetoric that Boehner etc were spewing, crap they never believed but did merely as kabuki posturing, set the stage for the Tea Party to see this as the apocalyptic battle against the Evil Kenyan, the battle they could win and Take Their Country Back!

I think Boehner has painted himself into a corner. He can't twist the Tea Party Republicans arms and make them vote for a debt ceiling increase. Which means he'll either have to go with a majority Democratic bill (political suicide) or pretend he was with the Tea Party all along and let the economy crater.

I'm not betting on Boehner having the moral courage to end his political career just to save the economy. In fact, I'm betting against it. Right now I don't know if the Tea Party will take even a "clean" (from their POV) debt ceiling increase that is 100% spending cuts and not even the faintest wiff of tax increases ever.

I'm increasingly convinced that the Tea Party is going to insist that the debt ceiling stay in place and we simply cut anything that can't be paid for with existing revenue.

Right now, I'm fairly sure there won't be a deal, the debt ceiling will stay in place, and then I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen. But I do know that it won't be Obama's fault. I'll blame the man for a lot, but not for this.
posted by sotonohito at 1:57 PM on July 24, 2011 [17 favorites]


But the Tea Party true believers never thought of this as kabuki,

THIS.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:00 PM on July 24, 2011


So apparently Reid's plan is no revenue increases and 2.5 trillion in spending cuts with a 2.5 trillion debt ceiling increase. Consider the forex market gods pleased.
posted by wierdo at 2:07 PM on July 24, 2011


(Crappy twitter) link
posted by wierdo at 2:08 PM on July 24, 2011


no revenue increases

Fucking hell.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:08 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Twoleftfeet, there must be a better and more accurate analogy.

Yeah, you're right. Using 9/11 as a metaphor is uncouth.

I'm going to with Chernobyl at 1:23.40 on April 26, 1986.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:09 PM on July 24, 2011


i'm beginning to wonder if the real republican plan is to try to force obama into going the 14th amendment route so they can claim he's some kind of tyrant
posted by pyramid termite at 2:09 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Via Krugman: "Someday people will look back and wonder, What were they thinking? Why, in the midst of a stalled recovery, with the economy fragile and job creation slowing to a trickle, did the nation’s leaders decide that the thing to do—in order to raise the debt limit, normally a routine matter—was to spend less money, making job creation all the more difficult? Many experts on the economy believe that the President has it backward: that focusing on growth and jobs is more urgent in the near term than cutting the deficit, even if such expenditures require borrowing. But that would go against Obama’s new self-portrait as a fiscally responsible centrist."
posted by homunculus at 2:13 PM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


So the plan is total capitulation?
posted by vibrotronica at 2:15 PM on July 24, 2011


So apparently Reid's plan is no revenue increases and 2.5 trillion in spending cuts with a 2.5 trillion debt ceiling increase.

If this is true it represents a total capitulation to Republican demands.

Total.
posted by Avenger at 2:16 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


If there is one thing I have learned from the crisis, it is this:

John Boehner has the prettiest blue eyes.
posted by empath at 2:19 PM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


Actually, you know what? A cut in social programs along with a massive debt ceiling increase (inflation) could actually be interpreted as a tax increase on the poorest Americans.

I'm sorry but if this is true then Obama and the dems have totally and utterly gone off the reservation. There is literally no point in voting for them anymore.
posted by Avenger at 2:19 PM on July 24, 2011 [21 favorites]


I've never had much confidence in Reid's ability to stand firm on anything. It makes me wonder how the last two years would have gone if he were more in the mold of Pelosi.

Also re: zombie LBJ -- dude had greater-than-two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, plus a liberal Supreme Court, plus a much less toxic media environment. He was an effective president, but he hardly shouldered the burden alone.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:24 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Republicans are pretty good at this, aren't they?
posted by ryanrs at 2:24 PM on July 24, 2011


Well, I think you have to understand that rich people are rich because they're doing the right kind of things, the kind of things that Nature and God feel good about. A lot of poor people are poor because they're really not good people. It's God's Great Plan, and it will all even out in Heaven, many years from now.

Unless the Anti-Heaven Bill goes through in 2017. It has been gaining support.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:26 PM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


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.

If there were deep cuts to the defense budget, then I'd be ok with that. But, there's no way in hell that would happen, is there. It'd be something like $5 billion. Over 10 years.
posted by stavrogin at 2:26 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm sorry but if this is true then Obama and the dems have totally and utterly gone off the reservation. There is literally no point in voting for them anymore.

I remember feeling that way about Al Gore in 2000. Boy was I wrong.
posted by dig_duggler at 2:26 PM on July 24, 2011 [11 favorites]


Republicans are pretty good at this, aren't they?
No. Hence the annoyance with the Dems
posted by fullerine at 2:26 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


July 24:So apparently Reid's plan is no revenue increases and 2.5 trillion in spending cuts with a 2.5 trillion debt ceiling increase. Consider the forex market gods pleased.
-
July 6: Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade, Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:27 PM on July 24, 2011


The reason some of us are confident that the ceiling will be increased is that there are extremely powerful forces concerned with making it happen. It might be political suicide for Boehner to allow enough Republicans to go along with a purely Democratic plan to let it pass, tossing the Tea Party under the bus. But it will also be political suicide for him to be the cause of debt default.

What the last two weeks have been about has been making sure Boehner and the Republicans are seen as the cause agents if that happens. And Obama has pretty much won that round brilliantly. "Is there anything you guys would agree to?" indeed.

If the US defaults some extremely wealthy and powerful people will be very, very pissed at the Congressmen they thought they had bought fair and square. You can bet phones have been ringing for at least a week with stern warnings being passed on.

The teabaggers don't care though, and Boehner doesn't have them on a leash. That leaves the sane Republicans in a very bad and rapidly shrinking box. I don't believe for an instant they'd commit political seppuku to save the country, but to satisfy their corporate masters? That's likely another story.
posted by localroger at 2:29 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Update:

Word from House Speaker John Boehner’s call with House Republicans is that he’ll have details Monday -– not today -- of a new proposal to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, reflecting the principles of the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan the House passed last week.

Boehner also assured his members that there are no secret talks going on with the White House, according to participants on the call. Boehner told those on the call that a "grand deal" isn't possible with President Barack Obama.

posted by mauvest at 2:31 PM on July 24, 2011


I would love to see Obama and Boehner's respective BATNAs.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:31 PM on July 24, 2011


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".
posted by Flunkie at 2:32 PM on July 24, 2011


Boehner not putting forward anything until Monday is perhaps because he has nothing to put forward now? Anything that happens with the markets tonight and tomorrow morning is going to be at the GOP's door, esp. as Reid put forward his proposal that is w/o revenue increases.
posted by angrycat at 2:38 PM on July 24, 2011


Why has there been no effect on the value of the dollar from all of the money the Fed has printed?

Someone hasn't been paying attention to exchange rates.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 2:42 PM on July 24, 2011


From ABC:
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]


Cuts to the defense budget are also not real - as they can always be given back in supplemental war spending.
posted by Trurl at 2:45 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is a big failure for the Speaker. He was the one who walked out. He was the one who said, Congress writes the laws. He is the one who said he would have a plan today. Now he has nothing to show for it, but request for more time.
posted by humanfont at 2:47 PM on July 24, 2011


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.

It seems like the real problem here is that the Republicans are dogmatically opposed to any cut in defense spending, so not only is that verboten, but any legitimate saving which would flow as a result of those cuts would also be verboten. Pulling out of Bush 43's adventures, as well as eliminating the more wasteful Big Expensive Toy Divisions of the military-industrial complex, would not only save money in the short term, but also in the long term.

Put the military to work rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. If Republicans complain that this is socialism, say "just pretend we're building these roads in the Middle East."

Cuts to the defense budget are also not real - as they can always be given back in supplemental war spending.

Reminds me of this famous joke:

PATIENT: Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this!
DOCTOR: So don't do that!
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:51 PM on July 24, 2011


I'm beginning to wonder if the real republican plan is to try to force Obama into going the 14th amendment route so they can claim he's some kind of tyrant

I'm sure the non-tea-party leadership is probably praying hard that Obama, in fact, does go this route, so they don't have to actually sign their names to anything.

However, I really don't think Obama has the balls to do it. But, if he should do it, I don't think his people are competent enough to form a winnable counter to the tyrant/dictator charge, which is almost certainly already teed-up and ready to from every think-tank and Fox News talking head, just in case.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:52 PM on July 24, 2011


I have this intense desire to do things to the House Republicans like rub their nose in their own poop.
posted by angrycat at 2:54 PM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


Put the military to work rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.

Do not do this.
posted by dave78981 at 3:02 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Time to consider the Constitutional Option.

Employing that Option would require something like courage of conviction, or a backbone, neither of which Obama possesses to any significant degree. In the end, he'll work something out so that Republicans get almost everything they wanted.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:02 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I have this intense desire to do things to the House Republicans like rub their nose in their own poop.

Me, too. I've complained mightily these last few years that I'd like to see Obama get his back up a little more. Show some good old righteous indignation.

He just doesn't work that way, though. And while I don't think Democrats have played their hand as well as they could have, we have made some progress.

I really think Obama is playing long ball here; his intention is to come out of this looking like the only adult in the room. Part of me says that's cynical and sucks because it sells everybody out more than it needs to, but the rest of me says it's genius if it gets independents back into the fold. I think he has a better than even chance of pulling it off.

I hate the constant emphasis on reelection, but the truth is a second-term president can be much more adamant and effective than a first-term president.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:05 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The 30 minute press conference on Friday had a pretty healthy amount of indignation. I recommend watching it if you haven't yet.
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:08 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Republican controlled house wants to dictate terms for raising the debt ceiling. With around 60 members adamant against raising the debt ceiling under any circumstance.

The Speaker wants (has?) to make this a Republicans ONLY vote or chances are he won't be Speaker next time around.

As someone said earlier there are 192 Democrats in Congress, this shouldn't be a hard deal.

What's making it hard are those 60 or so Tea Baggers who "won't take yes for an answer."

The Senate Minority Leader blinked last week with his proposal. Obama offers more and larger deal's with caveats of revenue increases to scuttle the whole deal on purpose making the House look unreasonable.

We're looking at a power struggle plain and simple in the majority party of the House.
posted by Max Power at 3:10 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


"If we were to start paying off debt today, we'd almost certainly move from near-zero inflation into full on deflation as the value of each remaining dollar grew."
posted by wierdo at 3:39 PM on July 24

Eh, variable interest on the rollover component (principal we can't pay back at term, and have to roll over into new debt via new monthly and quarterly Treasury auctions) pretty much annihilates that thesis, when your debt starting point is, today, 14.3 trillion, and nobody's current plan, including mine, stops additional net borrowing until we've hit at least 18 or 19 trillion, sometime in 2015 or 2016. It's just too radical a change to accomplish to this economy, statutorily, or practically, to force spending down so far, or even to raise taxes enough combined with deep, deep spending cuts, to get to actual debt reduction in the next fiscal year. In other words, the most conservative fiscal plans being talked about now for the U.S. government, have it digging the hole deeper by another 2 to 4 trillion dollars, over the next 18 months to 2 years, before anybody can think about net payback of debt. It's effin' pitiful to call something like that "The Grand Plan," in my estimation, but such is American political hyperbole.

Just this August, over and above the $125+ billion of net new borrowing we have to do to keep spending like drunken sailors, we have to roll over another $500 billion worth of old debt to new, so that our actual total borrowing needs for August are about $650 billion, once you factor in interest.

At any time in the next 20 years or so, we're about 1 or 2 failed Treasury auctions away from actual default, regardless of what the technical debt ceiling authorization is. And one day in the future, I for one can easily imagine that the auction crowd which has historically bought Treasury bonds on promises of security wises up, and takes its money elsewhere, and the U.S. Treasury is left to beg for time to an empty auction room.
posted by paulsc at 3:12 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Treasury acutions will never fail. Either the yield will rise, or the Fed will simply buy the bonds as they did in the last two rounds of quantative easing.
posted by humanfont at 3:22 PM on July 24, 2011


There are many things I can easily imagine, but none of them are worth destroying the economy over.
posted by vibrotronica at 3:23 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Didn't we do all this just four months ago? Ahh yes, Will there be a government shutdown?

I'll just say the same thing I said back then.

It won't get shutdown. Republicans and Democrats will reach a last minute deal. They both will go home to their base and boast about the epic fight they won for their cause. The media has an Apocalyptic Battle that could just spell the end of the world, or at least some damn good ratings bumps.

This state of perpetual emergency is starting to get kind of old. It's like Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine has turned into the political equivalent of Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. Except instead of screenwriters in LA with the killer script they're working on, it's our shared future.
posted by formless at 3:31 PM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


"Treasury acutions will never fail. Either the yield will rise, or the Fed will simply buy the bonds as they did in the last two rounds of quantative easing."
posted by humanfont at 6:22 PM on July 24

So the Federal Reserve is going to buy Treasury bonds with.....what? Federal Reserve notes that Ben's Backroom Boys print in convenient $10,000 and $100,000 denominations, especially for the purpose? Because that way, lie monsters and hyperinflation.

And that yield thing? I can buy houses in my city that 5 years ago sold at $399,000 for under $100,000 today, but I'm not. How come? Too much risk of further value loss. At some point, broad economic fears mean even rational people, in quantities great enough to finance great nations, simply ignore yield curves, and go where they think their money might be safe, even if that "safe" place is no better than under their mattress.
posted by paulsc at 3:32 PM on July 24, 2011


Did you miss the part where the republicans said they were willing to raise it temporarily, but Obama said that was unacceptable?

No. Did you miss the part where Republicans started the pissing match by demanding concessions instead of just signing the fucking thing? Coulda, shoulda, woulda - the Republicans have overplayed their hand.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:32 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Alright, who pissed in the Glooper?
posted by mikelieman at 3:34 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


WSJ blog, 6:21

The dollar fell broadly as Asian markets opened Monday and the apparent impasse in U.S. debt talks weighed on the greenback.

Fears are rising that Congress will fail to meet a White House-imposed deadline of Aug. 2 to raise the debt ceiling, leading the U.S. to default on its debt shortly after that deadline. Even if a deal gets done, market participants are skittish that a long-term deficit-reduction plan might not be enough for the U.S. to avoid a ratings downgrade.

The dollar fell to Y78.15 from about Y78.52 late Friday. The dollar also dropped against the Swiss franc, falling to CHF0.8120 from about CHF0.8182 on Friday.

The euro was back above $1.44 to $1.4415 from about $1.4360 on Friday.


It has begun, whatever damage this will cause, we're starting to see it.
posted by angrycat at 3:36 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


paulsc wrote: Federal Reserve notes that Ben's Backroom Boys print in convenient $10,000 and $100,000 denominations, especially for the purpose? Because that way, lie monsters and hyperinflation.

Been there, done that, where's the beef?
posted by wierdo at 3:41 PM on July 24, 2011


Iceberg? What iceberg?

This ship is unsinkable!
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:42 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Guy on CNN: "I think we have crafted a long-term agreement..."

Me: "About damn time."

Guy on CNN: "...that can be good for the game of football..."

Me: ಠ_ಠ
posted by Rhaomi at 3:43 PM on July 24, 2011 [26 favorites]


Katjusa Roquette: "I have been of the opinion that the longer the Republicans hold out, the more justification and indeed moral duty President Obama has for 1. Invoking the 14th Amendment, 2, Taking all compromise with the Republicans OFF the table.
It would be a good lesson to them to just negotiate in good faith.
I really do think the Republicans need a spanking and sent to their room.
But not before changing their dapers!
"

Not an American, no direct stake in this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, et cetera, but I think you're right. The Republicans are going to use the debt ceiling as a club, again and again, until they get everything they want. If Obama ever wants to govern as his own man, he has to stop them now by breaking their will. Therefore, they must be made to put up or shut up. Either they force a default, or they give in (or the President does something like what you're suggesting), which will reveal their threat to be meaningless and render the debt ceiling invalid as a tactic for future extortion. Anything else will just make things worse further down the road, not just for Obama but also for any future President who faces stubborn opposition.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:43 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Not an American, no direct stake in this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, et cetera, but I think you're right. The Republicans are going to use the debt ceiling as a club, again and again, until they get everything they want. If Obama ever wants to govern as his own man, he has to stop them now by breaking their will. Therefore, they must be made to put up or shut up.

That's exactly what he's doing when he says "no short term fix." He's questioning their honesty and commitment right to their face. You don't get to throw bombs and then shift to an easy "back-down" position without getting called out.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:48 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Mod note: comment removed - if I have to tell you one more time in 2011 to not call people dipshits, I will give you a week off. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:55 PM on July 24, 2011 [10 favorites]


"Been there, done that, where's the beef?"
posted by wierdo at 6:41 PM on July 24

Around Thanksgiving, I expect "the beef" to be coarsely ground and right to the left of the frozen turkey in my grocer's meat section, and marked down to the low, low post-crash price of a hundreth a krugerrand a pound, for the interest of anybody with ready money...

I'm trying to see the proverbial glass as half full.
posted by paulsc at 3:56 PM on July 24, 2011


WSJ, 6:54 post EST

No debt deal means good times for gold bugs. Gold prices are up sharply in early trading in Asia amid broader worries about risk as the debt-ceiling debate grinds on in the U.S.

Gold for August delivery is up nearly 1% at $1,616.60 an ounce.

posted by angrycat at 3:56 PM on July 24, 2011


That's a good point, Benny Andajetz. But it amazes me just how much Obama is willing to compromise up to that limit. If a hostile foreign power was somehow in a position to threaten the US economy I've no doubt that Obama's response would be swift and aggressive. No negotiating with terrorists, and so on. But when it's Republicans doing the threatening he's willing to compromise again and again, until ordinary people are confused into thinking that the negotiations were reasonable and necessary in the first place.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:01 PM on July 24, 2011


Is it just me or is anyone else nauseous thinking about this stuff? This is going to keep me awake tonight.
posted by desjardins at 4:03 PM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


If a hostile foreign power was somehow in a position to threaten the US economy I've no doubt that Obama's response would be swift and aggressive. No negotiating with terrorists, and so on. But when it's Republicans doing the threatening he's willing to compromise again and again

I actually have no problems with a president who treats citizens of his own country who aren't of his party with greater leniency than he would a foreign enemy.
posted by hippybear at 4:06 PM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


On the bright side: as the US dollar collapses and foreign creditors begin to demand payment in real, physical goods, jobs in the mining and logging sector will boom.

Everybody party like it's 1929!
posted by Avenger at 4:07 PM on July 24, 2011


I'm surprised at how short-sighted the moneyed class seems to be.
posted by clockzero at 4:11 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


If a hostile foreign power was somehow in a position to threaten the US economy I've no doubt that Obama's response would be swift and aggressive. No negotiating with terrorists, and so on. But when it's Republicans doing the threatening he's willing to compromise again and again

You mean the elected representatives of American citizens? That's called democracy. The alternative is despotism.
posted by empath at 4:15 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


It isn't the moneyed class forcing this showdown, it is the Tea Party fanatics. There may be a little overlap but, really, the rich guy interests are not liking this at all.

Now, they've been exploiting these fanatics for some time and now it has bit them in the ass. When you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.
posted by Justinian at 4:16 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm surprised at how short-sighted the moneyed class seems to be.

Bobby tried to warn us...
And the politicians throwing stones
Singing Ashes Ashes All Fall Down...
posted by mikelieman at 4:16 PM on July 24, 2011


"I actually have no problems with a president who treats citizens of his own country who aren't of his party with greater leniency than he would a foreign enemy."

But the effect is the same, ultimately. In both cases Obama would be surrendering his initiative to someone else. I know your system has a greater distribution of powers, but the President should still have some free agency to lead.

It's so strange. When there was a Republican president he had the effective power of a tyrant. Bush could set the agenda and carry out policy with ease, up to the point where it looked like too much power was being centralized in the executive. Now there's a Democratic president and it's the Congress and Senate who seem to have all the power, and the executive is less relevant.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:17 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, a short-term raising of the debt ceiling means we'll have to go through all this again before the 2012 election, or do it during election season which would make it the Huge Campaign Issue...

A Republican-inspired agreement which is in two stages and has a large raising of the ceiling now and has revenue increases decided later will likely never see the second part of that coming to pass, so the Democrats will never agree with it.

A Democrat-inspired agreement which contains revenue increases now will never be agreed to by the Hell No Caucus in the House.

Obama will likely veto any short-term increase because he doesn't want to have to deal with this again during this term.

Is there any way out of this impasse?
posted by hippybear at 4:19 PM on July 24, 2011


Why are they bitching about the debt ceiling when they just passed the very budget that is spending this money in the first place?
posted by synaesthetichaze at 4:22 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's so strange. When there was a Republican president he had the effective power of a tyrant. Bush could set the agenda and carry out policy with ease, up to the point where it looked like too much power was being centralized in the executive. Now there's a Democratic president and it's the Congress and Senate who seem to have all the power, and the executive is less relevant.

Well, that's largely because the Democrats aren't willing to play the same game of hardball as the Republicans. The Rs, even as a minority party, have been willing to do all kinds of technical leveraging which isn't technically against the rules but which fly in the face of fair play in order to push their agenda, or at least keep the Ds from exercising theirs. When the Ds were in power, they weren't willing to force the issue on important things and kept allowing the Rs to put up roadblocks in the context of the rules of each house, especially the Senate. But when the Ds are the minority, they aren't willing to put down anonymous blocks on appointments or pushing the issue of the filibuster all in the name of making a point.

It's that old saw about how people who play by the rules get the short end of the stick. Ethics always weaken the ethical when faced with the unethical.
posted by hippybear at 4:24 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


Because they think it will gain them political advantage, synaesthetichaze.

Or at least that's why they started. At this point, I think they're continuing doing it because they can't find a way out that will sate the bloodlust of the Tea Party.
posted by Flunkie at 4:24 PM on July 24, 2011


Why are they bitching about the debt ceiling when they just passed the very budget that is spending this money in the first place?

Because they are political opportunists, making something out of nothing.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on July 24, 2011


'...If Obama ever wants to govern as his own man, he has to stop them now by breaking their will. ..."
posted by Kevin Street at 6:43 PM on July 24

Our President is never our king, and the first President that tries to "break the will" of Congress in any real sense, is likely to be impeached pronto, by that same Congress. Moreover, I think Obama is a decent guy, and remembers himself as a former constitutional law professor, and will not, even in a fit of personal pique, resort to naked wankery. He's just utterly ineffective as a national political leader, for not having had much time or personal influence in national office, prior to becoming President, and having failed to assemble a staff that could effectively herd the cats in a divided House/Senate situation.

He's not unlike Jimmy Carter - a decent guy, doing all he can to keep from being run out of the canoe by a fierce rabbit.
posted by paulsc at 4:26 PM on July 24, 2011


Can anyone explain why the "Super Congress" isn't the stupidest idea any human being ever had? I honestly thought that was from the Onion at first. Is there any chance of this undemocratic nightmare actually happening? I mean, I get that it is probably (nominally) constitutional, but ... just ugh. If that's really our best solution to this problem, we are well and truly fucked.
posted by dialetheia at 4:30 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


He's just utterly ineffective as a national political leader, for not having had much time or personal influence in national office, prior to becoming President, and having failed to assemble a staff that could effectively herd the cats in a divided House/Senate situation.

Says the man who thinks selling all the gold in Fort Knox is a good way to erase the national debt. Tell me another one paul, you do this thing so well.
posted by octobersurprise at 4:36 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Says the man who thinks selling all the gold in Fort Knox is a good way to erase the national debt.

Doesn't he also recommend putting the dollar back on the gold standard?

How can you sell all the gold in Ft Knox and still put the dollar back on the gold standard?

Oh, right. Paul really wants to see the Federal Reserve dismantled entirely and for the US to have no national currency. I keep forgetting that.
posted by hippybear at 4:41 PM on July 24, 2011


hippybear, more likely heavy in gold and talking his book. ;)
posted by wierdo at 4:46 PM on July 24, 2011


I don't like the direction this is going to head. I think we face the possibility of significant spontanius political unrest in the next 7 days. Remember when that crazy Russian guy oredicted the break uo of the US, oerhaos he was right.
posted by humanfont at 4:51 PM on July 24, 2011


I think we face the possibility of significant spontanius political unrest in the next 7 days.

I'm not sure the US populace is awake and aware enough to take to the streets and have any sort of effective political unrest in the next 7 days or the next 7 months.

Remember when that crazy Russian guy [p]redicted the break u[p] of the US

In Soviet Russia, US breaks up you!

(Wait, that didn't quite work. My apologies to Yakov Smirnoff.)
posted by hippybear at 4:54 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


If what you really want to see is the destruction of the US government as we know it today, then making the US default is delightful; making the US default and blaming Obama's ineffectuality (instead of Republican intransigence) is pure sex. And Jimmy Carter was scared of a rabbit!

Gotta hand it to the Teabaggers, though. They might accomplish the kind of destruction Al Qaeda only dreamed of.
posted by octobersurprise at 4:54 PM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


I have a theory: this heat wave is being caused by all the friction generated by our forefathers spinning endlessly in their graves.

Addendum: I propose we put some giant magnets near them and solve our future energy needs.
posted by narwhal bacon at 4:55 PM on July 24, 2011 [17 favorites]


FWIW I just bought some Chinese food with USD, no problem.
posted by ryanrs at 4:56 PM on July 24, 2011 [5 favorites]


So...less than three minutes until the Nikkei opens. Here goes nothing, I suppose.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:57 PM on July 24, 2011


"Super Congress" is my new favorite thing.

It's a name worthy of the concept.
posted by Trurl at 4:59 PM on July 24, 2011


Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure playing with you tonight.
posted by octobersurprise at 4:59 PM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]



Oh, and I'd like to mention how fucking rich it is that the budget shortfall in Minnesota was 'solved' by borrowing from the future. Surely that's a wise decision! I can't believe they can get away with this utter bullshit.


This gambit, which came from Republicans in the Legislature, is basically the same thing Pawlenty did several times while he was governor in order to "balance the budget". Locally, there was a lot of remarking that "gee, this sounds like something Pawlenty would have done"--instead of solving the problem, kick the can down the street and leave the problem for whoever's in charge next year. So yet again, we get shifty accounting tricks that give the appearance of a "balanced budget" so that Republican politicians can claim that they obeyed their "no new taxes" pledges.
posted by gimonca at 5:01 PM on July 24, 2011


Am I reading this right? Already a half a percentage drop on the Nikkei?

http://e.nikkei.com/e/app/fr/market/nikkeiindex.aspx
posted by Imperfect at 5:05 PM on July 24, 2011


I think we face the possibility of significant spontanius political unrest in the next 7 days.

i don't - people are going to have to see this affect their lives negatively first, and i don't see that happening in the next week - the consequences of this mess are going to take some time to be felt
posted by pyramid termite at 5:06 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Am I reading this right? Already a half a percentage drop on the Nikkei?

Yes you are. The markets are generally trading slightly lower in Asia; there is no global panic. And for all of you prognosticating doom and gloom, S&P futures have been trading in the overnight session for the past 3 hours. They're down 0.8%, and have been quite stable for most of the trading session.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 5:11 PM on July 24, 2011


angrycat: "I have this intense desire to do things to the House Republicans like rub their nose in their own poop."

Hey! We agree on something ;)
posted by symbioid at 5:18 PM on July 24, 2011


From the WSJ liveblog:
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.

"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."
WHARGARBL.
posted by Rhaomi at 5:20 PM on July 24, 2011 [12 favorites]


To add a bit more color - half a percentage point move for the Nikkei is nothing. I trade Asian markets professionally* and this sort of move doesn't even begin to raise eyebrows. For perspective, the Nikkei was up 1.3% on Friday and I don't recall anyone throwing a ticker-tape parade.

*I don't mean I'm a day-trader, or a trader who occasionally looks at Asia. I'm Head of Asian Trading for a multi-billion dollar financial institution.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 5:21 PM on July 24, 2011 [22 favorites]


Oh, and that should have been 2 hours, not 3. Looked at the wrong clock. Apologies.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 5:24 PM on July 24, 2011


In my vague, hand-wavey defense, it was down half a percentage within seconds of opening (at least according to the site I linked to). It hasn't moved much since, but a half-percentage point in about fifteen seconds, when there's been 500 posts predicting doom and gloom, AND you know jack about securities trading... that's a teensy bit worrying.
posted by Imperfect at 5:24 PM on July 24, 2011


Everything glitches a little at the opening.
posted by ryanrs at 5:26 PM on July 24, 2011


Markets don't have to open at the same price where they closed the previous day. In fact, they very rarely do. It's not a "glitch" - it's just how they work. Market prices are set by buyers and sellers. Why would anyone necessarily want to buy it at the same price as they did on Friday given all the news?

Also, you may not be aware of this, but Tokyo index futures continue to trade in Chicago after Japan has gone to sleep, so the "closing price" has a lot less meaning than it used to in the days before 24-hour trading.

Not trying to give you the smack-down or anything; trust me, a 0.5% move on the open is well within typical trading in Japan. Japanese markets have a tendency to make a sharp move on the open, and then drift for most of the day.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 5:31 PM on July 24, 2011


We've reached the witching hour? Do I have time to make popcorn?

Are we watching? Where? Will there be sound effects? Explosions?
posted by Surfurrus at 5:33 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Like I said, I think we'll reach a last-minute deal. Longer term I'm not optimistic, but that's for a future thread.

But this talk of Super Congresses reminds me that Bruce Sterling is a genius. I recently re-read Distraction and it feels like he foresaw our economic situation over a decade ago. In the book a super-congress like structure composed of "Emergency Committees" has taken over the legislative process. Congress is still useless, just useless in a new way.
posted by formless at 5:36 PM on July 24, 2011


This underwhelming market reaction will give the Republicans and their Tea Party subset courage to stand firm on all their outrageous demands. If the economy collapses slowly instead of suddenly, it's so much easier to blame Obama and the Democrats for everything on the campaign trail. And bringing back from the dead the 'short-term' increase? Cantor is a genius. An evil genius.

And everyone assumes that the markets were not reacting to the whole mess because they assumed it'd all be resolved? Maybe the Market Makers don't care or even look forward to the US Government imploding. When the dollar falls, every other investment looks better in comparison. When the Treasury Rate rises, investors make more money off all interest-bearing investments tied to it. When US Treasury bonds are downgraded, they become cheaper, and not REALLY any more risky (I fear that, if push really comes to shove, Obama will pay the investors first, even before Social Security). When there are less US Treasury securities to invest in, investment dollars go looking for other places to go. Yes, it'll be disastrous for parts of the economy, but much of Wall Street won't necessarily be in those parts.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:43 PM on July 24, 2011


Meanwhile, in AskMe...
posted by box at 5:46 PM on July 24, 2011


The tinfoil hat wearing part of me strongly suspects that the Tea Party **wants** to bring down the government and have massive unrest etc. The references to Mubarak on Twitter, etc, are indicators that at least some of the rank and file Teabaggers think such a thing would be fantastic.
posted by sotonohito at 5:54 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


The dollar isn't going to collapse. The stock market isn't going to go Black. None of that is going to happen. The powers behind both parties, Wall Street, simply are not going to let either party cause them to lose 25 to 40 percent value in their holdings. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Let me tell you what will happen. IN a few more days, the grand Kabuki political theater that we are seeing will come to an end - probably closer to Friday than not. Obama will cut Social Security and Medicare benefits to the elderly as well as some other poorly served and most needy sectors of our society like he was planning to do all along and 50% of the country will breathe a sigh of collective relief that it wasn't their 401K or pension that went into the toilet this time. Oh an NO increased revenues on the wealthy - none.

That's exactly what's going to happen and the only reason it's been prolonged so long is so that Obama can have a plausible excuse that he was just forced to put the hurt on the old people because of the mean old Republicans. That's what is going to happen because that's pretty much what happened several times already vis a vis health care and not extending the tax cuts on the wealthy.

Nothing's going to crash except your long term economic prospects. Oh... and you mom won't be able to pay for her meds any more . That too.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:54 PM on July 24, 2011 [11 favorites]


The dollar isn't going to collapse. The stock market isn't going to go Black. None of that is going to happen. The powers behind both parties, Wall Street, simply are not going to let either party cause them to lose 25 to 40 percent value in their holdings. Not. Going. To. Happen.

You overestimate their power. These kind of declines have occurred as recently as two years ago.
posted by humanfont at 5:59 PM on July 24, 2011


The tinfoil hat wearing part of me strongly suspects that the Tea Party **wants** to bring down the government and have massive unrest etc.

Well, some people are hoping for an "Obama Depression."
posted by homunculus at 6:00 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


MSNBC and CNN seem to have taken the weekend off. Is there any channel covering this?
posted by futz at 6:03 PM on July 24, 2011


Anybody have any recommendations for good basic fundamental overviews -- book or web or whatever -- on macroeconomics? If it matters, the level of required math is not an issue.
posted by Flunkie at 2:56 PM on July 24


You might find the Open Yale courses on economics helpful. I haven't listened to any of them, but their English courses are good. I mean, it's Yale.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:14 PM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


Nothing's going to crash except your long term economic prospects.

except, of course, if our long term economic prospects aren't good, the elites' aren't going to be good either - the "default", by itself, isn't enough to tank the economy, but it won't help, and we already have a lot of negatives to deal with

eventually, a crash - or a slow, sickening slide will happen unless something is turned around

a great deal of confidence has already been lost in the last couple of years and even if they do come up with a last minute deal, more confidence has been lost

eventually, wall street will lose if things continue as they are
posted by pyramid termite at 6:15 PM on July 24, 2011


trust me, a 0.5% move on the open is well within typical trading in Japan'

Who better to recognize kabuki?
posted by Trurl at 6:16 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


"hippybear, more likely heavy in gold and talking his book. ;)"
posted by wierdo at 7:46 PM on July 24

I think you guys have me deeply confused with Mutant.

In which case, I'm flattered, but, um, I suspect that he is not.
posted by paulsc at 6:17 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Is there any channel covering this?

Bloomberg is way better than both CNN and MSNBC and is covering Asian markets as we speak.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:17 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I hate CNN. I'll look for Bloomberg. I have been flipping through all of the (400+) channels and I cannot find any coverage at all.
posted by futz at 6:23 PM on July 24, 2011


What's to cover? They are deciding our fate behind closed doors and will tell us when they're done.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:27 PM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


Al Jazeera was covering it earlier but they seemed to get tired of the lack of any actual news and moved to their normal schedule. I'm surprised the other networks don't have their usual bevy of experts going on about complete nonsense. AJE has a pretty low tolerance for that sort of thing in my experience, but that's certainly not the case for the others.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:27 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


There will be plenty of time to freak out in teh coming weak. Try note to use it all up tonight.
posted by humanfont at 6:29 PM on July 24, 2011


There will be plenty of time to freak out in teh coming weak.

Haha!
posted by dirigibleman at 6:32 PM on July 24, 2011


All the major Asian markets are now open, and there's no crash or panic. In fact, most of the guys I've spoken to in Hong Kong are more focused on the train crash than on the US debt ceiling talks. Sorry, but no fireworks tonight.
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 6:36 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Jonathan Chait on an all-cuts deal
posted by Flunkie at 6:37 PM on July 24, 2011


Hey, you're the bigtime trader, Guernsey. Entertain us! Crash the markets! We would do it for you.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:38 PM on July 24, 2011


teh weak indeed.
posted by futz at 6:39 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm not so much worried about the markets crashing as interest rates going through the roof and credit becoming basically impossible to get. You know that small mountain of credit card debt you've had to build up over the last 9 months between jobs, or because your wages haven't been keeping pace with increasing health insurance costs and/or the cost of living increase?

Yeah, that's going to look like a hell of a lot bigger problem when your credit card balances start carrying double or triple the interest rates you're used to. Because that's one of the first places most people are going to be hit. So I hope any of those of you "kind-of-secretly-hoping" for a default, or who think this is all about US debt, or whatever, don't have any outstanding debt. Because if you do, the chances you'll be able to work your way out from under it are going to be next to nil once there's a US default.

Just my fucking luck, since over the last year or so, for the first time in my own little family's history, we've had to nearly max out our credit cards due to unplanned emergency expenses. Unless we get a sudden windfall, a US debt default is almost certain to put us under in the coming year.

And like I said originally on the occasion: fuck you for letting the midterm elections go down the way they did, whoever you were.
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]


Reid and McConnell are twins, I think.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:42 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey, you're the bigtime trader, Guernsey. Entertain us! Crash the markets! We would do it for you.

Margin Call! Margin Call!
posted by Flashman at 6:45 PM on July 24, 2011


I think you guys have me deeply confused with Mutant.

I think you, paulsc, have my use of Paul in my comment confused with referring to you, when I was actually referring to Ron Paul. If I'd intended to refer to a MeFite, I would have used his or her screen name with no shortening and with appropriate capitalization. Since I did neither of those things, it is safe to assume that I'm talking about a political figure whose last name is Paul. There are two. Take your pick -- my comments apply to both of them equally.
posted by hippybear at 6:46 PM on July 24, 2011


(But boy do I wish Mutant would show up in this tread. Man knows his stuff.)
posted by digitalprimate at 6:50 PM on July 24, 2011


saulgoodman : I believe that credit card rate hikes on existing credit are prohibited under last February's credit reform legislation.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:52 PM on July 24, 2011


"we've had to nearly max out our credit cards due to unplanned emergency expenses"

... you might want to watch this and do something about your situation, before they jack up the rates.
posted by markkraft at 6:55 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey, you're the bigtime trader, Guernsey. Entertain us! Crash the markets! We would do it for you.

That's impossible. It would take a thousand ships with more firepower than I...
posted by Guernsey Halleck at 6:57 PM on July 24, 2011 [6 favorites]


INVEST IN TINNED FOOD TODAY!
posted by clavdivs at 6:57 PM on July 24, 2011


Anybody have any recommendations for good basic fundamental overviews -- book or web or whatever -- on macroeconomics? If it matters, the level of required math is not an issue.
posted by Flunkie at 2:56 PM on July 24


I've been interested in the same subject myself lately. As joannemerriam mentioned there are a lot of university lectures out there for free listening. Personally I've been listening to J. Bradford Delong's Economics 1 from last fall.

Delong had worked in the Treasury during the Clinton administration and is a prolific blogger, and he has a funny delivery and can be at times self-deprecating when he mentions wrong predictions he had made as an economist.

Khan Academy also has a bunch of short (10 minutes) videos on finance and macroeconomics.
posted by bobo123 at 6:59 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


I have a very bad feeling about this.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:00 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey, you're the bigtime trader, Guernsey. Entertain us! Crash the markets! We would do it for you.

  "What did you say, a while back, about not being able to stop Old Hot and Simple without stopping everybody else too? Could you stop everybody else?"
  "Permission requested to correct error. I could not stop everyone. If I tried to use violence, the war computers at commonwealth Defense would destroy me before I even started programming my own actions."
  "You're partly a war computer."
  "Admittedly," said the unwearied, unhurried voice of the computer, "but the Commonwealth made me safe before they let your forefathers have me."
  "What can you do?"
  "Rod McBan the hundred and fortieth told me to tell no one, ever."
  "I override. Overridden."
  "It's not enough to do that. Your great^8 grandfather has a warning to which you must listen."
   "Go ahead," said Rod.
   There was a silence, and Rod thought that the machine was searching through ancient archives for a drama-cube. He stood on the peristyle of the Palace of the Governor of Night and tried to see the Norstrilian clouds crawling across the sky near overhead; it felt like that kind of night. But it was very dark away from the illuminated temple porch and he could see nothing.
  "Do you still command?" asked the computer.
   "I didn't hear any warning," said Rod.
   "He spieked it from a memory cube."
   "Did you hier it?"
   "I was not coded to it. It was human-to-human, McBan family only."
   "Then," said Rod, "I override it."
   "Overridden," said the computer.
   "What can I do to stop everybody?"
   "You can bankrupt Norstrilia temporarily, buy Old Earth itself, and then negotiate on human terms for anything you want."
posted by curious nu at 7:01 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]




Poet_Lariat wrote: saulgoodman : I believe that credit card rate hikes on existing credit are prohibited under last February's credit reform legislation.

Not on variable rate balances. They can't increase the spread over the index, but when the index goes up, the rate on previous balances does, too.

Now, if you have a balance or card with a fixed rate, you're golden.
posted by wierdo at 7:02 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Anybody have any recommendations for good basic fundamental overviews -- book or web or whatever -- on macroeconomics? If it matters, the level of required math is not an issue.
posted by Flunkie at 2:56 PM on July 24


I like "Economics for Everyone" by Jim Stanford.
posted by eviemath at 7:05 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ha, The Eagles...

And when you're looking for your freedom
(Nobody seems to care)
And you can't find the door
(Can't find it anywhere)
When there's nothing to believe in
Still you're coming back, you're running back,
your come'n back for more

So put me on a highway
And show me a sign
And take it to the limit one more time

Take it to the limit
Take it to the limit
Take it to the limit one more time

posted by wallstreet1929 at 7:06 PM on July 24, 2011


Most non-very rich people aren't even offered fixed interest rate credit cards, so sadly, no, Poet_lariat, I'm still screwed, but thanks for trying to offer me some solace.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:16 PM on July 24, 2011


As Mitch Benn sang for the Brits last fall, We're All In This Together
posted by Surfurrus at 7:21 PM on July 24, 2011


Via one of the links up thread...
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..."

But then it's...

"Well, I don't think you can pay it back, so if I don't think you can pay x back, I'm gonna demand you pay me even MORE than when I thought you could, and then I'll take it..."

IF YOU DON'T TRUST THEM TO PAY IT WHY ARE YOU WANTING THEM TO PAY MORE???

It's just like high interest rates on poor people or people w/no proven credit (which to a degree, yes, I get, but ... ugh).

Louis CK does a bit about this.

Anyways, sorry, it just annoys the piss out of me. But I guess it's the old "Golden Rule" (well, with a fiat currency, what is that?) He who has the gold makes the rules.
posted by symbioid at 7:31 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


From tomorrow's WSJ:

A senior State Department official said China has repeatedly expressed concern over the possibility the U.S. would default on its debt.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in China Monday and is scheduled to meet with top Chinese government official Dai Bingguo as talks drag on in Washington over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling.

The senior state department official said China has expressed its views about the debt situation several times in official "demarches," diplomatic language for a formal expression of views. "They've basically made clear they've made substantial investment in the U.S. and they expect, not hope, that the U.S. will abide by its various financial and international commitments," the State Department official said.

China holds $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. Analysts estimate China keeps around 60% of that in U.S. dollar-denominated investments.

posted by mauvest at 7:38 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


symbioid: I completely hear what you're saying. It's a classic example of exactly how our system is rigged against the most needy. "Oh, you have money, well, here's some more for free." "Oh, you don't have money, well since you're asking to have some, here are egregious terms under which you can borrow it and pay it back." It's exactly the opposite of how it seems it should be, but then my worldview is based on the impossible hippie concepts of Love and Sharing.
posted by hippybear at 7:40 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


"... eventually, a crash - or a slow, sickening slide will happen unless something is turned around ..."
posted by pyramid termite at 9:15 PM on July 24

It might be both, played out over the next 4 to 5 years.

As a whole, the world is not ready, yet, to admit, that perhaps $14.3 trillion of the world's wealth, lent in good faith to the U.S. government, has bought worthless paper, or even doubtful paper. The world, as a whole, and down to the individual Japanese salaryman, who bought some Treasuries on advice of his retirement account advisor, and down to the British, German, and Asian banks that hold Eurodollars, and down to the Middle East sheikdoms who hope to be paid for oil pumped tomorrow, are not ready to believe, in a big way, that The Jig Is Up.

Me neither, and truly, I hope to hell that it is not.

But if it really turns out that the U.S. goes into default, even for a short period, even for political reasons, it's divide by zero time, for the developed world's financial system. The world as whole, or even the world taken one sad salaryman at a time, can't lay off $14.3 trillion on short notice, can't pretend for a little longer that Uncle Sam is wearing clothes, can't pretend that money and convertible instruments, as we've known them, mean much. But it will be the work of the Lord to try to convince every one that either the music is still playing, or that there are plenty of chairs.

I think everyone with any heart hopes that some fig leaf of financial fiction can still drop, and that the "book" can carry on, marked as it is, and no one be the worse for politics and posturing. And that distributed heart, that human hope for tomorrow, of most of the developed world, is holding up, trade by trade, the world's markets, just now. And will, I think, unless and until hope is extinguished by time and events, or until the deep pocket shorts show up.

If cataclysm doesn't overwhelm us in the next couple of weeks, I do think this debacle is going to be the death of a thousand cuts for Treasuries, as we've known them. You can't generate this much bad press, and there not be any long term blowback. It'll be the rollover auctions where the stress is first evident, in my estimation, but over a few months, the world's change of esteem for U.S. Treasury securities is going to become pretty clear. I just wish a lot more U.S. debt was long, but unfortunately, the average maturity of U.S. debt, as of February of 2011, is around 59 months, as Geithner has been trying hard to push long since late 2009 - but that's still not a lot of time for the world to revalue a significant percentage mark down of $14.3 trillion, or even the near term portion of that, amounting to something like $7.2 trillion. Or even, if it doesn't have to take such hits, to forget that it might have had to do so.

That maturity is going to come back towards tomorrow, Real Quick. And rates will go up. And if the U.S. doesn't shut down it's borrowing still, the world will just quietly quit lending on anything less than usurious terms and watch as, auction by auction, our unfundable coupon dates bury us. Better we cut to the bone, ourselves, now.
posted by paulsc at 7:40 PM on July 24, 2011 [7 favorites]


Anyways, sorry, it just annoys the piss out of me. But I guess it's the old "Golden Rule" (well, with a fiat currency, what is that?) He who has the gold makes the rules.

No, see, according to all the genius libertarian/anarchists out there, those kinds of free-market-based limits on personal freedom and economic opportunity don't actually count as "rules": the only things that count as rules or impositions on personal freedom are government regulations--even the ones that create broader economic opportunity and social mobility.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:41 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


Better we cut to the bone, ourselves, now.

Okay, maybe it's a little bigger than we wanted it to be, but let's drown it in the bathtub now. A Tea Partier's wet dream. Those of us in the real world know it's not a matter of cutting to the bone, because we're already there; it's cutting off arms and legs.

There would be no threat to America's credit rating if the Republican Party didn't make it their main legislative goal for 2011. Ruin the economy and blame Obama for it. And certain Mefites cannot contain their glee.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:55 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


So paulsc, since you've got the treasury market so well figured out, you're going to make a killing, yes?
posted by ryanrs at 7:57 PM on July 24, 2011


If the U.S. defaults, the Chinese will be eyeballing Taiwan as collateral for future loans.
posted by Avenger at 7:58 PM on July 24, 2011


I dunno, I really liked Blazecock Pileon's idea to sell Alaska.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:16 PM on July 24, 2011


If the economy collapses slowly instead of suddenly

Or, as Mike Campbell went bankrupt in The Sun Also Rises, "gradually and then suddenly."
posted by octobersurprise at 8:18 PM on July 24, 2011


IF YOU DON'T TRUST THEM TO PAY IT WHY ARE YOU WANTING THEM TO PAY MORE???

Say you have a pool of 100 borrowers with a 1% chance of default, each borrowing $100 for one year. At the end of the year, you should expect to get 100*99 or $9900 out of the $10,000 you loaned in total. If you charge 2% interest, you would get back 99*$102 or $10098, which means you've made a profit.

If the same pool of borrowers wants to borrow an additional $100 next year, but you now suspect that 2% of them will default, you need to charger higher interest to be guaranteed a profit. Their option is to not borrow the money at the higher rates, of course.
posted by empath at 8:19 PM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


IF YOU DON'T TRUST THEM TO PAY IT WHY ARE YOU WANTING THEM TO PAY MORE???

It's a question of risk. In order to get loans you have to offer something to the people giving you money. If the people giving you money are sure they will get it back, then you can get almost anyone to loan you money, because there's very little risk. But if there's doubt about whether or not you can pay them back, you're going to have to pay people more to front you money, because there is a greater risk that they won't get the money back, so there has to be a greater incentive for them to give you money than just getting their money back again.

The risk-free rate, incidentally, is based on the return on US Treasury bills, which are assumed to be as close to riskless investments as can be found. I have no idea what would replace them if the default actually happens. I haven't seen anyone even speculate about what could.

I say this as someone who couldn't get a loan to buy a can of soda because the risk on even that transaction would be bad.
posted by winna at 8:19 PM on July 24, 2011


But if there's doubt about whether or not you can pay them back, you're going to have to pay people more to front you money, because there is a greater risk that they won't get the money back, so there has to be a greater incentive for them to give you money than just getting their money back again.

But if people don't believe you'll be able to pay back a $100 loan at 1% interest for a total of $101 dollars, why should they believe that you'd be able to pay back a $100 loan at 30% interest, for a total of $130?

If you don't have $101, you're not likely to have $130.
posted by hippybear at 8:25 PM on July 24, 2011


If they really don't believe you're going to pay them back, they don't loan to you. But if the risk is greater than zero, then the incentive needs to be greater than zero, too.

Empath's answer is really good - it shows how in the aggregate it works.
posted by winna at 8:29 PM on July 24, 2011


Jesus, dial it back.

Anyway, the interest vs risk thing works fine in the aggregate, but in the case oh US Treasuries there IS no aggregate. There is a pool of one. Surely that must affect calculations.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:36 PM on July 24, 2011


Jesus, dial it back.

I pictured an old Carrie Underwood in the distant future having to do a commercial jingle about star-69 on a smart contact lens phone.
posted by cashman at 8:41 PM on July 24, 2011


Anyway, the interest vs risk thing works fine in the aggregate, but in the case oh US Treasuries there IS no aggregate. There is a pool of one. Surely that must affect calculations.

Well, it works if you believe in the 'many-worlds' interpretation of quantum economics.
posted by empath at 8:46 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


So if we never observe our debt, we can't be in default?

Suddenly everything politicians do makes sense.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:50 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


In any case, the US is just one of many potential debtors that one can buy bonds from, and they issue new debt constantly. It would be really bad if the US defaulted, but many people would still have made a profit loaning money to the US, even after a default, if they accounted for risk properly.
posted by empath at 8:50 PM on July 24, 2011


Mod note: Comment removed, if you're telling people "fuck you" it is long past time to step away.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:54 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I like "Economics for Everyone" by Jim Stanford.

Jim Stanford is a leftist hack.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:54 PM on July 24, 2011


Empath's answer is really good - it shows how in the aggregate it works.

It shows how, in the aggregate, it works out to the advantage of the creditors--not necessarily the debtors. In fact, it mostly doesn't work out to the advantage of the debtors, except in the sense that if they really need it, they might be able to get access to some capital. But, in the exchange, they'll end up paying a greater percentage of any income they might manage to earn otherwise in servicing their debt, so there's really only an up-side to borrowing at high interest rates if you happen to be borrowing for some economic opportunity that will earn you more income over the long term, or help you increase your personal income in some other indirect way. Just maintaining income isn't enough, since currency deflation will get you there.

When it comes to consumer credit, in practice, there's really no real up-side to the risk management strategies of capital holders (other than continued survival in the many cases in which consumer credit is needed to cover emergency non-discretionary expenses, because whatever the consumer spent that high-interest bearing, borrowed capital on has probably already depreciated in market value to well below the principle on their debt obligation).

It works out well for everyone, if you only look at it from the side of capital (and unless you account for potential economic consequences further down the line). That's why they call it capitalism, I guess.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:09 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Any default on U.S. treasuries would be a 'rolling default', meaning you ultimately retain the principle but you lose some coupons (interest), and any expiring bonds might be reissued instead of repaid. We'd also rolling default on social security bonds first, reducing social security benefits, while paying higher interest rates on regular treasuries. Btw, Warren Buffet felt that Standard & Poor might downgrade U.S. treasury ratings even if only social security bonds got hit.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:10 PM on July 24, 2011


"... there's no real up-side to the risk management strategies of creditors..."
posted by saulgoodman at 9:10 PM on July 24, 2011


It shows how, in the aggregate, it works out to the advantage of the creditors--not necessarily the debtors.

Duh? It's almost never a good idea to go into debt unless you have some way to invest it to make even more money than you are paying in interest. Credit cards are basically slow economic suicide unless you're paying them off immediately.
posted by empath at 9:13 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


It works fine for debtors so long as poor risks borrow very little, ala micro credit, saulgoodman. It sucks when you're trying to run a whole country like that, paying American medical expenses on your credit card, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:15 PM on July 24, 2011


You know what's really freaking annoying? How both Obama and Boehner constantly used "The American People" as a euphemism for "Me and my party". The American People want this, the American People want that. Gimme a break.

I'm neither a D nor an R (not required in my state, I can -- like the majority of folks here -- be a nonpartisan), but I'm disgusted with both parties. What The American People *want* is for their congressmen, representatives and president to debate the issues but then find a place in the middle we can all live with -- for now. Who said we have to get everything we want in one big bite? Get some of it now, and go back and debate it again later if necessary.

The problem seems to be that we've quit listening to each other and are creating sound bites, not dialogue. It's happening throughout our country -- it's not just the politicians, it's all of us, too. We're losing the ability to solve problems, folks -- and we're digging our hole deeper and deeper as we move to the ends of the D and R spectrum.

The place to start changing it is with each of us -- *I* need to be willing to really listen and ask questions when I disagree with another person's position, and to be honest and civil in my response. I need to be willing to change my mind if their reasoning makes sense, and to be willing to agree to disagree without becoming nasty or disrespectful if we can't find common ground. They should do the same for me.

While I'm not a D or an R, I *am* a business owner and job creator, and I don't think the entitlement expectations we've created in this country are healthy for anyone.
posted by northernlightgardener at 9:20 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Heh, I definitely don't want to meet in the middle, but in certain cases I can recognize it has to be that way.

My anger comes from watching the government fail at the basic duties of governing. Areas that have nothing to do with negotiation.

If you have spent, raise the debt ceiling to cover it. Get the nominations for judges and federal positions handled in a timely manner. Be competent when you wage war or handle a natural disaster. Keep the fucking FAA running.

We have seen far too many failures in these areas. I know a lot of that is "Bush was an idiot" but we should not have been able to get to the point where he was able to fuck up as much as he did.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:26 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

I believe that other countries get along just fine without this silly two-step process. The debt limit seems like nothing more than an excuse for political football.
posted by Flunkie at 9:30 PM on July 24, 2011 [8 favorites]


and I don't think the entitlement expectations we've created in this country are healthy for anyone.

And I have a father in law battling lung cancer right now who begs to disagree.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:40 PM on July 24, 2011 [14 favorites]


Also, you are not a job creator: You're customers are. Or are you honestly going to claim you go around hiring people when the demand doesn't make a good business case for it?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:43 PM on July 24, 2011 [4 favorites]


saulgoodman: "Also, you are not a job creator: You're customers are. Or are you honestly going to claim you go around hiring people when the demand doesn't make a good business case for it?"

Relevant blog entry I saw just a few minutes ago.
posted by symbioid at 9:48 PM on July 24, 2011 [3 favorites]


heh It's like the Afghan's have their own Onion!
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.”

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.”
posted by symbioid at 10:02 PM on July 24, 2011 [2 favorites]


Please do not lecture me about "finding a place in the middle" when the political climate has been steadily sliding rightward for decades. The idea that the two parties represent some unchanging Platonic polarities and the best place to govern from is between them is a disease. The two party system fosters this illusion, but countries with multiparty systems know better.
posted by adamdschneider at 10:11 PM on July 24, 2011 [21 favorites]


It's been fun, America.

Someone make sure to turn off the light before you go (not like we can afford the electric bill anways).
posted by bardic at 10:16 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Keep in mind that capitalism as we know it is an extremely recent development in human history, and the calculus behind it is like trying to paint a hyperactive puppy as a still life.

The math behind international economics is not the same as the math behind individual borrowing. When I borrow from the bank, they're shit-out-of-luck if I fully default on that loan. But when the U.S. borrows from China, we use that money to buy Chinese goods. That makes things a hell of a lot more complicated, and while we can all agree that deficit spending is problematic it's very likely to be better for both us and the "bank" to keep the machine oiled.

They don't want us to default, not so much because it means we won't repay our debts, but because the consequences of default will force us to stop being their customers. I'm not well-versed in economics so correct me if I'm wildly misrepresenting these numbers:
  • China's total GDP is about $5.9T in 2010. (wikipedia)
  • U.S. debt to China is about $1.1T as of December 2010, 26% of our total debt. (treasury.gov)
  • Net Chinese income from exports to U.S. in 2010 (subtracting imports) is about $273B. (US-China Business Council)
  • Total interest due on U.S. debt, 2010 is about $413B. (treasurydirect.gov)
  • 26% of our 2010 interest is $107B. (math*)
If I'm understanding it correctly (and there's a good chance I'm not), this means that China will have gotten a 23% return on our debt just this year even if we fully default on the loan itself. If our credit is solid and we can be counted on to repay the entire debt, then that repayment would be 19% of the entire Chinese annual GDP.

Even if I'm totally wrong about the relationship between those numbers, my point remains the same: global economics are all part of a complex and self-perpetuating fiction. I don't mean that in a bad way; for example, all the world religions except one (or zero) are fictions, but that doesn't mean their effects and implications aren't real, nor that they're provably unsustainable. The importance of nobility was a fiction. The incorruptability of communism was a fiction. MetaFilter is a fiction. All of civilization as we know it is a rich tapestry of shared fiction, intended to break the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons.

But fictions are fragile. Major religions value long-term stability except on trivial matters (that's why many major religions are clinging to medieval values). It doesn't take much to shatter a shared fiction.

Undermining the Full Faith and Credit of the United States is exactly the sort of action that may shatter the fiction of global economics. Everyone, everywhere, should be on board with any compromise that keeps that fiction going unless they've completely abandoned reason in favor of cynicism or ideology. The nuanced problems can be addressed in time as long as we don't allow the walls to crash down around us right now.

Obama has put a lot of stuff on the table; things that are "third rail" issues for progressive voters. He (and/or his advisors) understand that the greater good for America, the greater good for the world is to do what it takes to keep the machine running even if that means fucking over his own reelection chances.

The republicans on the other hand... are cold dipshits. Their intransigence has done severe damage to international trust in the U.S. and thus to the global economy, damage that we may not feel until it's too late, and long after we'll be able to directly connect it to these dipshits that caused it. They are appeasing a base that has abandoned good-faith debate and political compromise in favor of an ideology that has been fed to them by the wealthy interests that will benefit from it the most.

Say what you will about both parties being bought-and-paid-for. Your naïveté is playing right into their hands, because every time a liberal succumbs to apathy a tea partier gets his wings.


* Yes, this is a much more complicated equation. I welcome any elaboration about how much of our 2010 interest payments were actually associated with our Chinese debt.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:28 PM on July 24, 2011 [30 favorites]


Obama has put a lot of stuff on the table; things that are "third rail" issues for progressive voters. He (and/or his advisors) understand that the greater good for America, the greater good for the world is to do what it takes to keep the machine running even if that means fucking over his own reelection chances.

Well, the thing is, he put those things on the table to try and get revenue increases. The Republicans were talking in the $2 trillion range we are back to now before Obama went for the bigger deal.

If you are purely motivated by keeping the machine running, you don't do it by complicating the matter like that.

In the end I think both sides know they are getting some form of deal done and are just wrangling over the details.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:34 PM on July 24, 2011


man, I chose a really good year to take a postdoc in canada...
posted by kaibutsu at 10:56 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
posted by mazola at 11:05 PM on July 24, 2011 [12 favorites]


Same here, kaibutsu... same here.
posted by wowbobwow at 11:09 PM on July 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Same here, mazola... same here.
posted by Chipmazing at 11:51 PM on July 24, 2011 [9 favorites]


I think I need a thing to do this year. I've always been enamored of trains and rucksacks.
posted by meinvt at 12:01 AM on July 25, 2011


I think I need a thing to do this year. I've always been enamored of trains and rucksacks.

I'm prepared for August 2nd. I have cardboard and sharpies on hand so I can go panhandle down at the exit ramp on I-84. Dibs on the 122nd Ave exit.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:13 AM on July 25, 2011


I'll go ahead and state the obvious: the GOP has completely abdicated any notion that they govern in order to help the nation or its people. They are there purely to try and make Obama look bad.

And I've got problems with Obama, but my god, when has the House of Representatives even legislated wholly from a philosophy of "How do we make this guy look bad, even if it means blowing up the US economy and literally wasting billions of US tax dollars?" (since we'll be paying even higher interest rates on our existing debts).

Really, it needs to be said because we've normalized so much fuckwitted craziness from the Republicans that I catch myself at times saying out loud "Gee, Boehner and Cantor would rather the US fail if it means they get Obama's approval numbers to go down by a few points."

I mean, that should be a shocking-as-fuck revelation but no, I just kind of mutter it and go back to work.

At least Rome had some cool orgies before it died. We just have TV pundits reminding us how "it's both parties' faults."

Fuck me.
posted by bardic at 12:47 AM on July 25, 2011 [9 favorites]


For all their free-market, tax-cutting bluster, if the Republicans are seriously considering a move that would be so devastating to American business, they are becoming too erratic and ideological even for business interests.

In case the thread hasn't already had a Godwin moment, let me point out that Hitler became Chancellor despite falling votes in sucessive elections because key millitary and industrial/business interests were sure he'd be a useful, easily-managed puppet. I would not assume that "business interests" are automatically going to say, "too nuts". "Business interests" have backed all sorts of horrid and crazy bullshit if it helps the bottom line.

I'm not sure there's a significant difference, economically, between printing money and borrowing money.

Sure there is. Printing money fucks you. Borrowing money fucks people you don't care about, like grandchildren.

China loves oil. Can't get enough of it. Maybe we could sell off Alaska to China to pay our debts, like the Russian Czar did to the US in the late 1800s. With a proviso that the Chinese have to take Sarah Palin, I think this would solve several problems at once.

It's funny you should say that, because I've heard from people involved in the commodities business are shit-scared that China essentially has a proposal to start swapping debt for commodities (subsidy-generated grain mountains and the like) with the US. They're scared because this will completely root the economies of countries like Australia and New Zealand, although I suppose it could have some entertaining effects on the US landscape if they're effectively sent to the poorhouse.

If this is true it represents a total capitulation to Republican demands.

If it's true, never you mind your pretty little head, Papa Ironmouth will be along to explain why impoverishing the poor is, like running Gitmo, something liberals should vote for, often and hard.

I think you guys have me deeply confused with Mutant.

Man, where is Mutant when we need him to explain this shit.

(humanfront arguing for slavery. Stay classy!)
posted by rodgerd at 12:52 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Are you Americans worried about the fact that the rest of the world is surely looking at all of this and thinking, "shit we really need to update that post-USA plan we had kicking around."

I mean defaulting on debts, even if it doesn't really mean the apocalypse, it can't be a good thing can it?
posted by fullerine at 2:33 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


(humanfront arguing for slavery. Stay classy!)

That's a disgusting accusation. I've made no such argument.
posted by humanfont at 4:06 AM on July 25, 2011


WSJ liveblog, posted 7:36 AM

Concerns over the impact of Greece’s latest financial-rescue deal and the glacial pace of negotiations to raise the U.S. debt ceiling unnerved investors Monday, giving the Swiss franc and Japanese yen a boost.

The dollar hit an all-time low against the Swiss currency at 0.8021 franc, while the buck dropped to another post-intervention low of ¥78.06, as traders flocked toward traditional safe havens. Gold prices climbed to a fresh record high of $1,623.49 a troy ounce, while European equities fell from the open, led down by financial stocks.

“It’s quite a choppy start to the week and this is set to continue with plenty of big data events on the horizon,” said Ian Stannard, senior currency strategist at Morgan Stanley.

The euro traded recently at $1.4378, compared with $1.4358 late Friday in New York. The dollar was at ¥78.21 recently, from ¥78.55, while the euro was at ¥112.45 from ¥112.98. Meanwhile, the pound slipped to $1.6277 from $1.6300. The ICE Dollar Index, which tracks the greenback against a basket of currencies, was at 74.087 compared with 74.242 late Friday.

posted by angrycat at 4:48 AM on July 25, 2011


At least Rome had some cool orgies before it died. We just have TV pundits reminding us how "it's both parties' faults."

Fuck me.

Wouldn't that post be better directed to Projects or IRL?
posted by humanfont at 5:17 AM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


“It’s quite a choppy start to the week and this is set to continue with plenty of big data events on the horizon,”

Looks fairly normal to me. The dollar is weak, the yen is strong. Oil is down a bit, gold is up a bit. US stock futures are down enough to make for a not unusual bad day in the market. Treasuries look a bit weak today compared to other big sovereign debt, but nothing too exciting.

It's really amazing how many people I am seeing making note of the fact that the markets didn't crash yet. Was fairly silly to expect them to do so exactly at this moment. For all the noise about it, I expect people with money are still fairly confident that the US will not default. Even if there is no deal by August 2, I wouldn't really expect things to blow up exactly then. My guess is that deadline will have been set fairly conservatively, and they'll be able to come up with some more clever accounting tricks to keep things going for some brief period of time beyond that while the legislators take another week to work things out.

It seems unlikely, but if there is some kind of big move I'll be a bit hesitant to blame it entirely on this. Unless there actually is a default, it'll be more of a catalyst than a cause.

As for the interest rate on US debt, well I don't know much about the bond market but since they hit the debt limit a while back, issuance has been limited to replacing maturing debt. I've heard that this is somewhat significant, but don't really know. It may be supporting prices for now. Thus rates could start going up when they approve the debt limit increase. If so, people will probably interpret this as the market not being pleased with whatever "trillion dollars over ten years" resolutions were made or not made, whether or not that has anything to do with it.
posted by sfenders at 5:27 AM on July 25, 2011


Yeah, not a trader or anything, but we've heard from a couple who are, and they apparently agree with me that these market moves don't seem statistically significant. The chatterers have to assign meaning, though, a la Taleb, so they are doing so.
posted by adamdschneider at 5:39 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


What were they thinking?
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.”

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.”
Fuck
posted by crayz at 5:47 AM on July 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


I must have Debt Ceiling Fatigue, because it's getting to the point where I almost sympathize with the Disgruntled Burger Shack Employee Party. I had really hoped that the start of the dark age could wait until after I was dead, but I'm getting a little sick of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:05 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Let's talk a little more about whose fault it is within the context of the US legislature (you know--the body that's constitutionally mandated to be the sole authority for budget making), since, you know, they're the only ones with actual, specific political authority in this process until it gets to the signing stage. Reid and other Dems deserve a hell of a lot more blame than the symbolic totem-head of the party, if we're going to look at whatever blame lies on the Dem side (Obama's greatest weakness is his trust in the process). But even with the incredibly misinformation rich US media, it's almost impossible for me to imagine how anyone with half a brain could fail to recognize the blame lies overwhelmingly at the feet of a Republican House that's brazenly and obviously intent on playing chicken with the future of the entire world economy. At any rate, someone owes me a beer.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:52 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


U.S. debt to China is about $1.1T as of December 2010, 26% of our total debt. (treasury.gov)

No, China doesn't hold 26% of total debt.

China holds 26% of (US debt held by foreigners).

Total US debt is actually $14.3 trillion, so China holds 7.7% of US debt.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:58 AM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


Huh. Now the House Dems are rejecting Reid's idea, as per NPR
posted by angrycat at 7:03 AM on July 25, 2011


Obama said he would release the tick tock. Any news on this?
posted by futz at 7:48 AM on July 25, 2011


Maybe this is all some three-dimensional chess shit on Obama's behalf to appear like the most reasonable guy in the room and get a Dem landslide in 2012, taking Congress, and then giving us a New New Deal so liberal that it makes FDR look like John Boehner. Right guys? Right?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:08 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm so sick of the doom and gloom in this whole fucking unbelievable shit storm of fear and disinformation.

This is really one of those "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself moments." Anything short of an artificial crisis via default and the attendant and necessary shock (as in Shock Doctrine), the GOTP requires to force it's extreme anti-working/middle class swill so it can put forth and pass its oligarchic and corporatist ALEC driven, Randian inspired horseshit without losing populist support, is a loss for them. Period.

They're in the process of an historical over-reaching here, because they're so desperate and out of touch and terrified of the irrelevance they see just over the horizon for themselves as a party so they feel they need for this repellent behavior. Honestly, has any party, in any other time short of before the Civil war and in the early ages of the Cold war so terrorized it's own people unnecessarily? This is an incredible harassment of a people that are supposed to not only own the government, but BE the government, but more importantly not supposed to ever ever be in FEAR and oppressed and held hostage by it's government.

The GOTP is done. There's really not much left at this point, but for this sad drama to play itself out.

Let them, dare to make the country default. There's not enough collection agencies to deal with the amount of money that will go unpaid, and not enough fire departments to put out the burning banks and not enough paid mercenaries to protect the TEa Party CLowns and the GOldman Sachs parasites and let the credit rating agencies try and ruin people's ratings because of this and watch how quickly they're made redundant and put out of business.

A depression, any kind of depression is going to be at the foot of the Breivik breeding racist, small-minded desperate and incredibly stupid assclown neo-monarchist tri-corner wearing fuckers who think they're a "revolution," when in fact they're proto-fascist shock troops brownshirts for the American fascism known as American Exceptionalism.

They're not winning this. As I said, anything less than a default is a loss for them, because the Reichstag-like crisis they need to grab power won't happen. And if it does, the GOTP will have unleashed forces and backlash if the country goes into the Tea Party Depression that it will be sorry it ever, ever thought it could get away with this shit.
posted by Skygazer at 8:10 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The "tick tock"?

Please, nobody explain what this actually is ('cause it's probably something banal). Let's all just imagine what it might be.

When Obama finally releases the tick tock, time shakes off its shackles and we careen madly ahead.
posted by notyou at 8:11 AM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


COME ON, OB1QUIXOTE, LET'S BURN IT DOWN!
posted by ivey at 8:12 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oooh Reid's plan is sneaky. Gives them 2.7 in cuts for 2.7 in debt ceiling raises. 'Cept the bulk of the 2.7 comes from Iraq and Afghanistan drawdown, and still has Bush tax cuts ending in 2012. Allowing GOP to take full brunt for the Ryan vote earlier.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:22 AM on July 25, 2011


Maybe Bo has now grown into a ferocious hound; you see, poor Bo has been in the basement of the WH, trained to attack anything that smells of the House.

Bo's new name? 'Tick-tock.'
posted by angrycat at 8:23 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Tick tock is the term used for the timeline (meeting minutes) of the negotiations, a blow by blow of what happened. He said he would release it to refute Boehner's description of the events and why he walked out.
posted by futz at 8:25 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Dammit, futz. I asked nicely.
posted by notyou at 8:28 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Please, no one post a New York Review of Books analysis of all this that was published on the 19th, probably written days before that .That's about a year ago, in practical terms, although it doesn't hurt to reiterate how insane this whole debate has been. I'm expecting a 14th Amendment or emergency maneuver (as suggested by super-wonk law prof Eric Posner and Harvard Law's Adrian Vermeule) from the White House at this point, however, and am surprised that it hasn't been brought up in this ridiculously long thread.
posted by raysmj at 8:31 AM on July 25, 2011


I'm expecting a 14th Amendment or emergency maneuver...from the White House at this point, however, and am surprised that it hasn't been brought up in this ridiculously long thread.

It has. Several times.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:36 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Tick Tock is journalist jargon for a minute-by-minute breakdown of a story.
posted by empath at 8:39 AM on July 25, 2011


REPENT BOEHNER! Said the Tick Tock man
posted by The Whelk at 8:42 AM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


The Tick-Tock man was an important figure in I think Ozma of Oz. So, make of that what you will.
posted by angrycat at 8:45 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Please, nobody wave a magic wand and transport me to a place where Tories don't exist and Manchester Utd have collapsed into a smoking hole of debt.
posted by fullerine at 8:46 AM on July 25, 2011


Tick Tock is journalist jargon for a minute-by-minute breakdown of a story.

And here I thought Ke$ha might finally be on hand to explain.
posted by mynameisluka at 8:52 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I searched for 14th Amendment yesterday, nothing came up. Now, I see it's in there three or four times, but once to blow off someone else's opinion. It certainly hasn't been seriously discussed at all, and Posner and Co.'s rather prominent opinion hasn't been discussed at all.
posted by raysmj at 8:53 AM on July 25, 2011


The Tick-Tock man was an important figure in I think Ozma of Oz. So, make of that what you will.

Nuts to that, this is actually an elaborate stealth hype for an eighth Dark Tower book, in which Stephen King self-inserts himself as an author who self-inserts himself into congressional proceedings at the last minute to save a line-item provision for CDC funding in order to prevent a looming alternate-timeline outbreak of Captain Trips.
posted by cortex at 8:55 AM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Have the markets plummeted yet?
posted by mrgrimm at 8:56 AM on July 25, 2011


Not particularly -- US markets down about 0.40% today -- not at all a remarkable move.
posted by Perplexity at 8:57 AM on July 25, 2011


Nah, my bunker has a bidet.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:05 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


There's not going to be a huge change in stock prices no matter what happens. Markets price in uncertainty and doubt.
posted by empath at 9:19 AM on July 25, 2011


There's not going to be a huge change in stock prices no matter what happens. Markets price in uncertainty and doubt.

Comedy gold
posted by crayz at 9:26 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


If you think the impact of a US debt default is just hype, TYRR, you're either too wealthy to, or sadly mistaken. If the US defaults on its debt, we really are all kinds of screwed, even if the trading markets don't seem to care right now.

This is seriously historic shit. It's not hype. Why is it that a certain significant chunk of the US population increasingly seems to think that nothing that ever happens during their lifetimes is actually historically momentous or significant?

Is it because, every few days, the US national press hypes some insignificant small town local news or celebrity scandal story to the level of national crisis every few days? Has the US media's drumbeat of doom-and-gloom sensationalism completely short-circuited our ability to collectively gauge the actual relevance and importance of major historical developments? I'm starting to think the intransigent US broadcast media are directly and indirectly responsible for a lot of our current problems.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:26 AM on July 25, 2011 [11 favorites]


That empath, he's not a real Dr. Economist

I have a Masters Degree !

-- in Economics!
posted by angrycat at 9:27 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"too wealthy to care" -- typing skills not much use today, apparently.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:27 AM on July 25, 2011


This is seriously historic shit. It's not hype.

It might end up being historic. Or it might be like every other debt ceiling negotiation, the others you don't even remember. Check back in a few weeks to see which one.
posted by smackfu at 9:31 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




Nah, my bunker has a bidet.

True dat.
posted by mazola at 9:34 AM on July 25, 2011


Have the markets plummeted yet?

Meh, sitting at down 0.3% as of 12:30 Eastern. Only other signs bouncing around are that the US Dollar is hitting multi-year lows against some currencies, notably the Swiss Franc and Japanese Yen. Gold is at a new high, hit around $1623/oz and is hovering around $1615.

The Volatility Index (VIX) is up significantly from last week to around 19, but that's not really saying much. 19 indicates that the stock market is active. To give some comparisons on the VIX, it was around 40-50 in the worst of the dot-com bubble and hit the 80's during the clusterfuck of 2008-09. In quiet times the VIX hovers between 10-15.

Wait for Moody's or S&P to drop the rating to see "action."
posted by Mister Fabulous at 9:41 AM on July 25, 2011


rodgerd wrote: Sure there is. Printing money fucks you. Borrowing money fucks people you don't care about, like grandchildren.

Pithy repetitions of the conventional wisdom aren't particularly helpful.
posted by wierdo at 9:46 AM on July 25, 2011


This is seriously historic shit. It's not hype.

The US doesn't have any endemic economic problems that would cause it to not be able to meet it's debt obligations. We're not Greece. This is just political bullshit.
posted by empath at 9:49 AM on July 25, 2011


The US doesn't have any endemic economic problems that would cause it to not be able to meet it's debt obligations. We're not Greece. This is just political bullshit.

You seem to have missed the point that the "political bullshit" is the endemic fucking problem in America. If America had a functioning, rational political system, this thread wouldn't exist. And yet, here we are
posted by crayz at 9:58 AM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]




The US doesn't have any endemic economic problems that would cause it to not be able to meet it's debt obligations. We're not Greece. This is just political bullshit.

Look at what happened in California.
posted by humanfont at 10:15 AM on July 25, 2011


Something is very very wrong when I agree with the IMF. *sigh*
posted by symbioid at 10:17 AM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


It might end up being historic.

Well, I said a US debt default would be historic, didn't I? It's also pretty unprecedented for the debt ceiling to be used in this way, as an instrument of extortion, since raising it has always been more or less treated as a routine bookkeeping matter until the "any means necessary" legislative philosophy of the nihilistic set in the legislature took hold.

The US doesn't have any endemic economic problems that would cause it to not be able to meet it's debt obligations. We're not Greece. This is just political bullshit.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we will be in the hole as of right now: we've only got about 40% of the cash available to meet our current budget obligations. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, bills that are due now can't be paid because we won't be allowed, legally, to borrow the money to pay for them. Do you not understand what the debt ceiling is? It's not raising the borrowing we can do in the future, it's allowing us to borrow what we've already committed to borrowing for previously adopted spending.

We won't have any money (and won't be allowed to perform the previously budgeted borrowing) to pay something like roughly half the bills that come due in August if the ceiling isn't raised. It's not just a long term confidence issue. It's an immediate, we start not paying about half the federal government's bills because we don't have enough cash in our account problem. Here's an explainer from the treasury (.PDF).

And as has been noted: "Technically the military should not get paid" in the event of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. That's only the tip of the iceburg.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:18 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


If we don't raise the debt ceiling, bills that are due now can't be paid because we won't be allowed, legally, to borrow the money to pay for them. Do you not understand what the debt ceiling is?

There's 0 chance that the federal government will fail to pay it's obligations. None. It will not happen.
posted by empath at 10:21 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


If the debt ceiling isn't raised, you're absolutely wrong. Right now, we have less than half the money on hand (even with the Treasury using creative accounting tricks to redirect money) to pay what we currently owe in the month of August.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, we can't actually realize any of the debt that was assumed by the previous congress' budget. Legally, we can't fill the operational revenue gap with the debt we've already budgeted.

You're in denial.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:26 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Well, maybe they'll do it illegally. It's not like the law is always the best bulwark against government action.
posted by adamdschneider at 10:27 AM on July 25, 2011


Couldn't the US Treasury just write a check, backdate it, put it in the mail, and hope that it reaches creditors after the debt ceiling deadlock has been resolved?
posted by KokuRyu at 10:28 AM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Also, from what I've been reading, the major concern isn't exactly the default on the debts, but rather our credit rating dropping because of how difficult it is to do something that should be a routine part of government, and that drop triggering a contagion effect in the world markets.

Is that hype, or is there a realistic possibility that could happen?
posted by codacorolla at 10:29 AM on July 25, 2011


And don't think we can just print our way out of the problem: if we printed that much cash that quickly to meet our obligations, we'd see the US dollar become worthless overnight.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:29 AM on July 25, 2011


If it comes down to it (I don't think it will), the executive branch will just use the 14th amendment option and congress will do fuck-all about it. I'm sure some hard core conservatives will talk impeachment, but it won't go anywhere.
posted by empath at 10:35 AM on July 25, 2011


The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has called on US politicians to act urgently to raise the country's debt ceiling.

Somehow I don't think the Tea Partiers are going to be moved by Lagarde's exhortations.
posted by homunculus at 10:37 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


empath: "If it comes down to it (I don't think it will), the executive branch will just use the 14th amendment option and congress will do fuck-all about it. I'm sure some hard core conservatives will talk impeachment, but it won't go anywhere."

This would probably be the best possible outcome, since it effectively takes the hostage away from the republicans permanently. The credit agencies would no longer need to worry about the threat of default being used as political football.
posted by mullingitover at 10:39 AM on July 25, 2011


I hope you're right empath, but that scenario, too, would involve some "historical shit."
posted by saulgoodman at 10:40 AM on July 25, 2011


If the Republicans had any sense at all, which they don't, they would make "anything but the 14th Amendment!" the new "don't throw me in the briar patch!" Painting Obama as a power-hungry emperor would fold nicely into their branding, while also averting both a financial disaster and a face-losing deal where the Republicans have to agree to raise taxes.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:43 AM on July 25, 2011


If we don't raise the debt ceiling, bills that are due now can't be paid because we won't be allowed, legally, to borrow the money to pay for them. Do you not understand what the debt ceiling is?

There's 0 chance that the federal government will fail to pay it's obligations. None. It will not happen.


That's simply not true. You cannot say that. I pray to Jesus you are right, but we do not know that for certain.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:50 AM on July 25, 2011


Sticherbeast: "Painting Obama as a power-hungry emperor would fold nicely into their branding"

I don't know if that's going to work. Polling indicates that they're on the hook for this 'crisis' in the eyes of the populace. I don't think it's power madness to attempt to save the entire world economy from meltdown. Personally, I would still consider Obama to be just and prudent if he arrested the entire republican caucus and put them in Guantanamo. They're certainly a greater threat to the country and our way of life than anyone currently lodged there.

Regardless of the outcome, the republicans have permanently lost all claim to being 'the party of fiscal responsibility.'
posted by mullingitover at 10:52 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


The fix is in. The markets are trending down a very little bit a quarter of a percent or so - if there was a serious chance of default, they'd be in panic mode. The indices would have tanked, hard. The big movers on wall street know something we don't.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:54 AM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I don't know if that's going to work. Polling indicates that they're on the hook for this 'crisis' in the eyes of the populace. I don't think it's power madness to attempt to save the entire world economy from meltdown.

Once upon a time, the country supported a national health care system, but then right-wing spin doctors were able to push the country against so-called Obamacare. Sad but true. Should Obama make an executive power grab on constitutional grounds, people will be able to reconcile in their heads the narrative that "everything worked out" with the narrative that Obama chose to act without Congress' consent.

The big movers on wall street know something we don't.

But that's impossible, we're people on the internet.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:55 AM on July 25, 2011


mullingitover: "Regardless of the outcome, the republicans have permanently lost all claim to being 'the party of fiscal responsibility.'"

Voters have a short memory. As long as the Republicans keep using that slogan, people will believe it.
posted by narwhal bacon at 11:00 AM on July 25, 2011


The big movers on wall street know something we don't.

The "big movers" on wall street these days are electronic trading algorithms, so I wouldn't put much stock in their behavior until it starts getting erratic.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:12 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The "big movers" on wall street these days are electronic trading algorithms, so I wouldn't put much stock in their behavior until it starts getting erratic.

I'm curious how many of the algorithms even have "US Debt AAA to AA+" coded in.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:19 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Voters have a short memory. As long as the Republicans keep using that slogan, people will believe it.

People who vote Republican against their best interests are not the problem. The real problem is low voter turnout - mobilizing folks who don't normally vote was how Obama won the presidency.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:28 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The "big movers" on wall street these days are electronic trading algorithms, so I wouldn't put much stock in their behavior until it starts getting erratic.

They are also spending money on "high class" prostitutes. Or they were until their hangout was busted.

A high-end prostitution ring catering to Wall Street clients who often would spend over $10,000 for a night bingeing on sex and cocaine has been busted and 17 people indicted, authorities said on Wednesday.
posted by futz at 11:31 AM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


@northernlightgardener: DailyKos allows for dissenting opinion without getting banned by an administrator. RedState bans dissenting users. Free Republic bans dissenting users. At least online, the right refuses to debate or allow diverging opinions and retreats into safe havens. It doesn't seem as if the right wants to enter into debates in the online realm; why are they more likely to enter into debates offline?
posted by DetriusXii at 11:37 AM on July 25, 2011


DetriusXii: "At least online, the right refuses to debate or allow diverging opinions and retreats into safe havens."

Well, obviously. This goes along with fascism's preoccupation with purity.
posted by mullingitover at 11:40 AM on July 25, 2011


Even if there is no deal & August 2 comes and goes without causing total economic apocalypse, this process has already caused tons of damage. Part of what gets politicians elected (especially ones like Obama and Clinton and Reagan and Kennedy) is their ability to inspire some sort of optimism and hope in the people. "Market sentiment" and general attitude does have a real effect on financial systems and recessions and political institutions. Is there any optimism at all right now on either side? Two wars (plus Libya), a mortgage crisis and economic meltdown we haven't recovered from yet, an inoperable Congress, combined with maybe the worst drought of all time combine to give the feeling that not only do voters not feel much optimism about the future, neither do the politicians.
posted by mattbucher at 11:41 AM on July 25, 2011


Earlier I wrote: "...we have less than half the money on hand"

That's actually not quite accurate. We have about 60% of the money on hand (so we're short to the tune of about 40%). It's not really a significant difference, but I apologize for slightly overstating the gap.

posted by saulgoodman at 11:46 AM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


DailyKos allows for dissenting opinion without getting banned by an administrator.

Not entirely true.
posted by empath at 11:50 AM on July 25, 2011


The offices of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist were briefly evacuated on Monday after a bomb scare.
"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.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:53 AM on July 25, 2011




Not entirely true.

Can you elaborate? As it stands, your comment is fairly unenlightening.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:55 AM on July 25, 2011


Aside from comments getting troll rated into oblivion by other posters, he's banned people for pushing 'voter fraud' stories on the site. I don't keep up with DKos much, but they have banned people and continue to ban people from expressing dissenting opinions.
posted by empath at 11:59 AM on July 25, 2011


Dear America,

Everything OK down there? We hear a lot of screaming. Do you want to talk about it?
Hey, while I'm down here, need any more oil?

Warmth and concern,
Canada.
posted by Theta States at 11:59 AM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


America's Cold Civil War, Ctd
posted by homunculus at 12:04 PM on July 25, 2011


Dear Canada
Thanks for your kind note of concern. Sorry to hear about that Harper situation. Hope it clears up on its own.

USA
posted by humanfont at 12:05 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


Some numbers I've heard bandied around is that the daily revenue after August 2 is about 9-10 times the amount of interest due on the debt, which means that the US wouldn't default on its debt in the technical sense. The Bipartisan Policy Center (I have no idea about their reputation) seems to confirm this (although I am really illiterate about economics).

The conservatives I've seen use this as an argument for the debt ceiling being a hype don't seem to have any further thoughts of the implications it would have on the economy when the US isn't able to pay its other obligations, though.
posted by Bukvoed at 12:05 PM on July 25, 2011


Some numbers I've heard bandied around is that the daily revenue after August 2 is about 9-10 times the amount of interest due on the debt, which means that the US wouldn't default on its debt in the technical sense.

The debt isn't just t-bills. The government owes a lot of money to contractors and vendors, etc, also.
posted by empath at 12:08 PM on July 25, 2011


Dear Canada
Thanks for your kind note of concern. Sorry to hear about that Harper situation. Hope it clears up on its own.

USA


PS: Send us some socialized medicine and a big order of poutine.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:10 PM on July 25, 2011 [17 favorites]


A high-end prostitution ring catering to Wall Street clients ...

Bruno added that many of the clients could possibly be forced to pay fines of up to $250 in addition to attending a one-night multiple hour educational program for "Johns,"


TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS?? MULTIPLE HOURS?? the horror
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:11 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Go ahead and write a diary on DailyKos supporting the tea party and than get back to us. You could also try writing a comment supporting them and see how long before you are hide rated.

The purpose of DailyKos is explicitly partisan. There is nothing wrong with that from either side.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:11 PM on July 25, 2011


*then post one asking for an edit window.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:12 PM on July 25, 2011


The more I hear about the Reid plan, the more I like it. No cuts to entitlements, no revenue increases. The Republicans in the House look even more insane if they don't go for it; Boehner ends up looking incompetent in his leadership of the house for not getting the 'grand bargain'' and entitlements are spared so the left is somewhat satisfied.
posted by angrycat at 12:13 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


"The US doesn't have any endemic economic problems that would cause it to not be able to meet it's debt obligations. We're not Greece. This is just political bullshit.

Look at what happened in California."


That, too, is just political bullshit.

The problem California faces is essentially the same as what we see in the Federal government. The GOP is all about cutting taxes, predominantly on the rich, without any serious concern for the deficit. Taxes are far too low on the rich.

(And I say this as someone who has a significant amount socked away, and who stands to lose money if the right kind of taxes are implemented.)
posted by markkraft at 12:16 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The purpose of DailyKos is explicitly partisan. There is nothing wrong with that from either side.

I'm 100% in favor of people who are ideologically aligned having a place to hash out strategy and the details of their agenda without having to constantly re-hash foundational arguments. If you're going to have a meaningful political conversation, some axiomatic beliefs just have to be taken for granted.

If you want 100% unmoderated comments where conservatives and liberals argue with each other, look no further than comments section of any newspaper. And it's a cesspool.

One place, btw, where I've been consistently impressed by the discussions between liberals and conservatives has been the Corner at the National Review. It's generally intelligent, polite and respectful. I don't know how much it's moderated, though.

I also like the way Andrew Sullivan handles it, which is he just has interns read all the email and he posts the best of the best (which i guess is the old-school letters to the editor style). He can sometimes have intelligent conversations go on between both sides for weeks and weeks that way.
posted by empath at 12:17 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Dear Canada:

Scratch that. No poutine.

My arteries
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:22 PM on July 25, 2011




Dear Canada:
Scratch that. No poutine.
My arteries

Well someone has to eat all this smoked-meat poutine...



Dear Canada
Thanks for your kind note of concern. Sorry to hear about that Harper situation. Hope it clears up on its own.
USA

Please send ointment.
posted by Theta States at 12:36 PM on July 25, 2011


TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS?? MULTIPLE HOURS?? the horror

When you're an "electronic trading algorithm", multiple hours is a long time.
posted by sfenders at 12:43 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Why is it acceptable to everyone in Washington that the ratings agencies have so much power in this situation? I mean, it seems to me like S&P is saying, "hey America, that's a nice credit rating you have there! It'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it, like say, just for example, if you didn't cut 'entitlements' like we want you to...."

How is that not outright coercion by Wall Street? I mean, even if they're right about Social Security in the long run, that sure seems like an awful lot of power over the US government for a private, totally undemocratic institution to have.
posted by dialetheia at 12:43 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Debt Ceiling: In Points & Pictures Links and pictures presented with minimal commentary.

From the FRED paper entitled "The Federal Debt: What's the Source of the Increase in Spending?":
posted by dejah420 at 12:44 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The more I hear about the Reid plan, the more I like it. No cuts to entitlements, no revenue increases.

Yes, and the meat of the cuts are mystical accounting tricks, like ending the wars, cutting fraud and waste, etc, not actual cuts to actual programs. So at the end of the day, the Dems may not get revenue raisers but they give up pretty much nothing of substance and the debt limit increase gets passed anyway. Works for me.
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:54 PM on July 25, 2011


Why is it acceptable to everyone in Washington that the ratings agencies have so much power in this situation? I mean, it seems to me like S&P is saying, "hey America, that's a nice credit rating you have there! It'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it, like say, just for example, if you didn't cut 'entitlements' like we want you to...."

How is that not outright coercion by Wall Street? I mean, even if they're right about Social Security in the long run, that sure seems like an awful lot of power over the US government for a private, totally undemocratic institution to have.


I cannot speak for the US, but the political acceptability of rating agencies' power has been seriously questioned in the EU. Some of this is posturing, more is outright exasperation, but there is a core of truth that the crisis of 2008 exposed their flaws yet not lessened their power in the continuing sovereign debt crisis.
posted by Jehan at 12:57 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


dialetheia: "Why is it acceptable to everyone in Washington that the ratings agencies have so much power in this situation?"

Washington has all the power. The ratings agencies are merely observing the potential risks in purchasing debt from the United States, and reporting their findings. Yes, they're flawed. However that doesn't mean they're wrong if they report that US debt is no longer a 100% sure thing thanks to the current threats to default on the debt (for example, 60 House republicans have pledged to vote 'no' on a debt limit increase no matter what).
posted by mullingitover at 1:01 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




I know it seems really surreal, but with the exception of the hedge fund traders, a majority of institutional trading is now apparently automated. As a programmer myself, that thought terrifies me.

According to Simon, on the traditional side, Tabb found 80 percent of traditional institutional asset managers were using some sort of algorithm because “it is cheap and efficient”.

So those traders frequenting that Wall Street prostitution ring mentioned up-thread? Just choke on this: Not only do some of these traders have 100,000 a pop in disposable income on hand to blow on cocaine and, well, just blow, the most complicated parts of their jobs have been automated for them by the "code monkeys" working all night in the basement, so those guys are really living large.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:07 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Why is it acceptable to everyone in Washington that the ratings agencies have so much power in this situation?

It goes beyond Washington and out to every state and municipality. Most of them have rules in their investments, pensions, retirement programs, etc. that they must invest in only AAA bonds and nothing lower. If the rating dips, there will be a shitstorm of all of those "investors" yanking their money out of treasuries because they are required to. The threat of a credit rating drop is more freaky than just the "default" portion of this game.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:07 PM on July 25, 2011


That is the stupidest thing I've read all day.

At least until Obama offers to resign from office as a compromise.

(Kidding! Mostly.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:08 PM on July 25, 2011


Cantor was just on TV. What kind of rhetorical wordjitsu was that crap?

"We're not getting everything we want, and you're not getting anything you want. So neither side is getting everything they want! See? Compromise!!"
posted by Rhaomi at 1:10 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Cantor looks like someone wearing a rubber mask of thier own face.
posted by The Whelk at 1:12 PM on July 25, 2011 [16 favorites]


Not only do some of these traders have 100,000 a pop in disposable income on hand to blow on cocaine and, well, just blow, the most complicated parts of their jobs have been automated for them by the "code monkeys" working all night in the basement, so those guys are really living large.

My life went so, so wrong when I unknowingly failed to follow whatever path leads to a job like this.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:15 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I work with a bunch of Republicans and I cannot wait for my impending retirement because I find it, on a daily basis, increasingly difficult to maintain the veneer of civility atop my cauldron of rage, at their behavior these past 11 years. Has any of them done ANYTHING but try to bring down Obama, and, on a longer term basis, the country?

These people are idiots, and very mean ones.
posted by Danf at 1:16 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


The ratings agencies are merely observing the potential risks in purchasing debt from the United States, and reporting their findings.

OK, I know how the ratings agencies are supposed to work and why their opinion is important, but my question is why they get to have such systemic power and why no one in Washington seems to be threatened by that or sees any need to regulate them. As far as I've been able to tell, there is almost no regulation of these agencies, and they made tons of terrible mistakes in the economic crisis. Why should anyone trust them to be impartial observers?

This article sort of answered my question - I guess Obama is already frustrated with S&P. Stuff like this is what I mean though, they're dictating economic policy from a position of power: "In October 2010, S&P said it wanted to see a meaningful deal to rein in long-term deficits within three to five years" ... with an implied "or else."
posted by dialetheia at 1:18 PM on July 25, 2011


In theory, investors should select what ratings agencies they'll listen to from among multiple independent ratings agencies based on different continents. Washington should have no power to compel journalists to praise their economic policies.

In practice, there is an enormous problem with ratings agencies under rating the riskiness of many investment vehicles, and manipulating the ratings is big business, witness the housing bubble.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:25 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Rep. King Says Obama Will Be Impeached If Government Defaults

My left arm just went numb.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:29 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Rep. King Says Obama Will Be Impeached If Government Defaults

and who's going to convict him? a senate with 53 members who vote with the democrats?

HAHAHAHAHA!
posted by pyramid termite at 1:38 PM on July 25, 2011




THIS SHIT JUST GOT REAL
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:41 PM on July 25, 2011


Yeah! They're going to wait for a better plan! Serious business.
posted by Theta States at 1:43 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




This is becoming more and more like a college football commentary. Not that that's a bad thing...
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:45 PM on July 25, 2011


Idea: pay off 25 Republicans to switch parties, then raise debt ceiling, raise taxes, increase spending and pass a resolution telling the Teabaggers to go eat a bag of dicks.

/dream
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


I'm glad the President's going to hit the TV airwaves tonight.

I hope he takes off the gloves. Knowing him he'll still be giving the GOTP ample room and respect to get their house in order, but maybe not. Maybe he'll just finally go into DEFCON 1 and present Boehner's and Cantor's heads on pikes.

One can hope.
posted by Skygazer at 1:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Another idea. . .

Throw the POTUS election, putting all resources into re-taking the House. And then let the Dem-controlled congress start rolling and endless line of wheelbarrows of crap up Pennsylvania Ave. to President Bachmann and she how she handles it. . .

Um, on second thought. . .
posted by Danf at 1:50 PM on July 25, 2011


If there was ever a time to take to the bully pulpit, it's now.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:50 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Maybe he'll just finally go into DEFCON 1 and present Boehner's and Cantor's heads on pikes.

Ooo! Can we quarter them and send the parts around the country?
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:50 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


This is becoming more and more like a college football commentary. Not that that's a bad thing...

"And today we bring you the long awaited match-up between Darwin and Faber Colleges ..."
posted by pyramid termite at 1:51 PM on July 25, 2011


My hope is to see Obama reimagine that scene from The Cook, His Wife, The Thief, and his Lover where that guy is forced to eat dog shit.

Eat it Boehner! Eat that shit!
posted by angrycat at 1:53 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Here's my crazy, paranoid, based-on-nothing theory: a bunch of smarty-pants hedge-fund managers have figured out how to actively fade (e.g. bet against) rather than simply hedge against the U.S. economy. Not a little bit here or there, but George Soros kind of numbers. This has always been theoretically possible but the novelty now is that this generation of money-guys has been bredto have absolutely no morals. Their intent is to clean out everybody's 401k, basically run the table of Wall Street. They made their bet, and they've found a way to pull enough strings on Capital Hill (hello, Eric Cantor!) to basically drive the whole thing off a cliff. It would be a great idea for an airport novel, but instead it's happening. Please someone tell me why this couldn't possibly be the real story?
posted by newdaddy at 1:58 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


DailyKos allows for dissenting opinion without getting banned by an administrator.

I have disproven this. Repeatedly.
posted by Trurl at 2:00 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm furiousxxgeorge there for a reason.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:04 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


raysmj, I think upwards of 7 posters in this thread have discussed the 14th Amendment possibility. Also, Posner and Vermuele can be as prominent as they want to be, but their Op-Ed and general argument is, in a charitable view, specious and baseless. The more moderate and accurate direct readings of Article 4 would allow action and, if the courts took it on, probably create a legal avenue around this mess.
posted by Chipmazing at 2:09 PM on July 25, 2011


newdaddy: "Here's my crazy, paranoid, based-on-nothing theory: a bunch of smarty-pants hedge-fund managers have figured out how to actively fade (e.g. bet against) rather than simply hedge against the U.S. economy"

Oh, that's not tricky at all. There are a number of funds you can buy into that increase in value in multiples of how much the stock market falls. The trick is getting the economy to crash for you without a torches-and-pitchforks mob finding out about it.
posted by mullingitover at 2:10 PM on July 25, 2011


The thing with the 14th is that Obama and his lawyers both think it is unconstitutional. He has overridden his legal advisers before, but I don't think he would do it when he agrees with them and consciously do something he considers illegal.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:12 PM on July 25, 2011


Maybe Obama just said he thinks it's unconstitutional.
posted by newdaddy at 2:14 PM on July 25, 2011


Oh, that's not tricky at all. There are a number of funds you can buy into that increase in value in multiples of how much the stock market falls. The trick is getting the economy to crash for you without a torches-and-pitchforks mob finding out about it.

Eric Cantor is shorting treasury bonds, isn't he? I dearly hope this leads to torches and pitchforks for him.
posted by stavrogin at 2:14 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh, that's not tricky at all. There are a number of funds you can buy into that increase in value in multiples of how much the stock market falls. The trick is getting the economy to crash for you without a torches-and-pitchforks mob finding out about it.

The repercusions for the people and companies that bet against the market the last time was giant bags of money.
posted by Theta States at 2:14 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The thing with the 14th is that Obama and his lawyers both think it is unconstitutional. He has overridden his legal advisers before, but I don't think he would do it when he agrees with them and consciously do something he considers illegal.

That does put a different spin on things.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:15 PM on July 25, 2011


I have disproven this. Repeatedly.

we know, we know
posted by pyramid termite at 2:18 PM on July 25, 2011


stavrogin: "Eric Cantor is shorting treasury bonds, isn't he? I dearly hope this leads to torches and pitchforks for him."

Wow. I'm surprised this isn't front page news. Conflict of interest much?
posted by mullingitover at 2:20 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Dumb Canadian here: What is this "14th Amendment option"? I looked it up on Wikipedia, but it didn't say anything about kicking Republicans in the junk so I don't know why everyone's so excited about it.
posted by Zozo at 2:21 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

Granted, maybe that's what he meant by "not persuaded that that is a winning argument", but if you know of somewhere where he was actually explicit that he and his lawyers both think it is unconstitutional -- or even merely that he is not persuaded that it's a winning argument -- could you please point it out? Thanks.
posted by Flunkie at 2:21 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Cut, Cap, Balance Coalition, the group of conservative groups pushing for a balanced budget amendment as part of a debt limit deal, says Boehner’s latest proposal for cutting spending in return for raising the borrowing limit “falls short” of its principles. The CCB group particularly doesn’t like the idea of a new congressional commission to ferret out spending cuts. The CCB concludes that those who have signed its pledge oppose the new Boehner plan “and hold out for a better plan.” The CCB group’s website counts 12 senators and 39 House members as pledge signers.

Seriously, they went into this without an endgame. They had no idea what they were doing. None. They have no unity in their own caucus. None. Boehner cannot deliver his caucus. He cannot pick up his share of governance. The GOP refuses to govern.

This is got to be the most important speech the President will ever give.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:22 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


What is this "14th Amendment option"?

Wiki: Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, several English and French banks had lent money to the South during the war.[48] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."[49]

Essentially the idea is that it would be unconstitutional not to pay our debts.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2011


And the "option" would be for Obama to point to the 14th Amendment and say "we're paying them, go piss up a rope"?
posted by Zozo at 2:24 PM on July 25, 2011


Flunkie, I think that should be read as "Not a winning legal argument."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:25 PM on July 25, 2011




So which would get the chattering class more in an uproar? A trillion dollar coin or ignoring the debt limit and blaming it on the 14th?
posted by wierdo at 2:27 PM on July 25, 2011


What is this "14th Amendment option"?

The 14th Amendment, Section 4 states:

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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The option is that the President can simply declare that we will pay the debts no-matter-what by having the Treasury pay them. This is against the debt limit laws in place. The question is whether this would be against the law or against the Constitution. There is an obvious risk of impeachment and the "who knows wtf they'll say" risk with sending it to the Supreme Court for the constitutional questions. The Supreme Court could say the debt limit laws are unconstitutional, they could say Obama broke the law. Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to what they would do.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:28 PM on July 25, 2011


Ohhhhhh how I long for GOP humiliation. I am a bad person, I guess. But I want them to wear dunce caps, get spanked, whatever, as long as they are shamed for the rest of their God-given lives.
posted by angrycat at 2:28 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 2:29 PM on July 25, 2011


And the "option" would be for Obama to point to the 14th Amendment and say "we're paying them, go piss up a rope"?

As I understand it, yeah. The idea was to make sure the Union paid their debts after the civil war. If anyone with legal knowledge wants to elaborate that would be helpful.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:29 PM on July 25, 2011


And the "option" would be for Obama to point to the 14th Amendment and say "we're paying them, go piss up a rope"?

Good question. How might this actually play out? Would he just issue an Executive Order authorizing the additional encumbrance of debt? Even members of his own party in congress have a pretty strong track record of not respecting his Executive Orders (like the one to close Gitmo, for instance), but the Executive Order is really the only directive making tool the POTUS has isn't it? So I wonder how that would all play out.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:29 PM on July 25, 2011


Seriously, they went into this without an endgame. They had no idea what they were doing. None. They have no unity in their own caucus. None. Boehner cannot deliver his caucus. He cannot pick up his share of governance. The GOP refuses to govern.

On this we agree.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:30 PM on July 25, 2011


The GOP doesn't have the emotional capacity to accept a bargain that they don't see as a humiliation for Obama.


This is because the gentleman is not white. This is why all of the insistence up thread that there's zero chance that the debt ceiling will not be raised is simply not the case. There exists a chance it won't happen.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:31 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Nationalize everything.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:31 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


@saulgoodman The treasury department is under the executive branch, in theory he could just order them to issue some bonds, no?
posted by sotonohito at 2:32 PM on July 25, 2011


The problem with selling new Treasury bonds under the 14th Amendment theory is that any buyers of the bonds would know their dubious legal status. I'd demand a pretty hefty discount if I were asked to buy a bond sold by the US Treasury without US Congressional approval. That discount, of course, translates to a much higher interest rate. It's just not a workable solution.
posted by BobbyVan at 2:33 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


in theory he could just order them to issue some bonds, no?

maybe so. I honestly don't know. anyone know for sure?
posted by saulgoodman at 2:34 PM on July 25, 2011


Rep. King Says Obama Will Be Impeached If Government Defaults

I know some people here have come to the conclusion that caaling these guys crazy isn't nice to crazy people so I'll just say this: Steve King is a raving Looney Tune.

If he increased his IQ he'd be a plant.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:34 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


ach. BV makes a depressing point.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:34 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I would like to send the GOP reps on a congressional delegation trip to, say, Somalia, where they can research what it looks like when their anti-governance philosophy carries the day. And Michelle Bachmann can help them cast out witches!
posted by wowbobwow at 2:34 PM on July 25, 2011


Ironmouth: Seriously, they went into this without an endgame.

And full of hubris and believing their own narrative, that they were going to bully and razzle dazzle Obama, Biden and his WH into submission by pulling so much BS they were going to somehow just make Obama, throw up his hands and say "Uncle...uncle....please GOTP stop messing with my head...I'm gettin' dizzy...you win..."

And now it's blowing up in their faces, and they're boxed in. And like any cornered rat, they're now officially fucking scary crazy. And on one side they've got the over-rated and overbloated Tea Party and on the other side they have Wall Street, their masters telling them they CANNOT default and enough is enough...


This speech tonight by Obama is crucial.
posted by Skygazer at 2:38 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sweet, they finally got a deal done. I wasn't looking forward to the potential years of suffering if this issue didn't get resolved.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:39 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Where's the 'not favorite' button?
posted by wierdo at 2:41 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Sweet, they finally got a deal done. I wasn't looking forward to the potential years of suffering if this issue didn't get resolved.

Obama has got to call in DeMaurice Smith.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:42 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




Rep. King Says Obama Will Be Impeached If Government Defaults


That wouldn't get anybody off the hook though, regardless of how you vote.
Taking it further though, what if American workers were to declare non-confidence in their entire damn system government?

On some level I realize that you'd still have massive, crippling debt no matter what your government looked like, but at least you could replace it with a government capable of having the necessary conversations.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:43 PM on July 25, 2011


On some level I realize that you'd still have massive, crippling debt no matter what your government looked like, but at least you could replace it with a government capable of having the necessary conversations.

You know, it was always coming to this moment. I never thought that, but it was.

I went to law school in the early 2000. My close buddy there was a Republican. He was very sure of his beliefs.

My how have times have changed. He called me today furious about how mendacious the GOP is--having left the party years back. These people will be destroyed by this.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:46 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Stagger Lee wrote: On some level I realize that you'd still have massive, crippling debt no matter what your government looked like, but at least you could replace it with a government capable of having the necessary conversations.

The hilarious part is that it's not actually massive, crippling debt. We have the budget balanced in 3-5 years if our politicians were not bought and paid for.
posted by wierdo at 2:47 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Taking it further though, what if American workers were to declare non-confidence in their entire damn system government?

Funny you should mention that, because I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that can arrest the freefall corporate kleptocracy that this country has become is a serious, lengthy general strike.

I honestly can't think of any other way.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


We could have, even.
posted by wierdo at 2:48 PM on July 25, 2011


The problem with selling new Treasury bonds under the 14th Amendment theory is that any buyers of the bonds would know their dubious legal status.

what dubious legal status? - leaving aside the question of standing and what plaintiff might have it, can you imagine a supreme court would be willing to call a group of bonds illegitimate and void? - and what would that cause in the financial world?

no, i believe they would refuse the case, basically telling congress, "look, it's your laws he may have broken and impeachment is your constitutional remedy"
posted by pyramid termite at 2:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Rep. King Says Obama Will Be Impeached If Government Defaults

I know some people here have come to the conclusion that caaling these guys crazy isn't nice to crazy people so I'll just say this: Steve King is a raving Looney Tune.

If he increased his IQ he'd be a plant.


if he increased his IQ he would be paint.

stop insulting plants.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:49 PM on July 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


The problem with selling new Treasury bonds under the 14th Amendment theory is that any buyers of the bonds would know their dubious legal status.

what dubious legal status? - leaving aside the question of standing and what plaintiff might have it, can you imagine a supreme court would be willing to call a group of bonds illegitimate and void? - and what would that cause in the financial world?

no, i believe they would refuse the case, basically telling congress, "look, it's your laws he may have broken and impeachment is your constitutional remedy"


That chance would exist. And as a result, the interest rate on the bonds would be higher. Its what people are willing to pay.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:50 PM on July 25, 2011


You know, I take back my request for shaming. Seeing the GOP fall apart like this is all the satisfaction I need:

#

* 5:40 pm
* Key Republicans Oppose Plan by GOP Leaders
* by Corey Boles
* Add a Comment

Two key leaders among conservative Republican lawmakers said they would oppose a proposal from GOP leadership to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, casting doubt whether the plan will attract enough support in the House.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), the leader of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said he would oppose the proposal that would reduce federal deficits by at least $3 trillion over the next decade and raise the borrowing limit in two stages over the next 17 months.

"The credit rating agencies have been clear that no matter what happens with the debt limit, the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless we produce a credible plan to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars," Mr. Jordan said.

He said the plan put forward by House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) failed to accomplish that.

The Republican Study Committee has 178 members, which accounts for the majority of the 240 Republicans in the House.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), who is seen by many as the most prominent tea-party backed lawmaker in Congress, also said he would oppose both the House GOP plan as well as a rival proposal put forward by Senate Democratic leaders on Monday.

Mr. DeMint said both plans "punt the hard decisions" that needed to be made to tackle federal budget deficits.

"I will work to oppose both of these downgrade deals and continue to fight for Cut, Cap & Balance," he said.

He was referring to an earlier House Republican plan that would have implemented deeper up front cuts, capped future spending and required a constitutional amendment stating the federal government must balance its budget.

Earlier Monday, at least one freshman GOP lawmaker, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R., Kan) said he couldn't support Mr. Boehner's new plan to raise the debt limit in a two-step process.

Mr. Huelskamp complained the plan would tie some $1.8 trillion in spending reductions to the recommendations of a bipartisan deficit committee.

"America does not need Deficit Commission Version 18.0," he said in a statement. "We were promised trillions of dollars in spending cuts after tackling the 2011 continuing resolution, yet we are still waiting. If past is prologue, after 17 deficit reduction commissions since 1982, then we can anticipate these newly promised cuts will be unlikely to materialize."

posted by angrycat at 2:50 PM on July 25, 2011


Taking it further though, what if American workers were to declare non-confidence in their entire damn system government?

Funny you should mention that, because I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that can arrest the freefall corporate kleptocracy that this country has become is a serious, lengthy general strike.

I honestly can't think of any other way.


Our votes put those people there. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:51 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


if he increased his IQ he would be paint.

if he increased his IQ and you played him back his speeches, he'd be pained
posted by pyramid termite at 2:53 PM on July 25, 2011


Our votes put those people there. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

I didn't vote for "those people" and I doubt you did, either. We can't control what our fellow citizens vote for, but I'll be damned if I take responsibility for their mistakes.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:54 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


does it count as a general strike if we're all unemployed?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:54 PM on July 25, 2011 [13 favorites]




Our votes put those people there. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:51 PM on July 25 [+] [!]



I wouldn't hold individual Americans responsible.
... because I sure don't want to take responsibility for Steven Harper or any other Canadian politician.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:54 PM on July 25, 2011


Our votes put those people there. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Oh, I know how we got here. I'm not seeing a good way out, though.

(And none of my votes put any willfully ignorant assholes in office, thank you.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:56 PM on July 25, 2011


Benny Andajetz: "Funny you should mention that, because I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that can arrest the freefall corporate kleptocracy that this country has become is a serious, lengthy general strike."

Will. Never. Happen. The voters are mostly homeowners, and people with mortgages to pay are highly averse to going on strike.
posted by mullingitover at 2:57 PM on July 25, 2011


"The credit rating agencies have been clear that no matter what happens with the debt limit, the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless we produce a credible plan to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars," Mr. Jordan said.

Is this true? Why now? What materially has changed?
posted by adamdschneider at 2:57 PM on July 25, 2011


does it count as a general strike if we're all unemployed?

No, that just means we haven't appeased the job creators enough yet. Too much uncertainty about regulation with that pesky thirteenth amendment still around.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:57 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]



does it count as a general strike if we're all unemployed?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:54 PM on July 25 [+] [!]


The trade unions will say no. The IWW will say yes.
posted by Stagger Lee at 2:57 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


It's only a strike if they need you.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:58 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


pyramid termite: "does it count as a general strike if we're all unemployed?"

It's a moot point, serfs aren't allowed to strike.
posted by mullingitover at 2:59 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


is that what they mean by a serf-ass economy?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:01 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Unlike other unions of the day, the I.W.W. organized on a class basis, welcoming all working people — including immigrants, minorities, women, and the unemployed. When children found organizing necessary for their own protection — for example, in schools during a strike by their parents — contingents of "Junior Wobblies" were formed.

American labor history is a lot more radical and effective than it gets credit for. It hasn't been very long either.

Confidence has taken a big hit, and labor history is being ignored and trampled, but I wouldn't write it off. And you don't need jobs or labor unions to pressure your government, you just have to change your tactics.


It's a moot point, serfs aren't allowed to strike.
posted by mullingitover at 2:59 PM on July 25 [+] [!]


Well, they sort of do, but it usually involves torches, pitchforks and a monarch on the chopping block when they're done.
posted by Stagger Lee at 3:08 PM on July 25, 2011


The voters are mostly homeowners, and people with mortgages to pay are highly averse to going on strike

So the strikes that have occurred throughout history (as well as recently) in England, France , Spain and Greece were all populated by renters? OK, good to know.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 3:09 PM on July 25, 2011


If you want to know the right wing talking points just come down to this bar and listen to the half blind eighty year old racist who just announces this political opinions out loud, to the ether, while drinking long sugary drinks.

Obama is " a tyrant" who wants to be " king" and dangerously left wing.
posted by The Whelk at 3:09 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The voters are mostly homeowners, and people with mortgages to pay are highly averse to going on strike

I guess you've never had a union job, then?
posted by empath at 3:10 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nothing like a good left-wing king. -_-
posted by adamdschneider at 3:12 PM on July 25, 2011


does it count as a general strike if we're all unemployed?
posted by pyramid termite at 2:54 PM on July 25 [+] [!]

The trade unions will say no. The IWW will say yes.


They have like, three locals. I had to research that as part of my practice the other day. I'm not kidding, three locals.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:13 PM on July 25, 2011


empath: "I guess you've never had a union job, then?"

As a matter of fact, I have. SEIU. I don't believe a strike was ever on the table at any point in our contract negotiations, which would make sense given that we were caregivers for people with developmental disabilities.
posted by mullingitover at 3:14 PM on July 25, 2011


Also he " never did anything " and " can't speak properly "
posted by The Whelk at 3:18 PM on July 25, 2011


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. -- John Adams, 2nd POTUS
posted by narwhal bacon at 3:20 PM on July 25, 2011 [10 favorites]




They have like, three locals. I had to research that as part of my practice the other day. I'm not kidding, three locals.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:13 PM on July 25 [+] [!]

They were almost destroyed in the 50s, so it's remarkable that they are running around organizing work places and actually being effective today. That they do it with the membership numbers they do speaks well of their tactics.

...if you want to criticize their ideas, criticize their ideas, not their membership numbers. There is a lot to be said for organizing industrially rather than through trade unions, and if you want to talk general strike, they'll have a lot more good to say about it than any other organization in North America that I can think of off hand.

The American economic and political scene of the early 20th century is worth looking at. It looks an awful lot like your future as well as your past.
posted by Stagger Lee at 3:20 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Al Sharpton on MSNBC is actually really fun. He hit all the right talking points with a tea party Rep just now in an interview without sounding like an angry asshole. Sorry Cenk.

Totally paraphrased:

TP Rep: The last time we balanced the budget was under Clinton and we didn't do it with tax increases...

Al: Right, but once it was balanced Bush cut the taxes and started wars and it wasn't balanced anymore.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:20 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]




Well, we are trying to get Back To Black, ink-wise.
posted by Trurl at 3:40 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Is this true? Why now? What materially has changed?"
posted by adamdschneider at 5:57 PM on July 25

U.S. National debt is the last legal Ponzi scheme, and has been for about 20 years, with some minor respite in the surplus of the late Clinton years. Basically, we keep borrowing and borrowing for net new spending, raising our debt. But, now, we borrow much more money, just to "roll over" old debt, as it becomes due (because the bonds that originally financed it mature, and we have to pay back their principal, plus accrued interest), than we actually do to finance additional new deficit spending; we're essentially paying off old investors in Treasuries, with proceeds we get from selling new issues of Treasuries. In August, we hope we'll be able to borrow about $125 billion for net new spending, to cover government's current expenses in excess of tax revenues it will collect. That'll be about 42 cents of every dollar spent by the U.S. government in August, if we get to borrow all that, and spend it, along with the revenue we collect.

But also in August, we have to "roll over" something like $500 billion of the $14.3 trillion of existing national debt, by selling new bonds at future maturities, to pay off the $500 billion in bonds that come due this August. See how Bernie Madoff that is? What will the folks holding the other $13.8 trillion of existing debt think, if we default on paying back the currently due $500 billion? Answer: They'll think the paper they're holding may be worthless, too. They'll suddenly be willing to take 90 cents on the face value dollar for it, or maybe 80, or 70 cents, or even less. And they won't even think of buying any more U.S. Treasuries, at any price, for a long, long time, if ever. And that way, lies worldwide asset contraction, big problems in the world economy, and unknowable grief. The first world of finance really wouldn't know what to do if faced with another immediate $1 trillion or more evaporation of wealth (and that's exactly what would happen, within a few days, if a U.S. default was just marked by the markets as a 10% premium hit- 90 cents on the face dollar value of issued U.S. bonds, which would be a pretty charitable view of the matter by our bond holders, who might continue to hope against hope for a few more days after default, that, somehow, they would still get paid); hell, the world financial system can barely cope with cashing a few bad checks in Greek.

And the further bad news is that we face similar roll over hurdles every month going forward, and that these will grow worse, even if there is a "successful" adoption of either the Boehner plan, the Reid plan, or something in the $4 trillion dollar spending cut range of several plans from last week. Until we get past just cutting the deficit, to actually reducing the debt, the pressure on our Ponzi scheme continues, and even grows as worldwide investors force us up against a maturity wall.

Unlike Bernie Madoff, the world can't send the sovereign U.S. government to jail for fraud, if it let's its own Ponzi scheme fall down. But it can make sure that our national debt financed spending party comes to a screeching, painful halt, and doesn't restart.
posted by paulsc at 3:51 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Al Sharpton on MSNBC is actually really fun. He hit all the right talking points with a tea party Rep just now in an interview without sounding like an angry asshole. Sorry Cenk.

Totally paraphrased:

TP Rep: The last time we balanced the budget was under Clinton and we didn't do it with tax increases...

Al: Right, but once it was balanced Bush cut the taxes and started wars and it wasn't balanced anymore.


Actually a tax increase balanced that budget.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:53 PM on July 25, 2011


Oh, that Amy Winehouse tweeter, he's so adorable, he even has a cowboy hat.
posted by symbioid at 3:55 PM on July 25, 2011


U.S. National debt is the last legal Ponzi scheme,

Ridiculous.

Governments since the beginning of time have used deficit financing. Its not a "Ponzi" scheme because they can pay off the debt.

There isn't a country in the world that doesn't use deficit financing. In fact, except for the Clinton years, we haven't had a balanced budget since 1933, yet we have dominated that period of time.

This is the kind of bunk the GOP uses to support the rentier class.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:56 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


U.S. National debt is the last legal Ponzi scheme,

Just have to raise taxes on the top 2% of earners. It will work just as it did under Clinton.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:58 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


U.S. National debt is the last legal Ponzi scheme...

Ridiculous.

Its not a "Ponzi" scheme because they can pay off the debt.


We can pay off the debt? Seems to me like we are way beyond the realm of realistically being able to pay off the debt and well into the amorphous world of "how long can we make the numbers work to keep this illusion up".
posted by lazaruslong at 4:01 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Its not a "Ponzi" scheme because they can pay off the debt. "

posted by Ironmouth at 6:56 PM on July 25

You're right that it's not a Ponzi scheme, technically, because unlike private parties, a sovereign government has the presumed ability to pay off debt by taxation. But if the size of a soveriegn's debt is so large that it outstrips its ability to tax, have we reached a "too big to fail" scenario? And if we knowingly, as a country, continue to operate on unsustainable levels of debt financing, isn't that some kind of moral turpitude akin to a Ponzi scheme?

"Just have to raise taxes on the top 2% of earners. It will work just as it did under Clinton."
posted by Ironmouth at 6:58 PM on July 25

Take a real close look at that maturity wall link I posted, and be a bit bearish. Assume things like a downgrade from AAA to AA+, etc. Come back with some math.
posted by paulsc at 4:03 PM on July 25, 2011





"Its not a "Ponzi" scheme because they can pay off the debt. "

posted by Ironmouth at 6:56 PM on July 25

You're right that it's not a Ponzi scheme, technically, because unlike private parties, a sovereign government has the presumed ability to pay off debt by taxation. But if the size of a soveriegn's debt is so large that it outstrips its ability to tax, have we reached a "too big to fail" scenario? And if we knowingly, as a country, continue to operate on unsustainable levels of debt financing, isn't that some kind of moral turpitude akin to a Ponzi scheme?

"Just have to raise taxes on the top 2% of earners. It will work just as it did under Clinton."
posted by Ironmouth at 6:58 PM on July 25

Take a real close look at that maturity wall link I posted, and be a bit bearish. Assume things like a downgrade from AAA to AA+, etc. Come back with some math.


Dude, that website is for gold scarers, and doom and gloomers. Weren't you all about Fort Knox in the last thread?

This is Glenn Beck stuff.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:09 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... This is Glenn Beck stuff. "
posted by Ironmouth at 7:09 PM on July 25

Never ask a liberal lawyer for math.
posted by paulsc at 4:15 PM on July 25, 2011


We were running a surplus just 10 years ago. All we have to do is cut defense spending and raises taxes on the wealthiest earners. This isn't rocket science, and it's just a matter of political will.
posted by empath at 4:17 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


A better chart saying the same thing.
posted by gjc at 4:19 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


One can't escape a feeling that "maturity wall" is someone's new concept this week; once you cut away the undirected ad hominems and empty soapboxing there's not much left.

Isn't learning fun! There's so much to know!
posted by hoople at 4:21 PM on July 25, 2011


"We can pay off the debt? Seems to me like we are way beyond the realm of realistically being able to pay off the debt and well into the amorphous world of "how long can we make the numbers work to keep this illusion up"."

Not at all. Here's a plan that would eliminate your deficit in ten years and create a surplus, without taking apart the New Deal. Paying off the debt can be done in a sane manner, and it must be done eventually, but all this current squabbling seems to be more about ideology than the real facts and possibilities.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:22 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Never ask a liberal lawyer for math.

Because the conservative math worked out so well, as illustrated under the eight years of Bush. I'll take the liberal math from another liberal lawyer - Clinton - any day. Seriously, I remember the moronic arguments the Republicans were making during the 2000 campaign telling us how bad those Clinton surpluses were, and how it'll all be fixed with some tax-cut magic. I've seen enough conservative math to have me puke for the rest of my life.
posted by VikingSword at 4:22 PM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Kevin: Thanks! I like being disabused of ignorance. 13 trillion seems an impossible figure to a layperson like me.
posted by lazaruslong at 4:30 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


God Pat Toomey is such a waste of carbon:

Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) has picked up six other Republican senators, and six GOP House members, to support his proposal for a law spelling out how the Treasury should rank payments to federal creditors, contractors and others in the event that Aug. 2 comes and goes without a debt ceiling deal. Among those signing on to the Toomey plan who are expected to attend the Toomey press conference are Sens. David Vitter (R., La.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio). On the House side, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.), Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), Rep. David Schweikert (R., Ariz.), Rep. Steve Southerland (R., Fla.), and Rep. Louis Gohmert (R., Texas) have signed up.
posted by angrycat at 4:39 PM on July 25, 2011


Here's a plan that would eliminate your deficit in ten years and create a surplus, without taking apart the New Deal.

Ah, the "People's Budget" from the House Democratic "Progressive Caucus." Rep. Paul Ryan's budget has received a good chunk of criticism (some of it quite deserved) for its rosy assumptions. Well, Reuters blogged about the assumptions behind the "People's Budget" and it wasn't a pretty picture.

For example:
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.

The company that did the analysis quoted in the Reuters blog, Macroeconomic Advisors, was called a "highly respected forecasting firm" by the New York Times Economix blog.
posted by BobbyVan at 4:53 PM on July 25, 2011


"Here's a plan that would eliminate your deficit in ten years and create a surplus, without taking apart the New Deal."
posted by Kevin Street at 7:22 PM on July 25

From your link:
"Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years"
[emphasis added]

Deficit ≠ Debt

That plan doesn't directly address the national debt, it actually builds more debt in the early years, while slowly coming down to a balanced budget, and in the final years generates a slight surplus. From the EPI Working Paper analysis:
"The
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."
Part 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.

If you're going to pay off $14.3 trillion in debt (which includes that portion of the debt held by other nations in forex reserves) in 10 years, keep servicing the interest while you do it, and operate a minimal Federal government, you're going to have to not only gut the New Deal, but raise taxes punitively, on every person and corporation. Nobody really talks about paying off the U.S. debt in anything like a 10 year horizon, because doing so is such a draconian target, it isn't politically discussed. Nor need it be.

Personally, I'd be happy (hell, I'd be ecstatic) with a 20 year horizon to get half the debt gone. Doing that, you'd create some breathing room for growth of the U.S. economy and government services to support it as needed, simply on interest expense savings. Moreover, you'd materially demonstrate to the world that the U.S. government was managing its finances responsibly.
posted by paulsc at 4:55 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Never ask a liberal lawyer for math.

Nice try, but all lines must be expressed as y=mx+b.
posted by humanfont at 4:59 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Nice try, but all lines must be expressed as y=mx+b."
posted by humanfont at 7:59 PM on July 25

Nice try, yourself, humanfont. After all, if we can't inject a little levity in discussions like this, we're no better than our Congresscritters, are we?
posted by paulsc at 5:02 PM on July 25, 2011


angrycat: "God Pat Toomey Ron Johnson is such a waste of carbon:

Sens. David Vitter (R., La.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio). On the House side, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.), Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), Rep. David Schweikert (R., Ariz.), Rep. Steve Southerland (R., Fla.), and Rep. Louis Gohmert (R., Texas) have signed up.
"

GODDAMN YOU HOME STATE. I miss Russ :(
posted by symbioid at 5:11 PM on July 25, 2011


A couple Something Awful posters claiming experience with government software say picking and choosing what we spend may not even be technically possible.

Anyone know if there is any veracity to that?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:15 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


*What we pay.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:15 PM on July 25, 2011


I dunno if MacroFugue has been linked here already, but they are doing some economic analysis that seems bipartisan and accurate. (I am not an economist, so I could be wrong.)
posted by dejah420 at 5:16 PM on July 25, 2011


Anyone know if there is any veracity to that?

i don't know, but i suppose that our accounts payable, such as social security, payroll, god knows what else, is fully automated by computer systems

just how would one turn that all off? - wouldn't it require an executive order? - and would it even be possible?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:19 PM on July 25, 2011


I feel like we are all trapped in a Twilight Zone episode.
posted by futz at 5:21 PM on July 25, 2011


Our votes put those people there. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Are we really sure about that yet, though? As monomaniacal and controlling as these right-wing hardliners in congress are, would you really be surprised if they manipulated election outcomes? Lord knows, they all seem to take it as Absolute Gospel that JFK's election was fixed, so they could easily rationalize it to themselves as "just the way the game is played," the way they do with every other underhanded tactic they use. It's pretty well known Norquist, for one, greatly admires Mao as a tactician; Mao was all about revolution through subterfuge and deception.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:22 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


It would not surprise me in the slightest if there were serious software issues with selective payment. Federal software projects produce applications which barely work to their intended purpose as it is, are typically implemented by bottom of the barrel consultants out of body shops, and if it wasn't spelled out clearly in the initial requirements, it wasn't contemplated in the design.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:22 PM on July 25, 2011


A couple Something Awful posters claiming experience with government software say picking and choosing what we spend may not even be technically possible.

Anyone know if there is any veracity to that?


Slate has an article on this

It seems like there is a single checking account. After august 2 it will be empty and checks will bounce. It will be difficult to figure out what gets paid and what doesn't.
posted by humanfont at 5:28 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'd hope Federal level accounting software would be better than what we get at the state level--Florida's system is on the brink of collapse it's so obsolete, and the last major effort to replace it (which I got to witness as an analyst in the early days of my IT career) was a multimillion dollar clusterfuck that ultimately delivered nothing and led to all sorts of law suits.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:29 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hasn't been mentioned here yet, but Speaker Boehner will speak after the President tonight. All networks will carry both speeches.
posted by BobbyVan at 5:33 PM on July 25, 2011


Senate Dems release this: Fact Sheet: 100% of Spending Cuts in Reid Debt Reduction Plan Were Supported by GOP

I'm waiting to see what the POTUS does. I can't say I'm waiting with any anticipation that it will make my progressive heart beat any faster, and part of me really hopes he takes the GOP out behind the rose garden and gives them a good spanking...but I think what we're going to hear is that the Prez is going to destroy the New Deal to appease the Teahadists.

What astounds me about the people who support this "Hell No" party, at least the ones that I know...is that they are damn near economically disadvantaged. These are not the Mark Cubans of the world, these are the folks who won't get their meds if Medicare dies, who will have to take in their aging parents if SS dies, who are 2, maybe 3 paychecks away from losing it all...yet these are the folks screaming for the blood of the union members, who are demanding that the rich keep their deductions for private jets, they want to destroy public education and parks and streets; they want to kill the very safety net that keeps them from being invisible and in a box down by the river.

I don't understand it. I really don't. I don't know how cognitive dissonance allows for it. This is what happens when graduates of Beck University are allowed to pretend to be fully functional, literate members of society.

I do know that this brinksmanship is a lot more dangerous than the Teahadists believe. I believe that most of these freshmen congresspeople have zero concept of economics in a broad sense. I do not think any of them understand even the slightest bit about how markets work, about how ratings work, about how debt structure works...hell, I'm not sure most of them understand that the debt ceiling is to allow us to pay off bills that have already incurred, and is not a promise of future spending.

If POTUS doesn't take charge, and tell the country that the Republicans are acting like spoiled children, and he's going to send them to their rooms while the grown ups clean up the mess they made, then we are all deeply and long term...screwed.
posted by dejah420 at 5:34 PM on July 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


He is going to be talking in favor of the Reid plan, which even as an Obama basher so far sounds just fine to me.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:37 PM on July 25, 2011


Does anyone know if/where Boehner's speech will be streaming live online? I know Obama's will be here (thanks, ofthestrait).
posted by argonauta at 5:38 PM on July 25, 2011


We can pay off the debt? Seems to me like we are way beyond the realm of realistically being able to pay off the debt and well into the amorphous world of "how long can we make the numbers work to keep this illusion up".

We print a bill that says it's worth 1 trillion dollars. Repeat 15 times and demand change. That is the brilliance of fiat currency. In the old days we would have invaded some nation and taken slaves, and sold the captured land off to pay the debts. This system is way better. Your savings and 401k would be obliterated, but your home would be worth billions. Your 401k and savings are going to be obliterated by the made up bullshit debt crisis anyway. I say we just tack the extra zeros onto the currency and move along.

As an alternative return tax rates on the wealthy to the 70% rates we had under Reagan. Pay off the debt slowly using revenues generated by our 14.5 trillion dollar economy.
posted by humanfont at 5:38 PM on July 25, 2011


It'll almost certainly be available on CSPAN, probably the other major news outlets too.
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:39 PM on July 25, 2011


I want Obama to do good things, even though I know better than to automatically expect good things. I hope he paints a convincing picture of the Republicans as squalling children.

He should constantly reference higher taxes on the wealthy as "Reagan-level taxes." That would be an awesome meme to spread.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:40 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


If POTUS doesn't take charge, and tell the country that the Republicans are acting like spoiled children, and he's going to send them to their rooms while the grown ups clean up the mess they made, then we are all deeply and long term...screwed.

no

he needs to put a concrete proposal before the american people in his speech - (and that is NOT to say that he's not put one before members of congress, but he's speaking to us now) - whether that proposal is one of those mentioned before, or a threat to go the 14th route, or to just have the treasury deposit the cash is up to him

but he needs to put one out there and put congress in the position of denying him - standing up there and saying, well, those turkeys need to come up with something real quick is not going to cut it
posted by pyramid termite at 5:40 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Obama should just say that he asked for congress to act, he offered compromises, and now failing the actions fo congress he has no choice but to immediately furlow all government workers, and stop work all projects in order to preserve cash in hopes that congress can reach a deal before we start bouncing checks. He should tell seniors that starting Friday all social security payments will be stopped and absent authority to borrow money medicare will be unable to pay for treatment.
posted by humanfont at 5:43 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Does anyone know if/where Boehner's speech will be streaming live online? I know Obama's will be here (thanks, ofthestrait).

Typically the major news sites (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) will stream this type of event live on their sites.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:44 PM on July 25, 2011


That's my point pyramid termite, although perhaps I was too hyperbolic to be clear.
posted by dejah420 at 5:45 PM on July 25, 2011


"... I'm not sure most of them understand that the debt ceiling is to allow us to pay off bills that have already incurred, and is not a promise of future spending. ..."
posted by dejah420 at 8:34 PM on July 25

Eh, the really nasty reality of the matter isn't even that good. Under any "plan" under current consideration, the bump up we'll get for the debt ceiling will be barely enough to keep net projected new deficit spending going through the end of 2012, plus scheduled rollover and interest payments going through the same date. We "pay off" nothing, from past spending. The national debt grows a little, under the most favorable revenue projections, and under higher interest rates stemming from a credit downgrade, or more modest revenue growth, the debt grows more than a little. The "spending cuts" offered under some of these plans don't actually accrue for 10 years.
posted by paulsc at 5:49 PM on July 25, 2011


humanfont, i'll admit i hadn't considered that he might threaten to just shut the whole government down

i don't think he will - i think the consequences of that would be severe and unpredictable
posted by pyramid termite at 5:51 PM on July 25, 2011


Never ask a liberal lawyer for math.

After watching catching up on 3 seasons of Breaking Bad last week.... I read that so wrong ...
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:56 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Deficit ≠ Debt"

Yeah, that's true. Sorry about that, I was wrong about the debt. But at least it's a plan that points the US government in the right direction. Even if takes a century to pay everything off, the creditors will be happy enough if the debt gets nibbled down a little each year. And it can be done without reverting to a 19th century level of public services.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:57 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well lets see what the big guy has to say about it all ... live here. He has never failed to dissappoint me thus far so I'm not holding out any great hopes.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:59 PM on July 25, 2011


Hopeful cap: on
Flip-flops of disappointment: as firmly fastened to my feet as flip-flops can be
Live streaming: begun.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:00 PM on July 25, 2011


Dang, I really want to watch this, but my internet connection isn't strong enough. (But I am able to update this thread, so if anybody is sticking around and watching the speech, I'd love to know what's going on)
posted by iamkimiam at 6:01 PM on July 25, 2011


er, beginning shortly....
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:01 PM on July 25, 2011


"there are good reasons that we've run up the debt but it still sucks and will screw us."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:04 PM on July 25, 2011


some red meat... "the democratic approach is balanced and the republican is not"
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:04 PM on July 25, 2011


all these "quotes" are my summaries, by the way.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:05 PM on July 25, 2011


Somebody needs to tell the President to stop hitting the table the mic is on.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:05 PM on July 25, 2011


I kinda like it.
posted by Skygazer at 6:06 PM on July 25, 2011


He seems to be forcing the issue about revenues from the wealthy... promising...
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:06 PM on July 25, 2011


This is exactly what the President should be saying and repeating from now on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:07 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


actually that's a dumb way to liveblog: from now on i'll only put actual quotes in quotes.

"Keep in mind that under a balanced approach the average american household that makes under 150,000 would see no tax increase."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011


REAGAN
posted by cortex at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Brilliant quote from Ronald Reagan there!
posted by triggerfinger at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011


"Deathhugs for everyone!"
posted by stavrogin at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ha, Republicans, Ronald Reagan is on my side!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Quoting Reagan as gotcha moment.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011


Ha! Quoted Saint Ronald.
posted by dejah420 at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011


That's $250,000, tivalasvegas.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011


....He's quoting Regan to prove his argument.... lol ... bonus points
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:08 PM on July 25, 2011


250,000.
posted by Skygazer at 6:09 PM on July 25, 2011


REAGAN DID IT EIGHTEEN TIMES
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:09 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ha! Dogwhistle to the right!
posted by iamkimiam at 6:09 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine... Reagan did it 18 times... Dubya did it 7 times...."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:09 PM on July 25, 2011


He's laying it on nice and thick and putting the blame where it belongs.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:10 PM on July 25, 2011


I keep thinking he's going to call the Republican's "knuckleheads." that would rock.
posted by Skygazer at 6:10 PM on July 25, 2011



"In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine... Reagan did it 18 times... Dubya did it 7 times...."


QFT. PLEASE KEEP REPEATING THIS.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:11 PM on July 25, 2011


Discussing why Boehner's 6-month extension is stupid. Kicking-the-can analogy: INVOKED.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:11 PM on July 25, 2011


Should be interesting to see what Boner's response is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:12 PM on July 25, 2011


"....based on what we've seen in the past six weeks we know what to expect 6 month from now....this is no way to run a country..."
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:12 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage..."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:12 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Joe Biden says this is Obama at his most articulate, and good looking.
posted by humanfont at 6:12 PM on July 25, 2011


"We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's war."
posted by Skygazer at 6:12 PM on July 25, 2011


"Republican leaders and I have found common ground before, and I believe"... blah blah blah.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:13 PM on July 25, 2011


Wow, "this is a dangerous game..."
posted by dejah420 at 6:13 PM on July 25, 2011


What does 'entitlement' refer to here?

(I can view the stream now...sitting outside on the pavement with laptop perfectly positioned for optimal signal, woot!)
posted by iamkimiam at 6:13 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Excellent.
posted by Skygazer at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2011


"they didn't vote for a dysfunctional govt"

well...
posted by stavrogin at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN
posted by triggerfinger at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2011


CALL UP CONGRESSMAN, indeed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2011


"American people may have voted for a divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government." He then makes a direct appeal to people to call their reps.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2011


He's asking us to phone our Congresscritter...wtf??? ...that's all he's got?... weak if he does nothing else.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


C
posted by Ironmouth at 6:15 PM on July 25, 2011


Sadly it still seems like Obama's playing the "Republicans will surely listen to reason" game.

No, he's playing the "I"m the adult in the room" game and doing a damn good job of it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:15 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


...and then he ripped a phonebook in half.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:16 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


EVERYONE CALL AND E-MAIL YOUR HOUSE REP.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:16 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Good god, do I love Obama.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:16 PM on July 25, 2011


I'm struck by the understated nature of this speech as opposed to Campaign Obama or Inauguration Obama or even Cairo Obama; this is a man who has been ground down by the idiocy of his opposition, still hoping for but not assuming the goodwill of his opponents.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:17 PM on July 25, 2011


Yes, I am sure my Congressweasel will listen to reason.
posted by entropicamericana at 6:17 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


If the entire world is watching it's kind of crass to say your country is so much greater than the rest of them. :P

Pretty good speech, I can't see it convincing the Tea Party reps though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:17 PM on July 25, 2011


"Please call your knucklehead Republican representatives and ask them to do the right thing."

No, not really....
posted by Skygazer at 6:17 PM on July 25, 2011


Yes, I am sure my Congressweasel will listen to reason.
They sure won't if it's not spoken to them.
posted by Flunkie at 6:18 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Well, that was milquetoast.
posted by TheTingTangTong at 6:18 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


REAGAN DID IT EIGHTEEN TIMES

A six month extension of the debt must have sounded pretty good to Ronald Reagan...
posted by BobbyVan at 6:18 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Did he say bring pitchforks and torches to the National Mall at 1030pm? Can you bring those on the Metro?
posted by humanfont at 6:18 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well that's 15 ...15 minutes of basically "it's on you, call your congressman" ... which has worked so well for us all before. As I thought... disappointing.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:18 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Oh no, I feel a crying jag coming....
posted by Skygazer at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011


But wait...our call to action is to call our elected officials? That firebrand of a setup led to that? Am I alone in being disappointed?
posted by dejah420 at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011


Pretty good speech, I can't see it convincing the Tea Party reps though.

He's not reaching for them, he's reaching for the people who tell Congresscritters what to do.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011


every other business? I got new for you John, government isn't a business.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Is Boehner drunk? Slurred speech.
posted by humanfont at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"I serve as Speaker of the whole House."

yeah, well, I serve as speaker of the Waffle House, buddy...
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


Anyone want to place bets on how long until Boehner starts crying?
posted by entropicamericana at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner's digging in deeper.
posted by Flunkie at 6:19 PM on July 25, 2011


Boehner going all out partisan attack, amazing contrast.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:20 PM on July 25, 2011


Boehner: "The US cannot default on its debt limit."
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:20 PM on July 25, 2011


Hey, the Republican is on and doing his thing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:20 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner, on the other hand, makes me want to kick my tv.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:20 PM on July 25, 2011


He's asking us to phone our Congresscritter...wtf??? ...that's all he's got?... weak if he does nothing else.

That has been the way it has been since day 1. The President cannot order the Republicans to do anything. ONLY WE CAN DO THAT.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:20 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I would not buy a used car from this man.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 6:21 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


He should have told people to break shop window and set cars on fire. That's how representative democracy works, folks. Talking to your democratic representatives is practically fascism.
posted by cortex at 6:21 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


This was super interesting. I don't know how else to put it, other than it was really about the words. His delivery was taken off the table in a sense. The words though, they shine. What he said won't read any other way.
posted by iamkimiam at 6:21 PM on July 25, 2011


Asshole!!! HE"S THE ONE WHO COULDN"T TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER!!! GRRRRR!!!
posted by Skygazer at 6:21 PM on July 25, 2011


I'm... sorry... I can't do the Boehner response. It's all I can do right now to remind myself that I believe firmly in the redemptive value of non-violent protest.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:21 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Can somebody please link to Boehner's response?
posted by iamkimiam at 6:22 PM on July 25, 2011


lies, lies, lies, lies
posted by pyramid termite at 6:22 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


"That he has created"? GFY
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:22 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


His delivery was taken off the table in a sense. The words though, they shine. What he said won't read any other way.

Hmm? Can you explain that?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 PM on July 25, 2011


Ironmouth: Does my Republican Congressman get his election frunding from people like me or businesses like the mortgage industry, the oil industry and the banking industry. Why should he listen to me? He never has before.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


Boehner looking less orange than usual. And is he reminding anyone else of Sheldon on BBT? Says Obama wants a blank check. Sounding quite the evil hostage taker.
posted by dejah420 at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


Boehner's folding? Huh?
posted by Ironmouth at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


He should have told people to break shop window and set cars on fire. That's how representative democracy works, folks. Talking to your democratic representatives is practically fascism.

I know you're kidding, but that's not far off from what several people have suggested in this thread in complete seriousness.
posted by empath at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


if you dare
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


Here, iamkimiam
posted by Flunkie at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


But it's over now.
posted by Flunkie at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011


Shorter Boehner: America go fuck yourself.
posted by humanfont at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you're spending more money than you take in, you have to spend less.

-John Boehner, who has apparently never heard of asking for a pay raise.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:24 PM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


sorry, it's over. you didn't miss much beside a sudden and painful raising of your blood pressure.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:24 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


But it's over now.

And it really must not have been love.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:24 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


I'm watching Fox news, where Shep Smith is anchoring and he's poking holes in Boehner's response. He pointed out the bipartisan compromise that was passed in the House only had 5 Democrats voting for it. Wow.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:25 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


This commenter on C-SPAN2 is ... just ... wow.
posted by ivey at 6:26 PM on July 25, 2011


obama asked for compromise - boehner demanded complance with his program

we're screwed - i don't believe there is any way out of this impasse save utter and complete capitulation to the republicans

and i don't think we should
posted by pyramid termite at 6:26 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Not everybody's watching C-SPAN2. What do you mean?
posted by Flunkie at 6:27 PM on July 25, 2011


Obama: Can't we all just get along?

Boehner: Fuck you.

Nobody's ever figured out how to deal with a bully. Obama's maybe particularly bad at it. How many people on AskMe have written about horrible bosses, blackmailing exes, etc., and the best advice is go to law enforcement or just leave. Obama can't do either.

Republicans now calling for impeachment of Obama. For what? The Republicans have created a sick system in government. I don't know what can be done.
posted by notswedish at 6:28 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Just sent to my Congressperson, Jim Cooper (D - TN):

I am disgusted with the continuing argument about the debt ceiling. Is resisting raising taxes on the top 2% really worth playing chicken with the global economy? The Republican party appears to me to be acting, frankly, insanely. Please continue to contribute to solutions to this issue without screwing over the bottom 98% of the country. Thank you.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:28 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Talking to your democratic representatives is practically fascism.

Cortex, if you think our democracy is representative of anything but big business I think you may be living in a fantasy world. What Obama could have done is come down harder on the Republicans - much harder. He could have also stated his intention to use his executive power to use the 14th Amendment option if order to keep the U.S. going (and let the courts battle it out later on ) if the Republicans won't be reasonable - that would have been a significant game changer. He could have used the words "economic terrorism" He had the limelight - he had his 15 minutes and even though he is the President he only gets so many of those. I think he squandered this one.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:29 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I mean that it seems that in the past much of what Obama has said in the past has been critiqued on grounds of delivery and other not-easily-quantifiable facets of oral speech. This speech was much more subdued in a sense (I think somebody upthread used the word 'milquetoast'). Flourished delivery is great and all, but it often gets picked apart to the point of obscuring or distracting from the message. This speech was so carefully worded and seemingly intentionally dialed back on the delivery...as if most of the interpretive load is in the literal content (wording) of the message. Put another way, my feeling is that the print version (and pull quotes) will read very much the same as the spoken...with minimal unpacking of hidden meaning or paralinguistic cues/messaging. I don't know though...I just heard it and that's my first impression.
posted by iamkimiam at 6:29 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wait, where is the Tea Party response?
posted by triggerfinger at 6:30 PM on July 25, 2011


Not everybody's watching C-SPAN2

Understatement!
posted by chrchr at 6:30 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Flunkie it was just a guy rambling about how they should take everyone in Washington out to the place where they watch nuclear tests and make them sit down and have dinner together, so he won't lose his defibrillator.
posted by ivey at 6:31 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Nobody's ever figured out how to deal with a bully.

Boehner isn't being a bully, he's just a weak Speaker that can't deliver his own caucus for a compromise vote. Negotiating with him is a waste of time.
posted by empath at 6:31 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I think he squandered this one.

in the effort to appear reasonable and sane - and he does - he's failed to follow teddy roosevelt's advice

he spoke softly - but where's the big stick?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:32 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


my feeling is that the print version (and pull quotes) will read very much the same as the spoken

Yes, agreed. It reads quite plainly and directly.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:32 PM on July 25, 2011


I was going to send some emails but both my Senators' (1R and 1D) web pages are rendering as blank white space in Firefox 5.0. Did they default already happen and they didn't pay their internet bill or something?
posted by marxchivist at 6:32 PM on July 25, 2011


Wait, where is the Tea Party response?

"just keep putting the water and the tea bags in, guys - we'll have that bathtup filled up in no time"
posted by pyramid termite at 6:33 PM on July 25, 2011


Where did my shit go. I was just watching the speaker of the house and it seems I've lost it. I'm going to bed and I hope it turns up in the morning.

obody's ever figured out how to deal with a bully. Obama's maybe particularly bad at it

The American people are going to be in a frenzy after this. Try to get through to the confessional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and see.

http://www.house.gov/contact/
posted by humanfont at 6:33 PM on July 25, 2011


marxchivist, you don't need their web pages, just go here: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
posted by joannemerriam at 6:34 PM on July 25, 2011


Boehner just threw down the gauntlet: Agree to all of our demands or face national bankruptcy.

Obama will either cave in or we are going to default in a week. Those are the only options, now.
posted by Avenger at 6:34 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The website of the Speaker of the House is throwing a server too busy response code.
posted by humanfont at 6:35 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


If I could say, without it being a monumental betrayal of the sharecropper's great-granddaughter in Mississippi, the young gay men in the hills of Tennessee, the Mexican family in South Texas divided by mere paperwork, the man in Alaska who loves the land and hates the planned oil pipelines, I would say it:

Let them go, and let us not stop them leaving the Union dedicated to the proposition that a government for the people shall not perish.

But I can't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:35 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Will. Never. Happen. The voters are mostly homeowners, and people with mortgages to pay are highly averse to going on strike.

I'll go on general strike in a heart beat if all my neighbors join me.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:35 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Obama will either cave in or we are going to default in a week. Those are the only options, now.

I'm betting Republicans will blink, based on public response and polls favoring Obama.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:38 PM on July 25, 2011


Called my Rep. The DC mailbox was full but I left a message at the district office. Don't think this is gonna help here though, this is about ideology not responding to public pressure.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:39 PM on July 25, 2011


Obama will either cave in or we are going to default in a week.

Those outcomes are not equally probable.
posted by Trurl at 6:42 PM on July 25, 2011


The main Congressional phone isn't even picking up. They must be swamped.
posted by Flunkie at 6:42 PM on July 25, 2011


I'm betting Republicans will blink

maybe some will - but i think there's a hardcore of true believers who are going to do "the right thing" and don't give a damn if they get re-elected or not

i wish some of our leaders were like that
posted by pyramid termite at 6:42 PM on July 25, 2011


I emailed my rep (also Jim Cooper, TN 5th rocking this thread). I would email my repub senators as well but the senate website appears to be overwhelmed.
posted by ghharr at 6:43 PM on July 25, 2011


You can find your Representative here.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:43 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Those outcomes are not equally probable.

that's what worries me - i think capitulation would set a terrible precedent and would probably make our government unworkable

which is probably what the tea partiers want
posted by pyramid termite at 6:43 PM on July 25, 2011


What's the best way to determine which Congresspeople are the swing votes here?

Those of us who live in DC (or, you know, Guam) have no one to call, but if there are representatives on whom more pressure will make the most difference, I'd be happy to be a virtual carpetbagger.
posted by argonauta at 6:44 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


guys guys im done im going to go eat burgers until i die
posted by The Whelk at 6:45 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


drunken corner bistro meetup with bacons.
posted by elizardbits at 6:46 PM on July 25, 2011


guys guys im done im going to go eat burgers until i die

go to mcdonalds - it'll be a lot quicker
posted by pyramid termite at 6:46 PM on July 25, 2011


guys guys im done im going to go eat burgers until i die

If you were a Republican you'd fill up on burgers until you were almost dead and then walk out without paying the bill.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:47 PM on July 25, 2011 [9 favorites]


From Boehner's speech

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill – one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Well, I wanted to rub the GOP House's noses in poop. And reading the above felt like getting a wet sloppy face-full of feces in my eyes.

So, well, fuck all this. Where's that possibly habitable planet again?
posted by angrycat at 6:47 PM on July 25, 2011


I'll go on general strike in a heart beat if all my neighbors join me.

Me, too.

As for the speeches:

Obama was, uhm, underwhelming. He was calm, he was factual, he was educational, but he was also too subtle, I think. He took the time to address the nation on prime time, and he should have taken it to congress with more urgency and gravitas, I think.

Boehner was just a bald-faced liar. Bipartisan support for cut,cap and balance? Give me a fucking break. The Democrats couldn't take yes for an answer? Obama has spent us into a hole?

I'm banking on the less-informed public seeing that Boehner and the Tea Party are ignorant, posturing liars more than I am on them really grokking what Obama was saying. In other words, I think Boehner made a better case for the Democrats than Obama did.

We'll see, I guess.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:48 PM on July 25, 2011


I will gladly raise your debt limit Tuesday for a hamburger today.
posted by Trurl at 6:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


I'm betting Republicans will blink, based on public response and polls favoring Obama

I agree with this. It's been my opinion for months that we won't default. I think there are a few ideological tea party nutcases in Congress who think we should, but I think John Boehner knows better - but he'll never admit it. He's just going to continue on with this political theater to please the fringe base until the very last moment, when he'll miraculously come to a last minute agreement so as not to tip the country toward disaster. That's what pisses me off SO much about Boehner. I think he's smarter than that but he'd rather toe the nutcase fringe line of the the GOP to further his political career than do what he knows is best for America.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:51 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, well, fuck all this. Where's that possibly habitable planet again?

Gliese 581d

As long as they're cool with gay sex and martinis I'm down.
posted by Avenger at 6:51 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


We'll see, I guess.

Obama just pointed a bunch of angry voters at Congress, whom they traditionally hate more than President at the best of times.

Boehner acted like a jackass and got called out on Fox News for his lies.

I'm betting on Congress folding, but possibly not until after the default, they're that thick.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:52 PM on July 25, 2011


If you live in DC perhaps you should make your way to the Hill and stand outside with a large number of your fellow residents and ask congress politely to consider your point of view. To keep the mosquitos at bay, I recommend carrying one of those citronella torches. Also since you may be standing for a while bring a pitch fork, as you can stick it into the ground and use it as a leaning stick. I'd come but I seem to have lost my shit somewhere, have you seen it? I'm hoping it will turn up in the morning. Also I've been drinking heavily so you should probably ignore my advice from this point out.
posted by humanfont at 6:52 PM on July 25, 2011 [16 favorites]


He could have also stated his intention to use his executive power to use the 14th Amendment option if order to keep the U.S. going (and let the courts battle it out later on ) if the Republicans won't be reasonable - that would have been a significant game changer.

How so? Given that that option is still available what "game" would it "change" to threaten it? Will it frighten intransigent Republicans into conceding?
posted by octobersurprise at 6:53 PM on July 25, 2011


So, well, fuck all this. Where's that possibly habitable planet again?

Gliese 581d

As long as they're cool with gay sex and martinis I'm down.


Only vodka martinis, there is no juniper there.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:53 PM on July 25, 2011


Obama was calm assured and Boehner looked like he just went through the weekend from hell.

I still feel like there's something we don't know here. I hope there is, and I hope it explains why Obama sounded so confident and cool.

He's hard to read obviously, but fuck if I don't think he's got an ace in here somewhere, whereas I feel like Boehner is fighting for his political future.
posted by Skygazer at 6:55 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Any of the networks reporting "instant poll" type things? Focus groups and such?
posted by Flunkie at 6:55 PM on July 25, 2011


Here's my compromise: the debt limit gets raised and we let the red states vote to secede. They get the debt incurred under Republican presidents, we get the debt incurred under Democratic presidents.
posted by ifandonlyif at 6:55 PM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


He could have also stated his intention to use his executive power to use the 14th Amendment option if order to keep the U.S. going...

He can still do that and come out looking like the adult in the room (Oh hey, I found this other way to fix the problem). No need to tip his hand at this point.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:56 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner's folding? Huh?

There was a brief moment where he started shaking. It looked like a brief, accidental internal recognition that he was talking, live, to the entire world. Or a nic fit.
posted by gjc at 6:56 PM on July 25, 2011


Okay, so what the hell? I've tried every phone number I could think of...all mailboxes full, even in the District Offices. Started to turn (in desperation) to the Facebook pages of the Reps I wanted to weigh in with. When I clicked over to Boehner's page, I get this message from Facebook:

Turn off secure browsing?
We can't display this content while you're viewing Facebook over a secure connection (https).
Would you like to temporarily switch to a regular connection (http) to use this app?
You will have a secure connection upon your next login.


So what the hell is that all about? I can't read his page without giving up my secure connection, what???
posted by jeanmari at 6:56 PM on July 25, 2011


And Obama wins: congress doesn't even want to hear what you are saying.
posted by gjc at 6:57 PM on July 25, 2011


https is for commies
posted by Flunkie at 6:58 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Only vodka martinis, there is no juniper there.

Well, forget it, then.
posted by LMGM at 6:58 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Obama needed to say what is actually happening: that Republicans are holding the country hostage. We're talking a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a mere economic slowdown if the U.S. government defaults. 20-30% drop in GDP, 30-50% unemployment, no credit for anything without usurious interest rates...

...this is no different than a terrorist with his finger on the trigger of a nuke in New York. It's literally the ticking time bomb solution that all the Republicans used to argue for torture a few years back. I mean, if they were told in 2005 that in 2011, a group of terrorists had the ability to destroy the U.S. economy and kill millions (surely the end result of a U.S. default, worldwide), and had threatened to detonate their 'bomb' within a week if their extreme demands were not met, they would have fallen over themselves to advocate torture.

Another thing:

Obama's blah compromise speech has left the casual observe with no idea of the urgency of the situation. They might have thought, "hmm, Obama seems reasonable, we should probably do what he says, but, meh, it doesn't seem that important," and then "wow Boehner is pissed, Obama must be a real jerk to piss him off that much." That's why Boehner won. Obama dropped the ball and backed himself into a corner. Now if a deal doesn't get done, it looks like he's failed at being the moderate compromiser.

I mean, what's it going to take to push Obama over the edge and realize that the people he's been trying to cooperate with for the last 2.5 years have been mercilessly whaling on him this whole time?
posted by notswedish at 6:58 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


dot.commies
posted by pyramid termite at 6:58 PM on July 25, 2011


I think the "invoking the 14th" thing loses it's effectiveness the minute he threatens to use it. He'll be boxed into it, and impeached, and the GOTP is off the hook to the Freshman TP-ers' and they're off the hook to their insane constituents.

Why the hell would he want to do that now?
posted by Skygazer at 6:59 PM on July 25, 2011


no sign of panic in the asian markets - seems to be a rather mundane day for them
posted by pyramid termite at 7:03 PM on July 25, 2011


The Whelk: "guys guys im done im going to go eat burgers until i die"

Shouldn't you be ignoring politics and honeymooning right now? Go!
posted by notsnot at 7:04 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Obama's blah compromise speech has left the casual observe with no idea of the urgency of the situation.

Watching local news here, the reports seem to be displaying Obama as being Presidential, with a good plan. Several have noted Obama's mention of Reagan. Boehner's two stage plan seems confusing and not much is being said about it. When asked who won, the local commentators are saying it was Obama, hands down.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:04 PM on July 25, 2011


Michael Bloomberg needs to shut the fuck up about how all incumbents are at fault for this mess. Fucking rich wrinkled guy. I hate everybody.
posted by angrycat at 7:06 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Cortex, I wanted to expand pn my feelings as to why our democracy is no longer representative of the people at large - why the worst congresspeople don't really care what the people think, OK.

This is how I see it: in a nutshell, roughly 25 to 30 percent of the voting populace are frankly idiots. No, I don't mean that figuratively I mean that literally. Idiots. They're the one's who believe Obama is a secret Muslim. They're the ones who believe that liberals are socialists. They're the ones who hold up the "You Morans!" signs. They're the ones who believe in Beck and Limbaugh. Complete idiots . Low IQ types and/or emotional basket cases. And thise idiots are the ones who more often than not decide our elections because they vote as a block. A very powerful (but idiotic) voting block.

Why do you think we always see those horrible awful idiotic negative political adverts each and every voting season. Why? Because they work . They appeal to the idiots and they almost inevitably work. The idiots do not send in money for Congressional elections by and large. All they have is their enormous voting potential. All a Congressperson has to do is get enough money fro big business to make enough attack ads and radio spots to get he idiot vote and you're in like Flynn. The idiots are going to vote for you if you take away their health care. The idiots are going to vote for you if you take away their social security. The idiots are going to vote for you if you implement a mandatory 50 hour work week at 25% less wages. They're idiots.

Non-idiots often see both sides of an issue. We split out vote among the candidates. Surely you have noticed that so many of our most important elections these last 30 years have come down to a difference of just a few percent. The majority split their vote. They're not so easily swayed. The idiots vote for who Rush Limbaugh tells then to vote for. All you need is enough money to scare enough idiots into voting for you.

SO i don't believe the most problematic Congresspeople care a bit about what the 70% of the population think. They KNOW that they only need more money from more big business to scare up the idiot vote. They know that and they don;t care about you calling. Because they know that people like you will always split your vote , will always see both sides, unlike the idiots.

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.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:06 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I think the "invoking the 14th" thing loses it's effectiveness the minute he threatens to use it. He'll be boxed into it, and impeached, and the GOTP is off the hook to the Freshman TP-ers' and they're off the hook to their insane constituents.

Impeachment also loses its effectiveness once its use is threatened.

Cuz if they think 19 Democratic Senators will vote to convict, they need to re-think.
posted by Trurl at 7:06 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


That's why Boehner won. Obama dropped the ball and backed himself into a corner. Now if a deal doesn't get done, it looks like he's failed at being the moderate compromiser.

I disagree. It's clear now which party is bent on touching Medicare and Social Security and going at those programs like ham fisted butchers.

Obama, clearly came across as the reasonable protector of those things looking for a smarter and more reasonable way ahead, that doesn't put cutting the deficit fully on the back of the Middle-class and poor and elderly.

If I depended on SS or Medicare, I know who I'd be voting for in 2012. There's a reason those programs are considered "third rails" of politics.
posted by Skygazer at 7:06 PM on July 25, 2011


Yes, I am sure my Congressweasel will listen to reason.

Its this attitude that has got us in this mess. If they are swamped by calls, they will move their position. They aren't gonna suddenly vote for Obamacare, but they will hold their nose and vote for this.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:07 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


If there is no raise to the debt limit, the White House will have to start printing money. Obama & Geithner will have to live up to the 14th Amendment and to the debt limit law, both at the same time. The only way to do that is with a shiny new billion dollar coin.
posted by ifandonlyif at 7:08 PM on July 25, 2011


pyramid termite: "I think he squandered this one.

in the effort to appear reasonable and sane - and he does - he's failed to follow teddy roosevelt's advice

he spoke softly - but where's the big stick?
"

I could crack a joke on that one... but... it's too easy.
posted by symbioid at 7:09 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Lisa: You're about to launch a terrible evil on the world. You've got to destroy this plant.
Homer: I know, honey, but what can I do as an individual. I wouldn't know where to begin.
Lisa: Just burn that plant right now and end this madness.
Homer: I wish I could make a difference, Lisa, but I'm just one man.
Lisa: [growls]
Homer: I agree, but how?
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:11 PM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Heh; my -R rep's DC office voice mail is full as is the voice mail at his local office; his webpage won't load.

Not bad, for milquetoast.
posted by faineant at 7:12 PM on July 25, 2011


Boehner's website is still slammed.


(That was kind of a genius move. Boehner already look like he's walking a fine line into a complete bender, and total blabbering psychosis, and a couple of million emails and phone calls is just the thing to make him shove his wingtips up some Freshman Rep. TeaBagger ASS AND GET THIS SHIT DONE!)
posted by Skygazer at 7:15 PM on July 25, 2011


The only way to do that is with a shiny new billion dollar coin.

Suggested design
posted by Trurl at 7:17 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Marco Rubio's site is down, too; I already wrote Southerland or whatever the hell our idiot Rep's name is.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:18 PM on July 25, 2011


Economiggedon
posted by angrycat at 7:20 PM on July 25, 2011


Ah, I have written and deleted a dozen potential comments that aspired to be thoughtful or insightful, but all I really want to say is that I want tthe top ten NFL kickers to have a chance to punt Boehner's orange junk into orbit. That statement doesn't really help anybody, though.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:21 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh man. I forgot about time zones and was looking forward to watching Obama's speech in about an hour and a half. Can someone post a link to it when it's made available somewhere? (Unless I see them live, for some reason I can never find the speeches. I fail at Google.)
posted by meese at 7:23 PM on July 25, 2011


Skygazer: "and the GOTP is off the hook "

Is there a reason you keep using GOTP instead of GOP? Is this shorthand for something I'm not aware of? "Grand Ol' Tea Party"?
posted by symbioid at 7:23 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Daniel Webster's house page is down. And he doesn't have a facebook page that has been changed to reflect that he is in office. In person protest at the office tomorrow? Any Orlando Mefites?
posted by Chipmazing at 7:24 PM on July 25, 2011


meese, cspan.org is a good place to check for things like this.
posted by Flunkie at 7:24 PM on July 25, 2011


Gasp! I actually found it on my own for once!

You can find both Obama's and Boehner's speeches here.
posted by meese at 7:30 PM on July 25, 2011


Tried to call Toomey to criticize his spending prioritization idea and ask if he had even researched the technical feasibility of it. PA and DC office mailboxes are full. I kind of feel like if Obama was gonna ask for calls he should have done it during they day so at least we could frazzle some staffers.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:30 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Calls don't normally matter all that much, but the President usually isn't asking for them in a primetime speech.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:32 PM on July 25, 2011


you don't need their web pages, just go here: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
posted by joannemerriam


All the reps pages are throwing errors, but this one seems to still be chugging along.
posted by dejah420 at 7:33 PM on July 25, 2011


when was the last time massive civil action resulted in meaningful change in voting habits in congress

Te last I can recall was the Vietnam war protests. I was very young then but I think they resulted more in changing who became elected rather then how existing congressmen voted.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:33 PM on July 25, 2011


Speaking of burgers, I had breakfast this morning at Colonel Mustard's Phat Burgers, over in Jacksonville Beach, FL. Besides gut busting burgers, they make terrific 5 egg breakfast omelets, and tender, giant pancakes, and they're cheap eats, to boot. $5.95 for a 5 egg omelet with cheese, mushroom, onions, and peppers, and toast.

The breakfast crowd when I arrived at 7:25 a.m. this morning were 6 white guys from late 20s to early 60s in age, 2 young black guys, a white middle aged woman, and black woman in her 20s. The TVs were tuned to CNN as usual, and the folks were watching, and some talking back to the talking heads on the TVs discussing the debt ceiling problems, when I walked in, and none of what I heard was complimentary to anybody in Washington. Also, it was really clear that nobody in that non-random, self-selected, breakfast seeking slice of Americana understood much about the mechanics of any "deal" being discussed by the talking heads. It was also clear that nobody there understood much about finance, or especially government finance.

Everybody there was deeply suspicious of everything they were hearing, and of Washington, entirely. The consensus seemed to be that, since everybody there was living closer to the edge than they had been in years, that the 6 figure salary folks in Washington ought to earn their damn money, and Do The Right Thing. And furthermore, that the Right Thing for Government, in a time when they mostly can't get bank loans, are paying higher rates on their credit cards, and have worries about their income and jobs, is for Big Government to cut back as much they have had to cut back, in their own lives.

I threw out a few facts, as the TV talking heads raised topics, but mostly I just sat back and listened to some folks try to understand and figure out what was going to happen to them and their families in the coming days. And I realized, these people aren't going to call anybody in Washington, aren't going to email anybody, and that they think, deep down, that whatever Washington comes up with, is going to cost them, sooner or later.

The process, flawed and imperfect and partisan as it has always been, has left an America with an ever more limited attention span, way behind. The complexity of Federal government is deeply resented by a lot of average folks, even if they wouldn't call themselves Tea Party supporters. They think it ought to all be a lot simpler, and a lot cheaper, and if they're going to ever Speak Truth to Power themselves, that's about what they're going to say. "Suck it up, and deal, like we have to," is what they'd say, if they thought it would do much good.

I'm doubting, deeply, after watching tonight's love fest, if Obama really gets any of that. He used the words "debt" and "deficit" pretty loosely, and confusingly, and he made no effort to cover the details of Reid's plan, or to try to do any real education of the American public, in basic terms, of other alternatives. He really went partisan, and not in a helpful way, even to the point of deathhugging Boehner. It wasn't helpful, I think, to any of the folks with whom I had breakfast, and it provoked an expected response from Boehner.

This Ain't The Way, Washington.
posted by paulsc at 7:34 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


Toomey's contact page will open if you keep reloading it. It will close up real quick though, so best have your message pre-fabbed. I spent too much time trying to be clever and non-FBI invoking in telling him I hate him with the heat of ten thousand suns.
posted by angrycat at 7:34 PM on July 25, 2011


Wow, CNN.com's "coverage" of this is a travesty. It's basically a feed of a whitelist of Twitter users. For some reason, seeing this has flipped my opinion of Twitter from ambivalence to a sort of Stewart-on-Crossfire "stop hurting America" position.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:37 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


feloniousmonk : CNN stopped being a real news organization sometime in the mid 90's.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:40 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Don't worry Paul, when the Republicans crash the economy for no reason, your ignorant masses will have something to say.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:40 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


$5.95 for a 5 egg omelet with cheese, mushroom, onions, and peppers, and toast.

You really shouldn't be eating that much. That it costs so little just makes it worse. It's like, I dunno, talking about spending the night with a whore for 50 bux or something.
posted by TheTingTangTong at 7:41 PM on July 25, 2011


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:

We have reached a point where raising the debt ceiling -- which is a noncontroversial and routine measure that has always had strong bipartisan support extending back who knows how long -- is something that Congressional Republicans cannot figure out a way to do. Despite the fact that they know not doing it could have drastic consequences for the country, despite the fact that many of them personally have done it many times in the past as a matter of course, and despite the fact that their supposed corporate overlords have been telling them to do it.

Why are they unable to find a way to do this thing that you know most of them think is both reasonable and necessary? Because of the civil action of the Tea Party.
posted by Flunkie at 7:43 PM on July 25, 2011 [9 favorites]


It's like, I dunno, talking about spending the night with a whore for 50 bux or something.

Don't go to AskMe for help though.

posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on July 25, 2011


As of tomorrow's open, all my (IRA and pension plan) positions are entirely liquidated. Thanks GOP! What a great job you've done for all us middle-class people!

(For me, the watershed was the thousands of FAA they laid off without a moment's consideration. Can't wait til the money for air traffic controllers runs out min-August.)
posted by newdaddy at 7:45 PM on July 25, 2011


paulsc: " he made no effort to cover the details of Reid's plan, or to try to do any real education of the American public"

Actually, before I started to read this thread I thought to myself "Is he going to pull a Ross Perot? Will he pull out some basic charts and try to communicate the issue? Maybe he should haul Ross back in (not that I have any particular love for the man)"

But yeah - we need to fucking EDUCATE people, not just assume they know this shit.

Break out the colorful graphs and charts, explain what default means, explain debt vs deficit, explain the expenditures, explain HOW IT AFFECTS EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN. (and if in my all caps "screaming" I offend some of the more delicate sensibilities (as I'm assuming some of my previous comments seemed to do - unless I'm misreading some somments) I apologize. I had some good Wee Heavy Ale, and am slightly buzzed, so nyeah).

Um, but yeah. Why is there not more of this. Less talking head bullshit partisan bickering on talking heads shows and more primetime "look, here's the deal" and if Boehner wants his time w/graphs and shit, fine, whatevs. Not that I think he should have time considering they have a 24 hour propaganda channel, but when it comes to something like this? Fine. Post some numbers and shit.

Hell, interview some economists that can break it down. Something, anything to make the electorate not quite as stupid as I continue to gather that they seem to be.
posted by symbioid at 7:46 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth, serious question: when was the last time massive civil action resulted in meaningful change in voting habits in congress?

I think that Mayor Nagin's plea for people to call Congress during the Katrina crisis changed the administration's handling of it.

Regarding the speeches, I think Boehner came out ahead. The Speaker's delivery seemed much stronger to me- I don't think I've ever seen Obama fumble that much during a prepared speech. And I expect that his call for people to contact their Congressperson will backfire- the GOP base is more into that sort of thing and more emotionally engaged in this fight. That, along with the fact that the House members in greatest danger of losing their seats next year- the GOP freshmen- are also the group that truly seems to care the least about that prospect. The less wingnutty members of the GOP caucus are also the ones with the more secure positions, I expect.
posted by gsteff at 7:47 PM on July 25, 2011


he made no effort to cover the details of Reid's plan

$2.7 trillion in spending cuts when we're already on the verge of a double-dip recession, not a penny of new revenue, and a "Super Congress" to make sure you have as little chance as possible to stop future cuts to Social Security and Medicare - which are now permanently "in play". And that's the best case scenario. The Overton Window has been moved so far that it's no longer in the same house.

This whole episode is a triumph of historic proportions for the Republican Party.
posted by Trurl at 7:47 PM on July 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


the watershed was the thousands of FAA they laid off without a moment's consideration.

The only way to protect America is to get rid of unions, and the only way to ensure that there are no unions - including secret unions - is to make sure there are no workers.

Total, 100% unemployment - the only sure guard against Marxism.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


"You really shouldn't be eating that much. That it costs so little just makes it worse. It's like, I dunno, talking about spending the night with a whore for 50 bux or something."
posted by TheTingTangTong at 10:41 PM on July 25

Eh, when I have breakfast there, I pretty much don't have to eat again for the rest of the day. And I learned a long time ago that the best $50 whores all live in D.C., so I'm just a big fan of amateur lovers, now, down here in the Sunshine State.
posted by paulsc at 7:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know what is beautiful right now? The unified RAGE of this thread. Fuck yeah! Let's find some nonviolent way to to kick this evil shit in the motherfuckin' balls
posted by angrycat at 7:48 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


$2.7 trillion in spending cuts when we're already on the verge of a double-dip recession,

Dude, so much of that is coming from 'savings' resulting from out ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's kind of nifty, don't you think?
posted by angrycat at 7:51 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




Angrycat's pizza budget caused the deficit.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:51 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Joey Michaels: "the watershed was the thousands of FAA they laid off without a moment's consideration.

The only way to protect America is to get rid of unions, and the only way to ensure that there are no unions - including secret unions - is to make sure there are no workers.

Total, 100% unemployment - the only sure guard against Marxism.
"

Yes! If there are now workers, they can't heed the clarion call to unite! Genius, my friend, pure fucking genius.
posted by symbioid at 7:52 PM on July 25, 2011


People are rightly angry with the Democrats' attitude toward the deleterious effects of governmental overspending. Remember when Joe Biden said, "Deficits don't matter."? *That's* what people are upset about.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:52 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Let's find some nonviolent way to to kick this evil shit in the motherfuckin' balls

I saved her, Billy. I saved her using VIOLENCE. And that's not a bad thing, Billy!
posted by curious nu at 7:54 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Why is there not more of this. Less talking head bullshit partisan bickering on talking heads shows and more primetime "look, here's the deal" and if Boehner wants his time w/graphs and shit, fine, whatevs. Not that I think he should have time considering they have a 24 hour propaganda channel, but when it comes to something like this? Fine. Post some numbers and shit.

I wish there were some venue for political leaders to debate major issues like this, where the participants are forced to actually respond to each others' points. The presidential debates, though certainly flawed in many ways, often seem like the only time every four years that Americans get a glimpse of the way the framers intended for our political system to function.
posted by gsteff at 7:55 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




They think it ought to all be a lot simpler, and a lot cheaper, and if they're going to ever Speak Truth to Power themselves, that's about what they're going to say. "Suck it up, and deal, like we have to," is what they'd say, if they thought it would do much good.

Well, Paul, tell your rubes that life is always simpler and so much cheaper once they burn everything down. Certainly, the GOP will make their lives simpler and cheaper, just like their guy Rick Scott down in Florida.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:01 PM on July 25, 2011


(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates:Remember when Joe Biden said, "Deficits don't matter."? *That's* what people are upset about.

Are you serious? ??
Because I remember that as being a Cheney quote from 2002 "Reagan proved deficits don't matter,"

So were you joking or what was that about?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:02 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Cheney said that? He must have been quoting Biden. Or some other Democrat.

Because Republicans have always cared about fiscal responsibility.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:05 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Republicans have always been at war with Eastasia.
posted by ifandonlyif at 8:07 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Um...do I need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter?
posted by Go Banana at 8:07 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Remember when Joe Biden shot that guy in the face?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:08 PM on July 25, 2011 [18 favorites]


No, Go Banana. You don't need to calibrate your "sarcasm filter".
posted by Zozo at 8:09 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


That's a joke son, don't you get it?
posted by saulgoodman at 8:10 PM on July 25, 2011


And then the guy apologized to Biden!
posted by ifandonlyif at 8:10 PM on July 25, 2011


"Well, Paul, tell your rubes that life is always simpler and so much cheaper once they burn everything down. ..."
posted by octobersurprise at 11:01 PM on July 25

That's a pretty cheap, partisan shot, octobersurprise. The people I ate breakfast with weren't "rubes" by any but perhaps your definition, and those that had jobs were on their way to work after breakfast, while those that didn't seemed to wish that they were, too. They pay taxes, they worry about the future, and about how it will affect their families, and like the majority of Americans today, they get most of their news from TV. They don't burn anything but barbeque charcoal on the weekends, and the occasional cigarette.

And although they live in Florida, that doesn't make them Republicans, or Scott voters, or even stupid.
posted by paulsc at 8:11 PM on July 25, 2011


They weren't rubes, they were just all morons who didn't understand finance or government or any of the deals on the table you see...
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:15 PM on July 25, 2011


I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death my right to have an uniformed opinion on it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:19 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know what is beautiful right now? The unified RAGE of this thread. Fuck yeah! Let's find some nonviolent way to to kick this evil shit in the motherfuckin' balls

Call your congressman. That's how it gets done. HuffPo reporting a lot of congressional websites are down due to us and other doing the same thing. Keep at it.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:20 PM on July 25, 2011


"They weren't rubes, they were just all morons who didn't understand finance or government or any of the deals on the table you see..."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:15 PM on July 25

Morons? I dare say 2/3 of college graduates of America's universities would be hard pressed to explain deficit finance in any detail, off the top of their heads.

"... I will defend to the death my right to have an uniformed opinion on it."
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:19 PM on July 25

Which uniform? After today, I'm putting my Jaguar teal jersey back on!
posted by paulsc at 8:24 PM on July 25, 2011


Morons? I dare say 2/3 of college graduates of America's universities would be hard pressed to explain deficit finance in any detail, off the top of their heads.

See, we all agree on that. The part of the story that makes you sound pretentious is the part where you set yourself up as smarter than the rest of them.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:34 PM on July 25, 2011


Ironmouth: "Call your congressman. That's how it gets done."

Meh, I was protesting in the goddamned street in 2003 and that accomplished exactly nothing. I doubt the terrible ordeal of having an intern delete my voicemail is going to accomplish much at this point. I'm going with newdaddy's plan.
posted by mullingitover at 8:39 PM on July 25, 2011


"... The part of the story that makes you sound pretentious is the part where you set yourself up as smarter than the rest of them."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:34 PM on July 25

Eh, I shared a few facts that nobody else in that place seemed to have, and I think my few comments were understood and generally received as the informational interjections I intended. It didn't seem to stop anybody else there from making their points, or questioning those of the talking heads, or of Obama's or Boehner's comments in replays of last Friday nights' drama.

But if you think I'm pretentious in my comments here, I guess you're entitled to your opinion; I don't read what I've written that way.
posted by paulsc at 8:53 PM on July 25, 2011


Nancy Pelosi welcomes our new GOP overlords: It is clear we must enter an era of austerity.
posted by Trurl at 8:55 PM on July 25, 2011


Sorry, as an American my short attention span and limited capacity for complexity have left me bored with this conversation.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:56 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Trurl: "Nancy Pelosi welcomes our new GOP overlords: It is clear we must enter an era of austerity."

Zombie Herbert Hoover nods in approval.
posted by mullingitover at 8:57 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Letterman "Jeeze, Obama, this guy, I be he now wishes he was born in Kenya"
posted by Ironmouth at 9:07 PM on July 25, 2011


Ironmouth: "Call your congressman. That's how it gets done."

Meh, I was protesting in the goddamned street in 2003 and that accomplished exactly nothing. I doubt the terrible ordeal of having an intern delete my voicemail is going to accomplish much at this point. I'm going with newdaddy's plan.


The intern counts the damn voicemails before deleting them. It really works. Marching in the street? Rarely.

This is the problem--getting into protesting makes us feel good, so we do it because it provides emotional feedback. Actually making an impact is a lot more like calling customer service. But it does get the job done.

Stop running from our duty as citizens. The rest is just self-indulgence. At bare minimum, please make that call or draft that email before busting into Michele Bachman's dressing room and "glittering" the whole place.

If it didn't count, there wouldn't be an entire industry called "astroturfing" designed to fake the effects.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:12 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


lol, leave the glitter thing alone. It's a pretty unique and striking bit of protest, and that glitter is hard to get off. It leaves them thinking about it for days.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:14 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Sorry, as an American my short attention span and limited capacity for complexity have left me bored with this conversation."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:56 PM on July 25

Apparently not, so why not take the strained snark to MeMail, where it can really glitter?
posted by paulsc at 9:15 PM on July 25, 2011


furiousxgeorge: "lol, leave the glitter thing alone. It's a pretty unique and striking bit of protest, and that glitter is hard to get off. It leaves them thinking about it for days."

Raver scabies.
posted by mullingitover at 9:15 PM on July 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


I would apologize for the snark but it might be considered deathhugging.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:18 PM on July 25, 2011


If Nancy Pelosi is starting to talk about a "new era of austerity" then it's basically all over.

Call up your parents and grandparents and tell them to stock up on cat food.
posted by Avenger at 9:18 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


"... If it didn't count, there wouldn't be an entire industry called "astroturfing" designed to fake the effects."
posted by Ironmouth at 12:12 AM on July 26

Uh, I'd like to point out the inherent fallacy(ies) of this statement, but

Oh, forget it. The rest of you take it for the myriad sad, conflicting truths it contains, if you will.

I love this country, but damn, Ironmouth, you've just about made me want to turn in my voter registration, in one sentence.
posted by paulsc at 9:23 PM on July 25, 2011


The intern counts the damn voicemails before deleting them. It really works. Marching in the street? Rarely.

Tell that to the people in Egypt last spring. Tell it to the Spanish Progressives before that or to the English Labor Party or to the millions of Union members who changed this country's policy on labor in the early 1900's. Tell it to all the Greeks who were tired of all the bankers misspending falling on their shoulders to correct.

Here is some helpful insight. By and large, with very few exception, your congressperson never, ever hears what you say on his voice mail. Never. All your impassioned words get listened to by an underpaid staffer who marks "for" or "against" on a little checklist and then all your words get deleted. You might as well cal in , say "against" and hand up right then . Same effect. A couple days later your congressman gets a little report from the underpaid staffer saying how many people called in and what the stats were. It works exactly the same for all your emails that you write. Meh. Goes your Congressman - time for another meet and greet at my favorite lobbyists' town house. Gotta go.

That's how it works Ironmouth and I would be very surprised if you did not know this already.

If it didn't count, there wouldn't be an entire industry called "astroturfing" designed to fake the effects.

Astroturfing has nothing to do with people giving voicemails or emails to Congress. What the hell. Astroturfing, or propaganda as it used to be called. is designed to generate false feelings of social buy-in so stupid people will feel less stupid about making stupid decisions because they feel everyone else is doing it already.

If it didn't count, there wouldn't be an entire industry called "astroturfing" designed to fake the effects.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 9:25 PM on July 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


The GOP is evil, and I wish them the worst.
posted by axismundi at 9:26 PM on July 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


"I would apologize for the snark but it might be considered deathhugging."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:18 AM on July 26

Nah, you're not my enemy, not I yours. No reason to ever let you close enough to deathhug. Obama and Boehner, OTOH, seem like the scorpion trying to get the frog to swim them both across the River Styx.
posted by paulsc at 9:36 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ya know, I wish that Zombie Eisenhower would come back to shake a little sense into those pretenders. How could a party have fallen from this, to what they've become...shallow parodies.

(Not that I'm giving the Dems a free ride, mind you. They've got some splaining to do.)
posted by dejah420 at 9:41 PM on July 25, 2011


Brandon Blatcher wrote: I'm watching Fox news, where Shep Smith is anchoring and he's poking holes in Boehner's response. He pointed out the bipartisan compromise that was passed in the House only had 5 Democrats voting for it. Wow

Even Murdoch and Ailes don't actually want to see another global financial crisis.
posted by wierdo at 9:49 PM on July 25, 2011


"How could a party have fallen from this, to what they've become..."
posted by dejah420 at 12:41 AM on July 26

I'm not sure you should take Eisenhower's farewell to the nation as a purely Republican manifesto, any more than you might take Washington's Farewell, as a partisan political statement. Both were the advice of great leaders, and former generals of our country in its most trying times, and were meant as much as, for want of better words, spiritual consolation in future trials, as particular advice to a nation they loved above all else.

And please, let's not dig up Jefferson, or turn John Adams in his grave, or seek Monroe's or Hamilton's worthy opinions, either. Good men, once they've retired, deserve some peace and distant respect.
posted by paulsc at 9:56 PM on July 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Astroturfing has nothing to do with people giving voicemails or emails to Congress. What the hell. Astroturfing, or propaganda as it used to be called. is designed to generate false feelings of social buy-in so stupid people will feel less stupid about making stupid decisions because they feel everyone else is doing it already.

I must have been hallucinating those 2 months I worked for an astroturfing shop then. Because that's all we did.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:10 PM on July 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I must have been hallucinating those 2 months I worked for an astroturfing shop then. Because that's all we did.

If you admit to spending months trying to lie to people (the very definition of astroturfing) then how do we know you are not doing that right now?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:32 PM on July 25, 2011 [6 favorites]




I must have been hallucinating those 2 months I worked for an astroturfing shop then. Because that's all we did.

If you admit to spending months trying to lie to people (the very definition of astroturfing) then how do we know you are not doing that right now?


Pardon me, but are you accusing me of lying?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:58 PM on July 25, 2011


What cause did you astroturf for?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:00 AM on July 26, 2011


Don't you read Ironmouth's posts? The police union. :P
posted by Talez at 12:01 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


What cause did you astroturf for?

Some background. I had an unpaid internship between my first and second year. I temped in the side. My temp job was supposed to be answering phones for a structured bankruptcy/merger between a German company and a US company. The packaged settlement terms which the judge signed off on included 24/7 phone coverage for info lines for customers, employees and others regarding the deal. We were given a script. (My German was pretty good back then). So we trained for a few days and the big day came, 25 people and a supervisor in a big room. We were all so nervous.

Nobody called. At all. We heard tell another shift got a call once, but we were majorly overstaffed and we were making 18 an hour to watch movies.

Soon they cut hours. They asked if anyone wanted to work on other projects, I said ok. Turns out it was the biggest astroturf firm in the world. All GOP. I needed the money, so I did it. We were doing weird things, offering free estimates to bar owners who might have to add fans to deal with anti-smoking laws in New Jersey. It was all the tobacco companies there. Some how it was juicing the effort to stop the law, which failed. Then there was some weird deal where we would call voters on some national regulation thing or tax thing the Chamber of Commerce wanted stopped. So we called a list of numbers, which predictably led to conservatives, who we would agree to let us write a letter under their signature which we would email to them and they would email to their House reps.

Finally there was some weird thing "grass tops" where we were contacting big movers and shakers to get them to join some Bill Gates charity. Everyone wanted to do that, the rest was as bad as telemarketing. But the product was sold to Congress, not to the citizen--it was like pulling teeth--nobody wanted to do it. Apparently a low rate was common. They wanted the letters to seem like they were in the constituent's voice.

Living in this town you get to see how it works and the right kind of thoughtful constituent contact is really the gold standard.

I've been arguing for many years here for a different type of political activism--boring, not indulgent of people's desires to have an "identity" and instead, respectful and midwest style. This makes the politicians run for cover.

That's why I say suits, ties and dresses with no signs when we march. Sober probity of opposition is huge, just huge.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [13 favorites]


Given your expertise on the subject, what should I tell Mike Fitzpatrick on this issue?

Paraphrased, the message I left tonight was along the lines of: "Hello. I am an independent voter from Doylestown. I strongly urge you to consider a balanced approach to handling the debt ceiling. I watched two speakers tonight and only one made a convincing case that they were focusing on compromise and the best interests of the country, and that was President Obama. Speaker Boehner seemed more concerned with ideology and less with doing the duty of governing. Also, I demand you make "Pinkie Pie" the state horse."

Is there anything wrong with that approach?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:05 AM on July 26, 2011


paulsc your Jacksonville breakfast story is not credible. It sounds like some made up bullshit anecdote. It does little to convince us of your case. You are not the smartest person here. You've demonstrated no qualifications or expertise. Your arguments are poorly constructed and were easily refuted. Perhaps you should try listening for a while.
posted by humanfont at 2:12 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Just wrote my Congress people. It's a little childish and full of personalized guilt, but I think it get's my point across for his staffers to mark me on a particular side of the issue:

The budget deadline is on my birthday. Do the right thing and raise the debt ceiling. Tax the people who make more than 250K a year like the majority of the populous wants. If they want to be called 'job-creaters' then they need to create some actual jobs which they have not yet. I am an oncology nurse. I work hard to do the right thing every day. You should too. Don't default on my mother's social security and my patients' medicare that they use to pay for their cancer treatment on my freaking birthday. DO THE RIGHT THING. RAISE IT.
posted by dog food sugar at 3:36 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


he spoke softly - but where's the big stick?
Times have changed, it's not one big stick but millions of little ones.
posted by fullerine at 4:00 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


furiousxgeorge, I think your approach needs to be about 20% cooler.
posted by ob1quixote at 5:20 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the effortsof a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

Ironmouth, that does indeed sound like what you did for that job, and yes I would call it a form of lying, but that definition does not fit what Obama asked us to do last night. So.
posted by adamdschneider at 5:29 AM on July 26, 2011


I'm not always a David Brooks fan, but today's column in the New York Times is pretty spot on.
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.

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.
posted by BobbyVan at 5:52 AM on July 26, 2011


But BobbyVan, isn't it Congress's job? I mean, the President shouldn't technically be involved in these negotiations, if I understand the duty of Congress regarding the national debt and deficit structure. I believe the POTUS got involved because of the R/D deadlock, but I'm not sure what good he's done...since from my (way left) perspective, he's given the R way more than he should have, and from the other side (R), he's not willing to give enough to make them not poke poor people with sticks.

I'm just saying, while I don't think POTUS has been terribly effective at doing Congress's job, it should be forefront noticed that it IS Congress's job. (As I understand it. )
posted by dejah420 at 6:04 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yeah, it pretty much is Congress' job. Unfortunately, the House is extremely polarized now. House Republicans have signed pledges saying they won't increase taxes; House Democrats have signed pledges saying they won't cut entitlement growth. As Brooks noted, it was always going to be tough to bridge that divide.

Furthermore, once the President started talking about specific tax loopholes, threatening to veto short term extensions, and (obviously) demanding that Congressional leaders meet him at the WH to negotiate, he made himself part of the process.
posted by BobbyVan at 6:21 AM on July 26, 2011


But BobbyVan, isn't it Congress's job? I mean, the President shouldn't technically be involved in these negotiations, if I understand the duty of Congress regarding the national debt and deficit structure.

Unless Congress has a veto-proof majority, he has a place in the negotiations. Congress needs to know what he'll not veto.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:37 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm thinking about how this will play out and wondering: what would panic the markets enough so even the GOP House will take this seriously? With the 2008 collapse, it was the collapse of Bear Sterns, wasn't it? What comparable event would cause even the stupidest GOP House member to take notice?
posted by angrycat at 6:47 AM on July 26, 2011


That's a pretty cheap, partisan shot, octobersurprise.

Pardon, me, paulsc, I'm hogging your act. The cheap, partisan shots are your métier. I hope you'll forgive me. However, that doesn't change the fact that if your breakfast companions think that, saying, or voting for anyone who says, "Suck it up, and deal, like we have to" will make their lives "simpler" and "cheaper," then they are, in fact, rubes.

House Republicans have signed pledges saying they won't increase taxes. House Democrats have signed pledges saying they won't cut entitlement growth.

Why, it's a shame House Republicans don't want to cut taxes. Given the opportunity, House Republicans have repeatedly refused to cut the payroll tax. No, this whole charade has always been about one thing and one thing only, cutting entitlements. The only thing that would satisfy most of the House Republicans is Obama's resignation and the wholesale elimination of the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, the EPA, and any other federal agency that doesn't exist to serve God or Mammon.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:52 AM on July 26, 2011


Obama is using a little political theater here. (Turnabout's fair play, right?)

His goal this whole time has been to look like the sane person in the argument. Like I said at the start of this thread, the Republicans started this ball rolling by demanding concessions to get their signatures. Also, as has also been pointed out, the Republicans made that brilliant move without actually having an end game worked out.

The Republicans have accused Obama of moving the goalposts during these "negotiations", and I think there's probably some truth to that - because goading them into looking irrational and fomenting infighting between themselves is part of the public relations battle here.

Lawrence O'Donnell has pointed out many times that Obama has the luxury here of being critical without actually offering up his own plan. It's a more cynical approach than I would probably take, but I think it will work.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:54 AM on July 26, 2011


What Ironmouth did for a summer job is definitely astroturfing, and the point of it is to *fake* the results of genuine citizen engagement on an issue. I don't think even the best astroturfers can afford to send so many messages it overloads the servers of half of Congress, so I guess Obama's speech had the intended effect.

Poet_Lariat, that kind of call or letter is boring but the campaigns I've been part of have had lots of success with it. I just call, politely tell the admin assistant that I'd like to leave a message for the MP, they ask on what issue, I say something like "I'd just like to let MP Whatsisface know that I fully support/oppose Action X on Issue Y for reason Z". Then they ask for my address (to check if my vote counts with this MP) and if I want a personal reply. Its not exciting and doesn't express my individuality, but it only takes 5 minutes and is more effective than street protests.
posted by harriet vane at 6:58 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Harriet - I don't doubt your experience - who knows possibly you are right. Let me tell you a bit of my own experience regarding Congressional call-ins vis-a-vis Obama . About two summers ago I joined Organizing For America (formerly Obama for America), a Democratic Party extension, to campaign for Health Reform. We were told that the biggest thing we could possibly do was to get people to call their Congressperson and tell them that they wanted to pass health care. We were told that we were likely to get a public option that way. So we went door to door, organized calling parties inside our houses, set up tables at public events. Hundreds of us spending thousands of person-hours and getting huge numbers of people to call Congress.

What I did not know until six months later was that the fix was already in months before we started our campaign. What I didn't know and what every high level Democratic Party principal already knew was that Obama had already cut a deal with the pharmaceutical companies on exactly what health care "reforms" were going to be passed. I didn't know that until the next Winter. All the calling, all the work it was just bullshit. Meaningless. Kabuki theater politics for a purpose that I still do not understand. Everything had already been decided long before we started our pathetic little campaign. And the Democratic Party knew all about it .

So that is why I do not believe that Congressional call in campaigns work in our day and age. Such things should be one of the the cornerstones of our Democracy but they have devolved to little more than one of Ironstone's paid propaganda gigs that he describes himself doing. Only I didn't get paid and I naively actually believed that I had a chance to change something.

So yes, I believe that organized mass protest is the only chance now that the average American has to lead a decent life in the future.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:13 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


Debt Ceiling Cat.
posted by schmod at 7:35 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


Boehner's page is still 404'ed. Awesome.
posted by rollbiz at 7:37 AM on July 26, 2011


Try this one, rollbiz.
posted by GrammarMoses at 7:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Given your expertise on the subject, what should I tell Mike Fitzpatrick on this issue?

Paraphrased, the message I left tonight was along the lines of: "Hello. I am an independent voter from Doylestown. I strongly urge you to consider a balanced approach to handling the debt ceiling. I watched two speakers tonight and only one made a convincing case that they were focusing on compromise and the best interests of the country, and that was President Obama. Speaker Boehner seemed more concerned with ideology and less with doing the duty of governing. Also, I demand you make "Pinkie Pie" the state horse."

Is there anything wrong with that approach?


I'd cut out the part about the horse. The rest is great. That's exactly what is good. Bonus for being a senior who has voted Republican since Hoover.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:07 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I believe that organized mass protest is the only chance now that the average American has to lead a decent life in the future.

Left or right, why is it that the same people who believe that the American political system is irreparably broken always believe that some kind of "mass protest" can put it back together? If politics is nothing but lies, sellouts, and kabuki theater, then why should anyone expect that the political organization of any third force or mass protest will be any different? Except in the case of coup d'états, mass protests are only useful insofar as they ultimately persuade elected politicians to legislate. If, for whatever reason, legislators won't legislate, then mass protests are pointless, except as a revolutionary threat, a threat that must be made by organizations themselves subject to all the power relations and human fuckery endemic to everyday politics. Whenever mass protests are the only chance for a decent life, then it's practically a guarantee that decent lives aren't in the offing.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:12 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


What I did not know until six months later was that the fix was already in months before we started our campaign. What I didn't know and what every high level Democratic Party principal already knew was that Obama had already cut a deal with the pharmaceutical companies on exactly what health care "reforms" were going to be passed. I didn't know that until the next Winter. All the calling, all the work it was just bullshit. Meaningless. Kabuki theater politics for a purpose that I still do not understand. Everything had already been decided long before we started our pathetic little campaign. And the Democratic Party knew all about it .

The fix was not in. Those calls made a tremendous difference in setting the table for Congress and letting them know that the issue was important to Americans. I'm good buddies with staffers and former staffers in many offices. That kind of calling is the bread and butter that Congress works with. Now I'm sorry that you were upset about the results of the bill, (although I think it was the best we were going to get in terms of votes). Whether or not your calls helped healthcare pass is a different question than whether you liked the individual bill that passed. But the fact is that it makes a difference. And the fact is that that bill passed Congress.

Look at what the other side did during the Health Care debate:

From Dick Morris' page on the health care issue:
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.

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
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.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:16 AM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]


Left or right, why is it that the same people who believe that the American political system is irreparably broken always believe that some kind of "mass protest" can put it back together?

First, mass protest only becomes a serious option when most or all of the avenues are blocked or broken.

Second, a mass protest or general strike is the last civil way to say, "We don't care what you douchebags think, you are not the bosses - you are the employees. It's past time to get serious around here. Start showing us some respect or we'll shut the whole fucking place down."

Could such an approach work today? Probably not. A few more years like the last few years, and I'm not so sure the answer will still be no.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:21 AM on July 26, 2011


Mass protests only work when you threaten the normal functioning of society and the economy. The average fully permitted Saturday march on the mall is going to accomplish nothing but making people feel better about themselves.
posted by empath at 8:23 AM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]


Left or right, why is it that the same people who believe that the American political system is irreparably broken always believe that some kind of "mass protest" can put it back together?

Because of this and this and this

Because history has shown that when we are in times similar to that of now, the only real measure the working class ever had that was actually effective was taking it to the streets in one form or another.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:24 AM on July 26, 2011


I believe that organized mass protest is the only chance now that the average American has to lead a decent life in the future.

That has worked exactly twice. The first time, it was to provoke the police into using firehoses and truncheons on blacks and their supporters.

The second time was the Viet Nam war.

It isn't going to work here. There is no huge obvious injustice that we aren't getting a say in. We are getting a say in the issue of the debt ceiling. We need to have that say. Because when we can all vote and call our Congressional representatives, protesting on top of that tells them nothing. Its like that scene in a Few Good Men:

"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

They know some of us are pissed. They just need to know how many. Protesting makes you feel good, gets that anger out, but it doesn't move the ball forward and get the debt ceiling raised. That's done by giving them the numbers.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:25 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The fix was not in.

You are fooling yourself.
The facts speak for themselves
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:26 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Left or right, why is it that the same people who believe that the American political system is irreparably broken always believe that some kind of "mass protest" can put it back together?

Because of this and this and this

Because history has shown that when we are in times similar to that of now, the only real measure the working class ever had that was actually effective was taking it to the streets in one form or another.


The Wisconsin protests did not stop that bill. We LOST.

We need a bill here and that requires us to call our congressional representatives now.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:28 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


Because of this and this and this

Because history has shown that when we are in times similar to that of now, the only real measure the working class ever had that was actually effective was taking it to the streets in one form or another.


Those are all strikes, not just mass protests. There's a substantial difference between the two. One threatens the flow of business, the other is a parade.

That has worked exactly twice. The first time, it was to provoke the police into using firehoses and truncheons on blacks and their supporters.

The second time was the Viet Nam war.


Yeah, this. I'm not even entirely convinced that the second one had all that much to do with the end of the Vietnam War.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:29 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


The fix was not in.

You are fooling yourself.
The facts speak for themselves


You confuse not liking part of the bill with getting the bill passed. That bill passed. You may wish it was different, but it passed because of efforts like yours.

Would you prefer a debt default? You do realize it will mean deaths. Real people will die quickly and the country will be plunged into a double-dip recession in weeks. Is this your best hope?

If we default there will be incredibly worse cuts because the cost of borrowing and maintaining the federal debt will skyrocket.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:31 AM on July 26, 2011


We are getting a say in the issue of the debt ceiling.

Whoopee.

Call me when we have a say in right-to-work issues, or labor rights, or getting all the benefits we've already paid for. Call me when proven Wall Street crooks go to jail. Call me when banks can't rewrite credit card contracts in the middle of your contract. Call me when corporations aren't people. Call me when legislators can't say we need to cut entitlements but no way we're raising taxes on the rich. Call me when Democrats get a backbone.

We may have a say, but it obviously doesn't count for much.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:32 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


Could such an approach work today? Probably not. A few more years like the last few years, and I'm not so sure the answer will still be no.

I can't argue with that.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:33 AM on July 26, 2011


That has worked exactly twice. The first time, it was to provoke the police into using firehoses and truncheons on blacks and their supporters

That's more bullshit and propaganda Ironmouth. The facts are that the American labor movement has a long history of successful protests that span 150 years and have provided us with such things as the 40 hour work week and prohibitions against child labor amongst a ultitude of concessions to the middle class. Sating that these things are not effective is one hundred percent unadulterated bullshit.

We need only look the this very year where seventy thousand took to the streets in Wisconsin and took over the capitol building there to protest heinous economic and social policies at the State level. The result: recall elections for the politicians who enacted those policies are underway now. So saying that such mass protests are ineffective is not only bullshit , it is surprisingly bad bullshit and one that can be easily disproved.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:35 AM on July 26, 2011


Don't you guys understand? You there, in that highly gerrymandered congressional district! It's your fault! You keep voting sending them back to Washington!
posted by entropicamericana at 8:36 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


We are getting a say in the issue of the debt ceiling.

Whoopee.

Call me when we have a say in right-to-work issues, or labor rights, or getting all the benefits we've already paid for. Call me when proven Wall Street crooks go to jail. Call me when banks can't rewrite credit card contracts in the middle of your contract. Call me when corporations aren't people. Call me when legislators can't say we need to cut entitlements but no way we're raising taxes on the rich. Call me when Democrats get a backbone.

We may have a say, but it obviously doesn't count for much


Why aren't you calling your congressional rep on those issues? Plus, there are other Americans who disagree with us on those issues. They may be crazy but they have phones.

We need to use ours. Daily.

Maybe I'm a little wistful because I don't even get a congressman. I can't even call anyone. I have no senators, and my "rep" has zero voting power. I look at all of you out there and it infuriates me that you do not use the power that is in your hands, the power that is denied me. Why can't we play the game to win like they do? Why must we always be wiped out by cynicism? Why must we always decide to quit when any bill does not suit us as a single individual? Why can't we accept we live with a lot of people, that we aren't all going to get what we individually want because people disagree with us and so the best move is to take the best we can get and keep fighting? That's what they've done. We are right but we don't fight.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:37 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The Wisconsin protests did not stop that bill. We LOST.

You know, unlike the right-wing astroturfing campaign you told us earlier that you participated in, repeating bullshit in forums such as these does not work. The result is that recall elections are underway right now. Once those are done, the laws will be changed. It's a process and you know that. Much of the Walker legislation has been blocked before the courts and the electorate is about to change the Wisconsin legislature from a Republican to a Democratic majority.

None of that happened because people called Walker's office and complained. It happened because seventy thousand took to the streets and organized themselves in mass solidarity. Speaking of solidarity - it worked in Poland too. But you knew all that already,right?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:41 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


I contacted my rep, but he was probably going to vote the way I wanted anyway.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:41 AM on July 26, 2011


We need only look the this very year where seventy thousand took to the streets in Wisconsin and took over the capitol building there to protest heinous economic and social policies at the State level.

They took to stop that bill. And they failed. The bill passed. It is law. And you know why? Because a decent percentage of those 70,000 DIDN'T SHOW UP TO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY. If we don't vote, we can't win.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


The Wisconsin protests did not stop that bill. We LOST.

I was just making this point last night. I was at some of those protests, back in March when there were still tens of thousands attending. Walker and the Republican legislators DO NOT CARE if we freeze our asses off or occupy the capitol. They have no regard at all for the people in the streets, because most of the protesters didn't vote for them and won't in the future. The only thing the protests accomplished - IMO - is to create a sense of urgency and momentum amongst the protesters in order to get the recalls started. That was definitely useful, but I think most people thought that "well, we'll occupy the capitol for a few weeks and then they'll see the light." It didn't matter, the bills they wanted were still passed.

I agree 100% with nonviolent resistance, but nothing was actually impacted. There were no strikes, no shutdowns, no blocking of access for any consistent period of time (some blocking of traffic in Madison for parts of a day, so what). People need to get angry enough to shut shit DOWN, not just make signs, and we don't have the critical mass for that yet. People haven't lost enough yet. I wonder how much we're going to have to lose (in civil liberties and living standards) before we get to that point.

Remember that people were willing to DIE during the civil rights struggles and Vietnam protests. There were lynchings and shootings and firehoses, and you knew if you went to a mass protest/action you had a nonzero chance of ending up arrested, injured or dead. I don't see anyone here willing to put their livelihoods on the line, much less their lives. I would be surprised if more than 20 people have been arrested for protesting in Wisconsin since this all started in February.
posted by desjardins at 8:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I called my congresswoman.

Eleanor Holmes Norton simply responded to my concerns by saying "Well, why do you think I've been posting drink recipes to my website?"

Sigh.
posted by schmod at 8:45 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Ironmouth:

I'm 50 years old, and I take my civic duty very seriously. I have not missed a single vote - local, state, or federal - since the day I could vote.

I have a congressman who is a conservative fucktard. I answer every poll he sends. I write him probably once or twice a month. And I still get the tone deaf fuck-you canned responses.

This is not the same system it was when I was 18. These are not the same kind of representatives. To pretend that everything is going to be fine if we are just better citizens.

I can't buy it anymore, sorry.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:47 AM on July 26, 2011 [5 favorites]


Ironmouth, while I admire your perseverance, I respectfully disagree with your belief that elected officials respond to the electorate who write, call, etc.. But I also don't agree with those who believe that taking to the streets is the only way to get change.

We need a political trim tab. Something new and different* that can really shift the balance of power in Washington.

People should be researching political/legal tools. Personally, I'm watching Colbert's Super Pac - definitely some possibility there.

*Once I was part of a group that launched a campaign to recall the whole city council (Honolulu) - no one had heard of recall back then. Of course we didn't win, but it resulted in an angry and informed public -- seven of the council members were voted out the next year.
posted by Surfurrus at 8:50 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Doesn't anyone read Alinsky anymore?
posted by Surfurrus at 8:51 AM on July 26, 2011


Symbioid: Is there a reason you keep using GOTP instead of GOP? Is this shorthand for something I'm not aware of? "Grand Ol' Tea Party"?

It's a personal thing I guess, and in a nutshell, I truly believe the Republican Party has morphed into something entirely more malignant and dangerous than even Republican's as recent as Reagan or Goldwater (Goldwater for fucks sake...believed that the GOP had become too inundated with fundamentalists Christians before he passed away in the 90s) would have a difficult time recognizing as their party.

It's flirtation with extremism and parasitic swallowing up of the Tea Party is going to end up like a scene out of ALIENS. They needed the enthusiasm, even if it was founded mostly on the fear and paranoia of racism, and they needed the re-branding from the disastrous sullying with incompetence and failure and whole-hearted embrace of crony capitalism that defined the Rove/Bush/Cheney/Fox News aughts.

I think after 911, the GOP saw itself as unbeatable, and on the verge of a golden era of total domination of American culture and politics, and it really seemed like the nation was on the cusp of a dominionist theocracy, but their misreadings and over-reach did them in, but I think they got a taste for it, and that taste hasn't gone away and they still feel they can pull that off with the right formula of misinformation, fear and artificial marginalization of the Left as unAmerican. They want that so bad you feel the waves of lust for power even now.

Somehow they think they can turn their backs and wash their hands of their malfeasance and criminality (phony war, derivatives economic death), if they can just wait out the short attention span of the American voter. And they might be right if they're not continually confronted on their horseshit.

Anyhow, so much for the nutshell explaination but, they made a deal with appropriating the Tea Party and quickly morphing it and bleaching it into just another GOP subset, but what they really did was embrace proto-fascism in the guise of this despicable nascent ideal of American Exceptionalism, and now the host is being corrupted by the parasite and it is changing the GOP in profound ways, and making it something unrecognizable and unwieldy and profoundly ungovernable and dysfunctional, because it's founded on stupidity, ignorance, base empty patriotic disinformation and revisionism and an inability to compromise or adapt or be anything but an obstruction that is so arrogant and hateful and inflexible.

And I want the GOP to fully own it's embrace of it. Because the power struggle within the GOTP is well underway between the old-school legacy conservatives and the ignorant, racist Tea Baggers.

I want them to own it and if I can help with cementing that timebomb called the TP deep into the bunker of the GOP, by calling them the GOTP every chance I get, I figure it's the least I can do.

Make no mistake, the GOTP is in a moribund state, that has alienated every growing demographic in the nation with it's hateful sexism, racism, anti-educationalism, anti-immigrant policies pronounced as the true American gospel.

I just hope it's sooner rather than later and the GOTP's lies are understood by regular American's.

Boehner is clearly between a rock and a hard place. Dealing with that 100 or so stubborn Freshman Tp-er Reps, in the house who won't budge and don't understand the art of the deal or a long range strategy, and I think there's a good chance that Boehner, if he doesn't get a grip on that group is going to be perceived as a lame-duck speaker and Cantor is going to call the shots, and Cantor would be even more difficult to deal with and intransigent and over-reaching than Boehner.

If I was in the DNC, I would be readying a relentless campaign to show the TP-ers' for the truly dangerous and ignorant collection of extremists working against their own interests, that they are. I would have them lampooned and called out on their horseshit and ignorance every chance I could get.

(Wow. What a "nutshell," eh?)
posted by Skygazer at 8:53 AM on July 26, 2011 [13 favorites]


I was at some of those protests, back in March when there were still tens of thousands attending. Walker and the Republican legislators DO NOT CARE if we freeze our asses off or occupy the capitol.

To a large extent you are right. But one of the the biggest benefits to mass protest is the social experience that it gives to those participating. You get impressed with the undeniable fact that you are not alone here. You connect with the people near by. You sign up to be part of organizations. You get a socially connected experience that making a phone call can never ever give you. Ever. That sort of social consciousness raising is a huge part of such protests - and a necessary part of social change.

I saw a post - perhaps it was in this thread - about someone who said that they would definitely do a mass strike if they knew that their neighbors were going along with it as well. When you just phone it in you are never really sure of that - but when you are standing outside in the cold freezing your ass off with seventy thousand others you have very little doubts that you are alone in this. that is why mass protests work. They create social connecting and solidarity on a real visceral basis - something that twitter or a phone call can never do.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:53 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eliot Spitzer at Slate has a good summary of the administration's failure at the negotiating table here.
posted by notswedish at 8:54 AM on July 26, 2011


Ironmouth:

I'm 50 years old, and I take my civic duty very seriously. I have not missed a single vote - local, state, or federal - since the day I could vote.

I have a congressman who is a conservative fucktard. I answer every poll he sends. I write him probably once or twice a month. And I still get the tone deaf fuck-you canned responses.

This is not the same system it was when I was 18. These are not the same kind of representatives. To pretend that everything is going to be fine if we are just better citizens.

I can't buy it anymore, sorry.


He will. The one thing this is not is easy. I am giving you the hard way. And it is worse. But there is no reason not to try. Keep doing what you are doing.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:55 AM on July 26, 2011


Symbioid: Why do you call them the GOTP?


I want the GOTP to own the Bagger movement, in all it's ruinious assclown tri-corner hatted buffoonery.

posted by Skygazer at 8:56 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


And, yeah, you're in a democracy of 300 million. There are half a million people or more in each Congressional district. All the calls and letters to congresspeople since Obama's speech are just a drop in the bucket to them, especially considering that:

a) few people will actually switch their party allegiance over this issue, or not vote as they always do

b) most congressional seats are safely held by one party or the other.

If you're a swing voter in a swing district and can get 10-20 thousand other swing voters from your district to all bombard your rep with calls and mail, then it might have some effect far down the road (certainly not on this issue, the Republican party is whipped too cohesively right now), but even that is a small chance.
posted by notswedish at 8:57 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


So saying that such mass protests are ineffective is not only bullshit , it is surprisingly bad bullshit and one that can be easily disproved.

FWIW, I don't believe that mass protests are always ineffective. I think they're rarely effective and when they are effective they're only effective when accompanied by calling, voting, etc. I do think an attitude of "Only mass protests can save us now" is akin to paulsc's rubes believing that everything will be simpler if only they get the government off their backs.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:59 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


To a large extent you are right. But one of the the biggest benefits to mass protest is the social experience that it gives to those participating. You get impressed with the undeniable fact that you are not alone here. You connect with the people near by. You sign up to be part of organizations. You get a socially connected experience that making a phone call can never ever give you. Ever. That sort of social consciousness raising is a huge part of such protests - and a necessary part of social change.

But the problem is when the purpose of not feeling alone overcomes the purpose of winning. When our need for identification interferes with getting the job done. That's why I made the point about the glitter. People also think--gee, I would be upset if someone came in my personal room and messed with my stuff. I would feel violated. So we lose some points where we could win instead.

We need to ask ourselves--is this helping?

I also have crazy ideas for mass protests. Suits and dresses--Sunday best. Makes it harder to dismiss them as nuts.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:00 AM on July 26, 2011


And, yeah, you're in a democracy of 300 million. There are half a million people or more in each Congressional district. All the calls and letters to congresspeople since Obama's speech are just a drop in the bucket to them, especially considering that:

a) few people will actually switch their party allegiance over this issue, or not vote as they always do

b) most congressional seats are safely held by one party or the other.

If you're a swing voter in a swing district and can get 10-20 thousand other swing voters from your district to all bombard your rep with calls and mail, then it might have some effect far down the road (certainly not on this issue, the Republican party is whipped too cohesively right now), but even that is a small chance.


Remember, when you call, you're a swing voter. Perhaps you voted for McCain and always say you voted for the Rep. Even if you didn't.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:02 AM on July 26, 2011


I saw a post - perhaps it was in this thread - about someone who said that they would definitely do a mass strike if they knew that their neighbors were going along with it as well.

Yes, that assurance is essential, because if not enough people do it, they just lose their jobs. There was a lot of talk about general strikes during the heyday of the Wisconsin protests, but no one was willing to pull the trigger (figuratively speaking). No one trusted enough people to do it to make a difference. It's mass economic suicide - most of us don't have jobs that are essential enough to the functioning of society. I'm personally not up for declaring bankruptcy right now, because if I walked off the job my boss would just say "don't let the door hit your ass on your way out." If everyone at my place of employment did the same, most of our jobs would probably just move overseas/to Mexico.
posted by desjardins at 9:02 AM on July 26, 2011


For once, I agree with Ironmouth. Look at the civil rights marchers in the 60s: their Sunday best. Your giant paper mache puppets and stiltwalkers aren't impressing the soccer moms and NASCAR dads.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:04 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Your giant paper mache puppets and stiltwalkers aren't impressing the soccer moms and NASCAR dads.

Perhaps because that's not the target audience. Perhaps the target audience is the youth of the country where the future of the country really lies and who's minds have not already been frozen by the prospect of that second car or of paying off the mortgage someday?

Say what you will about that puppet thing but it impressed itself on your mind didn't it? In your case perhaps not in a positive manner but in other cases perhaps it was perceived differently. The puppet thing is a meme - apparently one that works in the sense of it being remembered and transmitted down the line. An the whole idea of "wearing your "Sunday Best " to a protest? Seriously???? When you go out on a protest you don;t need your freaking Sunday best - you need a gasmask because if the opposition isn't throwing gas then you probably really haven't got their attention.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 9:13 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


That has worked exactly twice.

Your ignoring the entire labor movement of the 20s, when striking coal miners managed to win safety concessions and improved labor standards, among other things.

Sure, if you only look back to the 60s or so, mass protest hasn't been effective. And I'd even agree, that just random marches and the like aren't especially effective.

But when a large mass of people surround and shutdown a strategic distribution center, or otherwise disrupt commerce, and the keep doing it day after day, eventually the bosses start seeing enough of an impact on their bottom line that they start demanding policy changes. That's how mass protest works--when it's strategic and has specific tactical goals that can be realized through sustained effort.

Even the founders knew that mass protest and strike were one of the most important tools of any true Democracy--that's why they specifically enshrined the right to assembly and petition for redress of grievances in the bill of rights. The sad thing is, people like you not getting how critical populist tools are and have always been to the proper functioning of any system that's a democracy in more than just name, seeing these fundamental tools of the democratic process inaccurately as "disruptions of order" or antithetical to the proper functioning of a democracy are basically undermining our systems functioning as a true democracy.

While it may be true that mob rule alone isn't democracy, any system that doesn't incorporate popular protest and direct action as a fundamental component of the process is a democracy in name only.

In many European countries the right of workers to strike is enshrined in law: as a result their unions have more power. If you believe in the labor movement and claim to represent the interests of unions, how can you reject the one political tool on which union power is based? You've been cowed. You're attitude toward populist action is basically the same as that of any company goon or management collaborator.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:16 AM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]


damn. gotta stop posting when passionate. passion begets typos.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:18 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Cool, target the demographic that doesn't vote. Killer idea. I wonder the left has been in decline in the last half of the 20th century?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:23 AM on July 26, 2011


Saul, would hate to pick another fight, but when you use the phrase "direct action," you don't mean it as a euphemism for violence or destruction of property, do you?

I certainly agree that strikes and popular protests are part of the whole democratic quilt... but "direct action" means different things to different people, and circumventing our constitutional institutions in certain "direct" ways can be antithetical to democracy in a republic.
posted by BobbyVan at 9:23 AM on July 26, 2011


circumventing our constitutional institutions in certain "direct" ways can be antithetical to democracy in a republic.

I know what you mean, Bobby.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:28 AM on July 26, 2011


I mean peaceful, but potentially disruptive public assembly for redress of specific grievances, whether those grievances are with public or private entities. Destruction of property is already illegal. That goes without saying. In particular, no public office or property should ever be off limits to the public--even and especially if that means disruptions to political processes.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:30 AM on July 26, 2011


Cool, target the demographic that doesn't vote. Killer idea

Yeah, it was Obama's idea in 2008
posted by crayz at 9:30 AM on July 26, 2011


Strikes work. Shutdowns work. Glitter parades do not.

I'm not sure I agree with Ironmouth re: Sunday best. There is too much personal history there with gay/AIDS activism and assimilation. However, the Wisconsin protesters were repeatedly called hippies and slobs and thugs even though almost all of the ones I saw were dressed "normally" for Wisconsin (sweatshirt, jeans, parka). And the vast majority of them were 30-60 years old, not the college-age crowd that usually attends mass protests. And they were almost all on-point. If I had seen one guy with a "Legalize Weed" sign I would have given the guy a stern lecture; if I'd seen an entire group with an unrelated cause I would have had an aneurysm.
posted by desjardins at 9:31 AM on July 26, 2011


Yeah, it was Obama's idea in 2008

I missed Obama's stiltwalk and giant Uncle Sam puppet, is that on YouTube somewhere? Was he wearing a Free Mumia t-shirt or a suit?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:34 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I mean peaceful, but potentially disruptive public assembly for redress of specific grievances, whether those grievances are with public or private entities. Destruction of property is already illegal. That goes without saying. In particular, no public office or property should ever be off limits to the public--even and especially if that means disruptions to political processes.

I'm basically OK with that. Important to note that disrupting certain political processes could run afoul of the law, so it's also OK to arrest those protesters, peaceful though they may be. (And isn't it kind of the point of some of these protests to get arrested, thereby drawing additional attention to the claimed injustices?)

Also worth noting that the so-called "Brooks Brothers riot" fits pretty neatly into your definition.
posted by BobbyVan at 9:37 AM on July 26, 2011


no public office or property should ever be off limits to the public

meaning, in terms of public access; not destruction, but that hopefully is obvious.

posted by saulgoodman at 9:37 AM on July 26, 2011


For a little perspective here - these aren't new issues and problems here. The same shit has been occurring for 250 years now.

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
— Thomas Jefferson
posted by Poet_Lariat at 9:51 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm really skeptical of that Jefferson quote-- what's the source?
posted by empath at 9:56 AM on July 26, 2011


It looks like that exact quote was never written by Jefferson
posted by banal evil at 10:00 AM on July 26, 2011


I'm really skeptical of that Jefferson quote-- what's the source?

I think it is markedly indicative of the times in which we live that the very words of our founding fathers are looked upon with suspicion and disbelief.

Just google the quote , empath. It take you less than a minute to do this yourself and will answer your concern sufficiently.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:01 AM on July 26, 2011


Yeah, I did. He didn't say it.

Made up quotes by founding fathers are the stock and trade of tea-party activists. I don't believe any of them without attribution to a specific source.
posted by empath at 10:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


"I never said that!"

-Thomas Jefferson
posted by absalom at 10:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [13 favorites]


I'd cut out the part about the horse. The rest is great. That's exactly what is good.

I guess, that is more an issue for my state rep, but given her Amish rock farming background Pinkie Pie is the right choice for state horse of PA.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:03 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Also, they're generally cheap appeals to authority by people who don't know how to craft an actual argument.
posted by empath at 10:04 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The result is that recall elections are underway right now. Once those are done, the laws will be changed.

70,000 people in the streets didn't cause recall elections. People going door to door and collecting the necessary signatures caused recall elections. People actually going out and voting will determine the outcome of those recall elections.

How is this trend so difficult to understand? Solidarity parades and puppets and sit-ins don't do a goddamn thing. Working the political machine is hard work, but it's almost invariably the only work that actually matters.
posted by rollbiz at 10:06 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


For a little perspective here - these aren't new issues and problems here. The same shit has been occurring for 250 years now.

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
— Thomas Jefferson


The fact that you "quoted" Jefferson, who is misquoted rampantly, and didn't even bother to check if the quote was real, seems like kind of a microcosm of your interactions in this thread.
posted by rollbiz at 10:08 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


I suppose he also didn't say:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812

or

"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."

or

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Long live the new flesh?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:09 AM on July 26, 2011


Actually, I'm going to elaborate on why that quote read as phony to me.

The founding fathers didn't make prophecies, they made arguments. I'm fond of quoting Jefferson on copyright reform because he made a good, logical argument as to why copyright should be limited, not because I think people should simply agree with him because he's Jefferson. The founding fathers weren't 'The Founding Fathers' when they were doing the founding. They were radicals standing up against an empire who had to convince people of the rightness of their ideas through logic and reason. They didn't expect people to take their ideas seriously because of who they were, but because of the truth of the ideas themselves.

Any quote from a founding father which takes the form of a biblical pronouncement -- which simply says "This is how it is." is almost always phony.
posted by empath at 10:12 AM on July 26, 2011 [10 favorites]


Do you even know the context of the Jefferson quotes? Or is it enough for you that he's criticizing "moneyed corporations" and "private banks"?

See also this.
posted by BobbyVan at 10:13 AM on July 26, 2011


#1. Maybe

#2. No.

#3. No.

You should actually google these things yourself, if you're going to be throwing around aspersions about others not doing the same.
posted by absalom at 10:13 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


He also didn't say the latter two, no.

You might want to do two seconds of googling to confirm before you stick your foot in your mouth again.
posted by empath at 10:15 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


Ouch.
posted by rollbiz at 10:16 AM on July 26, 2011


He also didn't say the latter two, no.

LOL, priceless.
posted by Theta States at 10:16 AM on July 26, 2011


My apologies if the first quote that I gave is in dispute - obviously it is and quite possible it is, though popularly re-quoted, incorrect.. But as the other quotes I gave are not, they clearly show that Jefferson was very much against lending institutions and large corporations having such large control of our government.

I suppose that the bulk of us have not forgotten that our country was founded primarily as a reaction to increased control of the populace and the laws and taxes imposed upon them by large corporate interests. Of course , today Jefferson would probably be branded a terrorist I imagine.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:18 AM on July 26, 2011


Did you miss the part where three of the four quotes were literally not even spoken or written by Jefferson?
posted by rollbiz at 10:20 AM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]


wow
posted by Flunkie at 10:20 AM on July 26, 2011


I think the larger point here is that quoting a famous person isn't an argument, it's just magical thinking. You might as well quote the bible to make your case.
posted by empath at 10:20 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


Sheesh--those fake quotes don't even sound authentic, P_L. The sad thing is, there are actual, real quotes on the subject you could dig up, but one has to be careful about these things. Now people might walk away with the impression that Jefferson never really harbored doubts about the banking industry, as Snopes acknowledges of course he did.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:21 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Let's let the Tea Partiers have a monopoly on twisting people's words and making shit up. Not saying you did that intentionally, Poet_Lariat, but it's detrimental to the work that needs to be done.
posted by desjardins at 10:23 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Whoever said it, they were right.

I don't mind letting Tommy Boy get the credit.
posted by Trurl at 10:23 AM on July 26, 2011


Beyond even the accuracy and sourcing of any quotes, and as empath mentioned, an argument based solely on quotations is far less substantive than an argument written in your own words and with your own thoughts.
posted by elizardbits at 10:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


But as the other quotes I gave are not, they clearly show that Jefferson was very much against lending institutions and large corporations having such large control of our government.

There's no doubt that Jefferson was against central banking. He also relied on slave labor for his income and didn't have much need for a reliable banking system to support himself, unlike the northerners and city people who took the other side of the issue.
posted by empath at 10:24 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." -- Thomas Jefferson
posted by mazola at 10:29 AM on July 26, 2011 [19 favorites]


How is this trend so difficult to understand? Solidarity parades and puppets and sit-ins don't do a goddamn thing. Working the political machine is hard work, but it's almost invariably the only work that actually matters.

You might want to read up on The Gilded Age and American Labor Movement history from 1900-1930 or so. Also see the Civil Rights Movement.

If you think that just "working the political machine" ever got us true and substantial change, then we just disagree. A lot of fellow citizens died in the streets to get us a lot of the things that we take for granted and have been pissing away for the last 40 years.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:29 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."
— Thomas Jefferson


Sure, and Washington, forsaw that an obstructionist and intransegient element in the Congress could stop it from fully governing and Samuel Adams despised the Two party approach.

They were far-seeing people to be certain, but the level of pure incivility, lies, distortions, and obstruction we're seeing right now from a GOP controlled by nationalist extremists is rare.

I can only think of perhaps a couple of other times, and that's in the run up to the Civil War, after the Great Crash in '29 and at the beginning and hardening of the Cold War in the 50s during the HUAC and Joe McCarthy era of paranoia.

I don't think the oligarchy has ever been as powerful as it is now. Look at the concentration of wealth over the last 30 years. Look at the rise of lobbyists and corporatist powers as wielded by the banks and the oil co.s, and Wall Street and the Military complex.

I wish this was just business as usual, but the country has never come this close to defaulting for purely political gain or to attempt to undo and unsully a black president, another huge landmark.
posted by Skygazer at 10:35 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


The problem with mass protests in a democracy is that they only work when you take the lid off of a repressed society like Egypt today or the US in the 1960s.

The mass marches in the 1960s weren't effective because there were huge numbers of people in the streets, but because there were huge numbers of black people and white people marching together, something which never would have been allowed to happen previously. It made the problems of the status quo impossible to ignore any longer, and it demonstrated the powerlessness of the regime to stop it.

The same goes for mass demonstrations in the middle east today. They don't have a right to assemble, and if they're assembling in the face of official government oppression and violence, it almost forces a collapse of the government.

In the US, people are allowed and even encouraged to demonstrate where-ever and however they want, as long as they get a permit in advance.

In order for mass action to be genuinely meaningful in the US, it would have to happen against the wishes of the government and in the face of active government oppression. That's just not going to happen -- first, because the government knows that mass demonstrations aren't generally dangerous and won't act to oppress them, and second, that conditions aren't bad enough for people to engage in actually dangerous mass activity -- sabotage, vandalism, picket lines, looting.

Conditions in the US would have to be so bad that average citizens would be willing to lay their lives and livelihoods on the line to make a change. And they simply aren't that bad in the US right now.

Wake me up when someone sets themselves on fire to get the debt ceiling raised. Then I'll take another look at mass action in the US.
posted by empath at 10:38 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


You might want to read up on The Gilded Age and American Labor Movement history from 1900-1930 or so. Also see the Civil Rights Movement.

I have, and I should've qualified my statement. I can't think of a single example of when they've worked in my lifetime (30 years).
posted by rollbiz at 10:39 AM on July 26, 2011


unsully is obviously supposed to be sully.
posted by Skygazer at 10:40 AM on July 26, 2011


elizardbits:Beyond even the accuracy and sourcing of any quotes, and as empath mentioned, an argument based solely on quotations is far less substantive than an argument written in your own words and with your own thoughts.

Nonsense. Claiming that quoting established authority (in this case the founding fathers) is without substance is a trap that is foisted upon us by the same kind of people (not saying this about you personally btw) who would call people who try to hoist the banners of "elitism" or "intellectualism" upon those who would defer to established and well known fact. My words are only the words of some schmuck on the internet of which there are millions but Jefferson's opinions or Sam Adams or Franklin's or Eisenhower's for that matter are far more substantive.

It is a fallacy to say that quoting established , well known authority on a matter is a bad thing to do. We either recall what our history is or we become doomed by it (to paraphrase another well known authority). And by the way that Jefferson quote that some are saying I have misquoted - well I am apparently not alone in my mistake that he said this as the Encyclopedia Britannica believes it as well.

But whetehr Jefferson said the exact words from the quote or not, what should clearly not be in dispute is the fact that many of our founding fathers had a clear distrust against bankers and corporations - a distrust that helped found the very basis upon which this Democracy was based. We were not created as a Capitalist country. We were created as a Democratic country , a Representative democracy but a democracy nonetheless. Capitalism, bankers and corporation are not only unnecessary to our democracy, we were very much founded as a reaction against the excesses of such institutions.

And now we live in an era whereby the very words upon which we were founded fall into suspicion and disrepute.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:44 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


"I think it is markedly indicative of the times in which we live that the very words of our founding fathers are looked upon with suspicion and disbelief."

- Abraham Lincoln
posted by Flunkie at 10:48 AM on July 26, 2011 [9 favorites]


A lot of fellow citizens died in the streets to get us a lot of the things that we take for granted and have been pissing away for the last 40 years.

If mass protests and demonstrations become the only effective means for change, how would you prevent opponents from using the same tactics too? Remember that the KKK had a renaissance in the 1920s.
posted by FJT at 10:49 AM on July 26, 2011


"I don't always make up quotes, but when I do, I prefer the Founding Fathers"

-Wayne Gretzky
posted by rollbiz at 10:51 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


"When I make up quotes, I prefer Google."

- Abraham Lincoln
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:52 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


We were created as a Democratic country , a Representative democracy but a democracy nonetheless. Capitalism, bankers and corporation are not only unnecessary to our democracy, we were very much founded as a reaction against the excesses of such institutions.

Oh bullshit, the US wasn't even close to a democracy when it was founded, representative or otherwise. I don't know the exact percentage of adults that had the right to vote, but I bet it was less than 25%.
posted by empath at 10:53 AM on July 26, 2011


I think you all mean: "Do or do not. There is no try." --Dumbledore
posted by mrgoat at 10:54 AM on July 26, 2011 [5 favorites]


"When the shitballs start flying, you've got to get a shitbat, Adams!" -- Thomas Jefferson
posted by symbioid at 10:54 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


"We either recall our famous quotations, or we become doomed by them."

- Carlos Santana
posted by BobbyVan at 10:55 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh bullshit, the US wasn't even close to a democracy when it was founded

Some kinds of bullshit don't even deserve a legitimate response.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:55 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


The American penchant for treating the words of 18th century plutocrats as sacred scripture puzzles me.

Better ideas in political philosophy have been formulated by better men more recently.
posted by banal evil at 10:57 AM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


Some kinds of bullshit don't even deserve a legitimate response.

Being called out on 50% to 75% of what you just lazily passed off as Jefferson quotes apparently also doesn't deserve a legitimate response.
posted by rollbiz at 10:57 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


10-16% had the right to vote at the founding.
posted by empath at 10:57 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


how would you prevent opponents from using the same tactics too

FJT: simply put, you don't. it's a democracy for everybody. but since the folks on one side don't own any commercial interests to disrupt, it's hard to see how you're going to be able to strike on them. what are all the mcdonald's managers going to form a ring around your neighborhood to keep you from getting to their shop? or the politicians? how would that work?

there's a pretty clear difference between assembling for a redress of grievances and forming a lynch mob to harass a private citizen. If you're targeting a private individual or private individuals for harassment, that's different.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:58 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm of the opinion that the things that worked in the past do no longer because the political cancer has evolved in such a way to render those methods useless.
posted by narwhal bacon at 10:58 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Do you agree with the founding fathers that it's a terrible idea to allow non-property owners and women to vote?
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…

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.
-- John Adams
posted by empath at 11:00 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The American penchant for treating the words of 18th century plutocrats as sacred scripture puzzles me.

Well the thing with the Founding Fathers is, they weren't even a monolithic group. Jefferson and Hamilton had huge disagreements on the role of banking in the United States and ultimately visions on what the US was. It's unfortunate that people usually end up shoving Jefferson around, when there was a lot of Founding Fathers to quote.
posted by FJT at 11:02 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


(btw, you can tell that's a genuine quote because he actually is making an argument)
posted by empath at 11:02 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


My words are only the words of some schmuck on the internet of which there are millions but Jefferson's opinions or Sam Adams or Franklin's or Eisenhower's for that matter are far more substantive.

Wow, this is something on which we will clearly not see eye to eye! I personally have trouble with the premise that the (potentially inaccurate) words of dead white men (many of whom had little problem accepting slavery and the extermination of the Native Americans and the oppression of women and many other things that I know both you and I and most others here are not at all okay with) should hold more weight than the well-reasoned words of our contemporaries, all of whom are really indeed just random people on the internet.

As desjardins noted above (and yes, I am aware of the irony inherent in my quoting other comments in this post to make my point), a big problem in the US currently is the rightwing conservative nutters pulling completely fabricated "quotes" out of their collective asses, and presenting them as inarguable gospel in favour of their oppressive opinion of the day. Such incidences of fuckwittery in essence behoove us to put even more thought into using our own words when we hope to influence the thoughts and beliefs of others.
posted by elizardbits at 11:02 AM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Well, empath, at least one Tea Party leader wants to restrict voting to property owners. *sigh* I hope Lariat doesn't take that approach, but the fact that there are some in modern American society who believe that this is even a question that should be brought up is quite disturbing. The fact that they have some influence is even more disturbing.
posted by symbioid at 11:04 AM on July 26, 2011


If mass protests and demonstrations become the only effective means for change, how would you prevent opponents from using the same tactics too? Remember that the KKK had a renaissance in the 1920s.

First, mass protests are the last option.

Second, the KKK bombing union sympathizers is most definitely not the same tactics. Assembling in public is a constitutional (and human) right, committing physical violence against other citizens is illegal.

Third, you need a big enough base to support a general strike. If hatred was a big enough shared value, then I don't know how you would stop a group from using the same tactics. I think fairness is a much more widely-shared American value, though.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


because the political cancer has evolved in such a way to render those methods useless

Did you know that's one of the main ideas anti-union bosses tried to get people to buy into since pretty much the beginning? Because when that idea sticks, the effect is achieved. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's why so much of the early union lore focused on affirming and reminding people that there is enormous power in unified mass political movements.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:07 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


dead white men

I actually meant "dead privileged old men" but my ~feelings got a hold of me. Sry.
posted by elizardbits at 11:07 AM on July 26, 2011


FJT: " It's unfortunate that people usually end up shoving Jefferson around, when there was a lot of Founding Fathers to quote."

It's even more unfortunate when they are quoting Jefferson without even understanding his whole philosophy and the parts that sound quite socialist are neatly left out of the equation.

And yeah, not a monolithic group by any means. Jefferson and Paine are my two favorites because they said some things that would drive the modern Right-wing completely apoplectic.
posted by symbioid at 11:07 AM on July 26, 2011


the Encyclopedia Britannica believes it as well

I'm not sure which of your quotes you are referring to, but the article you linked does not contain the four letters "corp" at all, FYI.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:07 AM on July 26, 2011


"I was a founding father and all I got was this lousy Atlanta suburb." -- Button Gwinnett
posted by octobersurprise at 11:14 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Poet_Lariat wrote: So saying that such mass protests are ineffective is not only bullshit , it is surprisingly bad bullshit and one that can be easily disproved.

Actually, the protests have turned out to not have done a whit to stop Walker's parade of bullshit. It definitely made for good TV and exciting times on MeFi, though!
posted by wierdo at 11:17 AM on July 26, 2011


Hey, Button Gwinnet* was also featured in Fallout 3. That's got to count for something.

*: Or, at least, a robot who believes he is Button Gwinnet
posted by Flunkie at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2011


Let's wait to see how those recall election go, wierdo.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:22 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


*s
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:22 AM on July 26, 2011


Let's wait to see how those recall election go, wierdo.

Those were organized by collecting petitions, using the regular democratic process.
posted by empath at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2011


Those were organized by collecting petitions, using the regular democratic process.

Yeah, it's not like the large and extended protests (and the responses they engendered from Walker and his cronies) had any effect at all. Neither did the Democratic senators buying time by leaving the state.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:26 AM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


Those were organized by collecting petitions, using the regular democratic process.

Petitions circulated by people who met at the protests, signed by people who saw the ubiquitous news stories about the protests. Yes, obviously, most of the hundred thousand (or whatever) people who attended protests went home and didn't do anything else, and also obviously, it would be better if everyone remained engaged and active and contacted their representatives and whatnot. But please don't pretend that the protests were completely meaningless. There's value in inspiration and in getting the word out about what was going on and how many people cared.
posted by Vibrissa at 11:30 AM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's not to say that they had no effect, but that protesting alone did not cause the recalls and could not cause the recalls. If no one did the work to get the petitions out and get them signed, submitted, and certified, no recall. If people don't actually GOTV and GOAV in larger numbers than the crony's supporters, no successful recall.
posted by rollbiz at 11:31 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Protesting alone never accomplishes anything, there is always some democratic/legal process involved. The point of protesting is to get your voice heard and make an impact, and they certainly did.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:42 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Without the protests, the legislature in Wisconsin wouldn't have felt the pressure that made them break their own open meeting laws, and the law wouldn't have been overturned. As part of a broader political strategy, forcing a tactical delay in implementing a law can be just what's needed to achieve a particular outcome.

There are often mandated deadlines for various political processes. Consequences sometimes follow statutorily if a certain political action isn't taken within a specified time-frame. If there's a tactical advantage to be gained in making a deadline slip by occupying a state house, then that can have a direct beneficial political impact.

Mass direct actions definitely can be used to achieve specific political aims in various ways. The fact that there aren't any popular movements organized and strategic-thinking enough in the US to exploit that kind of power doesn't change the facts of that reality at all.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:42 AM on July 26, 2011


What I'm describing, btw, is not "protest." It's direct action, and its not symbolic.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:44 AM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


what should clearly not be in dispute is the fact that many of our founding fathers had a clear distrust against bankers and corporations

As for corporations, they weren't seen as anything other than the extension of the crown that granted their charter in those times (see mercantilism). The state and her corporate merchants worked together for gold and power in competition with other empires. Even Adam Smith dismissed corporations in The Wealth of Nations (1776) saying that they would be overtaken by private entrepreneurs who would be more likely to manage their own business better than a corporate manager looking after somebody else's wealth.

Anyhow, that's why other people are so quick to shoot down your quotations, because they are written towards the problems of today and not the debate of their time.
posted by peeedro at 11:55 AM on July 26, 2011


I like this at TPM:
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."

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.
(emphasesis mine)
posted by Theta States at 11:55 AM on July 26, 2011 [14 favorites]


*emphasis
posted by Theta States at 11:58 AM on July 26, 2011


Without the protests, the legislature in Wisconsin wouldn't have felt the pressure that made them break their own open meeting laws, and the law wouldn't have been overturned

It wasn't overturned. Well, it was, and then it wasn't.
posted by desjardins at 12:02 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


screwed up the html there - "was, and then it" is one link, and "wasn't" is another link.
posted by desjardins at 12:04 PM on July 26, 2011


WSJ:

The leader of a large group of House conservatives said Tuesday he was "confident" there weren't enough GOP lawmakers to pass a plan by Republican House Speaker John Boehner to increase the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), who said the Boehner plan didn't cut spending enough, heads a group that includes 178 of the 240 Republican House lawmakers.
Mr. Jordan, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said there weren't 218 House Republicans who would vote for the plan Mr. Boehner released Monday. Mr. Jordan's announcement injects more uncertainty about the endgame of the debt-ceiling drama, as Congress remained deadlocked a week before the government

posted by futz at 12:07 PM on July 26, 2011


Called my local reps office again, this is Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. The staffer says Fitzpatrick is in favor of a balanced approach and would support some revenue measures. I asked him about the Reid plan and he said Fitzpatrick opposes it, I asked him "Why?" and he literally said he doesn't know, he said to call the DC office and ask.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2011


The Republicans have become the guy from Four Lions who wants to bomb the mosques for the sake of the revolution.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:19 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]






The DC office claims Fitzpatrick is not opposed to the Reid plan, but that they don't have enough information about it so they have "concerns" and can't support it yet. When asked for details the staffer straight up lied to me about the war funding issue. We agreed they are an illusion because we are getting those savings no matter what, but she refused to admit the Ryan plan had touted those same numbers as savings. The respect I had for Fitzpatrick from my conversation with the local office quickly evaporated. She would not back down from that lie or allow the conversation to move on to another subject.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:35 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The DC office claims Fitzpatrick is not opposed to the Reid plan, but that they don't have enough information about it so they have "concerns" and can't support it yet. When asked for details the staffer straight up lied to me about the war funding issue. We agreed they are an illusion because we are getting those savings no matter what, but she refused to admit the Ryan plan had touted those same numbers as savings. The respect I had for Fitzpatrick from my conversation with the local office quickly evaporated. She would not back down from that lie or allow the conversation to move on to another subject.

Well done. This is about making it difficult for them.

Been reading the stories today and what has struck me for a while is the sheer GOP despiration. You only see irrational behavior like this when people are cornered and out of options. The GOP is gonna get blamed for this, the polling is clear. Pour it on.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:46 PM on July 26, 2011




Well done. This is about making it difficult for them.

This was a legislative aid by the way, the DC phone monkey was as clueless about why the Reid plan could be bad as the local office guy was so he passed me on to her. The bottom line is there is no rational reason for a Republican to oppose the Reid plan and that quickly becomes clear when you press them on it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:51 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


What about people who live in liberal districts? Are we supposed to just sit on our hands, since trying to contact reps in other areas won't even get us past the switchboard? What are we supposed to do about this?
posted by OverlappingElvis at 12:52 PM on July 26, 2011


Pretend you're from somewhere else. Look up a fake address, they sometimes ask for response purposes.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:53 PM on July 26, 2011


If you need any more astroturf advice we have an expert on hand. :P
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:54 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


OverlappingElvis, let your Congressperson know you support them. You can help to balance their conservative constituents who are no doubt calling them to complain.
posted by joannemerriam at 12:55 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


While the rest of the country focuses on the looming deadline to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, House Republicans are taking advantage of the distraction to repeal environmental regulations and pass the most severe environmental budget cuts in 35 years.

I actually have doubts about how functional our democracy is/can remain, because I don't think I have a single thought in common with these people. How can we compromise when there is no common ground?
posted by adamdschneider at 12:57 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]



With Default Seven Days Away, House GOP Fixates On Repealing Environmental Regulations


I got a real bad feeling about this drop.
posted by cashman at 1:04 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]




REPUBLICANS ASK: WHAT CAN A BURNT REICHSTAG DO FOR YOU?
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:22 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


What about people who live in liberal districts? Are we supposed to just sit on our hands, since trying to contact reps in other areas won't even get us past the switchboard? What are we supposed to do about this?

Call them too. Let them know that you expect them to fight to raise the debt ceiling under the best circumstances possible.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:25 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


president obama is trying to keep the country from splitting - boehner is trying to keep his party from spitting
posted by pyramid termite at 1:26 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


splitting, i mean - I"M the one who's trying to keep myself from spitting
posted by pyramid termite at 1:27 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


"lay down sally and rest you in my arms; don't you think you want someone to talk to?"

- thomas jefferson

i know for a fact he said this - it's got an argument
posted by pyramid termite at 1:31 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The DC office claims Fitzpatrick is not opposed to the Reid plan, but that they don't have enough information about it so they have "concerns" and can't support it yet. When asked for details the staffer straight up lied to me about the war funding issue. We agreed they are an illusion because we are getting those savings no matter what, but she refused to admit the Ryan plan had touted those same numbers as savings. The respect I had for Fitzpatrick from my conversation with the local office quickly evaporated. She would not back down from that lie or allow the conversation to move on to another subject.


I'd also share their response with any news outlets in the area. Make them defend the position they are taking. Its all about the pressure.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:31 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


"What about people who live in liberal districts? Are we supposed to just sit on our hands, since trying to contact reps in other areas won't even get us past the switchboard? What are we supposed to do about this?"

Yeah, call them. That way they know you support them, so they're less likely to change their minds when crunch time comes.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:31 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


It wasn't overturned. Well, it was, and then it wasn't.

Yes, it was overturned. The legislature passed it again, but they were delayed and several important lawsuits were prepared in the meantime. If even only a short-term tactical victory is part of a continuing strategy with follow-up actions designed to exploit the delay, you start to see how direct action can lead to real, meaningful political outcomes, the way the Montgomery bus boycotts did. Think about it this way: it's like doing in the real-world what Republicans do every day using Robert's Rules of Order. That's how direct action can actually be used to achieve specific political goals. But that stuff's not for the squeamish, and we'd need to get better organized first.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:33 PM on July 26, 2011


If even only a short-term tactical victory is part of a continuing strategy with follow-up actions designed to exploit the delay, you start to see how direct action can lead to real, meaningful political outcomes, the way the Montgomery bus boycotts did.

Here's the problem. the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were about disenfranchised blacks using the only thing they had. This is about people who didn't exercise a vote they had and now getting pissed off about the results. People aren't going to take you seriously then. You have the votes not to put the GOP in power. But nobody showed up. And they let them win. Now they are pissed. What did they expect was going to happen?

Direct action works when it is obvious that the users of that power don't have any other alternative.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:39 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


But it can work. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not sure the electoral process in the US can be trusted anymore.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:55 PM on July 26, 2011


Sorry, I meant call your representative in the Liberal district and let him (or his intern) know your views. The support will be helpful.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:03 PM on July 26, 2011


My rep, John Dingell, has been called, and left a message to do what he must to prevent default.

Please call your rep today.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 2:08 PM on July 26, 2011


This is about people who didn't exercise a vote they had and now getting pissed off about the results.

/facepalm
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:13 PM on July 26, 2011 [5 favorites]


I am seeing press re: Boehner's plan, but not a lot about Reid's, in the last 12 hrs or so. Wonder why that is.
posted by angrycat at 2:30 PM on July 26, 2011


And I'm not sure the electoral process in the US can be trusted anymore.

Its the only process we've got and we better stop acting like it doesn't exist. Unless you propose a dictatorship. Listen, they got the votes last time--that doesn't mean the system can't be trusted. It means they outvoted us. Not the same thing.

We have to win with what we have. No whining, no give us another voting system because we can't win with this one.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:45 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


The Boehner plan could mutate into the Reid plan through the magic of Senate jujitsu. Here's an interesting blog post from Greg Sargent at the Washington Post. (Via Jonathan Chait at The New Republic.)
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.

“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.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:53 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


Clever. I like.
posted by angrycat at 2:55 PM on July 26, 2011


"Politics are a reflection of demographics and culture, not the other way around. Getting mad at political leaders is missing the mark. This is the country and these are the times in which we live," he said to himself, softly crying, as he typed his thoughts on Metafilter. (An exclusive excerpt from my upcoming book, "Getting Ready for the Geriatricocalypse: A Boomer's Baby's Lament.")
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:58 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Its the only process we've got and we better stop acting like it doesn't exist.

two words - constitutional convention - yes, it's dangerous - but so is the dysfunction that is becoming business as usual in washington
posted by pyramid termite at 3:11 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]




pyramid termite - you think we could come up with a new constitution in a climate where we can barely pass any bills that have a huge effect on our economy like raising the limit?
posted by symbioid at 3:14 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am seeing press re: Boehner's plan, but not a lot about Reid's, in the last 12 hrs or so.

Reid's plan is central to the most popular op-ed on NYT.com right now.

two words - constitutional convention

KINGSMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!

(sorry, i'm asoiaf-out these days...)
posted by mrgrimm at 3:23 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


it's not WE who can't pass any bills - it's our congresspeople - and perhaps a concerted call for a convention might wake them up

but the real point of my comment was to point out that there are elements of our process that haven't been tried - and if this goes on, we may not have much choice but to gamble on them
posted by pyramid termite at 3:24 PM on July 26, 2011


We must pay the iron price for our Walmart crap from China, ready the invasion force.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:29 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Odinsdream, that is a core of the "Cut, Cap and Balance" plan that Boehner promoted on national TV last night. the Balance piece is a requirement for both parts of congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution before the second "half" of the debt ceiling raise takes effect, all in early 2012 in the run-up to the next national elections.
posted by meinvt at 3:39 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, empath, at least one Tea Party leader wants to restrict voting to property owners.

Reading through the comments, I was going to make a joke that at least they haven't started arguing for restricting the franchise to landholders yet, but... there you go I suppose.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 3:41 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


That NYT editorial me depressed and furious. It refers to Reid's plan as 'awful' and then sez it's our last best hope, I guess. Fuck me.
posted by angrycat at 3:47 PM on July 26, 2011


In Canada, we've had general strikes to protest government. Seems like a reasonable first step toward forcing a new election from scratch. Hint: insist on paper ballots for accountability.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:59 PM on July 26, 2011


Ha ha the CBO sez the Boehner plan is not what it purports to be; it must be made more evil or something I guess. From the WSJ live blog:

House Republicans scrambled to review their options after the Congressional Budget Office concluded their bill to raise the debt ceiling would reduce the deficit by less than GOP leaders had thought it would.

According to a person familiar with the situation, leadership staff concluded they may have to either lower the amount they would increase the debt ceiling or find more deficit reduction measures as a way to shore up votes for the legislation.

The CBO said the Republican bill, set for consideration as early as Wednesday, would reduce federal deficits by $850 billion over the next decade, lower than the $1.2 trillion that GOP leaders had said the bill would do.

House Republicans had pledged that the deficit reduction measures would match or exceed the increase in the debt ceiling.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) acknowledged that changes could have to be made to the bill. "We promised that we will cut spending more than we increase the debt limit – with no tax hikes – and we will keep that promise," said Michael Steel, the spokesman. "As we speak, Congressional staff are looking at options to re-write the legislation to meet our pledge."

The current legislation would initially raise the $14.29 debt ceiling by around $1 trillion, enough to support federal borrowing through February or March. Democrats want a debt ceiling increase that covers borrowing needs until 2012 and after the next round of elections.

Already, Republican leaders were pushing hard to get the 217 votes they need to pass the bill.

So far 13 Republicans have publicly stated they will oppose the legislation. The party can only afford to lose 23 votes if they aren't able to pick up any Democratic votes.

posted by angrycat at 4:11 PM on July 26, 2011


At this point, I think the Democrats should put together a decent plan, but not publicize it, and instead just give it to the Republicans to announce to the American people. Let them name it the "Boehner-McConnell-Tea Party Patriotizing Patriotism Patriots Act to Save America and Crush the Red Menace of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Trilateral Commission".
posted by Flunkie at 4:21 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:33 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Just sent emails to my Rep and Senators (all republicans here in Texas). I used furiousxgeorge's it (miuns the horse) as a template as well as mentioning that I am OK withmy taxes going up.

It really didn't take long. Those of you insisting on taking direct action and holding protests can totally do both.
posted by Uncle Ira at 4:43 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


it == bit
posted by Uncle Ira at 4:44 PM on July 26, 2011


I doubt your taxes should go up. You already pay more than fair. Your millionaire Senator should pay more, as should other wealthy folk. They underpay compared to you.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:04 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


The "big movers" on wall street these days are electronic trading algorithms, so I wouldn't put much stock in their behavior until it starts getting erratic.

How algorithms shape our world
posted by homunculus at 5:08 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


The CBO said the Republican bill, set for consideration as early as Wednesday, would reduce federal deficits by $850 billion over the next decade, lower than the $1.2 trillion that GOP leaders had said the bill would do.

doesn't anyone know that math was regularly taught in russia during the communist era?

you could google it
posted by pyramid termite at 5:11 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know nothing John Boehner.
posted by futz at 5:14 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


The "big movers" on wall street these days are electronic trading algorithms, so I wouldn't put much stock in their behavior until it starts getting erratic.

This is a misleading statement. Algorithms aren't reading the newspapers and neither did they listen to the Obama and Boehner speeches last night. Algorithms don't have opinions on whether the Boehner or Reid plans will win out. Humans still do that sort of thing. Humans also program the algorithms, and humans selectively deploy the algorithms based on their own strategies (for the most part... some technical arbitrage algos can run pretty much on autopilot.)

I guarantee you that human beings executing big fixed income and forex trades are keeping a pretty close eye on their algorithms and the debt situation in the US. So if you disagree with the market, blame the traders and analysts, not the computers.
posted by BobbyVan at 5:20 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


You know nothing John Boehner.

Oh, if only we could send him to the wall.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:28 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


So when do we start worrying?

Because I'm not seeing this resolving smoothly.
posted by Lord_Pall at 5:31 PM on July 26, 2011


Oh, if only we could send him to the wall.

He and his ilk are already wight-like.

They feel no pain and will continue to fight regardless of injury. Though they can be stopped by total dismemberment, their limbs will continue to move if detached from their bodies.

Sounds apt to me.
posted by futz at 5:35 PM on July 26, 2011


Don't make this another thread about wight privilege.
posted by BeerFilter at 5:45 PM on July 26, 2011 [17 favorites]


sir, you need to examine your invisible hackback if you wish to survive
posted by pyramid termite at 5:49 PM on July 26, 2011


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.

You know, the way politics used to be.

Events have overtaken him, and he’s fumbling to catch up.
posted by Trurl at 5:56 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Don't make this another thread about wight privilege.

Don't worry, I know the difference between wight and wrong.
posted by futz at 6:01 PM on July 26, 2011


Just sent emails to my Rep and Senators (all republicans here in Texas). I used furiousxgeorge's it (miuns the horse)

Well duh, it's an Applejack state you would be insane to suggest Pinkie Pie.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:04 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Anyone who quotes me ought to be viewed with suspicion."

-Thomas Jefferson


"Anyone who quotes me ought to be suspicious."

- Yogi Berra
posted by gjc at 6:14 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


So apparently Erick Ericksson from Red State is running the country down there?
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


pyramid termite: "it's not WE who can't pass any bills - it's our congresspeople - and perhaps a concerted call for a convention might wake them up"

A constitutional convention, in the contemporary political climate, would be the death of America as we know it. The pitfalls are so profound it doesn't bear contemplating, and the idea should never be brought to the table, not even as a threat.

In 1776 the US was a colonial backwater, led by principled statesmen and political philosophers, and more or less united by a common cause. And crafting a constitution was still contentious and difficult. Compare to now, when America is the political and economic nerve center of the world, when so many politicians are bought or craven, where the landscape is dominated by powerful business interests and an irresponsible media.

If you put forward, in this environment, the opportunity to rewrite the instrument governing the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, can you imagine the enormous pressures that would be brought to bear on the process? Imagine gerrymandering states themselves, by tinkering with how Congress or the electoral college operates. Imagine corporations (or foreign interests) paying off delegates to advocate not favorable laws that can be repealed, but favorable constitutional articles that become the DNA of the government itself. Imagine fundamentalists pushing to enshrine their theocracy in law, at long last.

Giving the interest groups poisoning and abusing the system as it stands the chance to poison and abuse the process of creating a whole new system isn't just dangerous, it's almost suicidal. Our government has a patina of corruption, but this opens the door for corruption to become its foundation. The careful arrangement of checks and balances that has stood largely unchanged since the 18th century still provides a modicum of restraint and regularity to Washington. It can certainly be improved in theory, but I can't imagine anything better coming out of an actual modern-day convention.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:27 PM on July 26, 2011 [21 favorites]


furiousxgeorge: " She would not back down from that lie or allow the conversation to move on to another subject."

Sounds like she and Ed Miliband would get along swell, they seem to have some similar tactics.
posted by symbioid at 6:35 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


As per the WSJ, the House is going to vote on Boehner's plan Thursday, not tomorrow as originally thought. They need to try to make it more evil since the CBO has given it a 'not as evil as it could be' grade.
posted by angrycat at 6:37 PM on July 26, 2011


Awesome, so if the vote fails, there's basically no time for a plan B unless they pass something no one's read. This is going to end well for everyone involved for sure, just like it did with the Alien and Sedition--er PATRIOT Act.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:56 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


A constitutional convention, in the contemporary political climate, would be the death of America as we know it.

I'm getting to be more and more okay with this idea. We're not a unified country and I think we just need to let the south do their own thing without dragging the rest of us into their insanity.
posted by empath at 6:59 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


I'm sure the Boehner plan, and the Reid plan, and the "cut, cap, and brisance" plan are all very amusing for politicians, but 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?
posted by sfenders at 6:59 PM on July 26, 2011


sfenders, the Republicans have made budget cuts equal to the amount of the debt ceiling increase a condition of raising the debt ceiling. That's what all of this is about.
posted by chrchr at 7:02 PM on July 26, 2011


sfenders: "I'm sure the Boehner plan, and the Reid plan, and the "cut, cap, and brisance" plan are all very amusing for politicians, but 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?"

Blame the Tea Party.
posted by symbioid at 7:06 PM on July 26, 2011


I have this bad feeling, based on nothing, that the markets are not freaking out because Wall Street is all, 'they can't be THAT crazy." And then in a few days the markets will be all, 'omg fuck me they are that fucking crazy' and then there will be chickens and goats running wild through the streets.
posted by angrycat at 7:07 PM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


sfenders: 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?

I sent it to my Representative this morning:
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 title
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.
Failure 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.

I await your introduction of this resolution.

Instead of doing as instructed, he had a hearing on his Fair Tax resolution. We are not amused.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:13 PM on July 26, 2011 [6 favorites]


I took the dog fishing for a few hours today, and came back to find another 204 comments here, in which dead Presidents are further quoted, misquoted, and taken out of context, and in which a prominent member of the MeFi Legal Guild advises well wishers of the American nation to lie to Congressional staffers regarding their domicile and personal voting histories in order to support partisan politics they like, and sabotage those they don't, among other entertainments. Good times.

Any way, the weather here was cloudy, so not great fishing today, but it gave me time for idle speculation, and I realized that in his last several speeches on the debt ceiling, Obama has said he can afford to pay more taxes, and that based on his feeling flush, he suspects many other Americans should happily pay more to the government, too. It got me to thinking that, this is coming from a guy whose campaign has collected $86 million so far towards 2012 election expenses, against a hoped for target of $1 billion, for a job that pays $400,000 a year, and who probably is readily in touch with more millionaires and billionaires than most of us will ever meet. Maybe he's really on to something here, I thought.

Maybe he's trying to obliquely propose a new Tax Me! initiative, in which passionate liberals and the well-to-do join forces to take personal responsibility for federal debt and deficit financing. It's not a crazy idea, as so far this year, people have given as gifts, nearly $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury, for just that purpose, on top of FY 2010 gifts of nearly $3 billion, without much front page cajoling. And he may have inadvertently hit on the best way out of this impasse!

If all those who deeply believe in the spending and borrowing policies of the American government, and all their richest friends, really stepped it up, got out those checkbooks, opened those safety deposit boxes, got in contact with their trust fund managers, REIT managers, stock brokers, bond fund managers, and hedge fund managers, and got the money flowing where it is most needed, they could probably give their way out of this impasse, without waiting for Congress to do anything. Every dollar sent voluntarily to the U.S. Treasury, is a dollar Boehner won't have to cut! And every $280,000 or so raised in such a manner, buys another American job at government economic stimulus rates.

The really great things about this approach are that it requires no compromise on the part of anyone, can't be blocked by any political faction, and that the mechanisms to handle it, on the part of the Government are all ready in place and functioning. All that's needed is the will and energy of motivated liberals, and the river of voluntary money from Obama's wealthy friends. This whole debate could be successfully retired by Friday, without another Congressional vote, purely on a cash basis, if the USPS can bear the burden to Washington!

If Obama can get this going, it could quickly become such an economic force, as to permanently change American politics. Imagine a Congress annually assembled to try to dispose of the flood of money gifts from a generous and involved American people, inundating them in rivers of corruption free donated money that penurious taxation policies never produced! Everyone will want to be a happy, popular Congressperson, funding Mars shots, and disease research, and a National Playground Cleaning Corps! And the rich donors will have a new status club, in which they can directly buy status, according to the size of their government certified donations.

Here's hoping Obama gets to write his check near the front, when the headlines for initiating this brilliant program will still be fresh. Because once Buffet, Gates and Allen et al hear of it, happy days are here again, and he's liable to be pushed out of the headlines, by those with much deeper pockets! And if this gets going, we really ought to gratefully reserve pride of place to him, in acknowledgement for an inspired bit of creative leadership.

I can just imagine the tastefully designed, full page vanity ad in the WSJ, come Monday, now.
posted by paulsc at 7:16 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


Awesome, so if the vote fails, there's basically no time for a plan B unless they pass something no one's read. This is going to end well for everyone involved for sure, just like it did with the Alien and Sedition--er PATRIOT Act.

That might not have been completely unintentional.
posted by Trurl at 7:18 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


God this isn't another WWI, 'oh, the fighting will be over in a week or two,' moment, is it?
posted by angrycat at 7:26 PM on July 26, 2011


Everyone who talks shit about the south always forgets places like Arizona and Alaska. This is *our* problem.

(for values of "our" that include Americans)
posted by absalom at 7:31 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I strongly suspect that we are headed for a shutdown. Boehner seems unlikely to pass anything much less something that will survive the Senate. I guess there is still a remote possibility of complete Democratic capitulation but it seems unlikely.

Forcing a shutdown is a loser for the Republicans but honestly short of a complete capitulation on the part of the Dems nothing is going to be a win for their side. Furthermore it's completely clear that voting for anything other than the bullshit cap cut balance baloney is unlikely to win Republican votes.The threat of being primaried on the right is honestly more concerning for many of the Republicans than losing the 2012 elections and becoming a minority party.

In the past you'd maybe hope that there were enough centrist Republicans that would hold their nose and vote with the democratic minority to get something done no matter how unpalatable but in this case all those structures in place to insure complete control of the Republican caucus is going to tie their hands. Furthermore anyone that would be tempted to compromise in the best interests of the country has probably been purged from the house in the last decade. Otherwise you could have long term incumbents being willing to step up and take the hit for their caucus in order to allow the tea party freshmen to remain ideological pure (and thus re-electable).
posted by vuron at 7:44 PM on July 26, 2011


I'm getting to be more and more okay with this idea. We're not a unified country and I think we just need to let the south do their own thing without dragging the rest of us into their insanity.

Oh boy! I'll finally get my very own Runaway Scrape!
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:44 PM on July 26, 2011


Sounds like she and Ed Miliband would get along swell, they seem to have some similar tactics.

Wow, that video leaves me speechless. Almost makes me want to take back my comment above regarding algorithms.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:44 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


In 1776 the US was a colonial backwater, led by principled statesmen and political philosophers, and more or less united by a common cause. And crafting a constitution was still contentious and difficult.

I hear it was a lot easier in 1787.
posted by Jehan at 7:45 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


paulsc at 7:16 PM on July 26:

Any way, the weather here was cloudy, so not great fishing today, but it gave me time for idle speculation, and I realized that in his last several speeches on the debt ceiling, Obama has said he can afford to pay more taxes, and that based on his feeling flush, he suspects many other Americans should happily pay more to the government, too.

More tiresome drivel from you, paulsc? No, he didn't say he felt flush - he said he thinks people at his income level should give up the Bush tax breaks. He thought that the richest Americans, who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth in this country should share in the sacrifice. He didn't propose that the average middle-class Americans should have their taxes raised - he actually proposed that payroll taxes for those citizens should be cut back. He proposed, that taxes should be raised on the wealthiest Americans, because not only are the needs dire, and we need to stop deficits that started with such gusto under Republican presidents, but because taxes for the wealthiest are historically at quite some low, again, at least partially thanks to Republican presidents who wished to "starve the beast of government". If these wealthy Americans used to pay dramatically greater taxes once upon a time, then these days, when they have accumulated wealth to an astonishing gap between the richest and poorest in this country, they can well afford to give up the Bush tax cuts - especially that they accumulated great wealth during a time when wages for average Americans were stagnating.

But what's the point of a bit of reality obtruding upon your "musings".
posted by VikingSword at 7:48 PM on July 26, 2011 [11 favorites]


Look, the south is fine. I don't understand it, but it's fine. Let's just take all the House GOP and anybody in the Senate in support of them, and then take the Tea Party, and give them Guam.
posted by angrycat at 7:48 PM on July 26, 2011


paulsc, sure that would be awesome and all, but wouldn't you expect the Republicans to turn around and use such charity as evidence for there being no need to increase taxes on the uber wealthy, in fact they could further reduce taxes, given the largesse of the ultra rich, and reduce services as well, for surely some well meaning patrician flush with cash will ensure that the poor are fed and sheltered, and the sick are treated. Cause that is pretty much what they would do.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 7:50 PM on July 26, 2011


paulsc, sure that would be awesome and all, but wouldn't you expect the Republicans to turn around and use such charity as evidence for there being no need to increase taxes on the uber wealthy, in fact they could further reduce taxes, given the largesse of the ultra rich, and reduce services as well, for surely some well meaning patrician flush with cash will ensure that the poor are fed and sheltered, and the sick are treated. Cause that is pretty much what they would do.

And what would be wrong with that fanciful scenario?
posted by BobbyVan at 7:55 PM on July 26, 2011


BobbyVan, perhaps my wording was not clear - I didn't mean that magical benefactors would fall from the sky and save everyone from their economic woes, but rather that the Republicans would likely claim that they would.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 8:01 PM on July 26, 2011


"... Cause that is pretty much what they would do."
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 10:50 PM on July 26

If Obama could pull off Tax Me! in a big way, I'm thinking the rest of Washington would be so taken aback, and be so hip deep in cash, that even tight fisted, frowny faced Republicans would have to scramble for ways to spend all the money, or risk being drowned in the following fiscal year's river of donated cash. They couldn't break ground on enough new hospitals, put in enough new public housing, or fund enough college scholarships, fast enough, if Tax Me! really works!

The U.S. tax code, as a whole, could become irrelevant and out of date, through sheer disuse.
posted by paulsc at 8:01 PM on July 26, 2011


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".

I am sympathetic to the facts that there are many reasonable southerners and many unreasonable non-southerners, and I believe that the "fuck the south let 'em go" idea is both simplistic and to be avoided. But I think there's a significant gap between "there are reasonable southerners and unreasonable non-southerners" on the one hand and "we would still be having this problem even if we didn't have the south" on the other.
posted by Flunkie at 8:03 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


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.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:05 PM on July 26, 2011


Gotcha. On re-read I see what you meant.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:07 PM on July 26, 2011


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?
posted by Flunkie at 8:08 PM on July 26, 2011


Why not? Leverage is leverage.
posted by smackfu at 8:24 PM on July 26, 2011


"... But what's the point of a bit of reality obtruding upon your "musings"."
posted by VikingSword at 10:48 PM on July 26

"Reality," my dear VikingSword, is what has led us to this bit of distasteful political head butting, what has this great nation and its creditors on pins and needless needles tonight, waiting for either new or synthesized ideas to present themselves for adoption, and is what many Americans seem to be fed up with, entirely. Thus "musings" over a bit of wet line might suggest another way, that's already working in the "real" world, if only in a relatively small (if cash streams in the billions of dollars are ever, in any "reality" small), almost prototypical form.

Sorry if I whizzed in your bait bucket.
posted by paulsc at 8:24 PM on July 26, 2011


It's a cesspool, Scott, not a bait bucket.
posted by BeerFilter at 8:33 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Interesting snipped from a Washington Post report:
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...
posted by BobbyVan at 8:35 PM on July 26, 2011


..snippet..
posted by BobbyVan at 8:35 PM on July 26, 2011


Continuing from the report BobbyVan quoted:
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.

“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied
ugh
posted by Flunkie at 8:42 PM on July 26, 2011


Why am I getting Toonces flashbacks?
posted by maudlin at 8:44 PM on July 26, 2011 [7 favorites]


I’m ready to drive the car
posted by mazola at 8:47 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


angrycat: "Look, the south is fine. I don't understand it, but it's fine. Let's just take all the House GOP and anybody in the Senate in support of them, and then take the Tea Party, and give them Guam."

I'd like to invert the original meaning of Jello in this song, and thus propose that we give them all a One Way Ticket to Pluto.
posted by symbioid at 9:10 PM on July 26, 2011


Welcome back to the thread paulsc. Your conservative friends in the House demonstrated elite math skills today by being unable to actually calculate the savings of their proposals yet again. Remember when Boehner was all I totally forced Obama to cut billions of dollars during the last showdown; then it turned out once it was added up we were actually spending more money. Good times.

I will now mock you for yachting on Tuesday like some preppie elitist trust fund kid who got his job through nepotism and takes off whenever. Furthermore your failure to catch fish must reduce your status in the tribe. I mean you've wasted a work day, provided nothing of value nor have you brought any food. To compensate for your selfish ways we must increase your taxes. All this shit ain't getting done for free while you sit around drinking imported beer on your yacht. Grandma's bedpan isn't going to change itself.
posted by humanfont at 9:12 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


"... I mean you've wasted a work day ..."
posted by humanfont at 12:12 AM on July 27

Time spent with a good dog, fishing, is hardly wasted.

"... To compensate for your selfish ways we must increase your taxes. ..."

I'm not sure you're really getting the spirit of Obama's Tax Me! program, humanfont. If you'd just give more, and get some more liberals to do the same, we could all get along without any argument about taxes, and Grandma's bedpan would not only get changed, but she'd get fresh squeezed orange juice every morning, too!
posted by paulsc at 9:24 PM on July 26, 2011


You've yet to demonstrate that your idle day produced anything of value. What exactly is the root cause of this beef of yours with the government? Today the government built roads, opened libraries, funded hospital services and did all kind of useful things. Many of the things the government does enable people to get fabulously rich. It is time for those folks to pay up. And thus isn't some pledge drive on NPR, the constitution lets us collect an income tax so we'll be doing that.
posted by humanfont at 10:11 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is beginning to remind me of treadmills and aeroplanes.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:19 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


"You've yet to demonstrate that your idle day produced anything of value. ..."
posted by humanfont at 1:11 AM on July 27

The time I spent fishing produced some peace of mind. Moreover, it entertained the dog, and perhaps some fish, and it made good use of a government issued fishing license, on a river the Federal government spends a lot of money to see is kept sorta clean, so that I and others will fish on it, among other uses. I can see that a liberal might view some of that as consumption, rather than supply side economics, but haven't liberals, as a class, had quite enough of supply side economics? I thought by shifting over to consumption, for a day at least, that I'd try to get a bit of your perspectives, and it kind of worked.

"... Many of the things the government does enable people to get fabulously rich. It is time for those folks to pay up. ..."

And those of the fabulously rich that really want to pay up, are welcome to do so, Right Now. If they pay up like mofo's Real Soon Now, it'll be a waste of everyone's time to even have an income tax statute. If they don't, I'm going to have to start thinking Obama might be wrong, on the evidence of their willingness to keep arguing, and not give us all out of this mess.
posted by paulsc at 10:30 PM on July 26, 2011


I'm not sure you're really getting the spirit of Obama's Tax Me! program, humanfont. If you'd just give more, and get some more liberals to do the same, we could all get along without any argument about taxes, and Grandma's bedpan would not only get changed, but she'd get fresh squeezed orange juice every morning, too!

Seriously, get the fuck real you're like the Dad in a family having to tighten the belt: "Mom, no more makeup. Son, I'm sorry but no new X-Box for you, Princess, we can't afford a pony. But under no circumstances am I getting a second job!"

Really? There's no supply-side approach to this? Let me gently suggest that your self-interest in hanging on to every lastdime is clouding your judgment. We are at historic taxation and revenue
lows. Look it up, dude.
I will make a prediction. This will be the beginning of the long-term end for the GOP if the governmenr defaults.

Also, don't you have a grandma? Your argument is that Grandmas can't have OJ so that the rich can keep their money? Go out and ask 50 people if they agree. Then imagine the 2012 shellacking the GOP is gonna get on the "No OJ for Grandmas" platform.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:30 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


"This is beginning to remind me of treadmills and aeroplanes."
posted by five fresh fish at 1:19 AM on July 27

Now that was a fun thread, with a similar result of producing real world solutions to difficult problems, that this thread has had, so far.
posted by paulsc at 10:35 PM on July 26, 2011


One other point.

John Boehner's incompetence makes me miss Tom Delay.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:37 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


If you'd just give more, and get some more liberals to do the same, we could all get along without any argument about taxes

Funny enough, Republicans love taxes that disproportionately affect Democrats. Witness their attitudes toward the AMT and the FEIE.
posted by neal at 10:38 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... Also, don't you have a grandma? ..."
posted by Ironmouth at 1:30 AM on July 27

Sadly, no, not for these last 25 years or so.

"... Your argument is that Grandmas can't have OJ so that the rich can keep their money? ..."

Nope. I think every Grandma ought to have fresh squeezed orange juice, clean bed pans, and 400 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets on a bed in a brand new hospital or nursing home, whenver she needs it, paid for through the exemplary voluntary beneficence of billionaire liberals. I'd stand, hat in hand, in awe of that, sir.

And there is absolutely nothing preventing that from beginning to happen tomorrow, that I know of, except for the selfish interests of real world liberals, who want to extract that result from everyone, willing or not, at the point of the tax man's gun.
posted by paulsc at 10:49 PM on July 26, 2011


And there is absolutely nothing preventing that from beginning to happen tomorrow, that I know of, except for the selfish interests of real world liberals, who want to extract that result from everyone, willing or not, at the point of the tax man's gun.

Thanks for the laugh! This thread has been a drag.
posted by polyhedron at 10:51 PM on July 26, 2011 [5 favorites]


"Thanks for the laugh! This thread has been a drag."
posted by polyhedron at 1:51 AM on July 27

You're welcome. I thought there hadn't been enough overheated political rhetoric being thrown around, lately, and I was doing my bit to help with that deficit, at least.
posted by paulsc at 10:56 PM on July 26, 2011


Serious question. With what funds should the government protect private property rights and ensure functioning capital markets?
posted by neal at 10:57 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


And there is absolutely nothing preventing that from beginning to happen tomorrow, that I know of, except for the selfish interests of real world liberals, who want to extract that result from everyone, willing or not, at the point of the tax man's gun.

The exact opposite of reality. Tomorrow, if the GOP allowed it, they could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling. Tomorrow. Nobody but the Republican's own stupidity has created this. You strapped that suicide vest to yourself and threatened us all.

And the American people know it. Unless the GOP fixes this stupid mess they completely created, they will get motherfucking waxed in the next election. Extinction. Because you forced this. Nobody made you do it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:05 PM on July 26, 2011 [5 favorites]


GOP extinction? Heard that before.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:15 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... With what funds should the government protect private property rights and ensure functioning capital markets?"
posted by neal at 1:57 AM on July 27

In a country where 47% of households already pay no Federal income taxes, your question can hardly be serious enough, for many of the other 53%. That could be taken as a flippant remark, but I don't mean it as such. Is the Federal government's primary role to be a re-distributor of wealth through taxation, or a provider of minimally necessary services? Where a person stands on the answer to that question largely determines where he might stand on the answer to yours.
posted by paulsc at 11:18 PM on July 26, 2011


What percent of the total income do those 47% hold?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:18 PM on July 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


What percentage of total votes do they hold?
posted by paulsc at 11:20 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


And what do they pay in total taxes? Why are federal income taxes the only ones that matter? What about payroll taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes? More broadly, what are the indirect costs to them from corporate income taxes, tariffs, and so on?
posted by neal at 11:22 PM on July 26, 2011 [5 favorites]


paulsc wrote: What percentage of total votes do they hold

Less than 47%, actually, because they are more likely to have only one adult in the household and are more likely to have one of the adults be ineligible to vote. (And your stat is bullshit)
posted by wierdo at 11:22 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh, and they're, of course, less likely to vote than those making more money.
posted by wierdo at 11:23 PM on July 26, 2011


Paulsc, some of us think that basic support for the elderly and infirm are "minimally necessary services."
posted by chrchr at 11:24 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


What percentage of total votes do they hold?

What percentage of donations to political campaigns do they represent?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:25 PM on July 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


"... Why are federal income taxes the only ones that matter? ..."
posted by neal at 2:22 AM on July 27

'Cause, um, this is a thread about the Federal debt ceiling? Hey, are you trying to ask trick questions?
posted by paulsc at 11:27 PM on July 26, 2011


'Cause, um, this is a thread about the Federal debt ceiling? Hey, are you trying to ask trick questions?

Um, and the personal income tax is the only tax the federal government levies?
posted by neal at 11:28 PM on July 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


"What percentage of donations to political campaigns do they represent?"
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:25 AM on July 27

I don't know. What percentage of political TV ads do they watch? What percentage of political polls do they answer? What percentage of letters to the editor do they write? What percentage of ads do they click through on, on popular Web sites where issues of the day are debated?
posted by paulsc at 11:30 PM on July 26, 2011


paulsc wrote: 'Cause, um, this is a thread about the Federal debt ceiling? Hey, are you trying to ask trick questions

I think it's quite relevant to assess the entirety of all groups' ability to pay when deciding tax policy. Regressive state tax burdens bear on that ability.
posted by wierdo at 11:32 PM on July 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't know. What percentage of political TV ads do they watch? What percentage of political polls do they answer? What percentage of letters to the editor do they write? What percentage of ads do they click through on, on popular Web sites where issues of the day are debated?

What percentage of that is relevant to the question of who should fund our government? The answer of course, is the people with the money. Ideology is irrelevant, it's simple math.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:33 PM on July 26, 2011


furiousxgeorge wrote: What percentage of that is relevant to the question of who should fund our government? The answer of course, is the people with the money. Ideology is irrelevant, it's simple math.

To that end, I did some arithmetic when some grade A assholes were yammering on about that "who pays income tax" bullshit on a forum I sometimes participate in and found that even if we raise the effective tax rate on the bottom 50% to 100%, it would still not be enough to close the budget deficit, much less fund the entirety of the operations of government.

I'd have to go back and look to figure out how few of the top 1% it would take to do the same, but it wasn't very many.

I'm not quite sure why we focus on income so much, anyway, as if wealth is irrelevant.
posted by wierdo at 11:37 PM on July 26, 2011


"... Ideology is irrelevant, it's simple math."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:33 AM on July 27

This whole thread, and the news out of Washington, demonstrate that ideology is, apparently, relevant, and the math ain't always as simple as it could be.
posted by paulsc at 11:40 PM on July 26, 2011


I think you've moved the goalposts. You implied earlier that taxation was illegitimate; you said that liberals wanted to extract money from everyone at the point of the tax man's gun. When challenged, your complaints were not about taxation in general but about the current distribution of federal income taxes.

I'm actually genuinely curious about both the question I asked earlier and how you think we should determine the budget. What use is there in having both a budget and a debt ceiling? In a political system with as many checks and balances as ours, where should we make compromises? Is it acceptable to hold up must-pass legislation as leverage to seek other changes? What if the must-pass legislation doesn't pass?
posted by neal at 11:59 PM on July 26, 2011


Well, at least this thread has taught me that sociopaths like paulsc actually exist, unless we're being elaborately trolled.

Taxes on Americans are at historic lows and guess what? Our economy is in the shitter and has been for years.

When did the American economy actually do well and make lots of people really wealthy? Well, the 90's were good. You know, that decade directly before the Bush tax cuts were installed.

And hey, how about the 1950's when the top rates were around 90%?

And this is what this whole shebang is really about -- paying for the Bush tax cuts for Paris Hilton by crapping on middle-class people who could use a hand in retirement (SS) and poor, sick, and old people who can't afford private insurance.

What's funny is that everybody knows the age of American economic and military dominance is over. But for all of their bullshit "patriotism," it's the Republicans who are making damn sure we go out in a bang rather than say, the UK, which is no longer the world's most powerful country but is a wealthy advanced democracy.

Nope, America goes the way of Rome thanks to charming guys like paulsc.
posted by bardic at 11:59 PM on July 26, 2011 [12 favorites]


This whole thread, and the news out of Washington, demonstrate that ideology is, apparently, relevant, and the math ain't always as simple as it could be.

Our current debate is about the question of if we should pay our bills, not who should pay them. If we decide they must be paid, only the people with the money can do it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:17 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


A constitutional convention, in the contemporary political climate, would be the death of America as we know it.

another 10 years or so of the kind of government we've been experiencing will be the death of america as we know it - i appreciate the dangers that you've listed, but our system of checks and balances are not stopping the corporate control of our country, or the hostage taking of our budget by a minority

you cite corruption as something we don't want to base our government upon, but in 1789 our system WAS based upon corruption to a large degree - most people couldn't vote and a large number of our people were in bondage - this corruption was so great that the system of checks and balances blocked any kind of solution and a bloody war was the only thing that solved it

america as the founders knew it has already died once in 1861, due to the inability of its leaders to compromise - and the political and spiritual descendants of those who caused the first death are endangering it once more, with another form of the corruption that has been part of our country since the beginning

i don't believe it is time yet for this desperate measure - but i'm not the one bringing it to the table - the founding fathers did that when they put it in the constitution as the ultimate check and balance to the government - it is not time to push for this yet, but it is time to begin contemplating it, if for no other reason than that the political and religious fanatics you fear are considering it

they're not ready or organized for it yet and neither are we - but do we want to wait until they are ready?

we should wait right now - but with the awareness that we may be headed for this, whether we think it's a good idea or not, and that we'd better have something to bring to the debate
posted by pyramid termite at 1:06 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Our current debate is about the question of if we should pay our bills, not who should pay them. If we decide they must be paid, only the people with the money can do it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:17 AM on July 27 [+] [!]


Given the childish stubbornness at play in this deadlock perhaps the debate is more along the lines of:

Dear USA,

Should we pay our bills?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Thar's a black man in the White House!!!!
[ ] I worked hard for my money and it's mine all mine gimme gimme gimme
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 1:07 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


america: gone fishing
posted by pyramid termite at 1:09 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


My favorite irony out of all of this is that while the GOP and their Teabagger masters scream about "teh soshulism!" of Obama, a president who was poised to fucking cut both Social Security and Medicare and who extended the Bush tax cuts for Paris Hilton, the larger systemic gears are moving in such a way that real, actual socialism might be seen as necessary or even inevitable in the coming decades.

It's not like FDR enacted the New Deal in a vaccuum. Actual people were starving and destitute and there was a genuine fear that the US would be susceptible to its own sort of "October Revolution" if people didn't get access to food and jobs.

Of course, World War II was arguably quite timely for the US.

We don't get to save the world however, we just slaughter brown people in order to shovel more cash to Halliburton and Lockheed Martin.

In all seriousness, the American political structure of 2011 and, dare I say it, the American people themselves, would be totally incapable of winning World War II today. We're far too fat, lazy, and above all else, cynical as fuck.

Sacrifice? Who me, paulsc? I got a yacht to ride on! And all those Teabaggers over 65 want to make sure Obama doesn't take away their government healthcare and social security!

Fuck the baby-boomers.
posted by bardic at 1:28 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]


Serious question. With what funds should the government protect private property rights and ensure functioning capital markets?

Don't forget the corollary to that: what should the government ask of those who benefit disproportionately from its protection of private property rights and functional capital markets?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:32 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


The time I spent fishing produced some peace of mind.

Your claim is unsupported.

In a country where 47% of households already pay no Federal income taxes,

Debunked. You forgot payroll taxes.

And those of the fabulously rich that really want to pay up, are welcome to do so, Right Now.

Sorry buddy we are all in this together. You and your rich conservative buddies ordered the 3 Trillion dollar bottle of War in Iraq and now that the bill has come due you don't want to split the check. You'd rather we all just each volunteer to throw in some cash. It doesn't work that way.
posted by humanfont at 4:40 AM on July 27, 2011 [10 favorites]


paulsc is a troll. Stop feeding him. Let him eat his yacht if he's hungry.
posted by ged at 4:49 AM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]


Sorry buddy we are all in this together. You and your rich conservative buddies ordered the 3 Trillion dollar bottle of War in Iraq and now that the bill has come due you don't want to split the check. You'd rather we all just each volunteer to throw in some cash. It doesn't work that way.

You forgot the Bush tax-cut eclair they ordered too.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:17 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is the current "joke" circulating around my conservative facebook acquaintances
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,

"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."
You can imagine the subsequent backslapping hilarity in the comments.
posted by gaspode at 5:26 AM on July 27, 2011


The zombie "47% pay no taxes lie"

I have no idea whether the number is true. However:

1. It seems surprisingly high

2. A Yahoo! news link is less than I'd want to support a contentious claim

3. It's popular among right-wing radio hosts
posted by Trurl at 5:44 AM on July 27, 2011


Interesting thing I noticed when I was contacting my Rep. I had to put in my zip + FOUR in order to be given access to the contact page.

I contacted my two senators and one congressman. As little as canned, autogenerated responses mean, it means something when you don't even get *that* from some of them.
posted by gjc at 5:46 AM on July 27, 2011


100% of unemployed workers pay no income taxes, the lazy bastards.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:51 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


100% of unemployed workers pay no income taxes, the lazy bastards.

Not true. When I was collecting unemployment for the first three months of this year I was shocked to learn that my state unemployment benefits were taxable as income at the Federal level. I had the choice of Federal withholding from my unemployment check, or deferring and paying up on my return next year.
posted by COD at 6:09 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well damn they sure do get you coming and going, don't they. I would venture to guess, though, that those who are unemployed and aren't receiving benefits are paying 0% in income taxes. Surely.

I've never understood the 47% don't pay income taxes thing. Are they talking about rich people? Rich people find a way to not pay taxes on income? That's what they're saying? Or are they saying people whose income falls under a certain threshold get income taxes fully refunded? Because even when I worked jobs where I was making just over minimum wage, it sure seemed as though Federal income taxes were being deducted from my checks.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:22 AM on July 27, 2011


And, yes, I understand the argument is inherently specious, what with Soc Security and Medicare taxes, sales taxes, capital gains, state, local, etc.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:24 AM on July 27, 2011


The 47% number might not be exactly right, but it is essentially correct. For what little it says.

In the first place, it divides out how many people pay taxes by the entire population of the country. So it inflates itself by counting people with no income as "deadbeats" who don't pay their taxes, no matter what the circumstance- independently wealthy, a dependent of someone else, taking a year off to see the world, or whatever. It ONLY counts federal income tax, it doesn't count Social Security tax, Medicare/Medicaid tax and various local taxes.

And it is only that high because of EITC. So LOTS of those people pay the income taxes, but they get credits to offset it.

The cognitive dissonance on the right is deafening. They don't want anyone to pay taxes, but boy do they get mad when they see people who don't.
posted by gjc at 6:28 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


Memorandum, Re: Down to the Wire [PDF] by Howard Marks, Chairman, Oaktree Capital Management, July 21st, 2011.
  • 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.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:35 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Emphasis in the original.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:37 AM on July 27, 2011


This entire debt ceiling crisis is like refusing to refinance your hour when rates are low. Instead let's not pay our credit cards and screw up out credit.
posted by humanfont at 7:02 AM on July 27, 2011


Nobody but the Republican's own stupidity has created this. You strapped that suicide vest to yourself and threatened us all.

Just wanted to see that repeated that because it sums it up so eloquently.
posted by jeanmari at 7:03 AM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]


I'm lissnin' to Diane Rehm show now.
posted by BeerFilter at 7:05 AM on July 27, 2011


Okay, maybe Diane Rehm will answer this for me, but:

Assuming Reid's plan passes the Senate (could the GOP filibuster it, though?) how many House GOP votes would it need to pass in the House?
posted by angrycat at 7:07 AM on July 27, 2011


This entire debt ceiling crisis is like refusing to refinance your hour when rates are low. Instead let's not pay our credit cards and screw up out credit.

If the government's credit rating gets downgraded, and our interest rates go up as a result, the increase in spending on interest due to the new rate needs to be calculated as a real number, then that number needs to be branded to these jackasses foreheads.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:11 AM on July 27, 2011


angrycat: "…how many House GOP votes would it need to pass in the House?"

It takes 218 votes to pass a bill, and there are currently 193 Democrats and 240 Republicans in the House, so if all the Democrats vote yes 25 Republicans would also have to vote yes. Considering that The Hill is reporting that the Republicans are worried they don't have the votes to pass Boehner's new plan, I'm not sure the Reid plan has a chance.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:31 AM on July 27, 2011


so. the analysis on DR seems to be that the Reid plan won't pass the house until there's some market freak out, a la the Dow shedding 800 pts in 2008.
posted by angrycat at 7:33 AM on July 27, 2011


I swung by Marcy's office upstairs and chatted with the receptionist.

"I'm kinda scared about this debt ceiling business."

"So are we."
posted by charred husk at 7:36 AM on July 27, 2011


Let's see if we can't have a little fun with that hilarious debt ceiling inspired balloonist/boater parable:

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,

"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 Tea Party Republican.

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But if you actually stopped staring myopically at your GPS, spouting off figures without any relation to where you've been or where you're going, you would've noticed you have a hole in the side of your boat, and are sinking fast.

The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama-Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know"?

"Well," said the man, "Bluuurp...bluuuuurppp...blurp...blurpppp...bluurrpp..."
posted by Skygazer at 7:37 AM on July 27, 2011 [9 favorites]


The Dow is down so sharply this morning that the only audio coming from CNBC is of a slide whistle descending.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:37 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Or how about this:

A man in a hot air balloon became lost. He saw a man on the ground and approached him to ask for directions. "Excuse me," said the man in the balloon. "Am I a stereotype in a political joke?" The man on the ground looked back at him and replied, "I believe you are. Which means. Oh. That means I'm also. But I was just. Hmm." The two men looked at each other with eyes expressing a deep and profound sadness. It began to rain.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:40 AM on July 27, 2011 [50 favorites]


It takes 218 votes to pass a bill, and there are currently 193 Democrats and 240 Republicans in the House, so if all the Democrats vote yes 25 Republicans would also have to vote yes. Considering that The Hill is reporting that the Republicans are worried they don't have the votes to pass Boehner's new plan, I'm not sure the Reid plan has a chance.

Well, as you say, the Reid plan only needs 25 Republican votes to succeed (assuming all Democrats vote yes). I could imagine that it would be easier for Reid to find those 25 Republican votes than for Boehner to find his 218.
posted by dfan at 7:53 AM on July 27, 2011


paulsc is not a troll. He just doesn't think about things as deeply or completely as he should.

There was a brutal change in the Republican Party during the Bush administration. Moderates were either forced out, or sidelined into rah-rah boosterism, hoping that the core principles of fiscal responsibility would somehow be preserved, even though it clearly was not - defaulting on debt is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

He's not here to talk issues or propose policies. He's here to root for the home team.

While it's not trolling, it's not helpful. I'd look at it like arguing with UFO or conspiracy nuts - the GOP and its adherents are in the same reality-free zone.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:53 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


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,

"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 looked up and said "Fuck you, I got mine".
posted by PenDevil at 7:54 AM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]


Or this:

A man in a hot air balloon became lost. He saw a man on the ground and approached him to ask for directions. "Excuse me," said the man in the balloon. "Am I a stereotype in a political joke?" Right at that moment a super neutrino blast destroys the whole known universe and it is sucked up into a gigantic black hole. It began to rain.
posted by Skygazer at 7:55 AM on July 27, 2011


This thread has gone off the rails. It doesn't matter if paulsc is a troll or not, this "discourse" is contributing nothing but froth. Ignore him.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:59 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Or this:

A woman is in a hot air balloon. She has been lost for days, no human contact, over a wilderness area. Finally she sees a guy splashing through a stream. "Hey!" shouts the woman. "I need help!"
The man sees her. "I need help!" he screams. "Please, for the love of God, before they catch up with me --"
"Who?"
"You haven't heard about the zombie apocalypse!"
"Wha?"
"The U.S. defaulted on its debt two days ago. Chaos erupted. And then -- there was some sort of virus -- Oh my God here they come!"
The woman heard a great splashing and moaning as the zombie horde made its way down the stream. She watched in horror as zombies ate the man alive. The wind blew her away, but she was killed later that day when her balloon crashed.
posted by angrycat at 8:04 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


email that is circulating:

Guy goes into a bar, there’s a robot bartender. The robot says, "What will you have?" The guy says, "Martini." The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man, "What’s your IQ?" The guy says, "168". The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and medical technology.

The guy leaves, but he is curious, so he goes back into the bar. The robot bartender says, What will you have?" The guy says, "Martini". Again, the robot makes a great martini, gives it to the man and says, "What’s your IQ?" The guy says, "100." The robot then starts to talk about NASCAR, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time.. He goes back into the bar. The robot says, "What will you have?" The guy says, "Martini", and the robot brings him another great martini. The robot then says, "What’s your IQ?" The guy says, "Uh, about 50." The robot leans in real close and says, "So, you people still happy you voted for Obama?"
posted by futz at 8:09 AM on July 27, 2011


I think everyone is just joking and chatting in circles to avoid that sinking feeling of powerlessness that we can do anything to stop this unbelievable madness. I could call my rep again, but she's already going to vote for sanity

And however this particular crisis ends, each hour it goes on unresolved demonstrates to the world and all of us how utterly broken America is. What really is there to say, anymore?
posted by crayz at 8:11 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


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,

"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 copy of The Wisdom and Teachings of Ayn Rand and replied, "just believe in the self-regulating magic and wisdom of the Free Market and it will naturally take you to where you need to be."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a GOTP-er. that's the stupidest thing I ever heard."

The man on the boat consults his Ayn Rand bookshelf, pulls out The Fountainhead, and flips through it furiously, before finding what he's looking for, and shouts up at the woman "Well, it's either that, or I guess I could rape you. And you can be my woman."
posted by Skygazer at 8:14 AM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]


That IQ joke is so weird -- it's like the writer confused up with down, or something.
posted by angrycat at 8:14 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


That IQ joke is just bad.

A guy walks in to a bar. The robot bartender asks him "what is your IQ?"
The guy replies "50".
The robot replies "Durr durr durr Obama handouts durr durr durr socialist John Madden."
posted by Theta States at 8:17 AM on July 27, 2011


That IQ joke is so weird -- it's like the writer confused up with down, or something.

I'm surprised the robot didn't bring him some fried chicken and watermellon. "You people?", really?
posted by empath at 8:18 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


A man walks into a bar, he asks the bartender if he's heard the latest political joke. The bartender says yes, the daily compromises required to live in an unjust world.

They drink in silence.
posted by The Whelk at 8:19 AM on July 27, 2011 [16 favorites]


"So, you people still happy you voted for Obama?"

I don't get it.
posted by box at 8:20 AM on July 27, 2011


The U.S. Government Cannot Ever Run Out of Money

The Treasury could print money to pay its bills, and the Fed could soak up the excess liquidity by selling its Treasury holdings, according to some economists

...This leads to the next question: Would having the Fed credit the account of a bank that presented a check on the U.S. Treasury Department's empty account amount the incurrence of new debt in violation of the debt ceiling?

The law is not exactly clear on this point. The debt ceiling applies to the face amount of obligations issued under Chapter 31 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code--basically, Treasury notes and bills and the other standard kinds of government debt--and the "face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government." But overdrafts on the Federal Reserve wouldn't be Treasurys and they aren't explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. government.

They're more like unilateral gifts from the Fed.

And guess what? The Treasury is allowed to accept gifts that "reduce the public debt." Since these overdraft gifts from the Fed would allow the government to spend without incurring additional debt, it seems very plausible to argue that this kind of extension of U.S. credit would be permitted under the debt ceiling.

Notice that this would do something very odd. It would give the U.S. Treasury Department control of the money supply--something usually credited to the Fed. But by writing checks on an empty bank account, the Treasury would be inflating the money supply. It would be printing money to pay its bills, more or less. Monetizing its obligations, rather than borrowing or taxing to pay them.

In order to keep inflation under control, the Fed would have to intervene to soak up the extra dollars by selling securities.



posted by futz at 8:21 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey buddy, why the long face?"

The horse replies, "Well, I've been obsessively watching the debt negotiations in Washington and I'm truly scared for the future of my country."
posted by jbickers at 8:21 AM on July 27, 2011 [22 favorites]


I think the joke is that if you vote for Obama, the robots will eventually take over. I guess robots are also socialist.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:22 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner to GOP on debt ceiling plan: 'Get your ass in line'
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.

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.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


A pirate walks into a bar and orders a beer. Bartender pours it for him and says, "buddy, you know you got a ship's wheel down the front of your pants?" The pirate says, aye, aye, that I do.

"Well, isn't that kinda uncomfortable?" Aye, aye, the invisible hand of the market is drivin' me nuts.

"Oh, I see it says 'ECONOMY' on your nuts in hand-lettered bold caps." Aye, aye, that it does.

"We're in a terrible one-panel editorial cartoon, aren't we." Aye, aye, that we are. That we are.
posted by cortex at 8:32 AM on July 27, 2011 [12 favorites]


Is the pirate wearing a sash that says "America"?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:36 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, that just went to a dark place.
posted by angrycat at 8:44 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


A horse walks into a bar. Suddenly, a hot air balloons crashes into the bar, killing the horse instantly. A MeFite starts beating the corpse mercilessly.

~fin~
posted by entropicamericana at 8:46 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


Talking Points Memo: House Conservatives Close Ranks Around Boehner Debt Limit Bill
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


Can we not make rape jokes? kthxbai
posted by desjardins at 8:50 AM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]


I'd love to hear some stats regarding the phone calls and emails sent to the representatives. Probably won't happen though. And where is the Tick Tock that was supposed to be released? Obama was going to release it to show that his version of events was accurate.
posted by futz at 8:53 AM on July 27, 2011


XQUZYPHYR , I misread your intent and I asked for my comment to be deleted so as not to cause a discussion about the appropriateness of jokes. Until it's deleted (if ever) let's just ignore my comment.
posted by desjardins at 8:57 AM on July 27, 2011


The guy in the boat is a private contractor for KBR. He rapes her violently and faces no punishment whatsoever. Barack Obama continues paying him billions of dollars to murder people in Afghanistan.

I guess you're still not getting this, XQUZYPHYR, but Barack Obama doesn't pay anyone. Only congress has any authority to pay people. So I think you meant to say "Congress continues paying him billions of dollars to murder people in Afghanistan."
posted by saulgoodman at 9:00 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Real socialists ride zeppelins.
posted by Theta States at 9:05 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Dude, just -- stop.
posted by angrycat at 9:06 AM on July 27, 2011


Rather xquzphyr, dude, just -- stop.
posted by angrycat at 9:07 AM on July 27, 2011


GOPers chant 'fire him' at staffer

Infuriated by the e-mails from Paul Teller, the executive director of the RSC, members started chanting “Fire him, fire him!” while Teller stood silently at a closed-door meetings of House Republicans.

“It was an unbelievable moment,” said one GOP insider. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

posted by futz at 9:11 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


the cuts would come from the hypothetical ending of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq- which of course they are adamant is a ludicrous notion. And of course they're absolutely right.

My ludicrous corollary would be that if that were the case, then the costs for the war should not be counted as debt.
posted by Big_B at 9:12 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


Not only is ZQUZYPHYR not wrong, having someone with probably 50 or more comments in this thread alone telling him to stop anything is a little bit poetic.
posted by absalom at 9:17 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


But his war joke wasn't M*A*S*H-like funny.
posted by mazola at 9:19 AM on July 27, 2011


When I first heard that balloon joke, the guy on the ground worked for Microsoft.
posted by rfs at 9:21 AM on July 27, 2011


Neither is actual war.
posted by absalom at 9:21 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oh.
posted by mazola at 9:23 AM on July 27, 2011




XQUZYPHYR: If Obama's address the other night had him saying "here's my idea- let's end the wars and not renew tax cuts for billionaires, tell your Congresspeople if you think THAT'S a smart idea," I think the discourse today would be a lot better.

It's been common knowledge that the wars would be drawn down by 2012. The Iraq War is effectively in it's last phases and the Reid plan specifically cuts $2.7 Trillion from the savings of those wars being drawn down.

Also Obama, specifically laid out revenue increases from the ending of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in his speech on Monday Night. Furthermore he's gone aggressively after military contractors and cut their budgets.

Let's not get wrapped up in the FDL nonsense (which is financed by the GOP, and as devious a bit of concern trolling astroturf as I can imagine) here, if that's what this is. Not to say that's what you're doing, XQUZYPHYR, but I'm confused by your comments.
posted by Skygazer at 9:27 AM on July 27, 2011


Uh, guess what, that was a rape joke. It was set up as a joke, told as a riff on a series of other jokes. You can feel smug or whatever about the number of times I've commented in a thread; seems like a stupid response or whatevs. But when a guy is telling rape jokes and I say, dude, stop it, maybe you, mr smug too many comments guy, maybe should step off.
posted by angrycat at 9:29 AM on July 27, 2011


Can we stay on topic please?
posted by futz at 9:30 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


His wasn't really a *joke,* so much as commentary, as he's said himself.

Also, didn't you open this thread chanting about murder?
posted by absalom at 9:32 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


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.

“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied


Once in the car, the plan got sidetracked when West spotted what he believed to be a group of muslims crossing the street, and proceeded to run them over.
posted by homunculus at 9:33 AM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


yes I did. I am a bad person. Now, let's return to our regularly scheduled end-of-the-world.
posted by angrycat at 9:34 AM on July 27, 2011


See, this here, what seems to be happening now has been my greatest fear: that the Republicans in the house would screw up and, even if the leadership did originally mean the threat of forcing a US default as a tactical bluff, essentially not be able to get their shit together in time politically and logistically to put together any kind of workable stop-gap solution. They've made such a mess of this that even if they wanted to, it looks like they couldn't put a fix together. Wish I had time to get one more loan to consolidate our debt; there's not going to be much credit available, even for people with good credit, if this default happens.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:39 AM on July 27, 2011




angrycat: "That IQ joke is so weird -- it's like the writer confused up with down, or something."

No, just 50 and 100.
posted by symbioid at 10:12 AM on July 27, 2011




thank you homunculus.
posted by cashman at 10:50 AM on July 27, 2011


How Default Threatens National Security

Ungh. Why isn't Obama making a big deal of this kind of thing.

Nice side note about that article: I like how whenever I see something something penned by a "former George H. W. Bush advisor," I know that it's going to be something nasty and thoroughly factual against Republicans. There is increasingly little intellectual continuity between Republicans of the past and Republicans of the now.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:54 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Isn't there a better word than "Pollyana-ish" for the same thing? It sounds awkward and childish.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:22 AM on July 27, 2011


Republicans like GHW Bush (old-school NE conservatives) simply don't exist in large enough numbers to matter much outside of what influence their pocketbooks can muster. As a result they simply don't drive Republican politics to near the degree that they used to. The never-ending lurch towards the right since Reagan has pretty much left these guys behind and I think some of them are only really now beginning to realize how much stuff has gotten away from them.

I think it's quite likely that some of the financial elites will begin to think twice about funding Republicans if the Republican caucus can't deliver votes on issues deemed extremely critical like this. They are fine with the Republicans wasting time on social issues like abortion and gay rights because for the most part they are insulated from the consequences but it seems like the monied elites that prop up much of the Republican party are beginning to realize that aligning with nutjobs in order to win elections can also result in the nutjobs doing really stupid things.
posted by vuron at 11:30 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


Republicans like GHW Bush (old-school NE conservatives)

NE conservative? I plead ignorance. Do you mean New England, or something else? Either way, you're right that out-and-out moderates like GHWB are basically non-players nowadays. It's sad.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:35 AM on July 27, 2011


White House press brief soon? Politico is indicating that there will be but I cannot find anywhere else that indicates this to be so.
posted by futz at 11:41 AM on July 27, 2011


Isn't there a better word than "Pollyana-ish" for the same thing? It sounds awkward and childish.

Candide-ish?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:42 AM on July 27, 2011


Probably New England. My go-to example for the archetype is Lincoln Chaffee.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:43 AM on July 27, 2011


Briefing has been going on for a while. Touchy exchange with Fox (natch) and a discussion of the plot of Sophie's Choice.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:44 AM on July 27, 2011


How Default Threatens National Security

Well now you have me rooting for default. I'm so confused. I suppose my best option is to tune out and get wasted with the rest of the lumpenproles.

If forcing the debt crisis beyond August 2 erodes the United States' military preparedness and diplomatic influence, the politicians most responsible for the gridlock—staunch conservatives who likely consider themselves defense hawks—might ultimately be seen as unpatriotic.

Good luck with that. I quit.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:46 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Northeastern conservatives, maybe...? Also known as "Rockefeller Republicans."
posted by GrammarMoses at 11:47 AM on July 27, 2011


Or a Saltonstall Republican, as they are (were?) known here in the Commonwealth.
posted by rollbiz at 11:50 AM on July 27, 2011


Ungh. Why isn't Obama making a big deal of this kind of thing.

My main frustration with this whole thing is how pathetically the left are failing to define the conversation.
They are using the right's rhetoric, their framing.
Frame it about security. Frame is about subsidizing the rich on the backs of the poor.
Whatever you do, stop basing what you are saying on the Republicans' messaging.
posted by Theta States at 11:53 AM on July 27, 2011 [9 favorites]




The 2nd slide of Franken's set there is one of the more concise breakdowns of what exactly we're talking about doing to ourselves here.

This is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:59 AM on July 27, 2011


I want Obama to come out and say, "oh, hi guys. The Republicans voted for a budget some time ago. Now the time has come to pay for the budget that the Republicans voted in, but the Republicans refuse to let the government pay for it. I have repeatedly offered concessions and tried to negotiate in good faith, but they refuse. Instead, your tax dollars pay them to watch Ben Affleck movies, apparently. Our taxes are the lowest that they have been. However, we need to have have Reagan-era tax levels instead - we need to have the wisdom of Reagan here, when he decided to tax the wealthiest 1% by just a little bit more. These taxes will not be against the remaining 99% of the country.

This whole childish situation breaks with a decades-long tradition of paying our bills. What will happen if the Republicans refuse to pay for the budget that they voted in? Our economy and way of life will plummet. I do not want our economy to fail, but the Republicans feel differently. Our national security will be threatened. I treasure the continued safety of our nation, but the Republicans feel differently.

Please, everyone, call your congresspeople and let them know that you do not want them to destroy this country."
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:59 AM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]


As long as we allow the Right to define the terms of the political discourse, we all lose. That's my single biggest complaint about Obama.

There are far more poor people than rich people. It's time to introduce a bit of stark class rhetoric a la FDR - it may be the only way to shake people awake and get them to vote with their immediate interests instead of concentrating on distracting social issues. There is a knife on the throat of every American who is struggling to pay their bills despite making every effort. The Tea Baggers want to plunge that knife in deep. Meanwhile, Obama is being mealy-mouthed.

Time to spell it out - you either vote sane people with sane ideas into congress, or you slit your own throat. "And remember, when the blood is gushing - you voted for this! Thank you, and good night". Lay it on the fucking line. You want Armageddon? You'll get it - and don't come back whining.

It may just take a huge disaster for the public to wake up to their real class interests. That's what happened during the Depression. It's either that, or the frog boils to death slowly.

Bring it on.
posted by VikingSword at 12:02 PM on July 27, 2011 [8 favorites]


Remember, when the blood is gushing - you voted for this! Thank you, and good night.
Epony-tragic.
posted by GrammarMoses at 12:14 PM on July 27, 2011


It is disheartening that even as people see Obama as the wimpiest wimp that ever compromised a caving in, Republicans have been able to frame him as the scariest black man ever who is trying to destroy the country and eat all the white people if we don't stop him.

He should get tough and start talking in stark terms and fight noisily against the rich and entrenched business class? I wonder how that would turn out. He'd be out of office in 30 days, by hook or by crook. I think it gets underestimated how much people's reaction is framed by race. Republicans themselves probably admit they are just good at this sort of thing anyway, but I can't see Obama getting forceful and tough and talking like some want him to, and it ending well. Not really even for him, but for us.

The real fight isn't what we're witnessing. It's your neighbors, family and friends who are supporting these people who are causing this crisis. If you want somebody to get loud and talk tough to people who seem to have the "I got mine, fuck you" attitude, you're actually the one that needs to do that, not him. It isn't the figurehead at the top that is the problem, it's the sizable number of people with that mindset that voted them into office and support what they are doing.

We need a methodology for identifying the supporters, informing them and educating them. And if that turns out to not work because too many of them are happy with what they are doing, then that is a problem. Because it's either fight them now while we have laws and information and resources, or fight them after things turn to shit, there is an economic catastrophe, and there is no talking about resources, just gunfire to see who ends up with them.
posted by cashman at 12:18 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


Current line on Oddschecker put 7-2 odds on the US having a default.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:33 PM on July 27, 2011


Current line on Oddschecker put 7-2 odds on the US having a default.

The Federal Reserve should bet on there being a default! Pay off the debt with the winnings! Win win!
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:35 PM on July 27, 2011 [11 favorites]


Republicans have been able to frame him as the scariest black man ever who is trying to destroy the country and eat all the white people if we don't stop him.

He should get tough and start talking in stark terms and fight noisily against the rich and entrenched business class? I wonder how that would turn out. He'd be out of office in 30 days, by hook or by crook. I think it gets underestimated how much people's reaction is framed by race.


You know, it's time to take that bull by the horns. Obama was elected president. He wasn't appointed by a liberal Supreme Court. He got the most votes from Americans - more than Hillary, more than any Republican. But he can't be allowed to do his job? He's supposed to shrink and shuffle and yessir and massa, lest he be tossed out of office in 30 days like some interloper? Fuck. That. Shit. I never believed in catering to people's bigotry. Why should anyone - black, gay, Asian, woman, whatever - tiptoe around just because they are black, gay, Asian, woman, whatever. We will never achieve equality, if we continuously empower bigots.

And while everyone must do their part, it is the quintessential role of the president to articulate a vision - this is what FDR did. And people gathered around their radios, because even though they had to do the hard work, they needed a leader to inspire and lead them. That's the job of a president.

So sorry, but Mr. Obama - please lead. It's high time.
posted by VikingSword at 12:37 PM on July 27, 2011 [12 favorites]


Damnit stitcherbeast, I'm out of favorites.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 12:37 PM on July 27, 2011


We started them off with the basics, like the difference between a senator and a representative, and then moved on to more complex concepts, like what a resolution is,” Bozeman, MT social studies teacher Heidi Rossmiller told reporters as all 535 members of Congress copied down the definition of “checks and balances” from a whiteboard in the House chamber.
posted by jbickers at 12:38 PM on July 27, 2011


Mister Fabulous: "Current line on Oddschecker put 7-2 odds on the US having a default"

Eric Cantor obviously believes it, since he's shorting T-bills...
posted by dejah420 at 12:52 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


thsmchnekllsfascists: "Damnit stitcherbeast, I'm out of favorites."

This thread will do that I've noticed.
posted by symbioid at 12:55 PM on July 27, 2011


Current line on Oddschecker put 7-2 odds on the US having a default.

That right there is what they call an 'arbitrage opportunity' in the business.
posted by empath at 1:04 PM on July 27, 2011


but he can't be allowed to do his job? He's supposed to shrink and shuffle and yessir and massa, lest he be tossed out of office in 30 days like some interloper? Fuck. That. Shit. I never believed in catering to people's bigotry.

I agree with you, and I've lived it. I've been in jobs where people say ridiculous things and you can take a stand and get "time off" or fired, or be in that situation where the person who informed you is begging you not to do anything because they have a family to feed and they'll get the boot along with you.

Not to Ironmouth myself, but if he did stand up and call these people out, and he did get tossed out on his ear unfairly, what then? Things would keep moving, and he wouldn't be in charge, and I highly doubt we would get someone better. He would have no power, we would have no power, and we'd be in a worse off situation because at the core of it, the leader is important but the followers have to do the work. If you're saying he needs to rouse us all to action by taking a notably adversarial stand, I just don't see how that would play out in our favor in the end. Not his, ours.

I'd love if he did it. I post often about the inequalities in this society and a call to arms would be a welcome sanction to stopping the madness that seems to be going on daily in reversing progress that has been made over the years. Maybe you're right. I wonder though, if he can do more things while he is in power, especially if he secures another term, than if someone else is in power.

Or is it a better strategy for us to cut off the fuel that is feeding the fire, rather than make our own fire?
posted by cashman at 1:06 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Eric Cantor obviously believes it, since he's shorting T-bills...

Cantor spokesman claims he's also long t-bills and is hedging. 10k is pocket change for a congressman, I'd think.
posted by empath at 1:06 PM on July 27, 2011


Current line on Oddschecker put 7-2 odds on the US having a default.


So a 22% chance of default as of today. How high does that number have to go before investors start pulling capital from the markets?
posted by banal evil at 1:38 PM on July 27, 2011


Am I misreading, or do odds of 7-2 translate to a 77.78% chance of default?
posted by terrierhead at 1:44 PM on July 27, 2011




Might be hard to pass a balanced budget amendment with people marching in the streets....
posted by Big_B at 1:49 PM on July 27, 2011


An entire nation is floating in a balloon over a stormy ocean. They float over their elected congress, who are in a boat.

"Help us," the entire nation cries, "we're adrift and don't know how to control this balloon."

The elected congress looks up helplessly as the entire nation is blown into the ocean, where it drowns. The lines attaching the basket to the balloon hook onto the congress' boat, dragging it under the churning waves as well.

Somewhere, a dog barks.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:49 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


How high does that number have to go before investors start pulling capital from the markets?

Start? Finish, I think you mean. DJIA is down 421 points in the last week.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:51 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


You're waiting for a train, a train that will take you far away. You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure. But it doesn't matter.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:51 PM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]


You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:53 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


@homunculus I just realized that I've never once actually looked at the current proposed balanced budge amendment, but I'm going to make a bet here: it will allow debt for military spending. They damn sure won't be tying their ability to bomb brown people to a requirement for higher taxes.

I'm so sure of this that I'm going to post this, and **THEN** I'll find out. If I'm wrong I'll have to post a retraction. But I'm betting that I won't be doing that.
posted by sotonohito at 1:56 PM on July 27, 2011


So we're 1450 comments in, and no one has noticed the 'debceiling' tag?
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 1:56 PM on July 27, 2011


The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
posted by desjardins at 1:56 PM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]


Am I misreading, or do odds of 7-2 translate to a 77.78% chance of default?

Odds are generally quoted as against, so it's 22%.
posted by smackfu at 1:59 PM on July 27, 2011


My Boehner? Let me tell you about my Boehner.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:00 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
posted by jbickers at 2:00 PM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]


How high does that number have to go before investors start pulling capital from the markets?

The markets today, FWIW:
Dow: -1.59%
NASDAQ: -2.65%
S&P 500: -2.03%
FTSE: -1.23%
DAX: -1.32%
NIKKEI: -0.50%
Shanghai: +0.76%
VIX: 22.98 at close, 23.20, highest volatility since March 2011.
10 Year T-Notes were up 0.04% to 2.99%. T-Notes haven't moved a whole hell of a lot at all.

So for today the US markets were down compared to everyone else. Volatility is up, and that's concerning. T-Notes haven't really moved much, especially compared to the charts. When the shit hits the fan I expect the global stock market to fall fast and hard, the VIX to shoot up and T-Notes to jump around like crazy. Hasn't happened yet.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:07 PM on July 27, 2011


So a 22% chance of default as of today. How high does that number have to go before investors start pulling capital from the markets?

I wouldn't use odds checker, the market's JOB is determine things like the odds of default, which you can deduce from the current price of credit default swaps. The markets is currently pricing them at 5% chance of default in the next five years.

Smart money is to bet big against default at odds checker and cover your bets with the discounted price for a CDS of equivalent value.
posted by empath at 2:08 PM on July 27, 2011


Hmmm, well it appears I was semi-wrong, because I was far too generous to the Republicans.

You think, if you were going to make a push for a "Balanced Budget Amendment" you have an actual Amendment proposal around. But no, apparently they just say that phrase but don't often clarify what it means. There is, as best as I can find, no actual text of any proposal out there. So I'm semi-wrong, not in that there isn't an exception for war, but in that they haven't even got a concrete proposal for what their balanced budget amendment would look like. Typical Republican BS.

Best I could find was Orrin Hatch yammering on a radio program, and I was right, he excludes wars. Big surprise.

Googling "balanced budget amendment" turns up Americans for a Balanced Budget Amendment, a website promoting the idea and insisting that it's necessary to have a balanced budget Amendment to keep America safe. And yet they don't have text for a proposed Amendment either.

The Common Sense Balanced Budget Amendment Coalition actually has some specifics of what they want, though it's rather maddeningly vague. It does, however, include an exception for war.

The CSBBAC people also want their "Balanced Budget Amendment" to include a provision requiring a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress for any tax increases. Which would, to my poor pitiful liberal mind, seem to be a separate issue. Also a very bad idea.

Orrin Hatch's vague proposals for an Amendment include forbidding any increase in revenue without a 2/3 majority in both Houses.

So I'm going to call that an accurate call on my part. Wars get funded, nothing else does. It's like the platonic ideal of Republicanism.
posted by sotonohito at 2:10 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


You are standing in an open field west of a White House, with a boarded front door.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:10 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


> include a provision requiring a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress for any tax increases

Hey, it's working so well in California, we'd be fools not to try it!
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:12 PM on July 27, 2011 [12 favorites]


As per WSJ, if Boehner loses five more Republicans, the thing is dead in the House. Although it seemed that after some meeting of House GOPers, momentum is shifting to his plan, a little.
posted by angrycat at 2:15 PM on July 27, 2011


Yay - we get to choose between a shit plan, a shittier plan and the shittiest plan, so we get to compromise and get the shittier plan. thank god it's not the shittiest plan!

*sigh*
posted by symbioid at 2:25 PM on July 27, 2011


or the shit hits the fan
posted by pyramid termite at 2:34 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


James Clyburn is claiming that Truman used the 14th amendment to stop a previous default. Anyone have more details?
posted by humanfont at 2:40 PM on July 27, 2011


from WSJ, posted 5:15 today:

Republicans are generally more sanguine than Democrats in part because some, especially in the House, believe disaster won't strike after the debt ceiling is breached.

Rep. Andy Harris, a freshman Republican from Maryland, asked if he's nervous about the looming Aug 2 deadline, replied, "No, no. Tuesday is a long way off."


I wouldn't trust these idiots to drive my child to school.
posted by angrycat at 2:49 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]








Oh and now McCain plays the role of "moderate" neglecting his role in encouraging and bringing the Tea Party to the fore w/his selection of Palin as his VP Candidate.

Pfft...
posted by symbioid at 3:08 PM on July 27, 2011 [9 favorites]


If politics is nothing but lies, sellouts, and kabuki theater, then why should anyone expect that the political organization of any third force or mass protest will be any different? Except in the case of coup d'états, mass protests are only useful insofar as they ultimately persuade elected politicians to legislate.

A lot of people think welfare started with FDR, but it really started in the Gilded Age. The problem in those days was a wide division between classes, or income gap as it's known now. Social welfare was considered a method to appease the poor. There was genuine concern of social upheaval. In other words, the welfare state came about due to fears of the upper class that the poor would rise up and do some real damage. Enacting social welfare in those days was much less about humanitarian concerns than it was a bit of self-preservation by the rich and powerful. However, the lesson of the Gilded Age was that austerity only worked for so long, and eventually the needs of the lower class became so severe that the most wealthy and powerful people were afraid for their very lives. At that point all concerns about spending and purity of economic philosophy took a back seat to survival. If the Tea Party hasn't figured it out yet, eventually they will when they face a hungry mob much larger than their own ranks. And that's when their philosophical purity will crumble when faced with the sheer force of people trying to survive.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:09 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]




WSJ, posted 6:15

Among other things, Mr. Boehner’s office says the new bill will:

• Cut and cap spending by $917 billion over 10 years – that’s more than the $900 billion debt hike;

• Cut $22 billion in spending for FY2012 and hold spending below FY2010 levels until FY2016;

• Continue reducing discretionary spending each year compared to President Obama’s budget;

• Require Congress to draft proposals that produce reductions of at least $1.8 trillion. The Speaker’s office says these cuts will “help protect programs like Medicare and Social Security from bankruptcy.”

• The summary concludes by noting that “This bill is far from perfect, but it’s a positive step forward that denies President the $2.4 trillion blank check that lets him continue his spending binge through the next election.”

posted by angrycat at 3:32 PM 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.
posted by Flunkie at 3:34 PM on July 27, 2011


I also have crazy ideas for mass protests. Suits and dresses--Sunday best. Makes it harder to dismiss them as nuts.

Are you going to buy me a suit? Because otherwise I can't see that happening. I know quite a few people who simply do not own a suit and could not come up with the money to buy one just to march in a protest.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:36 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


• The summary concludes by noting that “This bill is far from perfect, but it’s a positive step forward that denies President the $2.4 trillion blank check that lets him continue his spending binge through the next election.”

Is there ANY universe in which this statement is true?

I just wish, probably in vain, that the majority of the American public will see the black-is-white, up-is-down quality to the "Obama spending binge" meme.
posted by Danf at 3:39 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


it’s a positive step forward that denies President the $2.4 trillion blank check that lets him continue his spending binge through the next election.

no, no, no

the check's already been written months ago and YOU people are the ones who are trying to stop payment - YOU are plotting to bounce checks

if i did that, with full knowledge my checks would bounce, i could be arrested for it

and here you are expecting to get reelected for it
posted by pyramid termite at 3:55 PM on July 27, 2011 [14 favorites]


Madness!
posted by Ironmouth at 4:13 PM on July 27, 2011


it’s a positive step forward that denies President the $2.4 trillion blank check that lets him continue his spending binge through the next election.

Isn't the point of a blank check that it doesn't have a value? How can you have a $2.4 trillion blank check?
posted by neal at 4:25 PM on July 27, 2011 [9 favorites]


Bruce Bartlett, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President George H. W. Bush on msnbc's Hardball tonight:

Bartlett: i think at this point, there's nothing that can pass the house of representatives.

Matthews: because it's too much of a zoo?

Bartlett: 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.




futz: wow
posted by futz at 4:48 PM on July 27, 2011 [15 favorites]


Yeah, that is a wow comment. The increasing frequency of comments like this is only making me think it's more likely that nothing gets passed in time.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:55 PM on July 27, 2011


Isn't the point of a blank check that it doesn't have a value? How can you have a $2.4 trillion blank check?

How dare you interject logic into government!?
posted by Mister Fabulous at 4:55 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 5:02 PM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]


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.
posted by wintermind at 5:18 PM on July 27, 2011


the gop made the same mistake that some on the left did in their perception of the tea party - they thought it was a top down, cynical manipulation of people, similar to what the gop has accomplished with the evangelical vote - a demographic that could be farmed for votes without having to deliver all that much of anything, whose elected leaders could be taken in hand when they got to washington and taught the real rules of the game

no, it's a real grassroots movement with real dedicated leaders who actually MEAN it - and they've brought our government to a grinding halt - and the gop can't control them

the republicans are splitting - if they go for a reasonable compromise, they lose the tea party - if they go for the tea party's line, they lose wall street and much of main street's business community

obama may have set them up beautifully - but the problem is that now we have an ungovernable country until 2012 and maybe after
posted by pyramid termite at 5:19 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


"As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the
recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice
President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United
States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal
Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states
for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding
of the framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative in
Congress exists under the Constitution."

From the Congressional Research Service.

I have to think we lucked out big time there, because if this does happen under a scenario where the GOP voted for it without the TP, you know this would happen. They may try it anyway, given their disdain for the "tyranny of experts".
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:24 PM on July 27, 2011


I'm in the privileged position of sometimes calling on the Congressional Research Service, and in my experience they are awesome. By that I mean that they're incredibly knowledgeable, very quick to respond, and are consumate professionals, even when they're asked half-intelligible questions about complex issues by the likes of me.
posted by wintermind at 5:50 PM on July 27, 2011


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.

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.
posted by Trurl at 5:56 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


Entertaining comment from Politico (of all places), from a guy called blumuze in Nashville, TN:
This old proverb reminds me of our current congress. Pardon me if it's overlong:

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.
posted by Skygazer at 6:40 PM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]


the gop made the same mistake that some on the left did in their perception of the tea party - they thought it was a top down, cynical manipulation of people, similar to what the gop has accomplished with the evangelical vote - a demographic that could be farmed for votes without having to deliver all that much of anything, whose elected leaders could be taken in hand when they got to washington and taught the real rules of the game

no, it's a real grassroots movement with real dedicated leaders who actually MEAN it - and they've brought our government to a grinding halt - and the gop can't control them


It was created in a top down fashion, but like any good contagion, the shit hits the fan when it is introduced into the wild. Cynical people said "you know what let's do? Let's get a bunch of people all riled up and pissed off about the government. We will be able to point these useful idiots in whatever direction we want, just like Rush does. We'll start with health care reform, because we own a lot of stock in health insurance companies. Get Rick Santelli on the blower!" So, a bunch of phoney grassroots organizations spring up, [not] surprisingly well funded and start poking the hornets' nest of ignorance. Blammo, you've got people screaming at town hall meetings. Double blammo, they start running for and winning elections based on nothing but ignorance, malice for the Demmycrats and a cute wink. Now we have this.
posted by gjc at 6:51 PM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]


I heard similar comments on Diane Rehm today: basically that Tea Baggers aren't like other politicians because they see themselves as ideological warriors. Getting reelected doesn't really matter to them, because they're really and truly drank the koolaid. I don't know if I believe that. The Tea Bag movement still strikes me as an astro-turfed corporate movement, but I guess it's seeming more and more possible that they're just off the reservation at this point. I hope not.
posted by codacorolla at 6:51 PM on July 27, 2011


They are sort of like the victims of reverse-gaslighting. Powerful interests whisper in their ears (literally and figuratively), assuring them that they are the smartest, sexiest, most powerful, and God is on their side. They are almost literally Crusaders, sent off to do the bidding of God [The King].

They are true believers, but what they believe in was manufactured.
posted by gjc at 7:24 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Roll Call suggests that the GOP is now actively splitting apart; this seems like a pretty good analysis to me. Any lingering hopes that the ultraconservatives might see reason and compromise with the business Republicans are probably waning, if the reaction to a WSJ editorial deriding them as 'tea party hobbits' is anything to go by. I don't usually care for the WSJ's editorial page, but I have to admit that one gave me a chuckle.
posted by anigbrowl at 7:38 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Teahadists" is a pretty apt name, even if I think teabaggers is closer to the level of dignity they deserve, because I haven't seen a single entity that so embodies the concept of blowback since the Taliban.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:39 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Standard and Poor's decides if the debt ceiling plans don't include a $4 Trillion plan to reduce the nation’s long-term budget deficit, then the S&P is going to downgrade our debt, even if we do raise the debt ceiling. In other words, S&P just got into the game of extortion.
posted by dejah420 at 7:45 PM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]


Just read the WSJ article and am now more convinced than ever that Democrats and Republicans exit in two entirely different worlds that only very occasionally overlap.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:59 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, somebody mentioned this procedural magic upthread that would enable the Senate to pass the Reid bill, and do something to swap out the body of the House bill and replace it with the substance of the Reid bill (I still don't really understand that, so sorry if I got that wrong).

But if nothing can pass the House -- can that scenario come to pass? Assuming based on everything that the freshman GOP House members would hold on until we reached 25% unemployment, how many more sane GOP House would it take to join with the House Dems to get something the fuck done?
posted by angrycat at 8:04 PM on July 27, 2011


So, somebody mentioned this procedural magic upthread that would enable the Senate to pass the Reid bill, and do something to swap out the body of the House bill and replace it with the substance of the Reid bill (I still don't really understand that, so sorry if I got that wrong).

It's really not difficult, at least in concept. Getting the votes for it is a different story.

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.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:26 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


angrycat, if the House bill doesn't pass, the plan is to pass Reid's bill in the Senate, which will put enough pressure on the House GOP members to peel some of them off.
posted by chrchr at 8:32 PM on July 27, 2011


Flunkie: "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."

Who would've thought that people who fly flags with rattlesnakes on them might, you know, bite you.
posted by symbioid at 8:37 PM on July 27, 2011


Dejah420, S&P denies that they're demanding $4 trillion in deficit reduction. There's also reason to suspect a downgrade might have limited impact. Also keep in mind that a lot of our debt is held by the world's central banks, which should tend to counteract instability, as well as by the U.S. government itself.
posted by neal at 8:41 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


It's really not difficult, at least in concept. Getting the votes for it is a different story.

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.
Don't bills amended in such a way have to go back to the other house to vote on it again?

I think typically bills that are passed differently by the two houses are then modified again in committee between the houses, and then the committe-modified version gets sent back to both houses for approval.

I am not an expert on this, and I could easily be wrong, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Senate can deliver a bill of its own design to the President for his signature, without approval of the House, simply because it has the same name as a bill that the House previously approved.
posted by Flunkie at 8:47 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

But, who knows. I've seen conflicting reports in the past day or so, some saying they're breaking apart, and others saying they have newfound unity.
posted by Flunkie at 9:17 PM on July 27, 2011


Don't bills amended in such a way have to go back to the other house to vote on it again?

When this scenario was mentioned earlier in the thread, the endgame was that the Senate would present the Reid bill back to the House as a sort of ultimatum: pass the Reid bill or doom the country to default. So yes, it does have to go back to the House once amended, but it also puts the onus on the House to take or leave the final offer on the table.
posted by chrominance at 9:37 PM on July 27, 2011


Don't bills amended in such a way have to go back to the other house to vote on it again?

Yes, of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But there can be procedural benefits too treating it that way (but I don't have my Oleszek bible here to check), and they seem to think there are political benefits to treating it that way.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:38 PM on July 27, 2011


If it's the last second before debtpocalypse, surely the Democrats can find 25 Republican congresspeople who at least remember what it was like to be sane, who would be willing to vote for the amended bill. It would probably be the end of their careers, but at least they could go out with the satisfaction of knowing they'd helped save America. Or America's credit rating, which is still a big deal.
posted by Kevin Street at 9:57 PM on July 27, 2011


I can't believe that after all this the Democrats are going to roll over and give the Republicans absolutely everything. Why not just agree to everything at the start and save the humiliation?
posted by Justinian at 10:03 PM on July 27, 2011


I could be wrong, but imo there were two things that led to this:

1. Obama meeting with Boehner in the first place to work out a "Grand Bargain" in exchange for a bill raising the debt ceiling. This gave the Republicans the idea they were in control.

2. Insanity in the GOP. Tea Party types who want to burn everything down and will not compromise, even if it gets them things they're supposed to be working towards.

It's hard to say what Obama knew a month ago. Maybe he thought Boehner and the old guard really could deliver the needed votes. But again imo, Obama should have listened to the devil on his shoulder and refused to negotiate for something that every other President since 1917 has been given as a matter of course.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:14 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


My feelings about the Republican suicide-bombers can best be expressed by this clip from the original Planet of the Apes.

Thank you.
posted by bardic at 10:54 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Any lingering hopes that the ultraconservatives might see reason and compromise with the business Republicans are probably waning, if the reaction to a WSJ editorial deriding them as 'tea party hobbits' is anything to go by. I don't usually care for the WSJ's editorial page, but I have to admit that one gave me a chuckle.
posted by anigbrowl at 7:38 PM on July 27 [1 favorite +] [!]


So the American political system now has the same problem as the LOTR films... far too much attention being paid to whining hobbits.





(Needs moar elves!)
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 11:02 PM on July 27, 2011


(Needs moar elves!)

Needs moar Bombadil.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:18 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yes, of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But there can be procedural benefits too treating it that way (but I don't have my Oleszek bible here to check), and they seem to think there are political benefits to treating it that way.

They can raise revenue using a house bill.
posted by Talez at 11:47 PM on July 27, 2011


If Obama can get this going, it could quickly become such an economic force, as to permanently change American politics. Imagine a Congress annually assembled to try to dispose of the flood of money gifts from a generous and involved American people

Yeah, government by charity. I'm sure that will work.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:21 AM on July 28, 2011


no, it's a real grassroots movement with real dedicated leaders who actually MEAN it - and they've brought our government to a grinding halt - and the gop can't control them

Just because they "mean it" doesn't mean the group is grassroots. The money and organization came from the top, as well as the idea. Rick Santelli is not a grassroots organizer. It's not necessary to be grassroots to have strong convictions as a political movement. But it's their Frankenstein's monster, that's for sure. They basically found a way to bring in all the disaffected Republicans. This requires trying to retain control of the political movement that was started by rant from a CNBC Treasury bond reporter and funded by Republican PAC money. The problem is they took over. I don't think Dick Armey planned on that.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:32 AM on July 28, 2011


Is it any wonder we're all fucked:

Polls show that many Americans want Congress to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. In taking that position, they likely assume that increased borrowing would enable the federal government to find new ways to spend money."
posted by VikingSword at 12:40 AM on July 28, 2011


Dejah420, S&P denies that they're demanding $4 trillion in deficit reduction. There's also reason to suspect a downgrade might have limited impact. Also keep in mind that a lot of our debt is held by the world's central banks, which should tend to counteract instability, as well as by the U.S. government itself.

A lot of mutual and similar funds which contain treasury bonds are restricted to investment grade products only. This means AAA rated bonds, not AA. If the US' credit is downgraded to AA, the institutional investors with this restriction will dump their non-investment grade bonds quickly. They are required to do so legally as part of their fiduciary duty. This includes most funds which are offered as part of 401(k) packages. This could start a cascading effect in the markets as most of the crowd will follow the "smart money."
posted by krinklyfig at 12:45 AM on July 28, 2011


BTW, the conventional thinking in the bond markets right now is that the US will pass a debt ceiling bill at the last minute. This is the part that's baked in, which was the scenario the Republicans telegraphed to Wall St. some months ago when this all started. They basically said, don't worry, we'll raise the debt ceiling, so pay no attention to the Machiavellian tactics coming up ...

Someone up thread mentioned that anything that could happen is already anticipated and priced in in the markets. This is not quite true. The markets tend to price in any future changes which are known and/or are considered the most likely outcome of current events. What is not priced in is the less likely outcome. If it comes to pass it usually results in a violent reaction by everyone on the wrong side of the trade, which is the majority of market participants. This is known as a "bull trap" or a "bear trap," in other words when the crowd in the trade is already moving in the wrong direction and they have to reverse quickly. You get pretty strong moves off reversals like that, and the more people who are trapped on the wrong side the more volatile the reversal is.

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 defaults, the most likely outcome in the short term is a very violent sell off of US Treasury bonds as well as equities. Everyone on the wrong side of the trade will be trying to get out at the same time, and trying to get into gold and safe havens like the Yen and the Swiss Franc. Oil and other commodities may skyrocket as institutions look for alternative vehicles for investment capital. It does have the potential to be much more devastating than previous equity market sell-offs, but it's impossible to predict such outcomes in much detail. Nobody who holds a lot of bonds really wants to find out.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:02 AM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


Krinklyfig, I understand that some institutional investors will be required to unload anything below AAA, but I'm not convinced that the situation would be as bad as you're saying. First, investment grade goes all the way down to BBB- (on S&P's scale), so a requirement to hold investment-grade bonds won't have any effect. Second, most of our debt is held either by central banks or by the U.S. government itself, none of which should be subject to panic selling or want to set off a world economic crisis. Third, we have examples of sovereign downgrades before that haven't had much effect.

Don't get me wrong—I don't claim to be an expert—but my impression is that a downgrade of a supposedly risk-free investment would be unprecedented, and we don't really know what would happen. Much of what I've seen in the financial press is specific concern about the impact on the repo market, and uncertainty about other impacts. I've also seen a few claims that the markets generally expect the U.S. to be downgraded to AA, so it might already be priced in.
posted by neal at 1:31 AM on July 28, 2011


I wish I had the money, the U.S. equivalent of this armored van with overpowered, roof-mounted stereo loudspeakers, and most of all the balls to set up outside the Capitol and put Shatner's cover of Common People on repeat until it sunk in to their thick, stupid, pointed heads. But I don't.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:59 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Krinklyfig, I understand that some institutional investors will be required to unload anything below AAA, but I'm not convinced that the situation would be as bad as you're saying. First, investment grade goes all the way down to BBB- (on S&P's scale), so a requirement to hold investment-grade bonds won't have any effect.

It depends on the fund. If you look at the prospectus, a lot of treasury funds only invest in certain grades. In any event, US Treasury bonds would no longer be seen as the world's safe haven currency, and you will see a lot of selling of those bonds. Interest rates will rise.

I've also seen a few claims that the markets generally expect the U.S. to be downgraded to AA, so it might already be priced in.

I am not so sure about that. US Treasury bonds have been on an upward trend since the beginning of February, 2011, from 116'26 to 125'24 currently (30 year). If the market were pricing in a downgrade, this is not the type of price in long bonds I'd expect to see, nor the type of trend. Some conservative forecasts are projecting down 1-2 standard deviations if the debt ceiling fails to pass with a change in trend to bearish, meaning we get a sell-off that continues for a while in a downward trend in the bond markets. I am not sure what the effect would be in total, but this is not a scenario we've encountered before, and the markets become volatile on the basis of uncertainty. Even the rumor of a Greek default threw the markets into turmoil on and off for months- that's what kicked off the latest bearish trend. A US default would undoubtedly have a much more negative effect, as the holdings of US Treasuries are extensive among financial institutions and nations, not to mention retail investors.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:40 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

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.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:59 AM on July 28, 2011


Viewpoint: Still True Today: Frequently Forgotten Facts of the Debt Debate
By Michael Grunwald Wednesday, July 27, 2011 | 142 Comments

If the debt-limit debate had anything to do with reality, every story about it would include a few basic facts


I don't know whether to say "Finally!" or "THANK YOU!"
posted by jeanmari at 5:26 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.


Welcome to Adventure Call, my name is Flinthoof.
posted by Theta States at 5:48 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


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 defaults
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. 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.

I think the effect will be more of a hardcore version of a government shutdown, rather than defaulting on the debt.
posted by Flunkie at 5:51 AM on July 28, 2011


It's hard to believe anybody would associate with, let alone be, a Teaparty yahoo. Don't they ever look around and think, 'Hmm, everybody sez I'm crazy -- could they have a ooiint?'
posted by angrycat at 6:34 AM on July 28, 2011


Okay, Reid is saying the House bill will die in the Senate -- don't they have to pass it, then amend it?
posted by angrycat at 6:51 AM on July 28, 2011


Vote on House bill scheduled 5-6 tonight.
posted by angrycat at 6:52 AM on July 28, 2011


Don't they ever look around and think, 'Hmm, everybody sez I'm crazy -- could they have a ooiint?'

They mostly exist in echo chambers. This is enabled by people (including me) who stop dealing with them due to their crazy beliefs, so they must turn inwards. Look at even more extreme folks, like the Norwegian terrorist - he found people online who agreed with him and only associated with them. Everyone else was a traitor.
posted by desjardins at 7:11 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is all about negotiating leverage now. If Boehner can pass his bill with Republicans alone, then he has a stronger hand when putting together the compromise with Reid's bill. If Boehner needs Democrats to pass a bill in the House, the game is up and Reid wins.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:15 AM on July 28, 2011


Okay, Reid is saying the House bill will die in the Senate -- don't they have to pass it, then amend it?

They will offer amendments which will swap out the Boehner language for the Reid language, then pass it. And the GOP side will not lift a finger to stop them. They are on Reid's side.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:17 AM on July 28, 2011


I've also seen a few claims that the markets generally expect the U.S. to be downgraded to AA, so it might already be priced in.

I am not so sure about that. US Treasury bonds have been on an upward trend since the beginning of February, 2011, from 116'26 to 125'24 currently (30 year). If the market were pricing in a downgrade, this is not the type of price in long bonds I'd expect to see, nor the type of trend


Wall Street does not get DC. They don't understand that we are going to default now.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:19 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you genuinely believe that Wall Street is wrong about that, you can make a pile of money betting against them.
posted by empath at 7:21 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Wall Street does not get DC. They don't understand that we are going to default now.

If you think you're smarter than the market, you should put your money where your mouth is. Short T-bills and buy gold.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:21 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


This is all about negotiating leverage now. If Boehner can pass his bill with Republicans alone, then he has a stronger hand when putting together the compromise with Reid's bill. If Boehner needs Democrats to pass a bill in the House, the game is up and Reid wins.

I don't think so and here is why. Reid's bill is going to pass. Assuming Boehner's does (and maybe 5 dems will vote for it, and probably only 1 or 2), then the ball will be in Boehner's court at the time of default. Boehner can barely whip his own bill. How's he going to whip a compromise? Dems will let this fail in Boehner's court. All 53 dems including Lieberman sent a letter yesterday saying that his bill is DOA. They aren't going to vote for it.

America knows whose fault this is.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:23 AM on July 28, 2011


If you genuinely believe that Wall Street is wrong about that, you can make a pile of money betting against them.

I'm trying to find it, but Josh Marshall said he was talking to a very high-powered Wall Streeter, a guy we'd all know and was shocked when the guy asked him if the debt ceiling was going to pass. After a short conversation, Marshall realized they have no idea.

They don't understand what's going on right now because the Tea Party won't take orders from them.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:28 AM on July 28, 2011


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.

I don't claim to be an expert, but this seems abundantly clear from every resource I've read on the issue.


Default is not paying interest when due. It could probably still get done. But social security checks and soldier's pay won't go out.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:30 AM on July 28, 2011


I don't think so and here is why. Reid's bill is going to pass. Assuming Boehner's does (and maybe 5 dems will vote for it, and probably only 1 or 2), then the ball will be in Boehner's court at the time of default. Boehner can barely whip his own bill. How's he going to whip a compromise? Dems will let this fail in Boehner's court. All 53 dems including Lieberman sent a letter yesterday saying that his bill is DOA. They aren't going to vote for it.

America knows whose fault this is.


I don' t think you're understanding. I accept that Boehner's bill won't pass the Senate. I think it's equally unlikely that Reid's bill would pass the House. So there will be a final compromise bill that will be negotiated (I'd be surprised if it wasn't being drafted right now).

Right now, Reid is waiting to see if House Republicans can stick together. If they can, Reid will need to negotiate with Boehner. If the Boehner bill fails, Reid can pass his bill in the Senate and House Republicans will be forced to negotiate with House Democrats to pass a bill (where they would be at a bigger disadvantage)
posted by BobbyVan at 7:32 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't think so and here is why. Reid's bill is going to pass. Assuming Boehner's does (and maybe 5 dems will vote for it, and probably only 1 or 2), then the ball will be in Boehner's court at the time of default. Boehner can barely whip his own bill. How's he going to whip a compromise? Dems will let this fail in Boehner's court. All 53 dems including Lieberman sent a letter yesterday saying that his bill is DOA. They aren't going to vote for it.

America knows whose fault this is.

I don' t think you're understanding. I accept that Boehner's bill won't pass the Senate. I think it's equally unlikely that Reid's bill would pass the House. So there will be a final compromise bill that will be negotiated (I'd be surprised if it wasn't being drafted right now).

Right now, Reid is waiting to see if House Republicans can stick together. If they can, Reid will need to negotiate with Boehner. If the Boehner bill fails, Reid can pass his bill in the Senate and House Republicans will be forced to negotiate with House Democrats to pass a bill (where they would be at a bigger disadvantage)


Why is Boehner going to have more power if he passes this bill? It doesn't change the calculus at all. The problem for the GOP is that they invented this mess. They own it. So if we default, they take the heat 100%.

Plus Boehner can't lift most of his caucus. He will need the dems for the compromise in the house. Pelosi has a remote control device on her caucus. They know how to whip. Kevin McCarthy is an idiot who has failed to count and gotten burned already when his own members shot down a bill introduced by the leadership a few times this year already.

Boehner needs dems for the final compromise vote. He needs them very, very, very badly.

Here's a whip count.

I'm guessing that zero dems are voting for this. Heath Shuler, who voted for "Cut, Cap and Balance" has already said he's voting no on the plan. That's a real tell.

Hope this isn't too much inside baseball.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:39 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


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.
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.

Borrowing money is not the only source of money that the federal government has, and it will still be able to do things with the other money that it receives. One of those things that it could do -- and I strongly suspect will do -- is pay interest on the existing debt.
posted by Flunkie at 7:45 AM on July 28, 2011


All this talking about whips... Now whip it
posted by symbioid at 7:45 AM on July 28, 2011


Boehner would have more leverage because the House would be on record as passing a bill to raise the debt ceiling (two actually - "cut, cap and balance" and the Boehner bill). The ball would then be in the Senate's court, and they'd pass the Reid bill.

The Boehner and Reid bills are pretty similar, and they were designed for a final compromise. The game now is to see how the scales get tipped in the negotiations over the bill's final parameters.

And of course Heath Shuler is going to vote against the Boehner bill. This is a test of party strength right now, it's not about policy. The policy will be decided once it's determined which armies are taking the field.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:47 AM on July 28, 2011


Looking over that list, I realize that if only 3 of the 46 undecideds vote no, and all dems vote no, Boehner is toast.

I don't think he can do it. He's got 22 firm noes already. Even if all 4 of the dems who voted for CCB (excluding the 5th, Schuler,) vote for the Boehner bill, he can afford only to lose 6 of the 46 undecided.

Wow. They have got to run the table and with Kevin McCarthy as whip you can't count on anything.

I don't think they have the votes.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:49 AM on July 28, 2011


Or, to use a simplified analogy, if you max out your credit card and your credit card company refuses to up your limit, that does not "by definition" mean that you're going to stop paying interest on the card.
posted by Flunkie at 7:49 AM on July 28, 2011


And of course Heath Shuler is going to vote against the Boehner bill. This is a test of party strength right now, it's not about policy. The policy will be decided once it's determined which armies are taking the field.

Read the whip count. He needs 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:50 AM on July 28, 2011


Boehner would have more leverage because the House would be on record as passing a bill to raise the debt ceiling (two actually - "cut, cap and balance" and the Boehner bill). The ball would then be in the Senate's court, and they'd pass the Reid bill.

But the Senate will be on record passing a debt ceiling raise bill too, and their bill saves more money and cuts less viciously.

Boehner has no advantage here because he must get dem votes to pass the compromise. If he can barely pass his own bill, how is he going to pass the compromise? Reid needs no extra votes. His entire caucus is in hand. All of them.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:52 AM on July 28, 2011


Read the whip count. He needs 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it.

On this we agree. My argument is simply that if Boehner's bill does pass the House, Reid will need to negotiate with him to put together the final bill.

As for the compromise negotiations, are you saying that the House Democrats would vote against a Reid/Boehner compromise? If so, that puts default at their feet.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:55 AM on July 28, 2011


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".
posted by Flunkie at 7:55 AM on July 28, 2011


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.
posted by Flunkie at 7:57 AM on July 28, 2011


Krinklyfig, question: wouldn't a rise in interest rates actually help savers? I mean, currently, cash holdings are losing money when one considers cost of living increases. I mean, jumbo cds are making 1%...a loss vs the 3% COL rise.

Americans tend not to save, but that trend is reversing. The rise in rates would accelerate that trend, yes? Or so you think a rise in rates would kill the economy because of debt outstanding? Last night on msnbc, a talking head was saying that everyone's mortgage would go up. But that's only true if someone had an ARM, no? Credit card too, only new charges would incurr higher fees?

I'm not sugggesting we should return to the 18% interest rates of the 70's, but it seems to me that some rise in interest rates would help the economy. Am I missing something important?
posted by dejah420 at 8:00 AM on July 28, 2011


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".



I think they will. It also assumes all the leaning yes will vote yes.

Schuler just told the Dem house leadership that zero blue dogs are voting with Boehner.

This GOP Frosh presser might give us clues. Wow, they really are freshmen you can tell.

but a lot of the 22 leaning noes are running for something or are long time mavericks and the undecideds include a lot of people who voted no on CCB because it didn't go far enough.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:03 AM on July 28, 2011


Read the whip count. He needs 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it.

On this we agree. My argument is simply that if Boehner's bill does pass the House, Reid will need to negotiate with him to put together the final bill.

As for the compromise negotiations, are you saying that the House Democrats would vote against a Reid/Boehner compromise? If so, that puts default at their feet.


Of course they are going to have to negotiate with Boehner, that's a given. But boehner needs them. He can't get anywhere near enough votes on the compromise bill.

You have to understand this has been from the beginning about forcing dems to vote for big medicare cuts so that the GOP freshmen can escape the stain of voting to wipe the program out when they voted for the Ryan bill. This is a fight about next October's ad buys, more than anything else.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:05 AM on July 28, 2011


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.
posted by Flunkie at 8:06 AM on July 28, 2011


That is, if it's not the case that all no-leaners will vote no, then "he needs 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it" is simply false.
posted by Flunkie at 8:07 AM on July 28, 2011


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.


It doesn't say any of that. It says, precisely:
If all Democrats vote no, Republican leaders will have to minimize defections to about two dozen members.
22 are leaning no.
9 are leaning yes.
33 are planning to vote yes.
43 are undecided/still reviewing/unclear.

If the 31 leaners all vote the way they are indicating now, then 41 of the 43 undecided must vote yes.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:11 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


What a no-win situation. If the bill goes through, no new spending will mean continued unemployment and collapsing infrastructure literally until it's impossible to re-elect Obama. If it doesn't go through, [insert speculation here]. Maybe then we would be allowed to spend enough to get the real America back on track, but by then it wouldn't matter. The right would snap up every chance to make the new ugliness look like Obama's fault and blocking everything the left tries to do. Such a sickening situation.
posted by heatvision at 8:12 AM on July 28, 2011


The right would snap up every chance to make the new ugliness look like Obama's fault and blocking everything the left tries to do. Such a sickening situation.
posted by heatvision at 11:12 AM on July 28 [+] [!]


Polling shows the american public blaming the GOP by about 20 points and favoring Obama's call for more tax revenue with something like 68%, if I remember correctly.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:13 AM on July 28, 2011


This Hill list is being updated constantly.

And it shows that one of the leaners just moved to undecided.

If he's going to do it, it will be razor thin.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:16 AM on July 28, 2011


Sorry a yes leaner moved to undecided.

The 22 no leaners have not changed.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:16 AM on July 28, 2011


I can't believe you're actually arguing about this, and I'll stop arguing about it after this post.
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.
It doesn't say any of that. It says, precisely:

If all Democrats vote no, Republican leaders will have to minimize defections to about two dozen members.
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."

And that's a false statement unless you assume that all no-leaners vote no. If that assumption is not true, then he does not need 43 of the 46 undecides and all of the leaning yes of his own party to pass it.

Again, I can't believe you're actually arguing this. I think it's fairly clear that you made a slightly imprecise statement, that I pointed out the way in which it was slightly imprecise, and that instead of just telling me "yeah, yeah, nitpick, that's what I meant", you decided to double down. For what reason, I don't know.
posted by Flunkie at 8:17 AM on July 28, 2011


Yeah, I pretty much agree with you that Boehner won't be able to pass a compromise bill in the House without Democrats. I don't think I ever argued or suggested that.

And as for the Medicare cuts, that ship sailed when the Obama-Boehner bargain that was sketched out last Friday freaked out Democrats and forced Obama to demand additional revenues from Republicans in order to scuttle the negotiations.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:18 AM on July 28, 2011


I'm not sugggesting we should return to the 18% interest rates of the 70's, but it seems to me that some rise in interest rates would help the economy. Am I missing something important?
posted by dejah420 at 8:00 AM on July 28 [+] [!]


Modern economic theory says that higher rates slow the economy. That's why the Federal Reserve lowers its target rates when the economy is in decline, and raises them when it is overheated.
posted by gjc at 8:20 AM on July 28, 2011


Again, I can't believe you're actually arguing this. I think it's fairly clear that you made a slightly imprecise statement, that I pointed out the way in which it was slightly imprecise, and that instead of just telling me "yeah, yeah, nitpick, that's what I meant", you decided to double down. For what reason, I don't know.

I just don't understand the distinction you're making between what you are saying and I am saying. I feel like we are saying the same thing, that's why I'm confused. I'm saying, assuming that the leaners vote as advertised, the yes votes are as advertised, then he needs 41 of the 44 (now changed) to pass. That's a razor thin margin. I'm assuming all vote as advertised.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:23 AM on July 28, 2011


And as for the Medicare cuts, that ship sailed when the Obama-Boehner bargain that was sketched out last Friday freaked out Democrats and forced Obama to demand additional revenues from Republicans in order to scuttle the negotiations.

No ships have sailed. As has been said many times before, there's only a deal when every thing has been decided. If all that's reported is true, both sides have advanced proposals then moved back from them and gotten more aggressive.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:25 AM on July 28, 2011


I'm not sugggesting we should return to the 18% interest rates of the 70's, but it seems to me that some rise in interest rates would help the economy. Am I missing something important?

Small business generates the lion's share of new jobs. These small businesses aren't created by "job creators" with access to near infinite amounts of capital from personal wealth. They're created by people stupid enough to think that creating a small business shouldn't be that hard and low interest rates are the lightbulb that attracts these moths.

You raise interest rates you have less incentives for people to strike out on their own and you kill the economic engine driving what's left of US job creation.

If you wanted to rebuild the middle class without putting it all on the property market credit card you'd probably have to do the folllowing:

* Raise the minimum wage - Bring it to at least $9/hour and raise it every god damn year aligned with inflation.
* Institute Import Certificates or something similar to give the US manufacturing base incentive to produce and export.
* Tax the hell out of non-US based manufacturing for US companies on top of any tariffs generated by import certificates.

If you raise the minimum wage you'll also be bringing in more from payroll taxes as well as more from FICA.
posted by Talez at 8:28 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


That's why the Federal Reserve lowers its target rates when the economy is in decline, and raises them when it is overheated.

When and why would someone decide that the economy "is overheated"? I have a hard time imagining that happening.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:30 AM on July 28, 2011


If US Defaults, Stocks Fall 30%, GDP 5%: Credit Suisse

TL;DR: Credit Suisse analysts calling 50/50 shot of US Downgrade. Downgrade would have minimal effect except maybe a bad day/week/month at the stock market.

No budget deal, no default: Every month with no debt ceiling rise would result in a loss of GDP of 0.5-1% and 10-15% drop in the stock market.

Full-on actual default: 5% GDP drop, 30% stock market drop.

For those that don't appreciate how bad a 5% drop in GDP is: Q1 2009 had a growth rate of -6.5% or so.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 8:31 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


No ships have sailed. As has been said many times before, there's only a deal when every thing has been decided. If all that's reported is true, both sides have advanced proposals then moved back from them and gotten more aggressive.

Neither the Boehner nor Reid bills touches Medicare. Even "cut, cap and balance" didn't reform entitlements. I think the entitlement state is safe (for now).
posted by BobbyVan at 8:32 AM on July 28, 2011


That's why the Federal Reserve lowers its target rates when the economy is in decline, and raises them when it is overheated.

When and why would someone decide that the economy "is overheated"? I have a hard time imagining that happening.


When growth speeds up to the point that inflation starts to become an issue.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:32 AM on July 28, 2011


Huh, like...too much lending driving up the money supply? Has this ever actually happened?
posted by adamdschneider at 8:34 AM on July 28, 2011


Huh, like...too much lending driving up the money supply? Has this ever actually happened?

a lot. Fed has raised interest rates a lot in the past, especially in the 1990s.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:36 AM on July 28, 2011


Credit card too, only new charges would incurr higher fees?

My understanding is that's not exactly true, even after the reforms, for anyone with variable rate credit cards (which is basically everyone except maybe Bill Gates). But I'd be greatly relieved to learn otherwise.

When and why would someone decide that the economy "is overheated"? I have a hard time imagining that happening.

Are you kidding? Greenspan has acknowledged many times in his public appearances and interviews that the Fed under his watch was terrified that the Clinton budget surpluses would lead to the government having so much capital to throw around that it became too big a player in the financial markets, leading to a kind of creeping socialism, and that's why Dubbya's administration had a deliberate policy of trying to bring the country back to deficit spending. Alan Greenspan's own words on the subject:
…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.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:49 AM on July 28, 2011 [10 favorites]


"Clearly [McCain has] been corrupted by the ring of power"
Tolkien would not approve.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:49 AM on July 28, 2011


Okay--fair point that's not so much about the economy "overheating." But it certainly demonstrates that economists pull a lot of counterintuitive stuff out of their asses when they have occasion.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:50 AM on July 28, 2011


Let it be known on this day that John McCain hates thems hobbitsess
posted by The Whelk at 8:56 AM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh, sure, I would never argue that! I am just interested in when inflation being a "problem" due specifically to an overactive economy has led to a rise in interest rates. I suppose I will have to Google it later.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:56 AM on July 28, 2011


gjc: "I'm not sugggesting we should return to the 18% interest rates of the 70's, but it seems to me that some rise in interest rates would help the economy. Am I missing something important?
posted by dejah420 at 8:00 AM on July 28 [+] [!]


Modern economic theory says that higher rates slow the economy. That's why the Federal Reserve lowers its target rates when the economy is in decline, and raises them when it is overheated
"

Yeah, I understand that 0% interest rates are supposed to jump start the economy....but while it might work *in theory*, much like communism or utopia, in practice, it doesn't seem to have done a damn thing for the economy, except to make it painless and free for banks and brokers to lend each other a ton of money, while still charging the average Joe a metric ton to borrow that same capital.

Interest rates were significantly higher during the dot.com boom, and that didn't slow down the economy a bit. Houses were selling, cars were selling, stocks were selling, luxury items were selling. It was a boom economy, with significantly higher tax and interest rates...neither of which seemed to slow down the growth at all.

I'm not an economist, and despite spending a lot of time trying to read and understand economic theory, I would say that I'm qualified to be confused, and that's about it. So, I freely admit that perhaps there is something to this 0% theory that I'm missing. But, it seems to me that the banks are using *my* money, giving me nothing, and then charging me (what in perspective to what they pay to use my capital is a usurious fee) if I want to borrow capital.

My access to capital now, for small business is significantly restricted compared to what it was 10 years ago, and my credit rating is stellar. Banks aren't loaning money, they're hoarding it, like evil armani clad dragons perched on piles of fiat dollars.

I know. Let's nationalize the banks, get currency flowing through the economy, set minimum wage to 20% above the poverty line, and re-institute a 80% tax bracket and estate taxes. Fuck it, we gave the aristos their chance, and they've proven that they cannot be trusted. Time to make America for all Americans.
posted by dejah420 at 9:05 AM on July 28, 2011 [6 favorites]


Just got through to my jackass Republican representative's Washington office. When I asked how the Congressman is planning on voting on Boehner's bill, I was told, quote, "Uh, we don't usually, uh, get told how he's going to vote until he votes".
posted by Flunkie at 9:08 AM on July 28, 2011


One of the other side effects of the zero interest rate is that I feel lucky that I have a 0.8% rate on a savings account that was 5% when I opened it. I'm no economist, and this may be great news for the big banks, but it sucks for the average person like myself.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:10 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Extremely low interest rates do seem quite like a tax on savers.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:14 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


One of the other side effects of the zero interest rate is that I feel lucky that I have a 0.8% rate on a savings account that was 5% when I opened it. I'm no economist, and this may be great news for the big banks, but it sucks for the average person like myself.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:10 AM on July 28 [+] [!]


Extremely low interest rates do seem quite like a tax on savers.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:14 AM on July 28 [+] [!]


That is the point of maintaining low interest rates, sort of. It is meant to make it desirable to spend that money on something besides a savings account. Whether that is spending on goods, or in other more "useful" (to the economy as a whole) investments. It is meant to light a fire under money that is just sitting around.
posted by gjc at 9:21 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Maybe you could ask them why they work for such a jackass next time.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:31 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Extremely low interest rates are merely an impetus to move assets out of a dormant state and into the market. It's not like you are losing money keeping it in a savings account, you just aren't making money with it.

Higher interest rates cool off an economy because people can still make an respectable return on investment just leaving assets in the bank. But if you want to prime the pump so to speak it helps to make investment in other assets easier. That allows businesses to borrow money at good rates which can be used to upgrade production, hire new workers, etc.

The problem is that monetary policy alone isn't enough to get the money off the sidelines. Businesses are still hording cash rather than upgrading production because consumer demand simply isn't there. Yet again we are given a concrete bit of evidence that influencing the supply side isn't enough. We need to be doing more to encourage increase consumer demand. One possible way of doing that is by injecting more government spending into the system but instead we are travelling down a road where we want to voluntarily reduce government spending during an economic downturn which is frankly nuts.

The only real reason for going with these policies is that Republicans feel a bad enough economy will result in Obama failing to get re-elected. They are willing to sustain extended economic hardship because they loathe the man that much.

And instead of just calling them out for their retarded policies Obama and the Democrats continue to enable hostage taking again and again. I think they final realize that if they give on this issue they'll basically forfeit 2012 though. The Reid plan is not very good but it's probably the best we can salvage at this point. The Boehner bill is utterly ridiculous because it would just set up more hostage taking next year during an election cycle.
posted by vuron at 9:31 AM on July 28, 2011


Update,

House Republicans against/leaning no on Boehner plan (21)
House Republicans leaning yes (6)
House Republicans planning to vote yes (44)
Undecided/Still reviewing/Unclear (43)

The rest of the caucus is considered in the pocket.

Another Blue Dog is no, and Heath Schuler is saying all Blue Dogs will vote no, meaning 195 will vote no. Current nos, (assuming leaners are then) 216.

Needed to pass: 216 (normally 2 vacancies).

He's 2 short, even if all the leaners go his way--he needs some defections from the "no leaners." He got one earlier.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:32 AM on July 28, 2011


I know. Let's nationalize the banks, get currency flowing through the economy, set minimum wage to 20% above the poverty line, and re-institute a 80% tax bracket and estate taxes.

We really should nationalize the banks. It seems like an inherent conflict of interest to me to leave those entrusted with safeguarding and moving our money around a profit motive themselves. It's like hiring the foxes to run the hen houses.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:33 AM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


It's not like you are losing money keeping it in a savings account

With inflation, yes, yes you are. You are losing purchasing power, which is all that money represents, anyway.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:34 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


We really should nationalize the banks. It seems like an inherent conflict of interest to me to leave those entrusted with safeguarding and moving our money around a profit motive themselves. It's like hiring the foxes to run the hen houses.


Yeah, can you imagine if other government functions worked like that? Imagine if to pay your medical bills you had to...oh.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:37 AM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


Man, I often wonder what it's like to have a semi-free thinking representative in the House. Mine is so predictable he could probably be replaced by a small shell script and nobody would notice.

(Yes, he's a Republican, why do you ask?)
posted by entropicamericana at 9:38 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Here's a question--should we call reps and tell them to vote no?

fascinating.

I say we should.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:41 AM on July 28, 2011


posted by dejah420 at 9:05 AM on July 28 [1 favorite +] [!] :
Yeah, I understand that 0% interest rates are supposed to jump start the economy....but while it might work *in theory*, much like communism or utopia, in practice, it doesn't seem to have done a damn thing for the economy, except to make it painless and free for banks and brokers to lend each other a ton of money, while still charging the average Joe a metric ton to borrow that same capital.

Interest rates were significantly higher during the dot.com boom, and that didn't slow down the economy a bit. Houses were selling, cars were selling, stocks were selling, luxury items were selling. It was a boom economy, with significantly higher tax and interest rates...neither of which seemed to slow down the growth at all.


Interest rates, in retrospect, were actually too low, because that boom turned into a bubble. The idea of raising interest rates is to make it more expensive to invest, to slow down the flow of money. When money is cheap, people (in the macro sense) make dumber decisions. When it costs more to borrow, the marginal decisions shift toward not making the deal. This hopefully results in people eschewing riskier decisions in favor of less risky ones.

But interest rates alone do not cause booms and busts. (According to the theory. There are others.) Instead, they are meant to act as a counterweight to the natural pull of the market. The goal is steady, slow, sustainable growth. If that slows down, you want to give it a shove. If it goes too fast, you want to slow it down so that bubbles don't form.

I'm not an economist, and despite spending a lot of time trying to read and understand economic theory, I would say that I'm qualified to be confused, and that's about it. So, I freely admit that perhaps there is something to this 0% theory that I'm missing. But, it seems to me that the banks are using *my* money, giving me nothing, and then charging me (what in perspective to what they pay to use my capital is a usurious fee) if I want to borrow capital.

That is the business banks are in. They provide a safe place to put money when you haven't got anything better to do with it. They lend that money out at a higher rate. I don't have the data to prove it, but the rate spreads are probably right in line with where they always are.

My access to capital now, for small business is significantly restricted compared to what it was 10 years ago, and my credit rating is stellar. Banks aren't loaning money, they're hoarding it, like evil armani clad dragons perched on piles of fiat dollars.

That is one of the challenges of this economy. The banks lost a lot of money because they loosened their lending standards. Too bad for them, I know. But in reaction to this, they tightened their standards back to what was normal. 10 years ago wasn't normal.

Low rates aren't a cure all for all economic woes. Banks are foaming at the mouth to find borrowers who meet these back-to-normal standards. They aren't in the business of hoarding money.

I know. Let's nationalize the banks, get currency flowing through the economy, set minimum wage to 20% above the poverty line, and re-institute a 80% tax bracket and estate taxes. Fuck it, we gave the aristos their chance, and they've proven that they cannot be trusted. Time to make America for all Americans.

Surely there is a middle ground....
posted by gjc at 9:43 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's like hiring the foxes to run the hen houses.

I'm not sure that voting for which foxes we want to run the hen houses would be an improvement.
posted by empath at 9:43 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Extremely low interest rates do seem quite like a tax on savers.

It is. It's despicable. As gjc pointed out it forces people to either make investments in stocks or buy invest in real estate. Either way, it's a way for Wall Street and the banks to get their hands bank on your money and take their cuts from you with the promise of better returns then simply keeping it in the bank. And that right there has turned from a racket to take ever larger percentages and fees, and eventually turn into simple theft as your money (real money) is put into propping up derivatives and financial products that are worthless in real value, but only act as lubricants and filler to keep the real money revolving in and out, each time being exacted real fees and real charges to go another round.

There used to be a time people who put money in banks were valued, and paid real interest, that could compound and accrue. IN other words the hard work and sweat and effort of people who played by the rules and saved every chance they got was respected and rewarded.

That changed drastically once this hyper Wall Street and Bank culture began to unfold in the 80s and went into hyperdrive and turbo-capitalism after the Cold war ended.

It wasn't so much capital that was the key to wealth at that point but the constant handling and churning and movement of capital that became the key to Wall st. and Bank wealth.

It was a scheme just waiting for a scam employing the illusion of movement through worthless financial products to take hold. And they, Wall Street, just wound the whole thing up and let it come crashing down.

Nothing is going to change in this country for the working class or for anyone until real work and real money and real savings are respected again and paid a proper return.

It's repellent that one has to take part in the slimey machinations of Wall Street or Real Estate to get a decent return on one's earnings.
posted by Skygazer at 9:43 AM on July 28, 2011 [5 favorites]


Polling shows the american public blaming the GOP by about 20 points and favoring Obama's call for more tax revenue with something like 68%, if I remember correctly.

This whole thing is moving pretty fast, so I might have missed something, but neither of the bills currently being considered raise revenue, right?

Also, any idea when(ish) the vote might take place?
posted by Bukvoed at 9:45 AM on July 28, 2011


If I red correctly above today at 5 or 6 PM EST.
posted by Skygazer at 9:48 AM on July 28, 2011


red?

Read...
posted by Skygazer at 9:49 AM on July 28, 2011


Here's a question--should we call reps and tell them to vote no? I say we should.

Wait, I thought it was only the Tea Party that wanted the govt to default.

les extrèmes se touchent
posted by BobbyVan at 9:50 AM on July 28, 2011


We really should nationalize the banks. It seems like an inherent conflict of interest to me to leave those entrusted with safeguarding and moving our money around a profit motive themselves. It's like hiring the foxes to run the hen houses.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:33 AM on July 28 [+] [!]


They practically already are with FDIC and Federal Reserve oversight. Exactly ZERO dollars have been lost by account holders in banks. The banking system has been flawless in this regard for something like 70 years.
posted by gjc at 9:51 AM on July 28, 2011


It was a scheme just waiting for a scam employing the illusion of movement through worthless financial products to take hold. And they, Wall Street, just wound the whole thing up and let it come crashing down.

It's for this reason that I wish electronic stock trading were banned. I really think that if we forced Wall Street to deal like they did pre-1980's and have more guys in funny colored suits shouting endlessly the movement of money would slow and help to calm the insane volume, kill off day-trading and break the leverages. I do think this would be a good thing.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 9:54 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


~ 5:45, after the markets close
posted by Trurl at 9:55 AM on July 28, 2011


Meanwhile...

Last night the Chicago Sun-Times broke the story that Tea Party freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), who has spent months lecturing President Obama and Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes $117,437 in child support to his ex-wife and three children. Laura Walsh has asked a judge to suspend his driver’s license until he pays his child support. Despite loaning his own campaign $35,000 — and paying himself back at least $14,200 for the loans — Walsh claims he failed to make the payments because he “had no money.”

The tax-bashing congressman campaigned on a pledge to reject the Washington “status quo” and has bragged about his own frugality, claiming he even sleeps in his congressional office to save money. Walsh, who’s been described as “the biggest media hound in the freshman class,” has been a prominent voice in the debt ceiling showdown in recent weeks, making television appearances almost every day to denounce President Obama’s “reckless spending,” which he says has “bankrupted this country.”

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says in one video. But today, when confronted in a CNN interview about his failure to support his own children, Walsh not only refused to acknowledge his hypocrisy but insisted that being a deadbeat dad meant he understood the plight of average Americans:

I know that story just broke, and it’s interesting that it just broke right now as I’m out there trying my best to fight this President and fight the Democrats and solve this debt crisis. But look, I’m the most openly vetted candidate in the world. I have had financial troubles and I talked about them throughout the campaign. This is where real America is.

posted by futz at 10:14 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Here is the Chicago Sun Times article about Mr. Financial Responsibility.
posted by futz at 10:20 AM on July 28, 2011


I'm not sure that voting for which foxes we want to run the hen houses would be an improvement.

Then we'd better learn to do a better job of not voting for foxes! They end up in charge of the nukes too, you know!
posted by saulgoodman at 10:27 AM on July 28, 2011


That is the business banks are in. They provide a safe place to put money when you haven't got anything better to do with it. They lend that money out at a higher rate. I don't have the data to prove it, but the rate spreads are probably right in line with where they always are.

I don't know about the spreads, but it's been pretty widely discussed and acknowledged that the zero interest rate on the federal lending window has been a major profit booster for the big banks in recent years. And the banks have been making record profits throughout most of the recession.

This article from 2010 claims that the low rates were finally starting to have the opposite effect, because interest rates for borrowers had dropped so low in the climate of cheap access to federal capital. The response, it would seem, has been for banks to squat on their money and reduce lending--probably to try to gin up consumer demand for higher interest loans on the market so they can get those profits up again.

Never mind that most of the profits they made up until this point, with the rates at historical lows for years now, were made almost exclusively on the public's dime, with the feds basically lending public money to the banks for free, and then letting them keep 100% of the profits on the loans they made with all that free dough.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:38 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


ThinkProgress - "VOTE COUNT UPDATE: 24 House Republicans publicly oppose Boehner Plan"

"Tonight at around 6 p.m., the House of Representatives will vote on the Boehner plan, which would create another debt ceiling crisis in less than six months and likely lead to a downgrade in U.S. credit. Boehner needs 217 votes to pass the plan. Without Democratic support, Boehner can only afford to have 23 Republicans vote against the bill. "
posted by cashman at 10:46 AM on July 28, 2011


Question to those who might know or care: If Boehner can't rally the party and get his plan passed do they replace him as Speaker? This seems like it would really be a vote of no confidence.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:52 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, what's the worst (realistic) thing that could happen at this vote tonight? Because I'm sure whatever it is, it will happen.
posted by cashman at 10:53 AM on July 28, 2011


Exactly ZERO dollars have been lost by account holders in banks. The banking system has been flawless in this regard for something like 70 years.

Agreed. The FDIC and simulacra for credit unions have worked as designed. But that has nothing to do with the fact that banks have become predatory beasts. Something must be done to tame them if any economic policy is going to work. (I would suggest that parts of the Street should be similarly brought under the thumb of stiff and enforced regulation.) But all of that is a bit of a derail, for which I apologize.

To the crisis at hand: We have long been a corporatist culture, and I premise that the last 25 years have created a primarily "purchased" legislative body. With few exceptions, neither party has really voted in the ways that their platform would lead you to believe they would vote.

But the Teahadists? Those people really, really, REALLY believe what they're saying. This isn't a game, it's not political theatre, these True Believers are going to try to do exactly what they've been saying all along they want to do...shut down the government. They don't like it, no sir, and they're going to stop it right now. Because most of them are ignorant, ill-read, poorly informed morons, the Eisenhower Republicans thought they could co-opt them just like they did the Moral Majority and other Christian Right movements. But no...the Teahadists really are ideologues.

The GOP has no idea what to do. They can't control them, because they don't care if they get reelected. This isn't a career for most of them, they see themselves as crusaders, first into the breech.

These are the same folks as the "Bring on the End Times" people. They WANT Armageddon, so they can prove their moral superiority once and for all, as they are raised above the sinners to sit at the right hand of God. Amen. Etc.

For a while, I too thought that this was just theatrical posturing, but the more I read and hear from the members of this sect, the more I realize that they have more in common with a cult than they do a political party. That makes them a lot more dangerous than your average store-bought politico.
posted by dejah420 at 10:55 AM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


There is no vote of No Confidence in regards to the Speakership.

That being said I think if he fails to deliver this plan there will be an effort made to replace him, most likely with Cantor.

I think Cantor not so secretly wants this and is completely willing to sabotauge any sort of negotiations because his personal ambitions mean more to him than his Party.
posted by vuron at 10:55 AM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


There is no vote of No Confidence in regards to the Speakership.

I'm aware that there is no true "vote of no confidence." But it seems like if Boehner can't get the party together now that the Repubs would look to replace him or privately force him to step down.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:59 AM on July 28, 2011


I'm not sure how many of the Tea Party freshmen really believe their own rhetoric (Bachmann is almost certainly a true believer as are several others) but I think the true believers have created an environment where compromise and conciliation are anathema to the base. Combined with the relentless pressure to conform in the form of being primaried from the right has forced even those Republicans that realize that Obama and the Democrats are willing to offer more than they have in the past and that they could've accepted the deal and walked away as winner afraid of taking what is offered.

When your opposition is offering you huge concessions you should grab them and walk away happy knowing that you can always get more down the road. But going for the home run instead of an incremental approach is incredibly lazy and frankly risky. The tea party faction is so convinced that Obama and company will completely surrender (possible but unlikely) that they are forcing a situation in which they cannot possibly come away unscathed in the expectation that the consequences will be worse for Obama than they are for themselves.

That scenario seems unlikely to actually work out for them but now they've been boxed in. To back away from the precipice now means a loss of face which apparently the Republicans are unwilling to contemplate.
posted by vuron at 11:07 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


That being said I think if he fails to deliver this plan there will be an effort made to replace him, most likely with Cantor.

I agree with this, but the real snake in the grass and behind the scenes player, is Jim Demint. Demint is the cult leader and kingmaker Grand PooBah Wizard here, who's pulling the strings on the zealot Bagger freshman reps, and Cantor may be the next in line for the Speakership but he'll be Demint's puppet. He's already Demint's puppet.

Vuron: ...they are forcing a situation in which they cannot possibly come away unscathed in the expectation that the consequences will be worse for Obama than they are for themselves.

They the true chosen ones, with God and the full spirit of the Founding Fathers in their corner, which is to say they're convinced like most cult followers, that they're morally and ideologically superior, and therefore, how could they ever, ever lose.
posted by Skygazer at 11:34 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


they're convinced like most cult followers, that they're morally and ideologically superior, and therefore, how could they ever, ever lose.

They'll lose because they are assclowns. Moral and ideological assclowns.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:38 AM on July 28, 2011


Of course they will. And it looks like Boehners wrapped them up, if this latest from the NYT is to be believed.

So, what this means is that, the Tea Party Freshman who said: Read our lips..NO NEW DEBT LIMIT. Are about to be fed to the dogs. They're one termers, and once the Debt Limit is raised and Obama comes out of this looking like the patient and confident adult in the room, who boxed the GOTP into a circular firing squad, I'm going to enjoy watching the GOTP rip itself to shreds trying to get the TP out of GOTP, as it suffers the backlash, from the Right, the Far Right, Left and Center.

In other news. News Corporation has been rocked by new and shocking allegations against one of it's highest placed executives, Rebekah Brooks.

As the extreme right takes hits all over the place....

FUCK YEAH!!

posted by Skygazer at 11:50 AM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]




So the MSNBC reporter talked about how the Republicans will try to get their bill through and then as it is the only thing passed, eventually force Obama to sign it. And he described it as a dream or like it has little chance of working.

So, that's what's going to happen, it's going to work. I'd love if it didn't.
posted by cashman at 12:14 PM on July 28, 2011


Thinkprogress: 25 House GOPers have publicly stated opposition to Boehner. If they hold, bill will fail w/o Dem support.
posted by cashman at 12:15 PM on July 28, 2011


vuron: "I think Cantor not so secretly wants this and is completely willing to sabotauge any sort of negotiations because his personal ambitions mean more to him than his Party."

I made This little graphic (not sure if it's visible to public. confusing options/settings)... When I compared Cantor as Starscream to Megatron's Boehner, last week.
posted by symbioid at 12:16 PM on July 28, 2011


Woop - I linked it upthread - gah! Sorry for the double post.
posted by symbioid at 12:17 PM on July 28, 2011


I could not view it, FYI.
posted by adamdschneider at 12:19 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


ok, thx...
posted by symbioid at 12:22 PM on July 28, 2011


WSJ

A group of religious and civic leaders said they were arrested on Thursday at the U.S. Capitol for protesting a debt deal being developed in Congress that they fear would hurt the country's most vulnerable people.

Common Cause President Bob Edgar and ministers were among at least 10 people who said they were arrested after praying inside the U.S. Capitol for the White House and Congress to spare in the poor in their efforts to rein in the country's debt.

posted by angrycat at 12:53 PM on July 28, 2011


More from that WSJ blog:

At a House Republican caucus meeting Thursday morning, Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Pa.) gave a pep talk as Republican leaders worked to rally support for House Speaker John Boehner’s (R., Ohio) proposal to cut spending and raise the debt limit.

Kelly, who attended the University of Notre Dame on a football scholarship, received a raucous response when he exhorted rank-and-file Republicans, Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) told reporters after the meeting.

“He gave a Knute Rockne-type speech,” Mr. King said while holding up a “Play Like a Champion Today” sign, a nod to the famed sign between the home locker room and tunnel to the field at Notre Dame Stadium that players touch before games. Mr. King said Mr. Kelly closed the pep talk by saying: “Put on your helmet, buckle your chinstrap, and knock the sh-- out of ‘em.”


Gag me with a torch and a pitchfork.
posted by GrammarMoses at 1:00 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


“He gave a Knute Rockne-type speech,” Mr. King said while holding up a “Play Like a Champion Today” sign, a nod to the famed sign between the home locker room and tunnel to the field at Notre Dame Stadium that players touch before games. Mr. King said Mr. Kelly closed the pep talk by saying: “Put on your helmet, buckle your chinstrap, and knock the sh-- out of ‘em.”

The millionaire/billionaire fight in the NFL went smoother than this debt limit horseshit. I'm still rooting for DeMaurice Smith and Roger Goodell to take over as the negotiating team.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:07 PM on July 28, 2011


Not that it's any surprise at this point, but it's still so incredibly disturbing when legislators describe their work using metaphors of fighting, killing, torture, etc.,

You take a sports metaphor and turn it into "torture"? What if a Republican had said this?
posted by BobbyVan at 1:38 PM on July 28, 2011


In what kind of fight do you put on a helmet and buckle a chinstrap?
posted by BobbyVan at 1:51 PM on July 28, 2011


Well, I would guess he takes more exception to the "knock the shit out of 'em" bit.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:53 PM on July 28, 2011


Sorry to be pedantic, but the Congressman doesn't really mean knocking the literal "shit" out of anyone. Yes, the sports metaphor is a little rough, but it's got nothing to do with "killing" and "torture," per the original critique.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:56 PM on July 28, 2011


In what kind of fight do you put on a helmet and buckle a chinstrap?

bicycle jousting
posted by pyramid termite at 1:58 PM on July 28, 2011 [9 favorites]


Now there are 24 no leaners. Wow. Two flipped to no. So if the Hill's list holds, then the bill fails if all dems vote no. There are only three dems who haven't said they are voting no, but Heath Schuler says they will all vote no.

That means that as it stands, Boehner doesn't have enough votes. The other thing is that if it looks like it is going to fail, people will jump to no to cover their conservative asses.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:02 PM on July 28, 2011




Man, I wish the republicans had the balls to just go ahead and plant a bomb somewhere and threaten to set it off if they don't get their demands. It's pretty much equivalent to the hostage situation they have going with the global economy right now.
posted by mullingitover at 2:08 PM on July 28, 2011 [5 favorites]


Also a huge tell will be how long it takes to have the vote. The further back it gets moved, the more trouble it is in. Currently between 5:45 and 6:15. If it slips more and more, you know they are really twisting arms.

Boehner's political life is on the line here. Stakes he never intended to play for.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:17 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


No doubt about that at all Ironmouth.

If he can't get a 100% Republican bill passed then he's finished as Speaker, and probably finished in Ohio's 8th District as well. Which gives him a great incentive to get it passed. Now is when we really do find out just how far the Tea Party Republican rep's ideology goes, and how fearful of the Tea Party the other Republicans are.

If it weren't for the fact that this might really mess up the economy it'd be purely fascinating from a political junkie standpoint. The fact that the Tea Party Republicans might well do serious harm to the economy adds a queasy sense of unreality to the proceedings.
posted by sotonohito at 2:25 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner's political life is on the line here. Stakes he never intended to play for.

I'm pretty nervous watching this trainwreck play out, but at least I'm getting a little schadenfreude out of watching Boehner sweat. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
posted by weston at 2:26 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


I just wish he were sweating, cuz, you know... it was we on the left who were putting up a hell of a fight, not that people to his right are causing him grief (and may end up getting their way).
posted by symbioid at 2:31 PM on July 28, 2011


It sounds like he's delayed the vote indefinitely:
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


VOTE POSTPONED as of 5:26!
posted by Ironmouth at 2:32 PM on July 28, 2011


Ouch.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:33 PM on July 28, 2011


zippity doo da
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:34 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Does this mean that the US will definitely default now, or is there another plan?
posted by dng at 2:35 PM on July 28, 2011


CNBC is reporting that vote will be held later tonight, per House GOP staffer
posted by BobbyVan at 2:36 PM on July 28, 2011


Senate Dems have a competing plan that they will vote on once they kill the House bill.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:40 PM on July 28, 2011


Stock market is still not liking what is going on. Dow and S&P 500 were both down 0.5% after going up on unemployment reports. The Volatility Index (VIX) is up again today, now at 23.74 (spiking at 23.99) which is the highest since early March. Gold held relatively steady at $1615/oz.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:46 PM on July 28, 2011


oh, delicious schadenfreude.
posted by angrycat at 2:47 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sarah Palin sends a message to the Teahadists who might be wavering from the party cult line.
posted by dejah420 at 2:48 PM on July 28, 2011


CNBC is reporting that vote will be held later tonight, per House GOP staffer

They don't have the votes. They are voting on renaming a post office in Peoria right now.

Boehner's done.

195 dems = 21 GOPers = 216! and a bill we can live with.

This was a titanic defeat. They are gonna have to give the biggest knute rockne speech ever to have even a prayer.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:51 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Sarah Palin sends a message to the Teahadists who might be wavering from the party cult line.

I only got as far as "we little folk" before I was down to only two options: close the window or put my fist through my monitor.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:53 PM on July 28, 2011 [5 favorites]


This title from the CNBC live blog about the debt ceiling debate made me giggle:

Thursday, July 28 5:25 PM/ET: "Everyone Was Verklempt"
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:56 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


appropriate.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:58 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Does the Senate have to confirm these post office names? That could get ugly. How will it play in Peoria?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:00 PM on July 28, 2011


I really don't see how Boehner recovers from this. The calls for his head will be intense to say the least.

Cantor seems unlikely to step up and forge a compromise between the Republicans and the Democratic minority. I wonder if someone from lower in the ranks will try to step up and push through a compromise bill?
posted by vuron at 3:01 PM on July 28, 2011


what happens if the republicans never vote on the current bill? if the republicans don't vote on the bill, can the senate pass and give the house Reid's bill with enough time to vote on it? and then the it would fall on the house republicans to either pass Reid's bill or send the nation into default?
posted by askmehow at 3:06 PM on July 28, 2011


what happens if the republicans never vote on the current bill? if the republicans don't vote on the bill, can the senate pass and give the house Reid's bill with enough time to vote on it? and then the it would fall on the house republicans to either pass Reid's bill or send the nation into default?

They could pass it in 10 minutes. I'm certain its teed up. A filibuster would be suicide.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:08 PM on July 28, 2011


Ironmouth: "appropriate."

Appropriate-er.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:09 PM on July 28, 2011


The Senate Dem plan is to have the last bill on the table to force them to either pass it in the House or compromise. They will go ahead with this when the Boehner bill is down for sure, either from lack of votes in the House or because the Senate killed it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:09 PM on July 28, 2011


If the house can't deliver a bill at all I think either Obama let's the August 2nd thing pass in order to really apply the pressure to the Republicans or he does one of the various treasury shenanigans (like the 1 trillion dollar coin or elect to no pay the Fed, etc) in order to postpone/resolve the issue.
posted by vuron at 3:11 PM on July 28, 2011


Adam Jentleson, spokesperson for Harry Reid tweeted:

The Senate stands ready to defeat the Boehner plan whenever House Republicans can get their act together.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:11 PM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


From Sarah P's fb entry

“Out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern,” Ms. Palin writes. “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”

I like that nice little threat at the end. What a mental case.
posted by angrycat at 3:19 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


The Senate Dem plan is to have the last bill on the table to force them to either pass it in the House or compromise. They will go ahead with this when the Boehner bill is down for sure, either from lack of votes in the House or because the Senate killed it.

I think hot potato is exactly it.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:19 PM on July 28, 2011


The Senate stands ready to defeat the Boehner plan whenever House Republicans can get their act together."

That Elvis and Nixon picture provides just the right amount of cognitive dissonance.
posted by psyche7 at 3:21 PM on July 28, 2011


The Boehner plan is bullshit. So is Rieds. I believe that both "plans" save the economy just under a trillion dollars in the next ten years.

What is not being said is that by simply doing nothing we save 4 trillion dollars in the same amount of time.

That's right a fourfold savings over Boehner's of Ried's bullshit plans just by letting the temporary bush tax cuts expire. So none of this has to do with saving the economy - it's all bullshit designed to transfer more wealth to the top 2% from welfare cases and social security pensioners.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 3:30 PM on July 28, 2011 [7 favorites]


My current pipe dream: Boehner's plan dies in a fire. Senate comes out with a super-duper-sekret plan to eliminate Bush Tax Cuts, raise debt limit $2T and cut budget by $3-4T overall. This followed by B.A. Barackus Obama dumping a heavy-handed guilt trip on the Republicans to vote for it.

/pipedream
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:37 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


The Boehner plan is bullshit. So is Rieds. I believe that both "plans" save the economy just under a trillion dollars in the next ten years.

What is not being said is that by simply doing nothing we save 4 trillion dollars in the same amount of time.

That's right a fourfold savings over Boehner's of Ried's bullshit plans just by letting the temporary bush tax cuts expire. So none of this has to do with saving the economy - it's all bullshit designed to transfer more wealth to the top 2% from welfare cases and social security pensioners.


The cuts to the top 2% have to expire. 2012 is going to be about that. And the voters are with the President, according to polls.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:38 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


latest WSJ blog

- Rep. Jeff Duncan, (R., S.C.) has been a no vote. He emerged from a discussion in Mr. Boehner’s office and said he’ll have to pray on it.

- South Carolina Republican Mick Mulvaney, also says he'll pray about the vote.


Dear God, should I be evil?
posted by angrycat at 3:41 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]




And the reporters are armed :)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:43 PM on July 28, 2011


The cuts to the top 2% have to expire.
Ironmouth, hey were supposed to expire last year. They got extended because the Republicans held unemployment extensions hostage until the Dems caved in and agreed to extend. You know what? They'll get extended again and again and again. This time on the backs of our senior citizens, the disabled and the very poor. This time they're holding the entire economy hostage/. Let's not kid ourselves - the temporary tax cuts to the wealthy are here to stay. Austerity is the he new order of the day for the rest of us.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 3:44 PM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


The cuts to the top 2% have to expire.
Ironmouth, hey were supposed to expire last year. They got extended because the Republicans held unemployment extensions hostage until the Dems caved in and agreed to extend. You know what? They'll get extended again and again and again. This time on the backs of our senior citizens, the disabled and the very poor. This time they're holding the entire economy hostage/. Let's not kid ourselves - the temporary tax cuts to the wealthy are here to stay. Austerity is the he new order of the day for the rest of us.


My money is on them expiring. Because I think the Dems will take the House back and keep the senate and the presidency. Its up to us to make sure that happens.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:57 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


also if this doesn't get passed, you can expect the press coverage to get a lot worse for Boehner. It didn't want to point out the obvious, that this was extortion and that it didn't have to happen this way because the debt ceiling could be raised at any time. If Boehner can't get it done, then the press will know he's weak and assume the Dems are doing better and start pointing out the fact that this is irresponsible extortion.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:59 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Because I think the Dems will take the House back and keep the senate and the presidency. Its up to us to make sure that happens.

rah rah blah blah yay team (yawn)

Right now that team you are talking about is talking about cutting social security for seniors and extending the wealthy tax cuts. That's what the Reid plan is all about. That's what the democrats are doing right now. So why would any half-way sane person believe that they will suddenly change their minds 18 months form now? They won't.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:03 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Love this from Rich Lowry: "One way or the other, there will be tears off the House floor tonight."
posted by BobbyVan at 4:03 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


rah rah blah blah yay team (yawn)

Right now that team you are talking about is talking about cutting social security for seniors and extending the wealthy tax cuts. That's what the Reid plan is all about. That's what the democrats are doing right now. So why would any half-way sane person believe that they will suddenly change their minds 18 months form now? They won't.


Because the Democrats decided to put unemployment extensions ahead of revenue increases last time push came to shove, in order to ensure that the jobless would not end up totally destitute. They had little other choice, because the GOP had done much better in the 2010 election and won itself a substantial majority.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:08 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


cutting social security for seniors and extending the wealthy tax cuts (... is ...) what the Reid plan is all about
Where did you get this information from*?

According to the NYT, "The Reid plan does not call for spending cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlements." And as far as I know, it doesn't say anything about extending the Bush tax cuts.

*: Please don't say Thomas Jefferson.
posted by Flunkie at 4:16 PM on July 28, 2011 [7 favorites]


So why would any half-way sane person believe that they will suddenly change their minds 18 months form now?

why? because the tea party has demonstrated that nothing will be accomplished in washington without their permission

the dems don't have to do anything to rescind the tax cuts - and if nothing gets done, the rates go up

they can no longer believe or trust the republicans to make a reasonable deal with them
posted by pyramid termite at 4:22 PM on July 28, 2011


Yeah, but P_L isn't talking about the "Reid plan," she's talking about the fact that Obama has put virtually everything on the grand bargain table, including raising SS age, lowering entitlements and he's obviously open to extending the tax cuts for the superrich. No need for the dig.
posted by psyche7 at 4:23 PM on July 28, 2011


The Reid plan does not call for spending cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlements.

My bad you are right - the original plan does not contain either. Thanks for the correction :)

However ... I'll put 20 bucks down that the Dems will cave in to such a compromise "because they had to " just like they caved in on the Bush tax cut extensions , "because they have to"
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:26 PM on July 28, 2011


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".
posted by Flunkie at 4:26 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


From the economics side-discussion: the discount window is rarely used by banks, because healthy banks don't need the money, and/or can get it elsewhere cheaper. It isn't "free money" because they have to put up collateral to borrow the money. It is simply a loan of last resort for a bank who otherwise might have to fold due to cash flow issues.

The TARP injection was necessary because many banks held assets that were deflating in value. A bank has to have a balanced ledger- outstanding loans have to be less than or equal to deposits on hand. When they are afraid that at any second their assets are going to disappear, they aren't going to loan out any more money. And, when they know their fellow banks are in the same boat, they aren't going to loan *them* any money because they are afraid that bank will fold before they get paid back. That happened in 2009-ish, the credit crunch. Nobody trusted anyone, and in a lot of credit products, there was literally a complete collapse in the marketplace. So the Treasury said "you know what, we are going to give all the banks this pile of cash as double-collateral against the banks' assets, so that this lending can start to happen again."

There is, and for the most part always was, plenty of money for the retail borrower who is a good credit risk. They WANT to loan out money, but they also want to get it back eventually. Admittedly, they may be being overly cautious about that, but that's their right (and their loss if they reject good potential customers).

And not for nothing, almost all the TARP money has been paid back.

As much as I hate fees and whatnot, that really is beside the issue. Those rise and fall based on the marketplace for banking customers. (And remember, in banking, the customer role is reversed: depositors are vendors who the bank pays, and borrowers are customers who pay the bank.) They do better business by charging as low a rate as possible and tacking fees onto the troublemakers than they would do by charging less in fees and more in interest. I mean, nobody I know of is going to say "Yeah, I'll pay an extra 1% a year in exchange for lower fees." Because we all think we are smart enough to avoid them.
posted by gjc at 4:28 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Am I understanding you correctly that you're willing to bet $20 that the debt ceiling agreement, if any, will include cuts to Social Security and an extension of the Bush tax cuts?

If so, and with the caveat that if no deal is in place by August 2 then the bet is off, I'll take that bet. Assuming that you accept, and lose, please pay your $20 to the American Civil Liberties Union. Please let me know where to send a check in the event that I lose.
posted by Flunkie at 4:29 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Washington's rogue elephants
posted by russilwvong at 4:30 PM on July 28, 2011


However ... I'll put 20 bucks down that the Dems will cave in to such a compromise "because they had to " just like they caved in on the Bush tax cut extensions , "because they have to"

They do have to cave (at some point) on medicare and SS. Not nearly to the extent that the GOP would have us believe, but those systems are going to require some kind of cuts to maintain themselves. The costs are just increasing too quickly for tax increases to cover the difference.

Obviously, this would be solved to a great degree by single payer healthcare, but that's a long shot.
posted by gjc at 4:33 PM on July 28, 2011


Am I understanding you correctly that you're willing to bet $20 that the debt ceiling agreement, if any, will include cuts to Social Security and an extension of the Bush tax cuts?

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.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:33 PM on July 28, 2011


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?
posted by psyche7 at 4:34 PM on July 28, 2011


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.

Assuming that you agree to that as well, then, as I said, please let me know where to send a check in case I lose.
posted by Flunkie at 4:36 PM on July 28, 2011


Flunkie check your mefi mail
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:38 PM on July 28, 2011


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?
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.
posted by Flunkie at 4:39 PM on July 28, 2011


Heck - at least it will make this intolerable waiting more interesting
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:40 PM on July 28, 2011


Flunkie:

Sorry, don't mean to belabor the point, but she started out
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?
posted by psyche7 at 4:47 PM on July 28, 2011


It's against your representatives' personal best interests—and the interests of their friends and peers—to have to pay more taxes. Your representatives are almost all very wealthy, some to the point of dynasty.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on July 28, 2011


This followed by B.A. Barackus Obama dumping a heavy-handed guilt trip on the Republicans to vote for it.

Mere words cannot possibly articulate my untrammeled soul-deep ecstasy at the thought of Obama telling the repubs to quit their jibba jabba.
posted by elizardbits at 4:55 PM on July 28, 2011 [10 favorites]


I'll put 20 bucks down that the Dems will cave in to such a compromise "because they had to " just like they caved in on the Bush tax cut extensions , "because they have to"

Don't forget that the extension of the *middle class* tax cuts probably is helping a lot of people, and is probably stimulative as a driver of demand, and they were also worried about unemployment benefits (also a demand driver). Faced with the expiration of both, it might have made genuine sense to focus on that and kick the problem the upper bracket cuts represent down the way a bit.

I'd agree they should have negotiated harder when they also had something the GOTP actually cared deeply about (it seems pretty clear that there's simply nothing that matters more to modern Republicans than low and lowered tax rates) -- and that's a strong position to negotiate from. And they could possibly have even pinned the loss of unemployment benefits on the GOTP to their benefit. But I can also see some wisdom in just making sure the benefits and cuts continued.
posted by weston at 4:56 PM on July 28, 2011


Don't forget that the extension of the *middle class* tax cuts probably is helping a lot of people,

True about the middle class tax cuts. I thought the middle class tax cuts were made permanent last December (who can keep up :( ) so the only temporary tax breaks that are about to expire are for the people making over 250K a year. That was my understanding bu I've been wrong before ;)
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:12 PM on July 28, 2011


Charles Krauthammer tries to talk sense to conservatives
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.

...

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?
posted by BobbyVan at 5:14 PM on July 28, 2011


It's no mistake the the tax cuts are set to expire right around Obama's reelection campaign. That will be fun for whoever gets the Rep. nod.
posted by 2bucksplus at 5:15 PM on July 28, 2011


five fresh fish wrote: It's against your representatives' personal best interests—and the interests of their friends and peers—to have to pay more taxes.

Oddly, that's not at all apparent from the data. Indexed for inflation, the rate of growth in household net worth hasn't actually increased since the high tax regime ended, aside from the bubble periods. Strange, that. Maybe the ever lower growth in net worth at the bottom is masking the effect.
posted by wierdo at 5:25 PM on July 28, 2011


TPM: "Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), who has been considered either undecided or a no vote for Speaker Boehner's debt plan, tells reporters he's now a yes vote."
posted by BobbyVan at 5:30 PM on July 28, 2011


Krinklyfig, question: wouldn't a rise in interest rates actually help savers? I mean, currently, cash holdings are losing money when one considers cost of living increases. I mean, jumbo cds are making 1%...a loss vs the 3% COL rise.

Yes, there are some benefits to higher interest rates. Interest rates are usually increased by central banks in order to curb fast growing economies, which is not the problem we have right now. A 1% increase in interest rates represents a very real reduction in GDP. People have to pay more to borrow if interest rates are higher, and our economy is run on lending at every level. Although high interest rates do encourage saving, that is not the best outcome in a slow economy in recovery from a financial system recession. More savings means less spending, and higher interest rates also mean less borrowing and less money to spend, since it's going to interest payments. Think of it as a huge chunk of cash taken out of our economy to service debt.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:42 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Interest rates were significantly higher during the dot.com boom, and that didn't slow down the economy a bit.

That's because the economy was booming. The fed raised rates specifically because of the rapid growth.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:47 PM on July 28, 2011


By the way, raising interest rates during the dot com boom did curb the growth of our economy somewhat. It's just that we were growing so fast that the effect was not noticeable as a slowdown. This is the precise effect desired when rates are raised during boom times. You really don't want to impede growth but if it goes parabolic then so does the inevitable decline. Raising rates only succeeds so far in preventing this type of problem, obviously.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:55 PM on July 28, 2011


Good god, the last thing we need right now is for people to save money. Spending is the way out of the recession, and that's why it's absolute idiocy for the republicans to be pushing for a balanced budget right now. End the foreign quagmires? Sure, and take the money we save from that and move it into infrastructure spending. Heck, even giving the money away in the form of food stamps would have a better net effect on the economy than tax breaks. Food stamps are far superior to tax cuts in terms of positive impact on GDP.
posted by mullingitover at 6:04 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


also if this doesn't get passed, you can expect the press coverage to get a lot worse for Boehner. It didn't want to point out the obvious, that this was extortion and that it didn't have to happen this way because the debt ceiling could be raised at any time. If Boehner can't get it done, then the press will know he's weak and assume the Dems are doing better and start pointing out the fact that this is irresponsible extortion.

There's way more chance of us being plunged into a second Great Depression than there is of the press doing their fucking job, sad to say.


I'm talking about the next four days. The press has been sitting on the sidelines. Once they think someone's winning, they will write stories on how obvious it was the whole time, precisely when it helps very little.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:05 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


BobbyVan: "Charles Krauthammer tries to talk sense to conservatives: 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."

If only the debt had been the result of a Keynesian gamble! If Krauthammer wants to talk sense, maybe he should start by saying, You guys have got to stop trying to lay the entire debt at Obama's feet. You're making us look like assholes!

Jesus wept.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:16 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, I don't know this. If Boehner knows he doesn't have enough votes, can he just table to bill forever?
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:17 PM on July 28, 2011


"table THE bill"
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:18 PM on July 28, 2011


he can, but it's an admission that he's just plain lost
posted by pyramid termite at 6:22 PM on July 28, 2011


According to Luke Russert who is on the scene for msnbc, Boehner has been having one on ones with members trying to sway their vote. He said that 3 of those members came out of Boehner's office after saying no to Boehner mentioned god and that one "headed directly for the chapel".

One said that he had come out battered and bloodied but was still a no.
posted by futz at 6:30 PM on July 28, 2011


Apparently there is some rumor that Boehner is going to include a BBA vote as requirement to next year's debt increase vote. Which still might not get enough Republicans to vote yes despite the bill being DOA in the Senate.

I think at this point Boehner is just scrambling to save his political skin.

I wonder if some of the money that typically goes to Republicans will go to Democrats in the next elections cycle as the big donors look to purge the loonies from the ranks.
posted by vuron at 6:40 PM on July 28, 2011


"Obama faces two massive problems — jobs and debt. They’re both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble"

The gamble being, that Republicans would allow him to pass legislation that would actually provide significant stimulus to the economy and the infrastructure, as opposed to only enough $$ to stop some of the hemorrhaging of teachers, police, etc.

Want to know where the deficit came from? Take the results of the Bush administration -- the tax cuts for the rich, 1the recession, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. -- and add in all the taxes that the government *aren't* collecting, due to the recession... plus continuation of the tax cuts for the rich, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. -- and that is where the money went.

Blaming it on stimulus? That's nonsense. The Republicans independently floated their own stimulus plans which were only marginally less than the Democrats passed... so where are the grounds for complaint, really? Not enough additional tax cuts for the rich?!
posted by markkraft at 6:45 PM on July 28, 2011


Apparently there is some rumor that Boehner is going to include a BBA vote as requirement to next year's debt increase vote. Which still might not get enough Republicans to vote yes despite the bill being DOA in the Senate.

The Hill reported that was in the legislation now.

The Pell grant refunding might go.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:54 PM on July 28, 2011


angrycat: "- Rep. Jeff Duncan, (R., S.C.) has been a no vote. He emerged from a discussion in Mr. Boehner’s office and said he’ll have to pray on it.

- South Carolina Republican Mick Mulvaney, also says he'll pray about the vote.
"

futz: "According to Luke Russert who is on the scene for msnbc, Boehner has been having one on ones with members trying to sway their vote. He said that 3 of those members came out of Boehner's office after saying no to Boehner mentioned god and that one "headed directly for the chapel"."

This sounds like a typical Republican get-out-of-jail-free card. Caught in a sex scandal? Turning down a promising POTUS run for a lucrative TV show? About to take a highly hypocritical vote? Just say God told you to do it and all is forgiven!

Then again, a lot of them seem like True Believers, so maybe they actually are basing their political futures on divine intervention...
posted by Rhaomi at 6:57 PM on July 28, 2011


What is making me want to vomit right now is that if the bill doesn't have the votes in the House, then it seems that Boehner is using precious time to -- accomplish what? Is this a matter of the man just being in denial? I had a small smidge of respect for Boehner, as much as I loathe his policy positions, when he was meeting with Obama -- what the fuck is he doing now? It seems like a kid trashing a room because he's told it's time to go home.
posted by angrycat at 7:00 PM on July 28, 2011


BobbyVan: "Charles Krauthammer tries to talk sense to conservatives: 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."

If only the debt had been the result of a Keynesian gamble! If Krauthammer wants to talk sense, maybe he should start by saying, "You guys have got to stop trying to lay the entire debt at Obama's feet. You're making us look like assholes!"

Jesus wept.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:16 PM on July 28 [+] [!]


Damn straight. The debt of the United States isn't affecting us one tiny bit. Not at all. In fact, it is cheaper to maintain this higher debt now that the lower debt was a few years ago, because a lot of the debt has been rolled over to lower rates. (Numbers might be a little off, but are approximately right): it was 6% of the budget in 2009, and it was 4% of the budget in 2010. (Again, or thereabouts.) A drop in the fucking bucket.

The debt will be a problem soon if spending isn't curtailed. In fact, cutting the out of control Bush spending was part of Obama's campaign platform. The recession put a damper on that a little bit, but still, discretionary spending is dead flat in the last [few?] years. It's all entitlement/mandatory spending.

Which brings us to Keynes. We can't know what would have happened if the Bush and Obama administrations hadn't engaged in Keynesian spending in 2008-2009. We don't know if it would have been worse or better. We can guess, and I presume, it would have been worse. If this recession wasn't the *textbook* case for a Keynesian solution, I don't know what was.

What caused the recession, however? Keynesian spending. All through the 2000's, the economy was fucked. Worse, some sectors were hot, others were awful. So, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low to try and spark the slow sectors. Unfortunately, when you have a sector of the economy that is booming (finance and real estate), the cheap money will flow like water finding its own level, right into that hot sector and create a bubble.

Lesson: when everything sucks, spend like it is going out of style. When only some things suck, you need to target/limit your spending so it has the needed effect.

So Krauthammer is right, but for the completely wrong reason.
posted by gjc at 7:04 PM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


markkraft: ""Obama faces two massive problems — jobs and debt. They’re both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble"

The gamble being, that Republicans would allow him to pass legislation that would actually provide significant stimulus to the economy and the infrastructure, as opposed to only enough $$ to stop some of the hemorrhaging of teachers, police, etc.
"

--------------

Yeah - this... WTF? Failed Keynesian Gamble? He didn't get to pump shit into the economy to make a difference and somehow it's his fault for the failure? Someone needs to let go of their copies of Hayek and Rand, me thinks...
posted by symbioid at 7:06 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


What is making me want to vomit right now is that if the bill doesn't have the votes in the House, then it seems that Boehner is using precious time to -- accomplish what? Is this a matter of the man just being in denial? I had a small smidge of respect for Boehner, as much as I loathe his policy positions, when he was meeting with Obama -- what the fuck is he doing now? It seems like a kid trashing a room because he's told it's time to go home.
posted by angrycat at 7:00 PM on July 28 [+] [!]


I kind of agree with you. Sometimes he just looks like he needs a hug and a free carton of cigarettes. He pretty much can't win.

But he isn't really trying, either. Something is fucked up when someone is purportedly looking for a compromise, they have to lean on their own people to back them up instead of pitching their case to the other side. That's not a compromise, that is trying to win by bluffing with a losing hand. Problem is, he already went all in and he has to keep bluffing until the game is lost.
posted by gjc at 7:08 PM on July 28, 2011


2bucksplus: "It's no mistake the the tax cuts are set to expire right around Obama's reelection campaign. That will be fun for whoever gets the Rep. nod."

You know what I'd propose as an amendment? "No sunset bills" If a bill is good enough to be a law, you fucking make it law. If it turns out to be not needed? Pass another law to overturn it. But of course, no-one would agree to that, because it gets in the way of games to pass the legislation in the first place. Has there ever been a sunset provision that has actually worked? It seems to me that's only put in to get the votes to pass, and then Washington is too chickenshit to overturn bills.
posted by symbioid at 7:10 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy: No vote tonight.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:27 PM on July 28, 2011


CNN reporting no vote tonight.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:28 PM on July 28, 2011


Hahaha another day of arm twisting ahead
posted by vuron at 7:29 PM on July 28, 2011


I thought the middle class tax cuts were made permanent last December (who can keep up :( ) so the only temporary tax breaks that are about to expire are for the people making over 250K a year. That was my understanding bu I've been wrong before

Just for the record and for anyone else who is unsure, this is incorrect.
posted by rollbiz at 7:31 PM on July 28, 2011


So anyway, what are people's thoughts on whether Boehner can get something together that will pass tomorrow?

Personally, I'm thinking no.
posted by rollbiz at 7:34 PM on July 28, 2011


This is about the time when something underhanded and somewhat unforeseen happens. Kind of how Walker was supposedly in a bind, unable to win, and somehow the Republicans did what they wanted to anyway, and continue to do so, even in the face of massive protests publicized worldwide.

Anybody have a guess as to what that evil, underhanded, sneak move is, that they'll be pulling under the cover of night, or already set in motion while everyone was looking the other way?
posted by cashman at 7:38 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


There are now three parties in Washington:

The Democratic Party, who want to cut spending and raise taxes

The Republican Party, who want to cut spending

The Tea Party, who want to destroy the government so Jesus can come back.
posted by Avenger at 7:38 PM on July 28, 2011 [12 favorites]


I can't imagine what Boehner can add to increase Republican buy-in. If adding the BBA back into the mix isn't enough I don't know what is.

I think it's actually fairly likely that there are 20+ Republicans that simply won't vote for a debt increase at all. That means Boehner really doesn't have something he can bargain with, he has to look to push a Bipartisan bill.
posted by vuron at 7:39 PM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


House Rules Committee will meet tonight.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:41 PM on July 28, 2011


House Rules Committee will meet tonight.
What does this possibly indicate, and why? Thanks.
posted by Flunkie at 7:43 PM on July 28, 2011


That's exactly my line of thinking, vuron.
posted by rollbiz at 7:44 PM on July 28, 2011


Presumably, to consider changes to the Boehner bill for a Friday floor vote. But someone more knowledgeable might be able to fill me in here.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:45 PM on July 28, 2011


Thinkprogress says (via retweet)" House Rules Committee to meet at 11pm to consider same day rule authority; would allow another attempt Friday.
posted by cashman at 7:47 PM on July 28, 2011


Since Reid has already said that the Boehner bill will be voted down in the Senate what difference does it make what Boehner does at this point?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:47 PM on July 28, 2011


Regarding the House Rules Committee:

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) told reporters shortly before 10 p.m. that the leadership would likely send the legislation back to the House Rules Committee, indicating that it will be changed before it comes for a floor vote.
posted by chrchr at 7:48 PM on July 28, 2011


What does "to consider same day rule authority" mean?

I'm not even sure if I'm parsing it properly. Is there something called the "same day rule"? If so, what is it, and what does it mean to consider its authority?
posted by Flunkie at 7:48 PM on July 28, 2011


It's kabuki, sure. But time is of the essence, and the sooner the Boehner bill comes to a vote in the House, the sooner the Senate can shoot it down, the sooner we can all move on to... God knows what.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:49 PM on July 28, 2011


Since Reid has already said that the Boehner bill will be voted down in the Senate what difference does it make what Boehner does at this point?

If Boehner can pass his bill, he will win more leverage in the final compromise legislation. If he can't, he's in a very weak bargaining position and the bill coming out of his House will have to include Democratic votes.
posted by chrchr at 7:51 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Since Reid has already said that the Boehner bill will be voted down in the Senate what difference does it make what Boehner does at this point?

Well, this is strange. If he's certain that Reid will vote down the bill, why can't Boehner give the tea bagger trolls everything and the kitchen sink, just to pass a bill, any bill, however insane, knowing full well that since it will be voted down in the senate, he doesn't have to deal with the consequences, and the ball is in the Democrat's court. He's absolved - "I passed a bill, the evil liberals voted it down, and we're all doooomed, it's the fault of the liberals and Obama!"

If so, I imagine Boehner going to the baggers and "anything you want, anything at all!". And that way he gets the votes.
posted by VikingSword at 7:51 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is no longer about passing a bill that the Senate would be forced to pass, which is the goal of some Republicans, but showing that Boehner can still deliver his caucus. If he can't (and it seems he can't) that means that the Republicans will lose a substantial amount of leverage when a real Bipartisan deal shows up from the backrooms.

Republicans in the House would be forced to sign something, anything in order to avoid being cast as the villains in the event of a default and I think they know it.
posted by vuron at 7:52 PM on July 28, 2011


I would pledge eternal allegiance to Bernie Sanders if he would come on the Senate Floor in a Kabuki outfit and facepaint for just one day.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:53 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?
posted by The Whelk at 8:00 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


Since Reid has already said that the Boehner bill will be voted down in the Senate what difference does it make what Boehner does at this point?

This has very little to do with passing a viable bill and is more about scrambling to preserve the unity of the Republican party. If Boehner can't deliver GOP votes for a GOP bill then the only option left is for Boehner et al. to agree to a Democratic-backed compromise, or face default.

The thing is, agreeing to a Senate-approved measure would be political suicide for anyone in the GOP. Sarah Palin went on the record earlier today saying that Republicans who compromise with Democrats will face Tea Party primary challengers.

My guess is that rather than face a primary threat in the next election, House GOPers will allow a default to happen. It's sick, twisted and immoral political calculus, but it does make sense from their point of view.

They will literally tear down this country to stay in office.
posted by Avenger at 8:00 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


If the House Republicans pass a bill which is killed in the Senate, and no workable bill gets passed in the Senate, then we're looking at the August 2 deadline passing with no Congressional action or, possibly, a last minute use of the 14th by the President. (I'm hoping against hope that Lawrence O'Donnell's theory of a last minute passing of a clean bill via voice vote will actually happen, but I have my doubts.)

The Republicans then have a chance to posture in the media that they were the only ones with A Plan and that Obama and Congressional Democrats own the consequences.

It just might work, too.
posted by maudlin at 8:04 PM on July 28, 2011


So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?
posted by The Whelk at 8:00 PM on July 28 [+] [!]


It won't be thunderdome until next month or possibly September when nursing homes and mental hospitals start kicking out their patients due to lack of Medicare funds. Or when the post office shuts down. Or when the Military goes a month without being paid. Or when a loaf of bread is $10...
posted by Avenger at 8:08 PM on July 28, 2011


The Hill is reporting that the vote has been postponed "indefinitely."

I feel like my question just accidentally one Econopocalypse Bingo.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:11 PM on July 28, 2011


So, I must prepare my body now...
posted by The Whelk at 8:11 PM on July 28, 2011


I'm not sure Avenger. I think there for a lot of Republicans there is a real threat of being primaried from the right but there are also a lot of monied interests out there that are going to begin to really ratchet the pressure on Republicans to agree to some sort of deal.

The WSJ and the US CoC are just the most obvious forces at work pushing for some sort of bill. Yeah they'd like for there to be some sort of cuts to entitlement but push comes to shove and the market is shedding money like crazy and the pressure to sign a deal will definitely happen.

That means Boehner will need to push a compromise bill that buys him at least some Democratic support to make up for the recalcitrant among his own caucus.

That being said I fully expect the August 2nd deadline to pass without a final bill as both sides jockey to assess maximize blame to the other side before a compromise bill is passed.
posted by vuron at 8:12 PM on July 28, 2011


I feel like my question just accidentally one Econopocalypse Bingo.

It's a long thread. It took Boehner's staff a while to read down that far.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:13 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


I feel like my question just accidentally one Econopocalypse Bingo.

Argh. "won." Boo brain.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:17 PM on July 28, 2011


I'm not sure Avenger. I think there for a lot of Republicans there is a real threat of being primaried from the right but there are also a lot of monied interests out there that are going to begin to really ratchet the pressure on Republicans to agree to some sort of deal.

I agree with this for the most part -- but it seems like the sense on Capitol Hill is that the Tea Partyists are utterly unconcerned with Wall Street. These aren't your grandma's Republicans: they are former real estate agents, used car salesmen and plumbers who were sent to Washington on a wave of populist anger. They don't have Wall Street on speed dial.

Boehner sure does, which is why it's interesting to see him twisting in the wind here. Boehner is walking a tightrope between Wall Street (who fund the GOP) and the Tea Party (who provide the physical votes). He's trying to have it both ways. It'll be interesting to see who wins out.

Stock up on canned food and bottled water, btw.
posted by Avenger at 8:19 PM on July 28, 2011


So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?

Earlier i this thread I gave an opinion that this was all kabuki and that the fix was already in (via a compromise) . I was pretty sure of that but here it is almost Friday with nothing in the House likely to pass and I have to say that maybe I was wrong. Maybe these idiots are really idiots and completely out of control and we're screwed unless Obama does a 14th - and I find all of that much scarier that what I was thinking originally. Much.

So to answer your question: I think I'd call it two Mel Gibsons and a Tina Turner at this point
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:22 PM on July 28, 2011


Also, part of me is kind of jealous that the Tea Party commands so much fear and respect in the GOP. I wish Obama feared liberals as much as the GOP fears the Tea Party.
posted by Avenger at 8:22 PM on July 28, 2011 [4 favorites]


I wish Obama feared liberals as much as the GOP fears the Tea Party.

We can be reasoned with. Reasoning with the tea party is like trying to cure the flu by talking sense to it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:26 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


Avenger: "Boehner is walking a tightrope between Wall Street (who fund the GOP) and the Tea Party (who provide the physical votes). He's trying to have it both ways. It'll be interesting to see who wins out."

In other words, who runs Bartertown Boehnertown?
posted by narwhal bacon at 8:30 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Digby's reading of the "tea party movement", highlighted by truri upthread, seems more and more salient and really explains everything.


These folks [Tea Partiers] 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.


You can't reason with principled revolutionaries. They have manifestos and goals, cling to their ideology, will take any tactics necessary, and as many in the GOP are now realizing in horror, will purge anyone who betrays the movement and dispose of any obstacles to it.
posted by Chipmazing at 8:32 PM on July 28, 2011


The GOTV efforts of the Tea Party in conjunction with the threat of being primaried by CFG on the right commands a healthy amount of respect. What's interesting is that fear is driving House Republicans to vote against their own electoral best interests.

In contrast our big ass crazy tent has only the most limited amount of consensus about anything. Sure progressives make up a sizable minority of the Democratic base but it seems like we lack the financial power or the GOTV power of more established blocks in the base.

The fear mobilized by the Tea Party in 2010 gave the Republicans an electoral victory but I'm not sure they aren't having a bit of buyer's remorse now. I can understand being jealous of the sway they have on national politics but damn I wouldn't wish that sort of problem on the Democrats in a million years.
posted by vuron at 8:32 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Bust a deal, face the wheel.
posted by Avenger at 8:33 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


At this point it appears that whatever course it takes, the Senate has to pass a bill on Sunday night that at least a couple dozen relatively safe, brave or conscientious Republicans in the house can vote for. I don't think Boehner would deny a vote entirely on a bill, and there is no filibuster in the house. I suspect almost all Dems would hold their nose and vote for most anything that pushes this debate past the next election and doesn't cut entitlements.

So, failure of legislation comes down to whether there is still a sane 10% left in the Republican house caucus.

I can't imagine Obama not taking executive action to continue paying all bills in the event of no legislation being passed, but at that point you've already busted the full faith part of the full faith and credit and likely cost taxpayers billions extra annually in higher borrowing costs.
posted by meinvt at 8:45 PM on July 28, 2011


So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?

Max He
posted by fuq at 8:46 PM on July 28, 2011


oops.

So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?

Max Headroom.
posted by fuq at 8:47 PM on July 28, 2011


So, failure of legislation comes down to whether there is still a sane 10% left in the Republican house caucus.

And, of course, whether the Democrats can manage to maintain party unit and not screw things up.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:53 PM on July 28, 2011


"So, failure of legislation comes down to whether there is still a sane 10% left in the Republican house caucus. "

"And, of course, whether the Democrats can manage to maintain party unit and not screw things up."

"It's hopeless! ABANDON SHIP!"
posted by Rhaomi at 9:03 PM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


And, of course, whether the Democrats can manage to maintain party unit and not screw things up.

Still, how interesting is it that it actually seems more likely that the Dems could vote as a bloc than the GOP?
posted by rollbiz at 9:07 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Rhaomi: "It's hopeless! ABANDON SHIP!"

If by abandon ship you mean move my 401k to a completely liquid position, consider it done.
posted by mullingitover at 9:08 PM on July 28, 2011


mullingitover wrote: If by abandon ship you mean move my 401k to a completely liquid position, consider it done.

That won't help when money market funds start breaking the buck left and right. My SO doesn't even get the option of plain dollar bills, just a couple of treasury funds and a money market fund. I guess her 401k loans will look to have been pretty good deals, in that light.
posted by wierdo at 9:26 PM on July 28, 2011


Five Reasons the House GOP Is to Blame, from James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic.
posted by jokeefe at 9:43 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


If I could have afforded investments/a 401k, I would have liquidated it by now. Since I can't, I bought some ammo off my boss.

I hope the next few years aren't going to be this weird.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 9:55 PM on July 28, 2011 [2 favorites]


Since I can't, I bought some ammo off my boss.

I'm celebrating Saturday with my new holiday "Gun Cleaning Day."
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:00 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you are bored waiting for some news, take a trip back in time and read this transcript.

I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”


They should have listened.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:02 PM on July 28, 2011 [6 favorites]


Avenger: "So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?
posted by The Whelk at 8:00 PM on July 28 [+] [!]


It won't be thunderdome until next month or possibly September when nursing homes and mental hospitals start kicking out their patients due to lack of Medicare funds. Or when the post office shuts down. Or when the Military goes a month without being paid. Or when a loaf of bread is $10...
"

I have to disagree with you, Avenger. It won't be Thunderdome until the last food delivery to your local grocery stores were three to five days in the past. Or after the lights have been out for a week or so. After that… Well, let's hope it never comes to that.

However, if the Legions go unpaid for any length of time, that will definitely crank the eschatometer up a notch or two.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:08 PM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


Or after the lights have been out for a week or so. After that… Well, let's hope it never comes to that.

If it ever comes to this, you'd better pray that me and my cohorts don't get too hungry. We're young and angry. Don't make us hungry.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 10:26 PM on July 28, 2011


"So, failure of legislation comes down to whether there is still a sane 10% left in the Republican house caucus. "

"And, of course, whether the Democrats can manage to maintain party unit and not screw things up."


Every single Dem indicated they were going to vote against this. All 195 in the House and all 53 in the Senate. Can we please stop with the self-flagellation? They kicked ass today. They stood up to extortion to the man and woman. They said no, unanimously <
posted by Ironmouth at 10:54 PM on July 28, 2011 [7 favorites]


It's easy for democratic senators to say no to a plan that hasn't been placed before them yet. My concern is what they will eventually say yes to. I've got 20 bucks riding that they will OK SS COLA cuts and continued tax increases for the top 2% :) Frankly I hope that I lose.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:11 PM on July 28, 2011


Can we please stop with the self-flagellation? They kicked ass today. They stood up to extortion to the man and woman.

Oh, don't get me wrong, they were great today. I've just internalized the stealth slogan from the Obama campaign: Hope for change, Prepare for Disappointment.

(and I say this as somebody who is a supporter and will vote for him again happily)
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:09 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]




The debt ceiling alignment chart I made a few weeks ago is looking better and better. What a mess.
posted by gerryblog at 1:48 AM on July 29, 2011


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.
posted by fullerine at 1:49 AM on July 29, 2011


So this entire process of economic decision making, which directly effects 300 000 000 people and indirectly effects the entire world, is now being held up by John Boehner? One guy is stalling the whole thing? Just give it up, Mr. Speaker. Hold your damn vote, or withdraw the bill, and then get out of the way so the adults can fix this mess the best they can.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:05 AM on July 29, 2011


"So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?"

Bust a deal, face the wheel!
posted by markkraft at 3:12 AM on July 29, 2011


And, of course, whether the Democrats can manage to maintain party unit and not screw things up.

The Democratic Party is very disciplined and experienced in contrast to the Republican Party right now and is navigating the manufactured crisis much better than I expected. For all their bluster and conviction, the Tea Party is full of rank amateurs and is terrible at negotiating or governing nationally. Indeed they appear to have no interest in governing but think of themselves as crusaders and revolutionaries, and they are delusional when they believe the whole country is behind them. They may retain some credibility with their core constituents but are not capable as leaders on this level, and their thrashing around is costing their party considerably. If they continue like this they may well do some real damage. They will also be voted out of office next time around. Independent voters don't like ideological purity, not at all when it's pushed this far. You can't build a strong political movement by threatening the destruction of the economy as a negotiating tactic, especially since they have no end game and can't back down from their precipice. Their fall will be as fast and furious as their ascendance.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:13 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Of course, all these difficult facts about the Republicans screwing the pooch are biased, so let's get some Conservative commentary in here for a sec.

Here's RedState.com, for instance:

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.


Or hey, maybe Michelle Malkin has something to say...

"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?"

Except, of course, that Red State says that it has no chance whatsoever of passing.

Basically, the Republicans are stuck between a crappy bill they hate which doesn't have the votes and would get vetoed and either voted down or changed beyond recognition in the Senate anyway, which could only pass for "cult of personality" reasons, and only with the most extreme arm-twisting imaginable...

...and something else that they'd like, which also would never pass.

Meanwhile, I've seen my retirement investments drop about $10K in the last week or two... and I'm sure that all the Conservatives out there who don't have it in themselves to short their own country are losing $$ too.

What are these jackholes doing? They are simply not serious... largely because they're a bunch of cowards who are more concerned about doing what's safe rather than what's right. Maybe they should consider legislation that has a chance of passing? Y'know... something that's a mix of budget cuts, combined with closed tax loopholes, perhaps? Something that the POTUS wouldn't veto, perhaps?!

Really. What a bunch of hopeless buffoons. They asked Reid to create something that gave them $X worth of cuts, and he did... and they ran away scared... afraid of passing anything even remotely blessed by the Democrats, delaying the whole process and risking default, while America watches their savings implode.

How could any fiscal conservative support these amateur ideologues, who are more interested in useless ideological masturbation over the country paying its debts and market stabilty?! It's a shame that the GOP's leaders couldn't take themselves down with this issue, without taking the entire country down in the process, innit?!
posted by markkraft at 3:43 AM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


Or when the Military goes a month without being paid.

Now what does history teach us about what happens after that. Who do you think will be picked as Caeser? Do we get Starship Troopers or Revolt in 2100?
posted by rodgerd at 3:55 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


(Still, there's a certain amusement in the idea that Apple now have more cash on hand than the US government. Perhaps Apple could offer them a lifeline if Obama uses an executive order to make it illegal for anyone else to sell smartphones.)
posted by rodgerd at 4:00 AM on July 29, 2011


rodgerd: "Or when the Military goes a month without being paid.

Now what does history teach us about what happens after that. Who do you think will be picked as Caeser? Do we get Starship Troopers or Revolt in 2100?
"


I've said it before, but we'll be lucky if we get a man like Caesar. Christ, it could be somebody like Alan West.

cf. 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.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:08 AM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


rodgerd: "(Still, there's a certain amusement in the idea that Apple now have more cash on hand than the US government. Perhaps Apple could offer them a lifeline if Obama uses an executive order to make it illegal for anyone else to sell smartphones.)"

Americathon (1979)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!
posted by ob1quixote at 4:10 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


So on a scale of one to thunderdome how many knots should be in my intesitines right now?

It won't be thunderdome until next month or possibly September

It won't be Thunderdome until the last food delivery

*sigh* Can't we just get beyond thunderdome?
posted by heatvision at 7:02 AM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]


Reid to take action at the end of the day on the Senate bill, as per the WSJ.
posted by angrycat at 7:05 AM on July 29, 2011


So are the Republicans stuck with Boehner as Speaker until the next Congress, or do the House rules allow them to smite him and put someone else in his place? I'm hoping for the former, the idea of the Republicans being stuck with a proven ineffective Speaker for a while would really help my Schadenfreude.

@VikingSword "If so, I imagine Boehner going to the baggers and "anything you want, anything at all!". And that way he gets the votes."

I don't think he can do that because the Teabaggers don't want to raise the debt ceiling. That's their sticking point, their ideological commitment, and there isn't much of anything Boehner can add to that to make them take it.

The whole thing has always been about raising the debt ceiling, and the Teabaggers just plain will not do that. So Boehner is stuck, he can't give them what they want because what they want is no deal at all.

I think the reason he looks so shaken on the teevee is because he is a man who has, just a few months ago, achieved the ultimate height of power that he can realistically aspire to, and now is realizing that it's ashes in his mouth and all that ultimately reaching that height is just going to mean he's going to make a big crater when he falls.

No matter what else happens Boehner is finished as Speaker of the House, and he's probably finished as far as representing Ohio's 8th District goes too. He is a man looking at not merely his own political demise, but at being known to history (if he is remembered at all) as an object of ridicule, humiliation, and derision. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he tried suicide not too long from now. He is a broken husk of a man with nothing in his immediate future but ever greater misery.

Bachmann, the Koch brothers, and the other Tea Party leaders have done what we on the left could never have accomplished: they have utterly destroyed a Republican Speaker of the House.

I'd be a lot more delighted with that if it weren't for the fact that they may also bring down the US economy. I'm not at all confident that Obama will take the 14th Amendment option, I've got my beef with the man but it does appear that once he decides on something he tends to stick to it come hell or high water. He wanted his escalation in Afghanistan and he was willing to twist Democrat arms to get it. He wanted his war in Libya and he was willing to shred the Constitution to get it. He has said that it would be illegal for him to take the 14th, and I'm fairly confident that he will let the economy crash rather than do that.

I really wish Obama pick different things to decide on and stick to, but I can't deny he tends to stick to his decisions once they're made. So we could be looking at some serious times of trouble before the Republican party fractures on Tea Party lines and joins with the Dems to pass something.

@rodgerd I'm betting Revolt in 2100, and a long, long, time of theocracy before the revolt comes. Maybe not even in 2100 but 2200 instead. America has always been on the verge of theocracy, and now that the Teabaggers are organizing we may well get there.
posted by sotonohito at 7:09 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


No matter what else happens Boehner is finished as Speaker of the House, and he's probably finished as far as representing Ohio's 8th District goes too. He is a man looking at not merely his own political demise, but at being known to history (if he is remembered at all) as an object of ridicule, humiliation, and derision. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he tried suicide not too long from now. He is a broken husk of a man with nothing in his immediate future but ever greater misery.

Include something about wild dogs running in the street and bleached bones of the unrighteous and that would be positively Hunter S. Thompson-esque.
posted by charred husk at 7:16 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Red State (Via Markcraft): 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.


Sad, sad deluded fools. They need to attribute these noble ideas to what is, and has always been, a hijacked phony political movement founded on the idea of a high profile, humiliation and political lynching of the president.

My disgust and rage with these lowly hypocritical self-righteous scum-bags knows no bounds.

The only consolation in this there is, is that the GOTP is now in a power-dive of dysfunction and destroying itself magnificently.
posted by Skygazer at 7:36 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Obama sounding very reasonable right now. Nice that he's dialed down the partisan rhetoric. Now is not the time to be scoring points; it's time to be serious. No class warfare, no finger pointing. Promises to reform taxes and entitlements, and accept "enforcement mechanisms" to ensure those reforms occur. For the first time, I think he's scared that default could actually happen. Well done.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:42 AM on July 29, 2011


BobbyVan: "Obama sounding very reasonable right now. Nice that he's dialed down the partisan rhetoric. Now is not the time to be scoring points; it's time to be serious. No class warfare, no finger pointing. Promises to reform taxes and entitlements, and accept "enforcement mechanisms" to ensure those reforms occur. For the first time, I think he's scared that default could actually happen. Well done."

Yes, it's time to be serious. That's why now is exactly the time to be pointing fingers. No one should ever forget that republicans put default on the table. That one should go in the history books. The republicans are willing to burn the country to the ground to score political points, and they should wear that like a tattoo on their foreheads forever.
posted by mullingitover at 7:52 AM on July 29, 2011 [10 favorites]


now is exactly the time to be pointing fingers. No one should ever forget that republicans put default on the table. That one should go in the history books.

Sadly, this is the responsibility of the media, so I'm not exactly crossing my fingers. Thompson would have been the perfect person to cover this debacle. Alas.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:57 AM on July 29, 2011


The only thing Obama should be doing with these people is flipping them the bird.


And maybe nuking Oklahoma or something...

Obama: You see that?? You see that Tea Bitches? Oh snap! Oklahoma is NOT OK anymore!!! HA HA HA!! NOW IT'S JUST OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH SNAP!!!! ANYONE ELSE FEEL LIKE SOME TEA TURKEY BBQ?? Huh...how about you Jim Demint?? Or you Eric Cantor you little pathetic shite?? You guys feel like a little POTUS style BBQ?

posted by Skygazer at 8:00 AM on July 29, 2011 [7 favorites]


Plenty of time for finger pointing after the debt ceiling gets raised. I give Obama credit for biting his tongue today and saying what needed to be said.

And if real entitlement and tax reform emerges from this crisis, it will have been worth it. Better to confront these issues now than be forced by the bond market (or the Chinese) to do so at a later date. Remember that it's not the current debt that's the problem. It's projected entitlement growth that has ratings agencies worried.

Here's hoping that this gives new impetus to the Gang of Six to convince their colleagues to jump on board with a comprehensive solution, hopefully along the same lines as the President's Simpson-Bowles debt commission.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:03 AM on July 29, 2011


Representative Flake has switched from "no" to "yes".

Boehner may still pull this off, via increasing both the idiocy and the pressure. His newly revised plan apparently says that there will be a short-term debt limit increase immediately, followed by another if a balanced budget amendment clears both houses.
posted by Flunkie at 8:06 AM on July 29, 2011


His newly revised plan apparently says that there will be a short-term debt limit increase immediately, followed by another if a balanced budget amendment clears both houses.

Yeah that's great and all but that's not getting through the Senate.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:07 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


let's not forget that this is a very, very wealthy man. He could resign tomorrow and take up gardening for the rest of his natural life and be perfectly content.

While he could retire and take up gardening, the very fact that he is a leading politician strongly suggests he'd be anything but content with doing so.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:08 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Yeah that's great and all but that's not getting through the Senate.

But it might be enough to convince Tea Partiers that they've made their point, and give them cover when they support (or abstain) from the compromise bill.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:09 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Seriously, this is either headed for default or a 195-21 solution where the Dems carry the ball over the goal line.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:10 AM on July 29, 2011


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.

For him at this point, it's just about saving face. For the intransigent members of his caucus, it remains about proving their worth to Capitalist Jesus.
posted by Flunkie at 8:11 AM on July 29, 2011


BobbyVan: "And if real entitlement and tax reform emerges from this crisis, it will have been worth it."

Causing investors to question the full faith and credit of the United States, and all the damage that that entails, will have been worth it? That's the kind of thinking that's gotten us to this point. Entitlement reform didn't belong in this discussion at all. This is about paying for what was already budgeted, and it's disgustingly irresponsible to put strings on that.
posted by mullingitover at 8:13 AM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]


gah, do the 14th amendment already.
posted by angrycat at 8:18 AM on July 29, 2011


I also really looking forward to reading Woodward's latest WH book about this -- because hopefully Skygazer's rendition of Obama:

Obama: You see that?? You see that Tea Bitches? Oh snap! Oklahoma is NOT OK anymore!!! HA HA HA!! NOW IT'S JUST OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH SNAP!!!! ANYONE ELSE FEEL LIKE SOME TEA TURKEY BBQ?? Huh...how about you Jim Demint?? Or you Eric Cantor you little pathetic shite?? You guys feel like a little POTUS style BBQ?

Will be in there, o' course w/o an actual mushroom cloud over OK. Then I can smile before I snuggle up to my shotgun in my bed, kept because the riots that have destroyed the City of Brotherly Love are in an ongoing, not brotherly state.
posted by angrycat at 8:27 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is about paying for what was already budgeted, and it's disgustingly irresponsible to put strings on that.

Exactly! All of this could have been avoided if Congress had done what Congress always does with debt ceiling, which is to pass a clean bill, and then fight the budget out during budget talks. Using the debt ceiling to hold the world hostage to prove an ideological point makes these people damn near traitors.
posted by dejah420 at 8:27 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Causing investors to question the full faith and credit of the United States, and all the damage that that entails, will have been worth it? That's the kind of thinking that's gotten us to this point. Entitlement reform didn't belong in this discussion at all. This is about paying for what was already budgeted, and it's disgustingly irresponsible to put strings on that.

We're on an unsustainable path to begin with, and contrary to popular belief, it's not because of tax cuts for the rich or two wars. It's projected entitlement growth. S&P has said that the US could be downgraded to "junk" status if entitlements continue on the current path (see page 5 of the linked .pdf). It's too bad that the final compromise likely won't touch entitlements, but look at what the co-chairs of the President's debt commission wrote last month.
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.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:30 AM on July 29, 2011


BobbyVan, I think you must mean:

it's not just because of tax cuts for the rich or two wars

There are structural problems with the social/entitlement programs, it's true. But I can't see any reasonable argument that the lost revenue and the wars didn't have a real impact.

I also think it's possible that if we could do actual policy in this country anymore without right wingers shouting "socialism!" loudly, then we might even be able to fix it, but maybe that's naive.
posted by weston at 8:35 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


BobbyVan: "S&P has said that the US could be downgraded to "junk" status if entitlements continue on the current path"

So the solution is to make it happen quicker by defaulting? This is like a crazy wife behind the wheel of the car threatening to drive the whole family off a cliff if the husband doesn't fix the retirement planning RIGHT NOW.

Stop trying to find sane excuses for this, there are none. The entitlement reform discussion belongs in budget talks, the answer doen't lie in putting a gun to the head of the economy.
posted by mullingitover at 8:36 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


We're on an unsustainable path to begin with, and contrary to popular belief, it's not because of tax cuts for the rich or two wars. It's projected entitlement growth.

Really, so, reducing revenue and increasing outlays play no role? Popular belief? Try the facts.

Here's the deal, you can fix those things by raising taxes. Simple as that.

Raise taxes, solve the problem.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:36 AM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


"We're on an unsustainable path to begin with, and contrary to popular belief, it's not because of tax cuts for the rich or two wars. It's projected entitlement growth. S&P has said that the US could be downgraded to "junk" status if entitlements continue on the current path (see page 5 of the linked .pdf). It's too bad that the final compromise likely won't touch entitlements, but look at what the co-chairs of the President's debt commission wrote last month."

Cut the Defense department and tax the rich at the level they were taxed under Reagan. There. I just fixed the entitlement issue you're wrong about.
posted by ged at 8:37 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Stock markets are getting angry today. Volatility index (VIX) hit 25.94, currently sitting at 24.28. The VIX hadn't been that high (over 25) since August 2010.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 8:38 AM on July 29, 2011


Cut the Defense department and tax the rich at the level they were taxed under Reagan. There. I just fixed the entitlement issue you're wrong about.

Actually, you didn't.

If you taxed incomes over $1 million at 45% and incomes over $1 billion at 49%, you'd only raise an additional $900 billion over the next 10 years. Cutting Defense spending by 25% over the next 10 years would save you between $2-3 trillion. So maybe you've got $3-4 trillion in new revenues over 10 years. And that's not even accounting for the negative GDP growth that would likely result from such steep tax hikes and spending reductions on the military.

But here are the big numbers. According to the CBO, over $30 trillion will be spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years.

Payroll tax receipts over the same period, again according to the CBO, account for only about $17 trillion. The rest is covered by borrowed money.

This cycle can't continue.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:58 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Medicare is the one that's needed reform all along, it has grown too fast. Social Security is more easily dealt with, is safer for much longer. But the S&P's own doc there suggests that the dreaded "Obamacare" looks to reduce health care costs over the long term. What's needed is continuing reform along those lines, more regulation, even a gradual switch to a single-payer system that includes heavy cost controls and preventative care reforms, etc. We have until frickin' 2030 for an over-the-top, "hypothetical" downgrade to junk status. There's no need to put something together in three days, in panic mode.
posted by raysmj at 8:59 AM on July 29, 2011


Angrycat: Skygazer's rendition of Obama:
Obama: You see that?? You see that Tea Bitches? Oh snap! Oklahoma is NOT OK anymore!!! HA HA HA!! ETC....

Yeah, I frequently like to imagine someone as collected and calm as Obama unleashing their inner Chris Rock in moments of privacy and solitude.

Of course, the Tea Taliban seriously thinks that's his inner dialog anyway, whatever fuck'em. Fuck those humorless morons. They've confirmed all my worst suspicions with this grandiose drama queen brownshirt behavior. I also honestly believe the first line of defense against hypocrites, idiots and proto-fascism is a sense of humor. I said this upthread, but if I was the DNC I'd lamppon these people to no end.

Hire folks like Will Farrell, Chris Rock, maybe Steve Martin, Colbert and Stewart, or even some talented unknown comedic actors, and have them recreate this amnesiac revisionist preposterous phony melodrama in their own styles and words and just have some fun with the incredible level of stupidity embodied in this assclown orgy confabulation known as the Tea Party.
posted by Skygazer at 9:00 AM on July 29, 2011


BobbyVan: "This cycle can't continue."

You make a fantastic case for nationalizing the health care system. Our health care spending in relation to GDP is appalling (and getting worse), and that doesn't change the fact that it's utterly irresponsible to manufacture a sudden crisis out of a long-term problem.
posted by mullingitover at 9:11 AM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


Yeah Social Security really isn't in bad shape at all. Yes the baby boomers are going to stop paying in and start taking out but that should result in wage growth for the Gen X crowd (thank god) and more and more of the echo boomers should be moving into wage earning category pretty soon.

If you want to make absolutely certain that SS is fine then just drop the cap on FICA and we'll be fine.

In contrast Medicare and Medicaid are extremely big problems, but guess what they actually do better than the free market alternatives in containing costs. The real problem isn't entitlements but rather that year-to-year costs for health care are skyrocketing at excessive rates. The free market hasn't been able to contain those costs and by some indicators actually heightens the problem. The only real solution is to try to contain costs by moving towards a cost containment system like a Single-Payer system. The free market alternative just means more and more Americans will be priced out of the health care market. That has enormous social and economic costs (lost productivity, etc).

The problem is that we've shifted so far to the right in this nation and so many people are terrified about their own personal security and whether someone else is getting their share of the pie that we can't actually consider making the necessary decisions to shore up our safety net.
posted by vuron at 9:16 AM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]




Heh, Tealiban.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:25 AM on July 29, 2011


And that's not even accounting for the negative GDP growth that would likely result from such steep tax hikes and spending reductions on the military.


For spending before you were against it? How is that spending on guns is fine, but spending on butter is not? The truth is that a dollar spent on butter cycles much farther through the economy than a dollar spent on butter.

Seriously, you can't say we have a debt crisis but don't you stop spending!
posted by Ironmouth at 9:25 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


"The co-chairs of his debt commission" aka: the catfood commission. You mean Alan Simpson, the jackass who doesn't even know what the fuck Life Expectancy actually is.

Yeah, I trust those guys. And I trust S&P because we all know their ratings are so so accurate and they have such wisdom and they've never ever ever given positive ratings to shit things to fuel a certain little bubble that's popped recently and now we're fucked. Because those shitheads aren't trustworthy either.

And if Obama were sucha commie, maybe he wouldn't have stacked his commission with well known anti-social programs blowhards and put on some people who were on the left side of the aisle. Pffft..
posted by symbioid at 9:28 AM on July 29, 2011




Ironmouth: The truth is that a dollar spent on butter cycles much farther through the economy than a dollar spent on butter.

I guess it depends on what side you butter your bread?
posted by Skygazer at 9:35 AM on July 29, 2011


"and than market stabilty"
posted by markkraft at 9:39 AM on July 29, 2011




.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:54 AM on July 29, 2011


Raise taxes, solve the problem.

I got this fact at age 12 or 13. The fact that the country apparently has not and never will makes me sad.

it's utterly irresponsible to manufacture a sudden crisis out of a long-term problem

That's what makes any cries for kingsmoot completely ridiculous. These guys can't agree on a standard legislative measure that has taken place many times under every administration for 80 years.

A constitutional convention? They'd take a year to agree on a seating chart.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:58 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sounds like they are going with a bill with a balanced budget amendment to appease the Teabaggers.

WSJ:Boehner Bill To Be Brought To Vote, Cantor Says Votes Are There
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:05 AM on July 29, 2011


@BobbyVan You're paid to spew those lies right? You aren't really, honestly, saying that Social Security, which contributes not one bit to the deficit, is a horrible problem that needs to be solved no matter what and even if it kills the economy?

We don't need "entitlement reform", we need higher taxes on the obscenely rich, and we need to stop spending more on your military than virtually the entire rest of the planet combined, and we need to stop fighting endless and pointless wars.

Healthcare costs are an issue, yes, but that's not a matter of "entitlement reform", which is nothing more or less than a fancy way of saying "let the poor die in the streets", but a matter of obscene greed and inefficiency in the medical field. The USA spends more of its GDP on health care than any other nation on the planet, and we get worse healthcare for it.

We don't need "entitlement reform" when it comes to healthcare, we need healthcare reform, beginning with burning the health insurance industry to the ground and dancing on the ashes.
posted by sotonohito at 10:06 AM on July 29, 2011 [19 favorites]


I think that article homunculus links sums it up pretty well. These are true believers, not just cynical manipulators like Limbaugh.


I have a friend who believes this is all theater and that everything will work out and such. But I said he doesn't understand that the Tea Party aren't just some faction who groks political theater, they actually believe this shit and are zealots who will not compromise. I think that's why the stock market is not concerned too much.

That said I heard our financial guy this morning getting upset about it. The funny thing is my boss and his brother are both stalwart republicans, and I wonder if they have concerns or regrets. I doubt it. Oh bloody hell.
posted by symbioid at 10:08 AM on July 29, 2011



wsj

Senate Democratic leaders say they plan to hold the first procedural vote on their plan to end the federal debt stalemate on Sunday at 1 a.m.

Ostensibly, scheduling this vote in the wee hours of the morning is necessary to ensure that a final vote to pass the plan put forward by Majority Leader Harry Reid can take place on Tuesday, the deadline by which Treasury has said Congress must act to lift the nation’s borrowing cap or risk an unprecedented default.

posted by angrycat at 10:09 AM on July 29, 2011


would passing a super crazy bill (as opposed to the pre-revised 'merely crazy' bill) be better for the GOP than losing a vote on a moderately crazy bill?

I mean, sooner or later GOPers like McCain will realize a la David Brooks that being co-opted by the Tea Party means doom for the party, right?
posted by angrycat at 10:13 AM on July 29, 2011


Colbert expands on McCain's 'Hobbit metaphor'

McCain was just quoting the WSJ by reading the editorial aloud, who actually came up with it. At the end of his speech you can see him put the newspaper down on the table next to him.

Raise taxes, solve the problem.

I got this fact at age 12 or 13. The fact that the country apparently has not and never will makes me sad.


But that's simply not the whole answer. The demographics have changed substantially in recent years and will take some time to even out again. The ration of workers:retirees is going down, which means that there are fewer people paying SS and income tax for each person who is collecting SS or claiming medicare.

I totally agree that the debt ceiling vote is not the appropriate forum for this debate, and that raising marginal tax rates and creating a single-payer healthcare option is part of the solution, but it is a large structural economic problem. Some people are in complete denial about this. Every time they insist that the problem doesn't exist, they're making the Tea Party's argument for them. The simplest proof of this is that they're having a similar problem in places like Japan and Europe, notwithstanding their superior social policies. Why? Because they too had a baby boom and are now having a pensions crisis due to population ageing. The debt ceiling crisis is a symptom, the problem being Americans' collective failure to acknowledge this. People on the left want to pretend that it's not happening at all or can be waved away with higher tax rates on a few, people on the right want to pretend it's not happening at all or can be waved away with cuts in discretionary spending.
posted by anigbrowl at 10:19 AM on July 29, 2011


This from Peggy "Baghdad Bob" Noonan in the WSJ:
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.


Senility, desperation, utterly delusional red meat for tea Taliban-ers with mental handicaps??

It would be laughable if it didn't make me fear for Ms. Noonan's state of mind. We all know who the real losers are here Ms. Noonan. I would begin with your boss and his slimey phone hacking scandal currently destroying News Corp. and soon to be front page news here as he comes under criminal charges in the U.K., and John Boehner that weepy ineffectual dandy getting spanked by freshman tea-shirts in the House and the Right-wing media spouting off bonkers desperation like this.

Here, I'll go ahead and prove your editorial wrong Peg: And I think this nation is very very lucky to have him as president at this time. I am absolutely not alone in that.

He's outplayed, outmaneuvered and out-classed the GOTP every step of the way, and in the process has rendered them ridiculous and battling their own ignorance, and intransigence and transparent need to destroy the country to prove their own mind-boggling stupidity.


Oh, and Peg, look, behind you, see that? That's Democrats storming the Tea Taliban Palace.
posted by Skygazer at 10:22 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


So is Ms. Noonan disowning the views of her old boss, Reagan, then?
posted by angrycat at 10:28 AM on July 29, 2011


I think she's more concerned with the views of her new boss.

Who's influence, I have to say, certainly wasted no time in deteriorating the WSJ and rendering it's op-ed pages as ludicrous and laughable as The NY Post, but much more nefarious, because the WSJ still, has some cache.
posted by Skygazer at 10:44 AM on July 29, 2011


Levity: Debt Ceiling Cat
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:57 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


There are three women in my office, one is the head of my local Tea Party group, the other two are her cronies and right hand women in the local Tea Party group. I work just down the hall from them, and as a consequence often hear them discussing politics.

I can't speak for the Teabaggers in general, but for those three there is absolutely no doubt that the whole thing is purely a matter of ideology. They are simply, no doubts in their minds at all, 100% opposed to raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances whatsoever. Further the leader is a woman convinced that Obama is a Kenyan born usurper and that if there is economic catastrophe it will be good for America in that the economic catastrophe will be the necessary spur to encourage the good Real Americans to rise up against the Kenyan usurper and Take Their Country Back. Mostly she means that in the sense of voting in 2012, but she occasionally says that she wishes that her sons in the army would take a more direct approach and solve the problem with the Second Amendment.

They are, to a woman, absolutely dedicated to the idea that voting to increase the debt ceiling, under any circumstances at all, is treason to both America and the ideals of the Tea Party.

That is what the Republicans have to deal with, and that is why despite the fact that there aren't too dreadfully many Teabaggers in the House they exert an influence beyond their numbers and they are not normal politicians. They really don't care if they're only in office for one term, as long as they can do what's right. And, moreover, they know that if they don't keep their various promises to their fellow Teabaggers they'll be out on their asses next election.

So no, I don't see any of the Teabaggers going for any deal that raises the debt ceiling, not even if it has a balanced budget amendment attached.
posted by sotonohito at 11:04 AM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Thinkprogress: "Vote on Boehner fantasy plan in House expected around 6 or 630PM"
posted by cashman at 11:39 AM on July 29, 2011


so, boehner - where is your GOP now?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:43 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


In case you missed it from the "Worst Congress Ever" thread: Paul Krugman: the Centrist Cop-Out.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:43 AM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


[Canadian]What is the a scenario in all this where Obama actually... wins somehow, and the GOP loses completely? Would it be the Senate killing the Boehner plan? Would it be the plan failing to pass in Congress? Would it be Obama using the veto? Apologies for ignorance; I've been following the arguments but the technicalities are a bit outside of my understanding. Thank you in advance. [/Canadian]
posted by jokeefe at 11:56 AM on July 29, 2011




The big thing Obama put on the table was getting some revenue increases in the eventual deal, and that seems to be entirely off the table at this point. When we are cutting spending in the middle of a recession, it is never going to be a total loss for Republicans policywise.

The best case I see for Obama right now is an eventual deal that does not touch entitlements and sparks an even greater civil war among the Republicans.

However, it is almost certain the eventual compromise is going to severely piss off both the strident left and strident right.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:00 PM on July 29, 2011


[Canadian]What is the a scenario in all this where Obama actually... wins somehow, and the GOP loses completely? Would it be the Senate killing the Boehner plan? Would it be the plan failing to pass in Congress? Would it be Obama using the veto? Apologies for ignorance; I've been following the arguments but the technicalities are a bit outside of my understanding. Thank you in advance. [/Canadian]

Such things only exist on television, they do not exist in a real representative democracy.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:15 PM on July 29, 2011


Sen. Mike Johannes (R-Nebraska) now talking about illusory debt savings by not invading Canada - this year... (referencing perhaps this Forbes 'article').
posted by HLD at 12:16 PM on July 29, 2011


But that's simply not the whole answer. The demographics have changed substantially in recent years and will take some time to even out again. The ration of workers:retirees is going down, which means that there are fewer people paying SS and income tax for each person who is collecting SS or claiming medicare.

This isn't a new phenomenon for Social Security. We already faced it once. And good old Reagan and Tip O'Neil took care of it. They raised Social Security contributions. And it worked.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:18 PM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


The risk-free rate, incidentally, is based on the return on US Treasury bills, which are assumed to be as close to riskless investments as can be found. I have no idea what would replace them if the default actually happens. I haven't seen anyone even speculate about what could.
posted by winna at 10:19 PM on July 24


I'd love to see some informed speculation about this, and if there's been any in this thread I missed it. I moved all of my (very modest) retirement funds into the closest thing to a cash position that Vanguard allows - money market funds. 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). So... what's the likelihood that investing in T-bills and commercial paper is even dumber than continuing to invest in the stock market?
posted by joannemerriam at 12:21 PM on July 29, 2011


Such things only exist on television, they do not exist in a real representative democracy

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?
posted by jokeefe at 12:22 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


A true win in my book is that no deal gets made until August 2nd. August 2nd stock market tanks 1000-1500. Dems and GOP (non-Teabagger) do a clean debt limit increase. Senate passes quickly, Obama signs. GOP would be at war with itself and potentially split. Dems get everything. Elections would have Teabaggers vs. GOP, splitting their votes all over the place and a ridiculous landslide victory for the Dems. Oh wait, I'm off daydreaming again.

I don't expect this ends without the stock market getting hit hard or without a downgrade of US debt for awhile. I suspect there's still a significant chance of a clean debt limit increase despite all the bullshit that is going on.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:23 PM on July 29, 2011


This isn't a new phenomenon for Social Security. We already faced it once. And good old Reagan and Tip O'Neil took care of it. They raised Social Security contributions. And it worked.

Unfortunately, now the policy is to lower those taxes for short term stimulus.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:24 PM on July 29, 2011


Such things only exist on television, they do not exist in a real representative democracy

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?


Not to have large cuts in Medicare. This has always been a battle about protecting the people who voted for the Ryan budget from ads that say "She voted to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system."
posted by Ironmouth at 12:30 PM on July 29, 2011


What is a possible-- within the scenarios currently in play-- outcome that a liberal/lefty type like myself would consider acceptable?

The 14th Amendment option permanently eliminates the debt ceiling while giving the GOP no concessions at all. It's the maximal outcome for progressives, and Obama could have it this afternoon if he wanted.
posted by gerryblog at 12:36 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is the hour to watch the stock market. VIX is going upwards again and Dow is starting to slip. Some analysts were stating a 200+ point drop in the Dow or 1.5% drop in the S&P 500 today would be the indicator that Wall Street is finally worried that Washington won't get anything done. Currently down 68 on the Dow, 0.41% on the S&P.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:41 PM on July 29, 2011


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.
posted by Flunkie at 12:42 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


The 14th Amendment option permanently eliminates the debt ceiling while giving the GOP no concessions at all. It's the maximal outcome for progressives, and Obama could have it this afternoon if he wanted

Though Obama considers it illegal, yes? Sorry for all the Debtpocalypse 101 questions...
posted by jokeefe at 12:46 PM on July 29, 2011


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):

Reid's bill passes the Senate (which it will), and the House passes it with a combination of virtually all Democrats and a couple dozen vestigial remnants of what's left of the vaguely sane wing of the Republican Party.

I don't think that's particularly likely, but it's possible, and I would find it acceptable at this point.

And if it leads to further infighting and splintering of the Republican Party, bonus.
posted by Flunkie at 12:47 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


This situation is seeming more and more like Beckett's version of Endgame. Appropriate thread title!
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:51 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


I believe Obama says "my lawyers don't consider it a winning argument." It's not clear why, especially as it's unlikely anyone even have standing to sue over it at all. See here and here and here.

So why won't Obama do it? The best case scenario is what Jonathan Chait writes here, that he's unwilling to bear the political costs even if it is what's best for the country. The worst case scenario -- which seems much more likely to me -- is that Obama really does want austerity and deep entitlement cuts, but knows he needs the political cover of the GOP "forcing" him to do it. But then I concluded Obama isn't a progressive years ago.
posted by gerryblog at 12:51 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


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."

I am aware that this is likely to mean that his lawyers think it's not legal, and that it possibly additionally means that he believes their opinion about that. But I have not heard him actually say that he believes it is illegal, or even that he is not persuaded that it's a winning argument. If you have, please let me know where.
posted by Flunkie at 12:53 PM on July 29, 2011


What is the a scenario in all this where Obama actually... wins somehow, and the GOP loses completely?

At this point I think it involves spaceships and velociraptors and lasers.
posted by elizardbits at 1:06 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


At this point I think it involves spaceships and velociraptors and lasers.

And at least 70 Democratic seats in the Senate.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


No need for spaceships or magic Senators: just two comically oversized $1 trillion dollar platinum coins.

In any event, Obama really could end this standoff unilaterally today if he wanted. He's choosing not to.
posted by gerryblog at 1:14 PM on July 29, 2011


I would normally crack jokes about looting and life among the ruins, but this is too damn crazy for that. For now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:15 PM on July 29, 2011


Why not just one $2T coin?
posted by adamdschneider at 1:19 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Why should Obama give the GOTP an easy out instead of bashing themselves in the head, breaking their promises, revealing a nasty power struggle the rank hypocrisy that's going to mar them for the foreseable future as dysfunctional and irresponsible.

It's that rule about not interrupting your enemy when they're in the process of beating themselves.

If he uses the 14th at all, I don't think it will be until the last possible hour.
posted by Skygazer at 1:21 PM on July 29, 2011


Come on, a $2 trillion dollar coin? Now that would be ridiculous!
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:21 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Why not just one $2T coin?

Are you kidding? Do you know how hard it will be to get change for that?
posted by jbickers at 1:22 PM on July 29, 2011 [5 favorites]


Not to mention if some old codger manages to fly it to Cuba and hands it to that son of a bitch Castro.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:23 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]




"Now, on Monday night, I asked the American people to make their voice heard in this debate, and the response was overwhelming," Obama said, referring to the massive response by telephone and email after he asked Americans to let lawmakers know if they wanted to see a compromise on Capitol Hill.

"So please, to all the American people, keep it up," he said, appearing on many TV networks in midmorning. "If you want to see a bipartisan compromise -- a bill that can pass both houses of Congress and that I can sign -- let your members of Congress know. Make a phone call. Send an email. Tweet. Keep the pressure on Washington, and we can get past this."

Shortly after his speech, telephone circuits in the Capitol were overwhelmed by a high volume of external calls, resulting in busy signals or difficulty getting through jammed phone lines.

An hour after Obama's speech, the House Call Center sent out a system alert warning that telephone circuits were near capacity, resulting in outside callers getting busy signals, instead of having calls bounce to a free line.

...Several calls to the office of House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress who is trying to get a short-term debt limit increase through but is receiving resistance from his own party, could not get through.

At first the only response was a busy signal, but in successive attempts the phone was answered by an automated message and patriotic music played after callers were told to wait to be answered in the order the call was received.

But a spokesman for Boehner's office said the amount of phone and email traffic had been holding pretty steady over the past week or so with no real increase after Obama's speech.

posted by futz at 1:26 PM on July 29, 2011


I think you're probably wrong gerryblog.

Remember how Bush II made such a big deal about how his lawyers had signed off on his "enhanced interrogation" (you know, torture) policies? Well, I'm pretty sure the reason he did that is because legally, if he hadn't been able to get his lawyers to sign off on it, he would have potentially been criminally liable if the policies were later found to be a violation of law. Lucky for Dubbya, he found his man in the form of John Yoo who wrote an opinion saying, in effect, that torture was perfectly legal as long as you called it "enhanced interrogation."

If Obama took the so-called 14th amendment route, if his lawyers won't go on record saying that it's legal, he could be on the hook for the criminal charges the Republicans would immediately try to pin on him.

And we'd probably still be screwed in that case, because the Tea Party folks would make serious political hay out of it and probably get even more traction than they already have on their claims that Obama is a socialist dictator bent on subverting the constitution. While the constitution requires congress to pay for its spending, it also explicitly gives congress the sole authority over budget matters. There doesn't seem to me to be any end-run around the process that doesn't run afoul of the law in one respect or another. Not raising the debt ceiling and potentially not paying out on legally guaranteed SS security benefits are already legally questionable in themselves. This is an unholy mess we've got on our hands, and given the way the polls are trending, I'm afraid we may end up with a truly dangerous radical right-wing takeover come next election time.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:26 PM on July 29, 2011


In any event, Obama really could end this standoff unilaterally today if he wanted. He's choosing not to.]

The 14th does not provide the power to do what you say it does.

When Erwin Chemerinsky says it isn't there, it isn't there:
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.

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.
Dude's a genius and the best overall constitutional scholar in the country. And a raging liberal. So, no, the 14th gives no succor.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2011 [7 favorites]


Levity: the debt ceiling debate in pictures
Wow, Mitch McConnell has a suggestion that I think might actually resolve the problem! Both Republicans and Democrats would get what they're hoping for!
posted by Flunkie at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2011


...he could be on the hook for the criminal charges the Republicans would immediately try to pin on him.

What crime exactly would they be charging with? It's not against the law to execute the laws, especially when they're in contradiction with one another. Again, as I linked early, it's not even clear that they'd have standing to sue over the issue in the first place.

Torture, in contrast, is already explicitly against the law.

Now, they can try to impeach him, but they won't be able to convict, and in any event it's unlikely the optics of another impeachment fight would go well for them.

This is an unholy mess we've got on our hands, and given the way the polls are trending, I'm afraid we may end up with a truly dangerous radical right-wing takeover come next election time.

Can't argue with you there. The Obama administration has managed to dig itself a very deep hole in turning from stimulus to austerity, and we've got to hope the president's personal popularity carries him over the finish line next November. It's a scary time.
posted by gerryblog at 1:32 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can't argue with you there. The Obama administration has managed to dig itself a very deep hole in turning from stimulus to austerity, and we've got to hope the president's personal popularity carries him over the finish line next November. It's a scary time.

There's no votes for stimulus. They have the votes. Nobody here wants to accept that.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:34 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


There wouldn't be votes for austerity either if the Democrats had the same balls as the Republicans.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:36 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ironmouth, I think Laurence Tribe's against it too (though he's apparently weakened lately). To be honest I agree with them on the merits -- the 14th Amendment wasn't intended for this. But these are desperate times, and if the choice is between fidelity to an abstraction and not defaulting, we obviously have to choose not defaulting. It's a happy accident that the 14th Amendment is vague enough to make a plausible agument against the Constitutionality of the debt ceiling; let's take advantage of our luck.

Perhaps I draw the line where fidelity to an abstraction in the face of straight-up GOP insanity is trumped by the need to get something done before the bottom falls out of the economy again somewhat in advance of other progressives -- but at some point you've got to recognize that it's least worst option.

The government is out of money on this Tuesday at the earliest, next Wednesday at the latest. At some point Obama has to pull the trigger on Plan B. I think it's time.
posted by gerryblog at 1:39 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


There's no votes for stimulus. They have the votes. The Josh Marshall piece I linked was talking about Fall 2009, when the Democrats still had the votes but did too little.
posted by gerryblog at 1:41 PM on July 29, 2011


Woah!
“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!
posted by Flunkie at 1:43 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


...he could be on the hook for the criminal charges the Republicans would immediately try to pin on him.

What crime exactly would they be charging with? It's not against the law to execute the laws, especially when they're in contradiction with one another. Again, as I linked early, it's not even clear that they'd have standing to sue over the issue in the first place.


The President is immune from criminal prosecution while in office.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:44 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


he Josh Marshall piece I linked was talking about Fall 2009, when the Democrats still had the votes but did too little.

That was the House shirking its duty. Obama cannot force anyone in the legislative branch to do his will. they decided to run scared. He asked for a vote on the bush tax cuts before the election. the house dems refused. Flat the fuck out.

It wasn't Obama's fault they refused to run on an excellent record of passing strong legislation.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:46 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


That's a good point, Ironmouth--really, I guess what I mean is that there would be an endless series of theatrical impeachment proceedings and congressional investigations, ultimately bringing the entire legislative process to a halt (not that it's been exactly going gangbusters up till now...).

On the other hand, maybe Obama should just do it. Then the Republican majority in the house could waste the rest of its time doing political theater until the next election, when it loses its majority. Once it's out of the majority, the chances of further political consequences for Obama would be minimal. He'd be remembered as the president who had the guts to take extraordinary measures to save the nation from default. No one would ever question his political cajones again.

But yeah, it would be a really bad precedent to let a sitting president effectively repeal an existing law by fiat--possibly just as bad as another economic collapse, because then what is the presidency but a dictatorship?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:52 PM on July 29, 2011


Dude's a genius and the best overall constitutional scholar in the country.

Cite?
posted by BobbyVan at 1:53 PM on July 29, 2011


But yeah, it would be a really bad precedent to let a sitting president effectively repeal an existing law by fiat--possibly just as bad as another economic collapse, because then what is the presidency but a dictatorship?

I agree in principle, but really that ship sailed decades ago. We might as well use the imperial presidency for good for once, given how often it's been used for evil. In any event just about nothing could be worse than another global economic collapse.
posted by gerryblog at 1:57 PM on July 29, 2011


But these are desperate times, and if the choice is between fidelity to an abstraction and not defaulting, we obviously have to choose not defaulting.

No we don't. This is perilously close to Bush's apocryphal "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper."

If Obama believes he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and does it anyway he should be impeached. If he believes he has the authority I hope he does it. That's not hairsplitting; it's the fundamental basis for our government.
posted by Justinian at 1:58 PM on July 29, 2011 [5 favorites]


Heh. CNBC:
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]


If Obama believes he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and does it anyway he should be impeached.

Good luck with that.
posted by empath at 2:01 PM on July 29, 2011


Justinian: "No we don't. This is perilously close to Bush's apocryphal "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.""

If two out of three branches decide it is, then it is.
posted by mullingitover at 2:02 PM on July 29, 2011


Good luck with that.

You don't see a big difference between "this should happen" and "this would happen"?

If two out of three branches decide it is, then it is.

No more than inalienable rights are not rights because a government doesn't recognize them.
posted by Justinian at 2:03 PM on July 29, 2011


If Obama believes he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and does it anyway he should be impeached. If he believes he has the authority I hope he does it.

Well, see above. We don't know what's in his heart, and he's never going to say "This is illegal for me to do but I'm doing it anyway." If he does the 14th Amendment he's going to say "My lawyers have determined this is legal." If he uses the authority, the claim will always be that he believes he has the authority.

But these are desperate times, and if the choice is between fidelity to an abstraction and not defaulting, we obviously have to choose not defaulting.

A second economic collapse so close to the first will lead to massive hardship, deprivation, and death for hundreds of millions of people. The (First?) Great Depression lasted a decade, and ultimately ended in a horrific world war. Fidelity to the law isn't worth the price, especially when there's plenty of well-respected legal scholars who say it's the anti-14th-Amendment people who are wrong on the merits.
posted by gerryblog at 2:04 PM on July 29, 2011


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."

Can I just pause and say how much I love Barney Frank? That I wish he would adopt me? Thanks.
posted by angrycat at 2:05 PM on July 29, 2011


BobbyVan, others, on the Social Security/Entitlement reform debate

First, there is no need for harsh language or angry accusation of being a paid shill, lets just calm down and look at the facts.

First, Social Security is in no danger for the time being. Its not an entitlement problem. The rhetoric comes from a fundemental misunderstanding of the situation. Yes, Social Security will only run a surplus until 2019. But if we do nothing, literally nothing, SS is solvent until 2053.

Well, it would be without this crisis. This quote is from 2004, parsing the CBO report. Emphasis mine.

"This date [2019] has absolutely no significance for the Social Security program, since it is projected to have more than $6 trillion of government bonds in the trust fund at the time. It can use the interest and principle from these bonds to pay benefits until the 2053 projected depletion date. Unless the government defaults on its debt, something that no prominent public figure has advocated, there is no reason that the program can't rely on these bonds."


The major threat to Social Security is not Baby Boomers as much as I'd like to blame them, not Alan Greenspan misplanning as much as I'd like to blame him , not political calculations during the Reagan administration, not collectivist dependency on government, not an overreaching and utopian New Deal. The only major threat to the long-term solvency of Social Security is the almost-unthinkable-until-now threat of US Default.

Continuing unemployment and slowed productivity growth from this recession is a minor threat. If we don't take action on that, this will ding the data expectations and shave some years off of solvency. Action that requires either public stimulus or private regulation. Some unemployment and much of the lack of productivity growth can be tied to non-financial corporations with more than sufficient funds diverting profits away from investment and into "the price of their shares through dividend payouts and share repurchases.

Low investment is not due to the cost or availability of capital. Interest rates on corporate AAA bonds stand at just more than 5 percent, the lowest persistent interest rates since 1966. And the nonfinancial business sector held almost $1.9 trillion in cash at the end of 2010, totaling 7 percent of total corporate assets—the highest level since the fourth quarter of 1963.

The Federal Reserve says its because demand for bank loans from businesses remains weak. New loan demand in fact seems more focused on financing mergers and acquisitions rather than productive investment in factories or equipment. We need to stimulate demand.

All the problems with social security can be solved by letting the tax cuts for those making above $500,000 expire. Just expire. No tax hikes, no returning to Reagan levels, no payroll tax reform, not letting them expire for those making over $250,000 like many propose, not even benefit changes. This would make Social Security solvent through to the 22nd Century. Again, these numbers will have been affected downward some by the recession, but only because of non-demand stimulation and aversion to short-term public investment.

The real problem isn't entitlements, is infrastructure and in the willful denial of investing in it because this ridiculous opposition to "public" jobs. The Urban Land Institute found recently that right now, we need $2 TRILLION in investment just to maintain our current system, let alone improve it. But the jobs and investment stimulated by this timely influx of money and labor intensive, inherently national, project would be astronomical. And the benefits of choosing to improve the system, to make it last, would be even higher.

But reality interferes. The media focuses on entitlements, and there are dedicated partisan interests targeting it, either for profit-motive (privatization) or ideology/class motive (defunding and benefit cuts). Infrastructure is not ideological. Everyone uses roads. Federal highway funds are constitutional, and postal roads (which the Supreme Court has ruled covers all railroads and any road that can be concurrently used by mail carriers) are in the damn Enumerated Powers of Congress. Even Thomas has to respect that, even the Tea Party ought to. And while we focus on entitlements falsely, the true burden on all Americans comes from crumbling infrastructure. Pressure will force water bills to skyrocket, will increase tolls, and put a lot of pressure on property, sales and gas taxes just to keep a road around. Lack of Congressional action will also threaten water treatment plants, and Britta filters aren't really a national solution. The last two major transportation bills failed, the FAA is in crisis mode, and failure to act is already costing over $100 billion in lost travel time and vehicle operating costs which have a direct effect on everyday people.

And if we don't invest the $2 trillion+? Well, in 9 years it will have cost us $3.1 trillion in suppressed GDP growth and close to 1 million jobs according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. If we do make the investment though, the average American family will net $1,060 as direct result and the policy will protect $10,000 in GDP for person.

Entitlements are not an issue, and could actually be strengthened by real action. It's all a sideshow that media narratives and politician soundbites stuff down our scared throats. We've got lives, they're the ones who are supposed to be dealing with this. You want real transpartisan change that help the economy and guard the future? Build me a damn dam and repave my highways so my tires don't get popped on I-4 anymore.
posted by Chipmazing at 2:05 PM on July 29, 2011 [23 favorites]


If Obama believes he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and does it anyway he should be impeached.

Pah and double-pah. Impeachments happen all the time anymore. They impeached Clinton because of a blow-job. If Obama decides to use the 14th in order to save us from financial disaster then I'm all for it. It's like, if you see the driver is heading for the cliff, you're in your rights to grab the wheel. The act would prove extraordinarily popular, and that would help greatly towards smoothing over the aftermath.

If he believes he has the authority I hope he does it. That's not hairsplitting; it's the fundamental basis for our government.

So the state of Obama's brain (what he believes) determines his criminal culpability, and this is the fundamental basis of our government?
posted by JHarris at 2:09 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


angrycat: "Can I just pause and say how much I love Barney Frank? That I wish he would adopt me? Thanks."

I'm sitting here watching CPAN and listening to all the whinging and posturing by both sides, so far only Barney Frank has made me stop what I was doing and listen with my full attention. His entire speech made me happy.
posted by narwhal bacon at 2:12 PM on July 29, 2011


The state of one's mind very often determines criminal culpability. Is that really a surprise to you? The term is mens rea.
posted by Justinian at 2:12 PM on July 29, 2011


"Obvious what is being done in the House is not compromise. It is being jammed through with all kinds of non-transparent dealings, people shuffling in and out of the Republican Leader's office. We're recognizing that the only compromise that there is, is mine," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said.

(emphasis added)
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:18 PM on July 29, 2011


I'm sticking to my original prediction yesterday: Boehner gives the baggers everything including the kitchen sink, and that way gets enough of them to vote for the plan.

The idea being, if it gets either vetoed by Obama (unlikely), or killed by Democrats in the Senate - he's off the hook. He can say: we delivered a bill to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default. If a default happens, it's the Democrats fault. And then relentlessly stick to those talking points - which the Repubs are so good at.

I know many here think the Tea Baggers will never go for this. My prediction is that enough will, so this passes. Boehner doesn't care what he puts in the bill to get the baggers to vote "yes" - he can put in a unicorn powered perpetual motion machine for all he cares, because it's not like he has to live with this bill down the road - he's counting on it being killed by the Senate, so what difference does it make what he puts in? Repubs can spin it as "we did our job" and the default is all the Democratic Senate fault, so come 2012, we need a Republican senate and a Republican president.

Let's see how it goes down, but that's my prediction and I'm sticking to it.
posted by VikingSword at 2:22 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


(to clarify on above post, I did some research after to give better numbers than my "the recession has had a downward effect on these numbers. Employment, productivity and payroll tax pressures resulting from the recession have lowered SS's solvency date to 2036 according to the SS Trustees - which have always treaded more conservative than the CBO estimates - but the solutions are still sound through 2011)
posted by Chipmazing at 2:23 PM on July 29, 2011


*grrr, I meant 2100, not 2011, but that weirdly still makes sense. 2100. Also, there should be an endquote after 'numbers.'
posted by Chipmazing at 2:25 PM on July 29, 2011


The idea being, if it gets either vetoed by Obama (unlikely), or killed by Democrats in the Senate - he's off the hook. He can say: we delivered a bill to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default. If a default happens, it's the Democrats fault. And then relentlessly stick to those talking points - which the Repubs are so good at.

I think that's his plan, too, which is why I was so glad he was unable to pass his plan yesterday and hope he fails to pass it again today.
posted by gerryblog at 2:26 PM on July 29, 2011


It seems like, in the scenario where they do pass this current version with the so-called Balanced Budget Amendment noise, that the senate would have the votes to basically replace the contents of the bill with the Reid bill and then send it back in time for the House to basically have the choice between rejecting it and being out of time or passing it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:29 PM on July 29, 2011


feloniousmonk, that only works if they can get sufficient GOP votes to overcome a filibuster, right? It's not clear they can.
posted by gerryblog at 2:31 PM on July 29, 2011


I guess Boehner's plan will only pass because it has the totally fucking insane balance budget amendment tied to it -- the debt ceiling gets raised in a mere six months *only* if there's a BBA, as I understand it.

That shit cannot stand. Isn't the most likely congressional outcome is that the Reid plan will pass the house with the backing of the Dems and the non-insane GOP?
posted by angrycat at 2:31 PM on July 29, 2011


But what if the Repubs filibuster in the senate and the Reid bill never gets out?
posted by VikingSword at 2:32 PM on July 29, 2011


Right, that only works if the GOP Senators don't stab everybody in the back and decide it's the House bill or nothing. Given that GOP Senators constantly stab everybody in the back -- and they'll probably pick off Lieberman or someone else for bipartisan cover too boot -- we could really be at the final impasse. And then we're back to either total surrender, or else the Plan Bs.
posted by gerryblog at 2:34 PM on July 29, 2011


That is definitely a risk, but it seems like McConnell has been signalling support. I don't know what to think if he can't keep his caucus in line either.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:34 PM on July 29, 2011


Tying a debt ceiling increase to a balanced budget amendment, especially when said increase is needed in merely six months is just a way to ensure that it doesn't get raised again. There's no way a balanced budget amendment would get written, passed, submitted to the states, and ratified in time.
posted by wierdo at 2:35 PM on July 29, 2011


Could the Republicans really actually pull off a filibuster in this environment?

I suppose it's possible there's a Tea Party Senator that might not care about the consequences, or someone else who's got enough time to the next election they figure they can take some temporary heat. I can't imagine that flat-out stalling tactics would fly well at all right now.

Then again, I'm not sure I could have imagined Michelle Bachmann was electable.
posted by weston at 2:35 PM on July 29, 2011


There's no way a balanced budget amendment would get written, passed, submitted to the states, and ratified in time.

My understanding is that it doesn't have to get ratified -- passage by both Houses and sending it off to the states is sufficient. It's still crazy though.
posted by gerryblog at 2:36 PM on July 29, 2011


But what if the Repubs filibuster in the senate and the Reid bill never gets out?

I don't think the GOP senators would try it. If they did, I could see some members voting to kill the filibuster.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:36 PM on July 29, 2011


Is there even any sort of public info on what the plan is for the ammendment? I seem to recall hearing that it required only that it pass Congress, not that it be ratified by the states.

As I alluded to above, at least we could probably count on CA to vote no, in that unlikely scenario.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:37 PM on July 29, 2011


Mister Fabulous wrote: I don't think the GOP senators would try it. If they did, I could see some members voting to kill the filibuster.

If cloture has to be invoked to get a bill through the Senate, default is nearly certain. I'm working from memory here, but I think it takes around three days to get a bill passed that has been filibustered. The Senate rules are not designed to push things through quickly, especially in the face of opposition.
posted by wierdo at 2:39 PM on July 29, 2011


But what if the Repubs filibuster in the senate and the Reid bill never gets out?
posted by VikingSword at 2:32 PM on July 29 [+] [!]


1) Somebody will filibuster
2) It won't get out in time
3) When it does get out, it won't pass the House
4) We are going to Default in four days
posted by Avenger at 2:42 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


5) ???
6) Tea Party Utopia!
posted by gerryblog at 2:44 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


I believe step 6 is feudalism.
posted by ifandonlyif at 2:48 PM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


Dude's a genius and the best overall constitutional scholar in the country.

Cite?


3 years of having to read his stuff put in front of me in law school. Cite enough. Him, Cass Sunstein and Lawrence Tribe are pretty much the trinity.

This is my legal opinion. I've seen him speak. For hours in BarBri.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:49 PM on July 29, 2011


Is there even any sort of public info on what the plan is for the ammendment? I seem to recall hearing that it required only that it pass Congress, not that it be ratified by the states.

Basically the GOP wants to add a rule saying that any future debt limit increase would require a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution being passed by both houses of Congress. This is a complete joke because:

1) Dems are against it now and won't give that up as part of a debt limit increase.
2) Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment between now and then requires a 2/3rd's majority in both houses, which also won't happen. They aren't stipulating that the states must ratify it as well.
3) Some Teabaggers are against it, because the language of the Boehner bill doesn't stipulate what must be in the Balanced Budget Amendment. The amendment could state "The government is limited to borrowing 5000% of GDP" as far as anyone could tell.

This whole thing is a big old clusterfuck.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:50 PM on July 29, 2011


But what if the Repubs filibuster in the senate and the Reid bill never gets out?
posted by VikingSword at 2:32 PM on July 29 [+] [!]


That's political suicide.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:50 PM on July 29, 2011


Right, that only works if the GOP Senators don't stab everybody in the back and decide it's the House bill or nothing. Given that GOP Senators constantly stab everybody in the back -- and they'll probably pick off Lieberman or someone else for bipartisan cover too boot -- we could really be at the final impasse. And then we're back to either total surrender, or else the Plan Bs.

Lieberman signed the letter Wed opposing Boehner's first bill. He won't get picked off by anyone. The more likely scenario is GOP defections. Scott Brown said on the radio today he would vote for the Reid plan. Murkowski would love nothing more than to drink Tea Party blood.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:52 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


They haven't even produced a text for the proposed amendment, and it's not going to be included in this bill, so it seems to make even less sense. This sounds like the legislative equivalent of a trade for players to be named later. How can you even write a law like that?
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:53 PM on July 29, 2011


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."
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:00 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


WSJ:
n a speech on the House floor defending his bill to lift the federal debt ceiling Mr. Boehner blamed the White House and Democrats for the debt impasse.

“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising.

“A lot of people in this town can never say yes,” he continued, using a line often used by Democrats to criticize his party. “Put something on the table!” Mr. Boehner shouted, addressing Mr. Obama and his party. “Tell us where you are.”

A raucous debate is now underway as Republicans and Democrats spar over last minute Democratic maneuvers to delay passage of Mr. Boehner’s proposal.


It began to rain.
posted by angrycat at 3:00 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


There should be a '? ' somewhere towards the end there.
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:01 PM on July 29, 2011


“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table,”

Looks like the Teahadists aren't the only ones with a tenuous grip on reality.
posted by adamdschneider at 3:02 PM on July 29, 2011


Damn it, I just lost a long post on Medicare/Medicaid cuts. Basically, in more words with hella more links, neutral parties are pointed out that any 'cuts' or reductions right now to either program would trigger enormous problems and costs, because the CBO points out that all the money we're paying gets passed to higher costs in the private sector, along with the requisite loss of coverage.

The Urban Institute points out that Medicare inflated less rapidly than comparable packages in the private sector, containing costs as a baseline. The ACA* has actually pushed the Medicare/aid insolvency abyss a few years down the road, giving us more time - although not that much more. Rather than cuts, we should be discussing ways to curb all health care inflation if we accept both that the ACA is in place which it is, Tea Party and that Obama won't fight for a national public option which he won't, and leaves universal healthcare to the states :( then we ought to focus on moderating all health care inflation/spending within the bounds of the current system, whilst not interfering with treatment itself. There are myriad (free market too!) ways of doing this quickly, and doing so would ensure entitlement solvency AND would produce relatively immediate Joint Tax scorable savings, which means money, which we apparently desperately need before China eats all our babies and The Whelk starts a drug orgy in the Superdome, where we all wear Sand handkerchiefs to indicate we'll use the ample supply of Boehner's tears as lubricant ohmygodhowisthatathing

*Obamacare for all the people who hate names, eagerly await the ghastly Obamacaregate as a nomenclature apocalypse, and who weirdly didn't call Medicare-D Bushcare, perhaps because that sounds invidiously pubic and gross.
posted by Chipmazing at 3:02 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


"yeah, we thought this over, and we don't think we need one."

Or:

"We've all made mistakes. You, me, everyone. There was that one dude who ate bacon for a month. You can imagine what his poop was like. Well, we made a mistake here. Actually, all of us are now in therapy and on mood stabilizers, so yeah. Sorry. Working the steps here."
posted by angrycat at 3:04 PM on July 29, 2011


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."

Let me explain. The next raise in the debt ceiling is linked to the passage of such an amendment. So you get a repeat of this. Because why are they going to let us off the hook later? Because they're such swell people?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:09 PM on July 29, 2011


The 14th Amendment option permanently eliminates the debt ceiling while giving the GOP no concessions at all. It's the maximal outcome for progressives, and Obama could have it this afternoon if he wanted.

Nope. Even Jack Balkin points out that the President would have to go into a government shutdown, and i don't find his constitutional argument persuasive. Sure, Balkin's a professor of Constitutional Law at Yale, but his thesis that the President could just unilaterally decide which part of the Constitution he was going to ignore is myopic. Congress very plainly has the power of the purse and attempting to seize that would insta-trigger impeachment and that would cause economic chaos. I think that trying to invoke the 14th Amendment as a Get out of Jail Free clause would threaten the union - before Congress would impeach Obama, a massive federal government shutdown under color of an executive order might just as easily lead to secession.

I'm with Ironmouth, or more accurately with Erwin Chrminsky on this. There's a reason that his Con Law book is the most widely taught in American law schools, and yes, he's a raging liberal.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:10 PM on July 29, 2011


Thanks for the condescension.
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:11 PM on July 29, 2011


Let me explain. The bill in which it is specified that the debt ceiling is linked to the passage of such an amendment fails to specify the contents of said amendment. So you get a repeat of this. Because why would they bother to avoid writing sloppy laws with stupid loopholes? Because they're such competent people?
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:13 PM on July 29, 2011


The 14th amendment route seems like a bad hail mary pass at best. I think if they absolutely get desperate they'll first go with a selective default and then might go for the trillion dollar coin shenanigan.

Before that point though I think enough pressure will be brought to bear on the Republicans that at least a portion of their caucus will cave.
posted by vuron at 3:15 PM on July 29, 2011


I don't think Ironmouth was condescending to you. He is more than capable of doing so, but I believe you will know it in your bones when it happens.
posted by adamdschneider at 3:15 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


210 votes now.
posted by cashman at 3:17 PM on July 29, 2011


House bill passed.
posted by cashman at 3:21 PM on July 29, 2011


It's passed, with at least 218.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:21 PM on July 29, 2011


218. Passed.

Republicans 218 Yea, 16 Nay, 6 NV
Democrats 0 Yea, 188 Nay, 5 NV
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:22 PM on July 29, 2011


wow, only 2 vote win. They were talking 10 or 20 switches this morning. They got maybe 6 off the whip counts I've been reading.

The guy cannot deliver this caucus. A failure to raise the debt limit is the most likely outcome of this situation.

My guess is that wed, the market plunges like a stone and Thursday a deal gets done along the lines of Reid.

This is all about the BBA and the medicare cuts.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:27 PM on July 29, 2011


I'm at a bar and barely understand anything anymore, how much should I be thinking to thus news?
posted by The Whelk at 3:28 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


So there was a bipartisan effort to not pass the bill? Interesting.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 3:29 PM on July 29, 2011


Thanks for the condescension.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:11 PM on July 29 [+] [!]


None intended. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:29 PM on July 29, 2011


218. Passed.

so, boehner's managed to save his party for now

is anyone going to save the country?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:32 PM on July 29, 2011


Ironmouth/anigbrowl

My concern (I'm still merely a student, is there a legal term of art for 'beef'?) with Chemerinsky's analysis in the LA Times is that he completely ignores Perry v. US. I'm not saying it renders his entire point moot, but it makes it places a lot of doubt on his sweeping statements like "under any interpretation of the law" and "no plausible way". And there are no obscure provisions on the Constitution, it not a collection of indie bands, its a comprehensive document that provides a basis to the Republic. It can fit in a pocket. I understand that he means "little discussed", but that's a reflection of the case-law heavy academy.

Perry ruled that section IV carries a "broader connotation" than just the Civil War debts, that it is "confirmatory of a fundamental principle" that applies to all spending and obligations "duly authorized by the Congress", and that anything jeopardizing the "integrity of the public obligations" goes "beyond the congressional power". Its seems relatively straightforward that not paying promissory contracts and notes is illegal/unconstitutional and that the executive (which subsumes the Treasury department) cannot NOT pay. As a seperation of powers issue, the Executive is the enforcer of spending and acts promulgated by the legislative. We legislated government function, SS, Military pay, all of that. We allocated the money. The only thing in the way is the debt ceiling statute. If Obama truly thinks this statutory power ties his hand and doesn't lose its constitutionality once it violates Section IV, we're still legally obligated to pay, discounting the enormous chaos of not funding governmental services (SS, healthcare, the military, administrative functions). As a real question for you, because perhaps my understanding is flawed on this point, wouldn't the Executive HAVE to use its power of signorage if it doesn't impute statutory authority? Mass minting will cause unpredictable inflation, and with the market reactions to our credit rating getting dinged, the twin threats of depressionary and stagflationary forces are massive.

Congress clearly has the 'power of the purse', but it already USED that power by approving spending. The executive executes that spending. When I swipe my credit card, I have the power of the purse, but once I've swiped it, its execution is out of my hands, even if I say I've hit the limit of debt I'm willing to accrue. I can holler that until the cows come home, but I still have to pay the money if I'm able. And the U.S. is able.

Also, minor quibble, but as I understood it, Balkin's argument was never 'unilateral ignorance', that was Posner/Vermeule. Balkin's a strict Section IV guy.
posted by Chipmazing at 3:33 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Er, drinking too.
posted by The Whelk at 3:35 PM on July 29, 2011


I guess my prediction was correct - they passed an insane bill. Now the onus is on the Democrats in the Senate. What's next? It'll be fascinating to see - now the real endgame begins.
posted by VikingSword at 3:35 PM on July 29, 2011


A second economic collapse so close to the first will lead to massive hardship, deprivation, and death for hundreds of millions of people. The (First?) Great Depression lasted a decade, and ultimately ended in a horrific world war.

But you think that triggering a Constituional crisis would be totally free of economic consequences and that everything would just keep ticking over nicely while a few people bloviate on C-Span? I guarantee you that if there was a government shutdown there would be talk of seizing federal facilities and returning them to the States immediately afterwards.

Fidelity to the law isn't worth the price, especially when there's plenty of well-respected legal scholars who say it's the anti-14th-Amendment people who are wrong on the merits.

I'll keep my opinion of Ronald Dworkin to myself (because it's inchoate), but if he's expecting me to buy things like this:
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.

These. People Do. Not. Like. The. United. States. They want Confederacy 2.0 if you ask me.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:35 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Okay, Senate Dems: Fight fight fight fight fight like hell.
posted by angrycat at 3:40 PM on July 29, 2011


Whelk, I don't drink myself but you might consider yourself drowning your sorrows in a major way.
posted by angrycat at 3:42 PM on July 29, 2011


Also, for a more fun debate than theoretical legal acts, how can you NOT include Kathleen Sullivan in your trinity? Tribe, abso-fucking-lutely, but Cass is a little flavor-of-the-month (i mean, I love the dude, don't get me wrong) and I've heard arguments that, far from being the best overall constitutional scholar, Chemerinsky is just the beneficiary inside-baseball, inflated hype. I mean, no doubt he is one of top, but Sullivan is phew-weee. And I thought her textbook was the one most assigned? I'm having trouble finding statistics, just glowing quotes about both from their respective institutions and Amazon reviews.
posted by Chipmazing at 3:43 PM on July 29, 2011


Boehner: Not as politically dead, yet, as much of Metafilter enjoyed imagining.

Like it or not, he's still the only leader that has forged any kind of consensus on this thing, passed any sort of legislation, or has had to show flexibility on the issue, from the stance he personally might favor, to do so. Maybe it's time to de-demonize him, and start seeing how what he's accomplished can move the Senate and the President, in the early part of the 11th hour, to see that the more-nearly-perfect-by-our-partisan-lights is the enemy of the good-enough-for-now.
posted by paulsc at 3:48 PM on July 29, 2011


Okay, Senate Dems: Fight fight fight fight fight like hell.

I don't think they're going to cover the spread.
posted by Trurl at 3:48 PM on July 29, 2011


My concern (I'm still merely a student, is there a legal term of art for 'beef'?) with Chemerinsky's analysis in the LA Times is that he completely ignores Perry v. US.

Well, so am I - I'm just older and enjoy yelling at kids on my lawn.

ISTM that Perry's standing issue, which is its main significance, doesn't really apply here. Sure, Neither you nor a bondholder have standing to sue the United States, but but what if (say) Texas sues the President? States might well have standing to sue, and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction for disputes between States or between States and the US. But as far as having to pay goes, then yes, we'd have to start shutting things down and generally bending over backwards to service our debts, and seignorage would open up a whole other can of worms. More likely we might release a large part of the strategic oil reserve or something , or the Fed would use its magic fiscal powers to supply the necessary credit. None of these scenarios would be good for the economy, of course.

Most likely, the Court wouldn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole and would make noises about the lack of a justiciable question, a political issue, or some procedural flaw, but that's beside the point. The point is that Congress, as a branch of government itself, doesn't need the Court's permission to launch impeachment proceedings, the House just needs to vote to do so. Of course such a vote would go nowhere and after it arrived in the Senate, but by that stage there could be calls for revolution or secession. The President, on the other hand, can't impeach Congress. I know I'm waxing dramatic here but I feel pretty strongly that this is a tipping point; either the GOP is going to split soon or we enter Constitutional terra incognita.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:55 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Re: 14th amendment: I just read the constitution, and it isn't as clear as either side would have it. The main body of the text gives congress the power to borrow on the credit of the US, but it doesn't say anything about anyone else. It doesn't prohibit the president from doing so, nor does it say anything about congress being the *sole* entity with this power.

IE, there is nothing that says the President can't direct the Treasury to sell more bonds.

However, the 14th says that debts, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. That seems to say that debts not authorized by law can be questioned. That's the clause that seems to spook people, as they fear that any new debt issued could be construed as invalid. But I'm not sure who would be doing the questioning and answering in that case. Who is going to say "you can't have your money back"? The only entity that could say that would be the Treasury, and I don't think they are going to do that. And even if someone did try to say "you can't have your money back", the bond holder would surely sue the US government, and the federal courts aren't going to say the debt isn't valid. Even if the Supreme Court ends up saying "yeah, nice try Obama, but no, only Congress can authorize debt," they would surely also say "but those bonds ARE valid debt, because everyone involved believed they were valid, and that's a contract from where we stand."

Further, the debt of the US stems from promised spending authorized by the congress. Every dime of it, there is some law that authorizes or requires someone to cut a check. So it seems like that's sort of a pass-through- they passed laws that spend more than the Treasury takes in, in doing so, they effectively authorized the Treasury to borrow if it had to.

(Double further: because the Congress passed spending laws without raising commensurate revenue to make up for it, they have de-facto issued debt. So in making a law that creates a debt ceiling lower than necessary to make up for the spending they have already authorized, *they* are the ones violating the 14th amendment.)
posted by gjc at 3:56 PM on July 29, 2011


However, the 14th says that debts, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. That seems to say that debts not authorized by law can be questioned.

I know that this has been explained upthread as to why this won't save us, and sorry for being obtuse, I'm still not getting why this (the amendment) isn't the big gun in the room -- we have an obligation, pursuant to Federal statute, to pay bills X, Y, and Z: therefore, why the fuck, under the 14th amendment, can these friggin maniacs say otherwise? Is this an intent issue, i.e., the intent pursuant to which the amendment was enacted?

Or maybe somebody could link to the relevant info upthread, because I believe this has been answered.
posted by angrycat at 4:02 PM on July 29, 2011


Fed would use its magic fiscal powers to supply the necessary credit. None of these scenarios would be good for the economy, of course.

The Fed can't do that. Debt is debt, borrowing is borrowing, and the Federal Reserve Bank isn't the United States government.
posted by gjc at 4:05 PM on July 29, 2011


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.
posted by Flunkie at 4:10 PM on July 29, 2011


gjc wrote: The Fed can't do that. Debt is debt, borrowing is borrowing, and the Federal Reserve Bank isn't the United States government.

Not exactly. There is debt subject to the limit and debt not subject to the limit. If Congress hadn't outlawed it in the mid 90s, the Treasury Secretary could, for example, have the Fed buy some of the social security trust fund's nonmarketable government securities (which are subject to the debt limit) from the fund, thus keeping total outstanding debt the same, but increasing Treasury's cash balance.
posted by wierdo at 4:14 PM on July 29, 2011


Also, for a more fun debate than theoretical legal acts, how can you NOT include Kathleen Sullivan in your trinity?

Er...cough...because I unjustifiably mentally downgraded her after she took the California bar exam and failed in 2005, although she passed the following year. This is a standing joke among CA legal types, especially students who are whistling past the graveyard of taking the exam in the future (like yours truly). The CA bar exam has a reputation for being very hard, although I don't know if that just says something about the pool of applicants or if it's because we have more CA laws that depart from Model Codes than other states. I always thought Luoisiana's bar exam would be the worst because they have all that legacy stuff from the Napoleonic code, but I've yet to look into that in any real detail.


I'm still not getting why this (the amendment) isn't the big gun in the room -- we have an obligation, pursuant to Federal statute, to pay bills X, Y, and Z: therefore, why the fuck, under the 14th amendment, can these friggin maniacs say otherwise?

Ah, but they're not. They want to force Obama to halt all non-debt spending and shut down the government. The goal here is to destroy the regulatory agencies, and devolve those powers back to the States. Essentially, Tea Party types figure that they will be the ones to come out on top in a free-for-all, so they'd like to just abolish most of those pesky government agencies with their regulations and their incomprehensible rules and so on.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:15 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


These. People Do. Not. Like. The. United. States. They want Confederacy 2.0 if you ask me.

Slow-motion secession.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Call the engravers. Make a 2 trillion dollar coin. Put Reagan's face on it. Make the banner read "The full faith and credit of the United States shall not be questioned." Show it to every Republican representative and senator, then tell them they have 24 hours to prevent its release.
posted by ifandonlyif at 4:20 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


However, the 14th says that debts, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. That seems to say that debts not authorized by law can be questioned.

I know that this has been explained upthread as to why this won't save us, and sorry for being obtuse, I'm still not getting why this (the amendment) isn't the big gun in the room -- we have an obligation, pursuant to Federal statute, to pay bills X, Y, and Z: therefore, why the fuck, under the 14th amendment, can these friggin maniacs say otherwise? Is this an intent issue, i.e., the intent pursuant to which the amendment was enacted?

Or maybe somebody could link to the relevant info upthread, because I believe this has been answered.
posted by angrycat at 4:02 PM on July 29 [+] [!]


One side reads the language to mean "only debts which were authorized by law are valid" and so any debt issued without congressional authority is not valid. Further, they narrowly construe "debt" to mean specifically debt instruments. Savings bonds, treasury bills, etc. Bills coming due aren't considered debt in this theory.

The other side reads the language to say "if the US government legitimately owes you money, it will be paid." Which they take to mean that the executive branch has the obligation to beg, borrow or steal to make that debt good. So if the Treasury needs to borrow money to pay someone back, it is obligated to do so.

Both sides are potentially right- it depends on how the courts have interpreted the constitution, or will interpret the constitution. The courts would have to weigh which part of the constitution is more powerful in regulating the authority to borrow money.
posted by gjc at 4:21 PM on July 29, 2011


Practically, like it or not, any course of action for the U.S. government, that doesn't forestall just default, but a drop in credit rating from AAA to AA+ or lower, is a major problem. U.S. Treasuries are something like 80% of AAA instruments on offer, most days, around the world. Almost everyone buying AAA bonds and securities is doing so because of agreements to which they are party, that demand investment in only the safest grade of investment available. If and when U.S. Treasuries, for whatever reasons, are no longer AAA rated, it won't much matter whether issuing more of them is "legal," or not. Most current holders of U.S. Treasuries, can't be buyers of downgraded new U.S. debt instruments. In default that results in credit rating downgrade, we kill our own borrowing mechanisms.

The U.S. government won't be allowed into the world's AAA bond auction rooms, much less run the biggest one, itself, as it has been doing for a long time. It'll have to go down the hall, to the AA rated rooms, along with many other nation-states, corporations, and such, and offer higher returns to investors with greater risk appetite, and fewer strictures on debt grades they can purchase, than its traditional investors in the cozy AAA room it has been running, itself, for a long time.

Debt issues may take longer to fully subscribe. Interest rates and term lengths may be more volatile. That's just life in the AA rooms. But for a country needing to smoothly rollover $500 to $600 billion a month, plus finance another $125 billion plus of new debt, every month, the AA rooms in the world's bond markets are liable to be, a lot of times, "situationally chaotic."

Worse, because of the sudden elimination from AAA status of U.S. debt, the world will soon need another AAA gilt backed reserve currency, and that is a tough role to fill. The euro won't be it, immediately, because of existing eurozone liquidity issues, and behind the euro, there is no pool of AAA security backed currency that comes close to meeting the world's needs for liquidity. The world, as a whole, will have a major problem, perhaps even bigger than those the U.S. government will be having, if and when U.S. Treasuries drop out of AAA rating.

Not only will the American Main Street and Wall Street be hurt by default, but the world will have serious heart palpitations...
posted by paulsc at 4:22 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, anyone feeling less queasy than I am at the moment want to take one for the team and check out how freepers are reacting to Boehner's bill having passed, and report back to us?
posted by Flunkie at 4:23 PM on July 29, 2011


"What's that, you want a smoothie? Tell you what men, we win Friday night, we can have all the damn smoothies we want."

(I know we lost already but, well)
posted by angrycat at 4:24 PM on July 29, 2011


(I know we lost already but, well)

We lost 11 years ago. This part is just gravy.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 4:26 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


3 years of having to read his stuff put in front of me in law school. Cite enough. Him, Cass Sunstein and Lawrence Tribe are pretty much the trinity.

Sorry dude, but the guy's name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship. He did write one unsigned six-page summary on abortion. Are you counting the HLR articles that he "edited" as scholarship?
posted by BobbyVan at 4:29 PM on July 29, 2011


Tea Party types figure that they will be the ones to come out on top in a free-for-all

---

The Tea Party is irrelevant now. Those 80+ members have shot their votular wad. They have nothing to say about what happens next.
posted by Trurl at 4:32 PM on July 29, 2011


Worse, because of the sudden elimination from AAA status of U.S. debt, the world will soon need another AAA gilt backed reserve currency, and that is a tough role to fill.

Chinese bonds backed 100% by US currency as collateral.

Exit Pax-Americana, enter Pax-Sinae.
posted by Talez at 4:33 PM on July 29, 2011


So, anyone feeling less queasy than I am at the moment want to take one for the team and check out how freepers are reacting to Boehner's bill having passed, and report back to us?

Well, they're calling the 22 people who voted against it "heroes" and "patriots, so I guess they're not thrilled.
posted by KathrynT at 4:36 PM on July 29, 2011


If Obama took the so-called 14th amendment route, if his lawyers won't go on record saying that it's legal, he could be on the hook for the criminal charges the Republicans would immediately try to pin on him.

Criminal charges? What would those be?

No, he would have to be sued and/or impeached. The former is very unlikely, as there would have to be standing, in other words some harm would have to be proven by the party bringing the suit. That would likely be Congress. I am not an attorney but can't see where they have standing. Impeachment is possible, but the bar is very high. I can't see the Senate impeaching even if the House does.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:36 PM on July 29, 2011


Sorry dude, but the guy's name doesn't appear on any legal scholarship. He did write one unsigned six-page summary on abortion. Are you counting the HLR articles that he "edited" as scholarship?

I believe he is referring to Erwin Chemerinsky, the legal scholar, and not Barack Obama, the President.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:39 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Wow, that's embarrassing. Sorry Ironmouth.
posted by BobbyVan at 4:43 PM on July 29, 2011


The cognitive dissonance on the right is damn near deafening. Between the people that seem to spinning this Boehner bill as a success for conservatives and those that see anything other than default as a abject failure I'm not really sure what narrative we are supposed to believe. After a couple of decades of near party line cohesion around a central narrative it seems that the control over the conservative narrative is starting to fragment.

That's probably a good thing in the long run but in the short term it's liable to spark a whole other level of partisan shenanigans as conservatives try to out crazy each other to lay claim to being the true conservative.
posted by vuron at 4:46 PM on July 29, 2011


Chinese bonds backed 100% by US currency as collateral.

It's not possible at the moment to invest directly in Chinese currency. They would have to let their Renminbi float like other currencies instead of pegging it to the dollar. That may be possible in the long run, but the Chinese government is in no hurry to do so. OTOH, they probably will find a way to start divesting of their T-bill holdings, which is what they've been doing for the last few years at a slow pace.

The Swiss Franc is very bullish right now, which is considered the strongest safe-haven currency in the current climate. The problem is Switzerland is an export economy, and a string Franc is not in their best interest. Plus there aren't enough Francs to go around to replace the USD if market participants are looking for safety aside from T-bills. Indeed, they are considering intervention in the near future and so is Japan, which is in a similar position. The Japanese economy is not that strong, but the strong Yen is hurting their exports, and there is only so long they will allow this trend to continue. The most recent sentiment by their central bank indicates they will intervene at the next point of crisis when the Yen is run up. The last time they did this was after the earthquake, which did bring down the Yen for a while.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:46 PM on July 29, 2011


Would the coin trick actually help the situation? It seems strange that the credit rating would remain at AAA once the government starts devaluating the currency.
posted by springload at 4:47 PM on July 29, 2011


Flunkie: "So, anyone feeling less queasy than I am at the moment want to take one for the team and check out how freepers are reacting to Boehner's bill having passed, and report back to us"

Selections from the first half of this thread:
Its amazing what the new centurians (newly-elected conservatives) can accomplish if they stick together.

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.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:47 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


The coin trick would be political suicide. It would play into the GOP and the Tea Party's hands. It actually sounds like something I would receive in a forwarded email from my crazy uncle, and then I'd immediately go to Snopes and discover, uh oh, it's true.
posted by BobbyVan at 4:52 PM on July 29, 2011


We are quickly entering the event horizon. Choices are becoming increasingly limited, political suicide or not.
posted by ifandonlyif at 5:04 PM on July 29, 2011


The coin trick would be financial suicide, for the U.S., but for the rest of the world, it would be pre-meditated financial murder. Injecting $2 trillion of "funny money" into an already complex financial debacle, with international dependencies of the gravest nature, is sure to "poison the well" of whatever tattered remnants of respect the dollar might be able to pull about itself in the few days immediately following default. I can't imagine what other governments and financial partners would have to say, or have to do, in response to such a move.
posted by paulsc at 5:06 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


I like how paulsc type guys rise in horror about various proposed remedies "financial murder!", but have no criticism for the true horror of how the problem started in the first place, and there's only praise for the likes of Boehner who is such a great leader to give us this marvelous bill and how dare liberals demonize him.
posted by VikingSword at 5:11 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Would the coin trick actually help the situation?

No. That's what governments used to do before fractional reserve banking, and it usually didn't stop with a one-time fix. The tendency historically is that injecting money directly into the economy by simply increasing supply is too much of a temptation and becomes a standard fix for economic problems. This eventually results in complete devaluation of the currency, as in the Weimar Republic. Although we did inject liquidity into the system with TARP, the money was held by banks as reserve and did not end up in the M2 money supply. That was the whole point, so that banks would have proper reserves to meet lending requirements and to replace liquidity which evaporated after the crash. Creating money with magical coins to pay down the debt would very quickly devalue the USD. We have much better tools now, despite what the Tea Party and gold bugs say.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:12 PM on July 29, 2011


I love how it was so inappropriate to undermine the president during a time of 'war' (I never liked the term, since it's really just occupation, but wevs) when a republican was in office. Now we're still, last I heard, in a couple 'wars', and the same people who were saying it was our patriotic duty to support the president aren't just undermining him, they're eagerly attempting to burn down the country and take the global economy with it. All in a desperate attempt to make the poor poorer. Amazing. What about the troops, folks?
posted by mullingitover at 5:13 PM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]


Pick your suicide pill. Default or mint coins.

Also, remember:

• The Constitution demands that the full faith and credit of the United States shall not be questioned.

• Train v. New York seems to indicate that the executive shouldn't get to pick and choose what line items get paid out from a legally enacted budget.

• The executive can mint a coin that can cover the difference between what Congress has forced us to spend but has not taxed enough to cover and has not authorized debt for.
posted by ifandonlyif at 5:15 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


Senate republicans are filibustering?
posted by futz at 5:16 PM on July 29, 2011


We are quickly entering the event horizon. Choices are becoming increasingly limited, political suicide or not.

If a debt ceiling is to pass, this is the only time it would ever get done. It was obvious when this whole debate started that the midnight vote would be the finish line. That's a tactic to drag this out to the last minute, to maximize political leverage. But as many people have noted, the Tea Party totally overplayed the hand they were dealt and misunderstood their role in government. So, their tactic is backfiring. The very real problem now is they may not care, but they will reap the whirlwind either way. Unfortunately, the inevitable demise of the Tea Party will not be much consolation if they manage to prevent the debt ceiling from passing.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:19 PM on July 29, 2011


futz: "Senate republicans are filibustering?"

If ever there was a time to take the filibuster out back and put two in the dome, this would be it.
posted by mullingitover at 5:19 PM on July 29, 2011


paulsc wrote: Injecting $2 trillion of "funny money" into an already complex financial debacle, with international dependencies of the gravest nature, is sure to "poison the well" of whatever tattered remnants of respect the dollar might be able to pull about itself in the few days immediately following default.

Yeah, it's so much funnier money than the QE2 money. I mean, those coins, they have a good act! The bits in the Fed's computer, not so much.
posted by wierdo at 5:19 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


The executive can mint a coin that can cover the difference between what Congress has forced us to spend but has not taxed enough to cover and has not authorized debt for.

That is just as unrealistic as the belief that a balanced budget Constitutional amendment would pass. It's not going to happen.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2011


Kent Conrad just said so on MSNBC. McConnell won't play ball.
posted by futz at 5:21 PM on July 29, 2011


Ignoring the graveness and absurdity of the situation, a trillion dollar platinum coin would just be so neat, as it would simultaneously be (1) the most sought-after collectible coin ever and (2) the only collectible coin that would, were it in the collectibles market, sell for less than its face value. Interesting combination.
posted by Flunkie at 5:22 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it's so much funnier money than the QE2 money. I mean, those coins, they have a good act! The bits in the Fed's computer, not so much.

Uh ... that's so far from what quantitative easing is that it's not even wrong, as the saying goes.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:22 PM on July 29, 2011


It may not happen, but it might be a good enough threat to get some Republicans to act like they care about the country.
posted by ifandonlyif at 5:23 PM on July 29, 2011


Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D, that is.
posted by futz at 5:24 PM on July 29, 2011


This will be the moment we look back to in years to come. I for one, hope to be looking back to it from some other, saner country.
posted by adamdschneider at 5:24 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Boehner bill dead, 59-41
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:24 PM on July 29, 2011


Oh shit, if McConnell is filibustering, does that mean he stepped off the train he was on with Reid? It must mean that.

And we shall all, go down, together. And yes we shall all, go down, together.
posted by angrycat at 5:25 PM on July 29, 2011


krinklyfig wrote: Uh ... that's so far from what quantitative easing is that it's not even wrong, as the saying goes

Fed buys Treasuries (among other things) in return for dollars, this is different than the Fed buying a coin for dollars how?

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but let's be realistic here, we've been printing money off and on for a couple of years now.
posted by wierdo at 5:25 PM on July 29, 2011


Which Republicans voted to kill it?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:25 PM on July 29, 2011


krinklyfig: Yeah, but even as a one-time fix, I'd be so surprised if lenders and credit evaluation firms didn't go immediately crazy from it, which is what you urgently want to avoid. I'm inclined to agree with paulsc's comment, as much of a left-leaning European as I am.
posted by springload at 5:25 PM on July 29, 2011


Rand Paul was among those who voted to table it, heh.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:27 PM on July 29, 2011


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 over. The next major usual-rollover-tranche occurs August 11. Even if the instruments due August 4 are redeemed, unless there is a an authorization in place by August 11, and a successful auction of new U.S. debt sufficient to fund the August 11 liabilites occurs before August 11, a downgrade, probably below AA, maybe to as low as B+ in the case of August 11 absolute default, is likely.

If the deal can't be done by August 2, everything doesn't come to a screeching halt, apparently, so long as the Treasury is willing to spend about 40% of today's cash position shoring up the market for Treasuries. Between August 4 and August 11, cash outflows become problematic, but not until August 12 do international markets really have immediate hurt, if the AAA rating isn't shot down until then.
posted by paulsc at 5:27 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


A filibuster is basically fiscal suicide. The appearance of ineptitude at this late date is just the same as actual ineptitude. Markets will not be happy, and I'm fucking pissed.
posted by futz at 5:32 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


It may not happen, but it might be a good enough threat to get some Republicans to act like they care about the country.

Nobody would buy it. If Obama announced this plan of minting money directly in the trillions to pay off the debt, it would definitely sound like a joke and would considerably tarnish his reputation as someone who is grounded in reality. I can't imagine Geithner or anyone at the Treasury endorsing the deal. It's completely irresponsible as policy and would do far more damage than a downgrade of T-bills, meaning our bonds would become quickly devalued and interest rates would subsequently skyrocket. Imagine the value of the USD cut in half or more.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:33 PM on July 29, 2011


What's the responsible policy if we are actually in default?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:34 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Don't really understand what happened on the Senate floor just now. McConnell was complaining about not being to able to vote right away - he kept asking for an immediate vote. But Reid was complaining that McConnell was going to filibuster the bill. So. A little help? What was that about?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:35 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


krinklyfig: Yeah, but even as a one-time fix, I'd be so surprised if lenders and credit evaluation firms didn't go immediately crazy from it, which is what you urgently want to avoid. I'm inclined to agree with paulsc's comment, as much of a left-leaning European as I am.

I agree. You can't mint a coin to fix this problem. It's not a right-left issue but a fantasy-reality issue. The idea of minting a coin is in the realm of Tea Party thinking, meaning it's an idea which would never happen and doesn't make a lot of sense. I trade the markets every day and so spend a lot of time studying economies and macro issues, and I don't claim to be an expert but do have some knowledge and pay attention. I'm also as liberal as they come and lean Keynesian. It's a terrible idea and not grounded in reality.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:40 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


McConnnell is not going to let the cloture vote pass now, he is going to make Reid twist arms. The vote will be scheduled for 1am Sunday morning and will pass.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:44 PM on July 29, 2011


"What's the responsible policy if we are actually in default?"
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:34 PM on July 29

Depending on where you might fall on the political spectrum, a "responsible" policy would be to shut down as much of the U.S. Federal government as needed to conserve cash outflow, while maximizing cash collection. Pay no one that doesn't have power to hurt the nation immediately, collect taxes and other revenues (user fees, asset sales or leasing, etc) from everyone we can, and try to manage disruption by whatever political and economic leverage we can still command, while working to achieve a domestic political compromise that ensures national financial continuity of some kind, in world markets.

But if there is no possibility of domestic political compromise by the third week of August, I think we're all in completely uncharted, and unchartable waters.
posted by paulsc at 5:46 PM on July 29, 2011


Let me rephrase, Reid is asking to vote now along a simple majority. McConnell is going to make him get 60 for cloture instead.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:47 PM on July 29, 2011


Fed buys Treasuries (among other things) in return for dollars, this is different than the Fed buying a coin for dollars how?

QE is meant to increase bank reserves and control yields in order to combat deflation. Bonds are held until expiration or rolled over, but eventually easing is eased out. In contrast, simply doubling the M2 money supply (e.g., by minting trillion dollar coins) immediately devalues the currency and is difficult to control in terms of total supply and its effects. We know how that worked out historically, which is why we don't do that anymore.

There's a lot more to how this all works, but it's a bit much to get into all of it in this thread. Plenty of resources are available online for further explanation. Look for non-partisan, non-political sources.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:47 PM on July 29, 2011


We are governed by children.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:48 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


But if there is no possibility of domestic political compromise by the third week of August, I think we're all in completely uncharted, and unchartable waters.
posted by paulsc


We are already there, what planet are you on?
posted by futz at 5:49 PM on July 29, 2011


WSJ reports: The Senate has defeated House Speaker John Boehner's debt-ceiling bill, which was approved in the House earlier Friday evening by a 218-210 margin.
posted by dejah420 at 5:51 PM on July 29, 2011


"We are governed by children."
posted by five fresh fish at 8:48 PM on July 29

Perhaps, but if so, they are the children of our considered election, and thus, we can't conveniently back away from them, or what they have wrought, or what they have yet to try.
posted by paulsc at 5:52 PM on July 29, 2011


paulsc: "Perhaps, but if so, they are the children of our considered election, and thus, we can't conveniently back away from them, or what they have wrought, or what they have yet to try."

Sure we can. Charge them with malfeasance in office and lock 'em up. If they cause a default I honestly hope that happens.
posted by mullingitover at 5:53 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


We are governed by children.

no, children would eventually get tired of the bickering and flip a coin to decide
posted by pyramid termite at 5:54 PM on July 29, 2011


Depending on where you might fall on the political spectrum, a "responsible" policy would be to shut down as much of the U.S. Federal government as needed to conserve cash outflow, while maximizing cash collection. Pay no one that doesn't have power to hurt the nation immediately, collect taxes and other revenues (user fees, asset sales or leasing, etc) from everyone we can, and try to manage disruption by whatever political and economic leverage we can still command, while working to achieve a domestic political compromise that ensures national financial continuity of some kind, in world markets.

In that event, who decides which things get funded? The President?

We are governed by children.

Who were elected by children.

>>But if there is no possibility of domestic political compromise by the third week of August, I think we're all in completely uncharted, and unchartable waters.

We are already there, what planet are you on?


Not helpful.
posted by JHarris at 5:56 PM on July 29, 2011


So; what's the next step then? I mean, this accomplished nothing, as far as legislative movement is concerned, correct? If I remember poli-sci correctly, this means they need to try to make a compromise bill. If these idiots could have created a compromise bill, wouldn't they have done it already? Good gods in heaven, we're doomed, aren't we?
posted by dejah420 at 5:57 PM on July 29, 2011


What's all this about McConnell filibustering? Especially in context of these comments:

VikingSword: "But what if the Repubs filibuster in the senate and the Reid bill never gets out?"

Mister Fabulous: "I don't think the GOP senators would try it. If they did, I could see some members voting to kill the filibuster."

wierdo: "If cloture has to be invoked to get a bill through the Senate, default is nearly certain. I'm working from memory here, but I think it takes around three days to get a bill passed that has been filibustered. The Senate rules are not designed to push things through quickly, especially in the face of opposition."

Avenger: "1) Somebody will filibuster
2) It won't get out in time
3) When it does get out, it won't pass the House
4) We are going to Default in four days
"

What are they trying to filibuster, why, and what's the impact? TV news is dropping the ball here. What the hell is going on?
posted by Rhaomi at 5:58 PM on July 29, 2011


Good gods in heaven, we're doomed, aren't we?

Yes. The more you think about it, though, I mean, they want this to happen, right? This is, for a great many people, going according to plan.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:59 PM on July 29, 2011


Perhaps, but if so, they are the children of our considered election, and thus, we can't conveniently back away from them, or what they have wrought, or what they have yet to try.
posted by paulsc


You sound like an enabler or a helicopter parent. And stop saying "we", this is people like "you" who have wrought this.

...or what they have yet to try.

This scares the shit out of me.
posted by futz at 5:59 PM on July 29, 2011


Bob Shrum's calling it the Tea Party's antics a "constitutional coup d'etat" on CNN.
posted by GrammarMoses at 6:00 PM on July 29, 2011


krinklyfig wrote: QE is meant to increase bank reserves and control yields in order to combat deflation. Bonds are held until expiration or rolled over, but eventually easing is eased out. In contrast, simply doubling the M2 money supply (e.g., by minting trillion dollar coins) immediately devalues the currency and is difficult to control in terms of total supply and its effects. We know how that worked out historically, which is why we don't do that anymore.

How is it inflationary until the money is spent? It's no different in that sense from the money that is sitting on bank balance sheets. The measure of M2 might increase, but the effective amount of currency in circulation would still be the same until the Government spent the created money.

Besides, even if the government did that and spent all the money, there's no demand component that will drive up prices and cause the inflation. You can raise prices all you like, but if nobody can pay them it doesn't matter. (aside from imports which would of course increase due to the devaluation of the dollar, which you might note is already underway)

Note, I'm not saying this is a great idea, I'm merely disagreeing with your premise as to why. I agree that it would cause market turmoil, rational or no, and that's a plenty good reason not to do it.
posted by wierdo at 6:00 PM on July 29, 2011


krinklyfig, we're very quickly going to be in a position where we don't get to choose between good things to do and okay things to do. We're going to have to choose—to reference an earlier post—between max headroom, and thunderdome. Right now, a couple of trillion dollar coins seems to me to be more max headroom than thunderdome. That's all I'm saying. I know you disagree, but please tell me what you think is the least thunderdomish.
posted by ifandonlyif at 6:00 PM on July 29, 2011


i know there's a lot of well-founded doubt about such schemes as the trillion dollar coin and the 14th amendment, but you look at how things are going to go if congress can't agree on something and one old saying comes to mind

you may as well be hung for a wolf as for a dog
posted by pyramid termite at 6:00 PM on July 29, 2011


What am I missing about the Reid bill that is being put up in the Senate? How can the Senate vote o a bill that has not been passed to them by the House first? I am reading an article in TPM that outlines a process by which Reid hopes to get this bill passed by Tuesday . My question is how can teh Senate even vote on a bill that they just made up and was not given to them by the House first?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:03 PM on July 29, 2011


This is, for a great many people, going according to plan.

This is what religion does to a country. Driven by Revelations or driven by Ayn Rand, extremism is always a disaster. Idiots who cease to think and question and grow will be the end of us, I swear. And the worst is, they believe they want it!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:07 PM on July 29, 2011


As I understand it (and I don't) they are just writing over the Boehner bill with the Reid text substituted and sending it back.

It is going to pass the cloture vote, McConnell is just making Reid twist arms. It sounds likes a delay for purposes of brinksmanship, and it is, but the Democrats could have promised some votes and gotten Boehner's plan passed through the House faster too.

As I understand it, we are on pace for an 11th hour deal as long as nothing unexpected comes along to sabotage it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:08 PM on July 29, 2011


furiousxgeorge : If what you say is correct then what purpose could that serve since they have to send it back to the House and the House is certain to vote it back down? What am I missing?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:12 PM on July 29, 2011


The idea is that there are at least 30 House Republicans who aren't insane.
posted by wierdo at 6:13 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


"We are already there, what planet are you on?"
posted by futz at 8:49 PM on July 29

The same one I was on in March of 2008, when the sounds of sand in the gears of the world's credit system were first publicly heard, in an incontrovertible way. But as we know, the then coming debacle didn't burst, fully, until some months later. This, however, being soon a possible currency lock up, rather than a credit system seizure, I don't expect that leisurely horizon, or somewhat forestalled outcome. The further down the abstraction ladder you go on financial instruments, the broader the effect of simple doubt, and circumstances like liquidity failure.

I'd like nothing better than to see our elected officials hold their noses, and do something pragmatic, even at the last minute. I still bear a scar on the back of my head from being in Chicago in 1968, and I don't recommend the streets as a mechanism of action, over the messy process of governance in a democratic republic, on personal pain and experience.
posted by paulsc at 6:13 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


I honestly know nothing about congressional procedure, just posting what I'm hearing. At some point there will be a compromise centrist bipartisan bill that everyone hates, is terrible policy, and will pass.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:17 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


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? ...

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.
posted by Trurl at 6:17 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


TV news is dropping the ball here.

They never had the goddamn ball in the first place.
posted by marxchivist at 6:29 PM on July 29, 2011 [7 favorites]


Right, but I was thinking if there was some unexpected derail going on in the Senate with just a handful of days left, they'd be reporting it as it happened (however inadequately) instead of doing postgame-commentary-esque, "whelp, everyone's gone home for today, let's take a look at the highlights."
posted by Rhaomi at 6:34 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


This derail is not unexpected, the cloture vote was scheduled for 1am Sunday before Boehner even passed his bill.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:37 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Right now, a couple of trillion dollar coins seems to me to be more max headroom than thunderdome. That's all I'm saying. I know you disagree, but please tell me what you think is the least thunderdomish.

Non-realistic proposals are still non-realistic. I can't emphasize enough that the idea of minting trillion dollar coins is Tea Party thinking. It doesn't matter if it would "solve" the problem if it would ruin the economy. The immediate effects would be that the value of the dollar would be cut severely, instantly. That would result in much higher interest rates than a T-bill downgrade to AA. We're talking cataclysmic effects. And, to repeat, it's not going to happen, never ever. Minting trillion dollar coins is never going to be on the table, so there's no point in contemplating it as a realistic solution. This is the type of trap the Tea Party is in right now, thinking that unrealistic solutions are available to them and will come to pass if they just push hard enough, or if we come to the edge of the cliff.

The most likely outcome IMO is that the debt ceiling passes at midnight Monday on its own, in other words a clean bill, or McConnell's plan to pass the buck to Obama. Either way we get a debt ceiling increase without other cuts or revenues attached. Budget negotiations are going nowhere. I think it's much less likely that we get a real budget out of this. It's possible but IMO not likely that the debt ceiling is not passed by the deadline. If that happens, we're dealing with a serious problem which will not be resolved by unrealistic solutions. I think the outcome would force the hand of the Republican Party to pass a debt ceiling increase, with any luck before major damage occurs. I don't see other solutions as realistic or likely in the least.

The Constitutional option is available but doesn't look likely to happen unless the crisis of default is actually underway. I don't think it's likely unless we get to that point and maybe not even then, but it's far more likely than minting coins, which is at most a theoretical idea and not in consideration by anyone involved as a policy option.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:45 PM on July 29, 2011


Markets are getting angrier. After-hours trading put the Dow futures down 105 points to open Monday.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 6:51 PM on July 29, 2011


TPM: The gist: Reid hopes to entice Republicans to support his plan in two ways. First, with slightly deeper cuts. Second, by adopting an idea, first proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, that would delegate the authority to raise the debt limit to President Obama -- and give Congress the prerogative to attempt to block Obama from taking that action.

It does not include any penalties or triggers to force Congress to enact entitlement and tax reforms in the coming months.

posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:51 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


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?

I ask because that would be awesome. I mean, it would destroy our credibility, financial and otherwise, but it'd be one for the books. If America is going to go down the shitter, we might as well go down in style.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:53 PM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]


Guys who know things: So this thing (Reid's bill) will go to a bipartisan committee who will hash out the thing, right? Who chooses the people who are going to be on the comm? And then the House Dems and the 30 sane Republicans will vote it through, right?

So then the Tea Party will say it has lost, that the horrible bill we have will be the fault for the horrible economic consequences we will experience at the hands of the Tea Party.

From upthread:

/cue projectile vomiting
posted by angrycat at 6:57 PM on July 29, 2011


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".
posted by Flunkie at 6:57 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


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:

Oh, you and your "facts."
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:58 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


But our credit rating will be downgraded oh, fuck it.

I'm just going to go into full primal anger mode: Does any of this mean Boehner will suffer any humiliation? Because I want those moments to have my full attention.
posted by angrycat at 6:59 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


Well, I suppose Obama could visit the dentist this weekend and get a platinum incisor, in which case your plan sounds valid to me.
posted by Flunkie at 7:00 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Does any of this mean Boehner will suffer any humiliation?

Well, if we can get close enough, we can throw glitter on him.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:00 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Platinum glitter and then the treasury secretary can say each piece of glitter is worth TEN GADZILLION BAJOLLARS!
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:01 PM on July 29, 2011




This 2 Trillion dollar coin talk is just silly folks. Show me where it even says it needs to be mint flavored? I mean why not raspberry swirl or a nice butterscotch?
posted by Skygazer at 7:04 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Looks like McConnell is going to be a douchebag and try to drag out the process in order to wring out additional concessions from the Democrats.

Push comes to shove the Republicans in the Senate will play ball and the political hand grenade will be back in Boehner's court.

This is all 11th hour posturing on the part of Republicans who already will get a great deal (in their minds) but they honestly want the Democrats to sign a bullshit bill that will cost them voters in 2012.

I think the Democrats finally cottoned on to that fact but only after looking like Charlie Brown going up to kick the ball time after time.
posted by vuron at 7:09 PM on July 29, 2011


I don't think the mint thing is so much of a plan as a "this is what the Executive must do if the debt ceiling stays and he's not willing to seize statutory power at the risk of impeachment but not conviction".

Because things have to be paid. No one is gonna make SuperCoin. Because interpreting yourself questionable statutory power to save the country is a hell of a lot smarter.
posted by Chipmazing at 7:09 PM on July 29, 2011


Interesting piece on the constitutional option: Can Obama Extend the Debt Ceiling on His Own?
posted by homunculus at 7:14 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


OK , so if I understand this correctly , Reid is just replacing the text of Boehners voted down bill with his own and then hopes to have it back in the House's hand by Tuesday give or take.

What I don't get is why a completely dysfunctional House would accept a bill from Reid that they've just spent a week and a half ignoring already? So frankly I don't get it. It sounds like, if everything goes on schedule, that this Tuesday we will be exactly back to where we were yesterday. Seriously, what am I missing?

Help me Sailor Man!
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:15 PM on July 29, 2011


Whenever I read about the Trillion Dollar Coin I picture this huge coin, like twenty feet tall, which of course then naturally leads to thoughts of this.
posted by marxchivist at 7:16 PM on July 29, 2011


Whenever I read about the Trillion Dollar Coin I picture this huge coin, like twenty feet tall, which of course then naturally leads to thoughts of this.

There's a Batman: The Animated Series episode where Twoface captures Batman, ties him to a giant coin and flips it, saying that he'll either die or break every bone in his body when it lands.

That's what I've been picturing.
posted by sparkletone at 7:19 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


If there ever is a trillion dollar coin minted you can be sure of the following: it will be roughly the size and shape of a quarter and you'll end up giving it to the fracking 7-11 sales clerk when you buy a 50 cent pack of gum.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:20 PM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


What I don't get is why a completely dysfunctional House would accept a bill from Reid that they've just spent a week and a half ignoring already?

The House hasn't yet received Reid's bill for consideration.

Dems only need 30 of the 218 Repubs who voted for the Boehner bill, to vote for the Reid bill.
posted by dave99 at 7:22 PM on July 29, 2011


Dave, 30 seems like a big number of Republicans to defect over. Why would they do that Tuesday if they would not do that today? That's what I am not getting.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:24 PM on July 29, 2011


Interesting piece on the constitutional option: Can Obama Extend the Debt Ceiling on His Own?

Ronald Dworkin is a giant of legal philosophy, but when your argument rests on the premise that the Tea Party would not want to look foolish by trying to impeach Obama. If you belive that, I've got a $2 trillion platinum coin I'd like to sell you.
posted by anigbrowl at 7:28 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Poet_Lariat: " What I don't get is why a completely dysfunctional House would accept a bill from Reid that they've just spent a week and a half ignoring already? So frankly I don't get it. It sounds like, if everything goes on schedule, that this Tuesday we will be exactly back to where we were yesterday. Seriously, what am I missing?"

I think the idea is that with zero time left for any negotiations or counteroffers and a pretty attractive offer on the table, Boehner will swallow his pride and direct enough of his caucus to vote with the Democrats and pass the Reid bill rather than reject it and spark economic disaster by failing to raise the ceiling in time.

Also, Jesus Christ there is a shitty Crossroads GPS or Public Notice ad airing every single commercial break on CNN. SuperPACs backed by handfuls of billionaires are already saturating the airwaves, and it's not even election season yet. This is not going to be a fun fifteen months.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:29 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


The "defecting" today was about hard-right Tea Partiers moving into the Republican position.

For the Reid bill, it's a different 30 they need - the 30 most moderate Republicans. Of course the Tea Partiers will never vote for the Reid bill - but perhaps can they find 30 moderate Republicans to vote for it.

Given the Reid bill has no new revenues, it seems possible.
posted by dave99 at 7:29 PM on July 29, 2011


Markets are getting angrier. After-hours trading put the Dow futures down 105 points to open Monday.

Well, futures trading opens again Sunday night, so there's still plenty of opportunity for movement before US market open on Monday. In any event 105 points on the DJIA is nothing to note and is about 60% of the average range of trading for a day for that index. Both the S&P and DJIA futures were up when the futures markets closed and failed to break through any resistance or support levels at any time during regular market hours or after. The markets were indecisive today, with the indexes opening slightly lower but rangebound for the session. The 30-year T-bill futures contract popped up today from 126'00 at open to over 128'00 at close, which is a continuation of about a six month bullish bond trend. Traders believe the crisis is overblown and are buying bonds but are not yet committing either way on the equity side. They could be wrong but are not putting their money on a bad outcome.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:31 PM on July 29, 2011


Can Boehner say he doesn't like the Reid bill when it comes back and not take a vote on it?
posted by Skygazer at 7:35 PM on July 29, 2011


Can Boehner say he doesn't like the Reid bill when it comes back and not take a vote on it?

I'm thinking a lot of the reasoning behind the Senate bill is that it will too late for any more BS at that point and the only choice will be for the House to pass it or default. The Senate Dems are counting if that happens the House Republicans will get the blame for the default.
posted by marxchivist at 7:41 PM on July 29, 2011


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 over
I'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.

In fact, we actually hit the debt ceiling back in May, and I'm pretty sure that we have been rolling over existing debt since then.
posted by Flunkie at 7:42 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


FWIW - here is the CBOs estimation of the new Reid proposal on the deficit.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:43 PM on July 29, 2011


Zakaria on Anderson Cooper calling the Tea Party GOP "anti-democratic" and "counter-constitutional" for attempting to take the economy "hostage" after winning only one-half of one branch of government in one election.

He makes a good point -- they argue they have a mandate to drive a hard bargain since they're only doing what they promised to do (and what they were elected on), but if the Founders wanted a single election to determine the course of government, then there wouldn't be staggered terms in the Senate and quadrennial elections for president. Kind of like how a single referendum can't amend the constitution -- you need supermajorities in both houses and among the states. Big changes require big, sustained victories at the ballot box and legislature, not a single wave election.

Hit 'em where their hearts (supposedly) lie: in the wisdom of the constitution and the Founding Fathers, where moderation and compromise rule.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:43 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think Reid's plan + some variation on the McConnell "Obama gets to raise the debt himself" plan is probably what we are going to get. There might be some pot sweetners but that's pretty much the face of the deal.

There are enough Republican senators that would like to give DeMint and the Teahaddists a beating that I think McConnell will only get a small concession for allowing a cloture vote.

Then the senate will kick it back to the house Sunday night and Boehner and the House will get to own it until the final hour. Maximum financial pressure and media scrutiny will put enormous pressure on Boehner. In the face of that pressure I figure the democrats can peel away the requisite number of votes and then Boehner/Cantor/etc will go "Well we gave it old college try" and then try to shore up their districts against CFG/teabagger primaries.
posted by vuron at 7:43 PM on July 29, 2011


Wall Street Week for Friday, October 23rd, 1987

Louis Rukeyser (Jon Lovitz): Do you see any sound investments out there?

Jane Wykam (Jan Hooks): Yes, Louis. We like, uh, bottled water, canned foods, propane, rural real estate. We're also, uh, we're recommending shotguns, uh, for defense against the marauding bands of angry, inner-city youth—I'm frightened people! Don't you understand this? I'm frightened! Frightened!
posted by ob1quixote at 7:44 PM on July 29, 2011 [6 favorites]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 7:46 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Both the S&P and DJIA futures were up when the futures markets closed

To clarify, the after equity hours trading was bullish for both, although the DJIA closed down for the day and the S&P up. This is what traders call chop. A lot of my charts confirm this, with the exception of REITs, which are mortgage-backed funds which pay dividends, which are among the most sensitive instruments to interest rate changes aside from bonds. There was a pretty big sell-off of REITs at market open which turned around very quickly to recover but resumed their intermediate downward trend. The market sentiment does seem to indicate a sentiment in the direction of a T-bill downgrade to AA and resulting higher interest rates but not default, and nothing too severe as far as rates are concerned. The assumption appears to be that we will pass a debt ceiling increase but will fail to enact budget cuts big enough to suit the ratings agencies. I disagree with the agencies and feel they are getting too involved in the political process to the point where they are becoming part of the negotiations with their own political angle, but my personal feelings aside that's the read.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:53 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Flunkie: "
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
"

Hence the "supposedly." This argument might not move Tea Party types, but it's a strong counter to their "elections have consequences" rhetoric. They're radicals, plain and simple, and their expectation of the government to turn on a dime when they've won control of a single House is a clear example of it, especially when contrasted with their "ramming it down our throats" freakout when Democrats dared act after their big wins in the House, Senate, and presidency in 2006 and 2008.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:57 PM on July 29, 2011 [5 favorites]


Just had a long talk with a senior dem hill staffer. 20+ years on the hill.

His mood was fucking ebullient. There's a reason the dems are so united. The polling is terrible for the GOP on this. They are bleeding older white, non-evangelicals. He says GOP House Caucus is scared to death and freaking.

I trust this guy and know him well. I was surprised at his confidence. But he was fucking beaming.

Monday, expect a bold move by Obama.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:38 PM on July 29, 2011 [13 favorites]




Ironmouth, hope to God you're right.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:45 PM on July 29, 2011


Oh word? I hope things turn out well.
posted by cashman at 8:46 PM on July 29, 2011




I'm a little late to the party.

Ironmouth, you cheered me up and gave me some hope.

But I seriously am sweating bullets on this. As a young man working on getting a secondary education and trying to enter the workforce to some degree, the economy is everything. I don't care about austerity, even though the Teahadists claim I would be victim number one.

The US economy is not like a family's finances. It is more like a business, if you replace income with GDP. If the GDP is not growing fast enough, you don't balance the budget. That means you're in trouble. You paradoxically have to spend more money to fix the GDP. When things are good again, you roll in the tax revenue.

If the House Tea Partiers think this will win me their vote, I'd like to hear how or why. They've come to Washington, learned they can't govern, and now just want to see the world burn.
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:17 PM on July 29, 2011


Let me put it to you this way. My friend said that on Thursday night, at 7 pm as he left the office, the staffer who handles these budgeting issuses in his office looked at him, shot him a huge grin and said "hey [Name]! Na na na na, na na na na he-ey goodbye."
posted by Ironmouth at 9:24 PM on July 29, 2011


But what if the Repubs filibuster in the senate and the Reid bill never gets out?
posted by VikingSword at 2:32 PM on July 29 [+] [!]

That's political suicide.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:50 PM on July 29 [+] [!]

...Reid’s chances of getting to 60 votes Saturday night appear slim, and the whole scenario may be a device to put pressure on Republicans by making them appear obstructive and filibustering.

A spokesman for Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown signaled support for Reid, but even Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) indicated she would oppose cloture.


I repeat, that's political suicide.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:38 PM on July 29, 2011


"we don't believe you, you need more people". I hope what you're saying comes true, but right now aloow me to wait for the ass kicking to formally begin before i start cheering.
posted by cashman at 9:38 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Happy about the polling, eh? I hope he's happy about the policy they are about to pass too.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:01 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Reid got 59 votes on the motion to table the house bill. The deal will happen in the senate.
posted by humanfont at 10:04 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Put another way, the core of the Republican technique is to threaten a self-defeating strategy so drastic, that people might be overwhelmed that they shy away from standing up because although the odds are low that it will work, the unlikely downside for the threatened party is so bad that they back away. In other words, a bluff.

But baby, this is the pros. The big leagues. Everybody got here by crushing multiple other people. That shit aint gonna work here. Really, Harry Reid is gonna cave to a monumental bluff? Pelosi? These people were forged in the crucible of the insanity of the last 10 years. Remember the TARP vote? The GOP agreed to contribute a percentage of votes to it, to depoliticize it so it could pass. Cantor convinced Boehner to go back on his word. Pelosi was smarter. When they weren't covering their end, with a nod of her head, 20 dems switched votes and TARP died.

Boehner and Cantor were stunned. They came out and in the scrum of reporters they claimed that Pelosi was too mean in her speech. Really? What, you polled your members in the five seconds before you met reporters? No, motherfucker, you didn't. You got beat.

The result? McCain pulled that stupid "suspend the campaign" stunt. That was another epic thread here. Half the people here thought Obama should also suspend his campaign. Obama said fuck that. McCain took a beating and lost.

And look at the facts on the ground. How many dems voted for boehner's plan in congress? None. Not a one.

And Boehner? The biggest vote of his life? Didn't have the votes, gave the rebels all they wanted and it passed by 2 votes.

That's a real tell.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:07 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


And Boehner? The biggest vote of his life? Didn't have the votes, gave the rebels all they wanted and it passed by 2 votes.

That's a real tell.


No, it isn't. It passed by the same margin as health care, and for the same reason: you get to the number you need and then let everyone who wants to vote "no" vote "no" after that. The number tells us absolutely nothing about Boehner's relative strength.

I repeat, that's political suicide.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they won't still do it. Your triumphant TARP narrative, recall, resulted in TARP *not passing* and the market tanking as a result. The back and forth of political fortunes is great, but we absolutely need the debt ceiling to be lifted; that's more important than anything else and it's still not clear how we get from here to there legislatively.
posted by gerryblog at 10:14 PM on July 29, 2011 [2 favorites]


Reid got 59 votes on the motion to table the house bill. The deal will happen in the senate.
posted by humanfont at 1:04 AM on July 30 [+] [!]


This does give me hope, though the claim that Collins won't support the Reid plan remains very troubling.
posted by gerryblog at 10:20 PM on July 29, 2011


No, it isn't. It passed by the same margin as health care, and for the same reason: you get to the number you need and then let everyone who wants to vote "no" vote "no" after that. The number tells us absolutely nothing about Boehner's relative strength.

This aint health care, baby. These are insane all-in stakes. A suicide bomber with demands. I'm sorry dude but there are three days left to social security checks not going out. Got it? Boehner called a vote without having the votes whipped. And lost.

This is pure white-knuckle shit. More TARP than healthcare. A vote you get a margin on.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:23 PM on July 29, 2011 [3 favorites]


Right, the Democrats can wheel and deal like a Philadelphia sports GM, but are they gonna keep those entitlement cuts out? It still feels in the air to me.

Half the people here thought Obama should also suspend his campaign.

Really? I remember the liberal opinion at the time being pretty universal that McCain had made a ridiculous blunder.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:23 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


Another encouraging sign from @fivethirtyeight:
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]


Ha ha, does this mean we can have celebratory sex instead of nihilistic sex?

I mean, both are fine, but the first is so much happier.
posted by angrycat at 10:42 PM on July 29, 2011 [4 favorites]


Really? I remember the liberal opinion at the time being pretty universal that McCain had made a ridiculous blunder.

Not here. I reread that thread 3 weeks ago.

Flat out this is a titanic gamble for the GOP. If it goes wrong for them and they crash the economy, it will really, really hurt them.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:06 PM on July 29, 2011


Right, the Democrats can wheel and deal like a Philadelphia sports GM, but are they gonna keep those entitlement cuts out? It still feels in the air to me.

The Democrats are pressing their advantage in a serious way now. They aren't as full of bluster as the Republicans but are clearly in control. You can tell by the way the Republicans repeatedly play the victim card instead of taking the upper hand. The Dems' leaders know very well the public is on their side, so they're letting the Republicans dig in their heels and destroy their political capital. All they needed to do was give them enough rope and they did it to themselves.

Ironmouth's comment confirms what I always felt to be the case about the Dems' strategy, which is essentially rope-a-dope. All they had to do was be patient as the freshman House played a huge bluff on a very weak hand, and negotiating in a way which demonstrated to the public exactly what the Republicans were doing, which is putting tax cuts for the wealthy above the entire country and in fact the world economy. I can't believe how foolish they have been, but as Ironmouth said, this is the big leagues and the Dems are very experienced at political strategy with the group they have now. Between Reid, Obama, Pelosi, and Bill Clinton hovering in the background - just those four - the Republican freshmen never had a chance. If this were a poker game, this would be the final hand which wipes out the bluffer's pot piled high on the table all-in, as they reveal a pair of aces against a full house.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:31 PM on July 29, 2011


I repeat, that's political suicide.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they won't still do it.


Are you asking me if I am hoping the GOP commits political suicide?

I mean seriously, what's the plan? To cave to them?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:37 PM on July 29, 2011


Ironmouth's comment confirms what I always felt to be the case about the Dems' strategy, which is essentially rope-a-dope.

That's amazing. A friend has been calling the Dems strategy just that for some time. Weird.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:43 PM on July 29, 2011


Flat out this is a titanic gamble for the GOP
Who pays for the GOP electoral campaigns? Is it the Tea Party? No. It is the same people (more or less) who fund the Democratic Party. It is Goldman Sachs. It is Shell Oil. It is BP. It is Microsoft, GE, and Bank of America. The GOP also get the Koch Brothers so goody for them.

The point is that none of those organizations want the economy crashed and I am very sure that they are making this quite clear to every GOP House member out there. It may well be that there are a few tea party ideologues out there but pretty much anyone who gets elected to a House seat knows where the money came from and knows that if they want to be in that seat next year they pretty much do what the money says .

I do not buy the hysterical theory that the GOP, much as I dislike them, is filled somehow with half crazed Tea Party idealists who will bring the country down just because they can. That doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm sure there are a few . But BOA and Goldman Sachs don;t fund those sorts of people.

The fact is that the stock market today didn't crash . I don't think it's going to crash Monday either. That means the big investors are confident that things will settle. No big wheels are pulling their money out of the market. I think they know more than anyone on this thread knows - which none of us should find surprising.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:54 PM on July 29, 2011 [1 favorite]


I do not buy the hysterical theory that the GOP, much as I dislike them, is filled somehow with half crazed Tea Party idealists who will bring the country down just because they can.

There are 89 GOP freshmen. 89.

Boehner needed a big margin today to demostrate to dem negotiators that his word was law and that he could deliver any promise he made. They reported 10-20 would switch votes from the reported. 26 against the original bill. The defections were 22. 22! They got a measly 4 votes, less than 2% of their caucus, to switch.

These people are not thinking this out.

One question--if Tom Delay was the majority leader would we be having this argument? This would have been solved weeks ago.

These are nuts.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:04 AM on July 30, 2011


SuperPACs backed by handfuls of billionaires are already saturating the airwaves, and it's not even election season yet. This is not going to be a fun fifteen months.

Fifteen months? I'm thrilled to find out that we are going to get the Scalia/Thomas death combo in just over a year!
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:14 AM on July 30, 2011


I do not buy the hysterical theory that the GOP, much as I dislike them, is filled somehow with half crazed Tea Party idealists who will bring the country down just because they can.

Coulda seen that until yesterday evening. Boehner can't lift that caucus. It was demonstrated in living color last night. And if you are telling me that Wall Street knows better than my friend whose boss sits on the Appropriations Committee, well, who on Wall Street are you talking to? Because all indications are that the dems are taking this to the mat. Not a single dem voted for Boehner's bill today. More than 10% of all GOPers voted against it.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:15 AM on July 30, 2011


SuperPACs backed by handfuls of billionaires are already saturating the airwaves, and it's not even election season yet. This is not going to be a fun fifteen months.

Dems are crushing the GOP in fundraising right now. Obama's lapping the field. He will raise $1 billion. I'm less concerned in the short term, than others.

Long term its pernicious.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:19 AM on July 30, 2011


I do not buy the hysterical theory that the GOP, much as I dislike them, is filled somehow with half crazed Tea Party idealists who will bring the country down just because they can. That doesn't sound right to me at all. I'm sure there are a few . But BOA and Goldman Sachs don;t fund those sorts of people.

The fact is that the stock market today didn't crash . I don't think it's going to crash Monday either. That means the big investors are confident that things will settle. No big wheels are pulling their money out of the market. I think they know more than anyone on this thread knows - which none of us should find surprising.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:54 PM on July 29 [+] [!]


The market crashes on surprises. Everyone knew this was going to happen. Quick reminder: the US hit its debt ceiling a number of months ago, and the Obama administration has been soberly trying to get it raised for even longer. No new debt has been issued, they have basically been looking for quarters in the couch for the last few months to get the bills paid. Aug 2 is the date when that stops working, when there is $100 something billion in the checking account and $300 something billion of checks to cut.

In other words, this problem has been baked-in to the market for a while now by the big boys.

I think. The other problem is that the stock market isn't the economy, the Dow is a mere 30 stocks that are used to somehow divine the health of the entire country, and that's folly. And that if business is sociopathic, the stock market is bipolar and schizophrenic. Nobody knows what it is going to do.

As for the GOP being basically responsible, that's getting more and more far-fetched. The "invade Libya" flip flop earlier this year proved it. These people are, by and large, nucking futz.
posted by gjc at 12:22 AM on July 30, 2011


Also, Boehner had serious problems even getting his own party in line to vote for his bill. The only way it passed was to put in a Constitutional amendment as enough red meat to appease the freshmen, which dooms any chance it may have had in the Senate, pretty close to zero to begin with. Trying to pass symbolic, overreaching legislation as a last-ditch effort to solve their own manufactured crisis looks like desperation to me. Who on earth really thinks we're going to pass a Constitutional amendment with a divided government? It's like the Tea Party never bothered to learn the rules of the game or any history or civics at all. It may not be an act in that regard. They may turn out to be that naive.

Note how they immediately started complaining that the Senate tabled Boehner's bill instead of giving it a chance in an up or down vote, implying that the Democrats never had a plan (as if that were the problem, a Hobson's choice if there ever were one) and are somehow being unfair. They don't mention the motion to table in the Senate was passed with 59 votes. So, they did give the bill a chance and it immediately died on a procedural vote, just as Reid repeatedly warned. No matter, Boehner wanted to prove he could pass something, even if it were never going to be taken up by the Senate. It's "big hat, no cattle" time, and Cantor is licking his chops. That would be even more entertaining... The Republicans replacing their already ineffective Speaker who has tried but failed to reach consensus, with someone who has demonstrated he is more interested in walking out than negotiating. This, at a time when they're at a disadvantage and are losing donor support in a big way. McConnell's opt-out was shot down by the Tea Party but still exists as a possibility, and is probably looking pretty attractive to them now.

I'm spending some time this weekend writing letters on paper notifying the leadership of both parties as well as my locals that I'm registering as a Democrat for the first time in 20 years. Until now I'd been registered non-party independent. I'm proud of how the Democratic Party is handling this, and I want to let the Republicans know that what they're doing is so reckless that I'm willing to join whatever side is against them. I almost always vote Democrat anyway but like not having party affiliation. However, this time is different, and I think it's time to unite. I've never seen anything quite like this- people with a lifetime of experience on the Hill are all saying the same thing. Although I always knew the Tea Party would be hoisted on their own petard sooner or later, they're proudly ignorant and politically toxic, and are now doing damage to a lot of people to prove some sort of misguided ideological point. They're becoming a real threat to the economy and country as a whole and need to be removed from office ASAP. No matter how cynical politics can be, it's become very clear which side cares about governance and the country over their own ideology. We can't get our way all the time, and a two party government is far from perfect, but there's no way ideological purity is ever going to be a good idea. I'm ready to put myself firmly on the side which is not set out to reshape the nation as a theocratic laissez-faire state.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:28 AM on July 30, 2011 [12 favorites]


The other problem is that the stock market isn't the economy, the Dow is a mere 30 stocks that are used to somehow divine the health of the entire country, and that's folly

It's mostly the news media which does this, and mostly the non-financially focused media at that. Most traders and serious investors these days look at the S&P 500 as a benchmark for equities in the US market, and so does the financial media for the most part (right now the focus should be on the long Treasury bond market, 10-30 year). But anyone who is educated about financial markets knows that equities are just one part of a much larger market made up of different instruments. It's like reporting on science in that regard. The general news media gets the story wrong about scientific research more often than not and tends to sensationalize the wrong aspects. But if you dig deeper you can find the truth, just not in places where the reporting is directed at the general public outside the scientific community. Economics and financial markets are complex, and just like scientific research you can't rely on the general media to understand the story they're reporting all that well.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:58 AM on July 30, 2011


But BOA and Goldman Sachs don;t fund those sorts of people.

No, but the Koch brothers do. They funded an opposition movement which on the surface appears grassroots but has only one mandate- low taxes. It's a Frankenstein's monster. They culled the disaffected Republicans who had become disenchanted with "big government" during the Bush years and tried to create an activist base. One problem- those people aren't well informed politically nor educated in US history. Their creation is getting away from their control and is imploding in spectacular fashion.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:05 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


That's amazing. A friend has been calling the Dems strategy just that for some time. Weird.

Lawrence O'Donnell called it a while back as well. I don't want to keep posting and dominate this already very long thread, but I think it's important to remember that the best way to look at this is as objectively as possible. The Tea Party freshmen are overly emotional and caught up in their own vision to the point where they can't understand the game they're playing. It's better to look at the long game and see the overarching strategy, otherwise you end up getting caught up in the wrong place and start taking everything that's said in the process too seriously. What is said publicly about closed door negotiations is not the actual negotiating taking place. There are too many people who think Obama is ready to give up everything to get a debt ceiling passed, but that never looked like what was going on to me. All he's doing is showing his hand and letting the game play out, allowing the Republicans to lose more than they ever bargained for. This isn't three dimensional chess. Muhammad Ali was the person who first gave a name to the strategy in modern times, but Sun Tzu figured it out a long time ago. I was under the impression that pretty much everyone in national office had read Sun Tzu's Art of War as well as The Prince by Machiavelli, but I don't think either is on the Tea Party candidate reading list.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:24 AM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


"So the state of Obama's brain (what he believes) determines his criminal culpability..."

Flat out wrong.

The POTUS can do things he *believes might* be unconstitutional or against the law, but they are only going to be seen as valid grounds if they actually are found to be unconstitutional / against the law.

That's just how criminal culpability works, if you haven't noticed. You can't be convicted for perfectly legal misgivings, last time I heard.
posted by markkraft at 1:47 AM on July 30, 2011


krinklyfig: "Ironmouth's comment confirms what I always felt to be the case about the Dems' strategy, which is essentially rope-a-dope. [...] Muhammad Ali was the person who first gave a name to the strategy in modern times"

Ironmouth: "That's amazing. A friend has been calling the Dems strategy just that for some time. Weird."

Relevant.

Maybe if Republicans weren't so busy convincing themselves Obama is a cryptofascist/incompetent/boy-king, they'd be more wary of little clues like this.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:18 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth wrote: One question--if Tom Delay was the majority leader would we be having this argument? This would have been solved weeks ago.

With the Tea Partyist true believers? I doubt it. They seriously don't understand the concept of compromise. With them, they either get what they want or they whine and complain that somebody's keeping them down unfairly.
posted by wierdo at 2:21 AM on July 30, 2011


In case anyone else was curious about which Republicans voted to table the Boehner bill, here's an overview of the vote: DeMint, Graham, Hatch, Lee, Paul and Vitter all voted for it.

In other news, the House will reportedly vote on a previous Senate bill to warn what will happen if the Senate passes the Reid bill. I wasn't aware that the Senate had already passed a debt ceiling bill, but it would be hilarious if the House inadvertently ended up passing it. Not that it's going to happen, of course.
posted by Bukvoed at 3:09 AM on July 30, 2011


My newly elected carpet-bagger Republican representative (McClintock) voted No on Boehner's bill. I can't decide if that's good or bad, but maybe my daily calls and emails helped.

A man can dream.
posted by Big_B at 6:58 AM on July 30, 2011


So if the Democrats have such an upper hand here can I expect some stimulus in the final bill? Another UE extension? Bush tax cuts handled?

Or is this just the kind of upper hand where we aren't going to be doing as much cutting as the Republicans want?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:00 AM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Or is this just the kind of upper hand where we aren't going to be doing as much cutting as the Republicans want?

---

We’re facing the possibilty of seeing more damage to Social Security and Medicare while the Democrats control the White House and the Senate then we saw when the GOPers had the White House, the Senate and the House. And, the Democrats are going to claim this as a victory. Stunning.
posted by Trurl at 7:12 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


We’re facing the possibilty of seeing more damage to Social Security and Medicare while the Democrats control the White House and the Senate then we saw when the GOPers had the White House, the Senate and the House. And, the Democrats are going to claim this as a victory. Stunning.

Yup, for all the talk of GOP infighting and idiocy and the short term popularity hit they're taking, the possibility of Boehner losing his job, etc, in the big picture this looks like the Republicans have made huge strides towards drowning the government in the bathtub. The Social Security Trust fund has over $2.5 trillion in assets - its income still to this day is exceeding expenditures and the program would be solvent without a single change for another 25 years. Medicare is a mess, but less so than the general health care situation in the country, and both could be solved with a sane national health system like has been implemented in every other civilized country on this planet

"Entitlement reform" is the framing desired by the rich and powerful interests, ever shrinking in number and expanding in influence, who want to keep looting the country until there's nothing left and then hop on their Gulfstream to a yacht in the med, never to look back. And now that the Democrats are on board, what's left for the rest of us but to go burn black SUVs in the streets of DC until someone fucking listens? This country has been made politically, culturally, structurally incapable of seeing its real enemies - the ones who brush scraps off their dinner table and then tell us to fight over them when its not enough to live off, to convince us all the only way to maintain a shred of human dignity is to push the guy next to you down further down into the mud

They made a desert and called it peace
posted by crayz at 8:04 AM on July 30, 2011 [6 favorites]


Am I right in saying that "entitlements" are what we call "benefits" in the UK?
posted by fullerine at 8:41 AM on July 30, 2011


Am I right in saying that "entitlements" are what we call "benefits" in the UK?

Almost like Sapir-Worf is true, isn't it?
posted by adamdschneider at 8:43 AM on July 30, 2011


Oops, Sapir-Whorf. Sapir-Worf would involve more Bat'leth.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:44 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Let's be honest: this whole process could absolutely use more bat'leth.
posted by curious nu at 8:49 AM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


What's so irritating is "entitlement" does not begin to suggest all the money I've put into SS and unemployment and so on over the decades. Damn straight I'm entitled to it!
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:03 AM on July 30, 2011 [8 favorites]


The smell of napalm in the morning.
posted by GrammarMoses at 9:11 AM on July 30, 2011


What's so irritating is "entitlement" does not begin to suggest all the money I've put into SS and unemployment and so on over the decades

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. Now they want more. More from you
posted by crayz at 9:25 AM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oops, Sapir-Whorf. Sapir-Worf would involve more Bat'leth.

Let's be honest: this whole process could absolutely use more bat'leth.


Oh Lordy.

Not the Klingonese. Already? There's only 2000+ comments in this thread guys.

I don't think you can begin to use Klingonese until the comment count hits at least 3000 or 4000.


/Klingon-speak by-law Section 101: Part 1172: Paragraph 6 of the Metafilter Code of Conduct.
posted by Skygazer at 9:28 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by Flunkie at 9:34 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

Yes I know. My point is the only legal fictions that matter are the ones buying lobbyists in DC
posted by crayz at 9:38 AM on July 30, 2011


We’re facing the possibilty of seeing more damage to Social Security and Medicare while the Democrats control the White House and the Senate then we saw when the GOPers had the White House, the Senate and the House. And, the Democrats are going to claim this as a victory. Stunning.

That's because these Republicans are psychos. To the point of self-immolation. So its a victory when they don't burn us down too.

If you've got some magical reservoir of votes in the House, I think now is the time to deploy them. If you don't and you keep attacking the only guy who can help us, well, then, whose side are you on?
posted by Ironmouth at 10:36 AM on July 30, 2011


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.

Yes I know. My point is the only legal fictions that matter are the ones buying lobbyists in DC


Lobbyists? In this circumstance the lobbyists are desperate for the debt ceiling to be raised. In this circumstance, the Tea Party is out of control. Out of control of everyone, including lobbyists. If it were up to the lobbyists, this would have wrapped up two weeks ago.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:49 AM on July 30, 2011


So its a victory when they don't burn us down too.

And that's what has you so ebullient and beaming about bold Obama moves?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:50 AM on July 30, 2011


The two latest posts in my twitter feed:

REUTERSFLASH ReutersBreakingNews
All 43 Senate Republicans sign letter saying they will not back Democratic debt-limit plan

Nate Silver fivethirtyeight Nate Silver
So sounds like Reid bill has the support of 4 GOPers? Who's not signing McConnell letter? Brown, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski?

Huh???
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:52 AM on July 30, 2011


Not the Klingonese.

The language itself is also called Klingon. how is this even my life

posted by elizardbits at 10:57 AM on July 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


Collins wasn't one of the 43 who signed an anti-Reid-plan letter this morning, so maybe she'll vote for it after all. Reid still needs three votes, per Twitter.

The House is requiring a 2/3 supermajority for their vote on the Reid bill this afternoon, which is a hilarious new requirement following Boehner's squeaker.
posted by gerryblog at 10:59 AM on July 30, 2011


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/30/usa-debt-letter-idUSWEN654620110730
posted by dejah420 at 10:59 AM on July 30, 2011


REUTERSFLASH ReutersBreakingNews
All 43 Senate Republicans sign letter saying they will not back Democratic debt-limit plan

Nate Silver fivethirtyeight Nate Silver
So sounds like Reid bill has the support of 4 GOPers? Who's not signing McConnell letter? Brown, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski?

Huh???


Somebody at Reuters cannot count. 51 dems, two independents who caucus with dems is 53, 43 GOPers side with McConnell, 4 don't. This means the dems already have 4 votes to break the filibuster and need only 3 more.

Murkowksi will drink tea party blood.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:00 AM on July 30, 2011


Sorry, thread getting big for phone to manage, apologies for the non link url to the Reuters story about senate repubs jumping off cliff w/ teahadists.
posted by dejah420 at 11:03 AM on July 30, 2011


The House is requiring a 2/3 supermajority for their vote on the Reid bill this afternoon, which is a hilarious new requirement following Boehner's squeaker.

where did you see that? wow what a tell.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:04 AM on July 30, 2011


Reid wants 60 votes but McConnell would be stupid to force a cloture vote this late in the game.

They'll hold out a bit longer but at least few other Republicans will cross over at the end if McConnell is stupid enough to stretch this out.
posted by vuron at 11:07 AM on July 30, 2011




That's... what?

Is there some existing rule that allows 2/3 votes in some situation, or did they just take a majority vote to say that this particular vote would require 2/3?
posted by Flunkie at 11:23 AM on July 30, 2011


Oh, I think maybe I understand:

A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the House. The Republicans are demanding an amendment as a precondition for raising the debt limit more than a few months.

I seriously doubt that they're requiring a 2/3 vote on Reid's bill. Did you see something explicitly saying so, or did you just see the "Pelosi says" tweet (which doesn't actually explicitly say anything about Reid's bill)?
posted by Flunkie at 11:26 AM on July 30, 2011


Is there some existing rule that allows 2/3 votes in some situation

I've no idea what's being considered for this bill, but:

Yes, there are such rules. Consideration under suspension of the rules requires a 2/3 vote to pass more or less ``in exchange'' for reduced opportunities for minority obstruction or political gamesmanship.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:26 AM on July 30, 2011


I'm confused on the 2/3rds. She can't be referring to the Senate, because its a 60% supermajority there.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:26 AM on July 30, 2011


The 2/3rds thing is some special expedited mechanism which allows a vote on legislation with not chance of amendments, etc.

In this case it's being used to prevent the proposal from being accepted.

What I'm not sure of is how the House can vote on a senate bill that hasn't actually passed the Senate?
posted by vuron at 11:29 AM on July 30, 2011


The requirement that a bill originates in the House is only for bills that raise revenue.
posted by Flunkie at 11:33 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Plus they probably introduced the bill themselves to kill it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:36 AM on July 30, 2011


What I'm not sure of is how the House can vote on a senate bill that hasn't actually passed the Senate?

It's not the actual bill that will (or won't) be passed by the Senate; it's an old version that reportedly was passed recently before Reid decided to modify it after a CBO review.
posted by Bukvoed at 11:36 AM on July 30, 2011


So it seems like we're fucked. Proper fucked.

Even if we pull this one out by the skin of our teeth, we have a budget deal in a few months or the government shuts down again.

What's the next step when we have an ungovernable country?
posted by Lord_Pall at 11:45 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Actually, that's just what I read on RollCall.com. This legislative business is hard to make heads or tails of sometimes.

Pelosi on the floor just now: "[Boehner] chose to go to the dark side!"
posted by Bukvoed at 11:49 AM on July 30, 2011


Amusingly, considering the bill under suspension without Democratic clearance violates the Republicans' own conference rules.

So it seems like we're fucked. Proper fucked.

This vote isn't on the actual Reid bill that will be considered later. A Republican took an earlier version of the Reid bill and introduced it to the House in order to vote it down.

(We could still be fucked)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:50 AM on July 30, 2011


angrycat: "Ha ha, does this mean we can have celebratory sex instead of nihilistic sex?

I mean, both are fine, but the first is so much happier.
"

I'll take any sex, please? Anyone? *sigh*
posted by symbioid at 11:56 AM on July 30, 2011


I have contacted my senators, including that asshole Kirk who signed the McConnell letter.

The plan you have proposed would not alter the spending trajectory that is putting our economy and national security at risk.

The spending trajectory you helped exacerbate by voting to extend the Bush tax cuts? Prick.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:58 AM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yesterday Harry Reid said he wished Robert Byrd was still alive because [Byrd] would be on the Senate floor with the Constitution in his hand. I'm actually kind of glad Robert Byrd isn't here to see what's happening. Personally, I could really go for an impassioned Ted Kennedy speech right about now. (Not that it would make much of a difference -- I just need something to cut through the grease.)

Anyway, thanks to everyone here for all the great information and interesting perspectives.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:19 PM on July 30, 2011




from cnn: "No face-to-face talks between Democratic and Republican leaders had been publicly scheduled as of Saturday morning. Democrats have accused McConnell, R-Kentucky of refusing to negotiate. McConnell has insisted that administration officials be present in any further talks."

Looking like this default business might go down... definitely chose a good time to go out of country. The main question is whether the airports will still be functioning when I come back on the 25th.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2011


Things are going great! Reid is a strategic genius! And when he fails, it will be the liberals fault! Everybody get together for the big win! This is going to be the best capitulation ever!
posted by vibrotronica at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


What's the next step when we have an ungovernable country?

Expatriation.

We respect the immigrant ancestors of our families for their courage in abandoning the familiar to seek a better life elsewhere.

We don't think of them as having betrayed some allegiance to the countries they left.
posted by Trurl at 12:49 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]




So is it just me or has the "Drama Queen Quotient" of this thread really gone up?
It seems like a NASCAR rally with all the fans cheering their side on but secretly hoping that they'll get to see someone crash .
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:12 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Consumer activist Ralph Nader said Tuesday that he’ll launch an initiative soon to field primary challenges to President Obama in key states.

That worked out well last time.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:18 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


True, Hillary totally lost her primary.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:20 PM on July 30, 2011


What's the next step when we have an ungovernable country?

Expatriation.

We respect the immigrant ancestors of our families for their courage in abandoning the familiar to seek a better life elsewhere.

We don't think of them as having betrayed some allegiance to the countries they left


Leaving the country is no betrayal. Not sure where you're going to go, however. With Burka bans and the dismantling of the NHS, you're pretty much left with North Korea or Belarus.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:22 PM on July 30, 2011


I've read and studied "The Prince." It's not about a rope-a-dope strategy. It's all about finesse, not just being clever or domineering or a egomaniac or whatever. Would that we could have seen finesse on display.
posted by raysmj at 1:24 PM on July 30, 2011


Also, you do realize that attacking Obama for not doing what you want drives him rightward, right? I mean if he can't get the votes from you, he has to get them somewhere. The Tea Party has all of this influence because they came out to vote, not because they didn't.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:29 PM on July 30, 2011


Insofar as the Art of War can be said to have any coherent strategy at all--not being the result, it appears, of a single author with a strategic visions, despite its traditional attribution--it, too, does not exactly espouse "rope-a-dope". Attack where he does not defend; defend where he is sure to attack (thereby ensuring that you can mount an adequate defense). Not easy to see the applicability here.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2011


If he feels there are more votes in the center of the Demoratic party for him, than of course he should adjust his policy to go follow the votes as any good leader does.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:35 PM on July 30, 2011


Consumer activist Ralph Nader said Tuesday that he’ll launch an initiative soon to field primary challenges to President Obama in key states.

Of course he will. He'll probably announce on FOX News.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:39 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


then/than is hard.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:40 PM on July 30, 2011


At this point, I'm rooting for default. Something drastic needs to happen for Washington to get its shit together.
posted by empath at 1:43 PM on July 30, 2011


Rope-a-dope is an excellent strategy when there is only one opponent and you're both playing by more or less fixed rules. It can be adapted for other situations, of course, as well. However, with the debt ceiling negotiations, it doesn't really have much use. There are too many opponents of varying allegiance in one game, and the constantly observing, constantly commenting public is a player itself in another game entirely.

On the one side, Boehner has his own individual agenda as a career politician, and there is the Republican agenda. The Republicans are divided further still into even more factions, each with their own agenda. There's the Tea Party faction, who are inflexible, irrational ideologues. There are also the more traditional members of the GOP, who don't want to raise taxes, and who aside from that would probably just want to put up a purely public fight against Obama's plan, intended more for the cameras than for actual politicking. Since the GOP is categorically against tax increases, those are practically off the table.

As for the rest of a debt plan, the GOP is in deep trouble: the Tea Party are like an uninvited third political party who caucus with the Republicans, rendering Republican plans absurd but also rendering compromise doomed. Even a brutally Republican-heavy compromise is doomed. The GOP is like an elephant with no legs blocking the road - to big and powerful to be passed, but unable to get anywhere.

As for the Dems, they just want something to pass that won't entirely bankrupt the nation. They are too weak and disorganized to demand a tax increase, even if it's just letting Bush's tax cuts lapse, even though an obvious solution to a debt problem is to increase revenue such that it can cover spending. Further, the voting public is generally against new taxes, even if they support them in theory; further still, the Dems are so afraid of the voting public being against a tax increase, that the Dems actually develop a sort of meta-fear about the whole idea, which is why it's such a third rail in Congress. It's a shame, because properly pitched, a tax increase on the wealthy would go over well among the general public, but the meta-fear is too great.

The Dems' non-negotiable needs are to 1) pass a resolution that won't destroy the country and 2) get reelected. As such, they're willing to kill a number of sacred cows to get there, and they're also willing to give up the tax increase idea.

You can't really rope-a-dope your way around these factions, because the Dems just want to compromise, the traditional GOP just wants to appear powerful despite not having much usable power, and the Tea Party refuses to realistically compromise with anyone, even "their own" party.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:49 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


to/too is hard.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:51 PM on July 30, 2011


The Tea Party has the influence it has because it primaried sitting Congresspeople. The Left should definitely do that -- but it's really not much of a strategy for dealing with Obama, as sitting presidents who get primaries tend to lose in the general. In a real sense we're just stuck with him.
posted by gerryblog at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2011


Ah, nice, from the WSJ:



Anyone who tells you they know how this will turn out is foolish or lying. I hate to say it, but it’s only Saturday afternoon. If there’s zero sign of movement by Sunday night, then you might consider panicking.
posted by angrycat at 1:53 PM on July 30, 2011


The Tea Party has the influence it has because they played to win. Realistically speaking, challenging Obama in a primary is something you do to raise awareness of other issues, not to actually defeat him for the general election.

Progressive Dems and independents should aggressively target sitting congresscritters, governors, and mayors with progressive but electable candidates.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:56 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


If I can raise 5000 signatures, I can get on the ballot for Senate in Texas. Kay Bailey is retiring. Now, I don't stand much of a chance in hell, what with being a black wearing, intellectual liberal type, but hell, something has to work.
posted by dejah420 at 2:04 PM on July 30, 2011 [8 favorites]


dejah420, I strongly urge you to try it! Even if you don't win, it'll be a nice big push to the Overton Window, and I think people would be inspired to see an actual unashamed progressive intellectual running for office.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:10 PM on July 30, 2011


If he feels there are more votes in the center of the Demoratic party for him, than of course he should adjust his policy to go follow the votes as any good leader does.

Self described liberals are 20% of the population.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:13 PM on July 30, 2011


You aren't electable and you will siphon votes from the real challenger.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:14 PM on July 30, 2011


You aren't electable and you will siphon votes from the real challenger.

Who would have thought two years ago that any of these Tea Party yahoos would be electable?
posted by adamdschneider at 2:16 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


That said, a bunch of disparate campaigns isn't going to do anything. We need a unifying platform and rubric to really go someplace. Hmm...
posted by adamdschneider at 2:18 PM on July 30, 2011


Self described liberals are 20% of the population.

Exactly, it's a waste of time to try and win their votes when there are so many more people in the center who love the bipartisan centrist legislation congress passes.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:19 PM on July 30, 2011


Furious, I would worry about that if there had ever, in my entire 20+ years of voting, EVER been a credible progressive challenger in North Texas. Ever. Has never happened. Not in my lifetime.

I thought about making a run for a local office earlier this year, but missed the residency requirement because we'd just moved.

And to be fair; I'm a pretty credible candidate. I'm well educated, I'm well spoken, I'm a mom, a business owner, and a world traveler. I know a fuckload more about everything than any of the local teahadists.

Best of all? My adventurous youth was before the internets. The odds of pictures surfacing are slim. The odds of me admitting to any that do appear...very high. I wouldn't run from my past. I might not run *on* my past, but I sure as hell will admit to anything I remember. Or where there's evidence. ;)

I appreciate what you're getting at, but I think that perhaps it's a little flippant, given that you don't really know me, know my connections to the political reality where I live, and have never seen me work a room. Also...there are no liberals here that run for office and expect to win. The Republicans have this area gerrymandered into ridiculoucity.
posted by dejah420 at 2:23 PM on July 30, 2011 [6 favorites]


Metapolitics
posted by anigbrowl at 2:25 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


There's a pretty big difference between working some rooms in a local election and running for Senator.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:26 PM on July 30, 2011


Yeah, guys...I realize that. I also realize that no liberal is going to win in Texas. It's not about winning. It's about getting liberal talking points in the press. It's about making the country realize how far to the right we've moved. It's about making the point that you can't claim to be a Christian who believes in Christian doctrine who then also wants to put the poor on spikes as a warning to other poor people not to be poor.

It's about injecting some serious left in to a conversation that has almost no left...er, left.

But you're right, why bother. I should just let some "serious" candidate do it.
posted by dejah420 at 2:29 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Dejah, do it. Ignore the talk but dont act fog that surrounds metafilter much of the time.
posted by cashman at 2:35 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


dejah420, would you bring legalized marijuana to Texas?

Just kidding. I salute your attitude to going out there and attempting to change the conversation. Also, if anybody messes with you while you're campaigning, memail and I will come down there and lay some righteous fury.
posted by angrycat at 2:38 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


If I lived in Texas, I'd be parading around a Vote Dejah420 sign every day, all day, until your successful election.
posted by jokeefe at 2:41 PM on July 30, 2011 [6 favorites]


Oh hell, I'll legalize anything that puts money back in schools and roads and WIC and all the other social programs gutted in the last 30 years. Smoke if you for em. I just sent a txt to my attorney asking if there was any legal reason not to start gathering signatures, and asking if he wanted to donate time to be the legal advisor. Listen, even as weird as.I can be, Texas love weird candidates. They never win, but they often change the landscape.
posted by dejah420 at 2:46 PM on July 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


Do you have family? I wouldn't want to put my family through American Politics, but other than that what exactly have you got to lose?

MeFi's own Senator!
posted by fullerine at 2:50 PM on July 30, 2011


It's not about winning.

Its about winning. That's why we are here, they won the House. Politics is the art of the possible and magnificent failures are generally useless. This isn't tv or sports where you get the feeling of won or lost. This is about being there to arrest the flow or to move with it when it goes in your direction. Democracy means, and has always meant having to swallow somethings you don't like because you don't have enough votes.

To gain we need to make the right cases where the people can understand where we are at. I'm a big fan of The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo, a book by Rick Perlstein.

In short to win we have to always be in the game, when thing go against us and when they go for us. Running away when we don't have the votes doesn't help. Take Clinton. Welfare Reform kept him in the game and ended up destroying the Republican Revolution. We can't always get everything we want and will lose some battles and have to give up ground, because sometimes we lose elections. This is the system we signed up for. We can't stop fighting.

Update. Just talked to my neighbor and friend, a major Dem operative, owner of a Dem consulting firm who is a talking head on MSNBC and Fox arguing dem side.

He suspects deal will be 2 tril in cuts over 10 years, no BBA and the deal through 2012 elec.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:52 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also, you do realize that attacking Obama for not doing what you want drives him rightward, right?

Ugh. I realize that categorically stating I'm done with Obama or the Democrats in general over an issue might have this result, but are you really saying any attack over an issue will drive him rightward? Because to my thinking, it's not only possible to both attack a candidate on specific issues and still support them in general, it might be essential to a functional system.

I realize we see a lot of "well, I'm going to take my vote and go home" sentiment here, and maybe that's what you're trying to counter, but maybe there's a better way of wording it.
posted by weston at 2:58 PM on July 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


Democracy means, and has always meant having to swallow somethings you don't like because you don't have enough votes.

Exactly, and sometimes you have to swallow that some liberal votes aren't automatic.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:02 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think we need to follow the lead of Iceland, if the reddit headlines I've seen are true, and wikify our charters and constitutions.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:09 PM on July 30, 2011


I can't make heads nor tails of what is going on in the Senate right now. They seem to be arguing over procedural motions?
posted by Justinian at 3:13 PM on July 30, 2011


Oh, never mind, they're arguing over whether they need 60 votes or a simple majority to pass Reid's plan.
posted by Justinian at 3:15 PM on July 30, 2011


I was just thinking that lots more people vote for American Idol than do for congress/president. Let's just elect our president that way; make it super easy for people to vote. Voters can call one number to vote for Obama, call another number to vote for Romney; results are almost immediate.
posted by GrammarMoses at 3:17 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm a big fan of The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo, a book by Rick Perlstein.

Thanks, just ordered a copy, since my library doesn't have it (though they have Nixonland and the Goldwater book).
posted by adamdschneider at 3:18 PM on July 30, 2011


gerryblog: "The Tea Party has the influence it has because it primaried sitting Congresspeople."

For anybody looking to model future progressive success on what the Tea Party did, keep in mind:

- the "brushfire" Tea Party was launched by CNBC business correspondent Rick Santelli live on national television from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The website for this "spontaneous movement" opened almost immediately afterward had been registered six months prior by a right-wing Chicago talk radio producer who had helped publicize the Obama/Ayers terrorism slur.

- The "grassroots" movement was almost immediately co-opted by Freedomworks, the PAC run by former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who gave the growing networks of disaffected conservatives professional organizational training and oversight.

- In the run-up to the much-ballyhooed Tax Day protests, Fox News ran millions of dollars worth of free advertising for the protests and promoted it incessantly on their programs, to the point where they were practically sponsoring the whole thing. Several prominent hosts attended live rallies across the country that were covered all day long.

- Tea Party candidates running for office in 2010 benefited from hundreds of millions in advertising from right-wing groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Chamber of Commerce, whose efforts (funded mainly by corporations and billionaires) dwarfed the contributions of demonized unions like the SEIU. The terrible Citizens United ruling only amplified this effect.

So the true left-wing parallel for the Tea Party would not be "organize" but "become organized by a premeditated coalition of connected and influential lobbying groups with ties to the Democratic Party, have your movement aggressively promoted by the national networks for months on end, and have your campaigns subsidized by saturation advertising from millionaire left-wing groups."

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if the Tea Party had not received this aggressive and intentional institutional support, they would be as influential in the GOP as Code Pink is for the Democrats. It is a popular movement, but one created, sustained, and directed by powerful corporate and political interests. The only reason they're a problem now is because so many were elected in myriad House districts last year that they don't have a firm grip on all of them -- compare to more cynical operators in the Senate like Rand Paul, who flip-flopped on his more outspoken libertarian views to gain more support from the GOP.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:21 PM on July 30, 2011 [30 favorites]


Exactly, and sometimes you have to swallow that some liberal votes aren't automatic.

This is why it's important to plant local, city, and state seeds. You have a much better chance of successfully campaigning locally, especially since progressive views are outside the mainstream for most of the voting public. The Tea Party tried this tactic and they largely succeeded. They won their seats, and in so doing, they changed the national conversation.

On the other hand, in a nationwide event like a presidential election, it is, ironically, much harder to actually change the national conversation. Actual "revolutions" in presidential elections are pretty rare; typically, the candidates find a few big, short-sentence issues while still playing to the middle. Barry Goldwater had a bold platform, and he got stomped. Walter Mondale was proudly left in the face of the Reagan Revolution, and he got stomped. The closer races have been between candidates who try to compromise with those centrist voters.

This is why you wind up with the "turd sandwich versus giant douche" elections on a national level. Everyone has to play to the center, in effect saying nothing. This is why people wind up with disaffected Bush v. Gore elections, where the candidates are virtually identical on paper, and when the Supreme Court clinches the result, most people hardly care. The George Carlin "I'd rather jerk off" bit about voting seemed funny back in the year 2000.

It's especially a shame since, in practice, Bush and Gore would have been very different indeed, and that's even between two "centrists." That's the flipside to candidates saying nothing in political elections. You can't believe anything a politician says, even when he says nothing - you know that, when he's at work and no longer on the campaign trail, he will eventually say something.

This is why it's important to make your local and state politics what you want them to be, while also being realistic about what you cannot control in a national election.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:25 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


I've said it before, I'll say it again: if the Tea Party had not received this aggressive and intentional institutional support, they would be as influential in the GOP as Code Pink is for the Democrats. It is a popular movement, but one created, sustained, and directed by powerful corporate and political interests. The only reason they're a problem now is because so many were elected in myriad House districts last year that they don't have a firm grip on all of them -- compare to more cynical operators in the Senate like Rand Paul, who flip-flopped on his more outspoken libertarian views to gain more support from the GOP.

This is a good point. I'd also say that it's a reflection of a common problem. Politicians campaign with images, but it's a risky business when images become reality. The powers that be wanted the Tea Party to be a populist back door for renewed vigor in the Republican Party. However, when the Tea Party actually won seats and began to govern, the image became reality and everything went insane.

The powers that be thought they had hired cartoonists, but they had actually hired cartoons.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:30 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


6:23pm

Republicans and Democrats are not close to a deal to raise the debt ceiling despite what Republican leaders may say, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Saturday.

"It's fair to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful way," Reid said on the Senate floor shortly after returning from a meeting with President Barack Obama. "Republican leaders still refuse to negotiate in good faith."

That is the entirety of the linked article.
posted by futz at 3:31 PM on July 30, 2011


. It is a popular movement, but one created, sustained, and directed by powerful corporate and political interests.


It is amusing to think how those powerful corporate interests must be fretting just now.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:38 PM on July 30, 2011


dejah, I've got at least 5 (legal, valid) signatures for you here in Austin when you start your petition. Let us know when you decide!
posted by katemonster at 3:51 PM on July 30, 2011


It's hard to start revolutions in presidential races, the mefite says, and goes on talk about the "Reagan Revolution" stomping Walter Mondale, an old-line, establishment liberal. Huh? You're confused, dude.
posted by raysmj at 3:58 PM on July 30, 2011


it's not only possible to both attack a candidate on specific issues and still support them in general, it might be essential to a functional system.

A better approach is to support the person you do agree with on particular issues, instead of attacking the person you don't. This has a prallel to the voting system; you don't get to vote against people, your choices are to vote for a person or ballot proposal, or not vote. So attacking someone who's nominally on your side is pointless, because all it does is diffuse support and encourage opponents. Instead you support some other person on your side who has a better alternative.

But you probably know this already.

At least they managed to write the third sentence together. I call that bipartisanship.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:10 PM on July 30, 2011


Ooops. well, that's what happens when you don't have an Undo or Edit feature.

It's hard to start revolutions in presidential races, the mefite says, and goes on talk about the "Reagan Revolution" stomping Walter Mondale, an old-line, establishment liberal. Huh? You're confused, dude.

The Reagan revolution was in governance, not electoral politics. Mondale ran against Reagan in 1984 and lost in a landslide, because Reagan had already brought about sweeping changes in how the nation was governed. The campaign itself was unremarkable; Reagan smiled a lot and reminded everyone that they were much better off than they had been a few years earlier, which was true enough. Mondale wagged his finger and warned it would all end in tears. He was right, but he was too far ahead of his time and few people paid him any attention.

He's not confused at all, you're just not thinking through what he said,
posted by anigbrowl at 4:15 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Given how terrible the so called Reid Compromise bill is: it doesn't include any increase in tax revenue, it raises the debt ceiling more than it reduces spending, and it doesn't really cut all much despite the CBO scoring of 2.2 trillion (this is over 10 years remember), I would be happy to see it defeated and would be overjoyed if the left progressives joined tea party hard liners in rejecting the bill.
posted by Shit Parade at 4:18 PM on July 30, 2011


Shit Parade: "Given how terrible the so called Reid Compromise bill is..."

More terrible than a catastrophic debt default?
posted by Rhaomi at 4:21 PM on July 30, 2011


I'm interested to know what Obama, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi are thinking after their strategy session. If I were there, I'd propose this: We try to push through our bills. Get as much support in the Senate as possible, and send the House the bill that we want. As close as we can get it to our bill. But, have a back-up bill just in case, a bill that is much more similar to Boehner's bill than to Reid's, but without the BBA crap in it, and we sit on that bill. Say, 700 billion in cuts but a much smaller raising of the debt ceiling. When the House votes down the bill that the Senate sent them, the markets will freak and we may get downgraded. At this point in the discussion, that cost has to be factored into this. Just realize it's going to happen. So how to leverage it? At that point, the Senate pulls out the smaller bill and it passes through easily. But of course that would require this fight to be played out all over again in six months. Immediate crisis somewhat averted, with a few bumps, bruises, and burns along the way. How would the Democrats and the President look? Not sure. But I'm guessing it'd look like they held their nose, tried their best, and eventually fell on their sword to save the country. So the optics are good for the Democrats and horrible for the Tea Partiers. In what world does the country want to go through that again in six months? Then the Democrats immediately strike while the iron is hot and the country is furious with the Tea Party holdouts to craft a bigger bill, much better and more robust than Reid's current bill, go on TV and sell the hell out of it, get Congress to vote it through and get this all behind us.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:27 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Most middle school kids know more about the fundamentals of negotiating than the current Democratic party -- sometimes everyone needs to suffer when the few refuse to be reasonable. You don't reward bad behavior.
posted by Shit Parade at 4:31 PM on July 30, 2011


And again, for those who look at the debt ceiling not being raised and begin to shake in fear -- you've already lost this fight because you're letting a small group of radicals push you around with fear mongering.
posted by Shit Parade at 4:33 PM on July 30, 2011


I'm thinking you've got a few old pros in town who know how to work this and have figured out the best strategy for six months to a year down the line. But of course there are some crazy variables here, like the Tea Partiers who are an erratic enemy. Additionally, I do wonder how united the Dems are in their strategy - I worry that Obama is thinking what's best for him while most members are thinking what's best for the brand. That's diluting their message.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:36 PM on July 30, 2011


What's best for the country is to revert to post-war era taxation levels. And, too, maybe actually end a few wars.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:40 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


What's best for the country is not always what's possible. Dems need to sac up and realize that they can't win every battle by laying down. It's time to get clever about this entire Congress and how. Pretty sad that they keep getting rolled by a bunch of country rubes. I mean Jesus.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:50 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


interesting to watch (now) Bernie Sanders on the floor of the Senate arguing for the president to exercise the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.
posted by Shit Parade at 5:06 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


dejah420: "And to be fair; I'm a pretty credible candidate. I'm well educated, I'm well spoken, I'm a mom, a business owner, and a world traveler. I know a fuckload more about everything than any of the local teahadists."

My wife is always bugging me to run for office because she thinks there aren't enough members of congress that actually care about people. The problem is I'm actually unelectable. Dejah420, you sound like a dream candidate compared to me.

Seeing you say you're seriously investigating running for the Senate makes me ashamed to admit that I've been considering making a protest run. The only two planks of my platform are first, to demand a televised apology from Saxby Chambliss to Max Cleland, and second to attempt to amend every bill that comes before the Senate to change the motto on our money from In God We Trust to Fuck you! You're on your own!
posted by ob1quixote at 5:29 PM on July 30, 2011 [4 favorites]




It's hard to start revolutions in presidential races, the mefite says, and goes on talk about the "Reagan Revolution" stomping Walter Mondale, an old-line, establishment liberal. Huh? You're confused, dude.

The Reagan revolution was in governance, not electoral politics. Mondale ran against Reagan in 1984 and lost in a landslide, because Reagan had already brought about sweeping changes in how the nation was governed. The campaign itself was unremarkable; Reagan smiled a lot and reminded everyone that they were much better off than they had been a few years earlier, which was true enough. Mondale wagged his finger and warned it would all end in tears. He was right, but he was too far ahead of his time and few people paid him any attention.


What anigbrowl said. High-five.

Also, Reagan was able to shift the argument in the first place due to the extreme circumstances of 1979-1980. His immense likability and not-Carter-ness handily saw him through the election.

Not even the 2004 election, which was in the backdrop of 9/11, Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, etc., had such dramatic underpinnings, as far as how the re-election of the incumbent was being seen as a referendum of the President. Bush was not seriously contested in the primaries. The majority of the nation still generally agreed with Bush's "America Fuck Yeah" message, saw him as a strong leader even if they didn't completely agree with him, and generally regarded him as the "devil you know."

Compare this to 1980, when the majority of voters were genuinely dispirited about the US and generally did not regard Carter to be a satisfactory leader. To them, Reagan didn't seem so much revolutionary as he did refreshing.

By 1984, Mondale would have been a pretty radical change, but the nation wasn't in the mood.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:53 PM on July 30, 2011


Also, Reagan was able to shift the argument in the first place due to the extreme circumstances of 1979-1980. His immense likability and not-Carter-ness handily saw him through the election.

If only liberals could find a likable leader to be President during extreme circumstances, just imagine what we could accomplish.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:56 PM on July 30, 2011


Reuters: * Reid's plan does not reflect this, but the White House has proposed that various politically unpalatable policies kick in if Congress balks at further budget savings.

* In talks with Boehner nearly two weeks ago, the White House proposed automatic income-tax increases on the wealthy and across-the-board cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid health programs to spur action.

* Republicans said that the across-the-board health care cuts would hurt them politically as well. Instead, they proposed that two central elements of Obama's healthcare law -- the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance and an independent Medicare oversight board -- would be scuttled.

posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:01 PM on July 30, 2011


Mondale was a throwback, an old-school New Deal liberal, not a radical. You totally missed the whole Goldwater to Reagan arc. No Godlwater run for president, no Reagan. And I refuse to call what the Tea Partiers started a "conversation." It's clearly not anything that civil or a clearly two-way form of communication between the Tea Party people and everyone else.
posted by raysmj at 6:09 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


They changed the national conversation the same way I just "changed" the music my computer is playing: I cranked it up so loud it became distorted.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:15 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Mondale was a throwback, an old-school New Deal liberal, not a radical.

I didn't say he was a "radical," I said he would have been "a radical change." Old school New Deal liberals were well out of fashion in 1984; he would have been a radical change from Reagan.

You totally missed the whole Goldwater to Reagan arc. No Godlwater run for president, no Reagan.

I am well aware of Goldwater's place in conservatism. As a matter of fact, he proves my point. He lost the Presidential election in a crushing defeat, but as an Arizona Senator and as a political intellectual, he godfathered a movement from the local and the state to the national: a movement whose avatar would later waltz into the Oval Office, wearing an innocuous movie star smile. No innocuous movie star smile, no presidency.

And I refuse to call what the Tea Partiers started a "conversation."

Enh, I didn't say it was a good conversation.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:20 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Mondale's saying that he'd need to raise taxes made him a "radical?" No, it didn't. His stance on most issues actually aligned with what people said they wanted, in polling. And Reagan didn't overthrow the New Deal. He cut regulations in half, yes, although regulatory reform had already begun in earnest under Carter, with transportation and the beginning of S&L deregulation, etc. What Reagan did was cut taxes, more or less (and the regulatory staff that oversaw S&Ls, etc.) while failing to cut spending, and started the whole federal block grant system (fewer grants to states, but more control over what they were given). That's too simple, but ... Well, yeah, his revolution was more electoral and ideological, and is started with Goldwater.
posted by raysmj at 6:21 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


It doesn't make your point. Goldwater, even if he ultimately failed bigtime, did "change the conversation" over time. Reagan had a better presentation, had better timing, etc., but it all goes back to Barry Goldwater and years of post-defeat organizing by his acolytes (although he rejected the religious right, the only big difference, and the little part of the mixture that makes the Tea Party dangerous).
posted by raysmj at 6:25 PM on July 30, 2011


The only two planks of my platform are first, to demand a televised apology from Saxby Chambliss to Max Cleland , and second to attempt to amend every bill that comes before the Senate to change the motto on our money from In God We Trust to Fuck you! You're on your own!

You have me and my husband's votes!
posted by KathrynT at 7:01 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


As predicted, McConnell is now leading a filibuster of a more right-wing version of his own plan.
posted by gerryblog at 7:13 PM on July 30, 2011


Rope-a-dope is an excellent strategy when there is only one opponent and you're both playing by more or less fixed rules. It can be adapted for other situations, of course, as well. However, with the debt ceiling negotiations, it doesn't really have much use.

Sure it does. Obama is not really in a weak position but he has tried to give that impression. This gives the Republicans what they perceive to be an opening to bring their attack in the form of legislation that would never have a chance otherwise. In bringing the negotiations to light at press conferences, Obama is letting the public know what they're doing, thereby weakening the GOP's political capital with the public considerably as well as their bargaining position. The Republicans really have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling or face becoming pariahs. The process of negotiation is exposing them and continues to erode their credibility with the public. They are in a much weaker position now than when they launched their attack, despite their continued attempts to throw sand in the gears.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:17 PM on July 30, 2011


Slate: Crisis? What Crisis?
posted by HLD at 7:21 PM on July 30, 2011


They are in a much weaker position now than when they launched their attack, despite their continued attempts to throw sand in the gears.

I don't know where you're getting that impression. The talk is that the final deal will be more Boehner's than Reid's, where Reid's plan was a more right-wing version of McConnell's, which itself was far to the right of where negotiations began, which itself is far to the right of just raising the debt ceiling without conditions, which is what was done the last hundred times this came up.

The Republicans won this game by a mile. They got the drastic spending cuts they wanted, without any new revenue. We got the good sportsmanship award.
posted by gerryblog at 7:23 PM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


The Republicans won this game by a mile. They got the drastic spending cuts they wanted, without any new revenue. We got the good sportsmanship award.

Nothing has been passed. Nobody got anything as of yet.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:29 PM on July 30, 2011


No votes tonight, says CNN International.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:30 PM on July 30, 2011


Reid: Senate debt vote delayed until 1 p.m. Sunday - Politico
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:31 PM on July 30, 2011


Nothing has been passed. Nobody got anything as of yet.

All the proposals currently on the table are bad. The only way we win at this point is if Obama knocks the table over and says there's no more debt ceiling at all. Everything else is a loss compared to (a) what has happened in every other debt-ceiling raise (b) what the economy needs at a time that we're teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession.

At this point we're left to hope that the crazies are actually crazy enough to turn down even a completely lopsided deal, thereby forcing Obama's hand. Anything else is a win for the GOP, no matter how "bad" they supposedly look to a public that isn't paying attention and doesn't care, and an invitation to more insane brinksmanship beginning as soon as next month's budget negotiations.
posted by gerryblog at 7:35 PM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


WaPo: Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid announced late Saturday that negotiations with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House had made enough progress that he would delay consideration of his own legislation to avert the debt crisis.

Rather than a 1 a.m. Sunday vote, Reid said he would give the negotiators room to maneuver and set a 1 p.m. Sunday vote on his bill -- which McConnell has already assured would be defeated.


This is bad, the original timeline was cutting it close to start with.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:37 PM on July 30, 2011


Well, unless they mean they will have a new compromise bill before then, but that feels like Lucy and the football.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:39 PM on July 30, 2011


ABC News has learned that Republicans and the White House have struck a tenative deal to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 deadline. It's not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:

Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

posted by gerryblog at 7:50 PM on July 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


All the proposals currently on the table are bad

I really do not think we're getting a complete picture from the reporting. And I don't think you'd get long time Democratic staffers ready to throw a party if the situation were this dire. The public end of these kinds of negotiations is always confusing and contradictory, with each side wanting to put information in the press which favors them or gets a reaction by the public in a particular way. These negotiations have put tremendous pressure on the Republicans to pass a debt ceiling, period, and the Democrats not to cut social programs.

I could be wrong, but I still don't think it's worth believing that everything you hear about what's going on in the negotiations will end up happening. What's on the table changes every day, but nobody can agree on passing anything. In the end a debt ceiling must be passed- both parties have said as much repeatedly when questioned (with the exception of some of the Tea Party). If the obstructionists manage to have their way and no debt ceiling is passed, they will be committing political suicide. It won't be good for anyone, but particularly not for them. I don't think there are enough true obstructionists who can prevent a debt ceiling from passing in any form. There is way too much money and power on the side that needs it to pass, and the public is solidly against the obstruction. The public side of the negotiations is mostly noise. Wait for the end result rather than focusing on the chaos that gets reported. In the meantime feel free to add to the public pressure by contacting your local US Senator and Representative. I don't think it's a given, but I don't think it's likely that the Republicans get very much in the position they're in, when you really look at it.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:54 PM on July 30, 2011


My fear is that the Democrats will do the responsible thing and pass a blatantly right-wing budget just to avert a Second Great Depression.

Yes, that's my fear. Why am I afraid of that? Because it teaches the GOP that they can basically get whatever they want by holding a gun to the head of America (and the world).

I was thinking about this earlier today: Our government was created as a complex system of checks and balances to ensure that no single person or faction would become powerful enough to dominate the nation or institute a dictatorship.

The system has a fatal weakness, however: a sufficiently sensitive system of checks and balances can be easily manipulated by a dedicated, disciplined faction from within. The Tea Party makes up less than 50% of the Republican party, who are in turn about 50% of the Congress, which is in turn 33% of our government, (which gives them, what, an 8% share of our entire government?) yet they are able to paralyze the entire system with their intransigence.

Maybe the lesson here is that maybe an overly strong system of checks and balances is overrated in a world where the international economy depends on the regular, effective and predictable course of government. Or maybe that a strong system of checks and balances cannot survive in a government where one faction is ideologically committed to the destruction of that government.

I'm not arguing for dictatorship here, but merely saying that maybe some things are just too important to leave to the politicians.
posted by Avenger at 7:56 PM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


I don't think it's a given, but I don't think it's likely that the Republicans get very much in the position they're in, when you really look at it

You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it just doesn't seem to be true. Just in the past two weeks, the goalpost has been moved so far to the right, that "compromise" is pissing on the left and telling them to enjoy the soft summer rain.

Seriously, has there ever been a time in American history where the freaking debt ceiling has been larded down with this much budget junk? This is absurd. It's ideological madness, and to compromise with them at this point is to concede defeat and admit that we're going to pay the terrorists to play nice for a bit. It's bullshit, and if *this* is the best the elected Left can do, then we are doomed.
posted by dejah420 at 8:03 PM on July 30, 2011


I don't think it's a given, but I don't think it's likely that the Republicans get very much in the position they're in, when you really look at it.

It's not like we have to be agnostic about this. The proposals are public knowledge; they're all bad. If there's a disconnect between what they're getting and what you think they ought to be getting "in the position they're in," it's because you've mistaken bad press for bad results.
posted by gerryblog at 8:03 PM on July 30, 2011


The system has a fatal weakness, however: a sufficiently sensitive system of checks and balances can be easily manipulated by a dedicated, disciplined faction from within

A lot of the problems are procedural rather than systemic. Like the ongoing assumption of filibuster in the Senate. The Republicans are exploiting everything they can to obstruct the Democrats' efforts to do anything at all. This is a serious problem, but I don't think you can design a democratic system which prevents this from happening at all. I do believe that the Republicans' efforts have mostly hurt them politically, sometimes to the point where recall elections have been initiated. I don't think they're going to last very long the way they keep going. But I don't think it's worth changing everything to assume the very worst out of everyone, otherwise you end up with something very cynical. It's worth getting the group of clowns out of office who are causing problems and exposing them as much as possible in the process.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:07 PM on July 30, 2011


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.

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."
My eyebrows are suitably raised. Seriously, what the fuck are you lot playing at.
posted by fullerine at 8:09 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's not like we have to be agnostic about this. The proposals are public knowledge; they're all bad.

You assume they will pass some sort of budget along with the debt ceiling increase. I don't assume this to be the case. I don't think any budget changes will find agreement, therefore a debt ceiling will pass because there is no good that the Republicans can do themselves if they don't. They stand to win exactly nothing and lose quite a lot if they follow through with their threat, so it's logical to assume they will not, and therefore they really don't have any kind of position to demand anything in concession.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:10 PM on July 30, 2011


That framework deal is about what I expected. Shitty enough to piss everyone off. We are going to end up with the special committee recommending cuts in the same general style as the catfood commission, and will have no choice but to pass them.

Will prevent default and save the country, but in no way can be spun as Democratic victory.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:24 PM on July 30, 2011


(I expect the negotiations will make it less shitty, but not enough less shitty)
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:26 PM on July 30, 2011


We are going to end up with the special committee recommending cuts in the same general style as the catfood commission, and will have no choice but to pass them.

Actually it looks like the special committee is going to superfluous, as the GOP gets the cuts automatically if they just refuse to do anything -- which is surely what they'll do.
posted by gerryblog at 8:29 PM on July 30, 2011


ABC update includes this wankery as part of the framework: Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment

I would not expect Medicare cuts to remain the trigger, as I posted above: Republicans said that the across-the-board health care cuts would hurt them politically as well.

They want the mandate in the trigger, I say let them have it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:30 PM on July 30, 2011


Seriously, what the fuck are you lot playing at.

Well, basically, the side that lost our last Civil War (1865) is trying to destroy the government again, except this time through the legislature. They're doing quite a fine job of it this time.
posted by Avenger at 8:32 PM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


The idea that either party would be willing to risk cuts to SS or Medicare in an election year is pretty much ludicrous. They both know it's electoral suicide which is why they try to steadfastly ignore it except to stir up their bases.

Honestly at this point in time I think we'll have this crap drag on at least a week more. Republicans simply aren't willing to stop hostage taking and their current demands simply won't pass the Senate.
posted by vuron at 8:35 PM on July 30, 2011


Self described liberals are 20% of the population.

Nice, "self described", very clever use of qualifying statements there.

Sure, when you ask Americans whether they think they're liberals they'll say they aren't.

But when you describe the liberal policies that liberals have enacted to people, they're almost overwhelmingly in favor of them.

Also, you do realize that attacking Obama for not doing what you want drives him rightward, right? I mean if he can't get the votes from you, he has to get them somewhere.

Or he could actually try to win support from the left.

This discussion comes up in pretty much every political thread. Liberal members like myself express dissatisfaction with the Democrats. Hardcore Democrats complain that doing so will just give the election to the Republicans.

You can't have it both ways, we're an insubstantial number when it's convenient to you and enough to throw the election when it's inconvenient.

Here's the thing. Unlike the political players in this current artificial debt crisis, I'm not bluffing. The Democrats, including Obama, need to stop moving to the right or I'll stop voting for them. And there are millions of voters like me, drawn together by issues such as civil liberties, drug reform and social service support that the national-level Democrats are ignoring. We make up a substantial voting bloc, and I suggest Democrat loyalists, if they really want to keep their power, look to woo this group instead of hippie punching it.
posted by formless at 8:39 PM on July 30, 2011 [12 favorites]


The idea that either party would be willing to risk cuts to SS or Medicare in an election year is pretty much ludicrous. They both know it's electoral suicide which is why they try to steadfastly ignore it except to stir up their bases.

The GOP is going to trigger the cuts, then run against the very cuts they just triggered claiming "Obama cut your Social Security and Medicare." It will work because the mainstream media is comprised of liars and fools and the Democratic Party comprised of cowards and scoundrels.
posted by gerryblog at 8:42 PM on July 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


It's as if the Republicans want the soldiers not to be paid so that they stage a coup.
posted by ifandonlyif at 8:43 PM on July 30, 2011


It's like two men fighting with each other oblivious to the fact they are on fire.
posted by fullerine at 9:01 PM on July 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


ifandonlyif: blergh. American junta FTL.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 9:09 PM on July 30, 2011


I think President Obama should and probably will intervene and use the so-called 14th amendment option. There's enough popular support for it, and lately, he seems to have been more and more open to doing it reading between the lines of his public statements. I don't know; we'll see. But I wouldn't be surprised. That would be a win for all of us, I think. Fuck the republicans. If we don't get to prosecute anyone for torture, they don't get to drag the nation down into endless congressional investigations over a decision most of us would approve. They'd better suck it up and get into the corner with their tails between their legs after this, because their political careers are ruined no matter what happens, if there's any justice.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:51 PM on July 30, 2011


I don't see anything in this framework yet that would earn a veto...
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:58 PM on July 30, 2011


It's ideological madness, and to compromise with them at this point is to concede defeat and admit that we're going to pay the terrorists to play nice for a bit. It's bullshit, and if *this* is the best the elected Left can do, then we are doomed.

Nothing is agreed to unless everything is agreed to. The only thing they agree on is the debt ceiling has to be raised.

I agree that what the Tea Party is doing right now is ideological madness, but I don't believe the Democrats are as weak as many people seem to think. Negotiating is a game, and it's a mistake to assume what you hear about closed door negotiations is what's happening, or that any sort of preliminary agreement not yet finalized is going to resemble the end result.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:49 PM on July 30, 2011


SMASH-CUT TO: Two days from now.

"You have to understand Obama got the best deal he could."
posted by gerryblog at 10:56 PM on July 30, 2011 [7 favorites]


if *this* is the best the elected Left can do, then we are doomed.

BTW, I spent way too many years believing this, and, frankly, I can't spend any more time thinking we're doomed if the other side looks crazy and ours looks ineffective. If we're truly doomed, why bother at all? I think it's self-defeating and breeds apathy. I won't spend any more time feeling like this or that there is nothing that can be done. It never served to make a difference in any way except to make me depressed, and I refuse to live like that or feel like I'm powerless just because things don't work out the way I think they should. There is always a reason to give up hope if you really want to find it.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:57 PM on July 30, 2011 [3 favorites]




It's not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:

This actually doesn't appear that bad a plan... with the glaring, massive exception of no tax increases or closing of "tax loopholes". (Which is basically the same thing; talking about tax loopholes at all is subjective posturing). But the lack of tax increases is kind of a "yes, but apart from that how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" situation.

Perhaps the plan is to refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts next time they get up for a vote. But the Dems refused to put their feet down for the first go-round so I don't see why they would hold firm the second go-round. We shall see. If they cave on the Bush tax cuts again they aren't worth a bucket of warm piss.
posted by Justinian at 11:15 PM on July 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


This thread is internet karma against me for enjoying the Murdoch thread so much, isn't it?
posted by JHarris at 1:17 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]




Who is feeling ebullient this fine morning? This situation has made me seriously wonder about what is going to happen these next few years. We all see what is about to happen. Te country is being pulled backward. Maybe Obama had to be this way so the next set of liberal politicians can set things going forward again, with the full fury of liberal voters backing. I am okay with who Obama had to be. But now I want more than roll over governing. These Republicans are declaring war on me and mine, and you and yours.
posted by cashman at 4:22 AM on July 31, 2011 [12 favorites]


They declared war on you a long time ago.
posted by vibrotronica at 7:38 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


So is there really a deal between the House republicans and Obama? It seemed like that might be just another rumor late last night. Any new links to info about it?
posted by saulgoodman at 7:46 AM on July 31, 2011


So is there really a deal between the House republicans and Obama? It seemed like that might be just another rumor late last night. Any new links to info about it?

I think McConnell keeps talking about an imminent deal just to piss off Harry Reid who, if I remember correctly, sort of outranks McConnell.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:13 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Here are two:

US debt crisis: Democrats and Republicans close in on deal (caution: disturbing photo of McConnell smiling)

Senate GOP leader: Getting close to a debt deal
posted by GrammarMoses at 8:15 AM on July 31, 2011


Then again, there's this:

White House: No Debt Deal yet With Republicans

tl;dr for these three - Looks like the GOP will get just about everything it wants. Proposal includes SuperCongress debt reduction committee, provision that failure to act will lead to cuts in both defense and Medicare, and a vote on a BBA.
posted by GrammarMoses at 8:19 AM on July 31, 2011


The only sure outcome in all of this is that many moderate Republicans and most independents will finally see that Obama is a fair and decent negotiator who wants only to advance the best interests of the country. Also, I'd like my #hamburger with extra cheese, please.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:26 AM on July 31, 2011


Hey, they probably don't want defense cuts, right? That's...something.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:27 AM on July 31, 2011


The system has a fatal weakness, however: a sufficiently sensitive system of checks and balances can be easily manipulated by a dedicated, disciplined faction from within. The Tea Party makes up less than 50% of the Republican party, who are in turn about 50% of the Congress, which is in turn 33% of our government, (which gives them, what, an 8% share of our entire government?) yet they are able to paralyze the entire system with their intransigence.

The problem isn't the childish minority or the system, but that the leadership refuses to do an actual compromise. The system is supposed to work in such a way that if one side can't get support from its extremes, it should modify the law until it can get support from the more centrist members. But the GOP has reframed the idea of compromise to mean "abject defeat", and so any proposal that accidentally gets support from the other party is a loss.

This is the fault of the rules of the chambers that have given too much power to party interests over governing interests. The system as set up naiively assumes that individual members will vote their conscience rather than vote against it in favor of party unity. What is supposed to be happening is that a centrist type (like Lieberman or McCain *) puts together a deal outside of the the leadership and whips their own caucuses until it can win a vote. Somehow, even though proposals like that have come up (like gang of six), party "unity" stopped people from being able to actually vote on those things.


(* centrist in the context of the body, at least)
posted by gjc at 8:29 AM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


caution: disturbing photo of McConnell smiling)

Thank you for that trigger warning, for real.
posted by angrycat at 8:32 AM on July 31, 2011


Hey, they probably don't want defense cuts, right? That's...something.

It's a trap. The democrats will be uneasy about making the hard cuts to social programs. The republicans will bog the process down in debate and filibuster. The across the board cuts will trigger. The republicans will point the finger at democrats that they couldn't make the spending cuts the country needed. Republicans will hastily refund the defence department, cut social programs savagely all the while blaming the democrats for your SS checks being lower and Medicare not covering what it used to.

And the American populace will fall for it hook, line and sinker. Because they need a republican government to "lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king".
posted by Talez at 8:34 AM on July 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


(caution: disturbing photo of McConnell smiling)

Whiny turtle is pleased.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 8:38 AM on July 31, 2011


Whiny turtle is pleased.

Whiny turtle or Stains?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:40 AM on July 31, 2011


Can somebody please go wake up Ironmouth? I'm enjoying his posts in this thread and he's had enough sleep.
posted by triggerfinger at 9:13 AM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Can somebody please go wake up Ironmouth? I'm enjoying his posts in this thread and he's had enough sleep.

He's got another 45 minutes before a possible vote today, so I say let him sleep in a little longer.
posted by sparkletone at 9:19 AM on July 31, 2011




Are... are they actually debating on the floor of the Senate, as opposed to reading prepared statements into the Congressional Record before an empty chamber? Durbin and McCain are really going at it right now. My stars.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:55 AM on July 31, 2011


Still don't understand why, especially after that back and forth between McCain and Durbin, Reid just doesn't have the Senate vote to simply raise the debt ceiling. Seems like there would be support to do just that in the Senate. Would the House really vote it down on Monday/Tuesday?

Also, as far as ebullient goes, I don't know who Ironmouth was talking to but it looks like the left is not very happy about what's going on this morning. The Republicans are going to be able to claim this as a great victory and then hand the Dems their asses at the end of the year.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:07 AM on July 31, 2011


Tea Party libertarian true believers want to cut the military. If the trigger isn't taxes they will want it to go off.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:12 AM on July 31, 2011


Senate Kills Reid Bill, Await Obama/McConnell Spending-Cut-Only Debt Limit Bill:

"The McConnell/Obama plan is likely to contain an enforcement mechanism comprised entirely of spending cuts -- both to domestic and defense programs -- that will kick in if a bipartisan fiscal committee doesn't report a package of entitlement and tax reforms later this year."

I think that many of these TPers have defense contractors in their districts, so that defense-spending threat may provide a bit more leverage than it might seem to.

Furthermore, even if it gets out of the Senate, the bill has to go back to the House: "Assuming it can pass in the Senate, though, its prospects are wholly unclear in the House, where Speaker John Boehner has been having a brutally difficult time whipping votes for any debt limit bill, and where progressives will be reluctant to support any plan that virtually assures future entitlement cuts, but contains no guarantees of tax increases on wealthy Americans."
posted by GrammarMoses at 10:20 AM on July 31, 2011


In the senate now, 60 votes needed to move Reid bill ahead... and did Reid just vote against it?
posted by HLD at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2011


You know what always works out well? Waiting until the last minute, panicking, then voting on a bill that nobody has read.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:31 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can someone please 1) explain why CSPAN is showing talking heads instead of the vote and 2) where I might be able to actually see the vote/debate real-time?
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 10:31 AM on July 31, 2011


In the senate now, 60 votes needed to move Reid bill ahead... and did Reid just vote against it?

That's a procedural thing. He has to vote against it as a formality so he can reintroduce it later.
posted by gerryblog at 10:32 AM on July 31, 2011


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.
posted by Flunkie at 10:33 AM on July 31, 2011


HLD, see this previous AskMe question of mine; I think he changed his vote because of the same reason.

On preview, what gerryblog said.

C-SPAN.org is working fine for me.
posted by Bukvoed at 10:33 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Lulu's: looks like it's on c-span2.
posted by mad bomber what bombs at midnight at 10:35 AM on July 31, 2011


Ah, thanks. CSPAN2 is streaming the Senate right now. Reid said they would be negotiating and calling another vote with a majority required by around 4pm.
posted by HLD at 10:35 AM on July 31, 2011


Thanks. I can now stoke my white-hot rage in real time.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 10:39 AM on July 31, 2011


He has to vote against it as a formality so he can reintroduce it later.

Flip-flopper!

Seriously, isn't part of the problem here the incredibly byzantine morass of procedural minutiae? No one outside the system understands them and it comes across as literal fiddling while Rome burns.

Further, the fact something hasn't been done by convention since 1962 or whatever is taken by Tea Partiers as symptomatic of the "serious times we face" or some such. It's been said before, but the tea party faction doesn't care about the normal constraint on behaviour, the need to be re-elected, because they see themselves as kamikazes for a cause, with cohort after cohort of single-term sacrificial soldiers lined up behind them. The arcane rules and procedures of Congress actually help them in their goal of obstruction and destruction.
posted by Rumple at 10:39 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


To that point, from Timothy Burke:
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.

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.
I also like this piece: Obama as James Buchanan.
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]


C-SPAN shows the House, C-SPAN2 shows the Senate... and the Senate just went to recess.
posted by narwhal bacon at 10:42 AM on July 31, 2011




The White House Communications Director has tweeted "Despite all the reporting, no deal has been reached, there are still impt issues to work out, and a lot of bad info is floating out there".

The Huffington Post's White House correspondent has tweeted "Just talked to a White House official who says the actual details of the deal are "significantly better" than what's being reported #fwiw".
posted by Flunkie at 10:45 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Significantly better for whom? Liberals, Democrats? Then it won't pass the House. What does that mean, significantly better? Significantly better would be to say, "Wow, this has gotten completely out of hand. We're all rushing in to this and if we do that, we're probably going to make a poor decision about the long term financial health of this country. Let's have an up and down vote in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling only and we'll discuss future budgets in the future, like we've done for the past 80 years. If anybody has a problem with that, go ahead and vote against it. But we'll keep advocating for a debt ceiling raise until you decide to pass one through your chambers."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:51 AM on July 31, 2011


Questions:

How would a one trillion in cuts and no new revenues sit with the rating agencies?

If the proposed deal passes, isn't there a good chance the econ will go into free fall, if what it is basically guaranteeing is more of this bullshit until at least NOVEMBER I MEAN FUCK

Is the WH fundamentally misunderstanding the whole 'Get gov't small enuf so it can be drowned in a bathtub lunacy?' Because I swear to fucking God, this feels like the WH is saying: well guess what we kinda agree and there's the bathtub right there and here's a big knife and I am trusting you you are not going to use it?

Ironmouth, for reals wake up and lay down some commentary.
posted by angrycat at 10:54 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think at the very least, the bush tax cuts will expire.
posted by empath at 11:02 AM on July 31, 2011


I think that many of these TPers have defense contractors in their districts, so that defense-spending threat may provide a bit more leverage than it might seem to.

How do you think these defense contractors feel about default?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:05 AM on July 31, 2011


Now how would get past the House.
posted by angrycat at 11:06 AM on July 31, 2011


I think at the very least, the bush tax cuts will expire.

Uhh, how?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:07 AM on July 31, 2011


*would that* meaning tax cut expiration.
posted by angrycat at 11:07 AM on July 31, 2011


I don't mean now, I mean when they expire. The congress can't pass anything. All the democrats have to do is not vote for an extension.
posted by empath at 11:09 AM on July 31, 2011


The Bush tax cuts expire at end of 2012. The only way they'll be extended is if the House, Senate, and the President agree to do it.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:09 AM on July 31, 2011


The Bush tax cuts expire ("sunset") if Congress does nothing or if Obama vetoes what they do. Now, I disagree with empath that Obama will actually let that happen, but that's how it could.
posted by gerryblog at 11:09 AM on July 31, 2011


I don't mean now, I mean when they expire. The congress can't pass anything. All the democrats have to do is not vote for an extension.

You don't think they can find more hostages?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:11 AM on July 31, 2011


*can't
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:12 AM on July 31, 2011




How do you think these defense contractors feel about default?
Not good... suggesting that the TPers are immune to pressure from said contractors, and therefore that a threat to cut that spending is not much of a lever at all. Oh well.
posted by GrammarMoses at 11:13 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also, any cuts from defense will just be re-added in supplemental funding with bipartisan support five seconds later. They're phantom cuts compared to the ones our side has to eat.
posted by gerryblog at 11:15 AM on July 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


HLD: "Josh Brown: Today is August 1st..."

"...2026," said a voice from the House ceiling, "in the city of Washington, DC." It repeated the date three times for memory’s sake. "Wednesday is Mr. Obama's birthday. Tomorrow is the anniversary of Debtpocalypse. Social Security is not payable, nor are the water, gas, and light bills..."
posted by Rhaomi at 11:27 AM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm beginning to wonder if we wouldn't be better off letting the whole thing fall apart.

We keep seeing this scenario, the Democrats forced (or possibly "forced") to adopt an obscenely right wing position because the alternative is the Republicans shooting the hostage du jour. The problem is that what we get isn't safety and an end to the problem, but a continuing problem and whatever program the Republicans took hostage being seriously harmed even if it isn't killed outright.

Right now we're seeing it again. The only deal being seriously discussed is one with no new revenue, nothing but cuts from social programs, and a promise of further, deeper, cuts in social programs if (at a future time when it will be politically advantageous for the Republicans to have a fight) we don't let them win a new fight.

At some point I think we have to say "Fuck it, shoot the hostage, surrendering one more time isn't worth it."

Because, and I have no idea how this can be the case, there is **ALWAYS** a new hostage. Every few months, like clockwork, something happens and the Republicans are allowed to take a new hostage and do this whole thing again.

I don't know if it's worth letting them crater the economy or not, I don't know if this fight is the one where we need to draw a clear, bright, line and stop them even if it means they shoot their current hostage, but I do know that this can't go on. They have a majority in one of the three lobes of the elected government, and somehow this works out to effectively them running the whole country. We've still got 2/3 of the elected government in our control, and somehow we can't do jack shit? I don't believe it, but even if it is true we can't let that continue.

The worst part is that every time this happens we come out of it looing like suckers, like chumps, like weak, ineffective, fools, and the "independent" [1] voters don't like weak people so they vote Republican in ever larger numbers.

Somehow we've gone from Boehner being at the end of his political career to **YET**ANOTHER** crushing victory for the Republicans. A party, I might mention again, that barely has a majority in one out of three of the sections of our elected government. With a tiny majority in a single house of Congress they're dictating to the whole nation. Yet, I note, when the Democrats had a majority in that same house of Congress the Republicans still got to dictate terms. Someone explain this to me, where in the Constitution is it written that no matter what, no matter who has majorities, the Republicans always get to win and the Democrats must always lose?

This can't go on.

[1] Which I'm thinking is a polite way of saying "fucking stupid"
posted by sotonohito at 11:31 AM on July 31, 2011 [23 favorites]


My best friend from high school is a dyed-in-the-wool, never-go-against-the-party Democrat. This morning on GChat he was talking up President Romney as "not so bad" and "maybe even a little bit better." The idea (fantasy?) is that Romney will moderate the Republicans and get them to deal rationally on taxes, climate, and immigration, which they'll never do under a Democrat. With a Democratic Congress, he thinks Romney will revert to his Massachusetts governor iteration and be more or less like Bush 41: "not the end of the world." He also puts Obama's reelection at under 50-50, which I tend to agree with, especially if Romney's really able to win the GOP primary.

Nearly every picture this guy has on Facebook sports Obama gear of one type or another. If this friend has given up, it's over.

So depressing.
posted by gerryblog at 11:32 AM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


:) Ray Bradbury- There Will Come Soft Rains
posted by HLD at 11:41 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm no expert on the D.R. and Haiti, but what I've been mulling over lately is Truilljo. That dude was one genocidal bastard and is one of those people who stimulates a disappointment in me that Hell probably doesn't exist.

Yet why is the D.R. green and Haiti brown, impoverished soil? Because of Trullijo, is my understanding. It's why the D.R. has all these ecological preserves.

I think Obama is a good man. I'm proud of my vote and support for him, and generally am one of those mefites who gets very sarcastic when Obama is talked up as a sell-out, whatever. I believe that there's no clear path for this president, in terms of how to save us from ourselves.

Do I want Obama to take actions that might degrade the Constitution and expand executive power, for the sake of the soul of this country? You bet. But Larry Tribe was down as the 14th amendment not being a go-to for an end to this mess. Obama is not a Trujillo in any figurative way; he's a small r-republican. He respects the Constitution. And we're left with members of the House who have grabbed the country by the balls.

Really, what we are is a country that is going down a certain path. We're on the highway to Hell, and have been since Reagan.

Sorry, world.
posted by angrycat at 11:45 AM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Really, what we are is a country that is going down a certain path. We're on the highway to Hell, and have been since Reagan.

Here's an illustration for you, angrycat.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:50 AM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]




Sorry, world

I have a feeling whatever the outcome of this week's theatre the rest of the world has decided to move on, or at least started faking it as they look for a new place to stay.

It's kind of weird to see an Empire not so much fall, as dive.
posted by fullerine at 12:14 PM on July 31, 2011


Essentially Obama is saying he will raise taxes on the middle class if the GOP doesn't agree to raise them on the rich. There is no one who should believe he will actually do this anymore.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:22 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Centrist Canadian punditry: Debt-ceiling chicken and the end of the empire
posted by HLD at 12:28 PM on July 31, 2011


"... Ironmouth, for reals wake up and lay down some commentary."
posted by angrycat at 1:54 PM on July 31

I'd suggest letting sleeping dogs lie, but he's already done plenty of that. /rimshot

Aw, let Ironmouth out. He might be, despite his self-descriptions to the contray, a barrister practicing family law, and most people understand that you can't ever get ahold of your divorce lawyer in a moment of personal crisis, either, which makes his temporary absence from this thread entirely excusable, on grounds of professional tactics and experience.

In so far as 11th hour deals and the death of idealism are concerned, let me simply say that any deal that averts default at this juncture is a win for the ruling party, and any deal that cuts spending, caps taxes, and includes an enforcement mechanism is a win for the minority party, even they are one in the same deal, and even if such a deal stinks so badly all around that vultures flee, rats run squealing, and hyenas on far continents howl at the stench.

Idealism, however badly wounded, and sickened in the instant, will survive. Hope will be alive, if greatly weakened in the near term. Change may come (but not in trillion dollar platinum denominations).
posted by paulsc at 12:33 PM on July 31, 2011


The tea party now runs America. Sweet! They seem bright and well intentioned.
posted by chaz at 12:36 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's not a win for the ruling party as much as it's the field goal that prevents the shutout. Final score 47-3.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:37 PM on July 31, 2011


"... Final score 47-3."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:37 PM on July 31

Writing small, to make a quiet point. There is no end to this game of American politics, and thus, no "final" score. There will be more issues, there will be more debates, there will be more votes, and a nation will go on, so long as men elected to govern would rather talk behind closed doors, while they bluster and pose in public, rather than shoot, anywhere. This republic has been messy before, may be very messy now, and can counted on to be messy in some imagined future.

I'll hold my nose to live by your future political wins, if you'll hold the flag and whistle patriotic tunes over some others, that I might endorse, that cause you no small discomfort.

posted by paulsc at 12:51 PM on July 31, 2011


Politics is like a football season in which there are always more seasons and the draft is elections so SHUT UP. :P

Washington, D.C.– Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, today released the following statement on the emerging debt deal:

“This deal trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:54 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


On the Practical Exercise of Power – or why the Old White Dudes keep winning

Obama says that the rich have stopped paying taxes, and they have. But why have we allowed them to do this? The answer is simple: the Big Lie of our generation is that one day we will be the rich, and therefore we keep and feed the Rich as if they were exotic game animals, letting them get away with murder because of our secret aspiration to one day be one of them.

It is this dream of wealth which has corrupted our societies. It is not the rich themselves, but the license we have collectively extended them to abuse their privileges because of our own secret aspiration which has destroyed our economies. Democracy has not failed: we have.

posted by dejah420 at 1:09 PM on July 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


Among the tea partiers I know, there is a lot more belief that taxation is theft and that it is bad for the economy than there is belief that they too will be rich.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:12 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


deajah420, I think people will only start voting their interests when they feel the pain of what they've lost. The non-wealthy have little cohesion and little to individually gain from the Government (as benefits have been cut, not gained over the past 30 years), so they are not organized and don't know what they want. In contrast, the rich are a small group that are very clear in their demands-- billions of dollars.
posted by chaz at 1:14 PM on July 31, 2011


Among the tea partiers I know, there is a lot more belief that taxation is theft and that it is bad for the economy than there is belief that they too will be rich.

This. The conviction that somehow they are the sole creators of their own economic successes, without acknowledging the giant infrastructure that society has erected for them to be able to function, and the lack of understanding that their successes were paid for by the inherited resources of a whole civilization through centuries, is what underlies this. With such convictions, of course any tax will be seen as theft. It's economic, social, political and historical illiteracy.

Don't let the libertarians off the hook here. They provide whatever feeble intellectual cover the Republicans have to appeal to anyone other than retrograde social conservatives and the religious right wing.

It's an unholy union. And a quite a problem, because how do you fix such ignorance? I don't think attacking teachers, gutting education, turning over educational institutions to the private sector and raising the costs of higher education to unsustainable levels is going to be the answer.

This is how countries fail.
posted by VikingSword at 1:23 PM on July 31, 2011 [16 favorites]


Centrist Canadian punditry: Debt-ceiling chicken and the end of the empire.

Ah, Margaret Wente, Republican apologist of many years past. Can't recommend her take on things, myself.

posted by jokeefe at 1:26 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


. I'm proud of my vote and support for him, and generally am one of those mefites who gets very sarcastic when Obama is talked up as a sell-out, whatever.

Right. I mean it's not like he sold us out on public option health care. It's not like he sold us out on jobs. It's not like he sold us out on the endless Wars. It's not like he sold us out on staffing the Fed with Goldman Sachs execs. It's not like he sold Elizabeth Warren out. It;s not like he sold us out by not having the Justice Department prosecute the worst violations of the previous administration. It's not like he sold labor unions out. . It's not like his chief of staff gave therm the finger or anything. It's not like he disbanded the populist and highly Progressive Obama for America movement as soon as they served their purpose. It;s not like he's continually signalled that Social Security and Medicare were on the table or anything. Let's put all that behind us because in the Obama administration it's a Brand New Day each and every glorious day.

Respectfully, angrycat, it's not just the Republican Tea Partiests who put this country into the toilet. It's also the Obamabots who can see no wrong in an administration that continues to screw the base who elected him each and every day. When (not if) this country goes to high hell , whether it be next week or next year it won't be only the Tea Partiers I'll be laying the blame on.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:29 PM on July 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


the Obamabots

INPUT ERROR
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:37 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


The wingers are pissed too.
Erick Erickson: "This whole farce in Washington is a way to get more tax revenue from you"
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:39 PM on July 31, 2011


Is it Republican apologetics to even mention the financial challenges- the "underlying structural deficit" (job creation, population aging, health care costs)? It may be irrelevant to the pure question of whether to raise the debt limit, but it has some bearing on the legitimacy of the solutions the Tea-R-party is pushing.
posted by HLD at 1:41 PM on July 31, 2011


The wingers are pissed too.

The reality disconnect in that article and its comments is stunning. Yes, this has all been a Democratic plot to cover tax increases. Unreal.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:48 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, if we are enraged and the teapartiers are, I still don't see how this shit gets done.
posted by angrycat at 1:50 PM on July 31, 2011


HLD, it is Republican apologetics unless you follow the thought to its conclusion. The Tea Party's "solutions" involve defaulting on our debt -- how does that fix anything? Even if they're just bluffing, they've brought us within a hair's breadth of being downgraded (which might happen now regardless) -- which will cost more than any savings they've proposed.

Read the "Extended Baseline Scenario" on your link again. The deficit disappears if Congress simply does nothing. The situation is not dire and does not require panicked reorganizations of the social safety net.
posted by gerryblog at 1:51 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, if we are enraged and the teapartiers are, I still don't see how this shit gets done.

This is how shit always gets done. Quoting myself from up thread:

At some point there will be a compromise centrist bipartisan bill that everyone hates, is terrible policy, and will pass.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:54 PM on July 31, 2011


The deficit disappears if Congress simply does nothing.

Thank you! You are 100% correct. The deficit goes away if Congress simply does nothing. Meaning that we allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to disappear.

That's all that has to be done. That's all this is about right now. How to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. Which is why this is all such bullshit.

posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:54 PM on July 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


unclosed tag and unresolved angst
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:55 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Poet_Lariat, why do the dems have such a hard time communicating this?
posted by chaz at 1:55 PM on July 31, 2011


Because it involves raising taxes on the middle class, and the problem is slightly more complex when you consider longterm healthcare costs.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:56 PM on July 31, 2011


Is it Republican apologetics to even mention the financial challenges- the "underlying structural deficit" (job creation, population aging, health care costs)? It may be irrelevant to the pure question of whether to raise the debt limit, but it has some bearing on the legitimacy of the solutions the Tea-R-party is pushing.

I thought the underlying structural deficit included two wars and huge tax cuts. But, you know, I might be wrong and stuff. Also, there's a handy fix for an aging population: legalize all those young undocumented immigrants, and poof! Demographics shift younger. You're welcome.
posted by jokeefe at 1:57 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: unclosed tag and unresolved angst
posted by jokeefe at 1:58 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


...why do the dems have such a hard time communicating this?

They're not having trouble communicating. They just don't want the things we want.
posted by gerryblog at 1:58 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


At some point there will be a compromise centrist bipartisan bill that everyone hates, is terrible policy, and will pass.

You know, at some point, if we just keep ramming through terrible policy because "it will pass," we are going to have a terrible country. That point may have already come and gone, FYI.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:59 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Pretty much, yeah. The tea party and progressive caucus should join together and nuke this compromise. Make the centrists pass a clean raise and the Republican centrists can eat the shit sandwich instead of the Democrats for once.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:01 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Poet_Lariat, why do the dems have such a hard time communicating this?

I think that is because they do not want to, chaz. I think both sides pay big money to propaganda firms (astroturfing, PR agencies , etc) to skew the argument away from that very simple and very true fact. Both parties are looking out for the interests of the ultra-wealthy . The sooner everyone on both sides cone to the realization the sooner we can move on to real solutions. But that's not going to happen because your voice and my voice are drowned out by billions spent in media campaigns. Ask Ironmouth how effective such campaigns really are - he was telling us earlier in the thread that he used to work for an astroturfing company so he has first hand experience in their effectiveness. Our voices get drowned out in the ocean of lies.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:02 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Oh my god, Red State. Why do I check in with that place every few days? Horrified fascination? For laughs? I don't know. But seriously, the comments there....

"The downgrade will come, especially if we raise the debt limit."

I just don't know what to say. It's like mirrorland.
posted by jokeefe at 2:04 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, jokeefe, I think we have reached the point where we have an ungovernable country because right-wing propaganda has pushed these folks to the point where coexistence is impossible. My girlfriend wouldn't mind Vancouver, but I'm looking at Holland or Denmark or...something. I have just about given up hope. Ironmouth is a "system man" to the core, but it's hard for me to see anything in the system but ruin.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:08 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Hey adamschneider, I'm in Vancouver, and I think it's grand. You're close enough to the border that it's an easy drive to Seattle, and now that the Canadian dollar is on par or worth more than the American dollar, shopping is great too! (I think the fact that the exchange rate now favours the Canadian dollar, when it used to be something like 1.20 to 1.00 was a sobering revelation for me about just how badly the crash has affected you folks down South).
posted by jokeefe at 2:13 PM on July 31, 2011


Yeah, same here. Spouse and I are staying in the US as long as my mother-in-law is alive, but we are talking about Vancouver quite wistfully.
posted by GrammarMoses at 2:14 PM on July 31, 2011


Hey adamschneider, I'm in Vancouver

That's why I mentioned it. ;-)

Yeah, I remember being a kid and visiting Niagara Falls every year and seeing how much farther my money went for buying souvenirs. So much for those days.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:16 PM on July 31, 2011


Also.

*cough*

d
posted by adamdschneider at 2:17 PM on July 31, 2011


Beer is on me for all Mefi refugees seeking political asylum!
posted by jokeefe at 2:18 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Back in the '90s Canada went through our own debt crisis and credit downgrading. It was resolved by center left politicians breaking tax pledges and with a fair bit of government 'austerity' (I don't remember what they called it officially.) Since people upthread so very appreciated the concerns of Canada on this issue, I'll put it in small text "What the U.S. Debt Ceiling Means for Canada" (pdf)
posted by HLD at 2:24 PM on July 31, 2011


An interesting revelation from the AolPo re the new Super Catfood Commission that is part of this suckass deal :

Under the new proposal, if the new legislative body, made up of six Democrats and six Republicans from both chambers, doesn't come up with a bill that cuts at least $1.5 trillion by Thanksgiving, entitlement programs will automatically be slashed.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:29 PM on July 31, 2011


As will defence, though, right? And the tax cuts will be set to expire?
posted by jokeefe at 2:36 PM on July 31, 2011


Right, but that's the problem: no one trusts that Congress won't reassign defense its money, and no one believes that Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire (or that Obama will veto the bill if they don't). The Democrats have no credibility. So the "trigger" gives the GOP everything it wants automatically, resetting the status quo (and the starting line for new negotiations) that much further to the right.
posted by gerryblog at 2:39 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


The tax cuts have been set to expire before.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:40 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, btw, we now have an semi-official fourth branch of government. Hope everybody is cool with the l337 h4x0ring of the U.S. constitution that just went on.
posted by Avenger at 2:41 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


I may be unable to control my nausea if this passes, then, and Obama gives a press conference talking about how great it is that they came to this historic deal etcetera.
posted by jokeefe at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2011


Fourth branch: S&P?
posted by GrammarMoses at 2:45 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Pretty sure he's talking about SUPER KONGRESS.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:47 PM on July 31, 2011


Yeah, if you give Congress a choice between cutting defense spending and cutting social security, they're going to cut social security. Hands down. They're not even going to sweat it.

And Obama knows this. He knows that he is setting us up for deep social cuts and that is what is so frustrating about all this.
posted by Avenger at 2:48 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Although honestly, with the constant genuflecting before the sacred cow of defense spending, it's felt an awful lot like the military is a fourth branch of government for a while, now.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:50 PM on July 31, 2011


I think the GOP is just going to add a new layer to government every time they want something. The next time we reach a budget/debt impasse (before Thanksgiving, I guess? Sometime in 2012, definetly), the Repubs are just going to demand a new law that the Joint Chiefs of Staff must sign off on every cut to defense spending for it to happen. Then we can get the military directly involved in politics and just bury American democracy once and for all.
posted by Avenger at 2:53 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]




Yeah, if you give Congress a choice between cutting defense spending and cutting social security, they're going to cut social security. Hands down. They're not even going to sweat it.

I think you underestimate the power of the senior citizen vote. A LOT of baby boomers are getting ready to retire or are retired already, and they all vote in huge numbers.
posted by empath at 3:00 PM on July 31, 2011


I have a feeling that the end result of a super congress will be cuts in defense spending and a tax increase.
posted by empath at 3:01 PM on July 31, 2011


I have a feeling that the end result of a super congress will be cuts in defense spending and a tax increase.

Which the Republicans can block to get the cuts they actually want.
posted by gerryblog at 3:07 PM on July 31, 2011


I have a feeling that the end result of a super congress will be cuts in defense spending and a tax increase.

What feeling exactly makes you think Republicans will sign off on a tax increase?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:10 PM on July 31, 2011


So have there been any actual new developments yet, or is everyone here kind of just reacting to ideas as they flit in and out of their minds and commenting on those ideas as if they had some necessary or even tenuous connection to reality?

What's the deal? Why are the statements from the White House that say no deal has been reached being ignored?
posted by saulgoodman at 3:14 PM on July 31, 2011


reacting to ideas as they flit in and out of their minds and commenting on those ideas as if they had some necessary or even tenuous connection to reality

I'm doing this one
posted by synaesthetichaze at 3:16 PM on July 31, 2011


I suspect people are finding the White House to be less than reliable.
posted by GrammarMoses at 3:17 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Huff:WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has tentatively signed off on a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling, which has been primarily negotiated between his Republican counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and President Barack Obama.
--
In coming out in favor of the deal, Reid paves the way for its passage in the Senate. There are likely to be members of both parties who will end up opposing the measure, which would cut $1 trillion in spending over the course of ten years before giving way to a super committee of lawmakers to find $1.8 trillion in additional cuts. But that chamber seems like less of a steep hurdle for passage.

posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:18 PM on July 31, 2011


What feeling exactly makes you think Republicans will sign off on a tax increase?

They have to pass what the committee puts forward. If they don't pass anything, defense is going to get cut, and so will social security and a bunch of other stuff that will absolutely get the GOP killed in the polls.

It's put up or shut-up time, and I think the GOP will find out the hard way that it's easy to talk about 'cutting entitlements', until the people whose entitlements you're cutting vote you out of office.
posted by empath at 3:20 PM on July 31, 2011


saulgoodman, no one is fantasizing here:

Negotiating All But Done for $2.7 Trillion Deficit Reduction Deal ... Now Comes the Selling.

Reid Agrees to Major Debt Limit Deal -- Here's What He Signed Off On.

Reid Backs Debt Deal and Hopes for Sunday Night Debt Vote.

Only an unholy alliance between the Tea Party and the Progressive Caucus can save us now!
posted by gerryblog at 3:20 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


defense is going to get cut, and so will social security and a bunch of other stuff that will absolutely get the GOP killed in the polls.

Social Security is actually exempt from the deal. Defense will get cut if the trigger is triggered, until five seconds later when a supplemental funding bill is authorized with the usual bipartisan support.
posted by gerryblog at 3:21 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


They have to pass what the committee puts forward. If they don't pass anything, defense is going to get cut, and so will social security and a bunch of other stuff that will absolutely get the GOP killed in the polls.

But see, the committee has Republicans on it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


. The deficit goes away if Congress simply does nothing. Meaning that we allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to disappear.

This just isn't true.

Letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire reduces the deficit but it by no means eliminates it.
posted by Justinian at 3:24 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


As Brian Beutler points out, the current sticking point in negotiations is Republicans trying to lower the automatic defense cuts built into the trigger. That's because they have no intention of passing anything the Super Congress manages to come up with. They're just going to activate the trigger no matter what.
posted by gerryblog at 3:25 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire reduces the deficit but it by no means eliminates it.

Are you confusing the annual deficit with the national debt? The annual deficit would all-but-disappear if Congress packed up and went home tomorrow.
posted by gerryblog at 3:27 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Here, this is the committee scenario:

Republicans and Democrats are going to negotiate. Democrats will want revenue and Republicans will want cuts. If they can't come to a mutual give and take agreement, there will be an automatic consequence that will harm them both.

Does this scenario sound at all familiar to you in any ways?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:28 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Oh, I see -- yeah, you have to raise taxes on the (upper) middle class too to get that result.
posted by gerryblog at 3:28 PM on July 31, 2011


Per the NYTimes: Under the framework that negotiators were discussing today, half of those cuts would come in defense spending, while the other half would be a combination of other domestic spending, like discretionary programs and farm subsidies. Cuts to Medicare would not make up more than 3 percent of the non-military cuts. They also state that the cost of living formula for Social Security is off the table.

I guess I'm a centrist, because I can live with this.
posted by meinvt at 3:46 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Are you confusing the annual deficit with the national debt? The annual deficit would all-but-disappear if Congress packed up and went home tomorrow.

That's not what that chart says. It says you have to let all the tax cuts expire, not just on the wealthy, and you have to freeze Medicare reimbursement to doctors which amounts to a cut in Medicare as currently envisioned. So, yeah, the deficit would more or less disappear if Congress did nothing. But that would mean allowing taxes to increase on the middle class and "cutting" Medicare in the sense that Washington views a decrease in the rate of increase as a cut.

That's a huge, huge, huge difference from, as Poet_Lariat wrote, simply letting Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy expire and nothing else.
posted by Justinian at 3:49 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Note that I think letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire is a good idea. It's true that taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been in, well, ever, but taxes on everyone else are also really really low.
posted by Justinian at 3:51 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's put up or shut-up time, and I think the GOP will find out the hard way that it's easy to talk about 'cutting entitlements', until the people whose entitlements you're cutting vote you out of office.

Except that the GOP came this close to destroying the world economy this weekend. These people are not really thinking logically or critically.
posted by Avenger at 4:01 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Bernie: "The Republicans have been absolutely determined to make certain that the rich and large corporations not contribute one penny for deficit reduction, and that all of the sacrifice comes from the middle class and working families in terms of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, LIHEAP, community health centers, education, Head Start, nutrition, MILC, affordable housing and many other vitally important programs.

"I cannot support legislation like the Reid proposal which balances the budget on the backs of struggling Americans while not requiring one penny of sacrifice from the wealthiest people in our country. That is not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy."

posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:03 PM on July 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


Thank god all this will be over in 2013, once the Republicans have both the House and Senate.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:06 PM on July 31, 2011


Just quoting Matt Yglesias, since this paragraph of his pretty adequately sums up what a profound mistake it is for the Administration and Democrats to accept this deal:

I actually think that whatever the contours of the deal, at this point the biggest damage is to the overall system of government. Obama has successfully transformed massive debt ceiling hostage taking from an act of breathtakingly irresponsible brinksmanship into a proven effective negotiating tactic. Suppose he gets re-elected in 2012. What’s he going to do when this issue recurs in 2013? Every time the president’s party has fewer than 60 votes in the Senate, we may face a recurrence of this crisis.

Obama should just enact the 14th Amendment option and take the debt limit gun away from the insane people who are waving it around. They're not going to suddenly get less crazy in sixth months or twelve months or in the years to come.

I'm holding on to a (very slim) hope right now that Obama knows even this deal can't get through the House and is planning on "taking the 14th" after Congress fails to pass it.
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:07 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


"sixth months"-->"six months"
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:09 PM on July 31, 2011


Via NYT:
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.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:12 PM on July 31, 2011


"We will not negotiate with terrorists."
posted by five fresh fish at 4:17 PM on July 31, 2011


Rhaomi wrote: And with majority GOP control of state houses after 2010 and the long (seven year?) window for ratifying amendments....

It's my understanding that there is no necessary limit to the length of time it takes to ratify a Constitutional amendment, unless such language is embedded into the proposed amendment itself; indeed, there are proposed amendments going back several hundred years which are still technically pending.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:40 PM on July 31, 2011


Yes, in fact the most recent amendment, the 27th, passed Congress and was submitted to the states in 1789, along with those that became the Bill of Rights. Unlike those, however, didn't pass the states until 1992.

However, sometimes proposed amendments have built-in time limits for ratification. For example, the 18th Amendment says, in part, "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
posted by Flunkie at 4:51 PM on July 31, 2011


So, yeah, the deficit would more or less disappear if Congress did nothing. But that would mean allowing taxes to increase on the middle class and "cutting" Medicare in the sense that Washington views a decrease in the rate of increase as a cut.

No. You are conflating issues. All that has to be done is remove the Bush era tax cuts . No Medicare changes or other such scare nonsense is needed. And you know what??? I would rather pay the rather small $300 a year that bush gave my income level and have a fucking job that paid a fucking wage then be unemployed in a shitty economy .

That whole Medicare and tax raise thing for the middle class is just bullcrap. The facts were that the Bush era cuts to the middle class were penny ante.

The facts are all Congress has to do is nothng vis a vis letting the tax cuts expire . That alone raises enough income from the upper 2% to solve the deficit issue.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:01 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Unfortunately, he's right about the Medicare thing. They pass a "doc fix" every year to provide more money to Medicare providers; part of the "going home and doing nothing" equation is not passing the doc fix.
posted by gerryblog at 5:04 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


No. You are conflating issues. All that has to be done is remove the Bush era tax cuts

No, I'm not. Read the dang article.
posted by Justinian at 5:10 PM on July 31, 2011


(Hell, even if you ignore the Medicare cuts, it's talking about letting ALL the tax cuts expire. Why do you keep talking about only the cuts for the wealthy?)
posted by Justinian at 5:10 PM on July 31, 2011


Because Justinian my $300 a year tax cut was negligible compared to the cuts the upper 2% received. Which is what I said in my previous post. It's the huge tax cuts the upper 2% received that are killing the economy - not the middle class's $300 yearly check.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:14 PM on July 31, 2011


Gerryblog: the "do nothing" meme is not meant to be taken literally. It is a metaphor. It does not mean Congress goes home for the next 18 months and doesn't pass any legislation at all. It is a metaphor to show that this whole "negotiation" going on is a lot of crap and equivalent or even greater deficit savings could be had by just not doing anything at all this month (save for increasing the spending limit of course)
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:18 PM on July 31, 2011


Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm on your side on this. It also shows that our deficit problems are not insurmountable, but entirely within reach -- that, in fact, they'll be solved if we do nothing!

I was just saying he's technically correct about Medicare playing a role.
posted by gerryblog at 5:20 PM on July 31, 2011


Poet_Lariat, when

(1) You say that the only thing Congress will have to do is let the Bush cuts expire;

(2) Someone says, no, they have to deal with Medicare too;

(3) You directly say that they're wrong, "conflating issues", "all that has to be done is remove the Bush era tax cuts", and "the facts are all Congress has to do is nothing vis a vis letting the tax cuts expire",

... that's not a "metaphor". That's you being wrong. Confidently, assertively, and confrontationally wrong, as you seem to often be throughout this thread.

I'm going to ask you this again, as I previously asked you in this thread on a different topic:

Where did you get this information from?

Last time I asked that to you, you simply said something like oh, my bad, thanks for the correction. But, notably, you did not answer the question: Where is it that you get your consistently mistaken information from? Why are you so incredibly confident in your source of information?
posted by Flunkie at 5:25 PM on July 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


Gerryblog - The role Medicare plays is insignificant when placed beside the role Defense plays or frankly the hit the economy takes for our overpriced medical system as a whole, particularly the amount Medicare is forced to pay for prescriptions as opposed to the price that, say, the Canadian government pays.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:26 PM on July 31, 2011


Because Justinian my $300 a year tax cut was negligible compared to the cuts the upper 2% received. Which is what I said in my previous post. It's the huge tax cuts the upper 2% received that are killing the economy - not the middle class's $300 yearly check.

This isn't even wrong.
posted by Justinian at 5:27 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]




To be more clear, Poet_Lariat, you're making very confident anecdotal statements which are not backed up by facts. Yes, your $300 tax cut doesn't compare to the tax cut a very wealthy person gets. But there are a metric boatload more people getting the $300 cut.
posted by Justinian at 5:32 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


This isn't even wrong.

I agree with you that it is entirely correct.


• In 2010, the top 1% of earners (i.e., tax filers making over $645,000) received 38% of the breaks in the 2001-08 tax
changes; 55% of the tax breaks went to the top 10% of earners (those making over $170,000).2

• The top 0.1% of earners (i.e., making over $3 million) received an average tax cut of roughly $520,000, more than
450 times larger than the share received by an average middle-income family.

posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:32 PM on July 31, 2011


See, there you go again. 55% going to the top 10% means that almost half is going to everybody else. It's not "entirely correct" to say that 45% of something is "negligible" compared to 55% of that same thing.
posted by Flunkie at 5:35 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Poet_Lariat, again I'm on your side politically, but that still leaves 45%, doesn't it? That's not minimal.
posted by gerryblog at 5:35 PM on July 31, 2011


Flunkie: Have you been listening to the news lately. 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people in the U.S (give or take). If 55% of the tax cuts went to 10% of the people (more or less) .... this is 6th grade math.

Either you refuse to accept the facts or you are being disingenuous.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:38 PM on July 31, 2011


hey, guys, the president's on!
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Gerryblog - that 45% account for less than 10% of the taxable income due to the huge disparity of income we have now in the U.S. So do you see that the bottom 45% of can not compete to the top 10% of income earners.

Unfortunately the bottom 45% of income earners represent an almost insignificant source of total income. Especially considering that unemployment for that bottom 45% is well over 16%.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:42 PM on July 31, 2011


I assure you that I'm pretty good at math, so I guess I must be being disingenuous.
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.

And 45% is not "negligible" compared to 55%.

Obviously one could think that the 90% should have gotten more than 45%, but that's neither here nor there with respect to your claim, which was that the amount that that 90% was getting was "negligible" with respect to balancing the budget.
posted by Flunkie at 5:42 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.


source: CNN.
posted by gerryblog at 5:42 PM on July 31, 2011


Did anybody else watch Dateline's special tonight?

It may take until tomorrow before they show the whole thing.
posted by futz at 5:48 PM on July 31, 2011


In 2004 the bottom 40% of the population accounted for only 12% of the nations total income.

We all know that the differences are vastly greater today.
So there you have it. Half of the U.S. population pays only about 12% of the taxes (I'm assuming that we're probably up to 50% from 40% these past 8 years - not an unreasonable assumption)

The fact is that the tax cuts for the wealthy were vastly disproportionate to that of the middle class and the facts are that when the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes it hurts the economy vastly more than if the middle class do the same.

I just don't know how much clearer I can make it :)
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:50 PM on July 31, 2011


Did you catch the whole thing pyramid termite? The CSPAN title was "President says Congressional Leaders Have Reached a Deal on Debt Ceiling" but I came in at the closing remarks and now CSPAN is running a CBS test pattern. (Obama didn't look happy.)
posted by HLD at 5:50 PM on July 31, 2011


Poet_Lariat, no one is disputing that the tax cuts were disproportionally weighted towards the wealthy. What people are disputing is your claim that Congress could balance the budget by doing nothing but letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire.
posted by Flunkie at 5:52 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well Flunkie than your issue is with people like Paul Krugman and Bernie Sanders , not me. Perhaps you should write them and explain how wrong they are?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:53 PM on July 31, 2011


he said that he and the leadership had reached a deal - he was vague about the details, but basically it's the two-part one that's been talked about, with one section to be enacted now and the other to be worked out by the supercongress committee (although he didn't call it that)

it was a short speech - a reporter asked him about the democrats that didn't like what was being proposed, but he walked away and didn't answer
posted by pyramid termite at 5:54 PM on July 31, 2011


oh, yes, he was big on "a balanced approach" - i guess the suggestion is that the committee is going to come up with one

good luck with that
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 PM on July 31, 2011


I just don't know how much clearer I can make it :)

Putting a smiley face on your stubborn ignorance does not make it cute.
posted by Justinian at 5:56 PM on July 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


No, I'm pretty sure my issue is with you. If you point out where Krugman and Sanders said that Congress could balance the budget by doing nothing but letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, I'll gladly look at it, but until then I'm going to assume this is yet another Thomas Jefferson thing.
posted by Flunkie at 5:57 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Putting a smiley face on your stubborn ignorance does not make it cute.

And repeating the same lies over and over again in the face of facts does not make you correct. :)
posted by Poet_Lariat at 5:58 PM on July 31, 2011


Poet_Lariat, please read what people in the thread say: Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.
Your claim is wrong.
posted by gerryblog at 5:59 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Lies? You're making yourself look foolish. Have you actually read any of the links people have provided? The facts are right here in the thread! Just read the links. When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging!
posted by Justinian at 5:59 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Flunkie and Justianian - I am through with your tag teaming of me. I'm not going to supply endless Google cites so that you can prevaricate and weasel around the truth. We're done here. I'm pretty confident that 90% of everyone here knows the score.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:00 PM on July 31, 2011


What "lies" did Justinian say? Specifically, please?

Ah, you know what, forget it. Keep doing your thing.
posted by Flunkie at 6:00 PM on July 31, 2011


Ezra: The Congressional Budget Office just released the latest edition of its long-term budget outlook (pdf), and it shows the same thing as always: If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act — which CBO calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national debt will be totally manageable.

P_L, they are right. Do nothing solutions require medicare cuts and ALL the tax cuts expiring. If Krugman is saying otherwise please link for us.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:05 PM on July 31, 2011


obama's statement
posted by pyramid termite at 6:06 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


We're done here.

Translation: I got called on my crap and now I'm going to slink away.

I'm pretty confident that 90% of everyone here knows the score.

Pretty much.
posted by Justinian at 6:06 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Thanks pyramid termite :)
posted by HLD at 6:14 PM on July 31, 2011


Yes, the wealthy benefited disproportionately as individuals by the tax cuts, but a lot of people getting a little bit of money adds up to a lot of money.

That said, I'll happily give up my $300 or whatever I got if they also raised taxes on the wealthy to where they were before the bush tax cuts.
posted by empath at 6:17 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]




I knew my own good-for-nothing Congressman couldn't be relied upon to introduce a clean debt ceiling bill, but how did none of the other 534 Congresspeople and Senators introduce the one sentence resolution I posted above?
posted by ob1quixote at 6:27 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Because they are rank cowards and fools, the lot of them.

TPM has this to say:

Even if the bill passes the Senate it still has to make its way through the House. Speaker John Boehner provided the GOP caucus with a power-point presentation to try to sell them on the plan. However, he faces a sizable conservative rump that is still unsatisfied, largely because of concerns about defense cuts and the now-downgraded (and ludicrous) Balanced Budget Amendment. On the other side of the aisle, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has to hand her Democrats on a plan that many regard as an utter capitulation to the Republicans. A progressive backlash is already underway.
posted by dejah420 at 6:41 PM on July 31, 2011


If Pelosi stands firm and Boehner can't get the votes necessary from his caucus I think the current bill can be weakened a bit.

Realistically though it looks like doctors and hospitals are going to have to get out on a full court press or it's likely that they'll eat a pretty good percentage of the cuts. Eventually that should help the slow incremental tide towards single payer but in the meantime a lot of people are going to get hurt. But that's the nature of our democracy, as long as people are comfortable they are okay with status quo, it's only when they start getting hurt that substantive change begins to enjoy popular support.
posted by vuron at 6:41 PM on July 31, 2011


vuron: "Eventually that should help the slow incremental tide towards single payer but in the meantime a lot of people are going to get hurt."

I can see insurance companies opposing single-payer, but I don't see why hospitals, doctors, and nurses would. From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint it seems like a necessary precondition to reducing the overall burden of health care costs on the budget.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:54 PM on July 31, 2011


Hrmm there is some hope coming out of this deal. Apparently one of the triggers that happens if the Congressional committee doesn't come to an agreement is the President has the the ability to kill the upper class Bush tax cuts. Combined with the 50/50 defense/domestic cuts and the exclusion of SS and Medicare beneficiaries and it seems like the trigger if forced could screw both parties quite a bit.

It's still a shitty compromise made necessary by Republican hostage taking but it should allow Obama to avoid having another debt ceiling impasse before the 2012 elections. Further we can go back to the business of the House passing total worthless bills that the Senate then ignores.
posted by vuron at 6:54 PM on July 31, 2011


Apparently one of the triggers that happens if the Congressional committee doesn't come to an agreement is the President has the the ability to kill the upper class Bush tax cuts.

Link.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:01 PM on July 31, 2011


I hasten to add, by overall burden of health care costs on the budget I 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.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:01 PM on July 31, 2011


I can see insurance companies opposing single-payer, but I don't see why hospitals, doctors, and nurses would. From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint it seems like a necessary precondition to reducing the overall burden of health care costs on the budget.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:54 PM on July 31


I work in a hospital. When you have political discussions with my co-workers, they support or don't support single payer in amounts roughly equal to polling of the general population (not that I've done a proper count, this is just my estimate). But when you talk to them about specific patients, they always bend over backwards to get them the care they need.
posted by joannemerriam at 7:03 PM on July 31, 2011


furiousxgeorge, here. Looks to me like nothing's changed on the tax cuts -- Obama has the ultimate veto authority to prevent their extension, just as he did yesterday.
posted by gerryblog at 7:03 PM on July 31, 2011


Right, nothing has changed, he will continue to extend them when hostages are taken.

Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

For the record, that is the title of the White House fact sheet. This deal is a win for the economy. THIS IS WHAT BARACK OBAMA ACTUALLY BELIEVES.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:06 PM on July 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

The forcing event which has so far forced NOTHING.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:09 PM on July 31, 2011


I mean, do you understand those tax cuts include middle class tax cuts? Obama's ace in the hole to beat down Republican efforts will be that he will raise taxes on the middle class.

Are you listening to yourself?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:13 PM on July 31, 2011


So... It's actually happened.

The Republic is ungovernable.

The idealistically pure, morally bankrupt lot of them has broken it.

I guess those Nimitz Class carriers will look spiffy flying the flag of the PLAN.

Last one out... turn out the lights.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 7:13 PM on July 31, 2011


furiousxgeorge: "THIS IS WHAT BARACK OBAMA ACTUALLY BELIEVES."

This is an egregious non-use of the <blink> tag.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:15 PM on July 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


(Sorry, I get furious sometimes, gonna sign off for the night)
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:15 PM on July 31, 2011


Why This Crisis Isn't Going Anywhere--And What To Do About It by 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


THIS IS WHAT BARACK OBAMA ACTUALLY BELIEVES.

If you think a white house press release has ever accurately represented the genuine beliefs of any president in all respects, you're pretty gullible.
posted by empath at 7:22 PM on July 31, 2011


Ugh. This shit is just so alienating. As soon as I can afford it, I'm moving to a country with some sane fucking governance. I can't handle it anymore.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 7:25 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Well killing the Bush tax cuts in their entirety is closer to $4 billion rather than $1 billion. Further the release talks about upper class cuts only.

Now it could be that it is talking about the Bush cuts as a whole but it could just be a portion thereof.

Honestly though I'd rather the Bush tax cuts expire even if it negatively impacts me rather than have them extended and hurt everyone.
posted by vuron at 7:29 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm confused by what everyone is upset about. There's no default. As far as I can tell, there haven't been any cuts to entitlements. We have huge defense cuts on the horizon if they don't cut some kind of deal (I doubt they will, honestly).

It's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world, either.
posted by empath at 7:33 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


This deal is a win for the economy. If the alternative was default.
posted by humanfont at 7:45 PM on July 31, 2011


People (including myself) are getting upset because the terrorists won. Republicans were willing to blow up the economy, send their country to ruin and, instead of getting treated like the treasonous scum that they are, they're getting rewarded. No, the Republicans aren't getting everything they wanted, but the fact they're getting anything is deeply disturbing.

And there will be no real defense cuts. Republicans will introduce supplemental funding bills to replace the money taken by any triggered cuts and there will be no more than a handful of Democrats willing to oppose such cuts.

I'm not quite to the point of hoping for default, but there's part of me that wants the tea partiers to carry their worthless revolution to it's conclusion and just let the whole thing burn. If it could mean the end of conservatism as a political movement in this country, this might be a worthwhile price to pay.
posted by honestcoyote at 7:47 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


This deal is a win for the economy. If the alternative was default.

Given that the deal has an explicit mandate to shrink the economy by $2.5 trillion, I'm not so sure.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:53 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


People (including myself) are getting upset because the terrorists won. Republicans were willing to blow up the economy, send their country to ruin and, instead of getting treated like the treasonous scum that they are, they're getting rewarded.

What you are doing here? This is part of the problem. Don't do this. They're american citizens, just like you and me, and they voted for these people, and they deserve to have a voice.

If you don't like it, work harder than them to win elections. That is your option.
posted by empath at 8:02 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wait, they weren't willing to do that stuff? Jeez, that means there was no reason to surrender to their demands.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:06 PM on July 31, 2011


If you don't like it, work harder than them to win elections. That is your option.

I seem to recall winning a historic presidential election just a few years ago. Can't remember how things turned out though.
posted by gerryblog at 8:07 PM on July 31, 2011 [7 favorites]


Krugman's latest column: The President Surrenders
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.

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.
posted by homunculus at 8:07 PM on July 31, 2011 [6 favorites]


Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

Stop copying me, Krugman.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:10 PM on July 31, 2011


Win elections and put pressure on your congress critter in between election cycles. Ask their office constantly where they stand on all sorts of issues (not just the hot button ones). Call in prior to votes, write letters, etc. Contemplate running for local office or if you aren't qualified find someone you like that can. Be engaged.

It's not easy to do and it's not always going to lead to a big payoff especially if you are in a hotbed of conservatism (Orange County, the South, etc) but if enough people are persistent enough it can tend to sway things incrementally in favor of the policies that you'd like to see established.

The problem I see with many self-described liberals is that we often assume that these points which are so clear to us should be clear to everyone. But they aren't and it's important for us to make out voice heard by engaging with our communities and fellow citizens no matter how conservative they are in and attempt to find common ground and compromise. In the absence of competing voices it's simply too easy for the Republicans to establish their viewpoint as sacrosanct.
posted by vuron at 8:15 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]




I seem to recall winning a historic presidential election just a few years ago.

Yeah, democracy doesn't stop after you win one election.
posted by empath at 8:21 PM on July 31, 2011


The problem with the inevitable "be/stay engaged" lecture is that it ignores so much about the way American democracy actually works as to be willfully naive. The districts are badly malapportioned in both the House and the Senate -- with the places where people actually live badly underrepresented in favor of conservative-leaning rural enclaves -- and ludicrously gerrymandered besides. Meanwhile the ever-widening spigot of corporate money in politics completely swamps the actions of everyday citizens. The media megaphone drowns out all hint of logic and truth. And even when we manage to "win" we find our charismatic change candidates suddenly turning on a dime into exactly the corrupt cynics they just finished campaigning against.

I'm not saying "get discouraged," and I'm not saying stay that way, but Christ, you can understand why people don't put their faith in a pseudo-democratic system that has roundly betrayed them for decades.
posted by gerryblog at 8:24 PM on July 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


Yeah, democracy doesn't stop after you win one election.
posted by empath at 11:21 PM on July 31 [+] [!]


Obama didn't do the things he promised in 2009-2010, either, back when he had a crisis, a mandate, and the votes to enact his policy.
posted by gerryblog at 8:26 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Guess we should have signed on to the Ryan budget while we had the chance.
posted by Trurl at 8:43 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


Disengagement and disenchantment with the system is what has gotten us to this point.

Our system works best if everyone stays engaged in the democratic system (voting all the time - not just presidential elections, engaging with elected officials, engaging with our fellow citizens).

It's easy to manipulate elections with a disengaged and disenchanted electorate. You can spend your time and money courting those people that are the most reliable voters (white older voters) and completely ignore the needs of less reliable voters (minorities, younger voters) even though those people less likely to vote often tend to outnumber those reliable voters.

We don't have things easy on our side. We don't typically have the advantage of single issue voters that steadfastly vote Republican because government is evil, abortion is amoral, and taxes are stealing from people's pocketbooks. That means we actually have to work harder to make sure our voices are heard not just during big elections but also small elections.

Yes the way our seats are apportioned dilutes our congressional power, yes gerrymandered seats squander the might of liberal hotbeds in the midst of great big swathes of conservative voters (Austin) but that just means that our fight is going to take time.

Obama getting elected despite having a whole host of disadvantages was really cool, the fact that he re-energized the base was pretty cool as well, but it's not enough. We lost the senate supermajority and then lost ground in the congress and this fiasco is the result of that. Republicans are just using the leverage of having to pass this debt increase to get some red meat for their base. If it wasn't a must pass kinda of thing we could safely go back to ignoring them. It wasn't and the Republicans were able to maintain enough unity that they could drive a very hard bargain. Make no mistake I acknowledge it was a shitty deal but elections have consequences. The consequence of the previous election was that we are pursuing austerity in a period of economic hardship despite widespread consensus that reductions in government spending would have a negative impact.
posted by vuron at 8:46 PM on July 31, 2011


I'm not saying "get discouraged," and I'm not saying stay that way, but Christ, you can understand why people don't put their faith in a pseudo-democratic system that has roundly betrayed them for decades.

Losing an election is not a betrayal. It means you lost. If you care that much about it, win next time.

I'm pretty tired of hearing 'it doesn't matter who wins' from purist 'liberals' who then complain when Republicans actually win and show that it does matter who wins.

If you don't like what Republicans do in Washington, then do something about it.

The Republicans aren't 'cheating'. This isn't a failed democracy. This is how democracy works, as ugly as it is.
posted by empath at 9:07 PM on July 31, 2011


Many liberal and even moderate people don't have anyone to vote for in their districts, no chance of competition thanks to redistricting. That was the point being made above. It is a joke. The electoral system is in dire need of reform.
posted by raysmj at 9:14 PM on July 31, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yes the way our seats are apportioned dilutes our congressional power, yes gerrymandered seats squander the might of liberal hotbeds in the midst of great big swathes of conservative voters (Austin) but that just means that our fight is going to take time.

Obama getting elected despite having a whole host of disadvantages was really cool, the fact that he re-energized the base was pretty cool as well, but it's not enough. We lost the senate supermajority and then lost ground in the congress and this fiasco is the result of that


This fight has taken time. It's taken 80 fucking years since FDR and now the Democrats are waving the white flag on maintaining a civilized society if that's what the consultants tell them it takes to get swing voters. Don't come here and tell me we need to keep the Presidency, the House, and 60 Senate seats and oh maybe a few more because of those blue dogs or else it's back to the 1800s and it's your fault, proles!

Anyone paying a shred of attention in 2009/2010 was arguing for the Democrats to reform the filibuster in the Senate, which they could have done with 50 votes when the new Congress began. Anyone paying a shred of attention was arguing for the Democrats not to cave on the Bush tax cuts in 2010, certainly not to just hand them over for free with the debt ceiling looming and the Tea Part telegraphing next move. But no, the Democrats in DC tie one hand behind their back and then blame the crowd when they lose

Fuck that noise
posted by crayz at 9:20 PM on July 31, 2011 [8 favorites]


Well, on one hand, the Tea Partiers at RedState hate the bill as much as many of us here.

On the other hand, they are verifiably insane.
posted by jokeefe at 9:23 PM on July 31, 2011


The Democrats in DC aren't all liberals.
posted by empath at 9:24 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


jokeefe: "On the other hand, they are verifiably insane."

From the link:
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.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:31 PM on July 31, 2011


This is how democracy works, as ugly as it is.

When a minority portion of one party, who represents the opinions of, at best, 27 percent of Americans, can hold the economy to ransom, threaten to blow the whole thing up, and will likely either succeed in their destruction or will get rewarded for their threats, then I'm not sure how you can have much faith in what remains of our republic.
posted by honestcoyote at 9:33 PM on July 31, 2011 [7 favorites]


Un-fucking-believable:
Even an apparent capitulation by Obama helps present him to voters as a reasonable compromiser doing battle against rigid ideologues, his aides say.

“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.”
I just... can't. even
posted by crayz at 9:34 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Maybe in 2012 we can have a completely postmodern election where Obama explicitly campaigns on how much success he's had doing damage to the Republican brand
posted by crayz at 9:37 PM on July 31, 2011 [7 favorites]


So, since we're all pissed at the caving and folding, name some uncaving, unfolding electable liberal candidate options that you've seen. If we do some research now and get support behind someone who is way to the left, maybe we can shift the debate. Assuming just voting for the same Obama is not an option we want to pursue, barring him getting reelected and then laying the hammer down, the only other option is the same way America got founded as a country.

The way things are now, seems like the republicans will campaign for 2012 by waving money around. In the desolation that will be the economy the next year, dangling out the promise of money is something that would distract people from how utterly fucktarded the Republicans have been in holding the country hostage, and in showing they cannot govern (because they don't give one fuck about you if you're not wealthy and white).
posted by cashman at 9:46 PM on July 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


The problem with nuking the filibuster in the Senate means that the next time that Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate they don't have to acknowledge the minority at all. Personally I kinda like the fact that there is a check on the power of majority. Yes it prevents us from getting as much shit done as we would like but that's the whole point. It also prevents the Republicans from doing whatever the fuck they want if and when they get control of both chambers and presidency at the same time.

The problem with expiring the Bush tax cuts is that a) they are popular and b) doing so would've taken money away from consumers during an economic down turn. Obama and Democrats believed that by keeping the cuts they could avoid slowing down the economy and that the Republicans would stick with the status quo, i.e. running up deficits simply doesn't matter. Their mistake was assuming that the Republicans would honor the general tendency to make raising the debt ceiling a non-partisan event.

Obviously this was a miscalculation. The truth is that for the most part the Republicans don't really care about the deficit (but some do) it's that they could use this as a way of forcing concessions from the Dems and Obama. In this case they were correct. Obama and the Dems can't be seen as triggering a default if they want to have success in 2012 and the Republicans knew that. Further even though Boehner has some loose cannons in his ranks they were able to maintain enough solidarity that they could force a compromise that largely favored them.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary the magic platinum coin trick or the 14th amendment were not ever really on the table and Obama had a weaker hand to play. What this process has revealed is that the Tea Party is a bunch of crazy radicals engaging in a protest movement and for the most part the electorate spurns radicals. I think it's definitely fair to say that the Tea Party brand has been diminished and as a result the Republican brand is weakened going into 2012.

In the end it was a pretty shitty deal and honestly we probably could've done better but Obama and the Dems were definitely caught between a rock and a hard place.
posted by vuron at 9:47 PM on July 31, 2011


Just because I like linking to myself so much:

It won't get shutdown. Republicans and Democrats will reach a last minute deal. They both will go home to their base and boast about the epic fight they won for their cause. The media has an Apocalyptic Battle that could just spell the end of the world, or at least some damn good ratings bumps.

Just like the last "crisis" we had back in April.

It's starting to really get old.

I eagerly await our next crisis, which it looks like they're baking right into the deal for this one.

Wheee! A state of neverending emergency.
posted by formless at 9:50 PM on July 31, 2011 [5 favorites]


WH Fact Sheet:

The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

So Obama is again starting on the 50 yard line, already refusing to even threaten to let all the Bush cuts expire, which basically guarantees Republicans can use the "middle class" cuts as leverage to keep the cuts for the wealthy too

So there you have it. The country is broke, has the lowest taxes and most drastic income inequality in the civilized world, the lowest domestic spending in 60 years, and our great hope of a "liberal" President has said in black and white that those taxes will not go up

Looks like all that's left is the spectacle of DC's slow motion seppuku - drowning itself in the bathtub - broadcast on the TV infotainment channels, interspersed with catfood ads
posted by crayz at 9:57 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


White House officials confirmed that there would not be an extension of unemployment benefits as part of the final package.

Unemployment is now at 16% (official U6 figures )

This December millions across the country will have 26 weeks to get work in the middle of the worst Recession since the Great Depression - or lose their ability to shelter and feed themselves and their families.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:26 PM on July 31, 2011 [4 favorites]


The other day I had a coworker -- a man who makes about $10 an hour -- explain to me how important it is to privatize Social Security so that he wouldn't be "burdened" with high taxes.

Sorry, I give up. In ten years or so, Fox News and their allies have convinced enormous swathes of Americans that they have a personal stake in the destruction of their own social compact. There is no going back from here. There really isn't much point in fighting.

I mean, I know we have a few posters here on Metafilter who are all "rah rah democrats! let's take the country back!" but, seriously, we are supposed to fight the 1930's all over again? If we DO have to fight those battles again, are we really taking back "our" country in the first place? How many more Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fires do we need to wake people up this time? Where is our Upton Sinclair?

I know, I know, GOTV and all that but fuck me if I'm starting to just not care what happens to this country. When I see my future in a land dominated by corporations and fundamentalist churches I don't see myself bravely laying down my life so that people can not have social security 80 years from now. Give me some booze, some weed and some sex so I can numb the pain. I'm outta here. Peace.
posted by Avenger at 10:35 PM on July 31, 2011 [17 favorites]


So, no matter what, it seems, the next presidential election in the US will present a choice between a Republican and a Republican. . .*sigh*
posted by Danf at 10:36 PM on July 31, 2011 [2 favorites]


let it burn, i feel like a republican already.
posted by Shit Parade at 12:00 AM on August 1, 2011


The Republicans aren't 'cheating'. This isn't a failed democracy. This is how democracy works, as ugly as it is.
posted by empath at 9:07 PM on July 31 [1 favorite +] [!]


Which is why this country is supposed to be a Republic.
posted by gjc at 4:16 AM on August 1, 2011


This December millions across the country will have 26 weeks to get work in the middle of the worst Recession since the Great Depression - or lose their ability to shelter and feed themselves and their families.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:26 PM on July 31 [1 favorite +] [!]


The recession has been over for two years. GDP is growing, that means there is no recession.

There IS a problem with growth in jobs, and I'm sure everyone in Washington wants to [get credit for] fix[ing] it. 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.
posted by gjc at 4:25 AM on August 1, 2011


The problem with nuking the filibuster in the Senate means that the next time that Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate they don't have to acknowledge the minority at all.

I have some bad news.
posted by gerryblog at 4:56 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Democrats COULD have raised the ceiling back in the previous Congress and avoided all this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:17 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I haven't been able to read every comment - does anyone know where Ironmouth is or what his opinions are? I'm still hung up on that "ebullient" comment - are Democratic strategies really so short-sighted and dense? Or are they still ebullient and I'm just missing the big win here?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:28 AM on August 1, 2011


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%.
posted by fullerine at 5:53 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Check upthread: We already established that 45% is negligible. 44% must be less than that.
posted by gerryblog at 5:56 AM on August 1, 2011


So the bill fucks the poor, infuriates liberals, and allows all the usual "sensible" Democrats to demand foot-stampingly that we're obligated to support it.

I hope the independents Obama is playing to come through for him. Otherwise we hippies are in for a fresh round of punching. And my arm is still sore from 2010.
posted by Trurl at 6:44 AM on August 1, 2011


Well, hell, there really is a deal. Yet again, we somehow get the short end of the stick. Wonder what the house will do with it, though.

Apparently, it's probably already, too late, so we're giving up all that stuff, but will probably get a bond rating downgrade anyway. Thanks Tea Party assholes. And intransigent congress.
Let's say Congress does reach a deal before the deadline on Tuesday night, do you think the markets are going to be forgiving?

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.
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.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:45 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


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.

That was on the topic of why he didn't include the debt ceiling in the deal to extend Bush jr's tax cuts for the wealthy. Back when he actually had a tiny bit of leverage to work with.

Either he's a moron, or he's actually wanting outcomes of the sort we're seeing.

We just got a 100% cuts, 0% revenue, deal. Plus, of course the future debt reduction talks which are pretty much guaranteed to fail miserably, allowing the Republicans to pull the trigger, cut even more social spending, and then restore the military "cuts" in a separate and guaranteed to pass bill.

Unlike Obama I'm not prepared to take them at their word, I fully expect that they intend to pull the trigger, that they see it as an excellent chance to slash even more social programs, and that they are (justifiably) confident that they can restore the military cuts with no difficulty.

We gave the Democrats the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years. And out of that we got a healthcare reform bill that was a giveaway to the insurance industry.

The Republicans captured one, one single, lobe of the elected government and less than a year later they've won victory after victory.

Don't tell me this is somehow just the way democracy is, or that somehow the House is more powerful [1]. We have two problems as nearly as I can see, and while one is a deeper structural problem, the first is (I think) the bigger problem.

The biggest problem we have is that the Democrats won't fight. Obama has the biggest bully pulpit in the country, and the best we got was a milquetoast bit of extremely cautious complaining that, while both sides were to blame of course, maybe, just maybe, the Republicans might not be quite as wrong as the Democrats were.

The lesson here is simple: you fight, you win; you don't fight, you lose. The Teabaggers fought, and they won. The Democrats surrendered from the beginning and they lost.

The sad truth is that this fight was over long ago, it was over when the President agreed with the Republicans that austerity was the way to go and that we really, really, needed to cut government spending.

The lesser problem is that we've got a system gamed to strongly favor Republicans. Everything from the over representation of voters in low population areas to the blatant gerrymandering of congressional districts, to the existence of the Senate which grotesquely over represents voters in low population areas, is designed to empower conservatives at the expense of liberals.

And, of course, it dovetails with the problem of the Democrats being unwilling to fight. Why are districts gerrymandered almost exclusively for the benefit of conservatives? Because the Democrats won't fight back with punitive gerrymandering in response. Back when the Texas Democrats fled the state in a doomed effort to prevent even worse gerrymandering not one single state with a Democratic controlled state ledge threatened retaliatory gerrymandering if the Republicans enacted their plan. Not one.

I can't decide if the most likely explanation is that the Democrats are evil, or if they're merely incompetent. I'm leaning towards evil.

@saulgoodman It's like you're trying to show us by example that compromise really is a bad idea.

Compromise is a really bad idea.

It beats rioting in the streets, or war, or other methods of settling differences, but it is at absolute best the lesser of the evils. To paint compromise as a positive good, as something we should be embracing by choice rather than reluctantly accepting when we lack the votes to simply push through our programs amid Republican wailing is foolish.

The ideal is simple: 100% my way, 0% anyone else's way. We can't often get that ideal, but it should be what we strive for, what we open with.

Obama and the Democrats seem to think that's a bad thing, they don't want 100% their way. They **open** with a bad proposal, a proposal that is less than what we want offers the other side something they want. Maybe, maybe, that's what we'd have to accept in the end, but it shouldn't be the opening move.

And this? This wasn't compromise. This was utter capitulation, abject surrender, and a complete and unfettered victory for the Republicans/Tea Party. They got what they wanted, all spending cuts, no revenue increases, and the opportunity to do even greater harm a few months from now.

We got jack shit. There is absolutely nothing for us in the deal. The debt ceiling was raised, but that's hardly a Democratic victory, that's merely the absolute minimum that can happen to avoid the country crashing and burning.

And after the 2012 elections we get to have this same fight again. Yay.

[1] I remember getting lectured, back during the healthcare debate, about how the Senate was more powerful and we had, therefore, to butter up the most obscenely conservative Democrats in name only that existed just to get the shit sandwich we got. Somehow the idea that the Senate is more important is laughably naive when the Republicans control the House. I note that in all the shifting maze of justifications and excuses the only constant is that conservatives are guaranteed wins, and liberals must always lose. And, of course, it's always the fault of liberals for daring to complain.
posted by sotonohito at 6:56 AM on August 1, 2011 [11 favorites]


It's like you're trying to show us by example that compromise really is a bad idea.

What's that mantra from AskMe? "When someone tells you who they are, believe them"?

Of course, that should go for our attitude towards Obama, too.
posted by gerryblog at 6:58 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Like I've said, I think Obama's greatest weakness (and it's a weakness in his beliefs, not a weakness in his character, which to me is an important distinction, though maybe not so much in the current situation) is his good faith belief in the process--and by extension, his belief in the virtue of the compromises that are the outcome of that process. In his mind, the government is like a machine for outputting good solutions: You put the problem into it, let the process work its magic, and out comes an optimal solution at the end.

But that's not how it works. The process can be a good thing, but not because its many convolutions actually help to produce good outcomes, rather because they put checks and constraints on the power of the various competing interests. The reason compromise is not a desirable outcome of the process in this particular case is that any compromise in the right-ward direction is guaranteed to shrink the economy further and to cost more jobs.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:11 AM on August 1, 2011


I am beyond disgusted at this point. I give up. There is no point in fighting for "democrats", they're just republicans in sheep's clothing. Fuck them all. A pox on all their houses.
posted by dejah420 at 7:29 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Right, because the thing to do now is to make it even easier for the GOP to get what they want.
posted by empath at 7:37 AM on August 1, 2011


They are already getting everything they want. I think people are right to vent these frustrations. I've been sick of choosing the "lesser of 2 evils" during every election since I could vote. It's only been getting worse. At this point, I'm much less swayed by the argument that "the others are even worse". Because they act as 2 heads of the same monster.
posted by atlatl at 7:43 AM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


The thing to do now is scold people who are venting their frustration.
posted by notyou at 7:43 AM on August 1, 2011 [7 favorites]


They are already getting everything they want.

No. They aren't. Read conservative blogs. It could be so much worse.
posted by empath at 7:44 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ezra Klein seems more optimistic, and I sure as hell hope he's right.

If we accept that the GOP were absolutely, positively, never going to cave on allowing tax increases, he seems to posit that the Democrats got one of the best possible deals.

The "trigger" is also fascinating. If the GOP can't figure out a way to further cut the deficit, defense spending gets utterly decimated, and the big social programs are guaranteed to remain unaffected.

Any change to this arrangement would presumably need to make it past the veto pen, and I honestly don't see that happening. It would be a huge betrayal of trust by the leadership of both parties to renege on this agreement.

Although Boehner seems to indicate that direct tax increases are going to be impossible under the deficit reduction commission, Klein seems to think that they're actually inevitable, but that these "increases" would come through loophole closures, or the expiration of the Bush tax cuts -- which are exactly what the Democrats have been arguing for all along.

Boehner's strategy also seems to hinge on the Republicans maintaining public support, and finding the cooperation of the Democrats. I don't see that happening.

I don't like what we got last night. However, like many other items of Obama's agenda, he seems to have set the change for a very gradual change that will eventually grant him his initial goals, in the face of severe adversity from congress. Many of us were upset with Obama for failing to take a stand, and subsequently dragging his feet on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. However, through a compromise, he managed to gradually repeal the policy with little fanfare or controversy. I think this deal looks bad up-front, but actually seems fairly decent in light of the GOP's unbreakable "no tax increases ever" ultimatum.

Also, the Democrats were not willing to risk default, or even consider it as a possibility. I'm hesitant to call that "capitulating." Even though I'm willing to believe that Boehner wasn't willing to accept risk of a default, there were certainly members of his party who were, and his tactics had to reflect the interests of those members so that he'd be able to maintain enough support to get a bill passed through the House that he (ostensibly) controlled.

tl;dr: If Congress remains gridlocked through 2013, the trigger goes off, defense spending gets gutted, the Bush tax cuts expire, and we do not default. Even though Klein argues that the "do nothing" option is the lowest common denominator, I think it actually offers one of the best outcomes. Entitlements do not get cut; military spending is reigned in considerably; and we return to a more responsible taxation policy (albeit with a few loopholes still intact). Also, both parties get to claim that they did not directly raise taxes or cut entitlements. Honestly, I think that this is already a foregone conclusion.

Also, "Lowest domestic spending since Eisenhower with virtually no major entitlement cuts" is going to be one hell of a talking point in 2012.
posted by schmod at 7:45 AM on August 1, 2011 [8 favorites]


Oh, and seriously. Read what was in the final compromise before complaining about it.

It could have been much, much worse.
posted by schmod at 7:47 AM on August 1, 2011


tl;dr: If Congress remains gridlocked through 2013, the trigger goes off, defense spending gets gutted, the Bush tax cuts expire, and we do not default. Even though Klein argues that the "do nothing" option is the lowest common denominator, I think it actually offers one of the best outcomes

I prefer this outcome. Here's to congress being unable to do anything for the next 2 years.
posted by empath at 7:48 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


defense spending gets gutted, the Bush tax cuts expire

I wonder who's going to get the blame for that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:48 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Blame? I would kiss the feet of the person responsible for that.
posted by empath at 7:51 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Totally agreed, empath.

I think Boehner totally overestimated the amount of support he's going to have from the public and members of his own party moving forward.

Even the Democrats lost a fair bit of credibility with their base, which, if anything, should hopefully pressure them to not capitulate to the Republicans in the next round of debates.

Either Congress wakes up, and starts working together to craft legislation in the interests of the American People (ha!), or they remain deadlocked and we automatically fall back onto some policies that are very friendly to the Democrats, and would never have a chance of passing under any recent political conditions. I don't think the Democrats have ever been in a filibuster-proof or veto-proof position to cut trillions from defense spending without touching social programs.
posted by schmod at 7:58 AM on August 1, 2011


Blame? I would kiss the feet of the person responsible for that.

A certain portion of the country, egged on by a certain political party, will look at this as the Democratic President gutting the military (people will lose jobs) and raising taxes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:59 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, I will remain skeptical but open. One good thing about this is that it has encouraged me to become really involved in the political process again.

Of course, it has also encouraged me to look into emigration, but you know, trust in Allah, but tie your camel and all that.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:00 AM on August 1, 2011


David Frum: "I'm a lifelong republican, but..."
posted by empath at 8:08 AM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


Mitt Romney:
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.
posted by notyou at 8:15 AM on August 1, 2011


Senate Republicans are lining up against it, too. In addition to Lee's filibuster threat, Graham and Rubio are saying they'll vote against it.
posted by gerryblog at 8:20 AM on August 1, 2011


Good, I'd love to see a 50/50 split in the GOP over this.
posted by empath at 8:23 AM on August 1, 2011


Essentially zero short-term spending cuts:
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.

This isn't even going to pass, is it?
posted by Perplexity at 8:42 AM on August 1, 2011


schmod You think that the president who put Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid up on the chopping bock won't force/let the all new Super Congress (and who decided that was a good idea?) cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid I'd like to know why.

Obama and his spokespeople have, repeatedly, said that they see this crisis as an excellent opportunity to slash spending, and Obama has personally offered up cuts to the core Great Society programs.

Please explain why you think that the Republicans won't join with Obama in his new, and utterly baffling, war on Social Security?
posted by sotonohito at 8:44 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Okay, now sotonohito, you're kind of losing me here. I think this characterization of the deal ("War on SS," when the deal specifically exempts SS from cuts) goes a little too far.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:50 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Essentially zero short-term spending cuts:
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.


Non-military discretionary spending totals $508.4 billion. $7 billion saved is a 1.4% cut across the board.

Balancing the budget by attacking mandatory spending is like pissing in the ocean and expecting it to turn yellow.
posted by Talez at 8:52 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Piss 9
posted by adamdschneider at 8:54 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Now that the debt talks look like their reaching an end, I'm starting to go back to wondering if this is even a good idea. There are economists (1, 2) that are questioning why we are even talking deficits and debt now, because we're still at 9.2% unemployment. My concern is that this is more like a Lost Decade(s) scenario, and not only are we not getting any more needed stimulus, we're actually cutting spending. The initial worry about the original stimulus is that there weren't enough shovel ready projects. Well, with the potential 10+ years of anemic growth, surely that's enough time to properly schedule and plan out a better stimulus. One that is more IV than a "shot in the arm", right?
posted by FJT at 8:59 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I like the David Frum article, but this bit has me wondering:

4) The place to cut is health care, not assistance to the unemployed and poor.
The United States provides less assistance to the unemployed and the poor than almost any other democracy. It spends 60% more per person on health care than almost any other democracy -- and gets worse results. The problem is not that Americans use too much medicine. People in other countries use more. The problem is that Americans pay too much for the medicine they use. Go where the money is, cut where the waste is grossest.


Does he believe the problem with health care is government spending?
posted by adamdschneider at 9:00 AM on August 1, 2011


Frum, and a lot of Repbulicans, think there's a ton of waste in health care spending.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:05 AM on August 1, 2011


@saulgoodman This deal doesn't include the cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid that Obama proposed, no. But Obama proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid at an earlier iteration in the negotiations.

That's the opening maneuver in a war on Social Security and Medicare. I see no reason to think that Obama won't insist on/allow the cuts he wants in those programs as part of the Super Congress proposal.

We crucified Bush, justifiably, for trying to harm Social Security. We can't let Obama get away with it just because he's got a D after his name.
posted by sotonohito at 9:07 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


There is a ton of waste in health care spending - insurance companies' profit reports.
posted by scrowdid at 9:17 AM on August 1, 2011 [6 favorites]


I was thinking the waste was insurance companies themselves.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:20 AM on August 1, 2011 [7 favorites]


Frum, and a lot of Repbulicans, think there's a ton of waste in health care spending.

There is. It's the massive, pointless bureaucracy engendered by the for-profit health insurance industry to ensure that they pay not one penny more than they are required to, and half the time much less than that.
posted by KathrynT at 9:31 AM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Does he believe the problem with health care is government spending?

I was thinking the waste was insurance companies themselves.

There is waste at all levels of health care. The biotech companies that make the drugs, the medical device manufacturers that make devices, the insurance companies that bank the difference between screwing doctors and screwing patients, the extra nurses at the physician's office to deal with all the bullshit, the nice decor and interiors that the physician's office has to install to attract your copay.

The health care industry is one giant set of Overton windows that all slide to the point where the actual people on the ground within the system are the only ones getting screwed. The citizen fighting with the insurance company, the lowly paid clerk having to deal with the riffraff that dare ask to have a procedure covered and if it's medically necessary, the nurse who is underpaid and overworked or the doctor that spent 200 large on his M.D. and doesn't get paid jack shit.

Nationalize that shit already and you'll see a drastic change in health care costs. Instead you tie both of Medicare's hands behind its back and let it get the crap beaten out of it by prescription drug makers.
posted by Talez at 9:33 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Obama and the Dems played rope a dope and let the Republicans blow their political capital, further he was able to reveal deep divisions in the Republican base. You actually have the WSJ and Chamber of Commerce attacking the Tea Party now which would've been basically unthinkable prior to this mess.

You even have Tea Party activists realizing that by overreaching their brand was severely diminished not just in regards to the general electorate but among conservatives as whole.

I understand being frustrated and annoyed with Obama and the Democrats but did anyone really think that Obama had some magic way of forcing a compromise that included revenue increases? If one side is willing to go to the limit and the other side isn't the side willing to go to the limit is going to win. The success is making the intransigent party look like extremists and radicals and in this case Dems were successful in making that case.

Further this compromise no matter how distasteful exempts SS and Medicaid (as well as poverty programs). Further any cuts to Medicare are to the providers not the beneficiaries.

In contrast we get Defense cuts and the ability to sunset the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
posted by vuron at 9:34 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Further this compromise no matter how distasteful exempts SS and Medicaid (as well as poverty programs). Further any cuts to Medicare are to the providers not the beneficiaries.

Doctors already lose money on every Medicare patient they take through the doors. Any further cuts to PCPs would result in Medicare in Name Only. You'd have healthcare but nobody would accept it. Which I suppose would be an acceptable endgame if you were the evil genius type. Kill of the expense without actually killing it in the public's mind and when people call you on it you just look at them straight faced and say "What? You still have Medicare? What's your problem?"
posted by Talez at 9:47 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm surprisingly undepressed by the deal. Obviously it does nothing to address the real problem of unemployment, but at least it doesn't seem to actively cut entitlements, and if we're going to have to work within an austerity framework at least now the defense budget will be a major part of those discussions. That'll put more fuel on the fire for what I sincerely hope to be a three-way civil war within the Republican Party among the corporatists, the hawks and the anarchists (a pox on all their houses).

I think that could be the real story going forward; as disastrous as 2010 was for the Democratic Party, at least there seems to be actual progressive-ish solidarity among the caucuses in both houses; the reason so little was accomplished between 2006 and 2010 was that the Blue Dogs kept getting co-opted by the Republicans, and there doesn't seem to be that dynamic anymore. The infighting is all on the other side now, and if Pelosi can manage to pick off various segments within the Republican Party she may be able to pull off some actual positive legislation yet.

I choose to hope, because drinking heavily is frowned upon this early in the day
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:56 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]




Further this compromise no matter how distasteful exempts SS and Medicaid (as well as poverty programs).

But it sets the stage for deep cuts to SS and Medicaid later on. Do you really think the Super Congress won't propose massive cuts to those programs?

And does anyone really think Obama won't extend the Bush tax cuts a second time? The R's won't take an extension only on the cuts for the ultra rich, Obama will make a big speech about how he won't raise taxes on the middle class, and the result will be another extension of the whole shebang.

Plus, of course, we've now normalized the idea of Super Congress, we've normalized the idea that Social Security and Medicare are and should be negotiable in budget talks, we've normalized the idea that what is needed right now is austerity, we've normalized the idea that cuts only and no revenue increases are acceptable ways to balance the budget, etc. This is a great victory for the Republicans.

It's bought fully into the preposterous idea that what we need is austerity, and if you think for one moment that the military will really be cut then you're more of a sucker than Obama was back in 2010 when he said he'd trust Boehner not to use the debt ceiling as a fight. The Democrats are terrified of seeming "weak on defense", they will never, ever, under any circumstances, vote for real cuts to the military.

Political capitol isn't something that gets used up, the more you use it the more there is. That's always been the problem with the Democrat's babble about keeping their powder dry. Yeah, maybe the Tea Party is a little abashed now, but they and their members can yammer about standing firm and they'll be back and fully charged in just a month or so. Worse, they've shown themselves to be a force to be reckoned with, a force that can demand obscene concessions, and maintained their ideological purity. You use political capitol and it comes back with interest. It isn't like there's a limited supply you get after an election and if you use it then it's gone.

Why won't the Teabaggers do this exact same thing the next time something urgent and desperately needed comes up? Answer: they will.
posted by sotonohito at 10:17 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


AP article reflecting the CBO analysis: Small spending cuts to have little economic impact
posted by Perplexity at 10:18 AM on August 1, 2011


Obama video statement on the deal
posted by HLD at 10:21 AM on August 1, 2011


Does [Frum] believe the problem with health care is government spending?

I'm so relieved to see someone from the GOP side of the aisle actually talking policy instead of ideology that I'm not sure I care. Even if it is David "I supported the Iraq war (but boy do I feel silly about it now, ha ha!)" Frum.
posted by weston at 10:22 AM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


A question:

his deal hasn't gone through yet.

Assuming that it does pass this afternoon, will the treasury have enough time to issue enough new debt to cover tomorrow's expenses?
posted by schmod at 10:24 AM on August 1, 2011


I think treasury has about a week worth of reserves which they can use after they exhaust the current debt limit schmod.

I assume that after a deal is signed the spigots pretty much turn on immediately.
posted by vuron at 10:28 AM on August 1, 2011


But Obama proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid at an earlier iteration in the negotiations.

Maybe Boehner claimed Obama proposed such cuts, but I don't know. Apart from the proposed change to the COLA calculation method on SS, I don't remember any proposal from the admin to actually cut SS. Slowing the rate of growth is not quite the same thing as a cut, though I would agree it's not a step in the right direction either.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:30 AM on August 1, 2011


Apart from the proposed change to the COLA calculation method on SS, I don't remember any proposal from the admin to actually cut SS.

That's the cut I mean. It'd put SS growth behind inflation and leave old people to starve in the dark. Obama proposed that.

Not Boehner. Not the Tea Party. Not McConnell. Obama.

A Democrat.

Proposed slashing Social Security.

This is not a victory.
posted by sotonohito at 10:35 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


If Bush had proposed that we'd be rioting in the streets. We wouldn't be mildly saying it isn't a step in the right direction, we'd want his political career ended.
posted by sotonohito at 10:35 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


But a lot of credible economists (or is that finally an oxymoron now?) seem to agree that the current way of modeling the COLA for SS actually is inaccurate. Correcting for the inaccuracy might indeed lead to slower growth, but on the other hand, if it does track more closely to actual inflation, then it should still at a minimum keep up with actual inflation. But I'm not an economist and can't claim to understand these models either way, so maybe you're right.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:39 AM on August 1, 2011


I don't know. I think it's a little extreme to say that every Democrat believes that SS can't be touched ever no way no how. I personally think it could use some tweaking. There's a difference between arguing that the structure of SS can and should be altered to better fit emerging demographics and arguing that a significant portion of SS should be privatized.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:40 AM on August 1, 2011


I agree with the commenter upthread who said that the solution lies in bringing in more immigrants. That or just killing off all the Boomers. Honestly I like both ideas.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 10:42 AM on August 1, 2011


Regardless of how it turns out, and as you might guess I'm not exactly thrilled, some good may come of this entire debacle. One hopes that the old guard Republicans are busy figuring out how to excise the Tea Party not only from their ranks but from national politics in general because it's become as apparent to them as it has to me that such people cannot be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:42 AM on August 1, 2011


Hey, if Social Security kept up with inflation it would be doing a better job than my "raises".
posted by adamdschneider at 10:43 AM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Man, it's getting more and more difficult to believe in the actions of a man playing 11th dimensional chess, it's true. I still trust this president and believe in him as I have not believed in any president ever before, save perhaps Clinton, and really hope this is the right thing he has done.

If this, somehow assuages and encourages companies sitting on record Trillions in profits to begin hiring again, AND ensures not only a Presidential win in 2012, as well as a Dem retake of the House (and why shouldn't it at this point? There is clearly a very dangerous and dysfunctional core of bagger-anarchist-fanatics rotting the place that need to be fully excised OUT or made inconsequential), it will be worth it I suppose.

I've always thought Obama's glory-time and final proof to the Left of his true greatness would come in his second term anyway. I'm not so sure anymore. I think he needs a reminder that a LOT of people voted for him and he owes them something more than continual appeasement to proto-fascists.
posted by Skygazer at 10:51 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Man, it's getting more and more difficult to believe in the actions of a man playing 11th dimensional chess, it's true.

Show me a better Democratic candidate for President, get'em to run and I'll vote for them. In the meantime, Obama it is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:56 AM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Stop. Calling. Them. Anarchists.
posted by symbioid at 10:57 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


You're making baby Kropotkin cry.
posted by symbioid at 10:57 AM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


if the COLA change Obama was talking about was just paperwork, then it wouldn't have been producing savings. If it produces savings than it pretty much has to involve lowered benefits.
posted by sotonohito at 10:58 AM on August 1, 2011


It only produced savings over the current projected costs of SS, assuming growth at the rate of the pre-adjusted COLA calculation method. So, it only cut the amount of growth projected in SS due to the change in the calculation method; it didn't cut any actual benefits currently being paid.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:03 AM on August 1, 2011


I'll stop calling them anarchists when they stop trying to destroy my government.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:04 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Everybody is forgetting the way this was supposed to play out. The teahadists went in with hostages, and Obama was supposed to either meekly give them everything they wanted or look like the intransigent ideologue for refusing to discuss certain things. The Republicans had a solid majority which gave them the muscle to get whatever they wanted in the House, and again make the Senate democrats look like the obstructors should they try to block it.

Instead, most of the hostages have been saved, the debt ceiling has been raised, and it is the Republicans who are exposed as weak, divided, and more interested in breaking the country than governing it. The things that are "on the table" have at least been deferred for future consideration when the Republicans are likely to be even weaker and more divided than they are now.

As I have said repeatedly elsewhere, this isn't chess. It is poker and misrepresenting your position is a necessary strategy without which you cannot prevail. Obama only put most of the things we hold dear "on the table" when it was crystal clear that the teahadists weren't interested in agreeing to anything, and he could always walk it back (as he has) under the outrage of his own party.

The compromise is meant to look a lot worse to us, and better to the teahadists, than it is. But considering the strength with which the Republicans expected to force this issue, it is really a colossal failure for them.
posted by localroger at 11:06 AM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


But Obama proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid at an earlier iteration in the negotiations.


And yet they aren't in the bill. Indeed, tax increases and slashes in defense spending are.

More importantly the political cost for the GOP was huge. The playout is that they are tagged as unreasonable assholes and Obama's desire for revenue is still on the table and any cuts to medicare are provider-side only.

Think about how this will play out when they try to shut down the government again. Even Republicans won't stand for it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:10 AM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Symboid: Stop. Calling. Them. Anarchists.

Ah, Symboid, Symboid, look I share your admiration for the true anarchist movement, but I'm afraid that bus has left the station with the HardCore movement back in 1986 sometime, and even then it seemed to have a confused murky relation with the true Anarchist movement of the 30s.

I write this as one who still has a badge with a red capital "A" on a black background somewhere in his drawer of semi-childish things (I even still have a Reagan badge with a Red line through it. Beat that!)

But at this point, if it'll getting these dimwit Tea Taliban cultists back into their bunkers and harassing their sisters for sexual favors, and leaving the rest of the country alone, I'll call them fricking anything....
posted by Skygazer at 11:11 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


This tpm reader seems to have a pretty charitable reading of things. I agree that the Republicans have come out of this looking much worse than anyone else, I think, Boehner and Cantor in particular. But at the same time, we're still stuck with what seems like some pretty bad policy.

I'm on the fence, I suppose. I want to see who the committee ends up being, and how that fight goes. And don't we have a budget fight soon too?
posted by sparkletone at 11:12 AM on August 1, 2011


@Ironmouth Are you seriously suggesting that cuts to Social Security and Medicare won't be included in the Super Congress proposal?
posted by sotonohito at 11:14 AM on August 1, 2011


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.
Really? Crap. This is a lot worse than I thought, then.

Because I missed the part of the deal that said the US Constitution would be amended to say that fetuses have a right to life. And the part that introduced legislation saying that the 14th Amendment applies to fetuses.

And the part that says the Constitution is amended to fully protect marriage as a union of a man and a woman. And the part that calls on Congress to use Article III Section 2 to prevent judicial activists from saying otherwise.

And the part that passes legislation to defend marriage by overhauling divorce laws.

And the part where Social Security is privatized.

And the part where Medicare is privatized.

And the part where the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are made permanent.

And the part that says the Constitution will be amended to require a balanced budget.

The part where schools should teach Creationism. The part where the EPA should be abolished. The part where the Department of Education should be repealed. The part where the minimum wage is abolished. The part where Housing and Urban Development is abolished. The part where bringing a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer incurs a "stiff penalty". The part where the United States leaves the United Nations. The part where the IRS is abolished. The part where our policy towards Israel is officially deemed to be "based on God's biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel". The part where (assuming abortion for some strange reason stays legal) a pregnant woman wanting one must undergo a sonogram. The part where the free market takes over the water supply. The part where the Federal Reserve Act is repealed. The part where the Department of Energy is repealed. The part where "more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography" is enacted. The part where the federal government allows states to outlaw sodomy. The part where people who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values cannot have criminal or civil penalties placed against them. The part where Affirmative Action is repealed. The part where needle exchange programs are terminated. The part where no sex education is allowed other than teaching abstinence until heterosexual marriage.

And I whole bunch of other things. I missed a lot.

All of these things are wanted by Republicans. And I'm not talking Joe Crazy Republican down the block. I'm talking these things are in the official policy platform statements of the national Republican Party, various state Republican parties, or both.
posted by Flunkie at 11:15 AM on August 1, 2011 [9 favorites]


TPM-- Offers an alternate view.
posted by humanfont at 11:15 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


How clever, XQUZYPHYR.
posted by Flunkie at 11:18 AM on August 1, 2011


Show me a better Democratic candidate for President, get'em to run and I'll vote for them. In the meantime, Obama it is.

#TeamEbullient

Seriously though - does anybody have names to throw out as far as alternate candidates for next year? Otherwise, if Obama is the best option, that's indeed who it is. Actually what has been bothering me more than this stupid little saga, is re-realizing that there are a bunch of people walking next to me, sitting across from me, living near me, that basically are declaring war on me. Obama is really the least of my worries. It's the people who exist around me that are propping up the Tea Party.
posted by cashman at 11:35 AM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:41 AM on August 1, 2011


Seriously though - does anybody have names to throw out as far as alternate candidates for next year? Otherwise, if Obama is the best option, that's indeed who it is.

Back in the 70 and 80's the Communist Russians had only one party and we were told in school how the people basically got to vote for just one guy in one party and, as children, we all kind of mocked that and also didn't really understand how people would even bother voting in such a system.

But these past years it all makes a lot more sense to me now.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:49 AM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


sotonohito: "@Ironmouth Are you seriously suggesting that cuts to Social Security and Medicare won't be included in the Super Congress proposal?"

I think we all assume that the 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats will deadlock or that their recommendations won't pass in Congress.

The truth of the matter is despite rhetoric to the contrary both parties aren't going to touch SS. The Dems know that's their bread and butter and Republicans got repudiated the last time they tried to push market based reforms to Social Security.

The most likely result is that Congress does nothing with the result and there are some cuts to defense spending, cuts to discretionary non-defense spending (excluding anti-poverty programs), and some cuts to Medicare (limited to a maximum of 2% and excluding beneficiaries).

The BBA vote is symbolic (it will never pass the Senate).

On the off chance that consensus is reached in the super-committee (unlikely) it's not going to result in significant cuts to entitlements because frankly neither side wants to cut entitlements.
posted by vuron at 11:56 AM on August 1, 2011


Man, I love the Rude Pundit.
posted by gaspode at 12:00 PM on August 1, 2011


May I just suggest not calling them "entitlements?" Like "war on terror," it is a term devised by Republican spin doctors to push a certain world-view. (Sorry, it's a bug up my bum.)
posted by JHarris at 12:02 PM on August 1, 2011 [8 favorites]


it's not going to result in significant cuts to entitlements because frankly neither side wants to cut entitlements.

I would disagree with your statement in that there is a significant chunk of the GOP that really wants entitlement cuts. The question still lands on whether the conservative part of the GOP wants to go along with the extremists.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:02 PM on August 1, 2011


Here's the thing. It can be argued that this was the best deal Obama could get. I don't think so, in fact I'm pretty sure it's one of the worse deals he could get, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is the best deal Obama could get.

We can, then, at absolute best heave a sigh of relief that the Teabaggers didn't manage to completely ruin the economy.

That's it.

But we can not cheer. We can not applaud. We can not give the Democrats the idea that this bare minimum accomplishment is the sort of thing we expect from them, or that we will reward them if they do no better than this.

Now is the time to write more in sorrow than in anger type letters to the elected Democrats, expressing that if this is the best they can do then they really, really, need to do better. The most dangerous thing we can do is let the Democrats think that this sort of lousy deal will get them praise, work, and votes.

@vuron Until Obama told the country that the Democratic party stood firmly in the position that Social Security was not sacrosanct I'd have agreed. Now? I think the Republicans know they can blame Obama for opening the doors. "We aren't doing anything that President Obama, the epitome of a socialist Democrat, didn't suggest doing himself. If even the ultra-liberal Obama understands the need for structural reform of Social Security and other entitlement programs how can we fail in our duty to the American people and not act to secure the future of those programs?"

The Republicans are slavering at the chance to gut Social Security, and Obama gave them an opening. It is absurd to think they won't take it and milk it for all it's worth.

As for the Super Congress failing to reach an agreement, I'm still not seeing how that helps us. It'll result in cuts to necessary social programs, and a symbolic cut in military spending that will be instantly put back in. I'm not seeing a chance for much good there.

And as for the BBA, I'm a) not counting on the Senate, they showed their true colors with healthcare reform, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they'd go for it, and b) even allowing it to be on the table is a massive win for the Republicans.
posted by sotonohito at 12:04 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm 100% in favor of a primary challenge to Obama, btw.

I mean, he'll get like 90% of the vote in the primaries, but I don't mind a challenge happening at all..
posted by empath at 12:05 PM on August 1, 2011


Would it [invoking the 14th Amendment] have forced a constitutional crisis? Who knows. We're sure as fuck in a crisis now, having our country run by a small cabal of people who hate the very entity they work for. It's like having a company that makes Magic Sex Machines but you hire someone who hates sex, machines, and magic to help you market it.

(From Gaspode's Rude Pundit link. . .)
posted by Danf at 12:06 PM on August 1, 2011


Show me a better Democratic candidate for President, get'em to run and I'll vote for them. In the meantime, Obama it is.

If all you want from the president is that they be a Democrat, you don't have anything to complain about.

If you want a candidate who supports progressive values, you're shopping in the wrong store.
posted by Trurl at 12:10 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


But the debt limit ought to have been raised as a routine action - for democrats to give up anything, is by definition a loss.

What's also getting lost here is that a debt default harms everyone. It's not a "win" for democrats that the country managed to avoid it.

It's like two people in a boat in the middle of the ocean are negotiating about how to split their one loaf of bread. Reasonable Guy is thinking 50/50. The Bad Guy says he's going to punch a hole in the bottom of the boat, unless he gets the whole loaf. Reasonable Guy hands him over the entire loaf and says to himself, with satisfaction - "well, we both won something and lost something! Sure I lost the loaf of bred, but the other guy really wanted to sink the boat, and he didn't get to ha!".

Negotiations like this simply result in slow starvation. Congrats!
posted by VikingSword at 12:14 PM on August 1, 2011 [12 favorites]


@Ironmouth Are you seriously suggesting that cuts to Social Security and Medicare won't be included in the Super Congress proposal?

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting it.

Where these cuts are going to come from are in areas we don't like but not in entitlements. Let's look back at what was really going on here. The GOP said they wanted cuts to equal the debt ceiling rise, right? But when Cantor came back with his version of the cuts, they were nowhere near the number they were asking for. They wanted the President to propose some of the cuts. Why? Because they aren't stupid. Those are the things that make old people vote you out of office. They see the polling. The last thing they want to do is cut those things without cover.

And the dems aren't going to provide it. I bet we will see provider side cuts and pentagon cuts, frankly. The commission won't agree on anything.

The other thing that could happen is that the GOP votes to ditch the committee and drop the entire second half of the cuts rather than see defense cuts. They don't like the contours of that trigger at all. Not at all. So rather than eat those defense cuts, they will quietly vote away the second set of cuts. They don't have a lot of cuts.

Listen, look at this trigger provision. It SUCKS for them. No beneficiary cuts to medicare, just to giant health care companies. And defense cuts. Right there in black and white. What are they going to do? And they paid dearly in political capital. They were lighting cigars with their political capital. People are pissed at the Tea Party. I had one big-time Dem messaging consultant tell me that the Tea Party immolating itself was going to make his job harder because he was losing a convenient target.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:15 PM on August 1, 2011


What incentive do Democrats have to go along with an attempt to gut entitlement programs? The trigger isn't great but Democrats can live with it. If the Republicans aren't willing to bargain in good faith then we'll just go with the trigger.

So if the trigger is the worst case scenario (baring some stab in the back) then Republicans will have to give something better than the automatic cuts in order to get anything at all in return.
posted by vuron at 12:15 PM on August 1, 2011


What incentive do Democrats have to go along with an attempt to gut entitlement programs? The trigger isn't great but Democrats can live with it. If the Republicans aren't willing to bargain in good faith then we'll just go with the trigger.

So if the trigger is the worst case scenario (baring some stab in the back) then Republicans will have to give something better than the automatic cuts in order to get anything at all in return.


Exactly. They downed that punt at the GOP 1-yard line. Nobody is thinking out the trigger side. I bet they dump the second set of cuts legislatively once it is clear the Dems aren't gonna go along with entitlement cuts. All quiet like.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:17 PM on August 1, 2011


But the debt limit ought to have been raised as a routine action - for democrats to give up anything, is by definition a loss.

These guys put a gun to everyone's head. We can't control that. It isn't Obama's fault they are insane. The car taking them to the airport for the flight to Cuba is the second half of the cuts. Except the flight isn't gassed up. What are they going to do, eat billions in defense cuts?

If they do, that's a big win for us.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:20 PM on August 1, 2011


@Ironmouth I rather expect that the triggers won't matter at all, because the Republicans know that defense always sells, they can always threaten the Democrats with the dread "soft on defense" label, and if the trigger gets pulled the Pentagon will get its budget back inside a week.

Do you think otherwise? If so, can you explain why they wouldn't do just that?

"How can we cut the military budget when the troops are in three wars? Obama and the Democrats want to cut off the pay for the troops! We've got to vote back the Pentagon's budget or Saddam Hussein, er, Osama Bin Ladin, er Kim Jong Il will conquer America!"

That's always been a winning strategy for them in the past, why would this time be different?
posted by sotonohito at 12:21 PM on August 1, 2011


The House will overwhelmingly pass a separate bill to re-fund the Pentagon, probably right before the elections, and they'll double dog dare the Senate and President not to pass it.
posted by sotonohito at 12:22 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Show me a better Democratic candidate for President, get'em to run and I'll vote for them. In the meantime, Obama it is.

If all you want from the president is that they be a Democrat, you don't have anything to complain about.

If you want a candidate who supports progressive values, you're shopping in the wrong store


Probably going to need more money for that. The President represents the whole country. Progressives are 20% of the country. How is the President to govern from the position of 20% of the people. The GOP just tried that and the world is pissed at them.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:22 PM on August 1, 2011


they can always threaten the Democrats with the dread "soft on defense" label

I expect that if the GOP pulls that move, there will be an accidental slip of a video of Bin Laden getting shot.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 12:23 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


How is the President to govern from the position of 20% of the people.

This is where we come in. It's time to start convincing more people to be progressive.
posted by cashman at 12:24 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


We all keep saying that his deal did not touch entitlements but I need to point out that this is not true

Under this deal , if the 12 member bipartisan Catfood Commission can;t come to an agreement (oh hey, what are the odds on that) then cuts to Medicare providers kick in

So they are not cutting the beneficiary's benefits per se but that are going to their doctors and saying "oh hey if you take this person as a patient then you will be getting even less than you had previously". This will radically reduce the number of doctors who are willing to take on Medicare patients as well as reducing the amount of services that already underpaid Medicare providers are willing to provide so make no mistake this is very much an entitlements decrease. This effectively cuts Medicare services - so can Social Security really be far behind.

The only thing this deal does is allow the Obamabots to put on their little skirts , wave their pompoms and say "Yay Team! No Benefit Cuts!". But of course that is a lie. When the 12 member catfood commission inevitably can not reach an agreement then Medicare cuts to the providers kick in - which means medicare cuts to the beneficiaries as well.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:25 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


@Ironmouth I rather expect that the triggers won't matter at all, because the Republicans know that defense always sells, they can always threaten the Democrats with the dread "soft on defense" label, and if the trigger gets pulled the Pentagon will get its budget back inside a week.

Do you think otherwise? If so, can you explain why they wouldn't do just that?


How are they going to blame the Democrats? Any idiot who does that is going to run up against the point that they themselves voted to put this in the trigger. It was their own decision to vote for it.

Job one for Dems is to stop thinking that no matter what, we are always being had by the GOP. Why, why, why must we continually play this game?

The GOP needed this deal. All that stuff, like revenues that were supposedly off the table? Magically reappeared yesterday hmmm. Funny how that is.

Doesn't anyone notice that John Boehner spent the last week negotiating with himself? He passed cut cap and balance, then put out a second negotiating position after Obama took it to the public. Then, when his own caucus wouldn't accept that, he put out a third position, which wasn't even the basis for the final proposal.

McConnell negotiated this deal far to the left of Boehner.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:28 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


If all you want from the president is that they be a Democrat, you don't have anything to complain about.

I'm fine with Progressive or More Liberal candidate. Who ya got that has a chance? I'm not talking guarantee, but a decent shot at winning and being more liberal. Oh and I need them by 2012.

2016 is fine too.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:30 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Poet_Lariat: "The only thing this deal does is allow the Obamabots to put on their little skirts , wave their pompoms and say "Yay Team! No Benefit Cuts!". But of course that is a lie."

Seriously. Cut this out. You can make your point without the creepy analogy.
posted by schmod at 12:32 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


How are they going to blame the Democrats?

"WE had a plan that didn't cut defence, benefits or Medicare. WE had a plan that let you have it all without having to contribute anything more. It was the DEMOCRATS that failed to make the hard spending cuts. It was the DEMOCRATS who are infested with SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS that keep PORKING your TAX DOLLARS to LIBERALS for ABORTIONS and financing WELFARE QUEENS."

They won't say what the plan was or table it or even make a rough outline of it for talking heads on MSM. Make no mistake, the first side to try and address this clusterfuck loses and it will be the Democrats. The Republicans only need to stand on the sidelines from this point saying "WE WILL PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THE BAD IDEAS OF THE EVIL DEMMYCRATS" and they will win.
posted by Talez at 12:33 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Under this deal , if the 12 member bipartisan Catfood Commission can;t come to an agreement (oh hey, what are the odds on that) then cuts to Medicare providers kick in

OMG! I didn't realize giant healthcare combines like Rick Scott's HCA are the victims of this deal! Quick, someone think of the stockholders of these companies!

This will radically reduce the number of doctors who are willing to take on Medicare patients as well as reducing the amount of services that already underpaid Medicare providers are willing to provide so make no mistake this is very much an entitlements decrease. This effectively cuts Medicare services - so can Social Security really be far behind.

You gotta support the "radical" reduction in the number of doctors willing to take medicare patients. You can't just posit it as true without evidence.

And social security? Where are the "really be far behind" cuts? Who is going to make them and when? You're moving the goalposts by saying OK, we didn't cut anything from Social Security but can real cuts be far behind? They aren't in this deal. So you can't add them from your imagination.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:33 PM on August 1, 2011


For that matter, where are the benefit cuts?
posted by Ironmouth at 12:35 PM on August 1, 2011


This tpm reader seems to have a pretty charitable reading of things. I agree that the Republicans have come out of this looking much worse than anyone else, I think, Boehner and Cantor in particular. But at the same time, we're still stuck with what seems like some pretty bad policy.

I'm on the fence, I suppose. I want to see who the committee ends up being, and how that fight goes. And don't we have a budget fight soon too?


I know, who is this insane TPM Reader RW? He must be a crazy man!
posted by Ironmouth at 12:37 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm fine with Progressive or More Liberal candidate. Who ya got that has a chance? I'm not talking guarantee, but a decent shot at winning and being more liberal. Oh and I need them by 2012.

How's about somebody who wants to implement a European-style healthcare system, draw down the wars in the middle east, close Guantanamo and cut back the president's discretionary police powers? If 2008 is any barometer he'd be very electable.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:37 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Ironmouth - You know as well as I that your attempt to spin cutting Medicare provider benefits as hurting large corporations is completely disingenuous. You know as well as I that cutting already vastly underpaid Medicare providers reinbursements will only hurt the old, the sick and the poor. Yo know this as well as I.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:38 PM on August 1, 2011


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.

And perhaps you missed it: The things I listed are official parts of Republican platforms. They're not just things that the wacky wingnut uncle yells about at Thanksgiving. When someone says that we shouldn't bother with Democrats because Republicans get everything they want anyway, I don't see how it's "mindlessly cheering bad ideas" to point out the things that Republicans actually want.
posted by Flunkie at 12:41 PM on August 1, 2011


Ironmouth - You know as well as I that your attempt to spin cutting Medicare provider benefits as hurting large corporations is completely disingenuous. You know as well as I that cutting already vastly underpaid Medicare providers reinbursements will only hurt the old, the sick and the poor. Yo know this as well as I.

No, I don't know as well as you do. You'll have to actually support your arguments with data if you are to convince me. Listen, these huge corporations are making a ton of money off the government dime. Its a huge portion of our healthcare expenses. They rip off the government, especially on drug pricing (worked on some of those fights as a law clerk). So they can take a cut.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:43 PM on August 1, 2011


@Ironmouth I don't htink it matters who anyone blames for the trigger being pulled, I just don't think the cuts to the Pentagon will stay.

One second after the trigger is pulled the House Republicans will introduce, and pass on first reading, a bill that does nothing but restore full funding to the Pentagon. Not only will every Republican vote for it, but many Democrats will as well simply because they're terrified of being labeled "soft on defense".

Then they'll dare the Senate and President not to pass it.

End result will be no real cuts to the Pentagon.

Also, once Obama opened the door by proposing Social Security cuts I'm not at all confident that the Super Congress won't come to an agreement that involves cuts to Social Security.

@Poet_Lariat I realize I'm not exactly the best person to be saying this, but stop. Just stop. I'm on your side, and the whole cheerleader, "Obamabot", nonsense is just plain obnoxious. Take a break, come back later and stop with that stuff, please.

Also, as a liberal and a feminist I'm not at all hot on the idea of using feminizing terms as insults.
posted by sotonohito at 12:46 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm fine with Progressive or More Liberal candidate. Who ya got that has a chance? I'm not talking guarantee, but a decent shot at winning and being more liberal. Oh and I need them by 2012.

How's about somebody who wants to implement a European-style healthcare system, draw down the wars in the middle east, close Guantanamo and cut back the president's discretionary police powers? If 2008 is any barometer he'd be very electable.


Obama ran on increasing our presence in Afghanistan. As for closing Gitmo, have you seen the polling? We are getting whipped on that. A veto-proof majority went for stopping that.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ran on a European-style healthcare system. Obama's plan is nearly identical to the one he got passed, but he added the farther-to-the-left mandate proposed by Hillary that he was against.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:47 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


No, I don't know as well as you do. You'll have to actually support your arguments with data if you are to convince me.

No Actually I don't. I don't have to prove that the world is round , that gravity exists or that poop tastes bad. It is common knowledge that Medicare providers are vastly underpaid for their services and it is common knowledge that Medicare recipients have difficulty in obtaining providers as it is.

I don;t have to prove that and I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely pointing out that your arguments are unfactual and, in my opinion, disingenuous.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:49 PM on August 1, 2011


One second after the trigger is pulled the House Republicans will introduce, and pass on first reading, a bill that does nothing but restore full funding to the Pentagon. Not only will every Republican vote for it, but many Democrats will as well simply because they're terrified of being labeled "soft on defense".

The President will veto that bill.

Nothing more need be said.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:50 PM on August 1, 2011


No Actually I don't. I don't have to prove that the world is round , that gravity exists or that poop tastes bad.

I'm not asking you to prove any of that. I'm asking you to support the arguments you put forward. Listen, there is a very complicated formula for how the government is allowed to charge these companies for drugs. And it basically prohibits the government from buying in bulk. They've been ripping us off for years and can now take some cuts.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:52 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


The President will veto that bill.

You mean he will suddenly grow a spine after being in office for three years? Because that didn't happen on Health care. It didn't happen on extending the Bush tax cuts. It didn't happen with funding for these two wars. It won't happen in this bill that may pass today. But we have your word that it wlil happen six months form now. Good to know.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:54 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm not asking you to prove any of that. I'm asking you to support the arguments you put forward. Listen, there is a very complicated formula for how the government is allowed to charge these companies for drugs. And it basically prohibits the government from buying in bulk. They've been ripping us off for years and can now take some cuts.

Again, disingenuous.
We are not talking about profits to drug companies. We are talking about people's parents and grandparents not being able to be treated when they are sick . We are talking defacto cuts to the elderly and the poor. That's who is going to be hurt when payments to private doctors who accept medicare are reduced. That's common knowledge and it's common sense.

posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:59 PM on August 1, 2011


The President will veto that bill.

You mean he will suddenly grow a spine after being in office for three years? Because that didn't happen on Health care. It didn't happen on extending the Bush tax cuts. It didn't happen with funding for these two wars. It won't happen in this bill that may pass today. But we have your word that it wlil happen six months form now. Good to know.


The President campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq and increasing our presence in Afghanistan, two campaign promises he kept. You may disagree with him on those, but the fact is that he's been clear on that from day 1. He wanted to ensure that the Bush tax cuts stayed in place for those making under $250,000 a year, a campaign promise as well. Any attempt to only cut those taxes would have been filibustered in the Senate, where the election of Scott Brown resulted in the loss of our Filibuster-proof majority. As for Health Care, the program he proposed passed. If you'll remember, Sen. Lincoln stood up and said that she would filibuster the Public Option personally. So if you complaint is about that, if he could have gotten it, he would have, but Ms. Lincoln and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska opposed him from our side of the aisle.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:03 PM on August 1, 2011


It seems that once the smoke clears on this and the obfuscation and the smokescreen of fear over a default is no longer there for the GOP and it's ticking time bomb bagger insurgency.

It will be much more difficult for them to hide just the harm they intend to do to Social Security and Medicare. And that is political gold.

I still think, regardless of their little coup here the TP is going to blast a fatal blow into the USS GOP. If it hasn't already.

But as for Obama...

BAD...BAD OBAMA!! BAD BAD OBAMA!! NO DOGGY TREAT FOR YOU OBAMA!! NO DOGGY TREATS FOR THE REST OF THE FIRST TERM!!!

AND STOP GIVING ME THOSE POKER FACED PUPPY DOG EYES!!
posted by Skygazer at 1:04 PM on August 1, 2011


Again, disingenuous.
We are not talking about profits to drug companies. We are talking about people's parents and grandparents not being able to be treated when they are sick . We are talking defacto cuts to the elderly and the poor. That's who is going to be hurt when payments to private doctors who accept medicare are reduced. That's common knowledge and it's common sense.


All I'm asking is some sort of idea of how this is going to create "radical" cuts in medicare availability. You said it would but you didn't support that with any evidence. Saying that it is common knowledge that the trigger to the debt ceiling bill's second round being activated would result in radical cuts to beneficiaries is not "common knowledge."
posted by Ironmouth at 1:06 PM on August 1, 2011


Nobody, and I mean nobody, ran on a European-style healthcare system. Obama's plan is nearly identical to the one he got passed, but he added the farther-to-the-left mandate proposed by Hillary that he was against.

This I am going to take issue with. Obama campaigned on having a public option. The real-world effect of the various possibilities were:
no mandate + no public option: insurance companies going bankrupt as all the healthy people cancelled coverage. system doesn't work
no mandate + public option: same as above except anyone who wants care takes the much better public option. system works
mandate + public option: same as above except the healthy also opt for public option
mandate + no public option: everyone is forced to buy private health insurance

I would describe what we got as the "farther to the left" choice
posted by crayz at 1:08 PM on August 1, 2011


wouldn't, that is
posted by crayz at 1:09 PM on August 1, 2011


Seriously. Cut this out. You can make your point without the creepy analogy.

Seconded. Poet_Lariat if you can not make your points without calling other posters names, you need to come back when you can. MetaTalk is an option for everyone, as usual.
posted by jessamyn at 1:09 PM on August 1, 2011 [6 favorites]


Ironmouth The President will veto that bill.

And scuttle his reelection chances? I think not.

I don't think the Republicans are scared of the trigger because the true sacred cow of US political spending is the military. People talk about Social Security being the third rail, but that's nonsense. Bush grasped it firmly and while it wasn't pleasant for him he survived and continued to get political wins afterward.

Obama put Social Security up on the chopping bock and everyone except me and a few others seem quite sanguine about it.

But military spending? I think that's another matter. I don't think Obama will veto a bill to restore Pentagon funding anymore than he vetoed the bill to extend Bush's tax cuts, or filibustered against the bill to provide retroactive immunity. He might promise to veto such a bill, but we've seen what his promises on such matters are worth.

Which is why I don't think the Teabaggers are concerned at all. Even if they don't get the bill passed right away, let's assume for the sake of argument that Obama and/or the Senate actually does fail to pass it, that simply gives them a great ad campaign for the 2012 elections, and unfortunately I think it'd be a winning ad campaign. The independent voter that the Democrats so annoyingly chase after all the time is a moron and will gladly vote against anyone who voted to cut military spending. After the new Republican President and Congress are sworn in they'll restore the Pentagon's budget.

After all the proven track record the Democrats have of surrendering the very instant the Republicans start calling them terrorist loving anti-American soft on defense hippies, I don't see any reason to think they'd behave any differently if that happens.
posted by sotonohito at 1:10 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth points out something that many people ignored, or didn't know about Obama-- he ran as a centrist. The change he was promising for was not necessarily in policy, but in tone and approach.

I think he comes out of this fiasco OK, considering he was legitimately facing default under his watch and would surely have taken most of the blame for the economic damage even if it was the Tea Party forcing the issue.
posted by chaz at 1:11 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth - We live in a time with 16% unemployment (probably greater but those are the official U6 stats) , where we are spending trillions in Afghanistan the we could be spending on jobs, where we are close to one day away from defaulting on our national debt, where we have given hundreds of billions (or is it trillions, I forget) to the biggest lending institutions in the country and refuse to expend unemployment benefits for the 16% unemployed, where.... oh my I could go on.... and you write back telling me that Obama has fulfilled his campaign promises and I should be happy about all this?

Well I'm not happy. It's lipstick on a pig. Its still a pig. And now Obama just gave his OK on a bill that will almost inevitably result in cutting Medicare services to our most needy in five months (merry Christmas, Seniors). It's still a pig Ironmouth.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:13 PM on August 1, 2011


This I am going to take issue with. Obama campaigned on having a public option. The real-world effect of the various possibilities were:

I didn't see that. I could be wrong, I did watch all the debates. Do you have a cite?
posted by Ironmouth at 1:17 PM on August 1, 2011


As is often the case, I read the commentary here with an increasing sense of dread... then read some actual descriptions of the actual deal and feel quite better about it. It's not a good deal by any means, but not the "utter capitulation," "total loss," "start learning Mandarin 'cause America is fucked" kind of disaster people here were characterizing it as.

Some salient points from FiveThirtyEight's analysis of the deal:
[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.

[...]

[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.
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.

Poet_Lariat: "Catfood Commission "

Poet_Lariat: "Obamabots "

Hey, why not toss in some "hippy-punching" in there to complete the lazy, recycled catchphrase trifecta? It's not like it hasn't been used three times already in this thread alone.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:19 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


I pretty clearly remember Obama's acceptance speech boiling down to: "We've come a lot farther than folks expected for a guy like me to get this job, but the work is just starting. If you really want change you need to know that now is the time to kick it into high gear and push people into office who support your views." Unfortunately for those of us who are progressives, it was the Tea Party that did exactly this.

I'm all for adding pressure to push Obama leftward, but it has to be in conjunction with maintaining our primary ire against everyone to his right. Giving up and going home, or wounding Obama without another plan in place, is only serving to make things worse.
posted by meinvt at 1:20 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


After all the proven track record the Democrats have of surrendering the very instant the Republicans start calling them terrorist loving anti-American soft on defense hippies, I don't see any reason to think they'd behave any differently if that happens.

I can only think of one time that happened. 2003 Iraq war, some Dems did vote for it. As for the "surrendering the very instant" stuff, that's not the case.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:22 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm all for adding pressure to push Obama leftward, but it has to be in conjunction with maintaining our primary ire against everyone to his right. Giving up and going home, or wounding Obama without another plan in place, is only serving to make things worse.

its more about giving him cover. If we give him a lot of votes from the left, his position is strengthened.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:26 PM on August 1, 2011


Do you have a cite?

Here:
– 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]
– 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]
posted by crayz at 1:27 PM on August 1, 2011 [8 favorites]


Thanks crayz.

but how is he supposed to get it when two members of his party openly threaten to filibuster his legislation and they put him under the 60 votes needed to bust the filibuster? Is he supposed to throw the bill out entire?

I say no.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:33 PM on August 1, 2011


As is often the case, I read the commentary here with an increasing sense of dread... then read some actual descriptions of the actual deal and feel quite better about it. It's not a good deal by any means, but not the "utter capitulation," "total loss," "start learning Mandarin 'cause America is fucked" kind of disaster people here were characterizing it as.

This is mostly how I feel about it. I'm used to Obama and Democratic legislators not being the political entities I'd hope they'd be - but I'm more frightened by the fact that it ever got to the point that it got to. Hopefully other people feel the same way and vote accordingly in a year (with all of its intervening craziness).
posted by codacorolla at 1:40 PM on August 1, 2011


Rhaomi: As is often the case, I read the commentary here with an increasing sense of dread... then read some actual descriptions of the actual deal and feel quite better about it. It's not a good deal by any means, but not the "utter capitulation," "total loss," "start learning Mandarin 'cause America is fucked" kind of disaster people here were characterizing it as.

I've found the same thing to be true. There is hell of a lot of hysteria here that's been calling this a HUGE UNACCEPTABLE LOSS for the Dems going back to at least 2000 comments and three days ago before there was any precise understanding of what the outlines of this deal would be, or indeed even if there would be a deal and I hate to it but there's the reek of concern trolling going on here, that's beginning to grate.
posted by Skygazer at 1:46 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Haha, the mandate is far left? I'm getting dizzy in here, Ironmouth. Nice turd polishing effort today though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:47 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Woah, did not see this, the deal contains $350 billion in defense cuts in the first round.

Almost half $450 billion, comes from security spending.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:49 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]





One second after the trigger is pulled the House Republicans will introduce, and pass on first reading, a bill that does nothing but restore full funding to the Pentagon. Not only will every Republican vote for it, but many Democrats will as well simply because they're terrified of being labeled "soft on defense".

The President will veto that bill.

They attached a hostage to it though, so Obama loses again. Oh well, you'll be there to explain why it is actually awesome.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:50 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Haha, the mandate is far left? I'm getting dizzy in here, Ironmouth. Nice turd polishing effort today though.

Its to the left of Obama's initial position, which was that the mandate was wrong because it forced people to do something. Hillary pointed out you can't make the savings without it.

I didn't say it was "far left."
posted by Ironmouth at 1:52 PM on August 1, 2011


Of course not, because it's far right.

McConnell: "the chances of any kind of tax increase passing with the appointees John Boehner and i are going to put in there are very low"

But the triggers! Oops, they are small potatoes compared to the debt ceiling they already played chicken with so the Republicans don't care while Democrats still have to prevent their part of the trigger. Democrats lose everything they wanted again!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:54 PM on August 1, 2011


Woah, did not see this, the deal contains $350 billion in defense cuts in the first round.

Maybe you also missed the part where proposed defense spending caps would not apply to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

So we are going to not increase revenues in any matter at all. The rich get to keep their corporate jets and we're going to cut Medicare payouts which will be passed down to people's parents and grandparents. We're going to cut a fraction of our defense spending and we're not going to extend unemployment benefits in the largest recession since WW2.

That's what this deal is about.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


So we are going to not increase revenues in any matter at all

they are on the table for the joint committee, actually.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:58 PM on August 1, 2011


furiousxgeorge: Democrats lose everything they wanted again!

Well, since you've been making that assertion for a whole week now in this thread, I'd be very surprised if you'd actually looked at the facts and dialed down the hysteria and felt differently.
posted by Skygazer at 1:59 PM on August 1, 2011


Oh, they got revenue increases in the deal? Link!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:00 PM on August 1, 2011


The rich get to keep their corporate jets and we're going to cut Medicare payouts which will be passed down to people's parents and grandparents. We're going to cut a fraction of our defense spending and we're not going to extend unemployment benefits in the largest recession since WW2.

What's the combination of House votes that gets us the corporate jet loophole cut? We don't have a majority. That's the source of this problem.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:02 PM on August 1, 2011


I was initially kind of disappointed, but the more that I'm learning about the deal, the less I'm seeing any major giveaways on the Dem side. Mind you, I'm not seeing anything to cheer about either, other than the fact we may have averted a default. But it's not nearly as bad a deal as some are making it out to be. Especially considering the alternatives.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:05 PM on August 1, 2011


Oh, they got revenue increases in the deal? Link!

The Joint Committee can use revenue increases to reach the second level of cuts to prevent the trigger from being activated. They blinked big-time on that.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:07 PM on August 1, 2011


they are on the table for the joint committee, actually.

They were "on the table" this time too. Convince us the Republicans will vote for them? You can't.

What's the combination of House votes that gets us the corporate jet loophole cut? We don't have a majority. That's the source of this problem.

Where are the votes for the Republicans to ram something through the Senate? Right, they take hostages because they don't take whining about not having the votes for an answer. Do the same thing to them instead of always losing the game of chicken.

If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them. -Paul Wellstone
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:07 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


they are on the table for the joint committee, actually.

Seriously Ironmouth. You are now claiming to know the agenda of a committee who hasn't yet been appointed from a bill that hasn't yet been passed and who's input won't even be considered or needed until December 23rd?

Admit it, now you're just making stuff up.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:08 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


We just had default as a trigger. It doesn't matter. Triggers. Don't. Matter. You can't convince the Republicans to vote for them so it doesn't matter if they have decided you can be permitted to ask for them again.

Maybe we should have had an all tax hike bill now and given the Republicans permission to ask us for cuts later.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:10 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


*vote for them meaning the tax hikes
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:11 PM on August 1, 2011


No, P_L, he is literally telling you it is a victory that the Republicans will allow Democrats to beg for the cuts again, not that they are actually going to happen.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:12 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


We just had default as a trigger. It doesn't matter. Triggers. Don't. Matter

We've replaced a trigger that Republicans were willing to hold hostage with one that Democrats will be willing to hold hostage -- same deal with the expiring Bush tax cuts. Most liberals would be fucking thrilled if this trigger went off.

If the GOP wants a deal, they're going to go through the democrats, and if they don't want a deal, then fuck it, let defense get cut, and let the tax cuts expire.
posted by empath at 2:12 PM on August 1, 2011


*hikes, too angry to type leaving thread again.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:13 PM on August 1, 2011


they are on the table for the joint committee, actually.

Seriously Ironmouth. You are now claiming to know the agenda of a committee who hasn't yet been appointed from a bill that hasn't yet been passed and who's input won't even be considered or needed until December 23rd?

Admit it, now you're just making stuff up.


OK deep breaths now. The GOP wanted the trigger to expressly forbid tax increases as a way of reaching the second number. They had to eat that. That provision is not in the legislation.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:15 PM on August 1, 2011


The GOP would not be thrilled with default and the destruction of the economy. They refused to give in anyway. The triggers are meaningless, Obama will not say 'fuck it' to his part of the trigger, he will give in. See you guys tomorrow maybe.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:15 PM on August 1, 2011


This guy doesn't like the debt deal:
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.

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.
Of course he's posting at Redstate.com and he got 1,000 likes on facebook for that single comment.

Pay special attention to his analysis of the committee.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:19 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Like I said, this deal is not a terrible deal. It's not great, but the hysterics over it are crazypants. If it included expiration of the Bush tax cuts it would be a good deal. And that's still a possibility.
posted by Justinian at 2:21 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Big Education

This made me lol. The redstate assholes hate everything, don't they?
posted by Mister Fabulous at 2:22 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


We've replaced a trigger that Republicans were willing to hold hostage with one that Democrats will be willing to hold hostage -- same deal with the expiring Bush tax cuts. Most liberals would be fucking thrilled if this trigger went off.

Short Memories. The triggers will occur December 23rd of this year. Do you know what else will occur that same week? Unemployment extensions will all expire Dec 31st. What happened last year? Obama was "forced" to extend Bush era tax cuts in order to get Republicans to pass unemployment extensions. That was just 7 months ago . Are our memories really that short?

So why would any reasonable person not believe that Republicans will do exactly the same thing again in order to get the Commission and Obama to agree to whatever Republicans want at that time? The Democrats on the New Catfood Commission and Obama will be "forced" to do whatever Republicans want because unemployment benefits will be held hostage. Just like they did last year - and, oh yeah, just like they are doing right now.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:23 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


As far as the Overton Window has been moved in budgetary terms (i.e. "only" $1 trillion in spending cuts on the verge of a double dip recession), it has been moved just as far procedurally - with the "Super Congress" a frontal assault on representative democracy.
posted by Trurl at 2:23 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Redstate front page:

Obama is the Big Winner in the Debt-Ceiling Debate
posted by Ironmouth at 2:25 PM on August 1, 2011


Obama’s punishment for raising the debt ceiling without adopting real cuts

Astounding.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:26 PM on August 1, 2011


dude hosed them into hundreds of billions in defense cuts at the front end.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:29 PM on August 1, 2011


I just mean the idea that Obama needs to be punished for raising the debt ceiling, something that has happened dozens of times previously without comment, is astounding.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:32 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


The triggers in place for this new deal definitely strengthen the Democratic bargaining position in regards to the super-committee. Honestly speaking Democrats will just go into the committee with the understanding that baring some major concessions by Republicans they'll go through the motions and then eat the sequestration.

Republicans can't just put those defense cuts back in because it basically says "You know we were never really serious about deficit cutting in the first place", if they do then Obama and the Dems can just say "Republicans aren't willing to endure shared sacrifice" and that they really don't believe the bullshit they've been spinning.

That will harm them with their base who seem to be buying into their spin. Sure they'll try to say that the business of the federal government is defense and won't someone think of the troops but it will ring hollow.

And it's not as if the Defense Department haven't already indicated programs they'd like to cut (Osprey I'm looking at you) so it's not like we are leaving the troops without critical gear and what not.
posted by vuron at 2:34 PM on August 1, 2011


As far as the Overton Window has been moved in budgetary terms (i.e. "only" $1 trillion in spending cuts on the verge of a double dip recession), it has been moved just as far procedurally - with the "Super Congress" a frontal assault on representative democracy.

how's that an assault on democracy?
posted by Ironmouth at 2:34 PM on August 1, 2011


Republicans can't just put those defense cuts back in because it basically says "You know we were never really serious about deficit cutting in the first place", if they do then Obama and the Dems can just say "Republicans aren't willing to endure shared sacrifice" and that they really don't believe the bullshit they've been spinning.

Nothing has been stopping them from doing that throughout this entire debate. Why do you think it will go better next time?
posted by dialetheia at 2:36 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]




"Nothing has been stopping them from doing that throughout this entire debate. Why do you think it will go better next time?"

Because unlike the current time we actually have hostages of our own. So instead of the Republicans holding a gun to the economy's head we both have guns in the next fight and honestly we really have absolutely no reason not to pull the trigger.

That gives us a lot more leverage.

Do Republicans still have opportunities for hostage taking? Yeah extending the Unemployment Insurance window will be a another big fight and we are probably going to give up some stuff in order to get it but the opportunities for additional hostage taking before the elections are diminishing which limits the Republican offensive strategy.
posted by vuron at 2:42 PM on August 1, 2011


Republicans can't just put those defense cuts back in because it basically says "You know we were never really serious about deficit cutting in the first place", if they do then Obama and the Dems can just say "Republicans aren't willing to endure shared sacrifice" and that they really don't believe the bullshit they've been spinning.

Not only that they are eating hundreds of billions in defense cuts on the front end. mmmm tasty!
posted by Ironmouth at 2:43 PM on August 1, 2011


@Ironmouth re: the RedState gripes: I think part of the reason why the Tea Party and the Republicans win so much is because their followers and voters won't take halfway measures as victories. They want wins, and they push their politicians to get wins.

The Democrats, meanwhile, seem so desperate to claim anything as a win, that we wind up cheering for stuff that really isn't all that great.

Let's say that my Doom & Gloom outlook is 10 times too doom&gloom. That still doesn't leave us with a real win, we had to go through a hellish bit of budget cutting just to get a normal bit of boring procedure shoved through. This is not something we should be cheering, and if we do it emboldens the forces of mediocrity in the Democratic party.

RedState has it right I'm afraid, at least as far as pushing politicians goes. Politicians, like all people, tend to be lazy. If they can get away with halfway measures and get cheers from their supporters they'll do that. It is only by relentlessly demanding nothing but utter perfection that we can drive the politicians to do what we want.
posted by sotonohito at 2:45 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Wow, people are seriously arguing that the cuts aren't actually cuts. I swear the self-styled "moderates" never cease to amaze me with their far-right talking points.
posted by wierdo at 2:45 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


from the comments on a Hill story:
BY NUDNIK on 08/01/2011 at 09:55
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.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:45 PM on August 1, 2011


how's that an assault on democracy

It's the equivalent of you not getting to vote in the Democratic primaries. The Party bigwigs present you with a fait accompi and all you can do is vote up or down.

Does that seem like an advance in representative democracy to you?
posted by Trurl at 2:48 PM on August 1, 2011


Matt Taibbi: The Democrats Take a Dive
posted by homunculus at 2:50 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


how's that an assault on democracy

It's the equivalent of you not getting to vote in the Democratic primaries. The Party bigwigs present you with a fait accompi and all you can do is vote up or down.

Does that seem like an advance in representative democracy to you?


It also means the Tea Party can't amend shit. Are we starting to understand now?
posted by Ironmouth at 2:52 PM on August 1, 2011


Well.

The Red Staters hate it, and some hardcore lefties hate it.

I guess that means this deal is pretty centrist.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:54 PM on August 1, 2011


Obama’s punishment for raising the debt ceiling without adopting real cuts
Astounding.


I would have thought it was at least a little bit astounding before the last year or two, but with the advent of Walker's Wisconsin shenanigans, I've realized that none of this may really be about financial management anymore. "Real cuts" aren't measured by how they impact budgetary issues. They're measured by how much they can chop off of public programs -- note the language of one complaint in the excerpt Ironmouth brings in above: "not a single agency or program, domestic or mandatory, will be eliminated." It's not about savings, it's about dismantling the State.
posted by weston at 2:54 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Oh, Matt Taibbi. Even I don't want to read what you have to say anymore.
posted by adamdschneider at 2:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Real cuts" aren't measured by how they impact budgetary issues. They're measured by how much they can chop off of public programs -- note the language of one complaint in the excerpt Ironmouth brings in above: "not a single agency or program, domestic or mandatory, will be eliminated." It's not about savings, it's about dismantling the State.

Exactly. And today, they failed miserably in their goal.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:58 PM on August 1, 2011


The Red Staters hate it, and some hardcore lefties hate it.

I guess that means this deal is pretty centrist.


Abilene Paradox.
posted by roll truck roll at 2:59 PM on August 1, 2011




That was somewhat fecetious. If I understand the Abilene Paradox correctly, it happens when people are actually trying to work toward a consensus.
posted by roll truck roll at 3:01 PM on August 1, 2011


Hell yes, Danf! I have never been more proud to have DeFazio representing me. My favorite quote of his on the deal was, "Student financial aid. That’s the only cut specified. What kind of world do you people live in?" Because, you know, they ended up cutting all subsidized graduate student loans, so I hope none of you are grad students relying on those loans for next year!

He also claimed that Biden told the House Dems that Obama had been willing to use the 14th if it had been absolutely necessary. Very interesting; too bad it didn't occur to him to threaten the Republicans with it. Personally, I agree with Krugman 100%, and I think the attempt to spin this as some sort of triumphant victory for Democrats is totally fucking laughable. Good luck with that. Young people are not going to be chanting "Yes we can" next year, that's for goddamn sure.
posted by dialetheia at 3:13 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


It also means the Tea Party can't amend shit. Are we starting to understand now?

Over the weekend, there was much derision on the lefty blogs at Boehner's attempt to sell the bill to those Tea Party rubes by saying "Look how the Democrats hate it".

If you can say how this deal avoids making a terrible economy worse (and not just "not as worse as it might have been"), I'm listening. But "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" isn't going to fly.
posted by Trurl at 3:13 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, no one wins.
posted by ZeusHumms at 3:17 PM on August 1, 2011


It's a war of man.
posted by adamdschneider at 3:17 PM on August 1, 2011


Wait, Red State is full of idiots. But they or at least one of them thinks Obama won.

But they're idiots!

But they think Obama won!

*HEAD EXPLODES*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:25 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Wait, Red State is full of idiots. But they or at least one of them thinks Obama won.

Somehow, Obama has escaped the cotton field, so in their eyes, that is an undeserved win for him.
posted by Danf at 3:29 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Another such victory and I am undone."
-King Pyrrhus of Epirus
posted by vibrotronica at 3:32 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


If you can say how this deal avoids making a terrible economy worse (and not just "not as worse as it might have been"), I'm listening. But "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" isn't going to fly.

What's your alternative scenario? I feel like you're railing against the fact that the GOP controls the House. I mean, in the end, how do you negotiate a better deal? Yelling "no" louder? Gee that ought to unnerve that Boehner guy.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:39 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't know why such focus on the details when the deal is not done yet. Have we not learned that last minute changes of astounding proportions are possible? Wait for the final size of the shit sandwich and the grade of diarrhea topping, the bathroom kitchen is still full of talented cooks furiously seasoning.
posted by VikingSword at 3:40 PM on August 1, 2011


I don't know why such focus on the details when the deal is not done yet. Have we not learned that last minute changes of astounding proportions are possible? Wait for the final size of the shit sandwich and the grade of diarrhea topping, the bathroom kitchen is still full of talented cooks furiously seasoning.

John Boehner better pray to Jesus this passes. Because if his caucus doesn't get it done, it will fall on his party, solid.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:44 PM on August 1, 2011


Quorum call is done, break out the popcorn.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:45 PM on August 1, 2011


it seems to me that the democrats, realizing that the economy and our budget had been taken hostage effectively, decided that the only recourse would be to offer both sides a chance at a conniving, confused process that will make three-card monte dealers look like paragons of transparency - and a rematch once the elections are over, with both sides gambling that they will be in improved position to make their "con" happen

i've noticed that none of you - or the internet punditry at large can even start to explain what this deal is or agree on what it means

might i suggest that this is a deliberately sought result of this compromise? - unable to attack their prey from the right, or the left, they've decided to feint in both directions at once and attack in the center, once the victims are confused enough to no longer be able to track what's happening

i don't really have to tell you who the prey is, right?

if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit - and here we, and the redstaters, and the populace are - quite baffled, quite out of any kind of real understanding of what this means

we are supposed to feel that way - it's the best way to neutralize both the teapartiers and the progressives and the nosy parkers in the middle who are disturbing washington with all their demands and complaints - made sure that none of us know what we're talking about or what we're seeing

washington won - we lost
posted by pyramid termite at 3:46 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


I mean, in the end, how do you negotiate a better deal?

I don't place SS and Medicare on the table as an opening gambit.

I don't advance the Republican framing.

I threaten to invoke the 14th Amendment and ask them where they're going to find 66 Senators to convict me.
posted by Trurl at 3:46 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Let's say that my Doom & Gloom outlook is 10 times too doom&gloom. That still doesn't leave us with a real win, we had to go through a hellish bit of budget cutting just to get a normal bit of boring procedure shoved through. This is not something we should be cheering, and if we do it emboldens the forces of mediocrity in the Democratic party.


We don't have the votes for these "real win" things right now. So we take these "not real wins" which hurt them bad.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:47 PM on August 1, 2011


I mean, in the end, how do you negotiate a better deal?

I don't place SS and Medicare on the table as an opening gambit.

I don't advance the Republican framing.

I threaten to invoke the 14th Amendment and ask them where they're going to find 66 Senators to convict me.


How does that get you the necessary Tea Party votes?

Also are any of those things that were allegedly "on the table" in this deal? Because you can bet he asked for things they couldn't give in exchange. So that's not really on the table.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:50 PM on August 1, 2011


I threaten to invoke the 14th Amendment and ask them where they're going to find 66 Senators to convict me.

I don't support using the 14th Amendment, but you do have a point wrt. Republicans - that's exactly how they operate... zero fair play, it's all about how far - to the last possible limit can you push, in this case "yeah, let's see if you can convict me!". Very Republican. Heck it works for them - the whole Bush Jr. 8 years was an exercise in "yeah, it's a crime - so what you gonna do about it? If you can't actually send marshals into the office to frogmarch me out of here, well, fuck you!".
posted by VikingSword at 3:50 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Who gains from debt deal? The Pentagon, for one.

"WASHINGTON -- The last-minute deal that Congress is considering to raise the federal debt limit probably will mean trillions of dollars in government spending reductions for most agencies. But one department stands to gain: the Pentagon.
Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.
"

Booyah!
posted by VikingSword at 3:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Just as a fact finding mission, because the policy-side outcome of this 'deal' is far more fascinating to me than subjective and ever changing politics (and to whit, a bit more important, imho), does anyone in the hivemind have:

A)reputable/good/understandable cites about the student loan effect of this? I've seen "good for Pell, bad for Grad students!" here/elsewhere but have no real information there, and would love an explanation.

B)Examples of other things in history that resemble this "Super Congress"/Joint Committee?

I require the knowledge...give it too me...braaaiiiiinnnssss
posted by Chipmazing at 3:59 PM on August 1, 2011


165-99 with 199 to go. Democrats are holding off with 125 yet to vote.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:59 PM on August 1, 2011


*169 to go.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 4:00 PM on August 1, 2011


John Boehner better pray to Jesus this passes. Because if his caucus doesn't get it done, it will fall on his party, solid.

If it doesn't pass (not likely :( ) I am going to put the CREDIT where it belongs on the Democratic Progressive caucus who announced that they are going to stand against this bill in the House.

That would force the President to give Americans something better than student loan cuts and potential, if not inevitable, Medicare cuts.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:00 PM on August 1, 2011


Media report that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has returned to Washington to vote on the debt ceiling.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:02 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


181-107, 27 Repubs, 118 Dems still to vote.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 4:03 PM on August 1, 2011


well from the clapping on the house floor it sounds like it just passed
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:04 PM on August 1, 2011


Is that what the cheering is about?
posted by empath at 4:05 PM on August 1, 2011


Presumably the applause was for Giffords.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:05 PM on August 1, 2011


Yes, it has the votes to pass now.
posted by Justinian at 4:05 PM on August 1, 2011


No, they're clapping because Gabrielle Giffords is on the floor for the vote.
posted by Justinian at 4:06 PM on August 1, 2011


Theater at its finest.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:06 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Passed.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 4:07 PM on August 1, 2011


Yay Congresswoman Giffords!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:07 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


She could have come back to speak in favor of revenue increases.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:08 PM on August 1, 2011


Yes, it's too bad the Congresswoman who was shot in the head a while back didn't use her first appearance on the floor since being shot in the head as a platform for our pet issue.
posted by Justinian at 4:10 PM on August 1, 2011 [8 favorites]


SNAFU.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:11 PM on August 1, 2011


Yes, it's too bad she instead returned to add a manipulative moment of emotional solidarity to a process the American people hate.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:11 PM on August 1, 2011


It's like the Emmy awards " I'd like to thank all the pages that made this possible...."
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:12 PM on August 1, 2011


Fureiousxgeorge, this is the most important vote the Congress has taken in quite a while. You don't think just maybe she felt that it was important to be present for a historic vote? That perhaps her experience has earned her a little slack and respect?
posted by Justinian at 4:14 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


They're really pressing the Giffords thing on the House floor. I mean how can you hate on that? You can't. Too bad they're using her like a sideshow.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:15 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Or, you know, she decided this was a vote she wanted to be there for. She's a grown woman. She has agency.

But thanks to all present who assume she's nothing but a puppet.
posted by maudlin at 4:17 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


So no way the Repubs would filibuster this now in the senate, right? What of the threats made by some senators that they would do just that? It ain't over until it's over.
posted by VikingSword at 4:17 PM on August 1, 2011


Haha, the press coverage talking about her instead of this terrible deal is gonna be great. Enjoy it guys, it will make you feel so good about all this! I'm going back to watching Star Trek.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:19 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


As of about two months ago, Rep. Giffords was still struggling to communicate on a pretty fundamental level. I don't think questioning (or worrying) that she is merely a prop for political theatre is entirely out of the question.
posted by absalom at 4:19 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


We're all glad she survived being shot in the head. But if she is back at work representing us, why should we not expect her to speak on crucially important legislation under discussion?

If she is not back at work, she can watch on C-SPAN like everybody else.
posted by Trurl at 4:23 PM on August 1, 2011


Digby has similar thoughts about the Giffords debacle.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:28 PM on August 1, 2011


We're heading pretty quickly to a facepalm ceiling when I will no longer have enough face or enough palms to react to politics as usual.
posted by fuq at 4:44 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


As of about two months ago, Rep. Giffords was still struggling to communicate on a pretty fundamental level. I don't think questioning (or worrying) that she is merely a prop for political theatre is entirely out of the question.

She's relatively conservative.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:52 PM on August 1, 2011


A Vote for the Debt Deal is a Vote for Treason - Lyndon LaRouche
posted by jeffburdges at 5:13 PM on August 1, 2011


i would have though ol' lyndon would have started a used car lot somewhere by now
posted by pyramid termite at 5:17 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


As of about two months ago, Rep. Giffords was still struggling to communicate on a pretty fundamental level. I don't think questioning (or worrying) that she is merely a prop for political theatre is entirely out of the question.

I also don't really have any idea where things were two months ago, as I am not in her family or her doctor.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:31 PM on August 1, 2011


Wow a lot of LaRouchites on here today.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:32 PM on August 1, 2011


Ironmouth, re: giffords: She's relatively conservative.

And necessarily so considering who she represents. I know people love to carp about blue dogs but take my own Senator, Mary Landrieu, who is far to the right of me on many issues; she is at least a D and is notably more concerned with issues affecting the common people of Louisiana than our other Senate representative, "Diaper Dave" Vitter. I've voted for Mary twice and will do so again because a lukewarm D who can get elected in a solidly red place like Louisiana keeps some raving dingbat or total corporatist asshole out of that spot. I would imagine that if Ms. Giffords did not have some appeal to conservatives she would have had no chance at all of ever seeing the House floor.

That is how politics works. We are not, unfortunately, living in an Iain M. Banks novel. Or even Star Trek.
posted by localroger at 5:38 PM on August 1, 2011


A Vote for the Debt Deal is a Vote for Treason - Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche is a Crazypants Moonbat - Justinian
posted by Justinian at 5:44 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


I don't think that LaRouche is really helping out here. :) Following jeffburdges link you eventually get to a LaRouche page where that says "As we speak, Obama is staging his Hitler coup" . Yeah.... so not helping ...
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:09 PM on August 1, 2011


Two Houses, One Cup

Says it all for me.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:16 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


As we speak, Obama is staging his Hitler coup...

Will he be making Chicago style pizza the only kind of pizza? I could get behind that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


From TPM: The scramble to avoid a catastrophic debt default is almost over -- and with an ending that would make Aaron Sorkin jealous. It was always going to be a dramatic moment, even once it became clear Republican and Democratic leaders had put together the votes to pass a last-minute bill to raise the debt ceiling.

However, the drama was heightened even further by the return of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), who was shot and nearly killed in January at a constituent event in Tuscon.

As the clock ticked down, Democrats and Republicans had engaged in a standoff. Democrats were withholding their votes to force Republicans to go on the record first -- Democrats had no intention of letting Republicans off the hook on legislation that so closely adheres to their interests.

That all ended when Giffords walked into the chamber to a standing ovation, and proceeded to vote in favor of the measure. After a long applause, the votes cascaded in and the measure passed easily.

Still, scores of progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans voted against the legislation, which ultimately passed 269-161. Democrats split evenly: 95-95. The Republicans broke down 174-66. Though House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) voted for the legislation, they did allow members to vote their conscience. And in a sign of Pelosi's underlying disapproval of the measure, her top allies, including Reps George Miller (D-CA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) ultimately voted no.

----
Giffords’ office tweeted a few minutes before her appearance in the Capitol: “Gabrielle has returned to Washington to support a bipartisan bill to prevent economic crisis. Turn on C-SPAN now.”

I don't care if this makes me seem like a bad person; and I have nothing but respect for Congresswoman Gifford, and I don't doubt her free agency...but that...that was nothing BUT political theatre. It was a ridiculously calculated strategy, obviously planned, and I'm ashamed of the Democrats for doing it. I really am.

I am ashamed of this entire process. We have embarrassed our nation in front of the world, and for what? For a procedural vote that should have been a no-brainer. Our president, our economy, and our people were held hostage, and in the end...we negotiated with the hostage takers and gave them enough that they quit fingering the trigger...but they haven't let the hostage go. They'll never let the hostages go now that they know it works better to keep one.

My first presidential election was 1984. Since then, there have been a lot of elections. And in almost every election since the beginning, I've been voting *against* a candidate, rather than voting *for* a candidate. I voted *for* Obama. Hell, I volunteered for him. In an area where I may have been the only Leftist for miles. I believed him. No, I believed *in* him. Despite being way too old, I fell for his marketing; hook, line, and sinker. I believed him when he talked about single payer. I believed him when he said he would bring the troops home. I believed him when he said he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts. I believed in Hope. I believed in Change.

And maybe that's why I'm so angry, and embarrassed and ashamed. I believed in a marketing campaign. And I've come to realize that if the current system stays as is, that's the best we can ever hope for. There will be no anti-corporatist that ever hears Hail To The Chief when she walks in the room. The poor will never have a voice, and the middle class will find itself silenced next. Mostly because they'll be poor.

It's all theatre and show and our votes don't change the backroom deals. Only the zealots and saints have been immune to the siren song of the corporate sponsored permanent legislative job. We can't fix it, only they can...and they won't. We the people...we're screwed.
posted by dejah420 at 6:23 PM on August 1, 2011 [22 favorites]


I've been voting *against* a candidate, rather than voting *for* a candidate. I voted *for* Obama. Hell, I volunteered for him. In an area where I may have been the only Leftist for miles. I believed him. No, I believed *in* him. Despite being way too old, I fell for his marketing; hook, line, and sinker. I believed him when he talked about single payer. I believed him when he said he would bring the troops home. I believed him when he said he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts. I believed in Hope. I believed in Change.

You are describing my experience exactly. Literally exactly. One of the worst things about Obama is that he and his campaign have eliminated the very last vestiges of idealism that I ever had with regard to the political process. It's going to be very hard for me to believe any Democratic presidential candidate at this point. They'll have to come from outside for me to vote again.

I won't be voting for him next election. And no, I do not care if a Republican takes office. I really don't. I am not accepting "less worse" anymore . I suspect that I am very much not alone in this attitude but the next election will tell (cue ironmouth )
posted by Poet_Lariat at 6:36 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Will he be making Chicago style pizza the only kind of pizza? I could get behind that.

When he was campaigning, it was all Chicago blues and Chicago hot dogs and Chicago Manual of Style.

But if the only thing Hitler-Coup-Style-Obama can deliver is this soggy, warmed-over Chicago pizza initiative, I might as well vote for Chairman-for-Life Romney.

Then again, when I need to see the doctor, I don't want to have to go to Massachusetts.
posted by box at 6:43 PM on August 1, 2011


On the other hand, Giffords looks well and everyone seemed genuinely happy to see her and have something positive to cap off this hideous process. You can't blame them.

This much I agree with. Why not a manufactured happy ending to a manufactured crisis? It's only fitting.
posted by absalom at 6:43 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


I am so, so, so, so confused as to why anyone would willingly put up with Lyndon LaRouche. I have no idea what he offers his followers.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:58 PM on August 1, 2011


I think the press are really getting a pass here.

They should be reporting, not regurgitating every talking point that comes into the news room. Instead of pretending there are two sides to every issue, they should be smacking down anyone they give free, public air time to that tries to bullshit the public. The response to statements like "We can't raise the debt ceiling because Americans are sick and tired of Obama's spending" should be "What the fuck are you talking about?" John Boehner should not even be able to consider saying that he's "stuck his neck out and given Democrats a mile" any more than he should be able to consider saying he believes in unicorns, for fear of being asked "What the fuck are you talking about?"

A handful of people have convinced many of the Tea Party rank-and-file to vote against their best interests not just because they watch Fox News, but because everywhere else they look those views are given equal weight, so there is no need for critical thinking. I'm not saying don't invite the tea party to the table -- hell, invite everyone to the table -- but once someone is sitting down they should be required to discuss their positions within a framework of reality. People who lie and obfuscate -- on either side -- do not deserve the credibility it takes to become fodder for comedians.

I know that the problem with the press goes back a very long time and is much more complicated than journalistic laziness, and they are not to blame for the current state of political affairs. I'm not even sure that we will ever be able to undo the concentration of corporate media that is at the root of the problem. But they are a part of the problem, and I thought it was worth highlighting before we got to the 3000 comment mark.

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but I don't really think that contrails (even X-shaped contrails!) are part of a government plot. You know why? Because the only place I've heard them discussed in earnest is on Art Bell's shows.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:06 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


Dejah420: I have nothing but respect for Congresswoman Gifford, and I don't doubt her free agency...but that...that was nothing BUT political theatre.

I can understand how you, and some others here feel. This process has been grueling to say the least, but theater and spectacle has always been a part of the political process, even now more than ever I think, and it's incredible how it breeds it's own reality. I'm glad she was there. I'm glad she's doing much better and that she's going to get to continue her career, and I would guess she will be a real force for good, in a place Arizona, that desperately needs centrists to balance out the crazypants.

P_L: I won't be voting for him next election. And no, I do not care if a Republican takes office. I really don't.

Sorry, but this is just defeatism. I think it's important to keep ones perspective here. Obama has been in office 2 and a half years. Think about that. You're going to judge his entire presidency and sit on your hands in 2012 and let these insane extremist bastards who held the country hostage, scared the fuck out of people, threatened their 401k's, riled the markets all on some built up lie of how their "America" and their "way of life" is under threat from Obama?

They have thrown EVERYTHING at this president they can get their hands on, and yet, he still accomplishes things and still gets things done, granted there haven't been any huge perfect wins, but he's always somehow found the middle way and stymied his most ardent opponents.

This is like saying people should've judged FDR's complete tenure as president in 1935 (Sworn in 1933), or Reagan was a completely knowable quantity in 1983.

It doesn't make any sense. It's defeatist and it's the kind of talk that gives comfort to dickhead psycho's on the Right. And fuck it, if I'm going to do that.

The GOTP is in decline and this episode has manifested huge fissures in their caucus. Boehner is politically compromised and I will be surprised if he's able to get his house in order, because the only person I really see happy about this Eric Cantor who is grinning like a fool knowing he's got an inside track on the Speakership whether that's 2012 or 2016 or 2020 remains to be seen, but he's a young guy so time is on his side.

This is really it. 2012 must belong to the Democrats and that means everyone needs to be back out there, me and you and everyone unless we want to see the nation turn into something out of a bad sci-fi novel as things crumble, the wealthy become wealthier and the promise of basic dignity for everyone in the country goes out the window on the idea that some deserve it and some do not, depending on how much they worship capital and a decadent phony extremist idea that is the American version of Fascism known as America Exceptionalism. Which really ought to be subtitled: The Rise of a Plutocracy.

The Tea Taliban has throw down the gauntlet here, and they know know that their despicable behavior here might be the beginning of a new way of retaining power for a small ignorant and racist minority who will follow them over a cliff if need be.

What's happened here is an incredibly BAD precedent, and I don't know how it's going to be countered in the future, if it's not dealt with NOW. These folks need to be identified, isolated and removed from office. Period. There's nothing to debate, because debate is not part of their skill set, neither is compromise or even basic respect for the office of the presidency AND the people, like you, like me, who voted for him.

Obama won by a greater percentage than any president since Reagan and so this extremist minority basically don't care about that one iota. The narrative is that this was some kind of mistake and they need to "right that" any way possible, and really if anyone is an aberration of lies and manipulation it is the Tea Party itself, who does not identify with or care a thing about huge swaths of the country's growing demographics.

Give these guys, these lowest common denominator terrorists the upper hand.

NO. FUCKING. WAY.

They need to be voted out and gotten as far the fuck away from elected office as possible.



OBAMA 2012
posted by Skygazer at 7:21 PM on August 1, 2011 [6 favorites]


Skygazer says, "Sorry, but this is just defeatism. I think it's important to keep ones perspective here. Obama has been in office 2 and a half years. Think about that. You're going to judge his entire presidency and sit on your hands in 2012 and let these insane extremist bastards who held the country hostage, scared the fuck out of people, threatened their 401k's, riled the markets all on some built up lie of how their "America" and their "way of life" is under threat from Obama?"

Why vote for a faux Republican when you can vote for the real thing? If you were not happy with Bush 43 then I can't see how you can ask people (especially progressives) to continue supporting Obama. He can't eat his cake and have it too.
posted by RedShrek at 7:32 PM on August 1, 2011


So "us against them" and "go team!" is all you got? That might work for a Tea Bagger or perhaps a 16 year old. But I'm over 50. I've seen and heard this , quite literally, for decades. That's not going to work for someone like me. Ask furiousgeorge and see if you convinced him just there , or Dejah...or ...probably some millions who, like me , decided that Obama just spent his last penny of political credibility . If he had stood up here and won some real concessions here today even with all the crap that has gone on before, he would have had my vote. But not after today. I simply will not vote for a Democrat in the presidential elections next election and no divisive nonsense, fear mongering or rallying around the Donkey is going to change that. That's just weak at this point.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:32 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I simply will not vote for a Democrat in the presidential elections next election and no divisive nonsense, fear mongering or rallying around the Donkey is going to change that. That's just weak at this point.


That is the same as voting for a Republican. If you don't believe me, just ask 1.5 million dead Iraqis.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:41 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


...probably some millions who, like me , decided that Obama just spent his last penny of political credibility . If he had stood up here and won some real concessions here today even with all the crap that has gone on before, he would have had my vote. But not after today. I simply will not vote for a Democrat in the presidential elections next election and no divisive nonsense, fear mongering or rallying around the Donkey is going to change that. That's just weak at this point.

Nah, I think you're just weak at this point. Sorry, but if you think Obama's gone off the rails here into complete capitulation, I think you were probably already looking for a reason to stop supporting the guy and maybe the BS Fox news narrative is beginning to sound good for you.

Obama said this many times: Voting for him wasn't the end all and be all, it, and the real work in changing this country around was just beginning.

He can't embody your ideals and political feelings, no one can. That's all you, and it comes from inside and if you're ready to give up those ideals then perhaps it's you that was putting a little too much external wishful thinking on him as a sort of grand defining symbol of some sort, in which case that's a superficial element. A fade of sorts.

Romney embodies your ideals and hopes for the future, by all means do what you think is right, but don't tell me you were ever a real Democrat. As I won't believe you.
posted by Skygazer at 7:42 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Why vote for a faux Republican when you can vote for the real thing?

Was Bill Clinton a faux Republican? Who was the last "non-faux" Republican to win the Democratic nomination? Who was the last non-faux Republican to win the Presidency?

Seriously, you hand the country over to our enemies.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:43 PM on August 1, 2011


Ohhhh.... scary enemies.... boo!
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:44 PM on August 1, 2011


That is the same as voting for a Republican. If you don't believe me, just ask 1.5 million dead Iraqis.

I asked them, they said the war was only possible with the help of votes from Democratic legislators like our current Secretary of State and to stop using them as political props.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:45 PM on August 1, 2011 [5 favorites]


I think you were probably already looking for a reason to stop supporting the guy and maybe the BS Fox news narrative is beginning to sound good for you.

What reason would an Obama supporter have to begin looking for a reason to stop supporting him?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm curious as to how you explain it.
posted by Trurl at 7:48 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm disappointed in this bill, too, but it's been an hour. I'm going to wait to see what the fallout is before writing him and/or the entire Democratic Party off in 2012. I'm also inclined to think that 2nd-term Obama would be more aggressive than 1st-term Obama.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:54 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Krusty is coming.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:56 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think you were probably already looking for a reason to stop supporting the guy and maybe the BS Fox news narrative is beginning to sound good for you.

I don't think he believes any Fox News narrative. He stopped supporting Obama long ago. He honest, we just disagree massively.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:09 PM on August 1, 2011


On what planet was Obama going to win this fight? Do you really think that increased revenue through tax expenditure reform was going to get through the House? Do you really think Obama going "Fuck You! 14th Amendment baby!" or "Look at these giant Platinum coins!" were effective negotiating strategies?

Really?

So basically you wanted him to descend to the level of the Republicans and take a chance on a hail mary pass that in the end could've done just as much if not more damage to the economy? A stunt that would've branded him as an "angry black socialist"?

No Obama presented what he'd like in calm rational manner. He knew he wasn't going to get what we wanted, but fighting in an overly aggressive manner would just increase solidarity on the Republican ranks. He let the Republicans try to overreach and exposed massive fissures in their caucus. Fissures that can be exploited during the next election and in future negotiations.

In the end he got this issue taken off the table until after the election, he avoided default, he looked like the bigger man, and he exposed the tea party for the lunatics they are.

Further because Boehner had to deliver his caucus for this deal democrats in liberal districts can campaign against this deal and appeal to their voters. In contrast Republicans voting for this deal are going to be hammered by CFG primaries which should leech some of their cash advantages.

I'm not going to say this is a winner of a deal but from an electoral stand point it's actually pretty decent.

I'm not going to tell you guys not to be upset with Obama. I'm not even going to tell you to vote for him. That's up to you're own personal conscience. If you think that Romney is going to represent your interests better vote for him, or Perry or Bachmann or Nader. It's okay to be disillusioned, it's okay to be frustrated, it's okay to want Obama to pay for his "betrayal".

Honestly, I was never under any illusions that Obama was going to be some great liberal crusader so the idea that he's not living up to expectations hasn't really been that big of a problem for me. For me he's been a useful stopgap to allow liberal justices to retire, to advance the ball on a variety of social issues, and frankly to end 8 years of absolute corruption of the presidency.

He's inherited a fuckton of messes from the previous administration and has one of the most hostile opposition parties in recent history, yet he's still been able to advance the ball on a variety of issues. Sure he's authoritarian, is pretty much a total hawk on defense, and has failed to deliver a Gitmo closure but on the other hand he's delivered something in regards to health care reform as well as passed a variety of other legislation. I'm not sure many people could've done better given the circumstances.
posted by vuron at 8:09 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Some writer for the Nation on the Ed Show told Rev. Sharpton that Obama should have stopped sending Social Security checks last month to "prepare" for a potential default.

Talk about out of touch with reality.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:14 PM on August 1, 2011


On what planet was Obama going to win this fight?

There are several. Greenwalderaan, Joebeeseooine, and the forest moon of Kosdor, not to mention the Ice-Planet Firedoglakeoth.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:16 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


What reason would an Obama supporter have to begin looking for a reason to stop supporting him?

It shouldn't. So it doesn't really jibe with me that Obama's done anything here so egregious as to require this inflexible and complete disillusionment. He made the best of a truly fucked up situation and it's not even entirely clear how this is fully going to shake out. There's some good things and some bad things, sure revenue increases for the wealthy is hard to swallow, but to simply be of the opinion even from as early as last week that OBAMA HAS COMPLETED GIVEN EVERYTHING UP!!! And then to continue with that hysteria here now when the ink hasn't even dried yet, or hell, I don't think the ink has even been applied yet, strikes me as strange, and suggestive of other factors or opinions informing that attitude.

Regardless of how analytical and supposedly objective and uncompromising one might be, there still needs to be some gestation.

Absolute statements of intent such as those made by some commenter's here just don't seem genuine to me without as I said something else going on to inform it.
posted by Skygazer at 8:16 PM on August 1, 2011


there still needs to be some gestation.

Nuh...uh... I'm not waiting for the chestburster to mature. I want that damn facehugger off of me right now!
posted by Poet_Lariat at 8:32 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm frustrated with Obama too. But, I still believe I like the result we got with Biden initiating the negotiations and scouting out the terrain than if it had been McCain as President and Palin doing the initial discussions with congress. I'm all for seeing a real primary challenge to Obama from the left. But, when he eventually wins the nomination, I also would rather see him as president than anyone in the Republican field. Meanwhile, work at the local level to elect politicians who align with your views, build their credibility and promote them to higher levels.

Or clean the guns and chill the ammo. Either sounds more productive to me than just walking away and taking the view that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. If their really weren't a difference we wouldn't have a congress where you can tell what party a member is from purely by their statistical voting record.
posted by meinvt at 8:33 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Just today we're celebrating that HCR hs lead to a number of medications being made available without copays. The auto industry was saved along with a lot of union jobs. The consumer protection bureau is operational as part of financial industry regulation. DADT was repealed. Obama has not played very hand perfectly and hasn't won every battle, but the country has made measurable progress in the right dierction. Perhaps he isn't that effective, and others would be more so. Find someone who can carry the elction and advance your agenda, until then I'm sticking wth him and the democratic party.
posted by humanfont at 8:38 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


I wonder if the Red State forums have this kind of infighting.the Red State forums have this kind of infighting. I doubt it. Makes me sad.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:43 PM on August 1, 2011


Ironmouth wrote, "Was Bill Clinton a faux Republican? Who was the last "non-faux" Republican to win the Democratic nomination? Who was the last non-faux Republican to win the Presidency?

Seriously, you hand the country over to our enemies."


Bill Clinton was the one who perfected the art of Democrats pretending to be Republicans. The big saving grace Bill Clinton had was the economy. You also had cuts under him but we had revenue coming in to balance things out.

I don't view Republicans/Tea party members/chamber of commerce types as my enemies. That said, we've had a President that has expanded the war in Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen. A President who tacitly allowed the increasing militarization of civilian intelligence. A President who has never met a drone fired Hellfire missile he didn't like. A President who reauthorized the Patriot Act. A President that has sough tout ways to keep US Troops in Iraq despite a SOFA that was agreed to by the previous Administration and the Maliki government. A President that steadfastly refused to bring anyone from the previous administration to account over the use of torture. A President that has expanded the use of harsh tactics against whistle blowers. A President that stood by and allowed a next to useless Frank-Dodd act come into being and then stood by as the one agency being stood up to look out for consumers was gutted before it even found its feet. A President who was so reluctant to get people like Dawn Johnson into the OLC and Anthony Zinni in as the US Ambassador to Iraq. A President that has shown he is not interested in being a fair player in negotiating between the Palestinians and the Israelis. A President who refused to go to bat for the LGBT community that really supported him. A President who has presided over the largest number of deportations in recent times.

Look at all these wonderful things I'd be missing out on if we had a Republican President.
posted by RedShrek at 8:45 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


I wonder if the Red State forums have this kind of infighting.the Red State forums have this kind of infighting. I doubt it. Makes me sad.

They have a lot of ideological bannings.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:48 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Humanfront wrote, "Just today we're celebrating that HCR hs lead to a number of medications being made available without copays. The auto industry was saved along with a lot of union jobs. The consumer protection bureau is operational as part of financial industry regulation. DADT was repealed. Obama has not played very hand perfectly and hasn't won every battle, but the country has made measurable progress in the right dierction. Perhaps he isn't that effective, and others would be more so. Find someone who can carry the elction and advance your agenda, until then I'm sticking wth him and the democratic party."

I'll grant you HCR and the auto industry bailouts. What I won't grant you are the following:
- The Consumer Protection Agency is already being gutted and neutered even before it's been able to take flight.

- 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.


Look, there are a lot of people who are unemployed. These people needed him and Congress to focus on unemployment. He did not do that. Shoot, working age black males are dealing with depression era type unemployment numbers and you tell me we have moved in the right direction. That's nonsense sir.
posted by RedShrek at 8:53 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


Newsflash: American people woefully uninformed about American political process. And we always have been.

If Barack Obama was a great liberal crusader, we'd be exactly where we are now. The President can barely cross the street without the consent of the legislature, let alone write or enact policy.

I honestly have no idea where Barack Obama currently stands on domestic issues, because the President's role in these decisions comes down to his decision to veto or not to veto the laws passed by the legislature. The nuances of this power require careful negotiations in order to actually affect policy outcomes, especially with regard to time-sensitive issues, where the Veto pen could guarantee an unthinkable "do nothing" alternative. The President has a surprisingly small amount of political capital with the legislature (especially a fractured one), and he needs to use it carefully on issues that he feels are important. He's not going to reveal his entire hand at once.

We elected a president. Not a king. It's time that Obama's supporters and opponents both recognize that.
posted by schmod at 8:57 PM on August 1, 2011 [6 favorites]


The big saving grace Bill Clinton had was the economy. You also had cuts under him but we had revenue coming in to balance things out.

Obama didn't have the ability to only raise taxes on the top bracket. It would have been filibustered. Sure, he could have let all the taxes go, but it would have meant a tax increase from 10% to 15% on the lowest income earners. That's a 50% raise during a recession. Not good. So he traded a 2-year punt for a lot of good things. Guess who will be president no matter what, on Dec. 31, 2012? Obama. Even if he loses he can veto any attempts to extend the cuts. He has no incentive not to. He'll either be reelected or done.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:57 PM on August 1, 2011


Also, Obama asked that the House raise taxes on the top 2% of earners before the 2010 election. You know who refused to put a vote on the calendar? Nancy Pelosi.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:00 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


So who's going to be end up in the Super Congress? Maybe the middle class could just pool its meager funds together and preemptively buy off those 12 people.
posted by dialetheia at 9:01 PM on August 1, 2011 [4 favorites]


Sure, he could have let all the taxes go, but it would have meant a tax increase from 10% to 15% on the lowest income earners. That's a 50% raise during a recession. Not good. So he traded a 2-year punt for a lot of good things. Guess who will be president no matter what, on Dec. 31, 2012? Obama. Even if he loses he can veto any attempts to extend the cuts. He has no incentive not to. He'll either be reelected or done.

So the recession is over in the second part of that paragraph?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:03 PM on August 1, 2011


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.

You may believe that he should have just unilaterally stopped enforcing these laws, rather than push for Congress to repeal them, but it's simply not the case that he suddenly evolved on these issues just as they were about to be pushed over the cusp.
posted by Flunkie at 9:06 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


@Ironmouth

Spending cuts in a recession aren't a good thing either. That said, you clearly have faith in Mr. Obama and I can't hate on you for that. I never believed his hype even to the point of near ridicule from other black people. I gave him a fair audition and I can say that I'd rather vote for John Huntsman than for Mr. Obama. I really hope your faith in the President isn't dashed at the end.
posted by RedShrek at 9:08 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


- 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 ending DADT. And delivered. He had his military chiefs up there fighting for it all last summer. Please, the facts are important here.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:09 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Just today we're celebrating that HCR hs lead to a number of medications being made available without copays.

Yes, the plan we copied from Romney.

The auto industry was saved along with a lot of union jobs.

No chance in hell McCain lets them fail, would be terrible for the economy and his chances to be elected again.

The consumer protection bureau is operational as part of financial industry regulation.

Mostly toothless.

DADT was repealed

Log Cabin Republicans would have accomplished it instead.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:12 PM on August 1, 2011


Spending cuts in a recession aren't a good thing either.

I agree 100%. But the House of Representatives must originate every single budget bill under the Constitution. I don't see how we can act like these facts aren't true.

Huntsman supported this bill. I don't see how he could be anything but worse.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:15 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ironmouth wrote, "Obama campaigned on ending DADT. And delivered. He had his military chiefs up there fighting for it all last summer. Please, the facts are important here."

He may have campaigned on it and talked about it but I repeat he had nothing to do with it eventually going away (pending the fulfillment of the 60 day wait period). No one group or person worked as hard and as tirelessly to repeal DADT as the Service members Legal Defense Network
posted by RedShrek at 9:19 PM on August 1, 2011


I'd still support Huntsman, his support of this bill notwithstanding. I mean c'mon, the guy shares a name with one of Australia's most bitching spiders. How can you not like him?
posted by RedShrek at 9:21 PM on August 1, 2011


The consumer protection bureau is operational as part of financial industry regulation.

Mostly toothless.


Explain specifically, how it is mostly toothless. I clerked in the Enforcement Division of the SEC and have a fair bit of knowledge on the subject, so get as technical as you like in your analysis.

DADT was repealed

Log Cabin Republicans would have accomplished it instead.


You go from castigating Obama for caving in to the GOP to assuming that the Log Cabin Republicans would be able to overcome the massive control that the Tea Party has over the House. The only thing your positions have in common is hating Barack Obama.<
posted by Ironmouth at 9:23 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Ironmouth wrote, "Obama campaigned on ending DADT. And delivered. He had his military chiefs up there fighting for it all last summer. Please, the facts are important here."

He may have campaigned on it and talked about it but I repeat he had nothing to do with it eventually going away (pending the fulfillment of the 60 day wait period). No one group or person worked as hard and as tirelessly to repeal DADT as the Service members Legal Defense Network


Uh, the President ordered the Joint Cheifs to the Hill to testify on the matter, and with the exception of the Marines, they all did. He also ordered SecDef to push for the law. Obama was instrumental in getting this passed and if he had passively sat there instead of pushing it, it would not have become law. It only overcame a potential filibuster because he dealt for it in the deal to extend the tax cuts for 2 years. There is simply no support in the record for your position.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:29 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


1. Understaffed and lacking in leadership without Warren.

2. Because they won in court, which you know, but then you couldn't drop in your asinine strawman about Obama hate.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:30 PM on August 1, 2011


Obama campaigned on getting DADT repealed.

Obama's really good at saying one thing and doing another. Gay advocates aren't fooled.

But we could go on all evening with you bring up all the things Obama said that he would do and me posting links saying that he hadn't actually done them. In the meantime unemployment is inching past 16%, Medicare cuts are on the table in 5 more months and Bush tax cuts as well as corporate tax loopholes are off the table. Oh yeah and recent economic growth is even worse than we had thought. Those are the realities. yeah obama.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 9:32 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


meinvt wrote: Either sounds more productive to me than just walking away and taking the view that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. If their really weren't a difference we wouldn't have a congress where you can tell what party a member is from purely by their statistical voting record.

I think it's funny that we lambast the right for forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression while many of us forget the lesson we learned after the election in 2000 about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
posted by wierdo at 9:49 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


RedShrek wrote: Look, there are a lot of people who are unemployed. These people needed him and Congress to focus on unemployment. He did not do that.

I seem to remember him giving up what could have been a huge win for the budget situation to keep unemployment benefits coming for the long-term unemployed.
posted by wierdo at 9:51 PM on August 1, 2011


Via tax cuts for the rich that are doing long term damage to our ability to pay for things like unemployment.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:54 PM on August 1, 2011


In the meantime unemployment is inching past 16%...

This is what puzzles me about the reaction from Obama supporters.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that his re-election is important. How do you not see this deal as a setback to that cause?

He needed as much economic recovery by 2012 as possible. Even if the worst harm from these cuts is pushed past then, they are still an extra handicap when he can least afford it.

If David Plouffe thinks the independents will tolerate those kinds of jobless numbers because Obama was "serious about the deficit", I think he will be unpleasantly surprised.
posted by Trurl at 9:54 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Alan Cummings sure looks stupid less than a year later. You quote him from October 2010 when many activists were questioning the legislative approach Obama had taken. Yet here we are less than a year later and DADT is repealed and DOMA is teetering and undefended.
posted by humanfont at 9:57 PM on August 1, 2011


2. Because they won in court, which you know, but then you couldn't drop in your asinine strawman about Obama hate

Uh, they won in District Court. Its 4 years until it gets to the Supremes. I love how this alleged "win" in court, months after the policy was fully and legally repealed is used to somehow "erase" a legitimate win for Obama. Obama already took the political risks and won that. That's just pathetic. The legislative approach is the best way. It cannot be denied that a majority of the citzen's reps voted that in. It provides massive legitimacy that a court decision cannot.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:03 PM on August 1, 2011


I seem to remember him giving up what could have been a huge win for the budget situation to keep unemployment benefits coming for the long-term unemployed.

Funny I remember him having nothing at all to do with that. What I do remember (and I remember this very clearly is that congress , who still had a majority in both houses last December, caved into Republican threats of a Senate fillibuster on extended benefits unless the Senate agreed to pass the Bush "temporary tax cuts". Something that Obama could have declared that he would veto - but did not.

I distinctly remember that the Democratic Senate , instead of saying "Ok, you're on - play that tune!" and forcing the Democratic Senate to run into session over the Christmas and New Year holiday season , instead said , "OK, tax cuts for the wealthy it is!" and took a nice holiday season instead. They caved to only a threat of a filibuster - and because they caved we are in the default situation we are in now - which we would not have been in if they had a pair and stood their ground. Everyone knows that Republicans could not keep extended unemployment benefits from happenning - there would have been rioting in the streets.

Our differing recollections of events probably account for our respective degree of loyalty to the Democrats.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:04 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Our differing recollections of events probably account for our respective degree of loyalty to the Democrats.

Obama asked arch-liberal Pelosi to push the tax cut bill before the election. She refused. Had she not, we could have saved the House.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:08 PM on August 1, 2011


2. Because they won in court, which you know, but then you couldn't drop in your asinine strawman about Obama hate

Uh, they won in District Court. Its 4 years until it gets to the Supremes.


Is the court decision wrong? No? So it's still getting repealed by them just take a bit longer.

I love how this alleged "win" in court, months after the policy was fully and legally repealed is used to somehow "erase" a legitimate win for Obama.

Jesus Christ dude, stop making shit up to shove into my mouth as if I said it. If you have no argument just back down. I said, "Log Cabin Republicans would have accomplished it instead." I didn't say he didn't do it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:09 PM on August 1, 2011


Obama asked arch-liberal Pelosi to push the tax cut bill before the election. She refused. Had she not, we could have saved the House

"Arch-liberal", wtf??? You could at least stay on message .
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:12 PM on August 1, 2011


Everyone knows that Republicans could not keep extended unemployment benefits from happenning - there would have been rioting in the streets.

Really? You are the farthest possible distance out from the elections because you just won the election and took control of the House? Rioting in the streets?

Do you think the Tea Party would have cared if there was "rioting in the streets?" First, I don't believe there would be, second, they would have relished the fight.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:13 PM on August 1, 2011


Jesus Christ dude, stop making shit up to shove into my mouth as if I said it. If you have no argument just back down. I said, "Log Cabin Republicans would have accomplished it instead." I didn't say he didn't do it.

Then what was the point of bringing it up?
posted by Ironmouth at 10:23 PM on August 1, 2011


Ironmouth, it's pretty simple. The Democratic Senate caved in only to a threat of a filibuster. Obama never provided the leadership to say, "This is unacceptable! I'll veto extending those cuts" . It was that lack of foresight by both the Democratic Senate and Obama that directly led to the holding the economy hostage crisis that we were in today. Those are the facts.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:25 PM on August 1, 2011 [2 favorites]


To point out that something that will be accomplished by unelected Republicans anyway does not truly belong on a list of reasons that one should stick with Democrats.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:28 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Poet_Lariat wrote: They caved to only a threat of a filibuster - and because they caved we are in the default situation we are in now - which we would not have been in if they had a pair and stood their ground. Everyone knows that Republicans could not keep extended unemployment benefits from happenning - there would have been rioting in the streets.

Uh, all not extending the Bush cuts on the over $250,000 set would have done is delayed the need for the debt ceiling increase, it would not have forestalled it more than a few months. Restoration of Clinton-era tax levels is not enough to eliminate the deficit. That would require rolling back much of the spending increases and somehow pumping life into the economy without stimulus, since you've set this condition that we not have hit the debt ceiling.

"Everyone" seems to know a lot of things, too bad "everyone" is often wrong.
posted by wierdo at 10:29 PM on August 1, 2011


What she means is that the viability of the hostage taking strategy would have been called into question.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:30 PM on August 1, 2011


all not extending the Bush cuts on the over $250,000 set would have done is delayed the need for the debt ceiling increase, it would not have forestalled it more than a few months

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you Weirdo. Their analysis says that extending the cuts increased the deficit by 2.6 trillion over the next ten years. That's about 3 times the deficit reduction that we achieved this week
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:35 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Or she means that, but that is conflating all the tax cuts with the over $250,000 numbers again.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:41 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Obama never provided the leadership to say, "This is unacceptable! I'll veto extending those cuts" .

And what would have happened if he had, genius?
posted by raysmj at 10:42 PM on August 1, 2011


And what would have happened if he had, genius?

2.6 trillion deficit savings. I don't think you need a genius to spell out what that would have meant for this week.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:46 PM on August 1, 2011


He would have done it or he would have backed down later, the threat still would have been nice. He has since made it a similar threat, so time will tell.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:47 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm glad you can see the future. We should elect you to office, since you know everything. I'm ticked with the president over foreign policy, but in domestic policy, the US Presidency is a glorified clerkship. Go read, organize, vote, urge reform, but enough of the I-know-everything-about-everything-in-domestic-politics-and-dealing-with-two-chambers-in-an-independent-branch punditry game, thanks.
posted by raysmj at 10:52 PM on August 1, 2011


Well George, with millions of people's unemployment about to expire the Republicans couldn't have held up that bill for very long, don't you think? The press and the polls would have killed them for doing that. But now , we will be in exactly the same situation next December 23rd when Catfood Commission II takes effect and , coincidentally enough unemployment benefit extensions will expire. So we are pretty much in exactly the same position we were before (or will be in 5 months) - except we've given up things like student loans and various services to the poor - without a single cent of revenue increase.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:52 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


raysmj, the tax cut expiry was automatic. If Obama held firm on veto there is no doubt they would be gone. There is plenty of room to debate if that is a good idea, but not if it would have happened or not under those circumstances.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:54 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm glad you can see the future.

So talk to me....tell me why you personally believe that extending those tax increases which benefited mostly the already well off, was worth the 2.6 trillion hit to the economy. Tell me what you're thinking.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:55 PM on August 1, 2011


You're making that connection, not me. You're seeing the future in hindsight.
posted by raysmj at 10:59 PM on August 1, 2011


Making what connection? I have no idea what you mean by that at all. You brought up the fact that you seemed to think that not extending the tax cuts would have made no difference and I responded. I'm really not sure what your point is right now.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:02 PM on August 1, 2011


Forgive me if I didn't see your post about how the GOP would spent weeks rejecting even vastly larger, clearly larger cuts than this, going back-and-forth in the House, rejecting the Speaker's own wishes, etc., etc. If you put all this in some earlier post, I'd love to see it.
posted by raysmj at 11:03 PM on August 1, 2011


Poet_Lariat wrote:
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you Weirdo. Their analysis says that extending the cuts increased the deficit by 2.6 trillion over the next ten years. That's about 3 times the deficit reduction that we achieved this week


Yeah, the deficit is a lot bigger than that. As I said, the battle just would have been fought a little later.
posted by wierdo at 11:05 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm arguing that you're arguing from hindsight, that's all. And no, I don't see the direct connection anyway. If the president had nominally won, they'd still be trying to drag him down in some other way, still trying to drown govt. in the bathtub. 'cause that's what they do. And they control the House. Under our system, neither the president nor the Senate tell the House what to do.
posted by raysmj at 11:05 PM on August 1, 2011


I'm really not sure what you are talking about . I was talking about how the Democratic Senate caved in to only a threat of a filibuster on extending unemployment benefits last December and added a rider to the unemployment bill to extend the Bush tax cuts as well. Not sure what you are talking about but.... uhhh... good luck :)
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:07 PM on August 1, 2011


Unless of course the govt. programs they like are in the bathtub. Disclaimer there. But the Tea Partiers would've demanded $6 trillion in cuts this July, would've found some reason for screaming about it. (And then they'd have rejected an $8 trillion-in-cuts offer, eventually accepted $4 trillion of vaguely-defined-in-the-future-after-this-special-committee-meets cuts.)
posted by raysmj at 11:08 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am talking about those. None of that led to this. THIS was caused by Republican ideological coherence and a disposition to compromise, likely would have happened regardless of what happened in December.
posted by raysmj at 11:10 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


indisposition, rather.
posted by raysmj at 11:11 PM on August 1, 2011


Yeah, the deficit is a lot bigger than that. As I said, the battle just would have been fought a little later.

Actually since the savings are over 3 times the current savings that we received this week. And since the current savings are to last us 5 months.... that would mean that the debt limit issue would not have been reached until the next election cycle (which means that what we experienced today would not have happened at all and not until the next election was over) . The significance of that speaks for itself.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:12 PM on August 1, 2011


I am talking about those. None of that led to this.

Actually all of that led to this. You do understand that if we were 2.6 trillion under the mandated debt limit then this whole debt limit issue would not have happened, right? The debt limit would not have been an issue for at least 15 more months. So yeah, extending those Bush era tax cuts last December led directly to today.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:14 PM on August 1, 2011


You're basing everything on the assumption that Republicans would have caved in and extended unemployment insurance. Everything we have witnessed over the past few years tells us that you're wrong; they would happily have allowed unemployment insurance to terminate.
posted by Justinian at 11:15 PM on August 1, 2011 [3 favorites]


Exactly! And they STILL would've pulled the ridiculous, shameful stunts of the past month, only higher figures would've been involved.
posted by raysmj at 11:18 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'd be interested in a cite for that Justinian. Can you name any instances where Republicans have actually voted and stopped U.S. funding unemployment benefits from occurring? A single cite would do. Thanks :)
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:18 PM on August 1, 2011


Well I'm off to bed. Good luck with that cite Justinian!
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:20 PM on August 1, 2011


We've only had the Tea Party in office over the past frickin' year. Any comparison with past GOP Congresses would be misleading. We do have plenty of GOP candidates on the record as being against unemployment insurance, however, and basically equating it with "welfare" (which is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
posted by raysmj at 11:22 PM on August 1, 2011




Well I'm off to bed. Good luck with that cite Justinian!

November 19th, 2010.

OOPS, egg on your face. Again.
posted by Justinian at 11:36 PM on August 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


(ok, November 18th. Close enough)
posted by Justinian at 11:37 PM on August 1, 2011




Poet_Lariat wrote: Actually since the savings are over 3 times the current savings that we received this week. And since the current savings are to last us 5 months.... that would mean that the debt limit issue would not have been reached until the next election cycle (which means that what we experienced today would not have happened at all and not until the next election was over) . The significance of that speaks for itself

How do you figure we get to two trillion under the debt ceiling in 9 months of not having the Bush tax cuts when they only forgo a little over $200 billion a year* in revenue? (at least in this shitty economy) We're burning an average of $125 billion a month this year. This thing would have been delayed by about a month and a half, not until after the 2012 election.

*"The proposal would extend Bush-era tax cuts for all levels of income. A two-year extension of those rates would cost $407.6 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. "
posted by wierdo at 12:10 AM on August 2, 2011


How do you figure we get to two trillion under the debt ceiling in 9 months

I'm sure you are asking a rhetorical question, but I believe it is because P_L is mistakenly applying a 10-year savings number in one year or something. It's a bit hard to follow.
posted by Justinian at 1:01 AM on August 2, 2011


I think you were probably already looking for a reason to stop supporting the guy and maybe the BS Fox news narrative is beginning to sound good for you.

What reason would an Obama supporter have to begin looking for a reason to stop supporting him?

This is not a rhetorical question. I'm curious as to how you explain it.
posted by Trurl at 7:48 PM on August 1 [+] [!]


Because people voted for their imagination of him. They believe the theory that the President is in charge of everything, and thus believed Bush was solely responsible for everything, and so when Obama didn't do everything they imagined he would, he turns into a pariah. Again, in their own minds. Now they are all sitting around feeling sorry for themselves.

The only choice was McCain or Obama. I think reasonable people agree we are better off with Obama than McCain.
posted by gjc at 7:01 AM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


What's your alternative scenario? I feel like you're railing against the fact that the GOP controls the House.

I think this is right Ironmouth. A lot of these folks really still don't get what it means to have control of the house, the body constitutionally charged with initiating budget measures, and in general, the agenda setting body for the legislative cycle. They still don't seem to get that there's an actual, formal rule-governed process that has to be followed and that this process makes it impossible for the party that doesn't control the house to effectively advance a legislative agenda of its own.

I said it right after the mid-term elections happened, and I'll say it again: In the very best case scenario, all the Dems can do with a Republican majority in the house is defend us against whatever crazy legislation the Republicans want us to spend all our time worrying about. It's up to them, like it or not, to set the agenda because that is the way the whole process is set up and no one outside of congress has any authority to change that.

The big mistake was letting the Tea Party crazies sneak in during the midterms. My FB status the day those results were final read "Fuck you too, America!" because it was a foregone conclusion to me from that moment on that we had no chance whatsoever of advancing any kind of positive agenda in Washington, with the die hard republican fringe in charge of the body that's explicitly designed to be the incubator for new legislation, in a system where the majority party literally gets to make the rules.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:11 AM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Because people voted for their imagination of him. They believe the theory that the President is in charge of everything, and thus believed Bush was solely responsible for everything, and so when Obama didn't do everything they imagined he would, he turns into a pariah. Again, in their own minds. Now they are all sitting around feeling sorry for themselves.

That right there. That's it.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:14 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Because people voted for their imagination of him. They believe the theory that the President is in charge of everything, and thus believed Bush was solely responsible for everything, and so when Obama didn't do everything they imagined he would, he turns into a pariah. Again, in their own minds. Now they are all sitting around feeling sorry for themselves.

That right there. That's it.


Spot on. Spot on.

The TV news has a whole lot to do with this--they want to concentrate on one thing or person and as a result, the President is overemphasized relative to his or her role in the Constitution. Its a legislature-dominant system. That's like guys like Jon Stewart don't get it. They see things through the lens of TV news, not how things get done. He's essentially a comic with a gift for seeing through the evasions and tropes of television news. As soon as he gets in the weeds, though he gets in trouble--such as his pronouncement that Obama lost the debt deal.

The GOP has pulled this stunt twice and burned all their political capital. The first time he sold Boehner a bill of goods which ended up cutting the deficit less than a billion dollars. The second time he promised $22 Billion in cuts by the end of his first term, when presumably, the deal is off because either the GOP will be running the show, or he will be reelected. Just as this deal rewrote the government shutdown battle, it will again be rewritten. He essentially gave up nothing. All of the objections to the deal are emotional "He put X, Y and Z on the table!" etc. They aren't about the actualities of this deal, which is an even bigger play on Boehner.

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
posted by Ironmouth at 7:31 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I said it right after the mid-term elections happened, and I'll say it again: In the very best case scenario, all the Dems can do with a Republican majority in the house is defend us against whatever crazy legislation the Republicans want us to spend all our time worrying about. It's up to them, like it or not, to set the agenda because that is the way the whole process is set up and no one outside of congress has any authority to change that.

Wow, your post is prescient.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:33 AM on August 2, 2011




Ironmouth Objecting to putting Social Security on the table, and let's not obfuscate that's what the objection is about, is hardly emotional complaints over reason.

It's exactly the same as the objection to Obama embracing Bush's torture policies. It normalizes the issue, suddenly it goes from being "that crazy stuff Republicans do" to "politics as normal, both sides do it so no worries let's keep it up!".

Once Obama said "Yup, Democrats agree that cuts to Social Security should be considered" that broke down the wall that had once existed. Now they're on the table forever. He gave the Republicans cover in their ongoing effort to destroy Social Security by any means they can.

You can argue, and I'll agree, that he probably didn't mean to do that. But the fact remains that he did.

Just as America is now a nation that tortures, and everyone is fine with it, and just as America is now a nation that tosses people into cages without bothering even with formal charges much less real trials, and everyone is fine with that, so too America is now and forever a nation where Social Security is part of budget negotiations.

And, frankly, I'm pissed that there was a "deal" at all. He should have forced this back in 2010, back when he said he trusted Boehner not to make this a fight, back when he had leverage in terms of the Bush tax cuts.

This entire fight happened because 2010 Obama was complete and total sucker. "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." He displayed a laughable trust in the civility of Republicans.

You'd have thought, after nearly two years of constant, bitter, attacks by the Republicans he'd have realized that he can't trust them. But no, and listening to his current line of drivel Obama still seems to think the Republicans are swell guys he can rely on.

Finally, I'm pissed because he didn't bother to lay the blame for this on the Republicans, he yammered about "Washington" causing worries. You and he apparently think I'm some sort of very bad person, or at least an emotional basket case, for wanting a Democratic president who actually stands up and fights the Republicans.
posted by sotonohito at 9:48 AM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


My goodness, that Democracy Now interview is astonishingly asinine.
posted by anigbrowl at 9:48 AM on August 2, 2011


It's exactly the same as the objection to Obama embracing Bush's torture policies.

That's like, your and Glenn Greenwald's opinion, man. He's not torturing anyone. You guys are looking for shit because you hate Obama.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:52 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


"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." He displayed a laughable trust in the civility of Republicans.

really, your knowledge of the President extends to reading his mind to judge how much trust he had in the Republicans? You have zero knowledge of that.

What is he sending you texts? Puh-leeze. Seriously.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:54 AM on August 2, 2011


Finally, I'm pissed because he didn't bother to lay the blame for this on the Republicans, he yammered about "Washington" causing worries. You and he apparently think I'm some sort of very bad person, or at least an emotional basket case, for wanting a Democratic president who actually stands up and fights the Republicans.

I don't think you're a bad person. I just think it is incredibly stupid to be focusing on whether or not the President makes you feel good. I mean at its core, people don't like the fact that the GOP won in 2010.

This is politics, not the West Wing which is designed to make liberals feel good.

People are drawing their own conclusion on the GOP. 20% more Americans blamed them. I think letting them think it through makes sense.

This is all about whether he makes you feel good. That's something I don't try to obtain from politicians.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:57 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


He gave the Republicans cover in their ongoing effort to destroy Social Security by any means they can.

Cover?

How about the actual results? That's the thing. No such results. None. So their attempt to do this is crushed and you act like we lose because of posturing?

Obama agreed to cut 22 billion from government spending.

The rest is back loaded to a point where it can be dealt with or we will lose so it won't matter anyway.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:00 AM on August 2, 2011


The GOP has pulled this stunt twice and burned all their political capital.

I'm going to remember you said this when the Republicans start their next round of hostage taking. They haven't burned their political capital. They already knew they had incompetent opponents in the Senate. Now they have learned that they have a sucker in the White House.
posted by vibrotronica at 10:16 AM on August 2, 2011 [6 favorites]


My knowledge of the president is what he says. I listen to what he says, and I believe it.

He said he trusted Boehner. He said he wanted to cut Social Security. If you think those were lies you're the person claiming to read his mind, not me.

As for torture, Obama implemented a plan to never, ever, investigate the torture that took place under Bush, and to aggressively prosecute the whistleblowers who let us know the torture was taking place.

There is also this: http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia

Secret CIA prisons, "rendition" to a lawless place, yup, looks like a normalization of Bush's policies to me.

Plus, of course, his declaration that 50+ of the people Bush tossed randomly into Guantanamo Bay will never, ever, get formally charged and will instead be held in prison forever on what amounts to presidential whim. Again, that's a normalization of Bush era policies. Yes, Obama isn't aggressively increasing such things. But by making doing that sort of thing OK he's setting the stage for the next Republican president, and there will be one eventually, to do worse than Bush did secure in the knowledge that a) the Democrats won't squawk, and b) the Overton window has been shifted to the point where such behavior is considered normal.

As for Social Security, yes I do think it gives them cover. Do you seriously think that the next big budget argument won't involve Republicans demanding cuts to Social Security and justifying it with the fact that Obama offered Social Security cuts himself? "Even the ultra liberal Obama...." will be the way they start every single discussion of their future proposals to cut Social Security.

I'm disturbed that you obsess over nuance when nuance can be used to justify bad action by Obama, but when nuance exemplifies bad action by Obama you see discussion of it as something pointless.

This is about the Overton window, and that matters a great deal.

When Obama said he wouldn't prosecute torturers it helped shift the Overton window further to the position that torture was ok. And America was already pretty much convinced of that to begin with.

When Obama said that he thought cutting Social Security should be an option for dealing with the deficit not only did it buy into and strengthen the continued Republican lie that Social Security contributes to the deficit, but it also shifted the Overton window towards the position that Social Security cuts should always be an option.

I'm aware that you subscribe to the idea that the US President is essentially a powerless figurehead and that seeing the president as having any influence or power whatsoever [1] is somehow the most foolish thing a person can do, but even you must admit that the President has a great deal of influence in terms of the rhetoric he uses.

We just came out of a mid-term election season where the only side that was fired up was the ultra-conservatives. Liberals turned out in roughly the same numbers they always do, but the political newbies that Obama turned on back in 2008 sat the 2010 elections out.

Don't you think, in that sort of environment, it might be a good idea for a Democratic President to lay the blame for the weeks of catastrophe mongering on the Republicans rather than taking the approach of blaming both sides? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic president ought to be firing people up about the idea of voting Democratic, and trying to convince people that voting Republican is a bad idea?

Framed properly these last few weeks have been a perfect campaign issue. But Obama seems intent on framing it improperly, he seems intent on convincing America that the Democrats are at least as much to blame for the problem as the Republicans.

And you think that's ok. In fact, you think I'm somehow foolish for objecting. Please explain.

The GOP has pulled this stunt twice and burned all their political capital.

Again with the idea that "political capitol" is a non-renewable resource, that everyone gets a set amount following an election and once they use it, it's gone.

They fought. That's what the Republican base will see: they fought and were defeated. And then they'll be even more fired up for the next fight. They'll grab the next hostage they can and use it to start a fight exactly as vicious and nasty and drawn out as this one.

The Teabaggers understand that political capitol grows when you use it. When you take action your voters say "yup, they're taking action the way I want", and they support you more.

It is by inaction, by "keeping our powder dry", by subscribing to the idea that only a very limited number of things can ever be done so it is best to simply never fight most battles that political capitol is lost.

[1] Which does make me wonder you you think it is so important to keep the office. I mean, if the President has no real power, why is it a big deal if Palin or Romney win? Care to elaborate on that?
posted by sotonohito at 10:21 AM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


sotonohito: The Teabaggers understand that political capitol grows when you use it. When you take action your voters say "yup, they're taking action the way I want", and they support you more.

What do they do if they see you've compromised with this president they find so dangerous and so egregious and unamerican, that they insist you not raise the debt limit, not even one penny?

What will they do then?

Because, as it stands, it looks like the GOTP really shafted the TP in making any deal whatsoever and Boehner is truly despised by his own party.
posted by Skygazer at 10:35 AM on August 2, 2011


They fought. That's what the Republican base will see: they fought and were defeated. And then they'll be even more fired up for the next fight. They'll grab the next hostage they can and use it to start a fight exactly as vicious and nasty and drawn out as this one.

Whereas every time the Democrats fight for something, there's a chorus of people complaining that obviously they didn't fight hard enough, because they lost, that they're a bunch of ineffective sellouts etc. But the Republicans! So dashing, so disciplined! So domineering!
posted by anigbrowl at 10:50 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know what? We need to have a bill that says "no more sunset provisions" I'm sick and tired of every x months or years or whatever, a bill comes up for renewal and then it's going to either repass easily (which is really what these provisions do) or it will be "held hostage" in an attempt to extort some concessions from the opposing team. Unfortunately, the only people who tend to play hardball by this "hostage taking" seem to be the Republicans. Maybe, maybe I'm ignorant. Can someone show where the dems have put up a fight against a renewal of a law (say, you know... the Patriot Act - and yeah - Feingold tried to get a provisions to limit the most egregious abuses of it, but I don't think he "took it hostage" per se, in order to affect some grand Machiavellian move.

But it seems hostage taking is the new M.O. of the Right Wing these days. So let's remove these sunset provisions which are a joke, and say "yes or no - do you think this is a good bill or not..." if it is, then you let it stand, no bullshit "temporary" measures which exist solely to placate the congress critters so they can say "i didn't want to pass it, but it's urgent and we can always get rid of it later" and not have their heads roll on a platter when they sell out their constituency.

But of course, we know that those who make the rules would never allow that to happen.

That doesn't mean a bill can't expire, but let's make it so that a new bill has to be voted on to end the previous bill, not just a vote to reauthorize. You could argue that making a whole new bill sets up new problems (new laws, wasted time in crafting it), but as it is now, the process of renewal isn't a simple process anyways.

IOW: Put your money where your mouth is.
posted by symbioid at 10:57 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Debt deal just passed the Senate 74-26. TPM has this postmortem of the whole thing.
posted by sparkletone at 11:13 AM on August 2, 2011


He said he trusted Boehner.

You can't really go on television and say that you don't trust the person you are negotiating with. That won't result in any kind of deal and will start a whole lot of additional media hand ringing.

As for torture, Obama implemented a plan to never, ever, investigate the torture that took place under Bush, and to aggressively prosecute the whistleblowers who let us know the torture was taking place.

He never made that a promise of his Presidential campaign. There is no statute of limitations on prosecuting torture. I say keep up the pressure. I assure you that Mitt Romney and others will NEVER meet your demands to torture these individuals.

Plus, of course, his declaration that 50+ of the people Bush tossed randomly into Guantanamo Bay will never, ever, get formally charged and will instead be held in prison forever on what amounts to presidential whim.

After congress acted to block any attempts to shutdown gitmo or resolve the issue further. What can he do? There is no funding or other political will to resolve this.

For those who think there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in the White House consider the following:

-Would Romney, Bachman etc appoint supreme court justices like Roberts and Thomas or like Kagan and Sotomeyer? We're one justice away from pushing the court leftward, if we lose the appointments between 2012-2016 we're likely to see a court that is 6-3 or 7-2 conservative.

-The Department of Energy has been aggressively working with DARPA and others to push alternative energy research. This combined with Higher CAFE standards will set us on a course for reduced consumption of fossil fuels. Remember in the late 1970s when a democratic president put us on a path towards dramatically lower fossil fuel consumption and then the Republicans came in and set our country back 3 decades.

-The EPA has been working to regulate CO2 emissions and improve environmental regulations. They've put science back in charge at EPA. Remember what happened under Bush? Do you really see no difference there?

The debt ceiling was not a battle that was particularly good politics for anyone. All the parties look terrible coming out of it. It does seem to have weekend the tea-party showing them as unreasonable zealots willing to trash america's credit. The next battles are going to be much more favorable for democrats:
-Funding the FAA
-Protecting Transportation Funds from the Gas Tax
-The Budget for next year and priorities for various projects.
-Extending unemployment
posted by humanfont at 11:26 AM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]




humanfont: "For those who think there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in the White House consider the following:

-Would Romney, Bachman etc appoint supreme court justices like Roberts and Thomas or like Kagan and Sotomeyer? We're one justice away from pushing the court leftward, if we lose the appointments between 2012-2016 we're likely to see a court that is 6-3 or 7-2 conservative.


Bingo. If you need only one reason to vote in 2012 this is it.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:34 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


The Teabaggers understand that political capitol grows when you use it. When you take action your voters say "yup, they're taking action the way I want", and they support you more.

I have the totally opposite opinion on political capital. It shrinks when you use it.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:35 AM on August 2, 2011


TPM's Twitter account just reported that the democrats have already capitulated on the FAA funding issue, presumably just to drain the last of the republicans' political capital. Also, the House will stay in session over the August break to keep Obama from making any recess appointments. Time to claim another victory!
posted by vibrotronica at 11:36 AM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Okay, I'll admit I got bogged down in the political details here and didn't look at the big picture.

Looking at the CBO outlook for the next decade, it says we're looking at an approximately $7T deficit in that time frame. Let's say Congress manages to actually cut $2.2T out of the $14.5T of discretionary spending as is called for in today's legislation. Doesn't that mean that we're still on track to have the gross public debt exceed GDP? Despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the debt limit in the past six months we've accomplished exactly nothing vis-à-vis the actual fiscal problem we face as a nation? My back-of-the-envelope calculations say we'd need something like $15T in additional revenues to pay the debt down to a more responsible 50% of GDP. Am I adding this up wrong?
posted by ob1quixote at 11:44 AM on August 2, 2011


The one big problem I've always had with Obama, is that he refuses to educate the public - and to me, that's the primary function of a president. That's what the bully pulpit is all about.

How does he refuse to educate the public? Because he lies. He refuses to call things as they are. To me, there was no greater example of this than the aftermath of the unemployment benefits + bush tax cut extension debacle. Instead of saying as clear as day, that he's only going along with the egregious tax breaks for the richest, because the Republicans are holding millions of unemployed Americans hostage, Obama makes it sound like a fantastic bipartisan deal. When you serve up a shit sandwich, and claim it's great tasting and you and the other cook are in agreement, well, you lose credibility with the diners - because now, they see no reason to pick you over the other cook - and further, you lost the opportunity to educate the diner as to why the shit sandwich is shit when you refuse to disclose that the other cook was demanding to put ground glass and arsenic in the sandwich. And you enable the movement of the Overton window.

That's a monumental failure of a president - the inability to clearly draw lines and educate the public.

He should have always pointed out - "we now have no choice but to cut this important program for you, the voter, because of who has been voted into congress - elections have consequences, and this is one of them - please remember this next time you go to the polls". Call out the Republicans publicly, every single time. And make it clear to Joe-Six-Pack that if he votes like a jackass, his lot in life will be that of a jackass. You can't mollycoddle the voter. Please treat voters like adults. You earn respect and credibility. But that demands honesty, all the time - even when it's painful for your position. But such honesty is seen by some as poor politics, because you want to preserve an option to lie to the voters, i.e. keep being the average politician - who will be trusted as much as a used car salesman.
posted by VikingSword at 11:52 AM on August 2, 2011 [12 favorites]


Pony request: can we all please stop talking about "The Overton Window" as it were something significant? Because it isn't . The theory was created by a lawyer (former quality control specialist) who graduated from a second (3rd??) rate law school and all it says is that you have a certain time period in order to change people's minds. Whoa....heavy stuff - not exactly Einstein. It's about as valid and accurate representation of human behavior as the Laffer curve . Check it out yourself - there is nothing of real substance to the Overton window other than someone's P.R. department is making a mint getting people to say the phrase on various big media.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:01 PM on August 2, 2011 [5 favorites]


Your mistaking what the President says with how it's repeated in the press, VikingSword. He has said all those things exactly. I can't believe you haven't noticed it.

There was a thread just the other day where someone did this little routine that's getting to be so common around here lately of saying, "Well, if the pres wasn't a liar, here's what he would have said in his speech... [A, B, C, etc.]" And what was so weird about it to me was he had said all of those things almost verbatim. I don't know if this particular contributor hadn't actually watched the speech, or had only noticed the parts that weren't sticking to these specific points, but each and everyone of the points was in there exactly. And yet, because they didn't stick out enough in that person's memory afterwards, the person characterized the speech as a failure. I'll see if I can find the comment and the transcript of the speech in question. It was really striking to me...
posted by saulgoodman at 12:02 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


dammit. you're.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:02 PM on August 2, 2011


Am I adding this up wrong?

No, but you're operating under the assumption that we have to do everything or it's not worth doing. Reducing the deficit isn't eliminating the deficit, but it is better than not reducing the deficit.

If we let the Bush tax cuts expire (ALL of them), we should keep the debt under 100% of GDP. Maybe. Even if we don't, if we can stop the growth of the debt we will get it back under 100% of GDP pretty quickly because of GDP growth and inflation.
posted by Justinian at 12:05 PM on August 2, 2011


@humanfont I quote Ironmouth: "really, your knowledge of the President extends to reading his mind to judge how much trust he had in the Republicans? You have zero knowledge of that.

What is he sending you texts? Puh-leeze. Seriously."


The problem is that while we don't know his mind, we do know his actions. There was, apparently, some concern about the (then) upcoming debt ceiling vote because the President was asked about the possibility of Republican intrasengence on the issue following the December 2010 vote on the Bush tax cuts.

At that time Obama chose not to extort binding promises about the debt ceiling even though he had leverage. Perhaps not too much leverage, but more than he had after the Bush tax cuts were extended.

Regardless of what he was thinking, he took action that indicated he was unconcerned about the possibility of the Republicans using the debt ceiling vote as an opportunity for extortion of their own.

And yes, I do think he should have gotten on the teevee and said he didn't trust the Republicans. They're always up on the teevee saying that he's a secret Muslim, commiefaggot, Kenyan born, fake American usurper. I'd say a pubic statement that he doesn't exactly trust them is pretty mild in comparison.

After congress acted to block any attempts to shutdown gitmo or resolve the issue further. What can he do? There is no funding or other political will to resolve this.

Even if I agree, for the sake of argument, that Obama is utterly powerless WRT ending the evil of indefinite detention, that still doesn't excuse his decision to issue an executive order stating that regardless of all other considerations he has personally decided that 50+ of the detainees there are so dangerous that to even offer formal charges at some point in the future is unacceptable and that they will merely be held, forever, on presidential whim.

By declaring that those 50+ people are, in his own executive order, never to even face formal charges much less real trials, he has fully embraced the idea that presidential whim is enough to imprison people for life. That's a complete normalization of the Bush ideas. he has moved the idea of the president simply tossing people into a detention facility on Presidential fiat from the position of being a bizarre and criminal abnormality of the Bush administration to being an acceptable American position embraced by all political parties.

That's not good.

As for Obama, I'll agree that he's better than the alternative. But that's not saying much.

The next battles are going to be much more favorable for democrats:

Why would you think that?

Why wouldn't the Teabaggers repeat this performance when the gas tax comes back up? They hate taxes, they're pledged to never raise taxes under any circumstances, their constituancy specifically calls out the gas tax as an example of Big Government run wild.

Why do you think that, two months from now when all the furor has died down and no the media has been distracted by some shiny object they won't try to extort things from the Democrats on threat of not renewing the gas tax?
posted by sotonohito at 12:05 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


No saulgoodman, it's simply not true. I listened to his speech in the aftermath of the tax deal, in real time. And I was outraged. And I posted as much about that in the blue.
posted by VikingSword at 12:06 PM on August 2, 2011




Justinian: "If we let the Bush tax cuts expire (ALL of them), we should keep the debt under 100% of GDP."

Just for the record, the analysis in the CBO outlook I referenced appears to already take the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts into account.
posted by ob1quixote at 12:17 PM on August 2, 2011


"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.'"

-- George Carlin
posted by Room 641-A at 12:25 PM on August 2, 2011 [8 favorites]


No saulgoodman, it's simply not true.

VikingSword: I didn't mean to single you out or suggest you were the one who made the original comment I had in mind. It was someone else who commented about how they wanted to see Obama explain a couple of specific points in his primetime speech when, in fact, he did address those specific points.

And I think I found the one I was thinking of (from earlier in this thread):

Obama needed to say what is actually happening: that Republicans are holding the country hostage. We're talking a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a mere economic slowdown if the U.S. government defaults. 20-30% drop in GDP, 30-50% unemployment, no credit for anything without usurious interest rates...

And yet the speech actually did lay all this out pretty clearly, though not using the kind of inflammatory, divisive rhetoric that makes us so happy on internet comment boards:
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.

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.
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:
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.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:28 PM on August 2, 2011 [5 favorites]


Why wouldn't the Teabaggers repeat this performance when the gas tax comes back up? They hate taxes, they're pledged to never raise taxes under any circumstances, their constituancy specifically calls out the gas tax as an example of Big Government run wild.

That doesn't really matter as much, because the Democrats are in favor of renewing the gas tax. So unless the TP can bring the rest of the GOP along with them in opposing it, which not even the Heritage foundation or Reason magazine thinks to be a good idea, it ain't happening.

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.

No, not necessarily. I think the deal will help the economy because it eliminates a good deal of uncertainty about the viability of US-issued debt and therefore avoids a sudden market crash or a sharp hike in interest rates or a currency collapse. I don't actually agree with the GOP's economic illiteracy at all. This is just some op-ed columnist's opinion, and an ill-founded one at that.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:42 PM on August 2, 2011


Pony request: can we all please stop talking about "The Overton Window" as it were something significant? Because it isn't . The theory was created by a lawyer (former quality control specialist) who graduated from a second (3rd??) rate law school and all it says is that you have a certain time period in order to change people's minds.

Why do you care that the theory was created by a lawyer? If the implication is that lawyers couldn't possibly have ideas other than legal ideas, then why does it matter that he didn't go to an elite law school? Shouldn't this also be irrelevant? According to this logic of this ad hominem, why should anyone listen to an IT person's opinion on anything other than IT?

Further, Overton's mostly remembered for being a higher up in the Mackinack Center, a successful think tank. Irrespective of whether or not we agree with its specific policies, they were indeed able to figure out how to effectively get their message out there. Think tanks are exactly the sort of place where these kinds of handy-dandy terms, charts, and diagrams are used.

At any rate, the idea is more fine-grained than just saying there's a window of time to change people's minds. One of the most important implications which follows from the Overton Window is the idea of shifting or expanding the window from the body politic up, as opposed to politicians trying to pick outside of the box and hoping that the populace will follow along.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:49 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]



The one big problem I've always had with Obama, is that he refuses to educate the public - and to me, that's the primary function of a president. That's what the bully pulpit is all about.


This is pretty much how I feel, but it's really not this missing use of the office that I feel most puzzled about... I can kindof see the calculus of reasonable gravitas from the office of the Presidency, much as I sometimes wish he weren't as easy on his opponents. What I wonder at is that Obama had what is supposed to have been an *amazing* wide-reaching campaign organization. It seemed like common sense to me given the level of engagement among his supporters that after the election, it'd continue to be used to engage and educate people. What happened?

I've talked before about my giant robot theory of the presidency -- the idea that occupying the white house mediates your perceptions, information, and sense of what's possible in more or less the same way a complex piece of anime mecha would. My own best guess at what happened to the campaign organization is that as amazing a piece of machinery as it was, it felt less deep and powerful than the office, and so it didn't get attention and use.

I could be wrong, though; the vine might not have withered first, it's possible the branches packed up and went home on victory. I certainly thought the work was done for a while, at least until the HCR debate exploded into utter insanity.
posted by weston at 12:55 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


saulgoodman, thanks for the text of that speech. I don't know that I'd actually examined it before and it's actually a good deal stronger than I expected, and for me at least it takes some of the edge off of the accusation that he doesn't educate.
posted by weston at 1:01 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


What I wonder at is that Obama had what is supposed to have been an *amazing* wide-reaching campaign organization. It seemed like common sense to me given the level of engagement among his supporters that after the election, it'd continue to be used to engage and educate people. What happened?

Yeah, this. Reagan was the Great Communicator. Why couldn't Obama try to one-up him? I like the guy, but he usually just seems calm and opaque.

Obama reminds me very much of Bush 41, down to the surprising-to-their-respective-bases centrism. Stentorian, reasonable, calm, intelligent, but seemingly without any desire to smack around their opponents.

Too often, I get the sense that Obama thinks that, in order to get things done, he has to be a grown-up with other politicians, but really, he just needs to convince the electorate. Politicians know that they'll be out of a job if their base doesn't agree with them anymore.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:01 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]




That's a monumental failure of a president - the inability to clearly draw lines and educate the public.

Except by 20%, people blamed the GOP for what happened. So he is educating the public. And if they try this crap again, everyone is going to blame the GOP.

Let me put it another way. The media fails to educate the public. Obama says gee they're holding us hostage and the media says "Democrats say GOP is holding country hostage, Republicans say Dems are holding America hostage with high spending."

Its a battle set up not to let you win.

So you don't fight it. You just act like hey, I'm listening to what they have to say--and I'm willing to talk and let's hear them out. And as soon as Boehner goes on air to deny it, he comes off as a boor. And that's where he loses. Do you think the GOP's popularity is going to be helped by another battle like this? No. And they may try it.

Too often, I get the sense that Obama thinks that, in order to get things done, he has to be a grown-up with other politicians, but really, he just needs to convince the electorate. Politicians know that they'll be out of a job if their base doesn't agree with them anymore.

Those are one and the same thing. Being a grown up requires them to spell out their positions. That's what he's always done. When they do, they get slaughtered. The Ryan budget? Obama called it honest. Honest in that it told the truth about what they wanted to do.

And the American people have rejected it.

Seriously, everyone knows its the Tea Party that's at fault there. The media can false equivalence the stories all they want. The electorate knows better. The polling shows it.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:10 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]




What I wonder at is that Obama had what is supposed to have been an *amazing* wide-reaching campaign organization. It seemed like common sense to me given the level of engagement among his supporters that after the election, it'd continue to be used to engage and educate people. What happened?

From what I understand (based on what I've picked up from acquaintances who volunteered with Organizing for America back when Obama was campaigning), basically after the election, the volunteers just disappeared. I've heard it grumbled more than once that as soon as Obama was elected, volunteer participation in the organization just basically dried up. I also seem to recall at least a couple of disgruntled MeFites publicly swearing off any further work for OFA no more than a couple of months into Obama's presidency, on the grounds that they had already been too disappointed on some issue or another to continue their support.

I think the simple answer is summed up in a paraphrase of something Van Jones said when NPR interviewed him about his new American Dream Movement organization recently: Obama's campaign slogan wasn't "Yes He Can!" but that's what everybody heard.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:22 PM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Obama is indeed not a great communicator. He may be eloquent and erudite and so forth - but there are millions of those. What he doesn't seem to be able to do, is not only to connect to the "common man" a la Clinton or Reagan. He's actually BAD at conveying ideas. His speeches need to be 80% shorter, 120% punchier and he has to have memorable lines. When you deliver a speech to the voters, you are not speaking to an academic gathering. You are drawing pictures - what imagery does an Obama speech conjure? It's very verbal, it enumerates facts. It doesn't conjure vivid images, it doesn't make powerful analogies that can affix in the public mind, it doesn't lead in SHORT three steps to inevitable conclusions. It's even hardly a chain of reasoning steps, it's mostly an enumeration of facts. A good speech also has timing and emphasis - not merely smoothness.

Anyone who has written screenplays and had to work with others on screenplays, has had this experience. You can be a great writer, and still be a rotten screenplay writer. You write something and it seems to you crystal clear. Only the reader - executive, friend, hired reader - doesn't "get it". And you realize - you have still not made it clear enough, vivid enough, simple enough, convincing enough. And you re-write... for the hundredth time. It's brutal. It's humbling. And very, very instructive.

Obama's speeches strike me like a first draft script by a talented, educated, literate man. But not the final draft by a truly great - or even merely skilled - communicator.
posted by VikingSword at 1:22 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think of Obama as more akin to Clinton than Reagan. I think the idea that he's a transformative leader is a bit of a reach and it's pretty clear that no matter how inspirational as a candidate he still follows the centrist Democratic model of triangulate, triangulate, triangulate.

Sure he's charismatic in a different manner than Clinton, more professor-like, but I think essentially he's looking to advance a Democratic agenda in a slow incremental manner. Advance a position, retrench, advance a position on a different front, retrench, etc. Always look conciliatory rather than aggressive.

I really don't know you guys expected a guy who explicitly campaigned on a ideal of post-partisanship to suddenly become a hard-bitten trench fighter who grapples at every chance he gets. If we wanted an arm-twister willing to fight dirty to get things done we should've resurrected LBJ or someone like that.

I'm not a ginormous fan of Obama, I think his administration is relatively opaque when the administration needs a bunch of sunlight after the Bush II admin. I think many of his policies reflect a level of authoritarianism that I'm personally uncomfortable with. I think he's got some advisors that keep the administration on constant campaign mode rather than governance mode. I think that his acceptance of mainstream neoliberal economic theory has probably resulted in a weaker recovery than would've happened with more Keynesian policies.

That being said I think he's doing a pretty decent job given the hand he was dealt. I think he managed to make a pretty decent amount of progress before losing his supermajority and later the House. Since the 2010 election cycle he's been on pretty consistent defense but I think the Republican offense has finally ground to a halt. They might manage a couple of more assaults prior to the election but for the most part they've managed little progress in advancing their agenda.

I really don't expect Obama to deliver much in the way of legislation before next year. I think the majority of the good he's going to be able to do is going to be related to implementation of public policy at the departmental level.
posted by vuron at 1:23 PM on August 2, 2011




In a media that was truly fair and balanced, that interview would be enough to brand the label "dangerous extremist" onto McConnell's forehead. He doesn't seem to have any regret or second thoughts, just "We think this is a good first step." He should be apologizing to the American people, or at least showing some regret about throwing his nation into a crisis.
posted by Kevin Street at 1:37 PM on August 2, 2011


That's a monumental failure of a president - the inability to clearly draw lines and educate the public.

See, other people have said similar things but I think it is a basic misunderstanding of the dynamics at work. Education is more or less completely ineffective in these sorts of situations. Because you cannot reason someone out of a position which they did not reach through reason.

It is becoming more and more clear (and you can find the science and psychology behind this in previous posts to the blue) that political beliefs are for many people not reasoned positions but more analogous to supporting a sports team. Find a die-hard yankees fan. Present him with all the facts in the world about how shitty their practice of trying to buy pennants is and how, even so, it is a very poor return on investment, and how the yankees suck. Will the yankees fan change his mind or will he punch you in the face? Yeah. Did you ever find a birther and try to educate him or her about the complete and utter falsity of his or her belief? It doesn't go well. Because they don't believe what they believe because they looked at the facts, they believe what they believe because they want to believe it.

This is the same thing. Given a relatively short timespan you simply cannot educate the majority of people out of political positions. It doesn't work, and continuing to believe that you can do so is a fundamental failure of the liberal position.
posted by Justinian at 1:50 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Will the yankees fan change his mind or will he punch you in the face?

He won't be able to hear you over the sound of his many fluttering pennants
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:57 PM on August 2, 2011


Nthing, a strong recommendation to read the excellent link found by sotonohito.
posted by VikingSword at 2:03 PM on August 2, 2011


Nthing, a strong recommendation to read the excellent link found by sotonohito.

Basically, the Salon article points out that Tea Party support is not national, and is instead regional - former slave states.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:09 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Exactly people tend to exclude new information that does not conform to their preconceived notions of how the world works/should work.

That isn't to say that you can't get through to people with opposing viewpoints but it seems that one of the more successful strategies is to find commonalities and extend olive branches. When you've built up a degree of trust it's much easier to engage in a education campaign and you are more likely to find fertile ground.

Obama goes with that sort of community organizer model. Find areas of commonality, build consensus, seek compromise. Unfortunately he's working against a noise machine that is intentionally amplifying the fears of Americans that they are going to lose something or that someone else is getting ahead or that the other is responsible for the troubles facing America.

Sure we could engage in the same sort of demogoguery and frankly it's pretty fun to other the opposition but it really doesn't serve a purpose other than to alienate everyone that isn't your base.

Dems and Obama are probably giving up more acting in a conciliatory manner than they'd give up if they acted in a completely intransigent manner but that should help serve our purposes in future elections when people realize that the Republican brand is populated by radical reactionaries and idealogues.
posted by vuron at 2:10 PM on August 2, 2011


Basically, the Salon article points out that Tea Party support is not national, and is instead regional - former slave states.

I sure hope that Demo strategists are carefully looking at all aspects of the Southern Strategy. Can one pick off anything there at all? To me, Texas is somewhat interesting. Yes, at first glance it seems the worst of the worst. But, there's a huge and growing Latino population... of course it's all diluted to hell with gerrymandering, yet, is it possible to do something with this? Obama did get some votes based on this in 08, though just two years later and 2010 was an epic disaster for the Demos. Eh, probably a pipe dream.
posted by VikingSword at 2:23 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


We tried the insurgent brand, the right wing media machine and military industrial complex pushed us into the fringes of the political discussion. They made hippy punching into our most popular national sport. If Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader's political style was effective it would have won somewhere.
posted by humanfont at 2:23 PM on August 2, 2011


Basically, the Salon article points out that Tea Party support is not national, and is instead regional - former slave states.

Plus very conservative parts of California.
posted by Big_B at 2:30 PM on August 2, 2011


Plus very conservative parts of California.

Interestingly, those parts were settled by the immigrants from Oklahoma (Okies) who came to California during the Great Depression, as a result of the Dust Bowl. Basically another gift from the South. And they've been politically poisonous for generations now.
posted by VikingSword at 2:35 PM on August 2, 2011


Actually I think Texas will become a battleground state within the next 20 years, the demographics and the consistent demonizing of the Latino community makes it a virtual certainty.

The overall Latino vote tends to be moderately conservative on many issues (including abortion) which is why Republicans want to peel off as many as possible but the policies and rhetoric of the Republican party will likely move the Latino vote into a fairly safely Democratic column. It won't be as reliable as the African American vote but it should start giving the Democrats an edge in many states before too long. If Democrats can increase the percentage that become likely voters it's likely to be sooner rather than later.

That's a major problem for the Republicans because if Democrats can move Texas out of the rock solid Republican bracket it becomes an uphill climb for Republicans to win a national election.

The major problem I see is that the Democratic party in large areas of the state is in shambles. We need to be producing strong local candidates outside of Austin, Houston and Dallas in order to build our brand at the state level.

Despite the insane nuttiness coming out of Arizona (largely fueled by the insanely conservative mass of elderly in and around Phoenix-Scottsdale) I think Arizona will follow suit as well. The demographics and the Republican rhetoric simply provide a lot of long-term structural advantages for Democrats for the next 20 years or so.

Believe it or not but Obama is actually quite useful as well because the ideological positions and candidates you support when you are young tend to influence your political affiliations throughout your life. If Democrats can consistently do well among Latino voters and the current crop of Echo Boomers and can maintain tight control over our traditional base then we have a relatively bright future ahead off us on the electoral landscape.
posted by vuron at 2:43 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Reportedly, Vice President Biden is now saying that Obama was prepared to use the 14th Amendment Option all along.

Only not for us.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 2:44 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Basically, the Salon article points out that Tea Party support is not national, and is instead regional - former slave states.

Astonishing! When I referred to them wanting 'Confederacy 2.0' I never imagined there would be a geographic correlation. I can't believe I never saw it before etc. etc.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:01 PM on August 2, 2011


@vuron I'm not at all sure that shifting demographics in Texas will lead to much more Democratic voting. I live here, and while it's generally assumed that the hispanic vote is pretty much guaranteed to either sit idle or go Democrat due to the unwavering racism from the Republicans, I'm not at all comfortable with that assumption.

While individuals vary, of course, as a group hispanics are conservative to the right of the Tea Party on most social issues. That's got a generational component, among hispanics the younger generation is markedly more socially liberal than their parents, but even so I'm not at all sure even the younger generation will all that enamored with the Democrats.

I think counting on the growing hispanic population to turn Texas into a swing state is not going to work out well for Democrats.

People tend to have long memories involving racism directed their way, granted, but if the Republicans can tone down the racism and focus on God, gays, and guns, I think they can at the very least split the hispanic vote enough that they can keep control of Texas for a while longer.
posted by sotonohito at 3:03 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Besides, Jesus, who knows what could happen in 20 years waiting for Texas to somehow swing left.
posted by adamdschneider at 3:03 PM on August 2, 2011


P_L, the naivete of people on leftie boards who have been posting the last few days "this man says what he believes" is just astonishing. If thinking a stripper really loves you is a motor scooter then this is one of the alien spaceships from Independence Day.

Obama plays politics like a bluffing game, he plays it very well, and he plays it in large part by misrepresenting his position. He appears to have little ego at all invested in this. I saw this as early as the primary, when he beat Hilary by gaming the convention dynamics much better than her people did and came from a weak initial position to a crushing position of strength in just a couple of months while her people slept. I have made this observation three or four times since then and I have been right about the outcome every time.

There was never any possibility that any Democratic President would negotiate a better deal than this. None. The Republicans came to the table claiming to be ready to shoot the nation to force a bunch of concessions, and Obama used the fact that a significant minority of the Republicans really meant it the way their leaders didn't to jujitsu a situation where the nation didn't get shot and few real concessions were made. If Obama had done any of the things we'd have preferred, they would have pulled the trigger and let the default happen. Looking over the details I find it mildly amazing that it was pushed back this far, considering the supposed advantages the R's went into this with.

In order to prevail at this game, Obama regularly and spectacularly lies about his intentions and position. He lies to the Republicans and he lies to us, because he uses us as a bargaining chip. He does this with the steady hand of a poker player who cares nothing of his ego and everything about having the most chips at the end of the day. And under those lies, if you can see past the flash to the style of play and the method, you see what he is working toward is not necessarily a leftist utopia but a workable centrist compromise that is not what either you or I would like but is far preferable to the Objectivist hell the other side wants to create.

If Kucinich was up there instead of Obama, as much as I like Kucinich, I have to understand that we would be getting nothing. We would be getting shot hostages and nothing positive done and the country in flames. As it is we have the first health care bill in history. Not a very good one, but then Canada's first wasn't much to look at either, and it provides a framework and legal groundwork for improvement rather than the rejection of the whole idea that the government has any role in healthcare. That was a very positive development even if it wasn't as positive as we might have liked. Obama is very comfortable with taking what he can get and moving on.

In this case he had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and he managed to keep the losses to a few figureheads while avoiding the hostage shooting. He did this in a manner that cost his opponents enormously in ways they will never recover. That's as good a thing as we could have hoped for.

The main thing you should draw from this, if you draw anything, is that Obama does not say what he believes, he says what he thinks will get things done. This is not a new thing, it is how he has been acting since he came to prominence in the primaries, and I'm sure it's a skill he learned the hard way in the skull-cracking wasteland of Chicago local politics.

Obama knows you can't always get what you want. But he knows that sometimes you might just get what you need.
posted by localroger at 3:04 PM on August 2, 2011 [12 favorites]


Lower approval ratings of the President doesn't mean that those voters will suddenly flock to a Republican candidate, especially if they are one of the more extreme alternatives (there are several).

That isn't to say that Obama is a lock to get re-elected. Low voter turnout could definitely doom him. I'm just saying that if you look at the Demographics the next 20 years should be more favorable to us than previous decades.

If Republicans continue on their current trajectory they definitely could result in becoming a regional party forever doomed to opposition status. You can't just keep expecting Evangelicals and the Elderly to prop up your brand ad infinitum.
posted by vuron at 3:07 PM on August 2, 2011


As it is we have the first health care bill in history. Not a very good one, but then Canada's first wasn't much to look at either, and it provides a framework and legal groundwork for improvement rather than the rejection of the whole idea that the government has any role in healthcare. That was a very positive development even if it wasn't as positive as we might have liked. Obama is very comfortable with taking what he can get and moving on.

You don't get it. If Obama so much as brings up Social Security changes, its a bad thing, even if it never gets done. And its not a good thing if he actually does things, like healthcare.

see if he mentions he might agree to something and then never does it, its bad. its equally bad if he does something that's not perfectly in line with everything he asked for.

up is down.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:18 PM on August 2, 2011


vuron: "You can't just keep expecting Evangelicals and the Elderly to prop up your brand ad infinitum."

You can't expect the elderly to prop up your brand at all if you've been pissing on the third rail. The republicans really went off the reservation on this one, and the dems can probably coast into office in 2012 simply on the "We protected you from the republican attempt to gut social security" talking point.
posted by mullingitover at 3:18 PM on August 2, 2011


localroger: duplicitousness is not a feature.

I completely disagree with your premise that Obama got us the best deal possible. There was nothing else left to do. I truly do not have to point out the many things that he could have done to help the middle class this week, the least of which is invoking the 14th , giving the Republicans the figurative middle finger , and letting the courts battle this out (wonder which judge will want to go down in history as having ruined the full faith and credit of the U.S. ? ) . The 2 year extension of the Bush/Obama tax cuts could have been dealt with similarly last December and this week would never have had happen.

No, I do not accept your premise that Obama is doing the best job that anyone could. 16% unemployment, Lowest GDP increase in years, economic growth forecast to be horrid for several years now - same with the jobs projection. Trillions spent on wars - overseas detention/torture camps in full swing. Halliburton and Blackwater (aka XE) still making millions in government contracts. Oh... but oil companies and banks are still making 40%+ quarterly profits though. No, Obama to me is merely Bush-Lite.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 3:21 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


P_L: duplicitousness is not a feature.

Well I'm on Metafilter right now because my wife is in Las Vegas playing poker. Trust me, duplicitousness is a feature if you want to win.

The comparison of politics (and war, and other important things) to poker goes back over 60 years to John von Neumann, who did some of the earliest work on computers to study it, and throughout the cold war via consultants like the RAND corporation this logic was applied exhaustively to US policy.

None of the things you prefer was ever going to get through Congress. What you don't seem to understand is that getting the debt ceiling raised under any conditions at all was close to a miracle, since Boehner couldn't deliver his 60 frosh teahadists under any terms.

Getting it raised with so few concessions, and the most critical systems off-limits from triggered cuts, was a real accomplishment. I can't think of anybody else who could have pulled it off.

I'm not particularly happy with Obama's acceptance of the expanded police state Bush 2 set up either. But I'm damn glad he isn't a Republican, and if you aren't and don't understand the importance of that, then I just can't figure out what to say for you except I'm sorry you are so consumed by your anger you can't understand when you have been saved from being run over by a train.
posted by localroger at 3:40 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Yeah, the Salon article read exactly like a Salon article about the Tea Party and the South. South bad, North good, always has been, always will be.

Is it time for Obama's march to the sea?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:43 PM on August 2, 2011


Getting it raised with so few concessions, and the most critical systems off-limits from triggered cuts

Are you kidding me? Medicare cuts to providers are one of the biggest things that happen in the triggered cuts. How can you possibly not know this basic fact? Also "so few concessions"? What ?? The biggest concession was no revenue increase (primarily affecting the wealthy). That's a $2.6 Trillion concession right there

I'm sorry but it just sounds as if you are rattling off democratic talking points.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 3:46 PM on August 2, 2011


Hey, news on the latest hostage situation: Harry Reid to resolve GOP shutdown of FAA funding by... drumroll.... giving in to the Republicans.

What's your alternate plan? They HOLD THE HOUSE. Read the Constitution.

and the plan can't be "not give in." How do you overcome the fact that they control the budget initiating body? What is your plan?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:47 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yeah, the Salon article read exactly like a Salon article about the Tea Party and the South. South bad, North good, always has been, always will be.

That's not how I read it, but everyone will have their take. What I don't think can be disputed: the numbers. Either the vast majority of teabagger reps come from the South, or they don't. Yes, there are some in the West (thanks, Okies et al.), but does anyone dispute the numbers? I mean, anyone can look it up.
posted by VikingSword at 3:48 PM on August 2, 2011


I wish there had been revenue increases, but without control of Congress, that idea was a non-starter.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:56 PM on August 2, 2011




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.

Then? Then you've got the makings of a very productive Democratic Presidency. The executive office is the last piece of the puzzle, not the first, second or third. My biggest problem with Obama is that he doesn't seem to be shooting for that, is more concerned with his personal office instead of the entire party.

Either the vast majority of teabagger reps come from the South, or they don't.

Ok, then what's the solution if they are? Last time it was total war and decades of government oversight.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:56 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Hey, news on the latest hostage situation: Harry Reid to resolve GOP shutdown of FAA funding by... drumroll.... giving in to the Republicans.

What's your alternate plan? They HOLD THE HOUSE. Read the Constitution.

and the plan can't be "not give in." How do you overcome the fact that they control the budget initiating body? What is your plan?


What's their plan to override a veto of a plan Obama doesn't like? Read the constitution, they wouldn't have the votes.

What you don't seem to understand is that getting the debt ceiling raised under any conditions at all was close to a miracle, since Boehner couldn't deliver his 60 frosh teahadists under any terms.

Let's be honest, you would be saying this no matter what the results were. It's said every time. Obama is batting .1000.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:57 PM on August 2, 2011


P_L: it just sounds as if you are rattling off democratic talking points

No, I am following Ironmouth's advice (and it feels a little weird to be agreeing with him for a change) and reading the Constitution. The Republicans hold the House.

The only thing you have proposed -- the only thing -- that has had the slightest chance of working was invoking the 14th. Even had Obama thought that viable (he was a Constitutional scholar, as well as a community activist, before entering politics, so I think his opinion there has some weight) he would have faced a massive and focused retribution for such a "dictatorial" tactic. It would have welded the teahadists and the mainstream Republicans right back together in a bloc aligned against him. A very likely result is that he spends a couple of years in impeachment hearings, which even if he prevails (as Clinton did) he is rendered ineffective.

And this is a guy who is about getting stuff done. He's not going to blow off the whole rest of the game on this one hand, when he's been able to limit his losses so much further than anyone thought possible. He has other hands to play, now with his opponents much weakened.

We are fighting against people who have spent 30 years erecting a fortress against us. To think we are going to roll all that back to 1977 in 2.5 years is extremely stupid. He is getting possible stuff done and not getting mired down in impossible stuff. Considering that he got HCR past after all this time, I'm going to wait him out and see the endgame.
posted by localroger at 3:58 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


duplicitousness is not a feature

I imagine the next time you buy a car you'll tell the sales guy how much you're willing to pay for it.

Ignore everything a politician says. Everything a politician says os densely layered with multiple meanings for multiple audiences, and for multiple purposes, and telling the truth is far down on that list.

The only thing that matters is what a politician does. Judge Obama (and the republicans) on that and that alone.

Truth doesn't pay the bills.
posted by empath at 4:00 PM on August 2, 2011


But remember, don't judge on what he actually does, because the things he does you don't like aren't his fault!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:01 PM on August 2, 2011


All this talk about having divisions between Congress and the Presidency reminds me of two things.

First, the budget debacle under Bush 41. Dems got their revenue increase in, Bush had no choice but to sign, Bush wound up with his credibility to the party destroyed, thus opening the way for Clinton and Perot.

Second, the budget debacle under Clinton. Government shutdown. Clinton won the long game as far as popularity was concerned, but Gingrich showed his mettle and got much of what he wanted in there.

This kind of bullshit goes on all the time.

What's their plan to override a veto of a plan Obama doesn't like? Read the constitution, they wouldn't have the votes.

They wouldn't, no, but then the budget default would happen in the interim, and the negotiations would still go nowhere in the long term.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:01 PM on August 2, 2011


Sure, if you believe the Republicans weren't bluffing and wouldn't mind the country blowing up.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:04 PM on August 2, 2011


Ok, then what's the solution if they are? Last time it was total war and decades of government oversight.

First and most important I think is identifying them for exactly what they are. Let's call racist pigs, racist pigs, lipstick or not, no more mollycoddling and trying to paint and spin the TP as not some sort of exciting new populist uprising of righteous true American's, but in fact anti-American, anti-progress in the most basic sense of the word progress and it's principle's egregious and repellent and ultimately evil, in the sense of being backwards, hypocrites, neo-nationalistic neo-confederates looking to sneak in and hijack the country through sabotage, and destruction of the governments most basic responsibilities towards the nation.
posted by Skygazer at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ok, then what's the solution if they are? Last time it was total war and decades of government oversight.

Maybe a Demo Southern Strategy worth a hill of beans. I suggest looking very aggressively at peeling of anyone that can be peeled off in the South, f.ex. by using the Repubs appeals to racism against them; I already suggested Texas, but Sonohito shot that down. Still, I'm willing to try. But it has to start with "voting has consequences", otherwise there is no education of the voter. Obama (and Dems in general) has to start talking turkey, very plainly telling them that they've been in the shit for 150 years and if they continue voting like that, they'll continue being in the shit. It'll lose a couple of election cycles, but at least the truth has been spoken and lessons can start being absorbed. Unlike some, I do believe in educating the voter, and unlike some, I do believe that sometimes being honest is the only way, even if it's a message that's extremely tough and unpleasant. Politely looking the other way and white lies don't cut it. The voters deserve to be told the truth even if it's extremely harsh. Hold them responsible.
posted by VikingSword at 4:06 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


no more mollycoddling and trying to paint and spin the TP as not some sort of exciting new populist uprising of righteous true American's
posted by Skygazer at 4:07 PM on August 2, 2011


furiousxgeorge: you would be saying this no matter what the results were

No. I actually expected the government to default, at least for a few days, and no serious action until the Dow dropped at least 500 points and some vital checks failed to go out. I expected that after that a clean debt ceiling increase would have been passed by all dems + minimal Republicans as necessary via corporate master arm twisting.

Part of me would have liked that better but part of me also recognizes the importance of not discovering that country of debt default. I did not expect that to be avoided at all, and that it was done with so few concessions is amazing, but it does reinforce my original point that Obama's "pocket kings" (the titans of finance and industry) would twist the Republicans' arms.

The thing Obama did not do, by any reasonable definition, is "cave" to the many demands that were originally being made. He came up with a settlement that avoided default at minimal cost to a social safety net that his opponents wanted to shred to pieces. Nobody, including me, really thought that was even possible.
posted by localroger at 4:09 PM on August 2, 2011


Sure, if you believe the Republicans weren't bluffing and wouldn't mind the country blowing up.

I don't think the majority of Republicans would have done anything particularly brave to stop a default, no. Absolutely no one was going to jump on that grenade.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:10 PM on August 2, 2011


Obama (and Dems in general) has to start talking turkey, very plainly telling them that they've been in the shit for 150 years and if they continue voting like that, they'll continue being in the shit.

A southern liberal Democrat is needed, one who can talk to them in their own language. Preferably two or three.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:12 PM on August 2, 2011


Ok, then what's the solution if they are? Last time it was total war and decades of government oversight.

It was just surprising to me, that's all. You Americans have a real problem on your hands. It's frightening.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:14 PM on August 2, 2011


I don't think the majority of Republicans would have done anything particularly brave to stop a default, no. Absolutely no one was going to jump on that grenade.

That's a very partisan way to look at it. They had exactly as much at stake as Democrats when it came to the business community, the defense industry, and among the voters. Default was a much bigger grenade than whiny tea partiers.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:17 PM on August 2, 2011


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

Lincoln? Puhleeze. The South seceded before he had a chance. They made war before he had a chance. He didn't fire the first shot.

At least get your facts straight.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:21 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think it's also useful to point out that while both parties split down the middle (this was one of the most truly bipartisan votes in years, with neither party voting in solidarity but enough of both weighing in to pass) on the Republican side, there is a real sense that the teahadists who expected to force a default and claim credit for the resulting spectacle were hung out to dry by their leaders. On the Dem side, the sense is more that those Dems of left principle who weren't ever going to get what they wanted anyway were allowed to vote their conscience without being penalized by the party for doing so. The difference is that the Democratic party is still as much in one piece as it ever was; the Republicans, not so much.
posted by localroger at 4:23 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Sure, if you believe the Republicans weren't bluffing and wouldn't mind the country blowing up.

Its more a question of how many believe that and how much control their caucus had over them. And also a question of whether or not the timing works out even if a deal gets made.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:25 PM on August 2, 2011


Lincoln? Puhleeze. The South seceded before he had a chance.

Nah, it was the War of Northern Aggression, every TRUE American knows that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:25 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


The voters deserve to be told the truth even if it's extremely harsh. Hold them responsible.

It's not the job of a politician to educate voters. It's the job of the politician to win elections.

Do you think Republican politicians are out there convincing people to be conservative through the power of their amazing rhetoric? They are out there telling people what they already believe.
posted by empath at 4:26 PM on August 2, 2011


Guys who think the Republican party has been split and maneuvered into a position that gives the advantage to the Democrats, please predict here the amount of revenue you feel the will be passed through the Republican congress after the committee is done. It's best to do it now so you don't look like you are just praising whatever Democrats do after they do it no matter what the results were.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:27 PM on August 2, 2011


Sure, if you believe the Republicans weren't bluffing and wouldn't mind the country blowing up.

More importantly, the prudent course is to be aware that it is a possibility and take that into consideration.

And also profit from it.

Listen, I get it. You want red meat from the president. I think that's dumb. You do red meat when you are in the legislature and during mid-terms. the House dems chose no red meat and didn't schedule that revenue vote and take it to the voters. Obama wanted to.

Now when red meat just makes us look bad in front of independents (WE ARE 18% OF THE ELECTORATE, CONSERVATIVES ARE 40%), you can't wait to dive in and wreck it all with no benefit.

Stupid is as stupid does.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:28 PM on August 2, 2011


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.
OK, so, get the largest majority in the House of Representatives in the history of either the Democratic or Republican Party. Sounds good.

What's your plan for the meantime?
posted by Flunkie at 4:29 PM on August 2, 2011


The only thing you have proposed -- the only thing -- that has had the slightest chance of working was invoking the 14th. Even had Obama thought that viable (he was a Constitutional scholar, as well as a community activist, before entering politics, so I think his opinion there has some weight) he would have faced a massive and focused retribution for such a "dictatorial" tactic.

Actually, they would have done it. But that's a card you can only play once and if it doesn't work, boom! If nobody buys those bonds, boom!

You save your trump for last. Part of what you guys want is dumb tactics. Yell about how bad they are far and wide and gee all those independents will get turned on. They'll just love more yelling in washington and gridlock.

Play like a pro not a chump.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:31 PM on August 2, 2011


More importantly, the prudent course is to be aware that it is a possibility and take that into consideration.

I do not consider it a possibility that Republicans hate the country enough to destroy the economy. Even if you are cynical enough to think they lack love of their country, you have to admit they are beholden to business. It was never going to happen. 0% chance, and I actually said that before all this instead of after.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:32 PM on August 2, 2011


Guys who think the Republican party has been split and maneuvered into a position that gives the advantage to the Democrats, please predict here the amount of revenue you feel the will be passed through the Republican congress after the committee is done.

I'll go on a limb and say 30-40% of what the revenue that would come in if the bush tax cuts are simply allowed to expire.
posted by empath at 4:32 PM on August 2, 2011


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.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2011


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 wish list. not a plan. a plan describes how.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'll go on a limb and say 30-40% of what the revenue that would come in if the bush tax cuts are simply allowed to expire.

All the cuts or just the cuts on the wealthy?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:34 PM on August 2, 2011


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.


I meant your plan to deal with the FAA situation.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:34 PM on August 2, 2011


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.
That's a platitude, not a plan.
posted by Flunkie at 4:36 PM on August 2, 2011


All the cuts or just the cuts on the wealthy?

Probably he means all the cuts. 30-40% of the revenues from the tax cuts on the wealthy would not be at all significant.
posted by Justinian at 4:36 PM on August 2, 2011


I meant your plan to deal with the FAA situation.

I'm not familiar enough with that and wasn't really advocating anything. It seems fairly small potatoes, so whatever, move onto bigger stuff.

That's a platitude, not a plan.

What sort of specifics are ya looking for?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:37 PM on August 2, 2011


Probably he means all the cuts. 30-40% of the revenues from the tax cuts on the wealthy would not be at all significant.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to rule out the possibility the Democrats won't manage to negotiate their way into significant revenue. :P
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:39 PM on August 2, 2011


How exactly do you plan to install the treadmill on the runway?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:40 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


How exactly do you plan to install the treadmill on the runway?

MeMail asavage.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:42 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Lincoln? Puhleeze. The South seceded before he had a chance. They made war before he had a chance. He didn't fire the first shot.


He also didn't let them get away with it. Point is he did not appease them and he didn't roll over and let them take Fort Sumter without considerable and over-whelming force.

But that forest for the trees sort of stuff, no one is saying this country has another civil war brewing. What it has is a dangerous and extremist insurgent political group pretending it's founded on benevolent and honorable intentions, when in fact they've declared war on almost everything that does not fit into it's very narrow, very harsh, very uncompromising, antiquated, backwards platform with a deep, fundamentalist distrust and loathing for what seems like every single government enacted civil rights legislation and progressive legislation going back to the 30s. On top of it they've got this bizarre authoritarian neo-nationalism and love of plutocracy that drives them that's just fascism dressed up in a tri-cornered hat.


If that was properly presented, I think many people would lose all sympathy for them.
posted by Skygazer at 4:42 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

I mean, really, "Do the best you can with what you got" is vague enough that anybody can say it and mean it. In fact, many people have argued that this debt deal was the best that Democrats could've done with what they've got. I'm not claiming it was, but you could say that out of context and have the biggest Obama backer nodding along with you. And the biggest Boehner backer.
posted by Flunkie at 4:42 PM on August 2, 2011


Guys who think the Republican party has been split and maneuvered into a position that gives the advantage to the Democrats, please predict here the amount of revenue you feel the will be passed through the Republican congress after the committee is done.

Listen, the trigger isn't new. Its been done before. So how did that work out?

There will be zero revenue. And zero cuts. Because they will waive that portion of the law. Remember Gramm-Rudman and its "trigger"? Congress changed the rules both times its ever tried to use this trigger thing.

The GOP will deal. They will waive the trigger for no cuts on the back end. They've done it every single time up to this point. They have no bargaining power because the fucking trigger is designed to prison rape them. Upside for dems if trigger goes. Three quarters of s trillion dollars in defense cuts. Downside? The agencies get screwed, but no benefit cuts for anyone. Downside of the trigger for the GOP? three quarters of a trillion dollars in defense cuts. Is the deal just starting to make a little bit of sense now? They are fucked.

Sure, feels bad that guy threw a pie in your face, but he ain't getting far, you put sugar in his gas tank.

Much sweeter deal, no?

Then, in 2012, the tax cuts are gone. Why? Because no matter what happens in that election, Obama will be president on the day they expire. If he loses, he'll veto it. They will be powerless. If he wins, he'll veto it, what does he have to lose, he can't run again.

Got it?

indeed if he wins and the Dems take back the House and hold the Senate, they rewrite the entire deal. And that means that he just dealt the debt ceilling raise for a measly 22 billion in cuts next year.

All the inside baseball people here are saying how hosed they really are. What are they gonna do? Pull another one of these stunts? People will hate them sooooo much.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:43 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, Ironmouth prediction: There will be no revenue, but Obama will raise taxes on the middle class during a recession by letting the Bush cuts expire after the election.

I have that correctly?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:47 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


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.

Eh, my numbers were off, wasn't sure what the largest House largest majorities were so guessed. My bad. To put it in a clearer light, should have said "Shoot for whatever majorities FDR had".

Plan wise, probably have to start small, rebranding the Democrats and more importantly, the conversation and talking points.

When Republicans start talking about getting government regulations out the way of private business, invite them to have drink at stream that's been polluted by run off from business. Rinse and repeat. That sort of thing. Quit letting the GOP run the debate and talking points.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:57 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


To put it in a clearer light, should have said "Shoot for whatever majorities FDR had".

which included the southern democrats of that time, whom FDR was very cautious not to antagonize over racial politics

seeing as their grandchildren are now southern republicans, i don't see that majority happening
posted by pyramid termite at 5:38 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm not particularly happy with Obama's acceptance of the expanded police state Bush 2 set up either. But I'm damn glad he isn't a Republican

Someday there will be another Republican president.

The expanded police state will still be here.
posted by Trurl at 5:54 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


which included the southern democrats of that time, whom FDR was very cautious not to antagonize over racial politics

FDR didn't have much to antagonize them with. While he didn't consciously work to keep black people down, neither did he feel much of a need to do the reverse. Eleanor was the one in the White House who had racial equality on the mind; she was obviously an enormous influence on what he did in life, but it's important to remember who was looking out for whom.

Many of FDR's policies, especially in their first iterations, benefited poor whites at the expense of similarly situated poor blacks. Many blacks at the time grumbled that the NRA really stood for "Negro Removal Act."

For more info on this, check out A New Deal for Blacks by Harvard Sitkoff.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:56 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


So, Ironmouth prediction: There will be no revenue, but Obama will raise taxes on the middle class during a recession by letting the Bush cuts expire after the election.

I have that correctly?


Look at the incentives on the super committee. Its stacked against the GOP. The trigger hurts them a lot more than it hurts us.

And they wanted it that way. The whole goal was to get Obama to actually, really sign on cutting entitlements. And he said sure, just violate your no tax pledge and we have a deal. He made tax increases the "balanced approach." Polling showed the american people on his side--he was willing to "compromise." He knew the GOP would never bite.

The gop is only going along with benefit cuts when we do.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:57 PM on August 2, 2011


"... Downside of the trigger for the GOP? three quarters of a trillion dollars in defense cuts. Is the deal just starting to make a little bit of sense now? They are fucked. ..."
posted by Ironmouth at 7:43 PM on August 2

I find it interesting silly that you think deep defense cuts will only penalize Republicans, Ironmouth. Such a pose really demonstrates how little you know about defense procurement, or the upcoming needs of the services. Politically, both Republicans and Democrats depend on defense contracts for jobs back home in their districts, and both will be called to answer by the voters back home, if/when major programs done at plants in their districts/states get the axe, especially when those jobs are generally skilled ones, with good benefit packages, in an American economy likely to still be in historically high unemployment numbers in the next several years.

Upcoming in the next year or so, the bills for badly needed hardware like new Air Force tankers, replacement Navy ships like the new LCS class, and Virginia class submarines, will start coming due, as all these projects will be entering service, or ramping up to further production under contract guarantees. And it still costs the Air Force a pretty penny to launch each new KH-11 Kennon, which they do more often than you might imagine, and no President or Congressional security oversight committee member will be without his/her high-res photos of bad guys in his/her daily security report.

Not to say that there is nothing in the defense budget that can't or shouldn't be cut, or that things like the F-35 JSF were ever a good idea in real world terms. But it takes 20 years to design and adopt a new military fighter platform, and it is way too late for this country to get off the F-35 horse now. We have way too many high hour F-16 and F-18 aircraft still in service, already, and we're already restricting some training to low G maneuvers and low stress takeoff/landing profiles, particularly for National Guard units, because of fatigue in these populations of older airframes.

I'm pretty sure that 5 years from now, a bunch of F-35s will be in service, among other things, paid for by a possibly smaller Army in actual troop numbers, and a bunch of as-yet unmade Congressional compromises on non-defense spending and revenues.
posted by paulsc at 6:00 PM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Look at the incentives on the super committee...

Right I'm not arguing what is gonna happen, we will all see it when it does, just want to make sure I'm clear on the prediction.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:05 PM on August 2, 2011


paulsc, so you do recognise the importance of federally-induced job creation, eh?

So, instead of spending all that taxpayer money on jobs which ultimately result in the destruction of US credibility abroad, the death of American soldiers and foreign nationals and the manufacture of goods designed to be literally exploded, why not instead invest that taxpayer money in areas which will both create "generally skilled [jobs], with good benefit packages, in an American economy likely to still be in historically high unemployment numbers in the next several years" (your quote) and will also build up this country's crumbling and increasingly outdated infrastructure?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:37 PM on August 2, 2011 [4 favorites]


Brandon Blatcher: "A southern liberal Democrat is needed, one who can talk to them in their own language. Preferably two or three."

There are such people, but finding one who can speak to them in their own language may prove difficult. Politics in the south are (surprise, surprise) deeply racial. These days, here in Georgia it more-or-less comes down to White districts mostly vote Republican and Black districts mostly vote Democratic. There are of course exceptions.

Any Democrats that run in the majority White/Republican districts are usually practically indistinguishable from Republicans. Because my wife won't shut up about my getting into politics, I've been trying to figure out how to square that circle, but I keep coming up empty.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:54 PM on August 2, 2011


Progressives should look in the mirror before blaming Obama for economic hostage crisis by 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]


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.

Was it really the progressives who stayed home, or was it the otherwise politically undecided/uninvolved independents who were the culprits?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:10 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Stop asking questions and find a hippy to punch.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:19 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Seriously though, conservatives were super intense in 2010. Sometimes you can fight hard and still get knocked out, keeping the Senate under the circumstances was actually pretty impressive.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:23 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


"paulsc, so you do recognise [sic] the importance of federally-induced job creation, eh?"
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:37 PM on August 2

Eh, not in the general case, and really, not even in the case of a horribly overwrought, "multi-mission, multi-service" "system" like the F-35. Defense is an economic special case, where no one really wants the capabilities or products bought, until just about the time they are needed, which is way too late to create them. If you have to plan to maintain air superiority 20 years in advance (because of design, test and acquisition cycles), you, as a citizen of a nation that might want to do so, have to put defense spending beyond politics, and put technological faith in some topic experts, who, still, will be dead wrong about the way the future unfolds, more than 50% of the time.

Because the first question still asked in Washington, at news of any international kerfuffle, is "Where are the aircraft carriers?" And that question will be a prime one for all Washington politicians and civil servants with any interest in the wider world, until some future conflict demonstrates that aircraft carriers are militarily, and thus diplomatically, obsolete.
posted by paulsc at 7:24 PM on August 2, 2011


Defense spending is very popular with both parties because defense contractors are smart and make sure that just about every congressman has some piece of the pie. It hurts the Republicans more because they campaign on strong national security every freaking election and it's pretty hard to say "Go defense!" when 750 billion in defense spending just got cut on your watch.

The truth of the matter is that the experienced Republicans that actually sit on appropriations committees will tell whoever gets selected for these committees that they are willing to accept some increased revenue in return for slashing the defense cuts.

It's not that easy to get to 1.5 trillion in cuts (expected from the super committee) without touching defense. Yeah they'll push to get as much from Medicare as possible but the agreement limits cuts to no more than 2% and only to provider payments. Unless Republicans are willing to wheel and deal they are going to have to defend defense cuts in their home districts.

Further there are definitely areas that can be cut without "harming the troops". There are several weapons systems that can be scrapped or delayed. We don't have to buy a ridiculous amount of overpriced F-35 just because Lockheed Martin wants us to. We don't have to continue funding the utterly worthless Osprey that the Marines don't even want because Bell Helicopter Textron wants us to. We don't need new fast attack submarines in order to keep GD Boat Division happy.

Put some of those programs on the cutting block and I can guarantee you that the Republican leadership will get some phonecalls saying "Do whatever but get us off the cutting block".

Will there be pressure on Democrats to not cut defense? Of course because everyone loves defense pork but those numbers gotta be made up somewhere.
posted by vuron at 7:25 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Tea Partiers called their reps, liberals slept. Ironmouth was right!
posted by humanfont at 7:26 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Tea Partiers called their reps, liberals slept. Ironmouth was right!

As astroturfed the Tea Partiers are, they are very effective at being a vocal minority. Dems should copy their strategies at full force. I don't blame the 2010 election on progressives, but in general, the Dem voters should be more vocal with their state and national congresscritters. It really does matter.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:32 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


"... We don't have to buy a ridiculous amount of overpriced F-35 just because Lockheed Martin wants us to. ..."

Nah, we have to buy a ridiculous amount of F-35s because we've worn out almost all our stock of F-16 and F-18 fighters providing air support in Iraq and to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. We've had high hour F-15 Eagles disintegrate in mid-air on training missions in U.S. airspace. F-18 Super Hornets doing several sorties and carrier landings a day on station near Iraq, get beat up by mission demands faster than you might expect. F-16s flown by our National Guard air units have nearly all been deployed to the Middle East, some for nearly 10 years. It's not as easy to maintain jets in daily service, in dusty desert conditions as you might think it should be.
posted by paulsc at 7:35 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Naw, we just like to stand back and complain a lot, amongst ourselves. /NOT HAMBURGER

Why on earth would we contact them to offer our support? /HAMBURGER
posted by Sportbilly at 7:36 PM on August 2, 2011


I think that was pretty clear when the result of his call for tweets was that he lost tens of thousands of followers, but hell I'm an Ironmouth certified Obama "hater" and I was on the phone, the liberal online activists were similarly all over it.

The fact is, the idea that young people and liberals dominate online is a complete myth. Facebook, especially, has neutralized any online advantage by making online political engagement dead simple even for the older, less tech-savvy crowd.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:36 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


paulsc: Because the first question still asked in Washington, at news of any international kerfuffle, is "Where are the aircraft carriers?" And that question will be a prime one for all Washington politicians and civil servants with any interest in the wider world, until some future conflict demonstrates that aircraft carriers are militarily, and thus diplomatically, obsolete.

Or, we could join the rest of the world and acknowledge that war is not merely diplomacy by other means.

I used to be a Republican. On Election Day 2000, I was at the Kent County Republican Party headquarters in Grand Rapids, Michigan making GOTV calls for George W. Bush. (I wasn't even old enough to vote then.) I supported the war in Iraq, supported the tax cuts, supported the DOMA.

But I was (thank God) enough of a conservative, in the Burkean sense, to listen to the voice of experience and pragmatism. It doesn't work, this nihilistic ideology. Tax cuts for the rich don't trickle-down to the poor. Illiberal social policies don't make for an orderly and free society. War does not bring peace or honour or prosperity.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:36 PM on August 2, 2011 [7 favorites]


Stop asking questions and find a hippy to punch.

2012 is going to be fun.
posted by Trurl at 7:47 PM on August 2, 2011


I'd also add that while young liberals are posting pictures of their drunk escapades on social networks, conservative groups have been figuring out how to use these networks to destroy people. There is a reason they knew about Weiner before his big mistake, they are using the same type of analysis of social networks that HBGary was proposing to use against Wikileaks, the Unions, and their supporters.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:56 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


furiousxgeorge: "Stop asking questions and find a hippy to punch"

Fifth time this turd has been dropped in this thread alone (and by five separate people, to boot). For chrissakes, find a better way to express yourselves than this thoughtless soundbite garbage.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:03 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


"... War does not bring peace or honour or prosperity."
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:36 PM on August 2

Tell that to the Germany and the Japan that we beat in the middle of the 20th Century, subsequently helped defend through all the rest of it, and still argue with today, about national defense strategies and costs. Even they want to know where our carriers are when trouble raises its unweary head, tightwads and pacifists though they've become under our umbrella.
posted by paulsc at 8:05 PM on August 2, 2011


The two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do put an enormous amount of pressure on material in terms of wear and tear paulsc. Of course the standard response by most Mefites would be "just end the wars".

But I'll play along. Let's say for the sake of argument that our fighter fleet is really in that bad of condition. Why do we need to upgrade to fifth generation fighters at all? surely we could get the existing fighters reconditioned and upgraded with additional avionics. It's not like the F-15 hasn't already been upgraded several times.

Hell if defense procurement wasn't ridiculously weighted towards domestic manufacturers we could probably get a good number of Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafales at a fraction of the price of the JSF. Yeah the F22 and F35 are probably more advanced but realistically what enemy are we going to be facing that can match up against even our 4th generation fighters? China?

Even if a convincing argument can be made that we need to have a substantial inventory of F35s do we need them right now or can purchase of them be delayed or slowed until we get our economic house in order?
posted by vuron at 8:06 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


My totally non expert opinion is that spending on the F-35 is fine, but the next generation after it and the F-22 is almost certainly going to be drones so don't spend anything else on a new manned fighter.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:14 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... Yeah the F22 and F35 are probably more advanced but realistically what enemy are we going to be facing that can match up against even our 4th generation fighters? China? ..."

Funny you should mention China in your question. Their advanced fighter development program is of real interest, not only in Washington, but in Taipei and Tokyo, two of our largest customers for F-16 variants. To say hardly anything of the interest the Chengdu J20 is no doubt creating in Tehran and Jerusalem, too.
posted by paulsc at 8:24 PM on August 2, 2011


the next generation after it and the F-22 is almost certainly going to be drones

Military aviation as we've understood it for the last 100 years will be extinct in our lifetimes.

I don't know if what the drone jockeys do is technically "aviation" or not. Nor do I care.

Note to self: Read James Salter's The Hunters.

posted by Trurl at 8:28 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Tell that to the Germany and the Japan that we beat in the middle of the 20th Century, subsequently helped defend through all the rest of it, and still argue with today, about national defense strategies and costs. Even they want to know where our carriers are when trouble raises its unweary head, tightwads and pacifists though they've become under our umbrella."
posted by paulsc at 10:05 PM on August 2

I fail to see how this reference to the world situation 75 years ago is, er, germane. Yes, it was necessary to go to war to defeat totalitarian, fascist, economically-advanced expansionist powers then.

Is it so much to wonder if the nation which now is responsible for 40% of total global spending on arms, should cut back on military spending and maybe concentrate instead on feeding and housing its own poor, building its own infrastructure and providing jobs for its own massively unemployed and under-employed population?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:33 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm decidedly mixed on the JSF, most of the reports indicate the unit costs have been consistently under reported to the point where the average cost per fighter have skyrocketed (I think some estimates predict the unit cost to be roughly $128 million per fighter) further it seems that even within the DoD there is a suggestion that due to continued problems with the F35B variant that program should be scrapped in it's entirety and that numbers of A and C variant be reduced.

The simple fact of the matter is that the F35 was promised as a one size fits all alternative when it's pretty clear that such approaches tend to create a design that is unspectacular for all it's roles.

It's not like the F15C and F15E aren't going to stay with us for an extended period of time. If we wanted to get a bit more life out of a tried and true fighter we could even invest in the F15 Silent Eagle for a substantial cost savings per unit. Sure it's not particularly stealthy in comparison to the F22 but really unless we are planning on a dogfight with the Chinese over Taiwan I don't really see the need for a massive number of 5th generation fighters.
posted by vuron at 8:33 PM on August 2, 2011


"... Even if a convincing argument can be made that we need to have a substantial inventory of F35s do we need them right now or can purchase of them be delayed or slowed until we get our economic house in order?"
posted by vuron at 11:06 PM on August 2

If I knew exactly how many uranium separation centrifuges were spinning productively tonight in Iran, I'd be better able to answer your question with some accuracy. Not knowing that for sure, I'm probably still more inclined than you seem to be, to say that I think it better we get the F-35s sooner, rather than later. Particularly since, to save money under former SecDef Gates, we're getting only 187 F22s, ever, and knowing that high performance military planes, flown to their limits, are not the long lived beasts their procurement process would have you think they should be.
posted by paulsc at 8:36 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


What do centrifuges in Iran have to do with anything? If you know where the centrifuges are such that you can target them with F35s, you know where they are such that you can target them with cruise missiles or ICBMs or drone strikes.
posted by Justinian at 8:39 PM on August 2, 2011


Oh. My. God. Have you learned nothing from the last 10 years?

We are more than adequately equipped to fight a symmetrical, early-20th-century style war (exhibit A: the nuclear arsenal).

We have also demonstrated, in Vietnam, Iraq II and Afghanistan, that our superior conventional forces are at best able to come to a stalemate in assymetrical warfare situations. So what's the better investment here: more investment in domestic infrastructure and jobs to make our society stronger and more attractive, or bombing the shit out of nations we don't like until everyone hates us?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:43 PM on August 2, 2011 [8 favorites]


Cutting any significant military funding can't and won't happen during a period of 9-10% unemployment, that we all know.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:44 PM on August 2, 2011


"... I fail to see how this reference to the world situation 75 years ago is, er, germane. ..."
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:33 PM on August 2

When Qaddafi was making noise and threatening Europe recently, even the Germans were interested in U.S. Naval assets deployed in the Mediterranean, because their Eurofighters can't reach Africa and return to base, without mid-air refueling. Those that might fall into the Mediterranean after running out of gas, create a demand for naval forces that can fish out their pilots...

"... So what's the better investment here: more investment in domestic infrastructure and jobs to make our society stronger and more attractive, or bombing the shit out of nations we don't like until everyone hates us?"
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:43 PM on August 2

False dichotomy. How about we just outsource the bombing of all the tyrants and jihadists we can find, until the freedom loving guerilla forces we'd like to recognize spring up to be recognized and re-armed, at retail prices?
posted by paulsc at 8:58 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... If you know where the centrifuges are such that you can target them with F35s, you know where they are such that you can target them with cruise missiles or ICBMs or drone strikes."
posted by Justinian at 11:39 PM on August 2

Of course, if the centrifuges are dug in under mountains, none of that stuff will actually do much, directly, to stop them spinning. F 35s sold to Israel, Turkey and Egypt might keep an Iranian Army, intent on building delivery systems for nuclear weapons, busy for a while. It's just a lot harder to massively harden and hide actual delivery systems.
posted by paulsc at 9:08 PM on August 2, 2011


Of course, if the centrifuges are dug in under mountains, none of that stuff will actually do much, directly, to stop them spinning.

Duh, we have Stuxnet for that.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:10 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ooh, scary threatening noises from a tin-pot dictator. I missed the part in that article where the good Colonel sent the Wehrmacht into the Sudentenland.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an isolationist. But I also don't think that every problem in the world is a nail waiting to be hammered down by the United States Air Force. You paint my position as a false dichotomy; but if anything has become clear in the last week, it is the fact that the situation we face is anything but a false dichotomy. This nation can no longer afford both guns and butter, so let's take the butter and see if with it we can grease not only our economy but also the wheels of diplomacy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:17 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


War does not bring peace or honour

Speaking of war and honor: Iraqi Refugees: A Debt Defaulted
posted by homunculus at 9:18 PM on August 2, 2011


"Duh, we have Stuxnet for that."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:10 AM on August 3

You've got those upstart Persians, there, furiousxgeorge! The ultimate fire-and-forget anti-nuclear weapon is maybe a crappy worm hitting counterfeit copies of Windows. Cancel the F 35s, moth ball the carriers, stand down the Marines, except for White House guard duty.

If our hackers can't protect us, we don't deserve protection.
posted by paulsc at 9:23 PM on August 2, 2011


It doesn't need to be counterfeit when you use zero day exploits. I'm with you though on the whole, I'm okay with having the ability to blow stuff up around the world if we have to, but in a world where war is unthinkable methods like Stuxnet will become more and more a part of our problem solving.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:28 PM on August 2, 2011


I eagerly await the parade of mea culpas from the people ranting about the Democrats caving on the FAA issue.
posted by Justinian at 9:30 PM on August 2, 2011


Honestly if Germany and Japan and France and England want the benefits of US military superiority they either need to help pay for it or build enough self-defense forces that they can relieve some of the burden of being the world's policeman.

Now don't get me wrong I definitely don't believe in isolationism and contrary to many I think military force can and should be used to advance net social good through mutual defense pacts, peacekeeping missions, etc. That being said we cannot afford to continue to go it alone or to absorb the lion share of defense spending for our allies. It's the free rider problem, they have no incentive to pay for additional capabilities if we are willing to cover their share.

I do think that there is still a role for NATO to play in the world but honestly France and England could shell out for a full size carrier or two if they are really that critical.
posted by vuron at 9:31 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


"... This nation can no longer afford both guns and butter, so let's take the butter and see if with it we can grease not only our economy but also the wheels of diplomacy."
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:17 AM on August 3

That would be an admirable course, and one I'd surely endorse, the first year attendance of national diplomatic representatives at UN meetings exceeds attendance of national military representatives, "grey fellows" and private weapons agents, at the Paris Air Show, the #1 biennial international mart for new air superiority weapons. In the meantime, if I recommend greasing anything, it's a lot more likely to have gun barrels than diplomatic accoutrements.

"I do think that there is still a role for NATO to play in the world but honestly France and England could shell out for a full size carrier or two if they are really that critical."
posted by vuron at 12:31 AM on August 3

The French actually have 1 carrier, the Charles De Gaulle. It mostly stays in port in Marseilles.
posted by paulsc at 9:36 PM on August 2, 2011


I eagerly await the parade of mea culpas from the people ranting about the Democrats caving on the FAA issue.

Democratic victory of the day: Republicans did not accept our capitulation on FAA and will ask for more, because for some reason they have the idea that they can push us around.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:41 PM on August 2, 2011


So the fact that they didn't give in the Republican demands is evidence that they're a bunch of wimps who capitulate?
posted by Justinian at 9:52 PM on August 2, 2011


Yup, the world is a scary place, and it can be made less scary by the production of more guns, more bombers, more fighters, more militarization. Actual diplomacy (incentivizing, cajoling, negotiating) will never solve anything. Got it.

I'm curious to know if this peculiar way of seeing the world has worked in your personal life. Do you punch people in the face straightaway if they're doing something you don't like?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:54 PM on August 2, 2011


"... My totally non expert opinion is that spending on the F-35 is fine, but the next generation after it and the F-22 is almost certainly going to be drones so don't spend anything else on a new manned fighter."
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:14 PM on August 2

The drone jockeys and the video gamers all say so, but the practical problem with high performance drones is that they burn fuel a lot like a high performance manned fighter does, and nobody has worked out a way to mid-air re-fuel drones. It ought to be simple, but, apparently, it ain't, and without mid-air refueling, high performance drones are just expensive cruise missiles. Mid-air refueling capability is such a key to U.S. air operations, that it's become a specialty of ours, and one which is nearly unique in the world, for all practical purposes, at the daily scale we do it. NATO, without U.S. Air Force tankers, is mostly a static ground display outfit, for European air shows.
posted by paulsc at 10:00 PM on August 2, 2011


"... I'm curious to know if this peculiar way of seeing the world has worked in your personal life. Do you punch people in the face straightaway if they're doing something you don't like?"
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:54 AM on August 3

Why would I punch someone, if I could wait a bit and shoot them in self-defense?
posted by paulsc at 10:03 PM on August 2, 2011


Fair enough. I guess talking to them is not an option, then.

I'm off to bed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:07 PM on August 2, 2011


So the fact that they didn't give in the Republican demands is evidence that they're a bunch of wimps who capitulate?

No, the fact that they capitulated is the evidence that they capitulated. The fact that Republicans refused this and asked for more is evidence that they think it will happen again.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:11 PM on August 2, 2011


Meanwhile, while the Obamapologists paid or otherwise spread the "best deal we could have got" meme across the internet, 20% of America's children now live in poverty. And due to lack of healthcare in the U.S. infant mortality has now reached 7 out of 1000 which puts the US smack in the league of Malta, Slovakia and Hungary (Croatia and Macau have lower mortality rates btw.

So thank you Obamapologists for helping make the country what it is today. Keep up the good work.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 10:30 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Obama signed the SCHIP law which expanded coverage for Medicaid to 4million additional lower income children. The Affordable Care Act will subsidize health insurance for poor people making up to 400% of the poverty level. So it seems that Obama has done quite a bit about this problem, but you still hate him for some unfathomable reason.
posted by humanfont at 11:11 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


but you still hate him for some unfathomable reason

Maybe you should go to those 15 million American children living in poverty per the link above and tell them how great they really are doing?
posted by Poet_Lariat at 11:28 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Oooh, the scary Iranians! I love how that works. First scare the Iranians to death, by blatantly aggressive and illegal wars, all based on falsified intelligence - wars right on their doorstep, wars which we conducted with brazen assurance that Iraq cannot defend itself. Iran took notice. And we didn't stop there, we openly threatened them with the same. Oh, and by the way, we actually conducted special operations against them. While openly calling for the overthrow of their government, and funding their internal enemies. I wonder why those terrible Iranians then took note of all this and started rooting about that atom thingie. Which of course immediately give us an excuse to say along with the paulsc's "waaaah, the Iranians have centrifuges, waaah! Clearly something must be done - raise the defense budget!".

They got us coming and going. First increase the defense budget so we can fight illegal wars against countries that did diddly squat to us, like Iraq. Then, when that causes Iranians to look at the only thing that seems to prevent the U.S. from aggressive wars - atomic weapons - well, naturally we must increase the defense budget to deal with that - can't have it!

I tell you what. Maybe we should quit attacking countries that either don't have atomic weapons, or gave them up (Libya), and then perhaps other countries will have less incentive to look to atomic weapons to defend against an overweening aggressive superpower.

But you know, the problem will take care of itself. Because, just as ancient Rome, we'll bankrupt ourselves by starving the productive economy for the sake of endless wars and a monster defense budget that will consume us like a cancer. Soon we won't be able to afford this, and we can then put soil over our jet fighters, maybe some food will grow on this.

Stupid, lying, murderous and deeply self-destructive, but hey, all those shiny toys we can play with, moving them about the board, with ritualistic incantations of their names "F35!" - maybe that can drown out the crashing sounds of our bridges falling from disrepair, and the collapse of an economy.
posted by VikingSword at 11:43 PM on August 2, 2011 [9 favorites]


In the debt ceiling deal Obama ensured that food stamps were not cut, instead we're cutting defense. So those poor kids are getting more access to insurance, healthier school lunches and will keep their food. That is called making a difference in the lives of the poor.
posted by humanfont at 11:55 PM on August 2, 2011


Poet_Lariat wrote: Maybe you should go to those 15 million American children living in poverty per the link above and tell them how great they really are doing?

Yep, that's what happens in a recession with subsequent stagnation. Oh, you expect these problems we've been actively engaged with for the past 40 years to just suddenly disappear? Sorry to disappoint.
posted by wierdo at 12:20 AM on August 3, 2011


I demand an apology for having to read this silly bickering.

It's would be much more interesting to hear about why Reid didn't capitulate after he hinted he would. Will he stillk once the House returns in September? Why or why not? What sort of bargaining power does he have? Hell, why is this even an issue?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:05 AM on August 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


I still want to know why, when the Democrats held the house, it was the Senate that was hyper important and the fact that the Republicans had enough of a "majority" there to filibuster made us idiots for demanding action on anything.

But now that the Republicans hold the house we're idiots for demanding that the Democrats use their presence in the Senate to stop bad things from happening.

To my poor, ignorant, self it appears almost as if the people making that argument have basically decided that no matter what liberals must always lose and no matter what conservatives must always win, and they're just changing their arguments to match whatever is happening.

Democrats control the House? The Senate is #1 and nothing can be done as long as they have even 40 votes.

Republicans control the House? The Senate is powerless and nothing can be done even though the Democrats have 53 votes.

Either way, we're idiots for ever thinking that the Democrats can do anything positive. I'm probably missing something huge here, being the total liberal idiot that I am. But to me it seems that they're merely making excuses for a group that doesn't actually **want** to do anything good.
posted by sotonohito at 6:56 AM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


I still want to know why, when the Democrats held the house, it was the Senate that was hyper important and the fact that the Republicans had enough of a "majority" there to filibuster made us idiots for demanding action on anything.

Because the House was overwhelmingly Democratic and passed several pretty liberal health care bills. The Senate was just barely Democratic, having exactly 60 votes, including two independents and 4 conservative Democrats. The Senate had to bargain and compromise, the House didn't or no where near as much.

But now that the Republicans hold the house we're idiots for demanding that the Democrats use their presence in the Senate to stop bad things from happening.

When you only control one House of Congress, it is hard to get things done, yes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:04 AM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


But remember, don't judge on what he actually does, because the things he does you don't like aren't his fault!

How about, do judge him on what he actually does, but don't judge him based on what some anonymous source who for all we know might be a party on the other side of the ongoing negotiations reportedly says he does, or based on what some anonymous lobbyist or other nameless insider reportedly says he does, or based on what Republicans do or don't do, or based on what Congress does or doesn't do, or--unless there's good evidence he specifically ordered the deed--based on what other Washington officials do, whether under his authority or not. It's not the president's job to micromanage the day to day operations of the entire Federal government nor to always second guess the decision making of the officials he appoints to his cabinet, and President Obama has frequently expressed the view that such officials are meant to be allowed to operate with at least some degree of independence and autonomy. Certainly, in the case of the DOJ--where Bush II notoriously engaged in a campaign of politically motivated and very likely illegal attorney firings--the president defers to the institutional authority of the DOJ and its leadership.

Anyway, this deal turned out not to be a total and utter defeat, and for now, that's probably enough. Either rebuild the parties from the inside and get better Democrats in during the primaries, or push legislation through to move toward electoral reforms that would make Nth party candidates viable.

Someone up-thread mentioned Obama hasn't really helped with campaigning for the national party as much as he might. If Obama hasn't been enthusiastic about working for the national Democratic party, is that really such a surprise? They've hung him out to dry on issue after issue--lobbying reform which they basically dismissed as a non-starter from the beginning to the point of ridicule, closing Guantanamo, trying the remaining detainees in civilian courts, etc. His own party hasn't had his back from the beginning. For now, we need better Democrats and more Democrats, and eventually, deep campaign finance and electoral reforms.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:06 AM on August 3, 2011


If Obama hasn't been enthusiastic about working for the national Democratic party, is that really such a surprise?

Perhaps not, but it is his job and I expect him to do it. At this point, until the Republicans stop being so batshit insane all the time, one of Democrat's main jobs is to win elections to keep the crazy people from breaking things.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:21 AM on August 3, 2011


The Senate is the place where you can play defense. Unless you have a supermajority (and even then) you constantly have to respect the will of the minority because they can filibuster and use all sorts of procedural magic to endlessly delay and compromise bills.

The House is where you get to play offense. You have can set the agenda through your control of the budgetary process and frankly if you just want to engage in blatant demagoguery you can basically tell the minority party to fuck off.

The problem is that Democrats and Republicans tend to use these tools in different manners. Democrats (typically) want to enact further legislation, move forward on social and economic issues, etc. They feel collectively that government can be a useful tool in promoting the social good.

Republicans (typically) promote the opposing position that government is bad and that unfettered economies do better. Their plan is generally to shrink government spending on a variety of social programs, etc.

The structure of the chambers typically empowers the Republicans when they hold the House to a greater extent than it empowers Democrats because they can always withhold funding.
posted by vuron at 7:28 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Someone up-thread mentioned Obama hasn't really helped with campaigning for the national party as much as he might.

If I remember correctly dems ran from him. They were cowardly and did not stand on their accomplishments. and they didn't try for the revenue before the election.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:33 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


If I remember correctly dems ran from him.

Wasn't that the summer of '09, when Republicans mounted a huge backlash against health care reform and Democrats, including the President, didn't do a whole lot?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:44 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


&(;$%#! 3,013 comments. I don't suppose reading the last dozen or so will be useful in any way. Maybe I'll read every fifth comment - maybe that would be less depressing. O_o
posted by Glinn at 8:02 AM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


How about, do judge him on what he actually does, but don't judge him based on what some anonymous source who for all we know might be a party on the other side of the ongoing negotiations reportedly says he does, or based on what some anonymous lobbyist or other nameless insider reportedly says he does, or based on what Republicans do or don't do, or based on what Congress does or doesn't do, or--unless there's good evidence he specifically ordered the deed--based on what other Washington officials do, whether under his authority or not.

So, White House press releases.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:38 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I clearly remember that no one kicked Bill Clinton around anymore after that government shutdown. It was all smooth sailing for him after that, since he stood his ground. (Sarcasm alert.) And I remember that health care plan of his that sailed through as well, since he showed that he was no wuss. (Sarcasm Alert II: Son of Sarcasm Alert.)
posted by raysmj at 10:07 AM on August 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


In the debt ceiling deal Obama ensured that food stamps were not cut, instead we're cutting defense. So those poor kids are getting more access to insurance, healthier school lunches and will keep their food. That is called making a difference in the lives of the poor.

Yeah, but he hasn't single-handedly solved the problem of childhood hunger or poverty in less than two years, so...
posted by rollbiz at 10:42 AM on August 3, 2011


I don't recall Bush cutting food stamps either, what a hero!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:44 AM on August 3, 2011


I don't recall Bush cutting food stamps either, what a hero!

What's your point? It was a good thing to restore food stamp benefits to noncitizens. Does it make it a bad thing that Bush proposed doing it?
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:50 AM on August 3, 2011


My point is that we apply hilariously generous standards of "success" to our teammates.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:53 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


sotonohito: "I still want to know why, when the Democrats held the house, it was the Senate that was hyper important and the fact that the Republicans had enough of a "majority" there to filibuster made us idiots for demanding action on anything.

But now that the Republicans hold the house we're idiots for demanding that the Democrats use their presence in the Senate to stop bad things from happening.
"

In addition to what Brandon Blatcher said, the two sessions were trying to do different things. Democrats in '09-'10 were trying to enact sweeping new legislation -- the Senate was the big stumbling block there, because Republicans could stymie action by picking off a single Democratic senator (and that was in the best of times, after Franken was seated but before Scott Brown won).

Now, Republicans are trying to block routine legislation (federal budget, debt ceiling, FAA funding, etc.) to extort concessions. Democrats in the Senate have the filibuster, true, but they're not trying to stop things from happening -- they're trying to secure this must-pass legislation on favorable terms. This requires compromise with the GOP House, since stonewalling leads to government shutdown, furloughs, and default (which the GOP really doesn't mind at all).

Looked at another way, last session the debt ceiling and FAA funding passed without a hitch, while healthcare reform and the stimulus were uphill battles. Now the debt ceiling and FAA funding are uphill battles, while something on the scale of healthcare reform or the stimulus is politically impossible. That's what losing seats in both chambers will do, compounded with the inherent conservativeness of the Senate -- seriously, consult a map of the US and try to get to 60+ seats (two per state) without using any conservative states. It's damn hard.

XQUZYPHYR: "I was treated to a twice as long paragraph, once again explaining that Democrats cannot do anything, what's your plan what's your plan stop hitting yourself, so shut up hippie and accept capitulation."

Six. Six times in one thread. What's so appealing about this shitty line that it has to be used half a dozen times in one discussion?

Nobody's telling you to shut up, nobody's bullying you, nobody's calling you a hippie, and characterizing it as such is really uncharitable. Give it a fucking rest already.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:01 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Debt drama takes political toll on Obama
The president is the most visible symbol of what voters see as a badly dysfunctional government. Some Democrats say he could have negotiated better.


"Though he succeeded in staving off a historic default, President Obama emerges from the debt talks in a weakened political position with limited influence over a divided Congress."

"Moreover, many Democrats — including some ordinarily sympathetic to the president — feel part of the problem is of Obama's own making."

"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.""
posted by VikingSword at 11:29 AM on August 3, 2011


My point is that we apply hilariously generous standards of "success" to our teammates.

It was easy and relatively uncontroversial for him to do that, though. Even Gingrich was fine with that. It was especially easy for Bush to do this because the Bush administration also froze funding increases and aggressively increased work requirements for TANF recipients (thereby taking away state control of those grants, by the by), among other things.

Had Bush just restored food stamp benefits to noncitizens without any other destructive cruft, against a threatening Dem house who held the nation hostage in an attempt to thwart him, then yes, I'd have been pretty impressed with Bush.

On the other hand, Obama saved programs on the chopping block and neutered what he could of the Republicans' strength. I wouldn't call him a hero for it, but is a smart, realistic politician and this was the smart, realistic solution.

Upthread, raysmj accurately points out what happened to Clinton after he tried to do what people in this thread wish Obama had done. So-called "Hillarycare" was a debacle and the government shutdown didn't help the world.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread feel the need to see Obama as either a grand master of 11-dimensional chess or as a gutless, perennially bamboozled simp. The truth is neither.

...

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."

"Obama has gone mad with executive power! He hasn't used it nearly enough!"
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:33 AM on August 3, 2011


Listen, this is a period of big changes in our country. Rich Republicans and some whites don't like it. So they get extreme and use extreme procedural measures to try and regain control.

When they do that, its a long hard slog. So we have to fight and be patient and fight in such a way that makes it obvious whose the problem. That's what's going on here.

As for the hippy punching--here's what pisses me off. Look at the fucking GOP! They are the enemy! They are dripping with evil! So stabbing the President in the back, when you don't have the votes to provide him the ammo to do what you want is plain stupid.

I'd love to have universal, defined benefit health insurance. But the votes are not there. There might be a lot of support for it in the country, depending on how you word the polling, but the votes in Congress are not there for that. No amount of being angry or attacking the President creates those votes. What creates those votes is the winning of elections. And that's politics. And politics requires us to stick together. Christ, I'd like nothing more than a 200-strong progressive caucus. We only have a 75-member Progressive Caucus. So we have to elect those people. And that's done by emphasizing the economic things we have in common with people who are more conservative than we are.

And it requires a long-term commitment. I don't mean being mad for a long time. I mean having the willingness to take the small victories that add up.

Take the civil rights movement in the Congress. It took 15 years. That's a long time. People only pay attention to 1963 and 1964 and forget that the battle was very similar to this--long evil slogs with disappointing results.

We need to elect Dems. Trying to force the President to do what you want by being angry at him does nothing. It can help in the House, but won't do shit in the Senate.


We need the power. First we get the money, then we get the votes, then we get the seats, then we get the universal healthcare. (then we get the women).

Seriously attacking the one guy with any real power in this situation weakens him and does nothing to change the situation because of the fundamentals. We're confronted with problems that no amount of "staying strong" or whatever the fuck he was supposed to do will help.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:37 AM on August 3, 2011 [6 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

Truman was crushed in the Supreme Court. Crushed. Nobody knows their history anymore.

You make these plays when you absolutely must. Not when you are merely just frustrated. Because this is a precedent that others, such as Bachman will surely use.

Read up on Sulla.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:40 AM on August 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


I feel like a lot of people in this thread feel the need to see Obama as either a grand master of 11-dimensional chess or as a gutless, perennially bamboozled simp. The truth is neither.


John Boehner is so dumb you don't have the opportunity to use 11-dimensional chess on him.

to say he got hosed on all of this is an understatement.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:41 AM on August 3, 2011


Truman was crushed in the Supreme Court. Crushed. Nobody knows their history anymore.

To be fair, that's the critics' point. It didn't work and people hated it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:43 AM on August 3, 2011


I find it grating because it characterizes good-faith debate among Mefites as thuggish bullying, which is just plain rude. If it were once or twice it wouldn't be a big deal, but for pete's sake, half a dozen times in one thread is overdoing it just a tad. Have more respect for your fellow users and stop invoking loaded stereotypes and assault imagery every time your political strategy is questioned.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:46 AM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


As for the hippy punching--here's what pisses me off. Look at the fucking GOP! They are the enemy!

This is an opinion some don't share. They are just people with different policy goals than me, just like the President. On some issues I agree with them more than him, one others I don't.

Most voters are somewhere in the center and are perfectly willing to cross over, they don't see the other party as an evil enemy that has to be vanquished.

We need the power. First we get the money, then we get the votes, then we get the seats, then we get the universal healthcare.

No, Democrats are never getting that if a supermajority in the Senate, control of the house, and control of the Presidency is not enough.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:48 AM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


No, Democrats are never getting that if a supermajority in the Senate, control of the house, and control of the Presidency is not enough.

Democrats are only sometimes progressives.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:50 AM on August 3, 2011


Those who say we have the votes, do you have a whip count? Because i don't know if we do or not. Gonna need to see names of for and againsts.

ARGHHH! Stop using violent imagery of slaves being whipped in our friendly discussion!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:51 AM on August 3, 2011


You have a plan for a Progressive supermajority?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:52 AM on August 3, 2011


Truman was crushed in the Supreme Court. Crushed. Nobody knows their history anymore.

To be fair, that's the critics' point. It didn't work and people hated it.


sorry, i missed that.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:52 AM on August 3, 2011


We need the power. First we get the money, then we get the votes, then we get the seats, then we get the universal healthcare.

No, Democrats are never getting that if a supermajority in the Senate, control of the house, and control of the Presidency is not enough.


You need more than exactly 60. Exactly 60 isn't enough because you need enough to cover for the occasional disagreement.

And we passed a lot.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:54 AM on August 3, 2011


Those who say we have the votes, do you have a whip count? Because i don't know if we do or not. Gonna need to see names of for and againsts.

ARGHHH! Stop using violent imagery of slaves being whipped in our friendly discussion!


That's the technical term. Black people use it in the House and Senate all the time. And you can whip non-slaves. There are whip offices
posted by Ironmouth at 11:57 AM on August 3, 2011


Universal healthcare, how many Democratic seats would be necessary? 70? Okay, it's not happening.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:58 AM on August 3, 2011


But Ironmouth, if I admit words associated with violence can non-violent implications then I can't repeatedly complain about it anymore.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2011


You have a plan for a Progressive supermajority?

just looking for 62 dems in the senate and a solid majority in the house. We won't get a progressive supermajority when only 18 percent of the population agrees with us.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2011


*can have an edit window.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2011


furiousxgeorge: " No, Democrats are never getting that if a supermajority in the Senate, control of the house, and control of the Presidency is not enough."

There's always the chance of it bubbling up from the states -- ACA was inspired by Romneycare, after all, and Vermont just recently enacted its own single-payer system which will be up and running in a few years. It's easy to mischaracterize UHC in France or the UK, harder when it's just next door. Kind of like gay marriage in that respect, which has seen a dramatic surge in popular support in recent years after becoming law in a handful of liberal states. Sadly I think it will require utter crisis in the system before it can become a nationwide reality, though.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2011


But Ironmouth, if I admit words associated with violence can non-violent implications then I can't repeatedly complain about it anymore.

you can complain all you want. write your congressman and tell them you want the offices of Majority Whip and Minority Whip and Deputy Whips abolished.

Good luck with that.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:01 PM on August 3, 2011


There would be more Democratic opposition to universal healthcare than there was for Obamacare, 62 would not be enough. You know this.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:02 PM on August 3, 2011


Universal healthcare, how many Democratic seats would be necessary? 70? Okay, it's not happening.

Ten years of Obamacare working well could allow us to do improvements.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:03 PM on August 3, 2011


furiousxgeorge: "But Ironmouth, if I admit words associated with violence can non-violent implications then I can't repeatedly complain about it anymore"

The issue is with the mischaracterization, not necessarily the violence. Asking "what's your plan?" with regard to passing legislation isn't bullying, and repeatedly labeling it as such dodges the question in a way that's not helpful to the discussion.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:04 PM on August 3, 2011


The key to enacting sweeping legislation is not just getting to some magical threshold of senators but also building a broad consensus among the electorate that doing x is good policy.

In regards to single payer systems or a Bismarck system or what have you the conservatives have been able to consistently paint the idea of single payer systems as undermining consumer choice. It doesn't matter that we can't pay for the system we have or that more and more people are being priced out of the system. People want to be able to go to the same doctor they've always gone to and they don't want to wait to see specialists and dammit this commercial was on tv that was listing symptoms and gosh darn it that sounds like it might be something I have.

As a result we've been forced to push very slowly in regards to these issues because movign too fast invites a voter backlash (like 2010).

There are definitely times for quick action and there are times for incremental improvements and in many policy areas incremental improvements are simply the best we are going to get.
posted by vuron at 12:05 PM on August 3, 2011


The implication of the phrase isn't bullying though, it's improperly assigning blame. The punch is as violent as the whip.

Ten years of Obamacare working well could allow us to do improvements.

Right, IF it works and IF Republicans taking control don't sabotage it in some way and IF you have about 65 Democratic senators and IF they control the house and IF they control the Presidency and IF they are willing to destroy the insurance companies and IF they aren't afraid of a backlash for expanding government...So no, it's not happening.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:07 PM on August 3, 2011


I find it grating because it characterizes good-faith debate among Mefites as thuggish bullying, which is just plain rude. If it were once or twice it wouldn't be a big deal, but for pete's sake, half a dozen times in one thread is overdoing it just a tad. Have more respect for your fellow users and stop invoking loaded stereotypes and assault imagery every time your political strategy is questioned.

Amen. Reminds me of the time when TARP was being passed and Boehner and Cantor thought slyly they could go back on their deal of a percentage of support. When Pelosi ordered enough people to vote no to kill the bill, they came out and said Nancy Pelosi was too mean!

Seriously, we disagree with the strategy of attacking the President. We think it pushes left-leaning independents away from voting for him. We also think that compromises must be made in a democracy.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:09 PM on August 3, 2011


Look at the fucking GOP! They are the enemy!
This is an opinion some don't share. They are just people with different policy goals than me


They're the enemy. These people. Not necessarily "Republicans", but this particular batch made up of 1. rich assholes who would only be sad about the deaths of millions of poor people in this country because they couldn't put those people to work for substandard pay, and 2. a new crop of apparently willfully ignorant fucktards who have no idea what the effects of their moronic grand plans would be.

Ugh, why did I want to read this thread again? *sticks head back in sand*
posted by Glinn at 12:11 PM on August 3, 2011


As a left leaning independent I can assure you your party constantly blaming everyone but yourself (hippy punching) is definitely part of what drives me away.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:12 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Rhaomi Well, yes, but it isn't as if we tried fixing the problem areas ahead of time. Back in December of 2010, back during the big Bush era tax cut extension vote, the possibility of including some sort of provision to keep the debt ceiling from being held hostage was brought up. And Obama (presumably speaking for the Democrats as a whole) said he trusted Boehner and didn't see any need to use the leverage he had during that time.

So now we're boned thanks to that misplaced trust.

The point is that the Democrats have two out of three of the lobes of elected government under their control. Smart people should be able to figure out how to use those two lobes to play dirty, hardball, politics and force the Republicans in the House to at least bend a little.

I know, from the Health Care debacle, that the Senate gets to send back revised bills to the House. How about they start sending back revised bills that slash federal money for every single teabagger's district if they don't get with the program? "Oops, sorry Rep. Broun, looks like the 10th District in Georgia won't be getting X unless you back the fuck down."

The idea that a tiny minority in a one out of the three elected parts of the government can somehow dictate terms to the entire flipping country is insane.

As for the Senate, I'm in full agreement with your assessment and have concluded that we're basically going to have to abolish it if anything good is ever going to happen again. We aren't a federation, we're a nation, and the idea of giving equal representation not to people but to postal districts is monstrous.

As far as hippie punching goes, I'm sorry you hate the phrase and if you'd like to see it's use discontinued then please encourage people to stop taking action that can be described that way.
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.

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?
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.

@Ironmouth Look at the fucking GOP! They are the enemy! They are dripping with evil! So stabbing the President in the back, when you don't have the votes to provide him the ammo to do what you want is plain stupid.

I might point out that stabbing the left in the back, blaming them for all the problems, and generally trying to alienate them to the maximum extent possible is pretty damn stupid.

And it's even dumber to complain when the left fights back against the constant attacks they're subjected to.

Stop attacking the left, throw them a bone from time to time, and they'll probably fall into line.

And yes, the Republicans are the enemy. So why isn't Obama fighting them as such? Why aren't the Democrats fighting them as such. Instead we keep getting milquetoast blather about bipartisinship, compromise, and other such nonsense. As you say, the GOTP is the enemy, so how about Obama fight them for a change instead of venting his rage on us DFH's?

More to the point, again, I'm not a politician. I'm a voter, an activist, my job is not to praise compromise, it's to agitate for the advancement of the positions I believe in. That, definitionally, includes offering criticism -- sharp criticism even -- when my elected officials act in a manner diametrically opposed to my beliefs.

Yes, Obama campaigned on extending the wars, yes he campaigned on killing yet more people in the middle east for no reason at all, but that doesn't mean I should be heaping praise on him for doing just that. I'm opposed to the wars, therefore I bitch about it when Obama continues them.

I'm opposed to the President ordering the CIA to assassinate US citizens, so I bitch about when Obama does just that.

I categorically refuse to sit down, shut up, and praise Obama regardless of his actions just because he's a Democrat.

I categorically refuse to cut politicians slack by praising bad deals as great victories. If you want me to praise victories, give me a victory.

We need the power. First we get the money, then we get the votes, then we get the seats, then we get the universal healthcare.

We gave the Democrats a majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and the presidency. If they can't act after we gave them all that I don't think it's my fault. Nor do I think it's somehow bad, or improper, of me to criticize them for failing to take advantage of the nearly unprecedented political windfall we on the left granted them.

The left gave the Democrats utter and total control of the entire government. We deserved a few real wins for that. Instead we get chewed out for daring to complain when we got bupkis.

You keep repeating, like some sort of mantra, "we don't have the votes" [1]. Well, let me ask you something, do you think you get the votes by driving away your most active and engaged members? Do you think those mythic independent voters you and Obama keep courting with your rightward lurches are going to do the hard, dirty, and thankless work of politics?

Will the independent voters be working phone banks? Will the independent voters be licking stamps? Will the independent voters be walking house to house and knocking on doors? All that is done by the "professional left" that Obama so despises, not by the mythic independent voters he so loves. You want wins? You want votes? Give your most active and dedicated workers something other than sneering contempt and humiliation.

Whether or not Rhaomi likes it, the Democrats continually engage in hippie punching, and then people like you come around to tell the hippies that it's all their fault when the Democrats lose. Get the hippie punching to stop and, I know this sounds crazy, the left might be willing to cut the Democrats more slack.

If Obama hadn't basically gone out of his way to drive away the left I'd be willing to extend more good faith his way. But until he stops treating the left like they're the enemy I'm hardly going to be giving him any benefit of the doubt.

[1] Note: We, the Democrats, **DID** have the votes back in 2008 and 2009. Remember? 60 Senate votes, a majority in the House, and the presidency. We gave the Democrats the votes, and all that stuff you said could happen didn't.
posted by sotonohito at 12:12 PM on August 3, 2011 [9 favorites]


And I find "you can't do this because you can't; everything is impossible except whatever Obama has already done" repeated over thirty times in the same thread in various minute differentiations to be bullying too.

It isn't bullying to disagree with you. Its free speech. I'm sorry you wish we agreed with you but we do not and we are going to continue to point out where we disagree. It is childish to expect that those who disagree with you will just stop doing so because it apparently hurts your feelings.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:14 PM on August 3, 2011


2. a new crop of apparently willfully ignorant fucktards who have no idea what the effects of their moronic grand plans would be.

See, these people are my friends and family and yours as well. They aren't an enemy and they aren't stupid.

Partisanship can be scary.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:15 PM on August 3, 2011


Rhaomi Well, yes, but it isn't as if we tried fixing the problem areas ahead of time. Back in December of 2010, back during the big Bush era tax cut extension vote, the possibility of including some sort of provision to keep the debt ceiling from being held hostage was brought up. And Obama (presumably speaking for the Democrats as a whole) said he trusted Boehner and didn't see any need to use the leverage he had during that time.

So now we're boned thanks to that misplaced trust.


They negotiated for it, they didn't get it. obama put shine on the apple. what else are you going to do?
posted by Ironmouth at 12:20 PM on August 3, 2011


I don't recall Bush cutting food stamps either, what a hero!

In 2005 Bush proposed significant cuts to food stamps. Yet a other exams of the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Bush restored food stamps for illegals after democrats retook congress
posted by humanfont at 12:22 PM on August 3, 2011


See, these people are my friends and family and yours as well.

No, their constituents are my friends and family (well, not many, but I take your point.) The actual folks who convinced people to elect them, though - I believe they do not have the best interests of anyone but themselves at heart. Not only that, but they don't even understand how "smaller (but more fundamentalist Christian, of course) government" the way they envision it will hurt them, too, in the end: thus, ignorant fucktards. :D
posted by Glinn at 12:23 PM on August 3, 2011


Smart people should be able to figure out how to use those two lobes to play dirty, hardball, politics and force the Republicans in the House to at least bend a little.

Well, what are your suggestions? Just saying gee, they should be able to figure it out is just being pissed the GOP won the House.

Because there is this thing called the Constitution, no?
posted by Ironmouth at 12:29 PM on August 3, 2011


Bush proposed the food stamps for illegals in 2002.

As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) Bush proposed changing eligibility for food stamps in 2005, yeah. Obama has proposed changing eligibility rules for Medicare by switching the age to 67, right?

This kind of monkeying around is something both parties do when making budgets, not a sign that one side is the enemy.

The actual folks who convinced people to elect them, though - I believe they do not have the best interests of anyone but themselves at heart. Not only that, but they don't even understand how "smaller (but more fundamentalist Christian, of course) government" the way they envision it will hurt them, too, in the end: thus, ignorant fucktards. :D

To be clear, we are talking about the tea party? My crazy tea party uncle strongly opposes all the religious monkeying around in government even though he is a strongly devout Catholic.

His type of libertarian views is where the current crop of tea party congresspeople grew out of, they responded directly to the views that were already there. I think smaller government being good is now a near universal idea, we just disagree on how much smaller...how big the cuts will be.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:29 PM on August 3, 2011


[1] Note: We, the Democrats, **DID** have the votes back in 2008 and 2009. Remember? 60 Senate votes, a majority in the House, and the presidency. We gave the Democrats the votes, and all that stuff you said could happen didn't.

That's funny, I remember things differently. I remember passing Health Care. I remember a stimulus package. I remember an auto industry bill that saved US auto production and thousands of jobs, I remember a financial regulation bill.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:31 PM on August 3, 2011


Romneycare, emergency bills either side would have passed in some form, toothless regulation.

Well, what are your suggestions?

We can't all have brilliant plans like:

Step One: Vote for Democrats
Step Two: ???
Step Three: Universal Healthcare!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:34 PM on August 3, 2011


You keep repeating, like some sort of mantra, "we don't have the votes" [1]. Well, let me ask you something, do you think you get the votes by driving away your most active and engaged members? Do you think those mythic independent voters you and Obama keep courting with your rightward lurches are going to do the hard, dirty, and thankless work of politics?

you're 20% of the voting public. wake up. we need to get real. Conservatives are 42%, Moderates are 35%


seriously. where are your voting masses? where? because they sure as hell didn't show up in 2010. And that is the voters' fault pure and simple.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:35 PM on August 3, 2011


Romneycare, emergency bills either side would have passed in some form, toothless regulation.

prove it. literally prove your counterfactual.

you can't. where as I can prove it did pass under obama.

the perfect is the enemy of the good.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:37 PM on August 3, 2011


I can prove bailouts happening under Bush and there is no reason to suspect the policy would not have continued. Collapse of the auto industry would have too many repercussions for the Republicans to allow it to happen on their watch. They aren't comic book villains and they do act to protect their own power.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:39 PM on August 3, 2011




@Ironmouth obama put shine on the apple. what else are you going to do?

Not put shine on a shit sandwich?

He could have said, in answer to the question about the debt ceiling "we were concerned that the routine vote on the debt ceiling may be exploited by some elements in the House and tried to include measures in this bill to prevent such a perversion of a routine vote. Unfortunately those measures were not approved and we must, therefore, hope that Rep. Boehner is able to control his caucus and deliver the necessary votes to keep America moving."

You don't try to polish a shit sandwich.

I'd say my above suggested answer is far too milquetoast and conciliatory, but I was trying for an approximation of Obama's usual tone.

Well, what are your suggestions? Just saying gee, they should be able to figure it out is just being pissed the GOP won the House.

How about whatever the Republicans did to keep health care from passing with any good provisions?

Here's my problem with your annoyingly repeated excuses for the constant stream of Democratic failure: the Republicans proved that with a minority in both houses of Congress they could successfully stop the Democrats from doing just about anything. You can't say "well gee, we don't have a supermajority anymore, guess the Republicans get to call all the shots and there's nothing we can do about it". Or, rather, you can but you sound like a twit when you do.

I don't know what the specifics are. I'm not a politician, I'm not an expert on Congressional procedure. But I do know, from example, that it is possible. You can't tell me it's impossible. I know it's possible because I've seen the Republicans do it, repeatedly.

So knock it off with the condescending lectures and demands for specific courses of action. I don't know and I don't have to know what, specifically, the Democrats should or could be doing. But I do know, from repeated examples of the Republicans winning with only a tiny minority on their side, that it is possible. So don't bullshit me and expect me to believe that somehow, after years of the Senate being the most important thing in the world that no one can ever do anything about because they outrank the House, that suddenly it's the House that's the most important thing int he world and merely having both the Presidency and a majority in the Senate makes all action other than utter capitulation to the whims of our Republican Overlords foolish fantasy by idiots.

You tell me how the Republicans got their way all the fucking time when they were a minority, then we'll do that in reverse.

But don't bullshit me. Don't expect me to believe that somehow, like magic, all the techniques that the Republicans used to get their way as a complete minority don't work when the Democrats are a minority in only one house of Congress. I'm not so stupid I'll fall for that nonsense.
posted by sotonohito at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


I think smaller government being good is now a near universal idea, we just disagree on how much smaller...how big the cuts will be.

If by smaller you mean fewer loopholes and legal language for appallingly wealthy people to continue to avoid paying their fair share, then sure. If by smaller you mean fewer billions wasted on the industry of war, then yes please. But if you mean taking away the meager benefits that underprivileged/poor/disabled/elderly/children/ and others are provided as members of this society, then no, I don't believe that is a near universal idea.
posted by Glinn at 12:46 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


[1] Note: We, the Democrats, **DID** have the votes back in 2008 and 2009. Remember? 60 Senate votes

Those Senate votes included Joe Lieberman and 3 or 4 other jackasses, er Senators. Simply having 58 Democrats and 2 Independents wasn't enough. I wish it were, but it wasn't.

The Democrats could have changed the Senates rules and required only a simple majority for the vote. While tempting, I can understand why they didn't do that, as it would have enabled the Republicans to do the same when they take over the Senate.

Don't expect me to believe that somehow, like magic, all the techniques that the Republicans used to get their way as a complete minority don't work when the Democrats are a minority in only one house of Congress.

Use whatever technique worked for the Republicans, no mater what, is that it?

And seriously, this isn't rocket science. The Democrats had a razor thing majority in the Senate and a comfortable one in the House in 2009. That changed in 2010, hence the shift in importance. I don't know why that's difficult to grasp. There's no magic or bullshit going on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:49 PM on August 3, 2011


If by smaller you mean fewer loopholes and legal language for appallingly wealthy people to continue to avoid paying their fair share, then sure. If by smaller you mean fewer billions wasted on the industry of war, then yes please. But if you mean taking away the meager benefits that underprivileged/poor/disabled/elderly/children/ and others are provided as members of this society, then no, I don't believe that is a near universal idea.

Smaller in total scope is what I mean. Yes, there are disagreements about where and how to cut but it is universal that government should shrink.

And so during the course of these discussions with congressional leaders, what I've tried to emphasize is we have a unique opportunity to do something big. We have a chance to stabilize America's finances for a decade, for 15 years or 20 years, if we're willing to seize the moment.

Now, what that would require would be some shared sacrifice and a balanced approach that says, "We're going to make significant cuts in domestic spending." And I have already said I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower. … It would require us taking on health care spending. And that includes looking at Medicare and finding ways that we can stabilize the system so that it is available not just for this generation but for future generations.


You don't get down to Eisenhower without overall shrinkage no matter what you do with revenue.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:49 PM on August 3, 2011


There will always be Joe Lieberman and 3-4 jackasses.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:50 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


There will always be Joe Lieberman and 3-4 jackasses.

What do you suggest we do about them?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:52 PM on August 3, 2011


Ironmouth seriously. where are your voting masses? where? because they sure as hell didn't show up in 2010. And that is the voters' fault pure and simple

Hope those independent voters you love so much are good at licking stamps Ironmouth.

You keep yammering about that. Yeah, what a surprise, very few Americans identify with a word that the conservatives have been working diligently to vilify for decades.

Polls where they include "leans" or "usually votes" indicate that the nation is a lot more evenly split between Republicans and Democrats than polls where they just ask "hey, do you identify as a dirty, filthy, commiefaggot, anti-American, LIBERAL?"

Yes, thanks to work that began before Rush Limbaugh was even born, very few Americans self ID as liberal. So what? Roughly 50% vote Democratic.

And, again, what do you think contributes to the success of the conservative effort to utterly discredit the term "liberal"? Do you think that, perhaps, just perhaps, the continual hippie punching from elected Democrats might help with that?

Why would anyone want to identify as a liberal, even Obama hates liberals and never passes up an opportunity to heap scorn on the "professional left".

And would you **PLEASE** stop blaming liberals for 2010? Do you just not read exit polls? The left voted in about the same numbers as they always do. There as no defection, no stab in the back, no nothing, so would you stop with the lies there please?

But back to the point: how do you expect to win elections when the Democrats are working like crazy to drive away their most active and energetic members? Again, regardless of numbers in polling, do you think your beloved independent voters will be doing GOTV work for Obama in 2012? Do you think they'll be working phone banks? Do you think they'll be knocking on doors?

No? Then the Democrats had better start sucking up to the left and apologizing for all the hippie punching.
posted by sotonohito at 12:52 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


There will always be Joe Lieberman and 3-4 jackasses.

What do you suggest we do about them?


I don't particularly care as long as you aren't pulling the Ironmouth routine of claiming everything is possible if you vote for Democrats until they fail at which point nothing was possible.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:54 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


sotonohito: " [1] Note: We, the Democrats, **DID** have the votes back in 2008 and 2009. Remember? 60 Senate votes, a majority in the House, and the presidency. We gave the Democrats the votes, and all that stuff you said could happen didn't."

But this oversimplifies matters. We had 60 votes for a narrow window of time -- Norm Coleman dragged out Al Franken's seating until July 2009, and Kennedy's death in August, Brown's win in November, and subsequent seating in February brought the Democrats back to 59 in just a matter of months. And even when we had that magic 60, it depended on the votes of people like Joe Lieberman, an "independent" who campaigned for McCain and vowed to filibuster the public option, and Max Baucus, a conservative Montana Democrat who blockaded all talk of single payer at the committee level. This is almost inevitably the case, because there aren't enough left-leaning states to supply sixty reliably progressive senators -- you have to have some from the South or the Midwest to attain a supermajority. Any legislation that could win all of those votes would have to be watered down, or it wouldn't pass at all. The fact that ACA did pass is momentous, flawed though it may be. And we at least have a foot in the door now for future reforms.

This is worth pointing out because it's counterproductive to attribute all Democratic failures to feckless betrayal and therefore jump directly to abandonment. The unprecedented filibustering of damn near everything in the last congress was a major factor in the weakening of legislation, as was the composition and longevity of the supermajority. And it's insulting when calling attention to these facts is repeatedly equated with "a gang initiation where you have to beat up your childhood best friend to prove your loyalty to the new crowd." Because that's really what that line says -- Digby's blog post makes that point crystal clear. Invoking it over and over is more or less putting the "smelly, dirty, goddamn hippy" slur into the mouths of fellow Mefites and turning it back on yourself, acting like we're repulsed by you and trying to crush you to win right-wing street cred or something. But that's not what's happening at all. We're mostly on the same side, and working for much the same ends. And disagreement about the most effective way to achieve those ends is just debate, not the craven backstabbing you all keep rudely comparing it to.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:59 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't particularly care as long as you aren't pulling the Ironmouth routine of claiming everything is possible if you vote for Democrats until they fail at which point nothing was possible.

But having a Leiberman and 3 or 4 difficult Democrats does throw a monkey wrench into things. The magic number of 60 is great, until one person decides not play along. Then you're screwed and have to compromise if you want anything passed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:00 PM on August 3, 2011


The Democrats could have changed the Senates rules and required only a simple majority for the vote. While tempting, I can understand why they didn't do that, as it would have enabled the Republicans to do the same when they take over the Senate.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, aha... oh that's priceless. See, the Demos didn't do away with the filibuster, because what if the Repubs then got to use a simple majority and Demos would no longer have recourse to the filibuster... comedy gold. Because you see, the Demos don't have recourse to the filibuster anyway - it's only available to Republicans. How? Simple - the usual: Republican terrorist threats and immediate Democratic backdowns. Let's go down memory lane, shall we? Way back when, Senate Majority Repub. Whip, Bill Frist was faced with Democrats making noises to the effect that they'll use the filibuster to prevent the packing of SCOTUS with retrograde Scalia clones. So what did Frist do? Why, he simply told Democrats to knock it off, because if they didn't he'd make sure to abolish the filibuster ("nuclear option") and then the Demos would be shit out of luck. Democrat's response? They folded - of course. Sure there was some face saving nonsense about gang of 14, but ultimately on the question that precipitated the filibuster threat, the Republicans got everything. As usual. So there. A mere threat from the terrorist Republicans and the Democrats whimper on the floor like beaten dogs. Filibusters are for Republicans only, get it?
posted by VikingSword at 1:02 PM on August 3, 2011 [4 favorites]


@Brandon Blatcher My point is that Ironmouth keeps, over and over, saying "where are the votes?" as if somehow that makes any and all criticism of Obama/the Democrats petulant and childish.

I answered that we gave him the votes. If you say those votes weren't good enough, or those elected officials weren't good enough, fine. But that's hardly my fault or the fault of the left now is it? It would, correct me if I'm wrong, be the fault of the **DEMOCRATS** who campaigned for Lieberman after he lost the primaries and attacked Obama during the campaign. The evil, vilified, childish, petulant, left didn't work tirelessly for Lieberman and against Lamont. If I recall correctly the people responsible for that were the "serious" Democrats.

My point is that we delivered the votes. We gave the Democrats a fucking supermajority in the Senate, AND the House, AND the Presidency. And we got bupkis and people scolding us with "where are the votes?"

Now you're saying that merely delivering the strongest Democratic Congress in recent history wasn't enough, somehow we had to do better and any complaint is yet more evidence of petulant childishness?

You tell me, how many votes do we have to deliver before we get results. Self evidently 60 in the Senate and a majority in the House isn't enough. How many do we have to deliver before you and Ironmouth will admit it isn't us petulant children on the left who are the problem? Do you need 70 Senators? 80? 100?

Point is we had all that and somehow, like magic, the Republicans won anyway. And now, now that we barely lost the House somehow, like magic, there is apparently absolutely nothing that can ever be done, the Republicans have the House so therefore they win by default and only petulant children ever complain about them steamrolling the Democrats.

As for the filibuster, I say nuke it. It has never done us any good at all, there's always sellouts like Lieberman to scuttle any attempt to filibuster Republican evil, and it never seems to do anything but fuck us over when we try to do good. Saying we ought to keep it around because some mystic day in the future we might be able to use it to accomplish something useful pure fantasy.
posted by sotonohito at 1:02 PM on August 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


But having a Leiberman and 3 or 4 difficult Democrats does throw a monkey wrench into things. The magic number of 60 is great, until one person decides not play along. Then you're screwed and have to compromise if you want anything passed.

Oh, I know. This is why I don't feel bad about not voting for Democrats. They can't really pass their policy anyway.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:07 PM on August 3, 2011


Ironmouth You, like probably most of us here, saw the FPP that was widely circulated showing the study that said that just 10% of a population can change the population's mind about a subject if the 10% is vocal enough.

I'm telling you for a fact, real life seems to indicate that. a) It's not working. b) it's annoying.

When I see the half dozen Obama apologists here defending the indefensible it only strengthens my resolve to not vote for the next election because I no longer want to be part of the problem. I don't want to be the "good democrat" that voted for wars, rendition camps, the Patriot Act, child poverty, joblessness and the erosion of our social safety net. I do want to be one of the Americans that sends a clear message to the Democrats next cycle that "hey, this crap is unacceptable and if you ever want to hold office again then you need to cut it the heck out." .

Now maybe that's a losing strategy. Maybe it's not. I'm pretty sure though that I'll sleep better at night for it. (cue the horrified half dozen who will now tell me how Republicans will do all the bad things to the country that we already have right now).
posted by Poet_Lariat at 1:09 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism

A response to Lind's piece: The Tea Party is bigger than the South: Movement conservatism's conquest of the GOP is a national story, not a regional one
posted by homunculus at 1:14 PM on August 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


@Poet_Lariat Much as I bitch, I strongly advise holding your nose and voting Democrat in 2012 for one simple reason: the Supreme Court.

We've got at least one and possibly more, very old left leaning members of the court nearing death and/or retirement. The fact is hat the scaremongering about President Palin is 100% correct when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Letting a Republican replace Ginsburg with another Scalia clone would be genuinely bad.

I'm not seeing a lot of light between Obama and any random republican on a lot of issues, but the Supreme Court really is a place where there is a genuine and important difference.
posted by sotonohito at 1:15 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


My point is that Ironmouth keeps, over and over, saying "where are the votes?" as if somehow that makes any and all criticism of Obama/the Democrats petulant and childish.

He had a point, without votes you got nothing.

We gave the Democrats a fucking supermajority in the Senate, AND the House, AND the Presidency.

60 Senate votes turned out not be a Supermajority. I suspect Democrats thought they could peel off some Republican votes in the Senate, but the GOP managed to hold together to ridiculous degree.

Now you're saying that merely delivering the strongest Democratic Congress in recent history wasn't enough, somehow we had to do better and any complaint is yet more evidence of petulant childishness?

No, delivering the strongest Democratic Congress in recent history wasn't enough and yes, we have to better. By we I mean DNC also of course. The response to the Republican holding together and the summer of '08s assault on health care reforms was terrible. Everyone needs to do better, the base and the Congresscritters.

Point is we had all that and somehow, like magic, the Republicans won anyway.

They won by holding together as a party, no matter what, while getting rid of moderates. Is that the way you want the Democrats to go?

I strongly advise holding your nose and voting Democrat in 2012 for one simple reason: the Supreme Court.

Yep. The Democrats are far from perfect, but you definitely don't want Republicans calling shots at the moment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:22 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


the Supreme Court really is a place where there is a genuine and important difference.

and what's to stop the republicans from filibustering on that, too? and the democrats from backing down and offering someone who's barely to the center, much less the left?

any claim you want to make about obama or the democrats doing x is also a claim that they're going to fight hard for it?

are they? have they?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:23 PM on August 3, 2011


Seconding sotonohito. I'm also going to vote for a Democrat - fully expecting a kick in the teeth as a thank you. But Obama did good on SCOTUS and not bad on LGBT issues - a Republican would be surely worse here. And remember, on the SCOTUS, we're starting behind. Bush packed the court with young and healthy men who have consistently voted the party line - and very extremist (who is worse, Alito or Roberts?). Meanwhile the liberals, such as they are (very mild - not nearly as far left as the other guys are right), are not in the best of health and not exactly the youngest. Really, it's not just about the numbers, but how long the power can be projected into the future - and the Repubs are leagues ahead here. To hand them the SCOTUS over the next few years would be to doom the institution to permanent conservative dominance for decades - and this is not reversible, like with the legislative or executive branches. Do we really want to cede this part of government to the Republicans for decades ahead?
posted by VikingSword at 1:27 PM on August 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


@Brandon Blatcher "They won by holding together as a party, no matter what, while getting rid of moderates. Is that the way you want the Democrats to go? "

Yup.

Kick out the Blue Dogs, kick out the DINOs, get a strong party and we can do things.

I'm also in favor of a liberal Tea Party equivalent to make the Democrats start fearing us rather than hating us. We primary a few of the worst, and even if we lose their seats (which is no real loss because they aren't really on our side anyway) we still win because it will help us intimidate the right leaning Democrats into being more liberal.

Say what you will about the Republicans, and I've got a lot to say on that topic, they do play the game of politics well.

@pyramid termite Good questions, and the answer is we don't know. Obama has appointed two justices, and didn't get a lot of flack over them. Neither was really my idea of a perfect pick, far too conservative the both of 'em, but they're good enough.

So far Obama has a good track record there, and the Republicans haven't impeded him much. I suspect that's because nothing he's done changed the balance of power, he replaced left leaning justices with other left leaning justices. I expect that will hold true if Obama gets to/has to replaces Ginsburg. If Scalia or one of the conservatives gets hit by a bus I think there'd be a real fight involved.

Still, it is true that we don't know what will happen with future Obama appointees.

But we do know, absolutely no question at all, that any Republican president would appoint more Scalia clones.

So given the absolute guarantee of a bad justice if the R's win in 2010, and the possibility of a semi-decent justice if the D's win in 2010, I'll take the non-guaranteed bad justice.
posted by sotonohito at 1:44 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


We were never going to get Single-Payer in the last congress. It was never ever going to happen. Any trial balloons that were floated along that lines were pretty much rejected. In addition despite having 60 members in out caucus for a very short period of time we never had more than about 55 or 56 willing to go much further than what we got. Like others have said Lieberman and Baucus as well as Nelson and Lincoln were simply not going to vote for cloture on a public option. So even though there was rhetoric suggesting that a public option was on the table it wasn't ever going to happen. That said it's a great solution so putting it out there as even an unrealistic alternative helps to advance the agenda.

We present one extreme (public option) the Republican present another extreme (Privatize everything) and hopefully we meet somewhere in the middle.

That isn't to say we didn't bungle the job of building up public support for the plan. Obama was remarkable reticent to push a specific agenda (which is a pattern he's continued) I think in part because the backlash against Hilarycare was so damaging to the Clinton presidency. Further I think we got completely outplayed on the ground. Obama was able to establish one of the most effective ground teams I've ever seen during his election campaign. That same ground game was not there when we went looking for health care. In addition I think we were surprised at how quickly the tea party movement developed into a very effective protest movement that was able to direct voter's fears into outright hatred of Obama and suspicion of government in general.

I also think Reid has been a fairly ineffective leader in the Senate. I think he's good at some things but he's been willing to allow the minority to dictate the agenda. Instead of assuming a blanket filibuster he should force the Republicans to get up and do the whole shebang. A couple of months of painfully obvious obstructionism would reduce the Republican reliance on that procedural method of influencing the agenda.

So yes Democrats definitely make both strategic and tactical errors all the time. Part of that comes from being a big tent party that allows more difference within the caucus. Outside of the Ned Lamont/ Lieberman primary we typically don't primary from the left especially in lean Republican states and districts.

In contrast the Republicans seem willing to punish noncompliance harshly. That creates a very unified team especially since they've purged most of the "RINO" congressmen and senators. Because they are comfortable playing on defense they can afford congressional minorities.

Obama had less than 2 years with any sort of workable supermajority and has faced a unrelentingly negative congress fueled by the supposed repudiation of his policies in the second part of his term. I'm not pleased with everything he's doing but if we can continue to roll back some of the damage caused by Bush II I'm thinking that it's been worthwhile.

Be angry, be disappointed, be frustrated but realize that no matter how much you think Obama is stabbing you in the back how much shittier our situation would be if McCain and Palin were in the White House.
posted by vuron at 2:04 PM on August 3, 2011




A shit sundae tastes like shit no matter how much whipped cream you pile on it. Until the electorate is offered a dairy-produced sundae, shit is the only available flavor.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:14 PM on August 3, 2011


It is unreasonable to expect people who self-identify as "left" or progressive to vote for candidates who are to their right. Sure, sometimes, if a candidate is only slightly to the right of the voter then there might be a compromise vote, but eventually if the choices all drift too far then it is pointless to vote for them or even to expect this mythical progressive to vote for them.

If there is a significant progressive vote these people should then begin to field their own candidates by either doing a primary challenge or opting for a third party. It doesn't matter if this third party breaks the left, we've seen, in the last two years, how obstructionist a small minority can be.

As for the SCOTUS, Obama has picked moderates, not "leftists", to even describe them as leaning left is to misspeak. If progressives are convinced that their policies are the better polices it is high time they actually stand up and fight for them, instead of trying to engage in constant "damage-control" -- you don't win by trying to lose less.
posted by Shit Parade at 2:17 PM on August 3, 2011


Hello, foreign person here. The US is the only country in the world where politically motivated people talk themselves into not voting. I think its very strange.

That's all I have to say.
posted by vbfg at 2:49 PM on August 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


@vbfg It's because we aren't a parliamentary system and there's really only ever the possibility of two parties. Talking third parties is fun, but it will never do anything, the system is geared to prevent it.

Plus there's the utter stupidity of the Senate.....
posted by sotonohito at 2:59 PM on August 3, 2011


Hello, foreign person here. The US is the only country in the world where politically motivated people talk themselves into not voting. I think its very strange.

That's all I have to say.


Amen to that.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:01 PM on August 3, 2011


@vbfg It's because we aren't a parliamentary system and there's really only ever the possibility of two parties. Talking third parties is fun, but it will never do anything, the system is geared to prevent it.

Plus there's the utter stupidity of the Senate.....


Don't understand how either of these things affects a politically motivated person's decision to not vote.

It is self-defeating. A lot of it comes from this idea that we are somehow personally connected to a political party and that if it does something we don't like it is trying to "offend" us or something.

the way it works is that if more self-reported leftists vote, they have more power. If they don't vote they will have no power at all.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:03 PM on August 3, 2011


instead of trying to engage in constant "damage-control" -- you don't win by trying to lose less.

This is exactly what the GOP is doing right now. You do "win" by limiting damage when other people have some portion of the reins of power.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:04 PM on August 3, 2011


No you don't "win" you lose and you lose big.

You do no engage in negotiations by allowing one side to dictate terms with threats and scare tactics. It is a very simple principle, it is half a step away from negotiating with a group which engages in violence.

If someone says, "do this or else" and you don't do "it" then whatever the "else" is which happens it isn't the fault of the person who refused to be intimidated, the blame falls squarely on the actual perpetrator of the act. The democrats are allowing themselves to be victimized, it is disgusting to watch and I will no longer participate.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:14 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


We were never going to get Single-Payer in the last congress

I agree, but you will never be in a stronger position to try as a party, which is why I'm not too concerned about it anymore.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:16 PM on August 3, 2011


No you don't "win" you lose and you lose big.

You do no engage in negotiations by allowing one side to dictate terms with threats and scare tactics. It is a very simple principle, it is half a step away from negotiating with a group which engages in violence.

If someone says, "do this or else" and you don't do "it" then whatever the "else" is which happens it isn't the fault of the person who refused to be intimidated, the blame falls squarely on the actual perpetrator of the act. The democrats are allowing themselves to be victimized, it is disgusting to watch and I will no longer participate.


In other words, refuse to negotiate and hope they do not default? And if they do default, what do you tell everyone?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:17 PM on August 3, 2011


I think they should be more concerned with what they tell everyone.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:18 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Politics, especially the currently bitter partisan politics, isn't a "nice guy let's get along and get things done" sort of game, it is a ruthless street fight. Allow the august deadline to pass and begin to direct the treasury to stop funding largely Republican projects. Furlough federal employees and federal contract subsidiaries which commonly vote Republican. Stop paying all members of the house.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:21 PM on August 3, 2011


I think they should be more concerned with what they tell everyone.

We're not talking about them. We are talking about what Obama should do. What should Obama say when they default and he did nothing and refused to negotiate at all?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:23 PM on August 3, 2011


Who's talking about not voting? We are talking about not voting for ineffectual Democrats. If Obama did the math and decided he doesn't need us to win, as former astroturfer Ironmouth claims, then we should vote for a third party or his liberal primary opponent. He should pay the price for his triangulation. If the D's only respond to threats and extortion, it's time for the left to take some damn hostages. I say we start with the party itself. The first one to go should be Reid, who has once again proven his incompetence.
posted by vibrotronica at 3:24 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Obama didn't refuse to negotiate, Republicans walked out on negotiations because they refused to compromise on no new revenue.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:25 PM on August 3, 2011


We're not talking about them. We are talking about what Obama should do. What should Obama say when they default and he did nothing and refused to negotiate at all?

What will the Republicans do?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:25 PM on August 3, 2011


sotonohito - I know that you have an excellent point about the Supreme Court (even if an Obama appointee is going to get through at this point in our process) but I am just tired off all the bullshit. I absolutely know that things will be somewhat worse under the Republicans (the degree of which is debatable at this point) but I just will no longer stand for the lesser of two evils. I'm just fed up and aside from possibly some local elections I will not be voting Democratic this year.

I am willing to accept four or 8 years more of pain if it means that Democrats finally get the kick in the behind that they need to really and truly their stuff together. I am not going to be part of rendition and torture camps, endless wars , The Patriot Act 20% child poverty and 16% unemployment any longer and I am not going to support a party that supports such things even if it means things will get worse. You have a really good point but I have just had my fill.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 3:27 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Politics, especially the currently bitter partisan politics, isn't a "nice guy let's get along and get things done" sort of game, it is a ruthless street fight. Allow the august deadline to pass and begin to direct the treasury to stop funding largely Republican projects. Furlough federal employees and federal contract subsidiaries which commonly vote Republican. Stop paying all members of the house.

He's not being a "nice guy." He's posing as a "nice guy." Got it?

And when everyone's ARM goes up, and we go into a double-dip recession and you refused to negotiate on the debt ceiling at all?

Because you do know that they would have passed a debt ceiling bill, and you could sign it, veto it or pocket-veto it. So they pass a debt ceiling raise with things you don't like, everyone's student loan payments go up, mortgages and car loans go up and you refused to negotiate or sign the bill, what do you say to them?

What's your plan?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:28 PM on August 3, 2011


I wonder, if we went back and time and did this fight again buy the Presidency was Republican, the House was Democratic, and the Senate was Republican...would the deal have been all tax cuts?

Because there are zero possible plans where the Republicans could do anything but agree with that, right?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:29 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


What should Obama say when they default and he did nothing and refused to negotiate at all?

He should say, "The United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Back down from your extortion and pass a clean debt ceiling."
posted by vibrotronica at 3:29 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


*all tax hikes. For some reason this thread makes me worse at typing than any other ever.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:29 PM on August 3, 2011


We're not talking about them. We are talking about what Obama should do. What should Obama say when they default and he did nothing and refused to negotiate at all?

What will the Republicans do?


They will say this. I voted and passed a debt ceiling raise. Its called Cut, Cap and Balance. The Democrats refused to even vote on it in the Senate (or voted against it). They refused to negotiate with me, and then the time expired and we were left with no debt ceiling raise.

That is what they will say. What is your response?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:31 PM on August 3, 2011


so, the GOP says this:

They will say this. I voted and passed a debt ceiling raise. Its called Cut, Cap and Balance. The Democrats refused to even vote on it in the Senate (or voted against it). They refused to negotiate with me, and then the time expired and we were left with no debt ceiling raise.

And you think Obama should have said this?

"The United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Back down from your extortion and pass a clean debt ceiling."

This is your brilliant political plan to avoid being lablled an obstructionist who refused to sign a debt ceiling? Sorry everyone about that second recession and all.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:33 PM on August 3, 2011


How would this mythical plan pass the Senate?

How many angry retirees would be calling up and asking where their SSI checks are? We can't say who would get more blame for it, but it certainly would not have been all of one person / parties fault. Imagine -- Obama could just do the same thing as the Republicans, refuse to let the debt ceiling raise unless new taxes on the wealthiest are included.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:33 PM on August 3, 2011


Since this is a fantasy scenario because Republicans aren't actually cartoon supervillians who want to destroy the economy, I don't have to say anything. They would vote for the clean raise.

Regardless, the Democrats say the same thing Republicans did. We tried to negotiate but the other side wouldn't. The side that refuses the clean bill would clearly be the one at fault.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:35 PM on August 3, 2011


Direct the Democratic controlled Senate to pass their own bill. When they refuse to vote for cloture then have Reid go up and say, we voted down the house bill (they have the votes) and we can't even bring up our own plan because the republicans refuse.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:36 PM on August 3, 2011


How would this mythical plan pass the Senate?

How many angry retirees would be calling up and asking where their SSI checks are? We can't say who would get more blame for it, but it certainly would not have been all of one person / parties fault. Imagine -- Obama could just do the same thing as the Republicans, refuse to let the debt ceiling raise unless new taxes on the wealthiest are included.


I corrected that. But you take huge risks with people's lives and say its OK just because they do it.

I think Obama and the Dems would take the lion's share of that blame.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:36 PM on August 3, 2011


I think Obama and the Dems would take the lion's share of that blame.

In that case, you should have polls that show the lion's share of people were blaming Obama while the Republicans were making the threats:




Each partisan side will blame the other, people who aren't partisan robots will see which side voted down a clean bill.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:39 PM on August 3, 2011


I am not saying it is OK, i am saying it is the only course of action given who they are dealing with, you don't allow yourself to be victimized and then agree with your tormentors.

If you're unwilling to actually fight the bully then you will always have your lunch money stolen.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:39 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


What is your response?

a straight-forward increase the debt ceiling bill with the plain understanding that those who vote against it are voting against economic recovery

rather than do this, they've chosen to play a convoluted supercon game where both sides are going to try to outtrick the other and gamble that they will gain enough power in the 2012 election to negate what the other side's going to pull

it's probably a very good thing for whichever political party wins

it absolutely sucks for the country, as it's not just a matter of results, although they may be bad enough - it's a matter of process and that's been corrupted even more than it had been - yes, i'm well aware that this is how the game has worked in washington and this is nothing new - but this time, they've shoved it into the american people's faces, and right, left or center, there's a lot of disgust out there

this is no way to run a great country - and we won't be a great country if it continues to be run this way
posted by pyramid termite at 3:39 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Since this is a fantasy scenario because Republicans aren't actually cartoon supervillians who want to destroy the economy, I don't have to say anything. They would vote for the clean raise.

Regardless, the Democrats say the same thing Republicans did. We tried to negotiate but the other side wouldn't. The side that refuses the clean bill would clearly be the one at fault.


No they would let the debt ceiling pass. They have as many idiots on their side as we have here.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:40 PM on August 3, 2011


I think Obama and the Dems would take the lion's share of that blame.

In that case, you should have polls that show the lion's share of people were blaming Obama while the Republicans were making the threats:


What made the people blame the GOP is that Obama came to the table and said hey, ok you want to talk, set concessions he'd be willing to make (for things the GOP couldn't agree to) and they looked like the assholes they are.

And he holds the 14th in his pocket.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:43 PM on August 3, 2011


The calculus is pretty clear to me. The Republicans, even when sane, have a genuine fear of attacks from their right in primaries. The threat that they may lose their position is serious and significant. So, they stay far enough right to mitigate that threat.

The Democrats will do what progressives are looking for more often when, and only when, they see similar threats from the left. That means that progressives need to have an equally simple, broad and powerful message that people will get behind and vote for.

In both cases, the candidates have to believe that those who vote in their party primary will support them in the general.

I'm all for folks not voting for Obama in next year's primary. But to not vote for him (and the more left of whatever other candidates are available) in the general is the same as signalling the world that you don't mind if things keep moving towards the right.
posted by meinvt at 3:43 PM on August 3, 2011


No they would let the debt ceiling pass. They have as many idiots on their side as we have here.

It doesn't matter, there would still be enough votes in the center to raise it.

What made the people blame the GOP is that Obama came to the table and said hey, ok you want to talk, set concessions he'd be willing to make (for things the GOP couldn't agree to) and they looked like the assholes they are.

And he holds the 14th in his pocket.


That's fine, you do that first and then move on to a clean bill and you still look more reasonable.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:45 PM on August 3, 2011


Anyone wanna take on my question above? If you flipped the number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and brought on a Republican president...would this deal have been all tax hikes?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:47 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


The side that refuses the clean bill would clearly be the one at fault.

You're putting an awful lot of faith in the electorate. Most people don't even understand how a bill becomes a law, much less the mechanics of the budget process. Most people don't know who their Representative is. But they damn well know who the President is.

The guys on TV and talk radio would call it the "Second Obama Depression" and that would be that.

For better or worse, Presidential administrations tend to get credited or blamed with whatever happens in the country when they are in office. Bush got reelected, in large part, because the economy was going like gangbusters, despite everything he was doing. Obama may well be a one-termer because he reigned over a recession. He'd definitely be one if the dominant image associated with his time as President is starving geriatrics.

It doesn't matter why: if for any reason Social Security checks don't go out on his watch, he'll be the Catfood President. Game over.
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:49 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's hypothetical anyway, as Republicans have just as much to lose from default. It's like saying they would allow an army to invade and annex Alaska because that would make Obama look bad.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:52 PM on August 3, 2011


It doesn't matter why: if for any reason Social Security checks don't go out on his watch, he'll be the Catfood President. Game over.

Its easy to take titanic risks with the livelihood of 300 million people on a message board.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:53 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


stereotyping the electorial "other" as "stupid" gets us no where and is foolish. Polls and research show that when presented with "left" ideas most people in America agree with them.

The president is already taking risks with the livelihood of 300 million people and doing a piss-poor job at it.
posted by Shit Parade at 3:58 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Its easy to take titanic risks with the livelihood of 300 million people on a message board.

Agreed, once you actually have the power to do something like default you realize it isn't actually an option outside of rhetoric.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:59 PM on August 3, 2011


stereotyping the electorial "other" as "stupid" gets us no where and is foolish. Polls and research show that when presented with "left" ideas most people in America agree with them.

The president is already taking risks with the livelihood of 300 million people and doing a piss-poor job at it.


Polls also show that only 20% of the electorate considers themselves liberal, 35% moderate and 40% Conservative. So as soon as the Dems come up with a "liberal" idea, the people who think its great now hate it.

Case in point, Obama's health care plan.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:00 PM on August 3, 2011


Its easy to take titanic risks with the livelihood of 300 million people on a message board.


Also this is name calling, snarky, and unconstructive. Is this your version of trying to shout down those who disagree with you? Cut it out, and actually try to be substantive.

And on preview, thanks for not reading the link.
posted by Shit Parade at 4:02 PM on August 3, 2011


So as soon as the Dems come up with a "liberal" idea, the people who think its great now hate it.

You mean Mitt Romney?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:03 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Its easy to take titanic risks with the livelihood of 300 million people on a message board.


Also this is name calling, snarky, and unconstructive. Is this your version of trying to shout down those who disagree with you? Cut it out, and actually try to be substantive.

And on preview, thanks for not reading the link.


What I am saying is that when you are actually running a huge country and you have so much of everything riding on your every decision, you can't be this bold. There's a lack of detail and knowledge to these discussions. This guy has it all on his shoulders. All of it. You can't be as casual about it when the real responsibility is yours. It isn't that easy.

Obama has to be the president of everyone. He can't take the risks you so easily demand he take because of the consequences. That's my point.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:07 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


So as soon as the Dems come up with a "liberal" idea, the people who think its great now hate it.

You mean Mitt Romney


my point exactly. you couldn't have made it better.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:10 PM on August 3, 2011


What I am saying is that when you are actually running a huge country and you have so much of everything riding on your every decision, you can't be this bold.

Exactly, you are now understanding why the Republicans would not have actually let default happen.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:10 PM on August 3, 2011


So you want me to vote for a party with the same healthcare plan as the other party because it gets villified when your party does it?

Sounds like if it would be easier to let the other party do it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:11 PM on August 3, 2011


What I am saying is that when you are actually running a huge country and you have so much of everything riding on your every decision, you can't be this bold.

Exactly, you are now understanding why the Republicans would not have actually let default happen.


I am saying that you cannot take that risk. I am saying that that risk is different for the President than it is for those in Congress. That his responsibility is greater. Therefore he is not allowed to assume that the GOP will act rationally or even has control over their caucus. Because if he is wrong, then he gets blame in a larger way. And he cannot morally put those people at risk because it is wrong. The fact that the GOP does it does not make it morally right or safe. You are saying act like them and I am saying that is immoral and wrong.

Setting that aside, has there been gain by his approach?

A lot. The GOP is split. The Dems are not. We gave away only $22 billion for the debt ceiling raise. Because someone is going to rewrite that law no later than the spring of 2013 before the cuts take effect. So we've given up almost nothing.

Second, the idea that revenue has got to be raised is now winning. By advocating for the balanced approach, we have put the country on our side. They agree with us. But the GOP holds the House. So we have to battle it out for a year until this crap is over with.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:17 PM on August 3, 2011


Its easy to take titanic risks with the livelihood of 300 million people on a message board.

Um ... agreed? I guess?

Which was kind of my point, that the President doesn't have the luxury of playing chicken with Congress and pretty much has to blink if they threaten to blow up the economy.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:17 PM on August 3, 2011


So you want me to vote for a party with the same healthcare plan as the other party because it gets villified when your party does it?

Sounds like if it would be easier to let the other party do it.


But they aren't.

No one is stopping you from joining that party. No one. Go ahead, vote Republican if you think it would be better for the US.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:18 PM on August 3, 2011


Obama has to be the president of everyone. He can't take the risks you so easily demand he take because of the consequences. That's my point.

He risks far greater by constantly capitulating to GOP threats and ultimatums. It emboldens the extremists and gives them a green light to continue to push their agenda far further then they would otherwise dream. I was briefly proud of Obama when he watched the GOP walk out on debt ceiling negotiations and didn't go chasing after them. But now, given the result, they know more then ever he has a bit of a bark and absolutely no bite. Obama does not have the heart nor the will to be a great statesman, and his continued roll as president will only further harm our country and continue to push it rightward.
posted by Shit Parade at 4:19 PM on August 3, 2011


I am saying that you cannot take that risk.

I am saying that there is none.

But they aren't.

We just agreed on Romneycare.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:22 PM on August 3, 2011


Who's talking about not voting? We are talking about not voting...

A cheap selective quote I agree, but I couldn't resist.
posted by vbfg at 4:25 PM on August 3, 2011


He risks far greater by constantly capitulating to GOP threats and ultimatums.

Where's the capitulation? 22 billion in spending cuts? That's it. Remember the government shutdown thing? Remember how Boehner thought he won some big battle and then 2 weeks afterwards it turned out there was only like $100 million in actual cuts? How pissed the GOP was?
posted by Ironmouth at 4:25 PM on August 3, 2011


I am saying that you cannot take that risk.

I am saying that there is none.


There is no such thing as a zero percent risk. No such thing.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:28 PM on August 3, 2011


So if they asked to ban abortion for the debt ceiling raise you would do it?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:29 PM on August 3, 2011


This is a huge win for the GOP, every debt ceiling vote before this passed with no strings attached, instead we have a spending cap and forced triggers which will cut important social programs.
posted by Shit Parade at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2011


So if they asked to ban abortion for the debt ceiling raise you would do it?

They didn't do that. The can't do that with a law.

22 billion in cuts is too much for you to stomach? Really?
posted by Ironmouth at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2011



They didn't do that. The can't do that with a law.


It's a hypothetical. If it were possible would you have stopped them? Is the risk of default worth that sacrifice?

22 billion in cuts is too much for you to stomach? Really?

Would the deal be all tax hikes if the parties positions were reversed?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:37 PM on August 3, 2011


This is a huge win for the GOP, every debt ceiling vote before this passed with no strings attached, instead we have a spending cap and forced triggers which will cut important social programs.

Which social programs are being cut? Social Security? Not available for sequestration under the trigger. Medicare? Only provider fees. So HCA is out some money. Medicaid? Can't be cut.

Read the fine print of the deal. And the Dems won't deal, they don't have to.

My prediction is that the trigger will go the way of the only other 2 times a trigger was used. They will write it out of the law, this fall.

Not that it matters. Because whoever wins the election is going to rewrite the whole damn thing anyway.

Got it? He gave up $22 billion in 2012 spending. That's it. That was the price for turning the country fully against the tea party.

I'll take that deal anytime.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:40 PM on August 3, 2011


They didn't do that. The can't do that with a law.

It's a hypothetical. If it were possible would you have stopped them? Is the risk of default worth that sacrifice?

22 billion in cuts is too much for you to stomach? Really?

Would the deal be all tax hikes if the parties positions were reversed?


they can't even do that hypothetically.

Reversed? If they were reversed, I would hope the Dems would not engage in such foolery.

Do you advocate the Dems using the debt ceiling to force things you want?
posted by Ironmouth at 4:42 PM on August 3, 2011


they can't even do that hypothetically.

Hypothetically if they could, answer the question or don't reply instead of having fun with semantics.

Reversed? If they were reversed, I would hope the Dems would not engage in such foolery.


Answer the question or don't, in this situation would the Republicans have passed an all tax hikes bill?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:44 PM on August 3, 2011


You tell me, how many votes do we have to deliver before we get results. Self evidently 60 in the Senate and a majority in the House isn't enough. How many do we have to deliver before you and Ironmouth will admit it isn't us petulant children on the left who are the problem? Do you need 70 Senators? 80? 100?

Markos Koulitsas:

If Democrats can’t deliver on good policy with strong popular support and dominant congressional majorities, then they’re too incompetent to be in power.
posted by Trurl at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Because if he is wrong, then he gets blame in a larger way.

and if for the rest of his term(s) of office, continued political blackmail is part of the government? is that desirable? is this something we want to see on a regular basis in washington?

in any case, there are times when hard decisions must be made with the willingness to take the blame for them, even to the point of losing the next election

And he cannot morally put those people at risk because it is wrong.

he may have spared them the risk in the short run - and increased it in the long run

it's telling that the stock market took a dump the same day this passed - what that says to me is that there are greater risks out there and they have not been dealt with - and i don't even know if they CAN be dealt with right now

The GOP is split. The Dems are not.

they're both split and have been for some time - the dems have managed to be more polite about it, which may save them yet

the GOP split when they nominated that snowbrained harridan for VP - it's just taken them some time to realize it
posted by pyramid termite at 4:47 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


in any case, there are times when hard decisions must be made with the willingness to take the blame for them, even to the point of losing the next election

And that time was during the Tax Cuts/Unemployment extension bill. It was entirely predictable where this would end up after that worked so well for the Republicans.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:48 PM on August 3, 2011


>: "sotonohito - I know that you have an excellent point about the Supreme Court (even if an Obama appointee is going to get through at this point in our process) but I am just tired off all the bullshit. "

>: "As for the SCOTUS, Obama has picked moderates, not "leftists", to even describe them as leaning left is to misspeak. "

I don't recall seeing where anyone called Obama's SCOTUS appointees leftist, but either way, that's the one place I don't want any ideologues; they're supposed to be the reality check. I'm not afraid of honest, intelligent, open-minded debate; that's how minds are changed and real consensus is formed.

(And even if you could have Jerry Brown for president -- which, I'm sorry, you can't, no matter how many times he runs or how many times I vote for him and besides we're not done with him yet here so hands off -- and even if he nominated a liberal to the Supreme Court there are no guarantees.)
posted by Room 641-A at 5:19 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


sotonohito wrote: Self evidently 60 in the Senate and a majority in the House isn't enough. How many do we have to deliver before you and Ironmouth will admit it isn't us petulant children on the left who are the problem? Do you need 70 Senators? 80? 100?

60 truly liberal Senators and a liberal majority in the house, if you want your wildest fantasies. Anything less than that requires compromise with the right wing of the party, the Republicans, or both. Yeah, it sucks that several of our Democratic legislators aren't really terribly liberal. Still better than having Republicans control the Senate.
posted by wierdo at 5:22 PM on August 3, 2011


Yeah, this is why it's best to spend your time trying to promote third parties and some change in the system. It's not like your vote is the difference between achieving liberal goals or not.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:27 PM on August 3, 2011


Jerry Brown? The current governor of California who said he was there to fix the budget and not get reelected, the guy who did follow through for a few days but once his buddies stopped getting paid he also caved with a terrible budget deal that solved none of the states long term problems? I wouldn't even waste my time talking to the guy much less want him to be president.

We'll wait and see if the GOP is split, I doubt it, but it is instructing to watch a Democratic apologist argue that the debt ceiling debacle wasn't all that bad since there were only "tiny" cuts to our budget. A deal was cut which catered to a small minority of radicals, how can anyone think the Democrats won this debate?
posted by Shit Parade at 5:27 PM on August 3, 2011


the GOP split when they nominated that snowbrained harridan for VP - it's just taken them some time to realize it

It would be interesting if Palin's ultimate historical significance became her paving the way for President Bachmann.

It just occurred to me that, while Romney's financial and psychological advantages could be expected to prevail in normal times, these are not normal times. Republican voters are as scared shitless about the future as we are. They might be looking for their own Hope figure now.

Once she gets the nomination, she veers to the center, of course - ably assisted by Fox News. She can pass for sane when she wants.

And there are no jobs.

Stranger things have happened.
posted by Trurl at 5:29 PM on August 3, 2011


Shit Parade wrote: A deal was cut which catered to a small minority of radicals, how can anyone think the Democrats won this debate?

Uh, because the final bill gives away essentially nothing to the fools? They get a vote on a BBA, but it doesn't matter if it passes or not. They get a vote on the debt committee's recommendations, but again it doesn't matter if it passes or not, the debt ceiling still gets fully increased regardless.

The only thing that could be considered bad for Democrats is that the triggers will go into effect if the deficit reduction targets aren't hit, but even there, the Democrats' sacred cows are almost fully protected while the Tea Partyist and mainstream Republican sacred cows take the brunt of the cuts.

What exactly did the Tea Partyists win here?
posted by wierdo at 5:44 PM on August 3, 2011


Shit Parade: "Jerry Brown? The current governor of California who said he was there to fix the budget and not get reelected, the guy who did follow through for a few days but once his buddies stopped getting paid he also caved with a terrible budget deal that solved none of the states long term problems? I wouldn't even waste my time talking to the guy much less want him to be president."

Nope, Jerry Brown, the left-leaning head of a left-leaning state that appointed a left-leaning Supreme Court Justice that got recalled by a left-leaning electorate for being too left-leaning. It was analogy. Or a metaphor. Or something. And about his term as governor 25 years ago. And within the context of the current SCOTUS discussion.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:55 PM on August 3, 2011


He is a washed up hack which California must of collectively taken a big ol' hit in order to reelect thinking they would relive their glory days. I blame the baby boomers.

The Tea Party get to have their BBA vote, they got discretionary funding capped, no more subsidized student loans for graduate students, and it will trigger automatic budget cuts if the super committee cannot agree on some other plan.

What did Democrats get?
posted by Shit Parade at 6:10 PM on August 3, 2011


Shit Parade wrote: What did Democrats get?

Protection from the automatic cuts for the most important programs. More importantly, they gave the Tea Party nothing. The earlier Republican bills required the BBA pass to get the entirety of the debt ceiling increase. This was the main goal of the Tea Partyists. They failed to get it.
posted by wierdo at 6:14 PM on August 3, 2011


There is a spending cap. And for Medicare the lower rates for providers could very well result in those providers dropping service.

Also no more federal subsidized student loans for graduate students.

The debt ceiling has every other time been raised without any requirements, but now we have to cut spending and potentially cut entitlement programs? The Democrats clearly lost on this debate.
posted by Shit Parade at 6:23 PM on August 3, 2011 [3 favorites]


Speaking of Jerry Brown and budgets, it was good when he balanced the budget and gave us a 5 billion dollar surplus, right? And if he can do that again it will be worth it, right? I'm asking because I'm not so good with the numbers, so even though I'd love to see a US with universal health care, and free college educations and all that I have no idea how you get from here to there.

On preview, this question wasn't directed to you in particular, Shit Parade.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:23 PM on August 3, 2011


What exactly did the Tea Partyists win here?

The leader of the rival party endorsing their framing of the issue.
posted by Trurl at 6:24 PM on August 3, 2011 [5 favorites]


California passed a budget, see LA Times, it was a terrible failure, Jerry Brown did not deliver.
posted by Shit Parade at 6:28 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


Shit Parade wrote: The debt ceiling has every other time been raised without any requirements, but now we have to cut spending and potentially cut entitlement programs? The Democrats clearly lost on this debate.

Last time was not "every other time." This time, we had complete nuts making it a big issue. Despite all their screaming and whining and demanding the country do their bidding, they got a hollow shell of their original desires. They failed to get cuts in Social Security, may or may not get tiny cuts in Medicare compared to their stated goal, and pretty much won't get a balanced budget amendment. Seriously, how is this a win for them? Because we might have to give up a small amount in Medicare? They were asking for trillions and got a few billion in the period of time this framework will likely matter.

Hell, the Tea Partyists wanted to not raise the debt ceiling at all. They failed spectacularly on that front, too. I guess I can see how you might not think this a total loss for the mainstream Republicans (presuming the Tea Partyists don't eat them), but calling this a win for the Tea Party is just crazy talk.
posted by wierdo at 6:43 PM on August 3, 2011


Who comes after Obama? If he loses in 2012, what Democrat will run for President in 2016? If Obama wins in 2012, will that same Democrat be the candidate for 2016?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:51 PM on August 3, 2011


Who comes after Obama?

Andrew Cuomo.
posted by Trurl at 7:07 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Shit Parade: "California passed a budget, see LA Times, it was a terrible failure, Jerry Brown did not deliver."

SP, I was referring to his term in the 80s, but my whole comment about the past and future of California was a hastily posted half-thought derail that has nothing to do with any of the topics at hand so apologies for that.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:15 PM on August 3, 2011


Obama and the democrats played kick the can and the more practical Republicans were willing to go along with it. Cuts during a economic downturn suck but the cuts are completely weighted towards the later half of this decade. When those promises are expected to come due a future congress will play kick the can because that's the way this stuff works.

Neither party really cares about deficits because both parties accept that borrowing money to pay for shit you want now is pretty cool. However the Republicans managed to use the tea party angst about deficits to win a bunch of congressional seats so they were obligated to give them something because otherwise they'll get whiny and they won't get out the vote in future elections. Further a not insignificant percentage of the house have actually drank the kool-aid and actually believe the rhetoric. Combined with threats from the CFG that if you raise the debt ceiling without forcing democratic concessions you are getting primaried and Boehner was forced to promote an agenda he knew was overreaching.

The consequences of a failure to reach an accord would've been catastrophic. Most indications seem to indicate a pretty significant contraction of an already fragile economy. Obama couldn't risk that, dems couldn't risk that, and the Republicans did a damned good job of pretending that they had lost control of the wheel and weren't afraid to die. So we did the responsible think and blinked first and swerved to avoid the oncoming car. However we did a good enough job selling our position and exposing the Republican position that they were forced to settle for a lot less than they were asking for.

I understand it's popular to describe the opposition as hostage taking and in a sense they were but these are not terrorists, they are fellow citizens that have an opposing viewpoint and a desire to achieve that viewpoint. It's not like Obama could've kidnapped their loved ones (well he could've but that's not desirable behavior), he could've said eat 14th amendment (and apparently he was willing to use that if absolutely necessary) but it would've been an open declaration of war between Republicans and Democrats, rendered him completely ineffectual as a president and basically given 2012 to the Republicans. That it was even something that was being considered shows how serious this situation was.

If your self interest aligns with the Republicans go ahead and vote Republican, but to vote Republican out of spite or to choose not to vote because "they are the same damned" thing seems remarkably short sighted. If you can honestly say that Gore being elected in 2000 wouldn't have been a better result for liberals and progressives you are completely delusional. Elections matter. They matter very much and the idea that a mass defection of the progressive vote from Democrats is going to make them come crawling back is simply not going to happen. When Democrats loose elections they don't go "Hrmm I need to tack to the left, they go hrmm let's adopt centrist policies", it's really unusual that the Republicans have been able to actually tack to the right following failed elections. Just because it's worked for them does not mean it will work for us or that such a strategy is even desireable.
posted by vuron at 7:23 PM on August 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Shit Parade wrote: What did Democrats get?

Protection from the automatic cuts for the most important programs.


It's almost Orwellian. Getting something isn't the same as softening the blow of what you gave up.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:25 PM on August 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


after Obama?

le déluge
posted by Meatbomb at 12:54 AM on August 4, 2011


Only 22% of Tea Partiers are happy with the agreement while 58% of Democrats agree with it. Not sure what that proves, probably that the Tea Party folks will never be happy with anything short of destruction.
posted by octothorpe at 4:44 AM on August 4, 2011


Brandon Blatcher: "Who comes after Obama?"

In 2016? By that point Mitt Romney will make a fine left-leaning Democrat.
posted by charred husk at 7:17 AM on August 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


Ebjay Ushbay.
posted by BeerFilter at 8:03 AM on August 4, 2011


Oh, god, bite your tongue.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:10 AM on August 4, 2011


I'm hoping for a someone with fire in their belly. Howard Dean maybe.
posted by sotonohito at 9:18 AM on August 4, 2011


Obama and the democrats played kick the can and the more practical Republicans were willing to go along with it. Cuts during a economic downturn suck but the cuts are completely weighted towards the later half of this decade. When those promises are expected to come due a future congress will play kick the can because that's the way this stuff works.


Hell, remember the deal with the government shutdown earlier this year? This deal rewrote that deal. All erased. Which this one will be, by one party or another. I'm old enough to remember the last vestiges of the Gramm-Rudman Balanced Budget Act. Which had a trigger that was voted away twice. To mix a metaphor, they kicked that can down the road too.

This is a $22 billion cut. The rest is all for show and will be rewritten as early as when the continuing resolution ends. In September. The public has no stomach for any more brinksmanship. So if they try it, they will be slaughtered in the polls. Perhaps that will move them quicker than an actual defeat.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:32 AM on August 4, 2011


I'm hoping for a someone with fire in their belly. Howard Dean maybe.

so he can break my heart again by admitting he didn't really want the presidency to his own campaign manager? I wanted that to be true so bad. How did they screw that one up? He was so the outsider, so all of that.

Turned out he wanted to be Dem Party Chair and thought a quixotic run for the White House would be the way to go. I guess he was right because that's what he got, but damn! You were the front runner dude! You never possibly contemplated that we were dying for that message? Ever?

That took a chunk out of my heart. Seriously having to swallow Kerry was the worst.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:39 AM on August 4, 2011 [5 favorites]


The consequences of a failure to reach an accord would've been catastrophic. Most indications seem to indicate a pretty significant contraction of an already fragile economy. Obama couldn't risk that

Looks like we might be getting it anyway. Yay.
posted by raysmj at 11:31 AM on August 4, 2011


No denying Kerry was an awful candidate. And he ran a shitty campaign too. No fire, just Gore 2.0 or Mondale 2.0.

I'd like Dennis Kucinich for his politics, but I'll also admit there's no way he'll ever be elected.

If he can speechify anything even remotely like his father Andrew Cuomo might be a good pick, and governors are a fertile ground for getting presidents. Not so hot on his anti-USENET stance, but you can't have everything.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on August 4, 2011


No denying Kerry was an awful candidate. And he ran a shitty campaign too. No fire, just Gore 2.0 or Mondale 2.0.

I'd like Dennis Kucinich for his politics, but I'll also admit there's no way he'll ever be elected.

If he can speechify anything even remotely like his father Andrew Cuomo might be a good pick, and governors are a fertile ground for getting presidents. Not so hot on his anti-USENET stance, but you can't have everything.


Kucinich isn't practical. The Department of Peace? Unelectable.

Cuomo is great. He would be a great VP for Obama/next Dem candidate.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:02 PM on August 4, 2011


If he can speechify anything even remotely like his father Andrew Cuomo might be a good pick, and governors are a fertile ground for getting presidents.

If Cuomo is anything like his father, people will want him to run for all sorts of positions, but he never will.

It's a shame, because he would have been a great Supreme Court pick, especially as a St. John's c-c-c-combo breaker in a sea of Ivy Leaguers.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:10 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Kucinich's record in executive office is the worst. He was nearly recalled. He was highly confrontational, which made him massively unpopular to voters. He appointed a 24-year old with 8 months experience as a stockbroker to the position of finance director. He fired a highly popular police chief live on TV, angering the voters. A recall election was scheduled. Kucinich won by only 236 votes. After that Cleveland became the first major American city to default on its obligations as a result of his battle to save a local utility.

He did win a ballot issue election regarding the sale of the utility and a tax increase to pay the city's bills. Both papers endorsed one or another of his opponents. He was then crushed in an election.

the guy isn't fit for executive office, I'm afraid.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:11 PM on August 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


If Cuomo is anything like his father, people will want him to run for all sorts of positions, but he never will.

There was a skit in late '91 which was a debate between candidates who didn't want to run so as to lose to Bush (dude was running high in the opinion polls then).

Phil Hartman pleaded not to be allowed to run and stated "I have Mob ties."

Funny how that all turned out, but it was a great skit.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:16 PM on August 4, 2011


Kucinich's record in executive office is the worst. He was nearly recalled. He was highly confrontational, which made him massively unpopular to voters.

You are conveniently committing the fact that the recall that you are talking about happened nearly 35 years ago and it was while he was a mayor of Cleveland. You are also omitting that the recall was politically motivated by one of the city council members that he was clashing with about being tougher on crime.

Nice smear though Ironmouth.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 12:25 PM on August 4, 2011


Wikipedia snippet about Kucinich's time as Mayor:
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]

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]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:45 PM on August 4, 2011


On the one hand, Kucinich's mayorship was indeed the only time he ever held executive office, so it's fair game. Further, the city really did default and he really did face a recall election. It's not a smear to say as much.

On the other hand, he did show considerable bravery with the whole Muni Light thing. He faced threats from corrupt corporations, banks, and even, apparently, according to Wikipedia, mafia hitmen. Let it never be said that Dennis Kucinich lacks integrity or progressive ideals.

On the other other hand, he was ultimately unpopular and ineffective as an administrator. His scorched earth style barely saw him through the term that he did have, let alone the reelection. Yes, he won on the Muni Light issue, but at a considerable cost. Fighting powerful, corrupt entities takes time and energy away from the day-to-day. The problem with Kucinich's direct white knight approach is that, after a short period of time, everything is given back to those powers.

On the other other other hand, check out this snippet from Wikipedia: "The Plain Dealer later revealed that Cleveland Trust and CEI had seven interlocking directors, making Trust CEI's bank. Together with another bank, Cleveland Trust owned a substantial share of CEI stock and had numerous other mutual interests." In other words, the bank and the utility conglomerate were basically self-dealing, united against him. The boy mayor stood firm, no matter the cost.

As much as I like the guy, he would be a disaster as a president, even if he could be elected. Going to Washington means you have to deal with a many, many people with whom you do not agree. Some of them are very smart, and others are enormous idiots. Most of them you cannot simply fire or ignore. In a Kucinich presidency, we'd probably have a few sun-bright moments of bravery amidst a very dark and noisy chaos.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:53 PM on August 4, 2011




Compromise reached in FAA shutdown, here's the choice bits:
This is the bill Senate Democrats objected to because it cut off subsidies to 13 rural airports.

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.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:01 PM on August 4, 2011


Pentagon says projected spending cuts could undermine security.

"The cost of the war in Afghanistan and overseas military operations in Iraq and elsewhere, which is about $160 billion a year, would be exempt, and Obama has authority not to cut military salaries and other personnel costs.

Even so, the cuts, coming in the middle of the fiscal year, would be spread across many of the Pentagon's budget accounts and would have "very far-reaching effects," the official said, requiring furloughs, layoffs and reductions in procurement and training budgets.

He urged lawmakers to focus on entitlement programs, which include Social Security and Medicare, or to raise taxes, rather than slash military programs more. "I would hope they would not make further cuts in defense, because we have taken a lot already. It remains a dangerous world.""
posted by VikingSword at 1:30 PM on August 4, 2011


I'm more concerned with less military spending leading to more unemployment than I am with Al Qaeda.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:33 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Kucinich's record in executive office is the worst. He was nearly recalled. He was highly confrontational, which made him massively unpopular to voters.

You are conveniently committing the fact that the recall that you are talking about happened nearly 35 years ago and it was while he was a mayor of Cleveland. You are also omitting that the recall was politically motivated by one of the city council members that he was clashing with about being tougher on crime.

Nice smear though Ironmouth.


Seriously one of my best friends is a very liberal political operative who was working in Cleveland back then. He did not do a good job. I think he would say he did not do a good job.

The recall was about a lot more than that. It certainly resonated with residents, who barely let him keep his job.

I'm just pointing out that if you want to put a real liberal up there Feingold is your man. Kucinich? Not so much.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:51 PM on August 4, 2011


Compromise reached in FAA shutdown, here's the choice bits:
This is the bill Senate Democrats objected to because it cut off subsidies to 13 rural airports.

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 real sticking point was the stuff about unions. The GOP wanted to allow an abstention in a union election to count as a no vote.

They backed down. Perhaps because shutdowns have always been losers for them in the long term.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:53 PM on August 4, 2011


On the one hand, Kucinich's mayorship was indeed the only time he ever held executive office, so it's fair game. Further, the city really did default and he really did face a recall election. It's not a smear to say as much.

On the other hand, he did show considerable bravery with the whole Muni Light thing. He faced threats from corrupt corporations, banks, and even, apparently, according to Wikipedia, mafia hitmen. Let it never be said that Dennis Kucinich lacks integrity or progressive ideals.

On the other other hand, he was ultimately unpopular and ineffective as an administrator. His scorched earth style barely saw him through the term that he did have, let alone the reelection. Yes, he won on the Muni Light issue, but at a considerable cost. Fighting powerful, corrupt entities takes time and energy away from the day-to-day. The problem with Kucinich's direct white knight approach is that, after a short period of time, everything is given back to those powers.

On the other other other hand, check out this snippet from Wikipedia: "The Plain Dealer later revealed that Cleveland Trust and CEI had seven interlocking directors, making Trust CEI's bank. Together with another bank, Cleveland Trust owned a substantial share of CEI stock and had numerous other mutual interests." In other words, the bank and the utility conglomerate were basically self-dealing, united against him. The boy mayor stood firm, no matter the cost.

As much as I like the guy, he would be a disaster as a president, even if he could be elected. Going to Washington means you have to deal with a many, many people with whom you do not agree. Some of them are very smart, and others are enormous idiots. Most of them you cannot simply fire or ignore. In a Kucinich presidency, we'd probably have a few sun-bright moments of bravery amidst a very dark and noisy chaos.


Your points are well-taken. The utility was self dealing with the Trust. They weren't "basically self-dealing" they were self-dealing. But I don't think he's the guy with the temper to do it.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:55 PM on August 4, 2011


I'm just pointing out that if you want to put a real liberal up there Feingold is your man.

i'd vote for him
posted by pyramid termite at 3:03 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


And the stock market plunges .... another Black Friday tomorrow perhaps? Key indicators point to a weakened recovery at best. Who would have thought that imposing austerity measures on the middle class in the middle of the worst recession since WW2 would cause a weakened recovery?

Oh and Obama begs Geithner to stay on at the Fed because that's worked so well these past couple years. Nice going Democrats.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 4:28 PM on August 4, 2011


"And the stock market plunges ...."
posted by Poet_Lariat at 7:28 PM on August 4

Reading the economic future from stock market index closing ticks, in an era of program trading, is like reading your romantic future from tea "leaf" dust out of a teabag in the bottom of a Styrofoam tea cup.
posted by paulsc at 4:46 PM on August 4, 2011


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.



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.
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. ..."
posted by ob1quixote at 7:50 PM on August 4

John Nash might appreciate your endorsement, but my experience in divorce court, and in negotiations with non-rational actors surrounding such personal events, even in lesser charged circumstances, suggests other possibilities. Even crazy John Nash should know that people are rarely, even on great topics, entirely rational actors.
posted by paulsc at 4:59 PM on August 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


Poet_Lariat wrote: Who would have thought that imposing austerity measures on the middle class in the middle of the worst recession since WW2 would cause a weakened recovery?

I would guess that the 550,000 government jobs lost since April might have more to do with it than something that hasn't actually happened yet.
posted by wierdo at 6:08 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Reading the economic future from stock market index closing ticks, in an era of program trading, is like (...)

2008

you know, when this whole depression began? - it's the biggest drop since 2008

this is not good - i'm not about to predict how bad it might be - but it is not good

this economy is not recovering and will not recover for some time
posted by pyramid termite at 6:14 PM on August 4, 2011


"it's the biggest drop since 2008"
posted by pyramid termite at 9:14 PM on August 4

Do you have any idea of how much cash the top 1000 American corporations are sitting on, or how today's cash positions for that list compare to those of late 2008? Hint: In late 2008, Apple Computer's checking account wasn't bigger than the U.S. government's.
posted by paulsc at 6:21 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


i certainly do

i also know that in a good economy they'd be very anxious to invest much of that cash in something that would give them a nice ROI

they're not looking to make money with money - they're looking to preserve as much as they can however they can by holding cash

that tells me something
posted by pyramid termite at 6:44 PM on August 4, 2011


paulsc: "Even crazy John Nash should know that people are rarely, even on great topics, entirely rational actors."

I think that the point of the linked article was precisely that when you're playing chicken against a crazy person, you have to be the one to bail out.
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.

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.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:22 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


I head the wealthy are holding enough cash that they're beginning to be charged interest.

Who in their right mind would trust Wall Street, Corporations, or the House these days? They've all become sociopathic.

The whole system breaks down when there's no trust.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:58 PM on August 4, 2011 [2 favorites]


weirdo:I would guess that the 550,000 government jobs lost since April might have more to do with it t

Eliminating half a million public sector jobs is not an austerity measure?
Also, raises and falls in the overall stock market are almost always about what will occur soon rather than what has just happened.
posted by Poet_Lariat at 9:23 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also, raises and falls in the overall stock market are almost always about what will occur soon rather than what has just happened.

And sometimes it's just dumb animal herd emotions, founded on nothing but dumb animal herd emotions.

Stock market is the ultimate herd of lemmings ready to go flying off a cliff. No individuality. No real courage. Unless you count pre-packaged "individuality" and pre-packaged "courage" and pre-packaged "vision," as the real stuff. Ayn Rand books produce a herd of idiots super-charged on the smell of their own gastric juices and pre-infarction flatulence ready to throw their money at the first idiot to ring the right bells and blow the right doggy-whistles. It should actually be called McWall Street. Same thing with the Bagger-folk fascists. Say the right words and blow the right whistles and blammo you wind up in the House of Representatives making an ass of yourself and thinking you're principled because you've got the negro president worried about the economy having a stroke thanks to your ignorance and intrasegience.

Anyhow, new poll in NY Times shows the Tea Party is now effectively considered a collection of dangerous and extreme ideologues by independents, and considered to have too much power in the GOTP.

So it's vbye bye Tea Taliban.
posted by Skygazer at 7:55 AM on August 5, 2011 [2 favorites]




Last night I dreamed that I had a fancy new microwave which was specifically for making pastries. But I couldn't figure out it worked, so Paul Krugman appeared and helped me make a chocolate cake (but I woke up before it was done.) What does it mean?
posted by homunculus at 8:50 AM on August 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


It means stop getting baked before bed. Krugman won't be there to bail you out, no matter how much you wish it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:03 AM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I think it means Krugman owes me a chocolate cake.
posted by homunculus at 12:07 PM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Clearly, we've been calling on economists to do a pastry chef's job.

Think about it. Economics is the dismal science. You talk about economics, you get people sad. You get people sad, they don't buy as much and the economy tanks.

Meanwhile, you offer cake, pastries, and cookies for sale and people get excited and start spending money hand over fist on carbs and carb accessories. Then, after people eat cake, they feel the need to burn it off, so they buy stuff to exercise. Running shoes, bikes, gym memberships, etc. And if you exercise, you get hungry. For cake. It's a sustainable positive feedback loop.

In other words, the debate over stimulus, tax cuts, or spending cuts is wrongheaded. What Obama should be doing is a bake sale.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:58 PM on August 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


I thought Michelle Obama hated cookies, because she hates America or something. At least that's what Sarah told me.
posted by desjardins at 3:45 PM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


That was in response to this campaign.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:02 PM on August 5, 2011


I thought Michelle Obama hated cookies

But her husband loves pie.
posted by homunculus at 7:39 PM on August 5, 2011


Once she gets the nomination, she veers to the center, of course - ably assisted by Fox News. She can pass for sane when she wants.

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Have you seen her husband?
posted by krinklyfig at 8:13 AM on August 7, 2011


We already had that conversation.
posted by desjardins at 8:17 AM on August 7, 2011


How do the super-wealthy benefit from the US dollar becoming demoted as the global currency? I think that's where this is all leading, and purposefully so: the tea party is a billionaires' device for change. Have they bet against the US dollar like Soros did the UK £, and are manufacturing its destruction?

How do the real powers benefit by the US losing?
posted by five fresh fish at 4:21 PM on August 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


We already had that conversation.

Someone who runs a brainwashing clinic (and who gladly takes govt money for it while pretending to oppose it politically) is open for criticism. Anything else implied is aside from that primary point.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:05 PM on August 7, 2011


How do the real powers benefit by the US losing?

Not everything is a conspiracy. If you wish, there is a dominant POV among the GOP that their primary objective should be to prevent Obama from being re-elected. The S&P downgrade was full of political language. A lot of people in the financial markets are conservative. It's just the culture of Wall St.

Jim Rogers is a currency and commodities trader, a pretty big fish, also conservative politically. He said he was short Treasurys around April of this year when they started to turn up after a long down trend, then recently said he was actually bullish in his portfolio because everyone else was short. I just heard him two minutes ago saying he was short Treasury bonds. Sounds to me like he's trying to cover up his errors or is talking up his book while bluffing where convenient, although most of his market comments in the last couple years have been highly political.

As of this post, 10 year US T bonds caught their uptrend after an initial sell-off, just retracing the spike up from Friday. It's back in its range and looks to be holding its trend up. The dollar index is sideways but weak, which measures our currency exchange rate against a basket of other currencies. The trend in the dx has been sideways-bearish since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008. The sell off in the dx is not a new development by any means. To me this looks like a technical reaction to a fundamental event. In other words, the market was ready to make this move but just needed an excuse.

I do believe there are many people involved who are trying to make things worse so as to put the blame for a bad economy on Obama. Beyond that, and more significantly from a market perspective, there is a strong interest among our debtors to keep interest rates low and US Treasury bond prices from falling. Nobody really wants US T-bills to tank, which isn't happening right now. The equities markets are faltering, however, which most of the public watches much more than bonds. However, if any of this is politically motivated, it should be mentioned that these sell-offs aren't able to sustain themselves for a long period of time. At some point the market will snap back as buyers start to find prices so cheap they can't do otherwise. Right now the yields on some of the REITs and BDCs are insanely high, and prices very cheap, to 2009 levels. I can't see people turning down 20% dividend returns for too long, no matter how bad the mood may be. So, by the time the elections roll around, this horrible feeling in the markets will be history. If it's politically motivated, the timing is a bit strange.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:36 PM on August 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


there is a strong interest among our debtors

Creditors, sorry.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:55 PM on August 7, 2011


the tea party is a billionaires' device for change

I don't buy that premise for a second.

The Tea Party is not a billionaires' device for change, it's a millionaires' and perhaps hundred-thousanders' "device." The truly rich, and most of Wall Street, generally support conservative, status-quo-protecting Democrats or liberal, status-quo-protecting Republicans (insofar as they haven't been purged from the party by the extremists). The big companies spread their money around to hedge their bets, but if you look at individual contributions, the smart money at Goldman Sachs and the other usual suspects leans blue, not red, and certainly not far red.

This makes sense; if you're doing well, you don't rock the boat ... and the Tea Party definitely wants to rock the boat.

You're trying too hard to see an elitist conspiracy of the very rich in the Tea Party, when what they really are is a blundering populist non-conspiracy of the not-so-very-rich-but-very-nervous high-upper middle class. The sort of people who drive luxury-brand cars and go on vacation, but not the sort who have private jets and go to their chalet over the weekend.

They're the people who have, for whatever reason, found themselves in money but now see it slipping away from them, or perhaps they see some opportunity slipping away, and they are very angry about it. And in their anger, they have latched onto the pseudo-Randian idea that they'd be doing better if it weren't for the meddling "Liberals" and "Big Government" who keep stealing from their paychecks to spend it on suspiciously-pigmented people downtown. (Or whatever. There are as many explanations for how Big Government is Screwing You as there are angry people.) That's the crux of the whole thing and you can't really argue with it because it's not a totally cogent political philosophy, it's a sort of gut feeling that a lot of people have. I think it's a gut feeling that a whole lot of people have had for a long time, decades at least, but now they've gotten a lot of confirmation bias to lump on top of it (e.g.: black Democrat president -> economy goes to hell along with their 401k). There's more than a whiff of anti-immigrant sentiment in there too.

I think there are a lot of parallels to the 19th century Know Nothings, who were not really cut from the same cloth as the mainstream candidates. It would be wrong, I think, to characterize them as a working-class party, but they certainly weren't an aristocrat's party either. They were the party of a very particular slice of high bourgeoise who saw their place in the natural order of things being threatened, and pushed back viscerally against it.

It would be a mistake to try to deal with the Tea Party as though they are the product of a thought-out conspiracy by rational actors trying to advance their economic interests. You might as well try to negotiate peace terms with a pitchfork-wielding mob.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:58 PM on August 7, 2011 [8 favorites]


The ECB is backing Eurozone debt issues by buying Italian and Spanish bonds. Right now many Spanish and Italian banks seem to be recovering very well, intraday at least, and the Euro has stopped sliding down against the dollar since Friday AM. More volatility in the next few days would not be surprising, but the central banks of Europe, Japan and the US are signalling loudly that they're working very hard to stabilize the markets. The US markets haven't opened, but the futures markets aren't anticipating any US Treasury bearishness. S&P mini futures have recovered 20 points off the bottom, but are still down 10 points from Friday's close. Europe's markets are up on the day so far after a negative open and bearish Asian market sentiment.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:33 AM on August 8, 2011


Much of the money used to astroturf the Tea Party came from the Koch brothers, who certainly are billionaires, but their agenda seems to be rather different from that of their peers.

I predicted before the deal got done that some deal would get done even if it meant D-R cooperation to bypass the teabaggers because very powerful people would be calling and twisting arms very hard to make sure it happened. I see the S&P downgrade as a way of saying "and it better not happen again."
posted by localroger at 6:19 AM on August 8, 2011


I'm starting to think the Tea Party, which is so proud of being decentralized, is more like a headless, brainless monster that basically tries to make everyone equally unhappy.
posted by mccarty.tim at 8:33 AM on August 8, 2011


@Kadin2048 I agree what everything you wrote, except for the part about the vague feeling that something is wrong and that they're being ripped off intrinsically being a suspicion that its Big Government or the Liberals.

They think they're being ripped off because they are. People today work harder, they work longer hours, and they get less pay for it.

They think they're being screwed over by someone, but the idea that it's Big Government or the Liberals at fault is one carefully nurtured by certain interest groups.

Absent the constant drumbeat from the right wing pundits that it must all be the fault of Big Government Liberals, some might well latch onto the truth, that they're being screwed over by big business and the wealthy.

But they feel powerless, and rage filled, and messed over quite rightly. They are powerless, and messed over, and doing worse, and it isn't right. Problem is that the action they're taking, and the people they're electing is hurting them even worse.

You'd hope that, eventually, the lies and deception leading them to hate Big Government Liberals would stop working, but I see no evidence of that actually happening. I don't know what it's going to take before they wake up.
posted by sotonohito at 8:55 AM on August 8, 2011 [3 favorites]


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.

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.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:29 AM on August 11, 2011


« Older Kill Math   |   Tax Soda, Subsidize Veggies Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments