[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-July-28, 05:08, said:

These figures really surprised me since Republicans also portray themselves as fiscally responsible and lovers of small government.

Surely no one still believes this.

The Boehner plan is now scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, the day before the debt ceiling does its damage. The plan was unveiled a few days ago, it has some numbers in it that maybe add up to this or that and will effect a savings of something or other. We should not ask for time to look it over because it is the Republican strategy to give no time. Sign in haste, repent at leisure.

Winging it on financial matters was an approach much loved by the sub-prime mortgage industry. Once burned, twice shy comes to mind.

It has been the strategy of the Republicans to destroy the Obama presidency. In this they have been successful. Mr. Obama can sign or not sign on Tuesday. On Wednesday he should resign. Perhaps Mr. Biden can do better.

[PassedOut]

McCain erupts: Conservatives are lying to America

Quote

John McCain, who you may recall was the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer, is now openly accusing conservatives of actively misleading America with their completely unrealistic demands, which he labeled “deceiving” and “bizarro.”

Quote

McCain’s angry tirade on the Senate floor today perfectly captures the rising frustration, anger, and panic of more responsible Republicans and GOP establishment figures as they come to terms with the true depths of the delusion that is now afflicting some on the right — and the danger it is now posing to our economy and country.

The man can only take so much.

And those of us going about our regular business in a responsible way are at the mercy of a block of representatives with their heads so far up their asses you can't see their shoulders.

[akhare]

Very interesting graph:

http://www.nytimes.c...html?ref=sunday

[kenberg]

There can be, and no doubt will continue to be, arguments about who is to blame for the fix we are in. There is, however, no question at all as to who will be responsible for the disaster that is about to take place. Whether they are motivated by ideological frenzy, or brain addlement from reading Atlas Shrugged, or an irresistible compulsion to humiliate the President, the Republican leadership is set to bring about default on our financial obligations.

Oh sure. If Obama is willing to do everything, that's absolutely everything, John Boehner requires (Boehner will let him know on Tuesday what exactly is demanded) then perhaps this can be avoided. Or postponed for a while. And that is only perhaps. A significant portion of the party regards such a concession as not nearly adequate.

I can be as cynical as the next guy but this is unreal. I never thought I would see such irresponsibility from either major party.

[y66]

Nice graph.

Can you imagine if a million people marched on Washington wearing tee shirts with that graph? Perhaps Debbie Rosenberg could lead the march if she still has that sign.

[PassedOut]

 akhare, on 2011-July-28, 10:20, said:

Very interesting graph:

http://www.nytimes.c...html?ref=sunday

Interesting to see that the graph projects the Obama policies through 2017, and it lays out clearly the contrast between Bush and Obama.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-28, 05:59, said:

The Boehner plan is now scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, the day before the debt ceiling does its damage.

you don't really believe 8/2 is D day, do you?

Quote

We should not ask for time to look it over because it is the Republican strategy to give no time. Sign in haste, repent at leisure.

i seem to remember pelosi saying something eerily similar to that about the healt care bill... something like, "we'll read it later"

[kenberg]

Jimmy,

No, I do not expect the world to explode on Tuesday. I also do not expect to die on Tuesday if I do not lose some weight by then. But there has to be some date that is taken seriously. Originally it was July something or other. Then August 2. Sure, maybe we can wait for Aug 5. I don't think that we can wait until Christmas. Ask Boehner why Aug 2. Calculated disrespect, imo. Here it is, sign it.

As far as other things Nancy Pelosi may have said, it would not amaze me if I found some things that I did not like.

Here is where I think that we are:

Perhaps the debt ceiling will be raised as a stand alone. Of course this will not happen, but it is my preferred solution so I mention it.

Otherwise, a bill will (probably) arrive sometime Tuesday. There will be no negotiation, so waiting until, say, Aug 5 is pointless.

Option 1. Obama tears it up. I have no idea what happens next. If there was any hope of cooperation then maybe the fallout could be managed. But there is no such hope, so I think that it will be, immediately or soon thereafter, a disaster.


Option 2. Obama recognizes the dire consequences of option 1 and so he signs it. In this case his authority as a president is over. If any serious issues come up in the remaining months of his presidency, he can call John Boehner to get his instructions. No one, make that not a soul, will join his side to fight for anything. His presidency is over.

It's not a pretty picture. I don't celebrate the destruction of a presidency, no matter whose.

[luke warm]

i agree that there are some in congress who are only in this with the hopes of destroying obama... but where i differ from a lot of people posting here is that i also believe there are some who sincerely believe the u.s.a is spending beyond its means, that a balanced budget amendment is necessary, and that taxes should not be raised... i personally have a hard time taking anybody in congress seriously when they insist on rights and privileges over and above those enjoyed by the rest of us and when they purposely exempt themselves from following all laws they pass

this is one of those things that i'd handle differently as dictator than i would as a mere citizen... as dictator, you can bet that the central gov't would be supreme

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-28, 15:47, said:

i agree that there are some in congress who are only in this with the hopes of destroying obama... but where i differ from a lot of people posting here is that i also believe there are some who sincerely believe the u.s.a is spending beyond its means, that a balanced budget amendment is necessary, and that taxes should not be raised...

No disputes that the Republican Party doesn't make room for the the stupid as well as the venal...

[kenberg]

Obama is not apt to ask my advice, but here is a typical item that made me cringe a bit.

He spoke, and held a Town Hall, last Friday at the University of Maryland. I didn't go but I watched a good but of it on the web. It began with a prepared speech. He said "Default is not an option". Think about that. The Republican leadership obviously think it is an option. The logical conclusion is that if the Republicans threat to bring the country into default unless the President gives in to all of their demands then, if default is not an option, then he must give in to all their demands.


So my advice: He needs to say "I thought default was not an option because it is just so God awful stupid, but I really cannot be held hostage to someone who will use that as a weapon. So perhaps we will default. At any rate, I will not just be roboticly signing any fool thing that they put in front of me". No president can let himself be put in such a position. Basic Threatology 101 says you never issue a threat that you are not prepared to carry out so I suppose the Republicans will carry out their threat. OK. We will see where it goes. Maybe enough Congressmen and Congresswomen, Republican and Democrat, will come sufficiently to their senses to raise hell and raise the ceiling. Or maybe, more likely, they won't.

Obama needed to call them out long ago, it's too bad it has to be on this. But it has to be done.

[Winstonm]

I hope Obama can grow a pair before August 2. It seems to me there are at least a couple of stategies open to an aggressive President. He could simply claim that a default would affect national security and bypass Congress a la Bush/Cheney. He could claim Constitutional rights that don't exist - or maybe some that do.

The one thing I hope Obama learns quickly is that compromise with rabid dogs is an idiotic and naive strategy - you don't negotiate with rapid dogs, you just shoot them and move on.

Unfortunately, there are no statesmen nor spare balls left in Washington.

[kenberg]

I would be opposed to either of the two approaches that you mention (bypassing Congress or making up some rights), and I think it would be a great mistake.

[awm]

There are two houses in congress. The democratic majority in the senate has unanimously stated that Boehner's plan is a non-starter. That's even if he can get it past the house -- he is having some trouble within his own party. I wouldn't bet on a bill reaching Obama any time soon, and if one does it may be closer to Reid's bill.

As the establishment Republicans come under increasing pressure from the business community, they may buckle and agree to a compromise. Of course, such a split may end Boehner's speakership. But at this point the Democrats seem united for once, behind the principle that there will be no cuts to entitlements without substantive revenue increases.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-28, 19:06, said:

I would be opposed to either of the two approaches that you mention (bypassing Congress or making up some rights), and I think it would be a great mistake.

Obama already bypassed Congress with his Libya adventure. I do not think it at all a stretch to declare a default as an assault on U.S. national security.

Mind you, I don't think these things should be done - but I think Obama should at least warn the right that a constitutional battle over national security will be the end result of their position, that extortion is not ever an acceptable method of governance.

Going on t.v. and saying we should all play nice and that it's "their" fault that we aren't won't convince stubborn mules to change their positions. It takes a little "incentive" to get their two or three brain cells to activate.

I am reminded of the story of the farmer who picked up the city slicker for a ride on his mule-drawn rig, and the first thing the farmer did was pick up a two-by-four and hit the mule in the head with as hard of swing as the farmer could muster. The city slicker, taken aback, gushed, "Why didn't you just yell giddyup?"

To which the farmer answered, "First I have to get his attention."

[mike777]

I think you guys forget point one:


Democrats want more spending lots more see economics/


Rep want lots less spending,,see economics/
---------------------


Rating agencies seem to say cut more...lots more or downgrade and economic disaster.....


They say...fwiw.....cut 4 trillion or forget it.....you guys are nuts.....


see interest rates go up alot....again alot.......



IF LESS THAN 4 TRILLION CUTS THEN INTEREST RATES GO UP ALOT! IS THE DEBATE......MANY DISAGREE!

[kenberg]

Point one, Mike, is that the Republicans have issued a threat that if Obama does not do exactly as they say and sign whatever is put in front of him then they will throw the country into default.

Question one is how to deal with such a massive display of total irresponsibility. Dealing with people who are prepared to cause massive destruction unless they totally get their way is always difficult. But that's where we are.

[Zelandakh]

I have a question. If the President asked the Supreme Judges for an urgent ruling how long do you think it would take them to deliver it? If Aug 2nd comes and goes there is, by all accounts, about a week's worth of cash left. If that were long enough it would be the perfect time to seek a ruling on the 14th Amendment question. Obama can rightfully say he has little choice when confronted by the stupiditiy in Congress.

I am also not sure if Mike777's statement is exactly accurate. My understanding is that both parties want to make cuts, the argument is less about the level (both bills are realistically only a drop in the ocean) but rather about where those cuts will come. Republicans want them to be taken from entitlements, Democrats want them to come more in taxation, especially from top earners.

Is it being reported differently in America than here in Europe? Or was Mike merely spouting Fox News (it sounds like the sort of summary Fox loves). Over here it is being suggested the Boehner's plan is likely to be the basis of an agreement but without the 2-stage clause causing this issue to come up again in the election.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-29, 03:37, said:

Point one, Mike, is that the Republicans have issued a threat that if Obama does not do exactly as they say and sign whatever is put in front of him then they will throw the country into default.

Question one is how to deal with such a massive display of total irresponsibility. Dealing with people who are prepared to cause massive destruction unless they totally get their way is always difficult. But that's where we are.

i could be wrong on this, but i thought dems and reps had a bill they wanted obama to vet a few weeks ago... the house and senate agreed on it but obama said no... the reason was, iirc, that it was only a temporary fix and he was worried he'd have to address this issue again prior to the election

[kenberg]

Z,
I think that here there is great confusion. If I recall my civics lessons correctly, any budget plan must originate in the House, get passed there, then be passed by the Senate, then be signed by the President. As of the moment, Boehner lacks the votes to get his plan through the House because of opposition from the right, there is virtually no chance that if it got through the House it would get through the Senate, and God only knows what Obama would do if the bill came to him, but it won't.

The upshot, I believe that there is no chance in hell of this getting settled by Tuesday, or a week from Tuesday either.

Now myself, and I think many here would be with me, I would be very leery of some move to cut out the Congress. Democracy is a mess, especially when people go off on some sort of ideological binge, but we have cast our lot with the democratic process and I think we stand or fall with it.

Sooner or later, Americans reject the truly idiotic. But there is not much later left here. Issuing a threat to sabotage international financial obligations unless ..., well, unless anything, is a monumentally stupid idea. But the threat has been issued, and no one plans on withdrawing it. They need to do so, and quickly.

Withdrawing a threat that never should have been made in the first place is the only satisfactory way out. I am not optimistic.

Oh, and you asked about how mainstream Mike's views are. Depends on the stream you are in.