For months, there's been a general understanding about the fiscal fight between Democrats and Republicans -- the parties could reach a compromise if Dems accepted concessions on social-insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security, and the GOP accepted concessions on tax revenue. The former has been willing to compromise, the latter hasn't, so nothing has happened.
But this general framework has always suffered from a minor flaw. Republicans have been told, repeatedly, that if they expect to get entitlement "reforms," they're going to have to give a little and reach an agreement with Democrats. But GOP officials have consistently rejected the premise, not because they consider entitlement cuts impossible, but because they had a Plan B.
The back-up option, of course, is the debt ceiling. In effect, the Republican strategy, though unstated, has been made quite clear: "To get entitlement cuts, we don't need to accept new revenue, we simply need to hold the country hostage again and threaten to hurt Americans on purpose. Democrats will have no choice but to give us what we want, and we won't have to accept any concessions at all."
Over the last week or so, this strategy has begun to take shape in earnest. It's not yet clear exactly when the debt ceiling will need to be raised -- estimates vary from May to July -- but Republicans are becoming increasingly explicit in their threats. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued on Fox Business last night that he expects a debt-ceiling increase to be tied to entitlement cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the same thing to reporters yesterday.
"Dollar for dollar is the plan," Boehner said, suggesting for every dollar the debt limit is raised, he expects a comparable amount of cuts to social-insurance programs. How'd he come up with this standard? Arbitrarily and for no particular reason.
But if you watch the above clip, pay particular attention to the last few seconds. Boehner demands that we need to eliminate the deficit within 10 years -- why he thinks this is still a mystery -- and insists that he will not accept so much as a penny in new tax revenue.
And then he says something else: "I'm not going to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government."
Those are the 14 most important words Boehner has said in a long while.
Look, it's clear congressional Republicans are eager to launch another crisis. The government shutdown option was taken off the table early on, but a debt-ceiling hostage strategy is a crisis GOP members find frighteningly appealing. They know how damaging the debate is, they know even having the conversation does real harm to the economy, and they see all of this as a plus -- if you rough up the hostages before threatening to pull the trigger, your threats are more likely to be taken seriously.
Those just outside the caucus are offering words of caution -- John Feehery told Greg Sargent yesterday his party "could squander a lot of their good PR if they create a crisis" -- but by all accounts, rank-and-file Republican lawmakers just don't care. They want their entitlement cuts, and if threatening to do deliberate harm to the country is what it takes, that's what they'll do.
But that's why it matters that Boehner has already given the game away: "I'm not going to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government."
Unless the Speaker changes his mind, that's pretty much the game-over moment.
In order for Republican threats to work, everyone, including the White House, has to seriously believe that GOP lawmakers are not bluffing. When it comes time to raise the debt ceiling, Republicans need everyone to be terrified -- maybe, the argument goes, they'll default on American debts, they'll refuse to pay for the things they've already bought, and they'll ignore their constitutional obligations and trash the full faith and credit of the United States.
Except John Boehner, ostensibly the most powerful Republican official in the country, just said on camera that he's not going to do this, which necessarily means he can't shoot the hostage.
When the debt-ceiling issue came up in January, Republicans all but admitted they were bluffing and weren't actually going to allow the nation to default. As of yesterday, Boehner largely admitted it again.
Let's make this plain: if the House Speaker isn't going to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government, then Democrats have no incentive to pay his ridiculous ransom. It's as simple as that.
Leave a Comment:
Obama said he will not negotiate the debt ceiling, and the business world has his back. Expect bluster followed by surrender...
Surrender by who?
I don't think the Republican "hostage takers" will do the surrendering. They will go ahead and harm the hostage (that's USA economy and all of us).
maphi: Boehner will bring a debt ceiling bill and pass it with democrat votes. You are free to disagree and worry, and contacting your Reps is a great idea, but there won't be an Act 2 on a debt ceiling crises IMHO...
Ah, the silly game of Debt Ceiling to be played yet again. Shall the Republicans kick the can down the road this time too, because it's worked so well for them the past three times?
Just make-work from their box of toys...KENYA BIRTH SOCIALIST BENGHAZI ACORN PROSTITUTES!
need more coffee....don't forget Communist, Muslim, anti-Christ, dictator.
At risk of being a One-Note Charlie, everything these worthless asswipes do demonstrates the accuracy of Hofstadter's analysis 50 years ago:
“Their political reactions express rather a profound and largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways -- a hatred which one would hesitate to impute to them if one did not have suggestive clinical evidence ... The pseudo-conservative, Adorno writes, shows 'conventionality and authoritarian submissiveness' in his conscious thinking and 'violence, anarchic impulses, and chaotic destructiveness in the unconscious sphere…… The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.'"
TCinLA is right. It's actually worse, though.
Republicans actually hate the Enlightenment, and they prove it every day with their evidence-free worldview. There's a reason Republicans lie about everything: THEY HAVE TO. They have to pretend they want what Americans say they want the country to be -- opportunity for all, equality under the law, equal justice for all, etc. But Republicans DO NOT want those things. They want a neo-Confederacy banana republic with two classes of people. You do not to be in the less privileged class.
And at those who don't think the debt ceiling hostage-taking hasn't worked for Republicans, you are fooling yourselves. There would be no sequester. Obama wouldn't have been beaten so bad on the "fiscal cliff." And we'll get another round of Democrats allowing them to use it to get something this time, too. Earned benefit cuts? Better not be. If so, Democrats are going to pay a big price in 2014, and rightfully so.
Disgusted is right-
The only reason we're having this ridiculous debt ceiling discussion is because of Obama and certain Dems spineless capitulation.
And now the same group is continuing to offer cuts to Social Security as a bargaining chip.
Truly sad. Truly pathetic.
Disgusted and favedave, Why would anyone vote for a repub. even if the dems cave. That would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face. We all know what is happening but we can stop it when 2014 comes around. Get rid of those Ayn Rand loving hate the middle class mongers who worship of the rich.
Democrats can not be allowed to keep being rewarded for cowering to the brow-beating will of Republicans. If they approve Keystone XL and agree to earned benefit cuts, they must suffer defeat in 2014. Period.
2014 is the time to punish Democrats for their cowardice. Obama will still have the veto and will stop Republicans from too much damage. We will fight again in 2016 when we'll be rid of President Wasted Opportunity and his lameassery, and Democrats will (finally) understand we won't taken for granted.
To do anything else is to be complicit with the continued slide of the country. The end result of us continuing to tolerate Democratic cowardice in the face of Republican policy bullying is no different than if Republicans were handed total control. The only difference is how fast destruction of the country occurs.
So you think we should punish Democrats for not resisting Republican pressure by voting for Republicans? Or even if you vote Green or some other party, you are essentially giving ALL the power to the Republicans where they don't even have to negotiate with a Democrat.
I believe Dems deserve to hear about it when they mess up, so I give people leeway. But, I do not advocate for allowing Rs to keep up their utter madness to "send a message" to Dems.
Disgruntled: Hearing the freaky inner workings of your "logic" is amazing. You want the President you loathe to be the backstop with a veto pen after the Republicans take power as some sort of point making? To call that convoluted is to insult convoluteds. Thanks for the laughs, and for making me feel better about myself. At least my scenarios I think about don't need dominos falling and people suffering...
You're an idiot, DUD. President Wasted Opportunity won't allow a complete dismantling. But he won't fight for what he should. It's because he does not understand the thread of history that caused the problems, he does not understand nor have the intellect to understand the economics that caused the problems, he does not understand the character, the personalities, the culture, or the ideology of those that oppose him, and he doesn't have the personality of the leader that is required to deal with these people in this time. Obama simply was the wrong man for this time.
Your way ends with the same result as if the Republicans were given complete power. The only difference is how long it takes for the complete dismantling.
And for you bozos assuming you have to vote for Republicans to send the message, try thinking of something else. Is that at all in your intellectual capacities? Seriously, is it?
Again, your way ends up the same as if Republican had complete power.
No, my way gives us Sotomayor and Kagan, DOMA possibly getting overturned, POTUS asking Courts to overturn it, etc, etc.
I am not a fan of if it ain't perfect, burn it down. Bozo?
I am not having remorse over Obama, that's for dam sure. MY Senators and Congress persons are doing what I want them to do. Now, what about the rest of the country? It's up to them.
English, please. And make sense.
Disjointed: You are flying solo fella, both on your weird scenario and your ridiculous disrespect of Obamas intellect. Obama does not understand anything and you are the shiznit, thats the ticket. Maybe you are just getting into a groove, and you are going to unleash hundreds of thousands of loyal followers... or maybe it's just you and the poor gerbil...
I am not a fan of
"if it ain't perferct, burn it down"
My Senators and Representatives are not voting for cutting Medicare, etc.
Obama or any Democrat elected to Presidency nominates SCOTUS Justices, my Democratic Senators vote to approve those Justices. I trust those SCOTUS Justices to vote to overturn DOMA, which means a great deal to me and other Democrats.
I am not for 3rd party candidates. I LOVE Bernie Sanders, who is neither D, nor R. He was elected in Vermont. But I am speaking of the office of the POTUS. No I do not support everything every D does. But I would never "burn it down" by refusing to vote, voting 3rd party like Nader. Now, Nader had a great appeal, but when I hear things like "sending a message" and we end up with Bush, Iraq war, surplus to massive deficit. I call that scorched earth.
OK?
What you're supporting is W's fourth term with better judicial nominations. That's what you're supporting. What you're supporting is the gradual erosion of the country into a right wing race-to-the-bottom, banana republic due to Democrats -- Democrats like you -- never, ever finding anything worth taking a stand on. This allows the vicious right to take advantage of you. It allows the vicious right to run all over you. It allows the vicious right to turn this country into the shhithole they want.
That's what you stand for. Easier: you stand for nothing if you continue to support Democratic spinelessness.
@Lebowsky DUD: No, DUD, I don't stand alone. Not even close, Mr. Useless Democrat. And it's going to get worse for spineless DNC-asswhole-licking Democrats like you for which *NEVER* is the time to say no.
Disgusted, could you just make your point and stop with the potty-mouthed personal attacks?
No, I'm not.
I'm trying to tell you that I am happy with MY Dem. officials, with some residual angst over Dianne Feinstein voting for invading Iraq.
I could not vote for Hillary because of that vote. Now who was left in Dem primary? Biden (voted for Iraq), Edwards (damaged goods after the fact), Dodd?
I watched Primary Colors again recently. I have a desire to change politics, too. But the guy who snorted cocaine dropped out so that the man who had sex with a minor ended up winning. So, rather than drop out of it altogether, I read the tea leaves as best I can to say who will be electable against what is the reality now. Trying to bend it to the most advantageous position possible.
I do think we should do more to convince Reid to call for nuke option, but I have done that. Who else has? Are people even aware of filibuster abuse, outside the more commercial news vendors?
I do understand what you are trying to say (although you seem to attack me for my attempt to communicate with you). I really do not see how your way would get our desired Reps. and Senators into office. I am looking at this realistically.
We have Blue Dog Dems in reddish states. Heidi Heitcamp, for instance. Would she be in office had she said I'm for gun control? I have to consider the rest of the country. I live not that far away from the most hated Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, by Tea-publi-cons.
I want to tell you-I WISH people would vote for more Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich types. But in reality- HOW? It is up to those folks in those areas to address what is actually happening with Tea-publi-cons running the country and states. Look at Michigan.
For me personally, with Teapublicons, I do not see DOMA and Prop 8 being overturned and we would have been looking forward to getting Medicare vouchers with privatized Post Offices, Schools, Keystone pipeline already done. We may already have gone into Iran. So, I speak out against Teapublicons.
Those things matter to me. Without President Obama, without D Senators we may already be involved in more wars and DOMA & Prop 8 would not be so nearly on the verge of history.
I have been there and done that, with the results being negative. I didn't vote for Nader, I urged people not to vote for Nader just to send a message. Arguably that put Bush so close as to have recounts in 2000. We know what happened there.
How long until his office issues a "clarifying statement"?
Exactly. This won't stand. These guys have long ago proven they have no difficulty flip flopping in public as often as they need to.
I agree.
I think Boneheads money men gave him a "clarifying statement" the last time that they (GOTP) went with this stunt.......I'm sure he's not willing to risk it again.....
He can't.
Boehner is a useless, cheap ragdoll caught in a tug of war between two rabid dogs. He can't do the right thing (i.e. ignore the Hastert rule again and get the debt ceiling increased with Democratic votes) until he's "forced" to by Obama's "intransigence and irresponsibility" without risking a coup, but he has to let Wall Street know at the outset that he's just foolin' or they'll go medieval on his ass.
This is what passes for "governing" in GOP circles these days.
What are the two rabid dogs? I know one, but what is the other one.
Yes, remember that Obama was certain the sequester wouldn't happen, because he expected the Republicans to behave rationally and in America's interest. That's no longer a given.
Don't be naive. Both sides wanted sequester. They just don't want the Washington lobbyists to see their finger prints on it.
Ron Byers is right. A lot of them secretly love the sequester because it makes a bunch of hard decisions for them. They allow it to happen, but are divorced from ever taking direct responsibility for it.
This should not even be an issue of concern...it should be routine. Republicans creating drama with fear every time they open their mouths.
Big picture - thank heaven the insanity of the Republican Party has prevented the insanity of Democratic Party cutting Social Security and further means testing Medicare.
You do favor raising the cap on SS, right Dave? Thats a form of further means testing.
First, raising the payroll cap on SS was not in any way the subject of my post.
Second - why would you assume I favor raising the payroll cap on SS? I never even implied that.
Third, raising the payroll cap on SS is in no way comparable to further means testing Medicare.
Three strikes - yer out.
Dave: You sure carry alot of hostility. Raising the payroll cap on SS is fair, needed, and vital. The rich have gotten away with only paying a fraction of SS for far too long, and a modest raise on the cap would give us decades more solvency. I have to say, I am suprised you want to carry water around for the rich, because you always try to sell yourself as some sort of progressive warrior, and you regularly insult people who don't agree with you. Perhaps thats the rub, if I am for it, you are against it...
Dude - simmer down, you're getting upset over nothing.
It sure would be nice if you replied to my post instead of a completely different subject. Maybe you should start a comment of your own with the subject of the payroll cap. That could be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with my post.
I'm surprised that you want to support cutting Social Security. Seems like a no-brainer for Democrats. Cutting Social Security is deeply unpopular and yet here you are taking a position in support of it.
I know that you regularly function as an apologist for this particular administration. Maybe that's where your anger issues stem from. Trying to defend positions that undermine the Democratic party tends to make you someone that regularly posts strawman arguments and misses the point. Now it's even pushed you into the humorless, self righteous camp.
IMHO.
DUD likes straw men. Even then he usually isn't very good at knocking them down.
So Obama won't play that game, the business community won't back it and the "teatards" are out on their own.
The problem is the House ignores him.
Pass the popcorn.
Can we switch to diet popcorn, the spectator sport of all this internal fracking of the GOP is making me fat...
Ezra was great yesterday in pointing out the absolutely irrational positions that Republicans are adopting--seemingly for no other reason than purely because they can or because it's the opposite of whatever the Dems are trying to do. pure politics
I think PBO has made it pretty clear that he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling issue again. In effect it'on the republicans to pay for what they spent. In a larger sense I almost wish they would default, stop immigration reform and kill any gun control reform, anything that shows them for what they are and let the dems take over the house, reach a super majority in the senate in 2014 and show them what real governing looks like.
I just do not understand how the Republicans can believe that cutting entitlements is politically a good idea. Even in their "safe" districts there are just too many people who would be hurt. The way to "fix" Medicare is to fix the way health care is billed and delivered. Cutting benefits, raising the eligibility age, means testing will NOT fix the problem. Such measures will only make matters worse.
Of course I know I am making a rational argument.
It's in their DNA to try to kill off New Deal stuff whenever and wherever they can. They have never gotten over FDR.
bflynch: Republicans are relying on the President and Dems to make the cuts. That way they will leave no finger prints. Plus it will help them at election time to say, look what Dems did, they cut SS and medicare. Just Like Romney and Ryan used it in their campaign. The President and Dems should tell Boehner they wo'nt negotiate with terrorists.
big busness does not want to pay matching payroll deductions that is the name of the game
Entitlement cuts won't affect the wealthy. Tax increases will.
Tax increases require laying the whip to the backs of one's bank of accountants and lawyers to manipulate tax loop holes, charity write-offs, and off-shore caches even harder.
Keeping one's money from trickling down is such hard work.
It's easy to understand when you realize that today's Republican party thinks the robber barons of the past were really great guys, and the way the country was running from the 1880's through the mid to late 1920's were the best time ever.
Once you realize they have that mindset, then most of the crazy things they do make a lot more sense in the grand scheme of things.
All the responses to my post are good and I get them all. But, there are simply more of us -- those who need and depend on SS, Medicare, Medicaid -- than there are of them. I realize that the Republican base gets all the attention both from the media and from the Republican elected officials.
What we have to do is make them realize that they will not get re-elected if they cut our programs that we paid for. We are going to have to make more noise and maybe do a little marching in the streets. We are the 99%.
That's why they're going to have the Democrats do it for them.
bflynch , a little marching in the streets or voting isn't going to do it. I think that we will all be in soup lines, burning logs in a 55 gallon drum on corners, before the average single issue voter would get upset enough to do anything. They just do not care, until it really hits their life in a big way. we would have to have streets in Washington DC that look like the Egyptian spring before they do anything. And it would , unfortunately, take a whole lot more austerity than they want. Sad to say.
Yesterday the Republicans quietly gave away all the leverage they needed to force entitlement "reform" when they agreed to a CR for the rest of the year.
Do you really, really think they are going to endanger the full faith and credit of the United States Government over entitlement reform? Not in this life time.
All Obama has to say is NO and they will cave. They have to, if they don't they won't get Wall Street bucks.
Yes.
Anyone want to keep a tally? Ron's on the "no" side and I'm on the "yes, they really are that crazy" side.
D.C., I'm scared you are right, but I hope you are wrong.
I hope I'm wrong. But then, I do that a lot.
They really are that crazy. People like Cantor and Bachmann vow that they will do it.
Read, DO NOT ASK WHAT GOOD WE DO. An eye opener.
By the way, I don't think "crazy" is really an appropriate term. I'm sure that they're not stupid, nor irrational. They're just working from different facts toward different objectives than we are, and the disconnect is so great that it looks like insanity to us.
The best animal analogy I can think of on short notice is Africanized honeybees: suicidally aggressive in swarms. It works very well for them, though.
Remember before the last credit problem, all of the TPers were using microphones to explain to their tea partiers, "If we have to shut it down, we'll SHUT IT DOWN." scarey stuff out there.
If they are working from different facts, towards different goals, such that the disconnect seems insane to us, then somebody does meet Freud's definition of insanity. If the Right, of Bachmann, and the typical Maddow blogger seem to exist in separate worlds one, or both groups are psychotic. DC, you seem to have equated 'crazy' with neurotic.
"Except John Boehner, ostensibly the most powerful Republican official in the country, just said on camera that he's not going to do this, which necessarily means he can't shoot the hostage."
Yeah, except they HAVE shot the hostage in the past. And they have gone back and forth over this so much that I genuinely believe that they are stupid enough and crazy enough to do it. They loathe President Obama with the kind of deep seated emotion that we haven't seen in Washington since Preston Brooks took to Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor. The level of Republican's suspicion, fear, and hate of the President is borderline pathological. People like that aren't thinking clearly, and can't be trusted to make decisions of this high importance.
You say they can't shoot the hostage? They can do whatever they want, they have for the last few years despite the Democratic majority in power and the favor of the American people being decidedly against them.
The Dems need to come up with their own Plan B, one that divorces the debt ceiling from budget talks. The debt ceiling and budget talks are important to each other, that is inescapable. We look at the debt ceiling and see how much we used our credit card and should use that to figure out where and how much we need to cut and how much more we need to earn. But that shouldn't effect whether or not we pay our bill for things we bought in the past.
As much as I agree with you, none of that will ever happen unless the Democrats either take back the House in 2014, or we get filibuster reform. Harry Reid dropped the ball on filibuster reform, depening on what reform would have passed, we could have actually gotten something done in the Senate. I agree that if all the tools that have been used by the Republicans to cause these trumped up crisis moments are taken away, they would have no choice but to compromise.
Borderline?
Hopefully people will be so fed up with the circus that the House has become that we will indeed get a majority in 2014. But the Republicans have so heavily gerrymandered everything that even if the votes are there, it may not translate into actual seats in Washington.
Would somebody tell me just who constitutes the "entitlement reform" constituency driving the Republican party to political suicide?
Those with enough money that "entitlements" don't matter to them . Their grannies won't starve , the trust money or the stash offshore will take care of that. Do you think people like Mitt or any of the talking heads you see on your teevee with multimillion dollar contracts ever lose sleep worrying about retirement ?
I don't think so
The multi-millionaires and billionaires who think their taxes are "too high".
Just because they aren't "hurt" by entitlement reform doesn't mean they want it. No, there has to be somebody who thinks he can profit from entitlement reform. Maybe Mitt Romney and his other pension robbing friends have a plan? Boehner is smart enough to understand that every entitlement reform the Republicans have advanced is a non-starter and will result in the Republicans losing the very next election after it passes.
Just who profits enough to drive Republicans to this level of insanity?
Ron Byers, "Just who profits enough to drive Republicans to this level of insanity?"
My first guess is the Koch brothers. But that still leaves the question open as to who their constituents are who want the same thing the Koch brothers want. It defies reason that the average person would be in concert with the billionaires in the country, especially since their policies will severely HURT the average person. I have torn out a lot of my hair over the years whilst dealing with this puzzling question.
I know statistically that their constituents are the 98% of Americans who make around $40,000.00 a year average, and the elderly who make $22,000.00 average.
Since these folks are the same bunch of voters who want to keep assault rifles and large magazines and drums in the hands of the public, I can only conclude that Republicans are not the same species of human beings that the rest of us are. There is a genetic difference that we need to discover.
And FIX.
For one, they're convinced that the New Deal programs create "dependency" that slants people towards voting for Democrats. Certainly my grandparents' generation were pretty pretty pleased with Democrats for the New Deal, but I'm not at all sure that mine (Boomers) make that connection any more. Regardless, it's become a fixture of Republican thinking that undoing the New Deal will hurt Democrats, therefore it's good.
In addition, they know that the programs are popular. Thus getting Democrats to do the evil deed is going to hurt Democrats. Therefore it's even better.
Third, the payroll tax brings in almost as much money as the income tax (which should be a hint that the tax system isn't exactly progressive, by the way.) Cutting payments to SS and Medicare recipients but leaving the tax in place will pay for a lot of income-tax cuts.
Finally, there's the GW Bush prospect of turning all that revenue from the payroll tax over to mutual funds. The fund managers are totally salivating at that prospect. If you wonder why, have a look at actual fund yields compared to the securities that the fund invests in -- there are S&P index funds that return less than 3% even when the S&P is up 7% a year. Wonder where the money goes?
DC Sessions,
But doesn't the fact that they are wrong mean anything? A lot of Republicans out in the country are on SS and Medicare, as well.
I think, honestly, that they need to be bitch-slapped into next week.
I would gladly volunteer, and start with Boehner.
Someday it may.
I should live so long, DC.
I think, honestly, that they need to be bitch-slapped into next week.
There's an old "Texanism" about what they need, and that's not it. But saying it here will get Nanny's knickers in a knot.
My nanny is long gone, knickers and all.
Given Boehner's lack of power, it doesn't really matter too much what he says. The people to take seriously are the rank and file reps and they aren't saying that they won't destroy the country. They seem quite happy to do so.
I hate to say it, but I wouldn't put much stock in this. Boehner doesn't seem to be very cognizant of what he's saying these days -- lately in every interview, he looks as though he's having an out-of-body experience.
Can you blame him? If I was saddled with the job he has, I would be perpetually drunk. Why do you think no one ran against him for his job? It's because no one wants it. In this economy. It's that bad of a job. With the divided factions of the Republican party warring against each other, leading them is a nightmare. I would almost feel sorry for him, but I can't muster up pity for a grown man who cries at the drop of a hat.
June Day,#13
Or an "I've had too much Scotch" experience.
I don't feel sorry for him at all.
But if it is true that he's actually drinking this all away leaves no room for hope or confidence. I am aware some folks can drink or drug their way through the day, but this is not the type of situation where you'd put your money down on such a bet.
If Congress would just do something that appears to cut some spending and close a loophole, the people with money would start putting more of it down on the pass line.
I think that is what should happen. But call me naive.
Let's not forget the ACTUAL DAMAGE caused by the last GOP-induced Debt Ceiling Crisis:
19 BILLION with a 'B' DOLLARS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/debt-ceiling-cost-taxpayers_n_2204553.html
Hey GOP! What tax havens are you closing or tax loopholes are you closing to pay for the last GOP-Induced Debt Ceiling Crisis (GIDCC)?
For Starters: Oil companys making, not in revenue, but in PROFIT, $5-$25 Billion per year (top five companies made $62B in 2012-TPM) and paying little to no taxes on that money.
YOU (GOP) made the mess, now YOU (GOP) clean it up.
Not if we can blame Obama for it, and turn the voter opinion against him personally and against Democrats in general...
Signed, the Right
Here is the problem as I see it. Boehner isn't an idiot. He knows what he is doing. He is, however, cut off at the knees by the Citizens United decision. While rich donors have always had a certain amount of influence in the past, the CU decision allowed them to pay enough to get true sycophants elected that neither understand how to effectively run a government nor care to try. Even if they burn the country to the ground and get voted out after one term, they get to walk away with the side money that Congressman always seem to wind up with, a lifetime salary, and lifetime health insurance.
As a result, Boehner can't control his caucus to prevent them from harming the country as a whole because they don't care about the country as a whole. Sure, that is a slightly unfair blanket statement as some of them likely do care, but as an entity they have proven that they do not collectively care. As a result, Boehner is forced to do damage control all of the time.
Anon,
You're making excuses for bad leadership. Boehner is part of the problem and he's not helpless or unaccountable. Hold him accountable. Hold the GOP caucus accountable. They will do economic damage again with these reckless tactics.
Do not make excuses for them, they are not helpless. Boehner should be criticized for his behavior, his lack of leadership, what he says, and tactics that he supports.
You don't help the situation by making excuses. It is Boehner's fault. He does have a choice, not an easy choice (for him) but he has choices. Hold him accoutable and the nonsense will stop. Keep making excuses for him and voting these people into office and we get what we are getting now.
I never said that anyone was not accountable. The problem is that the situation has changed to the point that a leadership position means nothing if the real power no longer resides in the position. Mind you, had Congress wished to avoid that they merely needed to amend the Constitution to nullify the CU decision and they did not do so. Now Congress is populated by a group of idiots that will never allow that to happen. 2014 cannot come soon enough.
Clarification - "Congress" could propose a change in the Constitution, but ratification would require the agreement of 3/4 of the States. Agreed - that we need to have our ducks in a row for 2014.
Adam Selene, #15.3
Yes we do. They have their ducks in a row.
We'll be used for target practice if we don't line ours up properly.
We'll be "shooting ducks". (is that the expression?)
Sitting ducks. LOL
Boy, it has been a long time since I took a government class. I forgot about the need to have the states ratify an amendment.
Sitting ducks or shooting fish in a bucket. Either one would be correct.
Willow,#15.7
Thanks, I am always screwing that kind of thing up! My husband laughs at me. The other day I told him to take a long walk off a short cliff and he started to howl and laugh. I couldn't stay mad, then!
Watch me one day say shooting fish in a bucket...
You want a war? Ok you got one. No, absolutely no cuts in SS or Medicare. Let the whole rotten carcass go belly up. Let's see how they like it out in the plains with no farm program. No oil subsidy. We do not need any more major defense programs. Close a couple of military bases. It will not matter. When the republican party brings this country to the edge of ruin then they will understand. In the meantime, block every piece of Republican legislation down to the nameing of a new post office. I don't need to tour the White House. Been there done that. And if wall street asks what's going on, give them the phone number of the RNC and the Speakers office and tell them to ask their friends. No more entitlements (i.e. tax breaks) for the rich. Everyone now knows the debt ceiling was a phoney issue from day one. Let it go bust or increase it by executive order. See all you tea partyers we don't give a crap either. Pile it on. Build the bonfires high. Let it burn. We'll call the fire department tomorrow.
Close military bases in the South. It harms them economically and disarms them when the inevitable happens.
I agree-- NO cuts to SS or medicare. Never. In fact raise the cap on income to be taxed and tax capital gains at a lower rate for SS and Medicare. And maybe raise the COLA too.
2nd, the new/old theory of economics called MMT claims the it can be deduced/proven that (after the dust settles, meaning after 1 or 2 elections to clean the Rebubs out of Congress) the "full faith and credit" of the US does not matter.
MMT has 'proven' that the Treasury and Fed. Res. Bank can set interest rates. That the banks that get the deposits that result from deficit spending, basically have no other choice but to buy US Bonds/T-Bills at the set interest rate. Leaving the cash just sitting there collecting no interest is their only other option, some interest is always better than no interest. And in any case the US does not NEED (except maybe by/under current law) to borrow money before it spends money. Think of the Trillion $ coins, if you can't think/believe in another way.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html
Whether or not you believe this now, if the Repubs destroy the full faith and credit of the US, you will be motivated to at least try MMT to see if works.
MMT goes on to prove that the theories of economists that have become the "standard model" over the last 30 years (of Repub rule that have made the top 1% filthy rich and the bottom 60% worse off than when it started) are mostly all wrong and, in fact, are 180 deg. backwards. Surpluses are terrible, austerity does not work, US Gov. deficits allow Private Sector savings-- so deficits are good, default can never be forced onto the US Gov., inflation can certainly be a problem and must be watched, etc.
Let me ask you all this. If dollars are not backed by gold (which they are not), why do we all accept them in our day to day lives? The answer is key to understanding MMT.
In essence what you are saying is that they deliberately want to harm the country through entitlement cuts and are trying to get Obama to agree to it by threatening to harm the country by trashing the full faith and credit of the U.S. (even though boehner claims he won't).
I'd be willing to bet that the damage caused by the former would be worse (maybe even far worse) than the damage caused by the latter. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients can not afford to have their benefits cut whereas if our credit is trashed, as John Messerly has pointed out on this board, bondholders will see their interest rates rise and will actually profit from said trashing.
How long will it be after SS, and Medicare benefits are cut before Wal-Mart goes belly up or at least begins to see their profits shink perceptably?
Not if the bonds are not being paid. What do you think they did with Tsarist bonds? What do you think they did with Chinese bonds. Take whatever is left in the pot for Medicaid, Medicare, SS and war crimes trials for the gangsters who wrecked the economy over the last decade. Too many liberals. Too much namby-pamby. If the crazy Tea party wants to pull down the house let 'em. Jail those who are left and rebuild without them. With the income disparity between the rich and the middle class growing wider soon the middle class will not care what happens. Right now capitalism is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Pretty soon the stupid teaparty and right wing of the GOP will find out just how dangerous a game can be played. Just wait till hoards of hungry, desperate people show up at those gated communities and walk right in and take whatever they want! Bonds, shmonds you think hungry desperate people care about credit ratings and fico scores. Are there no lessons in the history books?
Throughout history, the rich have controlled about 55% of the GDP. right now, the rich have control of 96%!! That means only 4% is circulating. That's why we cannot get this economy going, there is not enough money to circulate.
Like Will Rogers said, "Give all the money to the poor. it will end up in the hands of the rich by nightfall, but it will have wiggled its way through the poor and middle class before then."
Boehner has a habit of saying things he doesn't mean. This proves nothing. If anything, he thinks it sets Obama up to take the fall, because you see, REPUBLICANS weren't about to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government but because Obama didn't "perform the will of the people" (which is Boehner-speak for "didn't give us exactly everything the GOP demanded"), THEY had no choice. It's that rascally amoral Obama doing this now. If only he had listened to us, but hey, "that kind" isn't known for making logical decisions...
What? By "that kind" I meant liberals. What did you think I meant? And why are all the dogs in the neighborhood suddenly howling?
Nice
The Republicans are foolish beyond words. They are playing with half a deck. They are lost before they start. They cannot change their policies but only their message. They have read this all wrong. The people are with the President. Period. the gerrymandered districts may not be, but the rest of the country is. President Obama should tell these bastards to go to hell. Period.
Here's the long game:
Remember a few years ago when Bush wanted to privatize Social Security? Under the guise of appearing fiscally responsible, cutting entitlements is another way to get government out of running Social Security, Medicare, etc., create a funding vacuum, and get big business dollars to fill the void/demand. Rather than bringing the ax down on entitlements like Bush wanted to, it's privatization by a thousand paper cuts. Bringing new revenue in puts a real monkeywrench into the plan.
The worst part is, they'll never give up. The Kochs and Adelsons see all this free government money just sitting there and they want it...bad. I agree that having Representatives wear jumpsuits emblazoned with the name of the multi-millionaire for whom they work is an idea whose time has come.
I do so like the jump suit idea.
@ #20
To your last point-- Or just let all campaigns be paid for with public money. Then only the voters will matter. One voter, one vote!
'All campaigns' means Fed., state, and local.
I like the idea of public financing of campaigns but it will probably require a constitutional amendment. I wonder what our polity would look like without the Koch brothers shoveling bribes at their candidates. Could be almost as much fun as a revolution!
Agree 100%. Would public financing increase voter turnout, though? I would hope so.
I like the idea of no more bribes or kickbacks from a lobbying group. If they take any money from a lobbyist, impeachment. They are not voted in to accept bribes or kick backs. They are voted in to do our service. I'd say get completely rid of all lobbying. If a state or county wants something, let them send a form letter in to the "Earmark department", and it will be decided on there. Begin campaign reform, give each candidate a certain amount, have a debate every Friday night for the country to watch. Allow anyone with a certain amount of voters backing them to partake in the debate. Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Huntsmann, all were refused to be in the debates. SMH
And M$M won't ask the most basic of questions: "Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader McConnell, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Camp, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Sessions, Jamie Dimon, Steve Schwartzman, Pete Peterson, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, Jeff Immelt, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Gerald Hassell, .........EASY question: Yes or No, Do you agree with this sentence: The US should not raise the debt ceiling unless entitlements are cut dollar for dollar."
Due to the Recession, there are many more people in poverty than usual. Cutting entitlements only hurts the poor. We need to cut entitlements when we are in a boom, where there is a lot of revenue to be used in deficit reduction. Just which poor person (remember 1 in 4 children live in poverty right now) do you want to doom to poor health, no assistance and no foot stamps? Which old Granny do you want to be refused care? The idea of our government is that we care for the poor in a decent safety net, and when times are rough, there are a whole lot of people needing that safety net.
Would be really great to see some activity to actually get people out of poverty and into decent wage jobs. Jobs that can actually sustain a family or even a person. But there has been the opposite. And they wonder why the poverty went up...
Democrats are stupid, and Republicans know it.
There is no need for cuts in earned benefits. They are not the problem. The problems are elsewhere. So Democrats should reject out of hand any negotiations, any deals that center on cuts in earned benefits. Period. If Republicans insist no deals without them, then so be it. It's time to make sure the country TRULY understand what is going on and who is the problem. If that were to happen, Democrats would have no fears in 2014.
Republicans have learned how stupid Democrats are with their retarded negotiating by giving them credit in negotiations/bargains for things Republicans deserve none on. They allow Republicans to hold unemployment insurance as a bargaining chip, and give away permanent concessions to get them. They allow the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, and gave away the sequester to get it raised. They allow cuts in earned benefits as a bargaining chip, and are only requesting revenue that the duh mass President just gave away by making the irresponsible Bush tax cuts permanent.
The country needs a change of direction from the idiotic and failed supply-side ideas started 30+ years ago (and that many Democrats have unwittingly accepted). Democrats need to stand up and say THE COUNTRY NEEDS A CHANGE OF DIRECTION away from this goddamned nonsense. Continuing to negotiate with Republicans on Republican terms on Republican policy turf can only mean one thing: Democrats are as guilty now as Republicans for the continued deterioration of the country.
It isn't only Republicans who need to do soul-searching. No. Democrats need a lot -- maybe more -- introspection than the Republican party. The country has given Democrats the power to at least stop the country from the Republican ideas and agenda. Yet Democrats REFUSE to use that power to argue and defend what the great majority of Americans actually SUPPORT. Democrats are simply irresponsible cowards at this point who won't stand up for the people who vote for them and the reasons they vote for them.
It's time this be realized.
Democrats are simply irresponsible cowards at this point who won't stand up for the people who vote for them and the reasons they vote for them.
It's time this be realized.
INDEED!!
@ #20 DWA
You are asking that the standard model of economics be overturned. Good idea! But, just what model will you substitute for it?
I have been sowing the people here that MMT is a candidate for that.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html
But it seems that most refuse to even look at it.
If MMT were adopted, it would take a lot of discipline on the part of Congress and the voters. The voters would need to not demand too much "free stuff". And Congress would have to ignore such demands that are made.
BTW, MMT does allow for free stuff. So don't yell at me. Here I mean stuff that is not paid for except for excessive borrowing. Key word here is 'excessive'.
There is no pithy answer to that question, steve. First, economists are going to have to accept that an economy is a dynamic and chaotic system and use the tools that have been developed to deal with dynamic and chaotic systems. It will also need to take into account behavior of individuals and groups in its modeling. MMT has some conceptual advances, but suffers from many of the same deficiencies of other ways of looking at these human-created artificial constructs we call markets and economies.
One thing's for sure: neo-classical economics is nothing but an insult to the other intellectual achievements of humanity. Especially the supply-side variety. The only justified reaction to it is derision, mockery, insult, and laughter. Similarly for those who support it with or without examination or critical analysis. We know why it continues to get support however: greed, self-interest, and I-got-mine-phuck-everybody-else. It was created for those that have and remains the faith of those determined to keep providing comfort to the comfortable.
I see your point, are you assuming the rich care about entitlements for the bottom half at all?
If these political hand-puppets in Congress were working for select entities out to gut entitlements, would Boehner & Co suffer from such a continual reversal of positions?
General gutting of entitlements keeps the working class struggling, those 47%'ers Mitt kindly pointed out, as does lack of health insurance, no retirement benefits, no unions. Seems to me these are all suicidal planks of the GOP platform, their common thread seems to ensure wealth continues to gravitate upward as the cost of necessities increases, wages don't go as far, and being unemployed becomes a dire situation without safety nets.
Here's the problem: the country could put a stop to it if Democrats would just say that they will not consider it. Let Republicans howl. Let Republicans act out their tantrums. And then we'll have an election on it. Democrats would win. One group has gained at the expense of everybody else over the last 30+ years. Republicans want to make the people who have lost to pay more so that those who have gained can keep gaining. But Democrats are too stupid, lazy, and cowardly to want to have to go to the trouble to explain this position clearly. They say it's too hard. It isn't.
So the right is playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey, while the donkey stands there and takes being pinned?
Exactly! But sooner or later that game has to end and it will not be pretty. The Democrats who indeed are dumb lazy and risk averse will live out their days on the Upper West Side of Manhattan like Kerensky did longing for the good old days. i would rather this all not happen but the Tea Party (at least its leadership) and the GOP are so mired in their fantasies that it almost makes this inevitable.
Yes, NMC, that's one way to put it. Democrats don't really fear anything by doing it, though.
And that will have to change. In 2014, Democrats are going to take it up the pooper with losses when President Manchurian Candidate and Senate Democratic Pushover agree to approve Keystone XL and earned benefit cuts. We have to stay home and we have to let them know we'll be staying home. Enough is enough.
The only entitlement crisis going is that GOP members of congress are still breathing. This is government addled entitlement that should be stopped at any cost.
I don't think the GOP wants entitlement cuts at all.
They want Obama and the Democrats to have cut social insurance programs, and to be able to pin it on the Democratic party in the next election cycle. They have been steadfast in refusing to propose such cuts in debt negotiations. They have even made themselves willfully ignorant of the president's proposed cuts. All this shows that entitlement cuts are just a line used to achieve another end. Their negotiating behavior (not their posture but their behavior, i.e. the deals that they would actually accept) indicates that they would instead prefer to cut domestic non-entitlenent spending as much as possible.
The problem with doing reasonable things like Chained CPI and raising the retirement age or adjusting expenditure formulas is that they make Social Security and MediCare MORE solvent in the long run. Doing so means that there is less cause for alarm, and less of a political opportunity to do the reforms they really want: Privatization.
I think the whole thing is a bait and switch. They need there to continue to be a long-term deficit crisis, so that they can drum up hysteria for cuts to domestic spending. It's the same strategy as starve the beast. Keep a deficit shortfall in place, and then use it as leverage to slash government. The end goal is a weak federal government that is impotent to regulate big business, and declining public sector employment to reduce competition for labor and so to suppress employee wages.
Oh, they want to completely dump all of FDRs programs. The trouble is, there are no party lines at AARP and it is truly a non partisan issue, when you talk to those that are collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits for which they qualified and paid into.
There was a R President Eisenhower that said this:
But since then think tanks funded by private business people for privatizing SS have come up with a strategy. Look around here, paying attention to the link attached to "Who Started This":
http://zfacts.com/p/477.html
Basically, they want to cash in on a government program (again) while so many of them call gov't. evil.
What would they do without gov't? THEY are on the dole from government. But they insulted the voters constantly for being dependent on government!
But yeah, they play whatever role they need to play. It is a useful talking point for them. There are those that salivate at the thought of all that money they could have by Privatizing.