What would the Progressive God of Holy Liberalism do?
For those chiding the White House.
Jonathan Bernstein at the Plum Line:
Barack Obama continues to take heat for his negotiating strategy on the debt limit. Felix Salmon and Paul Krugman argue that it was it was a mistake by the administration to try to make a major long-term deficit deal with House Republicans. Others complain that White House should have simply refused to enter into negotiations.
But I think it’s important to step back and remember the basics. The bottom line has always been that Republicans refuse to vote for an increase, and they have the votes to make that stick, at least barring the Constitutional and political uncertainties of invoking the 14th amendment or some other similar White House action. So when people say that Obama shouldn’t negotiate, or shouldn’t try to cut an ambitious deal, the question remains: What would have been his Plan B?
More:
But the idea that there was some obvious way for Democrats to deal with this situation strikes me as naïve. This isn’t about poor bargaining or fecklessness by the Democrats. It’s about dealing with the consequences of the fact that Americans elected to Congress a whole bunch of people who are either trying to impose fringe policy views despite apparently having no understanding whatsoever of their consequences — or are so driven by opposition to the president that their highest priority is opposing him, regardless of those consequences.
Once the country voted in these zealots, our government wasn't going to function properly and it was barely functioning properly before. Anyone recall the Affordable Health Care Act? This is beyond one man or one party's ability to negotiate, this has clearly opened up the flood gates to an extreme party pushed no longer by corporate interests, but by ideology. They are irrational and they are unequivocally sociopaths. They'll shoot every hostage and blow the building up while inside if it suits their sacred belief.
Rich people bless everyone of us therefore no taxes.
You could show the graphs, charts and fact after fact, they won't budge. We aren't in reality anymore. And for those of you wondering, this is the reality:
But all of this is Obama's fault of course. And yes the Progressive God of Holy Liberalism (don't know who or where this PGOHL is, but good luck finding him or her) would be in the same damn situation. The crazy is ready to light everything ablaze starting with the Capitol. Who and what army can stop them? Let's hope this is all theater as some say (although it will all come back again if it is theater), but that doesn't change who the hell the White House is dealing with, now does it?
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message, Also too, Obot.
Jonathan Bernstein at the Plum Line:
Barack Obama continues to take heat for his negotiating strategy on the debt limit. Felix Salmon and Paul Krugman argue that it was it was a mistake by the administration to try to make a major long-term deficit deal with House Republicans. Others complain that White House should have simply refused to enter into negotiations.
But I think it’s important to step back and remember the basics. The bottom line has always been that Republicans refuse to vote for an increase, and they have the votes to make that stick, at least barring the Constitutional and political uncertainties of invoking the 14th amendment or some other similar White House action. So when people say that Obama shouldn’t negotiate, or shouldn’t try to cut an ambitious deal, the question remains: What would have been his Plan B?
More:
But the idea that there was some obvious way for Democrats to deal with this situation strikes me as naïve. This isn’t about poor bargaining or fecklessness by the Democrats. It’s about dealing with the consequences of the fact that Americans elected to Congress a whole bunch of people who are either trying to impose fringe policy views despite apparently having no understanding whatsoever of their consequences — or are so driven by opposition to the president that their highest priority is opposing him, regardless of those consequences.
Once the country voted in these zealots, our government wasn't going to function properly and it was barely functioning properly before. Anyone recall the Affordable Health Care Act? This is beyond one man or one party's ability to negotiate, this has clearly opened up the flood gates to an extreme party pushed no longer by corporate interests, but by ideology. They are irrational and they are unequivocally sociopaths. They'll shoot every hostage and blow the building up while inside if it suits their sacred belief.
Rich people bless everyone of us therefore no taxes.
You could show the graphs, charts and fact after fact, they won't budge. We aren't in reality anymore. And for those of you wondering, this is the reality:
But all of this is Obama's fault of course. And yes the Progressive God of Holy Liberalism (don't know who or where this PGOHL is, but good luck finding him or her) would be in the same damn situation. The crazy is ready to light everything ablaze starting with the Capitol. Who and what army can stop them? Let's hope this is all theater as some say (although it will all come back again if it is theater), but that doesn't change who the hell the White House is dealing with, now does it?I am Frank Chow and I approved this message, Also too, Obot.
Comments
1. By last summer, it was clear the November elections were not going to be good for the democrats. He could have had the debt ceiling legislation through then, using reconciliation if necessary to get it through the Senate (and if he needed 60 votes, well some goodies could have bought the votes).
2. Even after November, he still had the same majorities. And he also had the leverage of the Bush tax cuts expiration. He didn't use it (see: Armando re "the Deal").
3. He could have stood firm since the beginning this year that he would only sign a "clean" bill, and date Congress to watch him use his veto. That's what Clinton did and it worked.
4. He refused to accept Mitchell's surrender several weeks ago, because he wanted to be dragged into surrender himself so that he could do his "Grand Bargain" cuts to SS and Medicare.
Even if he gets his "Grand Bargain" now, enough damage has already been done that the credit markets will extract a premium for US debt that they never have before.
1. Before the Nov. elections the Dem caucus was stagnant. No one had the political will during the run up to the elections to get anything remotely controversial done. Sadly that included the debt ceiling. Reconciliation has not been a viable option for some time now for Democrats.
2. After Nov. there was not one shred of momentum to do anything. Especially not tax cuts expiration. Do you think Ben Nelson, or any Blue Dog Senator hops onto a "tax hike"?
3. Clinton Obama is not, but Boehner isn't Gingrich either. I think we're dealing w/different scenarios here.
4. This is where I am confused. Something has to be done with Medicare, SS can be strengthened. So why not with a Dem prez protect those two programs? Wouldn't it make sense to offensively maneuver instead of waiting till a Repub prez goes after them with a chain saw?
As for Mitch, the issue was never the Senate Repubs, it's the House. Mitch has been playing the whole time. Obama didn't want to be dragged into this debate, this debate as I stated was unavoidable with the zealots that were elected. But maybe he knew it was coming and so he figured he could position himself as the "adult." I'm not in the WH, so it's tough to tell.
You know better than I what the damage on markets will be, so I trust you on that point. Regardless, this is FUBAR.