Debt Ceiling Fail

My post in the US government shut down... thread is more detailed, but I really REALLY hate how even liberal commentators are blaming Obama. The democrats position here was untenable and there is no way big O and the democrats would survive the misguided backlash of the public if we held ground on tax increases and refused to pass a bill increasing the debt limit because of it.

Why?

Because this situation is a matter for intelligent, informed people. And that group makes up a very small portion of voters, regardless of affiliation.

If all of these political affiliations were reversed (Repub pres who pushed and agenda cutting 75% of domestic program funding, house dems who refused to pass a bill with any cuts at ALL etc), it'd be the same story for whatever dickweed repub was in the whitehouse.

People who see the democrats and Obama as the lesser or more workable evil of two groups who both can't do what actually ought to be done.. really shouldn't divide themselves and attack Obama on this issue. It isn't as if our country has any viable alternative for a leader or party to vote for in 2012.

Everyone's focus should be on how what ridiculous, corporate whores the republican leadership is and how awful their behavior has been throughout this ordeal.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon...omise-without-revenues?xrs=share_copy

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon...don----angry-tea-party?xrs=share_copy

those daily show links are ridiculously good

now if the bush tax cuts come up while Obama is in office and he signs them, ok lets start find someone new

Things are going to stay like this until people get mad enough and smart enough to make a real change. Don't hold your breath.

LOL who is that retarded partisian hack in that video whoamI

what a trash video

I like how he says "Thus" to make himself sound smart, then proceeds to state several objectively false or totally misleading things.

why do right wing pundits constantly and almost directly insult the viewer's intelligence? does that get the wanna-be alphas fired up and the weak female voters to feel submissive to their message? dunno but its awful to watch.

That retard is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge of 8 years, Andrew Napolitano

I think his credentials are a little bit more substantial in law than say, either of the other adored media mouthpieces found in this thread. Wouldn't you agree?

that'd indeed have relevance to his statements in that video, if authority and credentials were the basis of what is and is not fact.

On August 02 2011 18:44 Surprise wrote: Things are going to stay like this until people get mad enough and smart enough to make a real change. Don't hold your breath.

Every US citizen owes ~$46,703. That includes children, babies and the elderly. Every taxpayer owes over $130k.

I strongly doubt there will ever be a time when every single citizen will be patriotic enough to sacrifice that much money without receiving anything in return from the US government.

Also, to cut all these programs, people spending income will be smashed to shit, which will in turn smash the shit out of vast amounts of sectors reliant on consumer spending.

Essentially, in a nutshell, the american government is doomed as long as it's debt level continues to increase above the rate of world-wide inflation.

So yeah. as for waiting for people to "get mad enough and smart enough to make a real change" it's a lot fucking harder than it sounds. As much as people like to hate on their elected leaders, they are extremely smart people leading the vanguard.

that Napolitano video is one of the dumbest things I have ever listened to in my life.

His credentials would matter in a discussion about New Jersey state law since that's what he was a judge of. His credentials don't mean jack shit when it comes to gov't economics. Also as night said he could have all the credentials he wants, it doesn't change that many of the things he says in that video are either misleading or objectively false.

If his credentials don't matter (as you would bash the guy regardless what the credentials were) then why even bother asking me who "the retard" was?

Am I left only to assume that defamation is your best retort to the Judge? If one can not counter what is being presented then set up a discussion to bash or nullify the presenter, is that it?
How so surprising considering John Stewart and Colbert use this exact MO on a constant basis and are even looked up to by many as being informative or educational.

On August 02 2011 16:59 Night2o1 wrote: The democrats position here was untenable and there is no way big O and the democrats would survive the misguided backlash of the public if we held ground on tax increases and refused to pass a bill increasing the debt limit because of it.

Pretty much, can't understand the huge hate on Obama on this one. In the current scenario you just don't have an optimal solution, but default would've been pretty huge deal if it was the alternative.

Anyway, comments I've read from some of the republicans have been so ignorant I don't even know anymore if they are mentally retarded or is it just politics.

The reason liberals are upset at Obama is that it was somewhat obvious that if the republicans stalled long enough and the time pressure got serious he would surrender. He has a known history of folding under pressure like this and he has a very weak image. He often "compromises" getting very little for conceding a lot, or even giving freebies to republicans and getting no support in return. He doesn't even fight when he has the ability to win in spite of any republican resistance. From the start of this "crisis" it was pretty clear to all the republicans intended to have such a crazy image that they were presumably going to risk default unless they got their way. In game theory, this is well known as an advantage in certain games of chicken where two players must either agree and get slight reward, one must surrender for some punishment and the "victor" gets a great reward, or either disagree and both receive great punishment. In this particular instance Obama probably had to back down, unless he could look Republican leadership dead in the eye and say that he was going to default unless they made a real compromise and have them believe him. If it was apparent to all in Washington that they were going to default unless they reached a real compromise, a real compromise would have happened by way of the democrats and the establishment republicans voting on something at the absolute last hour. Liberals want a candidate that will get out there and get stuff done, even if it means having to get in bloody and messy fights with the republicans and forsaking their values of compromise. See below video for a great example of liberal opinion about Obama.

On August 03 2011 03:05 WhoAmI wrote: If his credentials don't matter (as you would bash the guy regardless what the credentials were) then why even bother asking me who "the retard" was? Am I left only to assume that defamation is your best retort to the Judge? If one can not counter what is being presented then set up a discussion to bash or nullify the presenter, is that it? How so surprising considering John Stewart and Colbert use this exact MO on a constant basis and are even looked up to by many as being informative or educational.

Only reason i defamation is b/c i give up on actually trying to prove things to someone who actually thinks that guy is intelligent. But for whatever reason here's something. He says raising the debt ceiling is bad and "ignoring economics 101". Every 99.999% economists said the debt ceiling needs to be raised. It's basic economics to RAISE the debt ceiling, not just default.
+ Show Spoiler +

Moodys even wants the US to abolish the debt ceiling all together just like a lot of countries http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59236.html

The only people saying the US should default are this Andrew and Ron. I highly doubt there's more then like 5 credentialed economists that would ever say the US should default rather then raise the debt limit.

"Obama will have added nearly 7 trillion to the debt." When Obama came in the debt was 10.7, by the time he leaves it will be at most 16.7 trillion according to the new debt ceiling. That's exactly 6 at most, not 7.

"Unemployment has gone from 7.2 to 9.6" This is true. But if you look at the data that rise was not near his fault
+ Show Spoiler +

That rise from 7.2 to 9.6 was before the stimulus has any type of chance of even effecting the economy to slow the collapse. In the end the stimulus was not as successful as it was hoping/thought it would be, but it still did save over a million jobs.
+ Show Spoiler +

"The reason we have such high unemployment is government borrowing." Again completely against mainstream economics and the large majority of economics. Government spending creates jobs, deficit spending during a recession helps restart economies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_economics Specifically look up keynesian and neoclassical synthesis

"LBJ and his cronies" ok, ignoring nixon, reagan, bush, hw bush who all added a ton of debt...that's misleading.

"Did the get a balanced budget Amendment." Does he realize what it actually takes to pass an amendment? Even if congress passes and amendment it still must be passed by 75% of state legislatures before it is accepted.

we are fucked.

and that includes all of us, not just the americans.

Here's the thing Night - he had 2 options to get the debt ceiling raised cleanly, with no spending cuts, not tax increases, nada. If he kept a principled stand of requiring tax increases, when the republicans refused he could have either:

1) Pushed for a clean bill. This is how they normally raise the debt limit - a 1 page bill that changes 1 sentence. There is nothing attached to the bill in regards to cuts/revenue, it just raises the debt limit. 2) Invoke the 14th amendment. This would have had backlash from the republicans but no matter what happens he was going to get backlash and shitty press (as you can see has happened with this "deal).

This way he wouldn't have been locked into this super committee which is going to just waste a bunch of time, hijack the national media coverage away from jobs and the important shit, and at the end of the day is going to result in either a deadlock or democrats caving in to a deal with no revenues. Both of those results are shitty. A deadlock triggers 1.5 trillion in cuts which will be really bad for the country. They are supposed to be cut 50/50 between domestic and military spending, but it's written in a way where congress can block the military cuts. And most likely, the military cuts that were allowed to go through would be domestic ones, not things like the war in Afghanistan/Iraq. So it would be a huge hit on the economy at a time when we can't afford it. And by taking this deal, he's locked us into that shitty situation. If he'd stuck to his principles, there would be no super committee, just a raised debt limit, and they would have had a better ground to continue the fight on.

Obama has already failed us on the bush tax cuts once because he didn't have the balls, and now he failed on the debt limit cause he didn't have the balls. I expect this pattern to continue.

On August 03 2011 01:32 palak wrote: that Napolitano video is one of the dumbest things I have ever listened to in my life. His credentials would matter in a discussion about New Jersey state law since that's what he was a judge of. His credentials don't mean jack shit when it comes to gov't economics. Also as night said he could have all the credentials he wants, it doesn't change that many of the things he says in that video are either misleading or objectively false.

QFT

On August 03 2011 11:22 Surprise wrote: The reason liberals are upset at Obama is that it was somewhat obvious that if the republicans stalled long enough and the time pressure got serious he would surrender. He has a known history of folding under pressure like this and he has a very weak image. He often "compromises" getting very little for conceding a lot, or even giving freebies to republicans and getting no support in return. He doesn't even fight when he has the ability to win in spite of any republican resistance. From the start of this "crisis" it was pretty clear to all the republicans intended to have such a crazy image that they were presumably going to risk default unless they got their way. In game theory, this is well known as an advantage in certain games of chicken where two players must either agree and get slight reward, one must surrender for some punishment and the "victor" gets a great reward, or either disagree and both receive great punishment. In this particular instance Obama probably had to back down, unless he could look Republican leadership dead in the eye and say that he was going to default unless they made a real compromise and have them believe him. If it was apparent to all in Washington that they were going to default unless they reached a real compromise, a real compromise would have happened by way of the democrats and the establishment republicans voting on something at the absolute last hour. Liberals want a candidate that will get out there and get stuff done, even if it means having to get in bloody and messy fights with the republicans and forsaking their values of compromise. See below video for a great example of liberal opinion about Obama.

You're overall correct here. The main problem is this was a game of chicken and Obama didn't lay out the Veto parameters necessary to have it end in a beneficial way to the US population. That's why I said he needs to grow some balls.