My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

How? I don't see the "playing politics" you see.

Playing politics would be extending the debt ceiling to coincide with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Which would be a good idea.

We should have conditioned the last extension of the cuts on raising the debt limit. I said so at the time, but the consensus seemed to be that the Republicans didn't hate America enough to play chicken with default.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which is why they are jumping on Reid's reported offer of $2.7 trillion in spending cuts and no new revenue?

I suspect Yglesias is right.

Increasingly seems to me that (1) many Republicans want to force Democrats to agree to serious entitlement cuts, to take away the campaign issue they handed Democrats when they voted for the Ryan budget, and

(2) many House Republicans don't have firm policy goals but want a "victory," which is to say they want Obama to lose, so his willingness to do a big deal, no matter how favorable to the GOP on policy grounds, makes a big deal less likely.

It's not clear what Boehner can say yes to.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Playing politics would be extending the debt ceiling to coincide with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Which would be a good idea.

I don't think that's playing politics either, and it makes imminent sense to consider the two things together.

You know, like when we used to do budgets.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not clear what Boehner can say yes to.

A balanced budget amendment, repeal of HCR, and reduction of tax rates to Somali levels.

Maybe.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

It's a metaphor.

Playing with the nation's credit rating as leverage will work until it doesn't. If it works this time, the temptation will be too strong to keep going back to it as the primary means of policy change.

That's bad.

Given the difficulties in raising the debt ceiling this time around, it seems plausible that it would be even more difficult to do in an election year.

Or alternatively, you put the issue squarely in front of the voters. Assuming the climate doesn't change in the next 12 months, Obama does not want to have to defend another debt ceiling increase while he is trying to get elected.*

*the same Obama that voted against the debt ceiling increase as a senator.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Those of you (not you Sidd) who think that this crisis is all the Rs fault are guilty of the same idiocy as the Fox news watchers you mock. Tell me please, for example, why it is reasonable for the Ds to demand that the debt ceiling be raised to an amount sufficient to get us past the 2012 elections? Is that not playing politics with the issue?

This is only a "crisis" because the Republicans are not content to do what Congress has always done before -- use the lifting of the debt ceiling as an excuse to score a few political points. Instead, they're trying to extract substantive concessions. It is a completely fake crisis, in that it goes away if Congress simply agrees to permit borrowing to pay for the spending it has already authorized. In that sense, the crisis is all the GOP's fault. The Tea Partiers were determined to change things, and they have. This is on them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We should have conditioned the last extension of the cuts on raising the debt limit. I said so at the time, but the consensus seemed to be that the Republicans didn't hate America enough to play chicken with default.

Obama totally fucked this up. Unless he wanted a big deal to cut entitlements, in which case he seems to have fucked it up in a different way.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

In other words, the further left elements, who have long told Obama "don't try to compromise with the Rs, they won't do it," have been proven right.

We're always right about that, but it makes no difference.

The problem is that the last two Democratic presidents clearly believe(d) that they had to play the grownup among squabbling children, and they always look to split the difference, thereby encouraging more and more radical starting positions (on both sides, but on the left it doesn't matter because there's no real left in American politics and Dems will go along with a Dem President looking to split the baby 99% of the time anyway).

The model doesn't work in reverse, because two of the last three Republican presidents (and most or all of the most motivated R incumbents in Congress since the extinction of the now-lost-in-the-mists-of-time "Rockefeller Republicans") saw themselves as crusaders with a holy writ to right wrongs and fuck up evildoers, and you don't compromise with the devil.

There is more than a whiff of armageddon-o-philia among the Rs, and it gets stronger every year. I think enough of them have now been reading enough Ayn Rand and cheesy paperback thrillers that there's real support in their ranks for letting the US hit the wall. After all, if the USA is godless, gay, full of immigrants and basically a stalking horse for a socialist world government complete with black helicopters, why wouldn't you want to hit the reset button by smashing everything up?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Or alternatively, you put the issue squarely in front of the voters. Assuming the climate doesn't change in the next 12 months, Obama does not want to have to defend another debt ceiling increase while he is trying to get elected.*

*the same Obama that voted against the debt ceiling increase as a senator.

I don't think you have your finger on what the voters think.

Meanwhile on explanation for what Boehner's caucus thinks is that voters are going to think something different in six months. Unless they plan to change their position before that, I'm not sure why they think the voters will all of a sudden see Obama offering repeated compromises for them to reject helps them.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Notwithstanding your parenthetical, I do think that the extent of the current crisis, and the seeming inability to resolve it (and any actual failure to resolve it) should be blamed entirely on the Rs. Obama offered something a serious compromise, one that moved him far from the traditional Dem base, and that included the serious entitlement cuts we need. The Rs walked away from the table, either because the dread (but, to any rational person, necessary) "tax increases" were included, or because they expressly want a repeat of this fiasco before the 2012 elections (a very stupid move, for the country and ulimately for them because the reactions are so difficult to gauge). So, rather than let Obama bring the Ds around to a more moderate position, the Rs have decided to retreat to their bunker -- and instead let Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi take over for the Ds.

I have already said that I think the Rs are being unreasonable for taking tax increases off the table. But from what is being reported, it appears that Obama is not being an honest negotiator in the process, which is why Boehner and Reid have cut him out. Both are in a tough position trying to keep their blocks together, but they are both pros and I think you will see them hammer out a compromise.

ETA: I still think you are too sanguine in saying "it will be raised." I won't bet against that.... but if you give me decent odds I might. If we can't borrow any more money, spending will surely be cut -- no? This is "starve the beast" on steroids, and the radical Rs have demonstrated an ideological zeal sufficient to take it.

What odds to you want?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is only a "crisis" because the Republicans are not content to do what Congress has always done before -- use the lifting of the debt ceiling as an excuse to score a few political points. Instead, they're trying to extract substantive concessions. It is a completely fake crisis, in that it goes away if Congress simply agrees to permit borrowing to pay for the spending it has already authorized. In that sense, the crisis is all the GOP's fault. The Tea Partiers were determined to change things, and they have. This is on them.

I actually agree with this. The budget is when they should seek reductions, not using covering bills due. Of course, I'm aggressively ignorant on the topic.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ironweed

There is more than a whiff of armageddon-o-philia among the Rs, and it gets stronger every year. I think enough of them have now been reading enough Ayn Rand and cheesy paperback thrillers that there's real support in their ranks for letting the US hit the wall. After all, if the USA is godless, gay, full of immigrants and basically a stalking horse for a socialist world government complete with black helicopters, why wouldn't you want to hit the reset button by smashing everything up?

The answer in the past has been that the rich people who actually have influence on the right have always preferred being rich. It seems they don't have the same influence anymore.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

But from what is being reported, it appears that Obama is not being an honest negotiator in the process, which is why Boehner and Reid have cut him out.

Honest question: what are you talking about?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If we don't default, but the stage is set for this fiasco to repeat in 6 months, or 9 months -- before the 2012 election -- are you confident our bond ratings won't decrease?

What if Bachmann wins the primary?

No, I don't think they will cut the rating pre-default.

My understanding is that the smaller ceiling hike would be used to avert the current crisis and give the parties time to negotiate a broader agreement. One of the frameworks on the table is a 2 step process. Increase of the ceiling now coupled with an equal amount of spending cuts and a broad agreement on the size and areas for cutting more, with details to be hammered out by congressional committees. That seems like a logical approach to me, but it is getting held up because the Ds don't want this issue in front of the voters in 2012.

ETA:

A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

My understanding is that the smaller ceiling hike would be used to avert the current crisis and give the parties time to negotiate a broader agreement. One of the frameworks on the table is a 2 step process. Increase of the ceiling now coupled with an equal amount of spending cuts and a broad agreement on the size and areas for cutting more, with details to be hammered out by congressional committees. That seems like a logical approach to me, but it is getting held up because the Ds don't want this issue in front of the voters in 2012.

Or the Rs refusing everything else because they don't want to hand Obama something he can tout as a victory and instead hope they can reverse public perception if they get a do over.