U.S. Politics - the Default thread

[awesome possum]

Would everyone accusing Obama of scaremongering please show your facts, figures and sources?

Do GOP talking points count?

[gumby]

Moody's is so full of shit, during the financial collapse of 2008 they rated Fannie, Freddie, and Lehman Brothers top shelf about a week before they collapsed. They told congress that thier ratings were merely suggestions and they can't be held accountable to all the average people who lost everthing, because of the 1st ammendmemt. So they will openly threaten to downgrade the government but won't even consider downgrading a failing financial institution? Maybe the government should float them some cash like the financial institutions did and then they will say the government is the best ever up to the minute before the whole thing comes down.

[gumby]

Not to mention they did the exact something with CDS. The entire game is rigged, people.

[Xenophon]

The report isn't on the site now/anymore. Just getting "Page Not Found".

Regardless, the article basically makes it sound like it might be possible, if you jump through enough hoops, pray a little and pull some potentially not allowed shit to make it happen.

So, you know, maybe SS checks will go out.

Goddamn it. There's called permalinks, people. If you want to be treated as a serious newspaper, you should try them out, WP. Anyway, here's a link straight to the Bipartisan Policy Center's analysis.

The scenario they're talking about in that article really isn't that far-fetched. As they point out, it was found to be legally ok in the past, legislation was passed after the crisis in 96 to make it even more acceptable, and the unnamed Treasury official who questions the feasibility of the scheme is only talking about continuing to pull this trick day after day. Also note this is all taking about how to fund SS in cases where you can't get the money by cutting government spending elsewhere. That might be necessary on Aug 2nd itself, but there are plenty of government contracts and programs that could be cut to free up cash flow in the following days. So the very worst-case scenario would be some SS checks going out later that week. That could be very bad if someone were counting on that check to make ends meet, but not nearly as bad as not sending the check at all.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this wouldn't cause horrible problems. Refusing to pay contractors and cutting federal employees pay would be very bad too (especially when all those contractors, rightly, sue). But it means there are options other than cutting SS right away.

[Shryke]

So the very worst-case scenario would be some SS checks going out later that week. That could be very bad if someone were counting on that check to make ends meet, but not nearly as bad as not sending the check at all.

Which is, let's be fair, exactly what the guy said:

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

He can't guarentee they'll be able to send them out exactly as if nothing was happening. Which is true.

[Xenophon]

Which is, let's be fair, exactly what the guy said:

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

He can't guarentee they'll be able to send them out exactly as if nothing was happening. Which is true.

Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. Obama's been pretty cagey on this point, never directly saying what the consequences of not sending the checks out on the 3rd would be, but using rhetoric that suggests this would mean something very drastic. Had he ended that quote "Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it until August 5th" it wouldn't have had the same impact.

Although this is all fairly moot, since it seems like the experts mostly agree that the treasury will be able to send them out on Aug 3.

And to be clear, since people sometimes seem to think pointing out when a politician is effectively lying must be a criticism, I don't mind that he's being deceptive. He and the GOP brass are in a war over framing what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't lifted. Both sides are making some technically true, but highly deceptive claims (we won't have the money to pay SS; all the governments has to do is cut discretionary spending and we'll be fine) to try to steer public opinion. That's politics.

[Shryke]

Eh, most of the experts I'd trust have no idea wtf will happen if the shit hits the fan on this issue. Other then that it will be bad.

We're in "Here There Be Dragons" land. The only thing certain is there's giant things that eat people and exciting new venerial diseases. It's bad, but in what way is hard to say.

[Xenophon]

Eh, most of the experts I'd trust have no idea wtf will happen if the shit hits the fan on this issue. Other then that it will be bad.

As far as I can tell, most economists/legal analysts seem to think Geitner would be able to pay SS on time if he wanted to (at the most basic level, he can always send out the checks and wait for someone to challenge his method of raising the cash). It's everything else that's a giant question mark.

[Jaime L]

Kind of on that note Jonathan Chait was writing about a possible scenario in which the economy goes to utter shit yet Obama gets re-elected because people blame the GOP. He was talking about the state of the GOP today and how it's totally unfamiliar as far as modern American political parties go. He talked about how all the models say that a terrible economy will take down the incumbent President, but he ended it with "but the models have never seen this before."

Just when I think the GOP can't be anymore off the rails they top themselves.

Especially the line from Bachmann and Tea Partier Mike Lee about how Obama is holding the nation (and social security receiving seniors) hostage on the debt ceiling impasse. David Weigel had the best analogy for this: Y'know the scene in Dark Knight where the Joker has the hostages stand over his henchman so that from afar, to a sniper, it looks like they need to take out the hostages?

It's exactly that. They've turned the hostages into the hostage takers. Why so serious, Democrats?

[DanteGabriel]

Just when I think the GOP can't be anymore off the rails they top themselves.

Especially the line from Bachmann and Tea Partier Mike Lee about how Obama is holding the nation (and social security receiving seniors) hostage on the debt ceiling impasse. David Weigel had the best analogy for this: Y'know the scene in Dark Knight where the Joker has the hostages stand over his henchman so that from afar, to a sniper, it looks like they need to take out the hostages?

It's exactly that. They've turned the hostages into the hostage takers. Why so serious, Democrats?

Standard GOP playbook. Engage in all sorts of childish, stupid, shitheel behavior, then accuse the Democrats of doing it, and count on the press to dutifully report your claims without a fucking whit of evaluation.

[gumby]

Both sides are at fault, imo. I have no allegiance to either party, they're the same people just re-branded under a different name.

[Shryke]

Both sides are at fault, imo. I have no allegiance to either party, they're the same people just re-branded under a different name.

One side wants to raise the debt ceiling.

The other side is threatening not to.

These 2 things, they are not the same.

[gumby]

One side wants to raise the debt ceiling.

The other side is threatening not to.

These 2 things, they are not the same.

Yes, it's as simple as that. Let's forget about all the name calling and threats that both sides are making. Let's also forget that both sides can't work out an agreement on a budget, I mean who really cares about a budget anyways, let's just simply raise it and keep borrowing money, that's never going to come back to bite us.

[awesome possum]

Both sides are at fault, imo. I have no allegiance to either party, they're the same people just re-branded under a different name.

Normally I would agree with you. However, one party has been taken over by the fringe minority who previously had always been kept to the side. They would be ridiculed by most every time they spoke up, but patted on the head and called "good dogs" for steadfastly voting GOP. Now the dogs have gone rabid and rabies has spread throughout the party.

Both sides are shit, it's true. But trying to say today's Democratic party is in any way similar to today's GOP is an insult to turds everywhere.

[Shryke]

Yes, it's as simple as that. Let's forget about all the name calling and threats that both sides are making. Let's also forget that both sides can't work out an agreement on a budget, I mean who really cares about a budget anyways, let's just simply raise it and keep borrowing money, that's never going to come back to bite us.

They already passed the budget. They did that ages ago. This is about agreeing to the second, pointless step to actually do the budget they already passed. They had this fight already and agreed to a deal.

And you can bitch about "name calling and threats" all you want, but none of that changes the basics here. It is as simple as one side unequivocably wants to not destroy the world economy and the other isn't so sure and wants to/wants to pretend to.

"All sides are the same" is just boring, tired intellectual laziness.

[gumby]

It is going to get raised, I just hope that people realize that we can't keep running the country this way. We need monetary reform, if our dollar was worth more this wouldn't be an issue.

[Shryke]

It is going to get raised, I just hope that people realize that we can't keep running the country this way. We need monetary reform, if our dollar was worth more this wouldn't be an issue.

Wait, what? WTF are you talking about?

"Monetary reform"? What does that even mean?

And the value of the dollar has nothing to do with the debt ceiling.

Shit, the lower value of the US dollar is only helping the US economy.

[The Progressive]

We need monetary reform, if our dollar was worth more this wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

Just think for a minute on the impact of American exports if our dollar appreciate dramatically.

[gumby]

They already passed the budget. They did that ages ago. This is about agreeing to the second, pointless step to actually do the budget they already passed. They had this fight already and agreed to a deal.

And you can bitch about "name calling and threats" all you want, but none of that changes the basics here. It is as simple as one side unequivocably wants to not destroy the world economy and the other isn't so sure and wants to/wants to pretend to.

"All sides are the same" is just boring, tired intellectual laziness.

Oh wow, I'm bitching now? I'm not sure how you're reading my posts but stating a fact isn't bitching. All you need to do is look at the last 40 years and it's quite clear that both parties expand the government, borrow more than they can afford, start wars and slow eat away at our civil liberties.

Neither side gives two shits about the economy, if they did we wouldn't be here in the first place.

[Xenophon]

One side wants to raise the debt ceiling.

The other side is threatening not to.

These 2 things, they are not the same.

It's not so much that the GOP are threatening not to, IMO. It's that 1) many members of the GOP caucus are threatening not to unless they get their way completely on the issue of tax-increases, 2) these people have not made a compelling case as to why this is such a critical issue, and 3) these people don't seem to have any respect for party discipline at all.

If I were confident that the GOP are just threatening not to raise the debt ceiling as a negotiating strategy to lock in long-term spending cuts, etc., as part of a last-minute compromise, then I'd be fine with it. But I'm worried that the GOP brass won't be able to deliver their own side's votes, making brinkmanship up to the last minute considerably more dangerous.