It is 22 days until the US reaches its debt ceiling and defaults. Of course, defaulting on its existing debt interest payments will have catastrophic consequences for the American and probably world economy as well. The most intriguing part of the last couple days has been the humiliation of John Boehner by the right-wing demagogues of the Republican Party. After Boehner signalled a willingness to make a serious deal on the deficit with President Obama, the demagogues turned on him and forced him to back out. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58662.html
It's odd how the right 15% of the population has so much more power than the left 15%. There are surely as many quasi-socialist, unionist, Euro-friendly Americans as there are Tea Partiers, but the latter are always on the attack and the former always conceding and on the defense.
I would say that those on the right are more willing to fight and be hard asses about things. This is a problem I have always felt the Dems have had, an inability to fight it out and call the other sides bluff.
Well Pelosi did and she quickly ended up with a 16% approval rating or so. So in fairness to the Dems, I would say that it's not entirely their fault, that the right is allowed to say my way or the highway and that shows commitment and toughness, but if the left does it then the left is the enemy of America. Which I guess gets to the heart of the matter -- no matter how loopy and loony and perverse and backwards the right's positions are, the right always claims that these views represent true America. Always the red, white, and blue. Whereas the left is ashamed of the patriotic argument and thus gets positioned as dangerously anti-American.
Okay. -Democrats were fools to not pass a debt ceiling bill previously, and thereby cause right-wingers hold the economy hostage. -The current Democratic proposal is 83% cuts, 17% revenue increases. They are idiots for not proposing an unbiased 50-50 deal. -President Obama is too willing to sacrifice good policy in order to look like a non-partisan figure in Washington.
Why? If you are talking about the debt itself, sure. If you are talking about a vote to raise the debt ceiling, then fuggetaboutit. This has never been an issue. The republicans and democrats voted 19 times under Bush to raise the debt ceiling by more than 4 trillion dollars. They have consistently made this vote under all presidents going back to Reagan and beyond -- all the way back to the establishment of a debt ceiling back in 1939. So, NOW with Obama as president, they decide that this thing that has happened in a bi-partisan manner for decades CAN'T happen this time and somehow the democrats need to share in the blame? Not a chance. Unlike the debt itself, this is a wholly manufactured and artificial crisis brought to you by the Republican party.
What's interesting is that the US has actually defaulted before. During the Carter Administration, one of the debt limit votes was also held at the last minute and a procedural screwup after the fact caused a debt payment of $120 million to be missed. This miniscule amount caused a 0.5% increase in interest rates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...consequences/2011/07/10/gIQARRBj7H_story.html It shows the folly of dicking around with US debt interest payments for political grandstanding.
The worse thbat tax cuts perform -- and they've performed truly terribly for a decade now, even as U.S. tax rates reach new postwar lows so does economic growth -- the more in demand they become. Imagine if the damned things actaully worked?
You gotta be kidding me. Read this - A balanced story is not a story where both parties are at fault. A balanced story is an accurate story. And the story here is that the Republicans want every penny to come from Democratic constituencies such as farmers, students, and government workers, and not a single penny from Republican constituents such as oil & gas companies, top 2% wage earners, and defense.
I have never understood why the left is ashamed of the patriotic argument. Afterall, aren't they there to represent the US as a whole? Thus anything they do is supposed to be for the betterment of the country right? The Dems need to figure out that in order to compete with the Reps, they need to acknowledge that the Reps have a better game plan to fight for what they want. Not saying that I think the Reps are right, its just they have a way of getting their way when they shouldn't. To me it comes across as the Dems don't want to fight for what they believe in as much as the Reps do.
Would be interesting to see what happens if the US goes into insolvency at the same time as the PIIGS...
Great Depression II. Unfortunately, the core economies in the EU like Germany need to shoulder most of the burden because if they don't and Greece defaults then we might have it anyways if Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy default. Even without a self-inflicted American default.
The Tea Party has huge leverage now because half the Republicans in the House believe that if they support even a dime of tax increase, they'll lose in 2012. The Tea Party will target them in the primary and take them out. So quite literally, those Reps would rather face a U.S. default than to cut a deal. The Dems have no such counterpart. If a Dem votes for cutting student aid and government pensions, the Dem faces little danger of being targeted by a lefty version of the Tea Party.
Why not? Why don't liberals care? Do they just not have the free time that these Tea Party people do? And why DOESN'T the Progressive caucus hold the moderate democrats' feet to the fire unless they make a deal that THEY are ok with? Why don't progressives put more anonymous holds on Senate bills they don't like?
Obama, like Clinton, frequently mocks the left wing of the democratic party by saying, "who else are they going to vote for?" I seem to remember that Clinton's strategy involved assuming that the "base" is the so called "independent center" rather than the progressive wing -- because "who else are they going to vote for?" Obama seems to be working under the same assumption. Regarding your final sentence, the political discourse in this country is such that Republicans can get away with that on the grounds that they're patriotic. When progressives try such things, they're always portayed as destructive and anti/un-American. Hence the old "health care reform" becomes "government takeover of healthcare." And if the discourse doesn't play that way, cue the cries of "LIBERAL MEDIA!!!" until it does.
These are very good questions, ones that I would like to better understand. I believe in a moderate compromise, but the way things are going, the Reeps are postioning themselves to get what they want and that bothers the hell out of me because what they want isn't whats best for the country. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-debttre7646s6-20110705,0,6796150.story
What about Blanche Lincoln? Her opposition to card check cost caused big labor to target her in the primary, wounding her in the general election.
So if we default at the first opportunity, would it not be on Obama for not agreeing to a short term extension? Talk about a silly line in the sand. Are they any stings attached to a short term extension? Obama is the one holding a gun to the head here with his "no short term extension to give us time to get a deal done" position. Strange for such a supposed pragmatist.
I said this in the other thread, but it is idiotic to cut spending by 3T and raise 1T in revenues in the midst of a weak recovery. If someone can explain to me how this won't be detrimental to the recovery, I'd love to hear it. Want to help the economy? Pass a bill that plugs holes in state budgets, cut corporate taxes, and capital gains taxes. That will easily pay for itself with increased GDP, and in 2 years let ALL the bush tax cuts expire (make the corporate and capital gains tax cuts permanent),.and drastically cut spending by privatizing most of the devices that the govt offers - from up keep of roads, to education, to NASA, to administration of Medicare and Social security. Any one who doesn't see that the private market doesn't do things more efficiently is out of their mind. Anyone who doesn't see that there a lot of gaps in the services offered by the private market is equally insane. But the govt can auction off alot of services, and get out of the game of pensions and other benefits.
A short-term extension won't do the US any good when right-wing Republicans continue to draw a line in the sand on tax cuts. It fundamentally demonstrates that one side is Obama is serious about dealing with the deficit and debt ceiling, while Republicans are not. Hopefully they don't cause this hostage situation to escalate into an economic disaster. The debt ceiling is simply a question of whether Republicans want to destroy the US economy or not. Will they do it?
Well then we will not raise the debt ceiling, no problem, the sky won't fall down, we will see how markets react, is not like they will sell US bonds and buy EU Bonds. Maybe I should call the Gold selling guys after all! I am with you that the Government should close loop holes and cut spending, that is what Obama should say and put out if the GOP says no, then F-it. We will deal with that issue, I mean It wont be the first time a government sends out IOUs (State governments that is). I say play chicken, the market won’t flinch, I am confident of that.
No. Increasing the debt ceiling isn't tied to anything the republicans are trying to do. They don't NEED a deal to get it done. They are the ones demanding a deal on spending and holding the whole issue hostage to their demands. If Obama calls them on it and says, "then do a deal and not a stop gap to the middle of election season" then HE is not the one attaching strings. The republicans can vote tomorrow to raise the debt limit. The spending cuts they want are on the table. If they won't agree to reasonable revenue enhancements, then that is all on them.