What did Wall Street want to hear when Speaker Boehner appeared before the Economic Club of New York last night? According to Bloomberg, they wanted to hear that Boehner is going to raise the debt limit:
“What Wall Street wants to hear is that they are going to raise the debt ceiling in a timely way,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Investors expect “policy makers are going to negotiate and debate,” though they want assurances that “when it comes down to brass tracks they are going to raise that debt ceiling,” Zandi said.
And what did they get instead?
Without significant spending cuts and changes to the way we spend the American people’s money, there will be no debt limit increase,” Mr. Boehner told members of New York’s business and finance community. “And cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.” Mr. Boehner said those cuts should be in the trillions of dollars, not billions.
Mr. Boehner said the reductions should be “actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future. And with the exception of tax hikes — which will destroy jobs — everything is on the table.”
Note that he didn’t provide any details. He wants to cut about $2 trillion from the budget without raising taxes. Taxes are “off the table.” Boehner wants to play a game of chicken with America’s credit rating and the global economy. But, this time, he doesn’t have much leverage. In fact, the only leverage he has depends on right-leaning Democrats like Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. In theory, the president and the Democrats could simply call Boehner’s bluff and offer him nothing. Unfortunately, we have a lot of lousy Democrats in elected office that want more than a mere fig leaf on deficit reduction and don’t insist that the issue be decoupled from the debt limit.
The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner and they can be put through the figurative electoral wood-chipper over their irresponsibility and desire to gut Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare without raising taxes on anyone. But, once again, a bunch of stupid Democrats are making it difficult to win this political battle.
And this is where having crappy parties in places like WV & Missouri hurt us because there is no one to primary McCaskill .. and before you tell me she is the best we can do there .. are you telling me Medicare isn’t popular in Missouri? .. because I bet it is as popular there as anywhere else
Medicare’s popular enough in Missouri that you can be DAMN SURE that her REPUBLICAN opponent in the next election will clobber her with any move she makes to touch it. Likewise Social Security.
She may be the best Democrat one can get from Missouri but damn she seems to have a tin ear for politics. I don’t know how she keeps her job.
She should stick to beating the shit out of corrupt contractors and stop trying to be some kind of leader of deficit reduction.
How about her whole plane debacle issue? Self wounding herself.
Was a fan of hers during the election, but I haven’t been since inauguration. She was one of the annoying Democrats who reduced the size of the stimulus for its own sake. Not taking out stuff that will have little to no effect and spending it better elsewhere, but reducing its size for the fuck of it. She enabled our recovery to be slower than it could be. And now she’s enabling our credit to get hammered, resulting in actually needing to reduce the deficit/debt. Dislike…
During the election I was watching a debate between her and her opponent on CNN(?) in a motel in downstate Illinois. She made complete sense and her opponent was a complete Randite loon. She won the election, so why does she want to emulate her losing opponent? Of course, why does Barack Obama want to become George Bush?
Time for the hand on the other end of Boehner’s leash to give it a couple of jerks, or maybe present him with an offer he can’t refuse.
I have this big fear that Boehner has the whip hand and just like the Bush Tax Cut expiration, Democrats will give in, this time giving up SS, Medicare, Medicaid and more, while Obama wrings his hands and refuses to veto because “we must avoid a default”. I’d rather we had a default than give up all the gains of the last eighty years. Ending foreign trade would ultimately be good for us, even though it means shortages and suffering now. Those without money are suffering shortages anyway.
Cutting Trillions without tax increases? And implicitly saving the Defense budget? That means the total destruction of the safety net.
That’s exactly the point. And how depressing is it that there’s a viable chance that something Republicans have wanted for 80 years could plausibly occur with a Democratic president and Senate? I don’t think it will happen – this time – but it’s not unimaginable. And Republicans probably figure that demanding it all is a no-lose proposition, because at worst, like the ever-increasing limits on abortion, they can effectively get most of what they want through piecemeal reforms that, in this case, Dems are all too willing to concede.
My reading is, this is pure and utter posturing, red meat for the base. What’s really unimaginable is the idea that Boehner would seriously oppose the wishes of Wall Street.
Basically, the problem is this. The demands of the Tea Party amount to a collection of contradictory positions and prejudices. So in cstering to them, the GOP platform is not only retrograde, it is downright incoherent.
Wall Street is losing control of the Republican Party, just like German industrialists lost control of the fascist parties.
But Wall Street is gaining (has gained?) control of the Democratic Party. We are heading for one party government, but Wall Street will control it.
I think that’s an oversimplification. Wall Street always “buys into” the party in power in Washington. The more so now that their favorite political party is becoming dysfunctional. But the Democratic Party is not a very comfortable ideological fit with Wall Street as it has developed over the last 30 years. The Democratic Party wants a new New Deal.
Maybe I’m unusual. I see Bill Clinton as a trimmer (a person who adapts their views to the prevailing political trends for personal advancement). In that sense he is partly responsible for where we are today. Obama on the other hand is a genuine pragmatist — he wants pretty much what I want for this country, but he takes a very practical approach — goes for what he can, when he can, in the way that he can. (With much skill, I would add.) And gradually fortifies his position.
The German industrialists lost control of the fascist parties? I think it would be more accurate to say that some found more favor with them than others. Or rather, vice-versa. As far as I am aware, German fascism was financed by international investors like Ford, GM, GE, IBM, Prescott Bush, etc. Not to mention German firms like Krupp, IG Farben.
The GOP is definitely devolving into a fascist party, backed by the Koch-style industrialists, but fortunately, this is not Germany. We have always had our fascists, they have recently had a heyday, but I think it is ending. I hope I don’t come off sounding complacent. I’m not saying “It can’t happen here.” In fact, I’m saying “It is happening here,” but we are dealing with it. The fascists are NOT getting more popular.
I see the fascists becoming much more popular. but then I work with several Tea Party activists.
You have my deepest sympathy!