U.S. Politics - the Default thread

[The Progressive]

So what you're saying is he's learning how to politik like his friends across the aisle?

Lol, once again the Repubs got their panties all wet because people punched back. :laugh:

[Shryke]

Now they are saying that they will raise the debt ceiling, but they are just gonna try and make it look like Obama is the one that did it:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/the-big-blink-mcconnell-proposes-giving-obama-authority-to-raise-debt-limit-alone.php?ref=fpa

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed a sort of escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have threatened not to raise the national debt limit -- and trigger a default -- if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.

The plan is designed to give President Obama the power to raise the debt limit through the end of his first term on his own, but to force Democrats to take a series of votes on the debt limit vote in the months leading up to the election.

The development confirms suspicions that the GOP was unwilling to truly use the looming debt ceiling as leverage to force conservative-friendly changes to popular entitlement programs, but suggests strongly that Republicans plan to continue politicking on the issue of debt and deficits through the 2012 elections.

[Shryke]

Well, yes. It's like we're on a ship that's taking on water so we need to throw some weight overboard to stay afloat, and Obama is proposing beginning with the passengers rather than the tables and chairs.

That's an effective threat to emphasize why we need to patch the hole (i.e. raise the debt ceiling + work out some deficit deal), but it would be political suicide to actually carry it out.

No, it's like saying the whole ship is sinking, but the front is sinking faster then the back.

And then the people in the front start accusing the captain of threatening to drown them for saying so.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Now they are saying that they will raise the debt ceiling, but they are just gonna try and make it look like Obama is the one that did it:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/the-big-blink-mcconnell-proposes-giving-obama-authority-to-raise-debt-limit-alone.php?ref=fpa

Well, wait a minute. I thought those Republicans were all completely insane and were going to send the economy over a cliff? Are you now saying that was just a negotiating strategy? I mean, the very idea of starting out with one position in negotiations and then backing off is....

Perfectly normal.

[awesome possum]

Well, wait a minute. I thought those Republicans were all completely insane and were going to send the economy over a cliff? Are you now saying that was just a negotiating strategy? I mean, the very idea of starting out with one position in negotiations and then backing off is....

Perfectly normal.

That's true. Starting out at the position of, "do what we want or we'll kill the world economy" is not exactly normal no matter how you try to make it fly.

[Shryke]

Well, wait a minute. I thought those Republicans were all completely insane and were going to send the economy over a cliff? Are you now saying that was just a negotiating strategy? I mean, the very idea of starting out with one position in negotiations and then backing off is....

Perfectly normal.

Yes FLOW, we all know that right from the start you thought it was perfectly valid to hold the world economy hostage. You don't need to remind us that there is no action the GOP can take that you won't endorse.

Of course, the fact that several rather sweet deals fell through because the GOP couldn't get the crazier elements of the party that they've been courting for the past few years in line to keep them from shooting the hostage kind pokes a massive hole in your whole "they've totally never do it" theory.

And, naturally, in the real world threatening to destroy the world economy is considered insane. Strangely, to most people threatening to destroy everyone including yourself is not generally regarded as rational or normal or a valid negotiating tactic.

[Xenophon]

No, it's like saying the whole ship is sinking, but the front is sinking faster then the back.

And then the people in the front start accusing the captain of threatening to drown them for saying so.

You keep ignoring the fact that Obama would be choosing to cut social security ahead of other programs. The US will have enough revenue in August to cover payments for social security, essential defense, and medicare, as well as keeping up interest payments on the debt (i.e. avoiding default).

[Ken Stone]

Lol, once again the Repubs got their panties all wet because people punched back. :laugh:

This sort of sounds like you are implying the Repubs like it when people punch back. When a chicks panties get wet it's because she is liking something, right?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The plan is designed to give President Obama the power to raise the debt limit through the end of his first term on his own, but to force Democrats to take a series of votes on the debt limit vote in the months leading up to the election.

Blatantly unconstitutional. Sickening that Congress would piss away their last remaining authority (the power of the purse) for a cheap shot at the 2012 election.

[Shryke]

You keep ignoring the fact that Obama would be choosing to cut social security ahead of other programs. The US will have enough revenue in August to cover payments for social security, essential defense, and medicare, as well as keeping up interest payments on the debt (i.e. avoiding default).

No, you are just ignoring that the whole kit and kaboodle is fucked and Obama is just reminding people what's going on.

He's not choosing to cut SS, he's saying it might be delayed or be cut first.

As I said, the whole ship is sinking and you are accusing the captain of threats beacuse he's saying this half will sink faster then that half.

[Shryke]

Blatantly unconstitutional. Sickening that Congress would piss away their last remaining authority (the power of the purse) for a cheap shot at the 2012 election.

Is it really surprising though?

And it's just convoluted and stupid anyway as Congress has already given Obama the authority to do it. (Well, technically the Treasury and not Obama) They have just then given him another set of contradictory instructions and told him to do both.

[awesome possum]

You keep ignoring the fact that Obama would be choosing to cut social security ahead of other programs. The US will have enough revenue in August to cover payments for social security, essential defense, and medicare, as well as keeping up interest payments on the debt (i.e. avoiding default).

Would the President really be making the choice of what to keep and what to sacrifice? Isn't that Congress's job?

Blatantly unconstitutional. Sickening that Congress would piss away their last remaining authority (the power of the purse) for a cheap shot at the 2012 election.

Cheap shots are the only shots they really have. And as has been proven time and time again, winning elections - no matter how it's done - is far more important than actually doing the jobs they're elected for.

[Shryke]

If the debt limit isn't reached, the world will not come to a screaming, bloody end. Timmy G sent a letter to Congress back in January (or so) saying that if we didn't raise it by May, we'd risk financial catastrophe. Now it's August. I'm sure he's got plenty of government retirement programs to raid before we really hit a debt ceiling.

That's what they've been doing till now actually I believe. The August deadline is when they stop being able to do so.

It's also probably when the US's ability to borrow goes into the shitter, along with your economy.

Of course not. But they're kept around because they are useful for making various economic gestures.

What economic gestures? You mean like the last one (which I believe you were the one posting and howling about) that did nothing?

When it comes to government debt and such, rating agencies are just ignored. If they are making any gestures, it's farting into the wind on the other side of the planet from everyone else.

[Xenophon]

Blatantly unconstitutional. Sickening that Congress would piss away their last remaining authority (the power of the purse) for a cheap shot at the 2012 election.

I don't think so, since the bill seems to specify in advance the size of the tranches he's allowed to get. Constitutionally, I think Congress is still the one raising the debt ceiling, just with a lot of ridiculous smoke and mirrors to try to shift the blame ont the executive.

[Shryke]

Errr, I seem to remember billions of dollars flowing into commodities as a result of that announcement. Say what you will, but they still have power.

I don't remember any of this, you wanna cite?

Because S&P have done the whole dire prediction thing like twice this year and both times nothing has happened.

[Xenophon]

No, you are just ignoring that the whole kit and kaboodle is fucked and Obama is just reminding people what's going on.

He's not choosing to cut SS, he's saying it might be delayed or be cut first.

As I said, the whole ship is sinking and you are accusing the captain of threats beacuse he's saying this half will sink faster then that half.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to be reading very carefully. So, I'm going to just repeat myself: the threat is to cut social security ahead of other programs (i.e. throwing the passengers off the boat before the tables and chairs). You keep acting like this would not a choice on Obama's part, but that is simply untrue.

The US will have enough incoming revenue in August that he could pay for social security, essential defense, and medicare, all while avoiding default, by making cuts elsewhere. Obama's threatening to not do that, in order to emphasize what will eventually happen if a proper solution isn't eventually reached, but it would clearly be a choice on his part if he told the treasury to not pay social security in August.

Also, I'm not "accusing" him of anything. I'm describing his political strategy. Threats are not always bad things.

[Shryke]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to be reading very carefully. So, I'm going to just repeat myself: the threat is to cut social security ahead of other programs (i.e. throwing the passengers off the boat before the tables and chairs). You keep acting like this would not a choice on Obama's part, but that is simply untrue.

The US will have enough incoming revenue in August that he could pay for social security, essential defense, and medicare, all while avoiding default, by making cuts elsewhere. Obama's threatening to not do that, in order to emphasize what will eventually happen if a proper solution isn't eventually reached, but it would clearly be a choice on his part if he told the treasury to not pay social security in August.

Also, I'm not "accusing" him of anything. I'm describing his political strategy. Threats are not always bad things.

And I'm saying it's ridiculous to call that a threat when it's just a description of the inevitable.

It's not a threat when you tell people what order they are going to die in.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes FLOW, we all know that right from the start you thought it was perfectly valid to hold the world economy hostage.

I don't get your point, Shryke. That's how negotiations go over any big issue. Each side digs in and goes for the best deal it can.

You don't need to remind us that there is no action the GOP can take that you won't endorse.

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of their strategy here, and I think they've made their case poorly. The argument they should be making is that prior promises of spending cuts to balance tax increases have been broken. The tax code gets changed, and taxes go up, but the spending cuts in future years never seem to happen as promised. The result isn't higher taxes, less spending, and a balanced budget, but higher taxes, higher spending, and a bigger deficit.

If the Democrats want to consider tax increases, it could only be as part of a massive overhaul that creates structural change in spending. Push for a constitutional limit on the debt ceiling that increases only slowly, for example. I think that would have been a winning issue for the GOP but they never got it off the ground. And I think opposing some of the puny little tax hikes offered by the Dems only for political purposes was dumb. They should have been accepted, but with significant real spending cuts included on some pet Democratic hot-button issues.

Of course, they didn't do that.

Of course, the fact that several rather sweet deals fell through because the GOP couldn't get the crazier elements of the party that they've been courting for the past few years in line to keep them from shooting the hostage kind pokes a massive hole in your whole "they've totally never do it" theory.

There were no sweet deals. Unless the savings involve elimination of programs, or adjustments to entitlement formulas, cuts in projected future budgets are meaningless because they require future Congresses to pass appropriate legislation, and those folks aren't going to feel bound by non-enforceable promises made by a prior Congress.

[Xenophon]

And I'm saying it's ridiculous to call that a threat when it's just a description of the inevitable.

It's not a threat when you tell people what order they are going to die in.

When you're the one picking the order, it is.

Some people rely on their social security checks. Withholding their checks for even a single month could have catastrophic consequences for them. By threatening to cut social security ahead of other programs, Obama made a very real threat to millions of Americans.

The GOP had argued that it would not be that big a deal if they didn't reach an agreement by August, since the government could temporarily balance its books without cutting any essential services. Obama threatened that if they didn't get a deal, he would in fact cut one of those essential services right away. It likely would have been political suicide for him had he actually done so, but it also re-framed the terms of the debate in a way that clearly terrified the GOP.

[The Progressive]

When you're the one picking the order, it is.

Some people rely on their social security checks. Withholding their checks for even a single month could have catastrophic consequences for them. By threatening to cut social security ahead of other programs, Obama made a very real threat to millions of Americans.

The GOP had argued that it would not be that big a deal if they didn't reach an agreement by August, since the government could temporarily balance its books without cutting any essential services. Obama threatened that if they didn't get a deal, he would in fact cut one of those essential services right away. It likely would have been political suicide for him had he actually done so, but it also re-framed the terms of the debate in a way that clearly terrified the GOP.

What make you think Obama has the authority to prioritize SS payment ahead of other federal government obligations?