[y66]

Nice post Z. Agree with your summary of the sticking points and that the man in the White House after the next election cycle will be someone who represents slightly right of center Republican positions. However, I don't think this will require changing the White House stationary.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-26, 05:46, said:

ken: in your opinion, has obama been the leader you'd want and expect during this crisis? remember, the deficit has grown 10 fold since 2007 (dems took control of congress)... there has been much opportunity to get a handle on this, but imo there has been a failure of leadership... in hindsight (some of us were calling for it at the time), all that stimulus money, every penny, should have been used on highways, bridges, railways, the infrastructure of the country... in hindsight (some of us were saying so at the time), if there was to be universal healthcare, if that was the goal, it should have been done right... only one system of universal healthcare would (could) work - a single payer system modeled on medicare

Of all the ***** gall

Senate conservatives are the ones who constantly blocked any attempts real stimulus programs or comprehenesive health reform by filibustering anything that didn't go precisely their way. What would "real leadership" by Obama consist of? Taking a bunch of the damn crackers out on the White House lawn and shooting them? Idiots like you are the ones that are breaking Washington. Now you're claiming to be all upset because Obama isn't waving his magic wand and cleaning up the ***** storm that your party created.

Personally, I wish that Obama had taken a much more confrontational approach. Like Adam, I'd prefer that he openly stated that the 14th ammendment requires him to ignore the Debt Ceiling regulations. I'd also like to see him publish a list describing precisely what programs are going to get cut and list a set of districts in which said cuts are going to happen. If you decide to vote against raising the Debt ceiling... Guess what? Your district is going to take it right up the ass... Your consitutents are going to get a very graphic lesson regarding what their tax revenues pay for.

Obama appears to be playing a longer game... He seems trying to make the Republicans look completely intransigent by continually rejecting measures that are consistent with their original bargaining position. I'm not sure that this will be a successful strategy. Then again, he's the one who won a Presidental election and not me.

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2011-July-26, 08:18, said:

Personally, I wish that Obama had taken a much more confrontational approach. Like Adam, I'd prefer that he openly stated that the 14th amendment requires him to ignore the Debt Ceiling regulations. I'd also like to see him publish a list describing precisely what programs are going to get cut and list a set of districts in which said cuts are going to happen. If you decide to vote against raising the Debt ceiling... Guess what? Your district is going to take it right up the ass... Your consitutents are going to get a very graphic lesson regarding what their tax revenues pay for.

That would be satisfying, but Obama ran a centrist campaign based on reducing the confrontational aspects of national politics. He seems determined to govern in the manner he promised, and has (for the most part) lived up to that. If he loses because of it, that's life.

That said, if a short-term increase passes congress (I doubt that the senate will roll over for that, but who knows?), I agree with you and Adam that Obama should veto it and ignore the debt ceiling on 14th amendment grounds. Screw the free-lunch morons.

[luke warm]

i stand corrected... obama is a real leader who stands on principle and makes his case with the american people, and all problems we have are due to the "crackers" on capitol hill... it doesn't much matter whether the republicans are in the majority or minority, it seems... they're still the *real* power in d.c. ... is that your story? of all the freaking gall

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-26, 09:18, said:

i stand corrected... obama is a real leader who stands on principle and makes his case with the american people, and all problems we have are due to the "crackers" on capitol hill... it doesn't much matter whether the republicans are in the majority or minority, it seems... they're still the *real* power in d.c. ... is that your story? of all the freaking gall

It has always been much easier to destroy than to build...

The Republicans don't have the numbers of advance a positive agenda however they are more than capable of dragging us down into some kind of objectivist Götterdämmerung.

The Republicans aren't unique in their ability to exercise this kind of political power.
What distinquishes them is that they are stupid and immature enough to ***** over the entire country if they don't get their way, all the time.

[kenberg]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-26, 05:46, said:

to ken: in your opinion, has obama been the leader you'd want and expect during this crisis?

Short answer: No.

Perhaps I'll string this out later, but the "No" will do for the moment.

[PassedOut]

It was interesting to watch Obama and Boehner speak one after the other last night. And it's heartening to see the contrast between the two speeches made clear: Boehner’s Response Is Work of Political Fiction: Jonathan Alter

Quote

Speeches by politicians are usually full of spin, biased use of facts and appeals to emotion. President Barack Obama’s address to the nation last night on the debt ceiling was no exception.

House Speaker John Boehner’s response was in a different league. It was chock full of statements that simply aren’t true.

"Bearing false witness" is evidently not a sin when used to advance the free lunch cause.

[luke warm]

just for future reference, how do you define "free lunch crowd"... surely not those who want to spend without paying for it, eh?

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-26, 11:43, said:

just for future reference, how do you define "free lunch crowd"... surely not those who want to spend without paying for it, eh?

Free lunch crowd = those who want to spend without paying for it.

[luke warm]

in your opinion, would that pertain to the entire congress, dems and reps? how 'bout the prez, has he seemed willing to spend w/out paying? also, does it matter (to you) which program(s) are being spent on?

[kenberg]

Perhaps "free lunch crowd" splits into two subgroups"

"Steve will pick up the check" and
"Check? What check?"

[luke warm]

no doubt they split into groups... it just depends on how one defines "free lunch" or what spending (without paying for it) for which one makes an exception

[awm]

There is one more issue that Zelandakh may have missed, which is the entitlement programs of social security, medicare, and medicaid. The first two provide financial and medical assistance to the elderly or disabled, whereas the last provides medical care for the poor. These programs are the US version of a safety net (much weaker than the welfare state in most european countries of course). They are funded for the most part by a special payroll tax (which is quite regressive, unlike the income tax code). Republicans have wanted for a long time to eliminate or privatize these programs, mostly as a part of their anti-government philosophy. Democrats have been very much opposed to any reductions in the programs, and for the most part the American people have been on the Democrats' side on this particular issue.

Anyway, the Republicans claim that any "serious" approach to the deficit must cut and/or substantially modify these entitlement programs. They very much want such cuts to be part of any deal struck. Many Democrats in Congress have claimed that they will not vote for any deal that cuts these programs. Obama has signaled willingness to make some cuts to entitlements (although not nearly as much as the Republicans want) but only in exchange for increased taxes (or eliminating loopholes) on the wealthiest 2%.

The recent plan from Reid (Democratic leader in the Senate) includes neither entitlement cuts nor tax increases. The recent plan from Boehner (Republican leader in the House) includes entitlement cuts in roughly the amounts that Obama said he would accept, but no tax increases. The plan Obama has been touting (which reduces the deficit by much more than either congressional plan) includes both.

[Winstonm]

It seems to me the way out of this mess is simply to pass a bill to eliminate the debt ceiling law entirely. The law is ridiculous - and potentially unconstitutional.

Or better yet get John Yoo to write a memo saying the President has the power to tell Congress to go ***** itself.

[kenberg]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-26, 10:11, said:

Short answer: No.

Perhaps I'll string this out later, but the "No" will do for the moment.

I'll get to Obama but I think his failures are of a different sort than some others. Patience, I will get to him.

I regard the evolving budget talks as a total disaster. We are now much more likely than not to actually default on our debts. We have embarrassed ourselves and made it clear to the world that we have no sense of financial responsibility. In the Post this morning, http://www.washingtonpost.com/, we see

Quote

House Republicans delayed a vote on Boehner’s bill, which had been set for Wednesday, after congressional budget analysts dealt the legislation a potentially devastating setback by saying it would save far less over the next decade than the $1.2 trillion advertised. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the spending cuts would save only about $850 billion over that period.

With a week to go before deadline, there is a $350B difference of opinion with the CBO over how much would be saved???? "Head up his ass" barely begins to describe this.

But it's actually worse. I have felt from the beginning that we must all share in reducing the national debt. My finances can be described roughly like this: I drive a Honda, not a Porsche. I don't casually fly to Paris, but I don't carefully check prices at a restaurant before ordering. The upshot: I paid at a higher tax rate when Clinton was president, the budget balanced (at least in the last year or two) and I thought that was fine.

As any of the current plans go, we will NOT all be sharing in reducing the national debt. The rich will do nothing. Stepping up to do more, as they could easily afford, would be nice just as I think that I should do more than should the single mother struggling for survival. In fact the rich not only will not do more, they will do nothing.

How did this come about? I do think that the Republicans are the primary villains. And just why they have all this Tea Party support, often from people whose finances are definitely no better than mine, would make an interesting psychological study. But part of the job of a president is to keep the villains from succeeding so we must ask what went wrong.

I am a male and, for better or for worse, that plays a role in my thinking.

Most guys, growing up, learn that guys have a line. They learn to sense where that line is. You can say and do all sorts of obnoxious/stupid things, but if you cross over the line, there will be trouble.

It's getting really late in the game to not know where Obama's line is. I believe he recently said something like "Eric, don't call my bluff on this". Oh? And why should Eric not? At this stage of his presidency, he should not have to issue any such public statement. But much worse, it is ignored.

On the Bush tax cuts it has gone from "They should all expire" (fine with me) to "We will raise taxes only on the rich" to "Revenue increases of some sort or another should be part of the package" to something or other, who knows what.


When I speak of "the line" as a "guy thing" I don't mean that women don't have lines that are not to be crossed. Surely they do. But I do think that there is a sort of male intuition about how much another guy can be pushed around, and I think that Obama has failed badly in this area.

Or, more simply, it's hard to put up a defense of his core beliefs when you have no idea what they are.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-27, 06:39, said:

How did this come about? I do think that the Republicans are the primary villains. And just why they have all this Tea Party support, often from people whose finances are definitely no better than mine, would make an interesting psychological study.

This is one of the most fascinating questions for me. My golf guru, Pia Nilsson, has a chapter called Anger Makes Us Stupid in one of her tomes that may provide a clue.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-26, 13:43, said:

in your opinion, would that pertain to the entire congress, dems and reps? how 'bout the prez, has he seemed willing to spend w/out paying? also, does it matter (to you) which program(s) are being spent on?

Sorry to interject facts into your snark

http://www.theatlant...ussions/242604/

[luke warm]

 hrothgar, on 2011-July-27, 12:20, said:

Sorry to interject facts into your snark

http://www.theatlant...ussions/242604/

i guess it depends on which article you read...

Quote

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-27, 15:54, said:

i guess it depends on which article you read...

The discrepancy comes about because of the FY2009 budget.

Mark Knoller's analysis attributes this portion of the debt to Obama because he was President during F2009
The Obama administration's numbers attribute this to Bush because he was President when the FY 2009 budget was signed.

(Given the magnitude of the financial crisis during 2009, a lot of money swings back and forth.

[Zelandakh]

Again, this is irrelevant from the basics of economics. Bush was president during the boom of the early 00s. This was the time to be cutting the deficit, at the very very least not to be raising it. Instead the National Debt rose 6.11 trillion dollars (according to wiki) an unprecedented amount in modern American history. Of course much of this was after the crisis and I do not know figures for before and after but 2001 - 2005 is listed at $2.14 trillion. That is alot of cash that could and should have being paying off debt together with the compounded interest that debt generates. The previous period where there was such an extended boom was the 80s. I find it interesting to note that during this period the National Debt rose $1.87 trillion, also at the time unprecedented. Who was the President? well Reagan, of course. These figures really surprised me since Republicans also portray themselves as fiscally responsible and lovers of small government.

The simple truth is that in times of boom spending should be cut back and debts paid off. However, doing that in times of bust is irresponsible and can do serious harm to an economy. So can higher taxation. This is why governments need to borrow more in such times and why the debt % of GDP is such a poor measurement of government performance. I understand you are a Republican luke, and perhaps you therefore have an interest in the American economy staying stagnant to the next election. Nonetheless I hope you are open-minded and objective enough to take on board some of this, or perhaps even to read up for yourself on macro economic theory rather than swallowing some of the more outrageous things that are said for political capital.