All this crap between the president and Boehner went down while I was trying to cook dinner. Do you know what it’s like to grill chicken in 104 degree heat? In any case, this is the end-game I’ve been predicting for quite some time. The president knew that Boehner couldn’t deliver the votes for any plan with tax increases and so he insisted on tax increases until the very end. He’s still insisting on them. At this point, some polls show as many as 80% of the people agreeing with the president’s approach. The establishment media is firmly on the president’s side. Pretty much any semi-casual observer is on the president’s side. Politically, he has crushed the Republicans. The Senate capitulated last week. Even Boehner capitulated last week, except that he’s powerless so his capitulation meant nothing. This is also what I said worried me all the way back to when I wrote about my call with the White House. What if Boehner can’t deliver even a capitulation? What if he can deliver nothing?
Now we’re at that point.
Grover Norquist just went on CNN and told the Republicans to cut a deal because defaulting will be a disaster. It’s pretty amazing that Grover Norquist might be able to salvage the country’s economy and reputation but the Speaker of the House could not.
Hopefully, Grover’s act of patriotism will be enough. We’ll get the McConnell deal, everyone will be unhappy, but we won’t default and the debt ceiling will be off the table until after the next election. The president will have immunized himself against taking blame for the deficit; the Republicans will have scared the crap out of everyone, including their top patrons.
This outcome would be about the best we could hope for, but it does come with a price. A grand bargain would have possibly included spending cuts in the future for more stimulus now. Instead, we’re stuck with this struggling economy and a bunch of attacks on next year’s budget that will make the economy worse.
Choose your poison. This is what happens when the Republicans win big in an election. Horrible things happen.
I’ll give you credit, Booman. The end result does seem to be what you predicted. But if the whole negotiation was just a “Kabuki” to get us to the best possible result (a clean raise of the debt ceiling), then why did Obama seem so genuinely pissed off that he couldn’t get a deficit reduction deal?
Obama wanted a deal all along. And still does. But, the only way he can sell it is if he gets some limited revenues in the deal. If he can’t get that, then it’s not worth it to give the whole store away.
A deal means the debt “monkey” is off Obama’s back and he doesn’t have to deal with that during the election. Instead, he would something big to show the American people he did something about the debt and compromised with the Republicans. Basically, a deal would probably make re-election a lot easier.
Also, Obama thinks a deal would make it easier to call for infrastructure spending in the future.
Yes, Obama had many reasons to want a deal. He spelled them out. His people explained the reasons to me personally.
He wants an extension of unemployment insurance and a payroll tax holiday extension. He wants to backload the budget cuts so they don’t hit us next year. He doesn’t want the debt ceiling hanging over him constantly.
He wanted a deal, but he knew full well that no deal with taxes would be forthcoming. He’s not a stupid man. If I can read the Republican caucus then he certainly can read them.
So, he did what any reasonable man would do. He gave the GOP all the rope they needed to hang themselves.
What were his alternatives? To offer no compromises and make it look like a legitimate impasse? Of course he offered them more than they deserved. It’s not like they were going to take it.
He’s pissed, but he’s been pissed. He’s not surprised. This is what he knew would happen in the end.
Boo…please man…realize that extending unemployment benefits worsens the unemployment crisis…as someone who hires people…trust me, it’s true…please…on just this one issue!
Mr. Liberty-
Your party is denying the president the ability to use standard Keynesian principles to add money (demand) into the system. The president has cut taxes on, or created tax incentives for, small businesses in 19 different bills at this point. Corporate taxes aren’t even being collected from some our biggest international corporations. The capital gains tax is at a historic low. Obama has given every American an income tax cut and a payroll tax cut.
One of the only things he can do to put more money in people’s pockets (creating demand) is to extend unemployment insurance. People who are unemployed have no choice but to spend that money immediately, unlike someone who won’t even notice a $10,000 tax cut.
Obama can only do so much to create jobs. He can hire people directly. He can purchase services from companies. Or he can hand people money, hope they spend it, and create enough demand to justify expanding the supply (hiring).
The GAO and CBO agree that UI insurance is he most stimulative of all government outlays.
Now, it’s true that it disincentivizes people to look for work, but when there are seven applicants for every job, that’s not our most pressing problem, is it?
Please explain how unemployment insurance worsens the unemployment crisis.
Do you mean that the presence of unemployment benefits makes it easier for employers to lay off people without guilt?
Do you mean that the presences of unemployment benefits makes it easier to discriminate against people simply because they are unemployed in the midst of a recession?
Do you mean that the 7000 people who show up to apply for 150 positions have all exhausted their unemployment benefits?
Or do you mean that if you personally were unemployed you’d live on the $400-$800 a month gravy train for as long as you could?
But then, as one of the “job creators”, you’ve never been unemployed have you? Or gone bankrupt? Or reincorporated in order to dodge creditors (love that limited liability)?
“Trust me…it’s true.”
What worsens the unemployment crisis is consumers not having money to spend, businesses not being willing to invest because the demand isn’t there, government being hamstrung from spending, and importing more valuable goods than we export.
…if…unemployed you would live off 400 to 800 per month…(paraphrase, since I haven’t mastered block quotes yet)…
Sadly…true.
Tarheel…from previous posts, you are from a different generation.
My hiring managers constantly complain about a youner generation with a entitlement mentality that expects to be paid well while surfing the net all day. Our jobs pay well if you work–I did the lowest level job in our company and was grateful…only half a generation later, they complain about “low wages”…unbelievable.
The Facebook generation is the death of America…
To answer your question…yes…many of today’s generation (not yours) will gladly accept one half pay for no work. If faced with no pay, they will work. Unemployment benefits are increasing unemployment…whatever you subsidize increases.
That’s the sad truth from my perspective, and it is reinforced on a daily basis.
The “Facebook Generation” has never had the opportunity to work, because they haven’t had a good economy to work in since they were in high school, mostly thanks to fools like you who believe in these free-market fairy tales.
We can all bring up all the anecdotes we want. But, contrary to the GED in Economics crowd that you libertarians make up such a large part of, the plural form of “anecdote” isn’t “data”. Even if we took your comment about your hiring managers at face value (and I, personally, don’t), it would demonstrate nothing, other than the fact that managers don’t like Gen-Y’ers — or, really, anybody — expecting decent pay.
UI is a paltry sum, and it doesn’t last forever, as millions can attest. Anybody who believes people are turning down jobs to stay on UI in large numbers is delusional. It should be higher, not lower. Every study conducted on the stimulus package has shown UI to have among the highest multipliers. The spending it enables encourages more job creation than handing idiot managers some damned tax cut. And it’s not even really close.
Unemployment is high because there are 6 or 7 workers for every job opening. It’s high because households are heavily in debt, and businesses don’t have the demand needed to expand production — a problem which is only made worse by slashing people’s UI and dragging down wages across the economy, (cet par) increasing the real debt level.
It’s not rocket science. You can continue pretending it’s all the fault of those lazy kids you helped screw by ruining their schools, destroying their economy, sending them off to die in whatever new ridiculous war, and who all should really just get off your lawn already — but, if that’s the case, I feel sorry for your company.
Well, hire some older unemployed workers who have the skill sets.
It sure sounds like you are looking at kids right out of college who have high student loans to pay and are looking for enough salary to cover that and live the lifestyle they were used to in college.
The complaint about surfing the internet sounds to me like a training and management issue. It is amazing how many employers think that they themselves learned good work habits by osmosis. Think about how you learned good work habits.
And no, not every kid has your mama.
Because he is genuinely pissed off he couldn’t get a deficit reduction deal. And frankly, it’s fucking ridiculous. Even Newt Gingrich, who may be the most preposterous asshole to ever hold the Speaker’s gavel, was able to compromise with Bill Clinton about the deficit.
Then John Boehner comes along and threatens to burn this mother down if he can’t get a deficit deal, and then it turns out that he can’t deliver enough House votes to pass anything but this CC&B bullshit. He spent months jerking Obama around, and at the end of it we may have our AAA bond rating yanked because he sucks so very badly at his job.
It’s disgraceful that this useless, weepy, drunk-ass, orange loser is allegedly the second most powerful man in Washington. The debt deal sounded like a real shit sandwich, but you know what? I’m pissed too.
I agree with the thrust of what you’re saying. But I don’t actually think this is all Boehner’s fault. He seemed to genuinely want to make the grand bargain – indeed, he recognized that what was figuratively on the table was a great policy deal for conservatives. But the Crazy Caucus in the House won’t let him, because, well, they’re crazy.
Has anyone noticed besides me that the odious Eric Cantor has been absent from the scene lately? Does that mean that Boehner has resumed leadership again of the House GOP? Maybe with a little help from Obama?
Just wondering. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in the days to come.
He will reappear when they need to rally the Tea Party base again.
Cantor is just in the basement sharpening the knives to stick in Orange Julius’ back.
I think he blew his wad with the CCB thing. Which was DOA in the Senate. He’s just a pain in the ass to Boehner and McConnell.
Don’t be bashful! Give your community credit for helping to well position the President. He would not have been able to pull this off so brilliantly if the basement dwellers in the liberal bloghesphere hadn’t thrown bitch fits at every unsubstantiated leak and backstabbing congressional Democrats hadn’t run to the media to whine about not getting invited to the party as if the media likes them or gives a damn about the liberal cause. He wouldn’t have been able to pull this off without you all being, well, you. THANK YOU!
The nerve of those congressional Democrats refusing to sit in the corner quietly while their leadership manipulates a fake crisis (that, of course, has now become a real one) to conduct backroom negotiations over the country’s finances with minimal oversight or accountability! It’s almost as though safe-seat progressives don’t need to worry about things like reelection or “appearing moderate,” and as such, have entirely different sets of priorities. The nerve! This heinous behavior will not stand!
Actually I don’t think it cramped Obama’s style at all. It just helped emphasize his point that he was willing to consider compromises that his own base clearly hated. (Message to the general public: Boehner should be willing to do this too.) He was not risking anything, knowing that as long a he insisted on raising taxes the GOP would not accept any deal.
No chance for a grand deal, but that works in the President’s favor, and absolutely crushes the Reeps. And the Tea Party, as far as the next election cycle, is still dead.
With the likelihood of a significant deal now likely scuttled, Obama said he would be willing to accept a “clean” debt ceiling increase “if they tell me that’s the best they can do.” [LATimes coverage].
if not for Barack Obama’s first year of dithering.
That would be the Democratic Senate’s first year of dithering. Lay it at the feet of the soon=to-be-dearly-departed Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Warner (the publicist for the current Gang of Six),…
That’s where the dithering and weak knees were (not to mention the conflicts of interest).
The President should veto the McConnell deal and do this instead. There is no good reason he should have to grovel and beg the congress every 6 months as the McConnell plan calls for… during an election year. Today he demanded that the ceiling be raised to get us into 2013 and he should stick to it, no matter what. The public is on his side.
As long as there is authority to spend based on Congressional appropriation and authorization and as long as Congress has not changed the tax code to bring in more revenue, the President is obligated to finance the difference. (That I think is the gist of the 14th amendment.) Not has the power to…but obligated to…
That might get us through August and September and might even make the debt ceiling law irrelevant. But on October 1, all appropriations must be authorized all over again by Congress. A President who asserted the sort of extraordinary emergency powers that George Bush did will likely be accused of being a tyrant and moves made for impeachment. I don’t think that in this racist environment that Obama will go there. The public is on his side as long as he seeks to work with Congress.
This fight will not be resolved until the new Congress is seated in January 2013. Democrats are going to need some massive Congressional (especially Senate victories) if that is to happen.
If Obama overplays his hand, he could forfeit that possibility. If he underplays his hand, we are another four years of gridlock.
Just by threatening to unilaterally break the debt ceiling law, it would show that the congress is abdicating its supposed responsibility/authority to set a debt limit and they should fold and just pass a clean debt ceiling increase big enough to get into 2013. They will be privately relieved to have it behind them.
One doesn’t threaten about things that have repercussions in the financial markets. Especially right now. The Republicans in the House have the markets edgy. If Obama replies in kind, they would spook even before August 2.
There are those in Congress who don’t want to have it behind them until 2013. They want to be able to harass Obama with the debt ceiling continually up to the November election.
The debt ceiling law gets broken when August 2 (or the dollar amount of the debt ceiling) comes and goes and the President acts solely in obedience to the existing appropriations and tax laws and finances the rest.
Soothing the bond markets is going to be a difficult task. Estimates are that in the short term the interest rates will go up from 3% to 3.5%, which means that other interest rates (such as mortgages and car loans) will go up in response. Not great if you are trying to get employment going.
The best move for the next 10 days is to honestly negotiate but not to posture. But not cave just because the debt ceiling law is there. The one who makes what the public perceives as the last honest gesture to solve the problem wins. Even if the debt ceiling is breached.
But we should not underestimate how difficult the job will be for the President if he has to act in accordance with the 14th amendment. Hopefully, all of the agencies have created contingency plans to deal with this crisis, hoping that they will not have to use them.
Come Monday Standard and Poor may down our credit rating. How that will effect all those 401Ks, the bankers, and Wall street might determine how much longer the GOP can hold the Debt Limit hostage.
Orange Julius was lit up at that presser
I am seiously beginning to believe that dude was totally “under the influence”
From what I’ve read, if it’s past 5 PM, he’s got a cocktail in hand. No exceptions.
Do you really think he waits until 5pm to start drinking? The dude is a raging alcoholic.
What Boehner has allowed to happen is the serious exposure of the GOP as a party divided so even the least informed of this country can see it.
TParty events down 50% this year so all this bending over to please them will have gotten Boehner and eventually Cantor nothing but a room full of stale air.
Meanwhile, the moderates just got a dose of a conservative Dem in action. He may be progressive in his 2nd term but this round of craziness, where he promoted himsef as the sane one in the room may have opened the door for moderates who remember the good old days to take a hard look at him…or what vote for Bachmann?
From your text to….
I hope you are right in your predictions. That would be my specification of what the rope-a-dope knockout punch would look like.
But can he land it?
If Obama “crushed” his opponents politically, then why are his approval ratings matching his all-time lows? Why is his performance against both a “generic” Republican and actual candidates for the Republican nomination matching all-time worsts?
He’s in trouble–and you know it.
Here’s the scary part, Progressives…the Cut, Cap and Balanced passed the House…it would have passed the Senate if Republicans had control of that chamber…and I’ll bet the mortgage that any of the current Republican nominees for President would sign it into law.
If Republicans retain the house, win the Senate, and take the White House (in my estimation, no worse than a 50/50 propostion), then your nightmare of all nightmares (i.e. a Federal Government limited to spending 18 to 20 percent of GDP that has to produce of balanced budget (horrors of horrors!!!)) is your reality.
I always thought of statism (progressivism) like cancer–it’s victory inevitable, appealing to human weakness. Pinch me before I wake up–we might reverse the tide!
I will summon the ghost of George Washington and company (I know, John QUINCY Adams is not in that group of Founding Fatehrs) and company tonight to help us.
Man, you need to wise up.
The Republican Establishment would NEVER pass a balanced budget amendment. They would never take away their ability to deficit spend. How many times do you have to watch this play before you realize that the GOP lives for, feeds off, and depends on deficit spending? Without it, they’d have no way to rob the treasury unless they wanted to tax themselves.
Jesus. Wake up.
The Republican Establishment is cotowing to a bunch of toothless, racist, idiotic “Teabaggers”…kind of like how, in 1776, the World’s Greatest Empire (i.e. Great Britain) lost to a bunch of radical right(?…by the day’s standards, the Founding Fathers were most likely considered to be radical left-wingers…)wingers…
Boo…you are absolutely right…previous Republican Congresses and Presidents were Democrat-lite…buying votes by deficit spending…
That’s why Boehner and McConnel are squirming…no more Democrat-lite.
It’s not really Democrat-lite.
What I have described is the Republican Party as it has existed since 1981. It currently is experiencing some internal dissent, but it will prevail.
You do realize a balanced budget would mean Republicans wouldn’t be able to fund the wars they started, right? I’m pretty sure they would be in no hurry to quit our adventures abroad.
Here’s the scary part for Congress. Making the tax laws and the appropriations bills balance the budget.
It’s much easier to hide behind a debt ceiling or a balanced budget amendment.
Remember the line item veto? The Republicans lusted for it, pushed for it, and got it passed? But when Bill Clinton used it, the Republicans pushed a case through the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
So if it turns out to be McConnell-Reid, no doubt we can expect to hear howls of faux outrage every time President Obama vetoes the phony disapproval votes and raises the debt ceiling between now and the election. The GOP no doubt think that’s a real PR winner for them.
What they seem not to be considering is that every time this little farce gets played out, the President will have reason once again to castigate the GOP as the plutocrat-placating, poor-oppressing, obstructionist do-nothings they’ve shown themselves to be, while he’s the responsible adult who cleans up the mess the slacker kids leave behind.
One would think by now the GOP would realize that they’re Wile E. Coyote and Obama is the Roadrunner.
Maybe you didn’t see his press conference:
Oh, I watched the whole thing, with wonder and delight.
It’s my understanding that McConnell-Reid does take the debt ceiling out past the election, but in three steps at preset intervals. At each step (a) the ceiling goes up a certain preset amount; (b) Congress passes a resolution or act or some such saying how dreadful it all is and it must be stopped now! (c) the President vetoes the kabuki; (d) there aren’t enough votes to override the veto; and (e) the ceiling hike goes into effect.
Or at least, that’s the Frankenstein’s monster that McConnell originally hoicked up. Has it mutated since then?
No, it hasn’t mutated since then. But the president won’t accept those conditions, as he made clear.
He’s been consistent on revenue and on one deal, not three.
He’s also been consistent that he’s not going to let the country go into default. It’s my impression that he left the door open to a simple raising of the debt ceiling with no attached deal of any stripe, if that’s what it will take to stave off disaster — but he’s not going to take any deal that’s spending cuts without revenue raising, no matter what the form. The McConnell-Reid monstrosity could I believe qualify for a “clean” raising through the elections, if it’s that or over the cliff.
But then, I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first nor the last time.
It may also be that even a straightforward ceiling hike won’t be able to get through the crazies in the House, not in time, not till the markets freak out and some of the damage is already done, anyway.
Sounds like he called them in to the principal’s office!
I’m sorry, but I think in the end, Obama–the ‘Great Capitulator’ and non-Leader–will capitulate and agree to Republican demands of Medicare/Aid and Soc.Sec. cuts without any meaningful revenue increases.
Once again, he has the chance to squash the Republicans like a bug and he wimps out… as usual. The Democrats just don’t have the balls to do to them what they do to us… all the friggin’ time.
But, if I’m wrong, I’ll take back every bad thing of ever said about him… maybe.
No you won’t.
I’d like to know what your definition of capitulating is. And by having the balls to do what they do to us…you mean hold a gun to the debt ceiling and ruin the world’s economy? I should hope not.
Frankly, the sooner someone capitulates and ends this hostage situation the better. I don’t have the nerves for it. I can’t plan beyond August 2 because I don’t know if we’ll have zero income or not. I’ve literally counted the cans of beans in my cupboard and estimated how long they’ll last.
For the Great Capitualotr, he’s sure been doing a lousy job capitulating so far.