If Jonathan Karl’s reporting is correct, the final deal on the debt ceiling is pretty good considering that this is a hostage situation. First, the president is getting enough money that he won’t have to go back and ask for more before election day in 2012. Second, the congressional debt committee will be authorized to recommend tax hikes. Third, the trigger to enforce action on the debt committee involves across-the-board cuts, but they hit the Pentagon harder than Medicare, and any Medicare cuts would hurt providers and not affect beneficiaries. If this is a true picture of the deal, then the Democrats came out better than most of us feared.
There is still no stimulus mentioned, like an extension of the payroll tax holiday or unemployment insurance. That’s extremely unfortunate, but it seems like the GOP’s bottom line is that nothing can be done by the federal government that might alleviate or improve unemployment.
In any case, this deal is certainly better than blowing up the economy on purpose.
I have different outlines, and it’s pretty much the worst thing that could happen (imo):
http://nationaljournal.com/budget/outlines-of-debt-compromise-emerge-20110730
I just read that. Maybe one is talking to the Dems and one is talking to the Repubs.
I’m reading that it forces a VOTE on a balanced budget amendment, but no requirement that it must send one.
the hits on healthcare providers will be passed on to beneficiaries.
Not if the beneficiaries can’t afford to pay. It’s more likely to cause people not to seek healthcare if the docs insist on their right to print money.
I’ve seen both of those outlines, and I tend to believe the Jon Karl one–it came out later I believe, based on my Twitter feed, and is more detailed.
That said, I always figured the final deal would be a bit better than what we’d been seeing. Let us imagine the worst, and then sweeten the deal slightly so we’re grateful we didn’t get totally nailed. Don’t know if Obama does this deliberately or if that’s a function of the media and the political process.
Either way, it’s better than default. Still pissed those cuts are likely to involve grad school student loans, which were axed last I heard.
National Journal is dated 7/31, Karl’s is dated 7/30.
The NJ one reads just like the one Taegan Goddard posted on Political Wire earlier. The Karl one came out in the wee hours of morning here, UK time.
What’s real? Does anyone care? The media seems to just report over and over that more compromise is always needed. But only one side has made any concessions. The other side just lies.
Could someone call out the liars for what they are?
We do, not that it matters.
Tax increases and Pentagon cuts are concessions the Democrats made to the Republicans now?
Okay.
Probably just me, but I’ve seen more of McConnell’s ugly face in print that any other politician over the past few months. More than POTUS, or Reid, or Boehner. If nothing else the Reeps know how to work the (news)rooms.
Maybe the media’s just got a Turtle fetish lately.
According to the NYT, Obama “proposed fewer cuts in military spending & more in health care than the chamber’s most conservative Republicans”
Excuse me while I vomit.
WTF?
Win The Future!!!!111!!1
Win future wars*
Looks like Obama is capturing the cuts issue to make it a non-starter in gov gridlock and the campaign. Could be a good strategy, depending what the cuts are otherwise gov gridlock boils down to the same old same old. But also wondering what Obama plans to do about the economy, since obviously he must do something. Any thoughts?
A non-starter? The GOP has no shame; Erik the Red is already running ads about Obama cutting Social Security.
And he can’t really do anything but lobby the Fed to try unorthodox monetary policy (won’t happen. He will neither lobby them nor would they do it if he did). Our only real hope is to try to keep Federal spending where it is until Jan. 2013. It’s the only thing keeping us afloat (well, and exports):
Well Erik can wish for that, but it’s not going to happen. I’m thinking any creative public-private routes to try? anything on the state level? the democrats won’t do nothing, no matter how the repubs try to box us/ them in.
very discouraging chart
Yes he can do something. He can force a constitutional crisis asking, “Which instructions of Congress to I obey?” And paying the bills until that is sorted out.
And the Secretary of the Treasury is the one to decide to strike the coin. The Fed just has to decide whether to swap its assets of US debt for a metallic hedge against hyperinflation. The weight and durability of the metal in the bar would have to make a credible hedge. And remember we are hedging against hyperinflation, not just ordinary inflation. I would think the goldbugs would love this idea.
Well I meant as far as stimulus. But yes, I agree with that on this debate.
The world changes after this debate–for good or for ill. If you like military analogies, this is D-Day and the battle is not yet decided. It looks like December will be some intermediate great battle. And the runup to the FY2013 appropriations will be the Battle of the Bulge. And November 2012, we take Berlin–or not.
The Secretary of the Treasury is allowed to order the minting of coins of ANY denomination so long as they are Platinum. No reason not to design a new Billion or Trillion dollar coin which he could have many stamped and deposit them in their Federal Reserve account. This has been talked about elsewhere lately and it makes good sense, if it comes down to that.
Be honest. You have no idea what that would mean in the global markets.
No I don’t. It is such a foreign concept that no one knows how that would work. But it could be done. That’s all.
It is not foreign. We do know how it would work.. roughly the same way QE2 works.
Doing QE or printing any other type of money under any other scenario could be inflationary where we are not in a liquidity trap. Wihtout liquidity trap you have the danger to impose a inflation tax.
In our situation the FED does QE for the same reason Obama can do the minting. There is actually no difference.The FED creates a number in a computer in exchange for assets. The coins give the FED and the Trasury the ability to keep doing the same thing. The balance sheet transaction are a little bit more complicated, but there is no formal difference.
At the beginning market participants may think that this is slightly more inflationary in the long-run (hopefully) than taken the 14th, but I am afraid as soon as they realize that the FED is doing the same thing as he always does, any positive effect would disappear. They would realize that it is a legal way to do the 14th.
A pleasure
Technically it’s no different to quantitative Easing and if it were combined with some spending reductions, there is no reason why global markets would crash. The US problem is a political problem, not an economic or debt problem. Corporates are making record profits. Debt levels as a % of GNP are not a big deal. The reason the US economy is anaemic is because demand is so slow – because of a 30 year decline in middle and lower incomes. It’s the inequality, stupid.
Of course we do.
It does not have any effect whatsoever. The FED prints money all the time…there is no difference whatsoever in any balance-.-sheet of any company , bank or other financial institution. Nothing, zero, blip. when even liberals do not get it.. it is really time to pack.
A pleasure
A chart that goes back to 2007 doesn’t tell us much about what’s happening now.
Oh the economy… Oh yeah, that thing we forgot about a year or two ago. Everyone in Washington is guilty of political malpractice on that one. They should all get the axe (or guillotine.) Every. Last. One. Of. Them.
SO much drama about how to screw people over harder with austerity measures and no one gives a rat’s ass about the desperately unemployed. They could have done alot about this but they figured it would be a better use of all of our time to do what they’re doing now.
(shaking my head)
This is all so wrong.
that’s why I’m saying starting now (yesterday, months ago) they/ we dems must do something
We MUST do something. Every day I see people who were formerly productive people who used to build things (mostly houses.) And they are desperate. Some now live on the streets. It’s really falling apart all around us and no one in Washington seems to care about this.
Suggestion: Fuck the deficit. Borrow a couple trillion and get these people employed building new stuff like high speed rail lines, roads, bridges, replacing sidewalks and curbs. Whatever. It’s really depressing to think that our leaders think we can’t fill the hole in the economy with government investment.
Locally, we need to build new levies along a (federally-owned) waterway that failed a couple years ago and flooded a large city, costing hundreds of millions in damage. Now the waterway is only allowed to carry half its original load and farmers that depend on it have to cut their crops in half because of that. We aren’t even in drought conditions. In fact, we’re at like 200% of normal snowfall from the winter so it’s just being wasted because we have nowhere to send that melted snow. That is so fucked up but we don’t even have a representative in the House. Dean (do nothing) Heller(R) was our Rep but he moved to Senator when the crooked bastard John (adulterer) Ensign(R) quit to avoid being arrested and prosecuted for his illegal deeds as Senator.
I am so sick of these crooked Republican fuckers.
If anyone cares, give money to Kate Marshall. Special-Election day is like September 13 I think. She’s awesome and she needs cash.
looks awesome indeed
Next time, try quoting the article correctly:
And the fact that the NYT didn’t put a period after “bipartisan Senate group” tells me this was just a hit piece written to draw page views. I’m sorry I clicked on it.
Sorry, forgot my “…”
Even including them would have made your statement a lie.
Seabe wrote a comment about how the media is always praising Republicans.
Seabe wrote a comment…praising Republicans.
You didn’t ‘forget your “….”‘. You misrepresented what the article said, deliberately removing information to change its meaning.
Nope. I forgot the “…”
The quote came from Electronic Intifada. See yourself:
http://twitter.com/#!/avinunu/status/97662972012404736
Ah, so you fell for someone else’s willful misrepresentation instead of making your own.
I hope this indicates something to you about that source’s credibility in the future.
When has any reporting been accurate in this entire ordeal, except that which explains why a deal won’t get made instead of will?
I’ll believe a deal is imminent only after 217 congressman vote for it…
I love you. There are no “Tea Leaves” to be read hear. Just a bunch of bullshit.
Don’t believe anything until it passes the votes of both chambers.
I’m gonna watch cartoons or something. This really is giving me an ulcer.
With you on that. Last night in a dream I took time out from whatever was happening in the dream to ask a passerby if there was any news on the debt ceiling. (there wasn’t, at least no lies about deals though)
TPM had a report of Kerry saying that the sticking point was still revenue.
But thanks for this. As you will see below, I lost my “It’s not over until it’s over” position. The fact that this seriously affects me personally and relatively soon compared to other folks got to me this morning.
understandable.
There are a hell of a lot of people who will be affected by this in more ways than they can even imagine. I’m devoting my Sunday to doing billings on federal jobs to get the process started before who-knows-what-happens on Tuesday. I suspect many companies and organizations that have dealings with the federal government are doing the same. All the money being pulled out of discretionary spending is going to hurt a lot of people.
really too frightening
Schumer and Chris Coons have been walking back the rumors. There is dissatisfaction in the caucus (according to them) about not knowing what is in the negotiations. Per TPM
I would imagine so. its very possible that the Democratic caucus is just as much in the dark as everyone else.
Which is not a good situation to be in with time so short as they still have to sell any deal to their caucuses
The Catfood Joint Committee has a voting threshold of 7 out of 12.
I predict a solidly GOP set of recommendations with a vote of 6 Republicans and either Kent Conrad or Mark Warner (the little weasels) that goes to the floor.
I am hoping that the House (or Senate) Republicans dig in and force the crisis.
What this is is defaulting on the government’s obligations to seniors and those who can’t afford healthcare.
I am appalled that you are cheering this compromise. It sets up a government shutdown in October, another high stakes vote in December–one that does not include revenues (don’t kid yourself about what will come out of that committee) and no telling what other “crises” between December and November of next year.
If we are going to have a constitutional crisis, let’s have a real one and put the cards on the table.
I would call my representatives, but this is being presented as a “done deal” during the church hour on a Sunday when most Americans are not paying attention. They don’t want my input.
~Yglesias
I think that Obama will do the same thing then that he done now.
Immediately concede.
I’ve never seen a person at his level who is eager to trade away his advantages for nothing.
The story of Jacob and Esau is ever with us. Esau-Obama has traded his birthright for a mass of pottage.
So at what point in he last 3 months did he immediately concede?
And he will do so because in large part he appears to be in agreement with those who wish to transfer large sums of wealth from us to the CEO class. That is the “hope and change” we can believe in.
(don’t kid yourself about what will come out of that committee)
The Simpson Commission got a majority to vote in favor of some pretty large tax increases.
No it didn’t. It got a deal for more revenue. It lowered taxes.
You just contradicted yourself. Collecting more taxes is raising taxes.
If all tax rates were raised to 90% but there were enough loopholes added that actual revenue was cut in half, would you be talking about taxes had been raised?
“Rates” are not “taxes.” They’re just one variable in assessing taxes.
No, you’re accepting the Republican framing that removing loopholes is “increasing taxes.”
If you think lowering rates mixed with getting rid of enough “loop holes” (loop holes that weren’t even specifically identified…) is something we should accept, count me out.
End the loopholes and keep the rates the same, see what happens to revenue. Then we can talk about maybe — MAYBE — lowering rates.
There is one measure for whether taxes are going up or down: whether there is more money being collected, or less.
I don’t know how old you are, but when you buy a house, you will start paying property taxes. Most years, the city will lower its tax rate and raise your assessment, resulting in a higher tax bill.
You can keep telling yourself, as you write a higher check, that your taxes have been cut, but you will be wrong. Your taxes will have been raised.
This is not “framing.” This is not a matter of opinion. This is not even something that reasonable people can disagree on.
If you pay more in taxes, your taxes have gone up. Period. Full stop.
Curious. What do you pay in property taxes? Some people in some states pay astronomical property taxes. I pay ridiculously low property taxes and wish they would raise them (the rates) for the good of the community. Personal property taxes on automobiles are also disgustingly low. I wonder if they can even fund the DMV with them, they are so low.
I pay in the n’hood of 3 grand a year for a 4br house. There are wide differences in taxes in different cities and towns in MA.
Property taxes are a lot higher in New Hampshire, but they don’t have an income tax.
Do you believe tax expenditures are spending or taxes? From what you’re saying here, you believe that increasing them is a way of lowering taxes. I believe they’re a form of spending through the tax code.
Mortgage interest deduction: increased government spending, or lowering taxes?
Contrary to what you say, people agree and disagree about this framing all of the time! It even went to the Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-987.pdf
It’s really very simple. Something that results in paying lower taxes reduced your taxes. Something that results in paying higher taxes increases your taxes.
Contrary to what you say, people agree and disagree about this framing all of the time!
Yes politicians use a lot of weasel words to get around reality. And…?
Contrary to what you say, people agree and disagree about this framing all of the time! It even went to the Supreme Court:
Legal definitions frequently diverge from actual definitions, as laws are written for specific purposes. The case you cite, like any legal case involving a definition, is about whether X counts as Y for the purposes of this or that law.
I’m not going to agree with you, so I’m just going to agree to disagree and end it here.
I’m not..
I’m going to point out that you are repeating Republican framing that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world, despite so many companies paying zero taxes, on the grounds that we have a high corporate tax rate.
Show me the money.
They’re getting corporate welfare and using accounting gimmicks. It’s still a form of government spending.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/05/11/jon-stewarts-fake-news-on-tax-expenditures/
It has the same effect as government spending on the deficit, but the mechanism is to not collect taxes.
“If you think lowering rates mixed with getting rid of enough “loop holes” (loop holes that weren’t even specifically identified…) is something we should accept, count me out.”
That’s funny, I don’t recall saying anything about what “we” should “accept.” I recall making a factual statement about what a tax increase is.
FYI, in the reality-based community, we decided whether to believe something based on whether it is true, not whether it is useful politically in pushing some policy or agenda we like.
Making people pay more in taxes, by whatever means, is a tax increase. It is a tax increase if the mechanism is to raise rates. It is a tax increase if the mechanism is to eliminate deductions. The truth of this statement doesn’t depend even the slightest bit on what political arguments Republicans have been making, or what outcome you want to see in the debt ceiling debate.
Look, I know there are magic pony theories the left is clinging to about the 14th Amendment (thanks Clinton) and minting trillion dollar platinum coins, but those are absolutely shitty ideas.
Here’s Laurence Tribe on the 14th Amendment, and he doesn’t even get into the political reaction to it.
As for coining platinum in the trillions, neither you, nor I, have any clue what that would mean in the global markets, for the dollar, as precedent, or anything else. It’s an extremely radical proposal to casually recommend without significant research.
As some point, liberals need to take some ownership of their own failure to recognize the threat we faced in 2010.
Don’t frigging blame 2010 on the liberals. The statistics don’t bear that out. There was not way that liberals were going to save Bob Etheridge. Liberals turned out in a big way for Tom Perriello–close but no cigar. Liberals for all their contributions did not defeat Blanche Lincoln. And it is a disservice to the liberals of Wisconsin to pretend that they did not know what was coming with the defeat of Russ Feingold and the election of Scott Walker as governor.
Liberals recognized the threat in 2010 from the start of the debates on the stimulus plan. The failure in 2010 is clearly on the Democrats then in Congress (some are still there) who decided not to do the right thing.
Neither you nor I know what this “compromise” will do to the prospects in 2012.
I didn’t say that the President should “invoke” the 14th amendment, but he should not sacrifice the future of the country to the Republicans because they are holding the “good faith and credit of the American people” hostage in a phony crisis over a phony number. If Congress wants a balanced budget, they can frigging pass a balanced budget at anytime.
We are going into far looneyland if there is a deal anything like this compromise. And if that happens, it won’t be the liberals punishing the Democrats. It will be the low-information voters who have been lied to and continue to be lied to by the establishment media.
I don’t buy it. Liberals failed to show up in many districts and they got slaughtered. It also hurt liberals because Independents were so baffled that they bought into the only understandable message, which happened to be provided for them by the Koch Brothers’ Party.
Locally, we managed to win in 2010 by getting liberals out to vote and educating independents on what a freakin’ crazy woman Sharron Angle was. And Harry Reid won by a 5% margin. And we stocked our state legislature and Senate with good Democrats. This was an extremely rare case though.
We only got a Republican Governor because he really was the best candidate. The Democrat (Harry Reid’s son) sucked.
Democrats did not work hard enough in most areas and they didn’t get the vote out. They shot themselves in the foot. Period. Forget about turnout numbers. They didn’t convince the independents that they were the best bet for the future.
Not everyone had the advantage of a Sharron Angle to motivate voters.
They didn’t convince the independents that they were the best bet for the future.
Messaging can only take you so far.
A bad economy helps the party out of power, and with a 9% unemployment rate, that’s going to swamp even the best messaging.
I do blame liberals. They have been and remain more interested in bashing the president than in recognizing the power the Republicans have and focusing on what they’ll do if they get more of it. That’s what they’re doing right now all across the blogosphere and twitter and it’s what they will continue to do. It’s a total failure to understand our predicament. But look over there! Trillion dollar coins!!
Platinum coins are especially shiny!
Why that just happens to be my favorite color – “shiny.”
Gimme some shiny metal discs. Ooh. Ooh.
Be more precise, BooMan. You blame liberal bloggers. And commenters. That hardly is liberals in general and the views of liberals in general are not being shaped by liberal bloggers because liberal bloggers are all over the lot on almost everything and have been since January 2009.
I understand our predicament. But I also understand why there are liberals who question whether the President understands our predicament.
If you have a strategy or rope-a-dope, not saying that the President does (I’m baffled as how this wins anything), pulling your punch means you lose. And Harry Reid as boxing commissioner would investigate you in Nevada.
If your strategy is a four-corner play, when it’s five seconds to the buzzer, you don’t put the ball on the floor and wait for the clock to time out.
What we seem to have is a party that can campaign and a party that can govern. We need two parties that can do both.
First of all, anyone who uses the term Catfood Commission is part of the problem. They are the negative image of the Tea Party no-taxes absolutists. What they’re fighting for may be more noble (it certainly is) but their effect is the same.
The president has been correctly saying that we have to have compromise in our system if it going to function at all. That means that you and I will eventually have to watch the party we support sign off on some shit that he hate. That’s reality. We need people on the left to act unreasonable and uncompromising. I don’t dispute that we need them. But we don’t have to buy into what they’re saying about the president. We don’t have to let them demonize the only thing we’ve got standing between a shitty deal and a total dystopia.
Well, we agree on this depending on which dystopia you have in mind. And I keep having to remind myself that there really is no guarantee of a deal yet. The Senate doesn’t start doing anything for another 19 minutes.
This is a dishonest criticism, and you know it. Of course we have to compromise. But when 75% of a party views just passing the debt ceiling as a compromise, it’s not compromising. It’s just signing off on their agenda.
I will try not to be snarky.
I will try to get over the republican-lite flavor of this money.
Printing money is something all countries can do. It is not something crazy… it is the only rational option Obama had.. it is the rational option Clinton would have taken.
When you have nihilists on the other side threatening to destroy the US economy you take all the weapons you have.
It is a real disgrace that you have ended mocking those of us who are trying to give a weapon to the president to do what is right. Bill Clinton gave him political cover, a lot of otherpeople would give him political cover…
The problem is that, if this is confirmed , he is the worst president ever..
I understand you have put a lot of personal attachment to him. I know oit is hard to accept it, it will be really a blow to your self-sesteeem. being so wrong about someone is really difficult to cope with, specially when it looks like all your opinions where based on a false desire to be different than other liberal (you know, I ams uperior, I am not a stupid kid who does not understand.. it is the same illness of the Very Serious People).
But I think the data speaks for itself, any ecnomists with two fingers knows this is the end of the democratic chances of coming back in 2012.. well if it does not, who cares? What it surely menas is 9 % unemployment for years to come.
And Obama did nothing to change it. No veto threat, no nuclear option threat… nothing, and he could. And you supported him.
Shame on you.
A pleasure
Name me one country that goes 14 trillion dollars into debt and then prints up trillion dollar coins to make their debt magically disappear. How do you even spout off with this shit?
You put this all on the president with your make-believe magic pony alternative, which is a truly poisonous thing to go around telling liberals. Oh, yes, the president could have wiped out our debt with the wave of a hand but he decided to screw seniors instead.
It’s just dishonest. It’s self-defeating and dishonest.
jesus.
Where do I start?
The president can not eliminate all the debt. Printing the coins is just the excuse so that the FED can do what it has been doing all alone!!!! is it so difficult to understand????
There is no difference, zero, with what the FED is doing know.
Can you address this argument… the president can order with some stupid leftover of the seignorage era, the FED and the Treasury to go business as usual. And it is legal!!It is not eliminating the debt, it is giving the FED the ability to do the transaction (computer transaction, you know, the way money is created nowadays, by the FED increasing some number in a computer)
Is it really that difficult to understand?
A pleasure
Jim Clyburn and Steny Hoyer have given him political cover.
What would Warren Buffett say? Is that who we’re waiting on?
And a llt he economist in the world who are not in the Chicago school would give him cover. And if he would have told the Republicans what he thought about his demand, we would not be here.
As Krugman says, there is a way I can get a million dollar, let me play a poker game with the president.
And it is even worse when you fins some left-wing blogs, which is “the place” to give political cover not understanding what the issue of trillion coins means.
Seeing booman talking about how this is a pony and in the process showing that he has no freaking clue about monetary policy and how monetary policy is implemented. An despite not having a clue telling the people who try to explain it to him that we are know nothing.
It is really incredible.
A pleasure
And if he would have told the Republicans what he thought about his demand, we would not be here.
Eyeroll.
If only Barack Obama had used his “Go to bed!” voice, the Republicans would have rolled over.
Because that’s what they do: give in to Barack Obama when he tells them to.
The funny part is that you think you’re being realistic and clear-eyed when you write these things.
No, no. Sorry if I did not express myself correctly
I do not think for a second Republican would do it. We would have reached the same place as today regarding the lack of deal until the end.
The point is that during the negotiations there would be no advance. There would be a clear reasonable proposal by Obama that the other side does not want to get. Then we would be in this weekend but we “would not be here now” because Obama would have the political cover to take the legal 14th if nothing happens.
If I explained myself poorly sorry. There is no way I believe Republicans would roll over.
A pleasure
It’s also misleading to toss out Larry Tribe’s one highly negative view of using the 14th Am as if it’s the only expert opinion out there or that his should somehow be the final answer.
Law profs Jon Zasaloff (UCLA) (interview w/Lawr O’Donnell yesterday on Msnbc) and Ron Dworkin (NYRevBks blog) both have rebutted Tribe and countered that in certain cases with an emergency facing the country, as in the current situation, the president does have residual powers under the Constitution to unilaterally act.
Sens Sanders and Harkin (among other senators) concur. Ditto Stony Heyer and James Clyburn (among other House members).
But Obama is very unlikely to be so bold. Not in his nature, and he doesn’t like acting in ways deemed too “provocative” to the Repub Right and Tea Partiers. All that’s before the constitutional-political fallout from the GOP — including threats of impeachment — which he also would be very reluctant to want to face.
Looking like Obama is lining up to cave to GOP demands once again. That’s quite a way to go into a re-elect year. Say goodbye to the youth vote and the needed extra margin with blacks and latinos.
Of course it’s the liberal’s fault. I used to come here to read because I got tired of what was being posted by FDL and Kos. You were a island of sanity. However, since you’ve positioned yourself as the anti-Hamsher, you’ve gotten just as extreme in bashing the liberals and your support of the president no matter what.
Boo:
I hope you saw this: http://nyti.ms/oLiqrv
It was in today’s NYT. It tells me that people know that the Democrats sell out their constituents.
Stanley Greenberg’s opinion tells you that the people know that the Democrats sell out their interests? In the New York Times? The day of a vote?
Don’t you know when you are being played?
Show me how I am wrong. Or haven’t you been paying attention to what the Democratic Party establishment has become the last 25 years? I disagree with Greenberg about the deficits. No one gives a shit about that. And the only reason people do is because of the corporate media giving Pete Peterson unlimited BJ’s. We are being sold out right now with this austerity bullshit.
First of all you have to look as some of the framing of the debate. The time frame is always ten years. The public doesn’t know yet where in that ten year time frame the cuts are going to come.
Second, one Congress cannot bind another Congress. So, practically, we are looking at what is being cut in FY2012 and FY2013.
Third, cutting spending and raising taxes is the way that you bring down debt. And once the economy is booming, there are a heck of a lot of places that I wish Congress would cut spending (including on itself).
Fourth, it’s hard for a President or an entire party to overcome a 30-year-long multi-billion-dollar propaganda campaign that reaches every precinct in the US 24/7/365. And Pete Peterson is only a minor figure in this campaign.
Fifth, the entire world is being sold out with this austerity bullshit. Even China is beginning to worry about its debt. Yes, the timing is cockeyed. Just like heavy government spending during a boom is cockeyed. And Republicans are so good at doing that to keep goosing the economy.
But your view in the last sentence is being played on not given evidence by this New York Times article. Most likely its real target is the elite Democrats who read the New York Times and are still on the austerity bandwagon. They are the ones being played. Just like Politico plays the Village media (including a lot of liberal blogs).
First of all you have to look as some of the framing of the debate. The time frame is always ten years. The public doesn’t know yet where in that ten year time frame the cuts are going to come.
Cutting any spending when the economy is in bad shape is a bad idea. But maybe you like unemployment to go higher.
Second, one Congress cannot bind another Congress. So, practically, we are looking at what is being cut in FY2012 and FY2013.
Chances are slim and none that Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate come 2013. Do you think Miss McConnell is going to be any less obstructionist in 2013 then he is now?
Third, cutting spending and raising taxes is the way that you bring down debt. And once the economy is booming, there are a heck of a lot of places that I wish Congress would cut spending (including on itself).
And when is the economy going to boom again? Not in the next few years, if any time soon.
Fourth, it’s hard for a President or an entire party to overcome a 30-year-long multi-billion-dollar propaganda campaign that reaches every precinct in the US 24/7/365. And Pete Peterson is only a minor figure in this campaign.
And what Democrat was the only elected(House, Senate, President) one who showed up at the opening of the Pete Peterson funded Hamilton Project? And Peterson is only a minor player? How so, since he’s committed a billion of that multi-billion to the propaganda campaign?
Fifth, the entire world is being sold out with this austerity bullshit. Even China is beginning to worry about its debt. Yes, the timing is cockeyed. Just like heavy government spending during a boom is cockeyed. And Republicans are so good at doing that to keep goosing the economy.
That just means our elites are a bunch of mean assholes who don’t care about their fellow man.
But your view in the last sentence is being played on not given evidence by this New York Times article. Most likely its real target is the elite Democrats who read the New York Times and are still on the austerity bandwagon. They are the ones being played. Just like Politico plays the Village media (including a lot of liberal blogs).
I don’t get your overall point here. What liberal blogs? Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias?
I see this whole thing as a reward for the teapartiers…and because Obama has rewarded the behavior nobody wants, it will continue, and they will be even more convinced of their righteousness in everything.
Blech.
That’s an interesting theory. In reality, the Tea Party people are howling about this “betrayal” even more than the liberals.
The question of whether the Tea Party “got what they want” and will be “encouraged” doesn’t turn on what you think about the outcome, but on what they think about the outcome.
Wow. The best we could do, considering it is a hostage situation.
Funny, with Obama, it’s always a hostage situation.
Sometimes, if you are always in a hostage situation, it’s because you are a person who acts to get into hostage situations.
That’s Obama.
I’m off the bus.
Don’t step off too quick. The bus is still moving fast. You might fall and break something.
Wait until it stops. There’s up until November 2012 to make a decision about your vote. January 2012 to make a decision about your financial participation and volunteer efforts–local, state, Congress, President.
You were on the bus?
In 2008, yes. I contributed money, not like Soros but a lot for me. I made phone calls, maybe 700-800. I did house parties. I worked hard for Obama. I was very happy on the night he was elected.
Since then, not so much.
Well you cant come out and say “you are off the bus” as a stunning development based on immediate circumstances, when clearly you left it a long time ago.
Yeah, somewhat true. When Obama totally caved on the failure, self-induced to end the Bush tax cuts, I was one step out the door. He got very little for that, and he had leverage, which HE SIMPLY FAILED TO USE.
Obama hates to play hardball. He hates to look tough.
So, he is a fucking pussy, and gets fucked every time.
I am sick of it.
HAHAHHAHAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Oh, please, stop, it hurts!
Booman, I love you, I’ve been coming here forever, but this is just the most Pollyanna BS I have ever heard. This deal is the bum’s rush for what’s left of the Great Society and the first major blow to the New Deal. It’s a middling long road from here to arguing that Social Security “isn’t working” so we have to “make changes,” but we can sure as hell see where we’re going.
There will be no more taxes on the wealthy, no more benefits to poor people. Those ideas are gone, and our leadership (especially Reid, but Obama too) sealed the deal.
We’ve been sold out.
Responding to factual reporting with the forced laughter thingy and then your opinion just makes it look like you’re trying too hard.
Two words: No deal.
Interesting comment at TPM
“abc jumped the gun. this “source” is a tea bagger who works for nate silvers. i went ballistic when i first heard this. it didn’t make any sense that obama would say no to these and then agree to them during negotiations. and why, i asked myself, would they have a reporter in the room? who would be the source of the leak? i knew this was not accurate when i saw fox news report it. this fits in with what they want, and when has fox ever been truthful about anything?
if obama wanted to just captitulae like this, he could have done so weeks ago.”
As I suspected, its a bullshit leak fed to the media to rile up the bases, same as McConnells “I’m talking to Obama Directly that immediately had cries of “OBAMA’S SELLING US OUT” from the usual suspects before it turned out to be bullshit.
I’m speculating on nothing till I see the final deal. Everything else is leaked to the media for a reason and I’m just going to assume it’s simply not true.
Better for my sanity regardless.
Smartest thing I’ve read all day. Everyone please take note.
The point is NOT the final deal, which will suck. The point is HOW we got here. I was not in the room with Obama and McHounddog, but I have heard nothing from Obama indicating that he is willing to play hardball. They threaten, he rolls over. What’s not to like?
If Obama “rolled over every time they threatened something” he would have capitulated sometime in the last 3 months, not be still pushing for something from republicans as we click into the last 48 hours.
Please make some sense with your Obama bashing. Its almost like your narrative of Obama as a caver is more important in your head than the very crises they are trying to resolve.
That Obama “rolled over” and obviously could have gotten a better deal is a proposition to be assumed.
Facts aren’t for demonstrating whether this is true, but how.
And their proof is what? Nate Silvers? Who is that? Does he mean Nate Silver? Nate Silver has Teahadists working for him? Also, glad to see you are willing to wait until a deal is done to complain. That’s exactly the wrong thing to do. But then that’s why elected Democrats suck at politics.
You were willing to sign onto ABCs narrative as the final deal without question, but someone comes alone with further information that disproves the narrative you want, and suddenly you want proof of his credentials in triplicate?
I’ve seen birthers make the same arguments.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Even a republican breathing the words revenue increases is a near miracle.
The Senate is debating. Where is the legislative language of the bill?
It’s moot; the Senate just killed the Reid compromise celebrated above.
On to Reid-McConnell.
Do I understand correctly that they didn’t vote down the plan we have all been talking about here today? That they just voted down Harry Reid’s plan that was an earlier plan than the one with the triggers, etc?
I thought that Reid-McConnell was the earlier plan, and the one they voted down was the one that was just negotiated. But you might be right. They might have had to vote down what was proposed (and debated on) yesterday in order to clear the way to consider Reid-McConnell.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’ll take a grain of solace today in the fact that Nancy Pelosi’s office is utterly quiet. Wonder whether she can get a baseball bat past security into WH
For me, it all comes down to the 2012 election. Whatever it takes to make the 2012 election about ending the Bush tax cuts and tilting the system back towards the lower and middle class, that’s the bottom line. If a debt ceiling deal is made, and there is rope-a-dope involved that makes for disgruntled liberals in the short term but in its effect takes the steam out of the tea party noise-making, it could be a tactical win.
I think the pivot point was just before the 2010 elections, when Obama, Reid and Pelosi seemed to back off the opportunity to aggressively force embarrassing votes about taxes on the rich. They decided not to, I assume because the way they read the election tea leaves they felt the conditions weren’t right. Democrats had collectively done a lousy job of selling HCR, and whether you agree that conditions were ripe or not (I think it was too late at that point), they made a choice. Likewise, Obama subsequently cut the December deal to extend the cuts, believing he needed a better climate to fight the epic class warfare struggle to come. If you examine Obama’s actions since December in this context, some of the puzzling moves make more sense.
If you accept that we are now living through the latter stages of a 30-year war on democracy, targeted specifically at the poor and middle class, and if you can imagine that that is what Obama sees as well, then you can perhaps imagine that all of his actions and tactics since just before the 2010 elections have been about getting the conditions set for a crushing Republican defeat in 2012. I wouldn’t consider this to be optimistic since there are so many forces aligned against us, and they are a zombie-like cult that you have to keep killing in order to eradicate. Beginning with the stupidity epidemic, to the astonishingly destructive Supreme Court, to the many Wall Street types who have positioned themselves to make money while helping to tank the economy for the vast majority of Americans, all the way to the lockstep traitors who are today’s Republican party, the forces opposing us are daunting. If Obama chooses to fight some of the skirmishes along the way with tactics that seem counterintuitive, I’d still put my money on him. If nothing else, Obama has fully exposed the cult and its agenda for all Americans, and horrified bystanders the world over. He may be wrong that he can turn the tables on this madness, but I trust him as a tactician and as a progressive at heart, and I’m ready to go to war. The average Democratic voter THOUGHT the 2008 election was the turning point, but it was only the possible beginning of the end. 2012 is perhaps the last chance in our lifetimes to destroy this cult.
I disagree.
I see your point. And we share goals, and think that Obama get this.. the question is if Obama took the best course of action to get it.
I say no. Three is no way he can win with a 9% unemployment. He did not manage to put the republicans and the tea party as the crazy nuts. The starting position should have been 1 $ in spending 14 in taxes. And do not move, never move. He should have repeated once again his offer, to the public media. So that everyone knew what he was up to. And if there is no agreement. Nuclear.
And then Republicans would shut down the government.. and then, it is the turn of the president to let everybody know again how insane they are.
I think this was the proper tactic. The present tactic is the end of any chance of economic recovery. And I certainly think, it is the end of any democratic chance to get the senate and the house (and maybe the presidency)
I am sorry to disagree with you. Believe me, I hope I am utterly wrong.
A pleasure
Completely agree with every point you make, especially the 30 yr war on democracy, timing of debate over Bush tax cuts, and Obama’s reading of the larger picture. The teahadists (? Rove? Koch sponsored?) imo may have erred in tipping their hand in WI, MI and OH, perhaps an overreach, though obviously they are trying to impact dem turnout in 2012.
At the end of the day the question is if the president thinks the US economy is worth saving. He has the option to effectively raise the debt ceiling unilaterally and do it legally.
If no bill is passed and Obama takes the 14th (hopefully following the legal route of minting 1 trillion coins) I will say he is one of the best poker players I know.
If the bill passes he should veto it, but he can not do this politically know given the framework he has given to the negotiations.
If this is the case, Obama is the worst president ever. Presiding over 9% unemployment for years with tools to solve it, but deciding that people suffering is better than him taking the only rational move one has in front of the crazy tea pack. Which is to veto and raise the limit. And then move to next fight which is republicans closing down the government (as they will threaten to do after their success now)
A pleasure
I’m beginning to believe that I won’t know for another year whether this was a good deal or not. So much depends on what happens with the committee and the trigger. In general, I think the idea of forcing congress to be economical by putting a sword of Damocles over their heads is a bad idea. Or another metaphor is the dooms day device from the old Star Trek. Seeing the use Republicans put the debt ceiling to should give anyone pause, I think. And now that hostage taking is a legitimate tactic, who can guess what their next hostage will be? What other piece of necessary legislation that we now take for granted will they block unless a future deal is cuts only? Still, assuming we make a deal now, at least the next time they pull this stunt, the sword hanging over our heads will be something less than the collapse of the full faith and credit of the United States, so maybe it will be easier for Democrats to stand firm. I understand that we can’t expect a rational economic policy with the current majority in the House, but we should at least be able to do better than to make concessions with nothing in return.
Still, the status quo seems untenable. We now have a political system that seemingly only works (and then with modest results) as long as the same party is in charge of all three branches of government. Otherwise, it becomes not just ineffective, but positively dangerous.
It’s very strange how things have evolved over the years. Except for a brief flirtation with Libertarianism when I was very young, I’ve always been liberal. But until now, I haven’t thought of the Republican party has a dangerous destructive force that must be kept away from the levers of government at all costs. I’m stunned at how far we’ve come, and at how few people are as shocked and dismayed as I am at where we are.