US Politics - Super-Congress Edition

[awesome possum]

That has nothing to do with a debt ceiling.

...

I fail to see how Obama opposing the GOP approach is any less hostage taking than the GOP opposing his approach.

...

The problem is that the GOP isn't following that script. Now, they may very well cave. They usually do. But just maybe, they'll stand up on their hind legs for a bit longer.

I'm not sure I can take you seriously any longer.

Republicans will succeed in painting the American Dream as an evil belief before they are through, such dreams interfere with the corporate bottom line and profits, just like non-minimum wage jobs interfere with CEO pay and shareholder dividends.

Didn't ya know, the new American Dream is getting your 15 minutes of fame. Any way you can. You can compete on a nationally televised talent show. Go on Maury Povich to discover the results of a paternity test for the 11th man who might be your baby's father. Be confronted by your friends and family, who finally want you to know that owning 7,500 hermit crabs is 7,495 too many. Run a fishing boat, or drive a truck on an ice road, or open a pawnshop, or be a bounty hunter, or someone who scavenges repossessed storage sheds, or any of the countless other shows out there that showcase and attempt to glamorized these mundane jobs. That breaks the American Dream down even more. You don't really need to be on TV after all, if you can live life like those guys on Garbage Trek, where being a sanitation worker has never been more glamorous!

[Shryke]

Obama asked Americans to "contact their congressman" in his speech tonight:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162284/debt-address-obama-asks-americans-raise-roof

They have been crashing Congressional websites and such doing so.

Also, I mean, if you guys really wanna listen to rating agencies.....

According to the Standard & Poor’s source, John Boehner’s debt plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of U.S. debt by the ratings agencies, raising interest rates for all Americans. Harry Reid’s plan, however, would preserve America’s AAA credit rating.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/25/278929/ratings-agency-source-boehner-plan-would-lead-to-downgrade/

And finally, fuck you Boehner:

Overheard Boehner saying "I didn't sign up for going mano-a-mano with the President of the United States" leaving the Capitol.

http://twitter.com/#!/jacksonjk/status/95668417163563008

[Shryke]

That has nothing to do with a debt ceiling.

No, it doesn't. So why is the GOP so concerned with tying the 2 issues together?

Austerity during a recession is dead stupid. Look at the unemployment numbers.

Ha ha ha. At the end of 2010, the Dems had complete control of Congress, and could easily have passed a debt ceiling increase then. They are on record as having chosen not to do so precisely because they wanted to make it a political issue in 2011. This is a crisis they planned deliberately for political benefit. They figured that the newly elected GOP majority would be "forced" first to fund all that earlier spending (the whole shutdown issue in spring), then to lift the debt ceiling without any real cuts. The Dems figured they'd stick to their preferred budget, and the GOP would cave, thereby disappointing the voters that just elected them. Big political win for the Dems. Why do the responsible thing and pass a debt ceiling increase under your own terms when you had the power, when you could delay, create a crisis, and gain politically? That was their plan.

No FLOW. The plan was to make the GOP, who had been yelling and screaming about debt and all that malarkey, again raise the debt ceiling. Just like they have every time they've controlled a house of congress since like the 1950s.

They didn't create a crisis, because the debt ceiling increase isn't a crisis. It has never been. It wasn't the 7 times the GOP did it during the Bush years, when debts were soaring to insane heights.

It's only a crisis now because the GOP decided, instead of just raising it like everyone, including them, has always done, to make it a hostage situation and demand concessions in exchange for not suicide bombing the US economy.

The GOP approved the budget and were expected, as they always have before, to raise the debt ceiling accordingly. No one made them take hostages. No one even thought they would be that stupid.

I fail to see how Obama opposing the GOP approach is any less hostage taking than the GOP opposing his approach.

Of course you fail to see it FLOW. You are trying your darnedest not to.

But the reality is, the hostage negotiator is not equally responsible for the deaths of the hostages just beacuse he didn't meet the terrorists demands. The GOP decided to take the economy hostage, not the Democrats.

Again, Honest Abe said it best:

A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

It was bullshit almost 2 centuries ago, it's bullshit now.

They gave in on that spending (which should have been authorized in 2010 except the Democrats again lacked the guts to face the voters after voting for such spending) only to avoid a shutdown. This time, it's the Democrats turn to blink. Look, the Democrats didn't pass a budget, didn't pass a single appropriations bill, and didn't lift the debt ceiling, despite having the power to do all three in the latter half of 2010. They figured they'd blackmail the GOP ("but you can't let the government shutdown! You can't not lift the debt ceiling!") into supporting spending they really didn't want to support, and moot it all as a campaign issue on the grounds that "hey, you voted for it too.".

The problem is that the GOP isn't following that script. Now, they may very well cave. They usually do. But just maybe, they'll stand up on their hind legs for a bit longer.

They agreed to the spending. No matter how much you twist and wiggle in your pathetic hackish attempts to excuse this FLOW, they signed on for the budget. If they didn't like the budget, why did they sign it?

And now, they are trying to play backsees by taking the whole world hostage.

[Shryke]

So who is actually worried that the US govt will go into default? Do you see both parties having the stones to stick to their positions, or at least not compromise sufficiently to close the gap, to the extent that they cause the US govt to default?

The main problem is the House GOP is now full of fucking idiots (most newly elected) who Boehner can't keep in line. The GOP has created a monster with their rhetoric. One they can't control, even when it matters.

[CloudFlare]

And Wu's out. OK GOP, the Dems have had two at bats in the sex scandal batting cage. Time for you to step up to the plate.

[Serious Callers Only]

What's a "unwanted sexual encounter"?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The GOP approved the budget and were expected, as they always have before, to raise the debt ceiling accordingly.

No, they weren't expected to do that at all. The GOP leadership specifically said at the time they passed those appropriations bills in the spring, which they opposed while the left screamed, that they would not lift the debt ceiling without cuts.

The effort to rig the rhetorical game is transparant. When the GOP didn't want to agree with all the Democratic spending proposals this spring, they were accused of hostage taking for opposing that spending. When they finally agreed to let them become law on the condition that future cuts be made before lifting the debt ceiling, that's hostage taking. In your world, the only way for the GOP not to be accused of hostage taking is for them to agree to all the spending Democrats wanted. And then, next year, they won't be able to accuse the Democrats of excessive spending because the Dems will just say "but you voted for it." So, the way out of that trap is to not vote for it.

But the reality is, the hostage negotiator is not equally responsible for the deaths of the hostages just beacuse he didn't meet the terrorists demands. The GOP decided to take the economy hostage, not the Democrats.

You've got it backwards. The hostage situation was deliberately created by the Democrats when they chose not to pass a 2011 budget, not to pass appropriations bills, and not to lift the debt ceiling in the latter half of 2010, when those things should have been passed. Had they done so, there would be no "hostage situation" at all. They were trying to rig the game so that the GOP would be forced to agree to all those measures in 2011 or (allegedly) destroy the economy. It was an acknowledged effort to blackmail the incoming GOP House majority GOP into voting for spending measures with which they disagreed. So they tried to take the GOP hostage by deliberately creating a situation where they'd be force to vote for spending they campaigned on opposing, and now, the GOP is not giving in to the blackmail.

Whether you, in the Great White North, see that as the case is immaterial. The only thing that really matters at this point is that the GOP has figured that out, and is now voting accordingly.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So who is actually worried that the US govt will go into default? Do you see both parties having the stones to stick to their positions, or at least not compromise sufficiently to close the gap, to the extent that they cause the US govt to default?

Heh. That's really the question, isn't it? And no, I don't see a default happening, and I don't think the markets believe it will either. There might be some emergency spending cuts, but I think the people holding U.S. debt will get paid.

At a bare minimum, a shorter-term extension will be passed, and another one after that if necessary. That will continue right on through the election if need be. And everyone who isn't trying to place blame for political reasons knows that, which is why the uncertainty about the form (in terms of amount and timing) such an extension will take ultimately matters little. And while the markets really aren't panicking.

Heck, even the people who are trying to place blame know that. They just don't want to admit it because they want the debt ceiling raised through the election with no attached spending cuts. And the best way to accomplish that is to claim that those insisting on such cuts are going to destroy the economy.

[Ahmrogar]

Oil consumption hasn't tracked with GDP growth in the US since the 70's. If it did oil consumption would be much higher than it is today. We've got the technology to start reducing oil consumption, which is already starting to happen.

Jevons Paradox disagrees with you.

Of course the tech exists, but people don't use it in the right way.

[Jon Sprunk]

At the end of 2010, the Dems had complete control of Congress, and could easily have passed a debt ceiling increase then. They are on record as having chosen not to do so precisely because they wanted to make it a political issue in 2011. This is a crisis they planned deliberately for political benefit.

Easily? Really?

This is a terrible attempt at re-writing history. During the time the dems held majorities in both houses, the repubs in the senate were filibustering just about everything. If the dems held off voting for a debt ceiling increase, it was because they were determined that the repubs would be forced to take some ownership of it. (Remember all the talk of shared governing?) They were playing political self-defense, not the slash-and-burn politics that the GOP favors.

If you're going to point to 2010 being the start of this stand-off, then you have to place the blame firmly on the senate republicans for forcing a super-majority on just about every issue.

[Shryke]

No, they weren't expected to do that at all. The GOP leadership specifically said at the time they passed those appropriations bills in the spring, which they opposed while the left screamed, that they would not lift the debt ceiling without cuts.

The effort to rig the rhetorical game is transparant. When the GOP didn't want to agree with all the Democratic spending proposals this spring, they were accused of hostage taking for opposing that spending. When they finally agreed to let them become law on the condition that future cuts be made before lifting the debt ceiling, that's hostage taking. In your world, the only way for the GOP not to be accused of hostage taking is for them to agree to all the spending Democrats wanted. And then, next year, they won't be able to accuse the Democrats of excessive spending because the Dems will just say "but you voted for it." So, the way out of that trap is to not vote for it.

You've got it backwards. The hostage situation was deliberately created by the Democrats when they chose not to pass a 2011 budget, not to pass appropriations bills, and not to lift the debt ceiling in the latter half of 2010, when those things should have been passed. Had they done so, there would be no "hostage situation" at all. They were trying to rig the game so that the GOP would be forced to agree to all those measures in 2011 or (allegedly) destroy the economy. It was an acknowledged effort to blackmail the incoming GOP House majority GOP into voting for spending measures with which they disagreed. So they tried to take the GOP hostage by deliberately creating a situation where they'd be force to vote for spending they campaigned on opposing, and now, the GOP is not giving in to the blackmail.

You are projecting so badly FLOW, I'm beginning to think you are Speaker Ooompa-Loompa himself.

"No, the Democrats made us take the US hostage. Twice! It's totally their fault we haven't passed the debt ceiling like every other time we did it. They are rigging the game by expecting us to abide by the budget we voted for. They made us vote for that budget by forcing us to not shut down the government. They were supposed to do whatever we wanted, even though we only control 1 of the 2 Houses of Congress. It's all their fault really!!!!!"

I mean, you are just getting pathetic now FLOW. Everything that the GOP is done is, according to you, really the Democrats fault. Really, I have to say again, it's amazing to what lengths you will carry water for the GOP.

Whether you, in the Great White North, see that as the case is immaterial. The only thing that really matters at this point is that the GOP has figured that out, and is now voting accordingly.

Wait, so all that matters is that the GOP "figured out" that ... what? They are expected to raise the debt ceiling to pay for the budget they alerady voted for. And their master plan is that after figuring this out, they will "vote accordingly" and .... cause the US to default?

WTF?

Also, I think it's rather material what the American populace thinks about this, and all the polling shows they blame the GOP by at least 10 points more then anyone else. And that gap has been growing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is a terrible attempt at re-writing history. During the time the dems held majorities in both houses, the repubs in the senate were filibustering just about everything.

Crap. They didn't even attempt to pass a budget. They were worried about how the ACA was going to play out in the election, and they didn't want voters to bitch at them for approving spending bills that would result in another huge deficit. It was simple political cowardice based on not wanting to be held accountable at the polls for their votes. So they punted it.

If the dems held off voting for a debt ceiling increase, it was because they were determined that the repubs would be forced to take some ownership of it. (Remember all the talk of shared governing?) They were playing political self-defense, not the slash-and-burn politics that the GOP favors.

Ok, so you agree that the Dems' motive for not voting for a debt ceiling increase was political. I guess that's a start. But as for it being "self-defense", you don't need "self-defense" when the next election is two years away. It was an offensive maneuver designed to make the incoming House GOP majority immediately go back on the promises on which they had campaigned. That was the blackmail. "We'll force the GOP to vote for this stuff because they wouldn't dare let the government shut down or refuse to raise the debt ceiling." Of course, it was completely predictable that the GOP might not go along with this blackmail. Hence, the current situation.

If you're going to point to 2010 being the start of this stand-off, then you have to place the blame firmly on the senate republicans for forcing a super-majority on just about every issue.

Kind of tough for them to filibuster things that were never even brought to the floor, like the budget. Or debt ceiling increase.

[Selmy]

You mean not increasing tax rates, right? Anyway, what difference does it make as long as it is $800B in additional revenue.

Because I think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest should be removed and returned to the Clinton era rates?

The wealth gap in America has been growing at a ridiculous rate and I don't think it's wrong to ask those that have made tons of money over the last decade to pay a little more.

[Selmy]

IMO, reforming income tax law isn't going to solve the problem you want to solve.

We have corporations in this country that are working hand in hand with government. Taxing some of the folks at the top isn't going to get very far when those companies grow by leaps and bounds every time the economy tanks.

I wasn't suggesting that it would fix the wealth gap. Merely expressing that I don't think it's unreasonable to ask those that make the most to pay a little more, especially when their rates are at historic lows.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I mean, you are just getting pathetic now FLOW. Everything that the GOP is done is, according to you, really the Democrats fault. Really, I have to say again, it's amazing to what lengths you will carry water for the GOP.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with the GOP for the substance of its plans to address the debt/deficit. It's perfectly legitimate to debate the wisdom of spending cuts v. tax cuts, entitlement reform, etc.

But what you're doing is arguing against the GOP being able to make a stand at all, which is neither reasonable nor legitimate. When the GOP took a stand against more spending during the budget crisis, that was irresponsible hostage taking because it risked shutdown. I read the debates here and know that's exactly how it was being spun by the left.

And when the GOP takes a stand against spending now, that's also irresponsible hostage taking because it risks default. That is an approach that requires surrender without even the right to fight the battle, because those are the only two tripwires that exist. "Agree to our spending priorities, or you're taking hostages".

Just out of curiousity, if the House GOP passes spending bills for the 2012 fiscal year, and the President refuses to approve them, who would be to blame for a shutdown?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Because I think the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest should be removed and returned to the Clinton era rates?

The wealth gap in America has been growing at a ridiculous rate and I don't think it's wrong to ask those that have made tons of money over the last decade to pay a little more.

You do realize that nearly half the population pays no federal income tax at all? And that this $800B in revenues would come from closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Right?

[Selmy]

You do realize that nearly half the population pays no federal income tax at all? And that this $800B in revenues would come from closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Right?

Yes I do.

[lokisnow]

You do realize that nearly half the population pays no federal income tax at all? And that this $800B in revenues would come from closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Right?

How many times must we shoot down this completely bullshit propaganda?

Most of the republican party believes that 50% of the population are out there paying no income tax, but even republicans making $18,000 a year pay withholding and would never in their wildest dreams consider themselves to be one of the 50% who pays no tax.

[DanteGabriel]

How many times must we shoot down this completely bullshit propaganda?

Most of the republican party believes that 50% of the population are out there paying no income tax, but even republicans making $18,000 a year pay withholding and would never in their wildest dreams consider themselves to be one of the 50% who pays no tax.

You'll never convince hard core Republican water-carriers like FLOW that rich white Americans are not the most uniquely oppressed people in history. They will forever wail and gnash their teeth on how much those fucking poor are fleecing the rich.

[awesome possum]

I don't know how FLoW keeps it up, honestly. I get exhausted watching him try to spin everything the Right way. It makes me a little more firm in my belief that he is at least partially trolling us.