Obama speaking on debt crisis.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its on CNN right now, and Obama claims an agreement has been achieved.

Basically:

-Big cuts (1 trillion over ten years, I think he said).
-No tax hikes mentioned.
-A committee to investigate other approaches, and it sounds like Obama will still be pushing for tax hikes.
-Debt ceiling raised. Thank the Lord.

I may post more details later.

[Sea Skimmer]

Basically it looks like the Republican ‘deal’ will be the deal; but minus the balanced budget amendment and the 18% of GDP spending cap that the Senate would never pass. Great, we get to do this all over again next summer!

[Narkis]

So, Obama just bended over. Again. Can't say I'm surprised, but why? Why can he never find his balls?

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a sorry world we live in where this is considered a compromise, but compared to what the Tea Party wanted, I guess it actually is.

One thing that makes it slightly easier to swallow is that apparently a lot of the cuts will be to defence (though medicare may take a hit too ).

[Simon_Jester]

For the sake of people who would suffer by getting caught in the middle, I have to say that I am just as glad that this time he chose not to take a hardline position at the last minute.

He might have been able to avoid such a disaster by showing more courage at other stages in the game, but this was not the time for posturing.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Obama just bended over. Again. Can't say I'm surprised, but why? Why can he never find his balls?

Predictable, but probably unjustified. What would you have had him do? Let the US default, with the suffering that would befall millions of people as a result? I realize bashing Obama for not snapping his fingers like Q and making your dreams come true is trendy here, but give it a rest.

Obama has to work within the system. That system is currently largely controlled by the GOP. Sucks, but its the truth.

[Mr Bean]

Again RR he has the 14th Amendment option, he also had the option of not waiting until now when this became a massive pressing issue to get a deal made. He's let the Congress lead to his great sorrow on every issue.

[Narkis]

I don't know. It's possible this was the only option left to him. I've heard he could invoke the 14th amendment, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the US legal code to say how good an option that'd be. He could definitely try doing something more decisive before it became a last minute issue. But it really sucks when the goddamn President of the United States caves in to any demand made by these lunatics. And what the heck is he gonna do next year when this thing repeats itself? The Tea Partiers aren't gonna back down for sure.

[The Romulan Republic]

Again RR he has the 14th Amendment option, he also had the option of not waiting until now when this became a massive pressing issue to get a deal made. He's let the Congress lead to his great sorrow on every issue.

I remember reading (in one of the other threads here I think) that the 14th. Amendment solution was Constitutionally dubious, and that if he tried it and it was ruled Unconstitutional, it could actually make things worse.

As for acting sooner, maybe he had other issues to worry about a year, or six months ago. Or maybe he didn't expect the right to be this stupid and callous (which would be naive, but perhaps understandable). And honestly, I doubt it would have made much different. Its last minute pressure that's forcing consensus. If he'd acted earlier, I think it might still have turned out this way.

But I don't expect that to stop your reflexive Obama bashing.

[Mr Bean]

I don't know. It's possible this was the only option left to him. I've heard he could invoke the 14th amendment, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the US legal code to say how good an option that'd be. He could definitely try doing something more decisive before it became a last minute issue. But it really sucks when the goddamn President of the United States caves in to any demand made by these lunatics. And what the heck is he gonna do next year when this thing repeats itself? The Tea Partiers aren't gonna back down for sure.

Why would they back down? When you give in to hostage takers...they take more hostages and make more demands. And those demands will be met because Obama wants to give in because he wants the Republicans to like him. Or he thinks the Republicans are right... or... he's just that weak.

I remember reading (in one of the other threads here I think) that the 14th. Amendment solution was Constitutionally dubious, and that if he tried it and it was ruled Unconstitutional, it could actually make things worse.

The 14 Amendment option is constitutionally sound, Debt limits did not exists until a few decades ago and in the opinion of legal scholars not currently employed by Fox News it is a sound argument. More importantly beyond the legality of it, it gives the President time and turns this from a ticking time bomb that's going to go off in a week to one that's going to go off next year when the case would have come before the Supreme Court which funny enough is the EXACT same time frame that this bill is going to elapse. The only difference being one option gives away a trillion dollars in cuts to government spending in a downturn economy.

But I don't expect that to stop your reflexive Obama bashing.

Or your reflexive Obama can do no wrong fanboyism? As I've mentioned before and you seem to have forgotten, I'm not some rabid Obama hater who voted for McCain who loves his guns and hates them damn illegal aliens who dun took Mah JOB! No sir, I gave time and money to the Obama campaign in 2008 and unlike you I'm willing to call a spade a spade. If the President does something good I'll say good for the President. But if he's willing for the third time to start a negotiation on Republican ground and the end position of the debate is MORE Conservative than the initial Republican position? Then I will call it as I see it.

[Starglider]

Its a sorry world we live in where this is considered a compromise, but compared to what the Tea Party wanted, I guess it actually is.

Of course it is. The Tea Partiers are right now screaming and wailing about how this is a complete defeat, a fig leaf for the RINO leadership, how Obama got a blank check for only token cuts etc etc. Several of the more impractical Republican suggestions are gone, and in any case both plans used dubious baselines and backloaded cuts to the extent that there will be no actual spending decreases in the near future (i.e. before the whole can of worms is opened again).

[The Romulan Republic]

Why would they back down? When you give in to hostage takers...they take more hostages and make more demands. And those demands will be met because Obama wants to give in because he wants the Republicans to like him. Or he thinks the Republicans are right... or... he's just that weak.

So you would rather have had a default?

Obama is not going to give in to the GOP for no reason, and if he agreed with them he could have just run as a Republican. And it is not nessissarily weakness to accept a compromise, even a lop-sided one, to avoid a national disaster. This could actually have been a lot worse. Its not a good deal. Its not what I wanted. But its better than a default.

[Zaune]

Why would they back down? When you give in to hostage takers...they take more hostages and make more demands. And those demands will be met because Obama wants to give in because he wants the Republicans to like him. Or he thinks the Republicans are right... or... he's just that weak.

Or he doesn't feel like dealing with the fallout if the nuttier end of the right wing are actually serious about "2nd Amendment Solutions", though personally I'd just love to watch them try.

[Mr Bean]

So you would rather have had a default?

Obama is not going to give in to the GOP for no reason, and if he agreed with them he could have just run as a Republican. And it is not nessissarily weakness to accept a compromise, even a lop-sided one, to avoid a national disaster. This could actually have been a lot worse. Its not a good deal. Its not what I wanted. But its better than a default.

Again he had the 14th amendment option, he also had the line item Veto option where in the President picked and chose what would get payed and would not get payed in essence the default giving him the power to kill any program in the entire Federal government he did not like. Killing all Congressional salaries for one might have a wonderful effect on some of these freshmen Republicans.

And I'll remind you RR that we will be back here in less than a year, and what do you think the Tea Party will make Obama give away then? If he trades away Medicare or Social security for another debt ceiling increase will you throw up your hands again and say What could he do? The Republicans were just so crazy!

[erik_t]

When the other party is fundamentally negotiating in bad faith, precisely what other outcome (besides actual factual default) is possible? I'm not pleased with this result, but I don't try to withhold various phones, keys, trinkets from muggers either.

As for invoking the 14th, that would be the surest possible way to get the House to not pass a single bill (save articles of impeachment) until 2012.

[The Romulan Republic]

Again he had the 14th amendment option, he also had the line item Veto option where in the President picked and chose what would get payed and would not get payed in essence the default giving him the power to kill any program in the entire Federal government he did not like. Killing all Congressional salaries for one might have a wonderful effect on some of these freshmen Republicans.

The 14th amendment option was of questionable legality, as I already noted and as you ignored. I don't know anything much about the line item veto option and don't recall seeing any previous mention of it in discussions on this topic, so please elaborate.

And I'll remind you RR that we will be back here in less than a year, and what do you think the Tea Party will make Obama give away then? If he trades away Medicare or Social security for another debt ceiling increase will you throw up your hands again and say What could he do? The Republicans were just so crazy!

First of all source that this is going to come up within a year, because I've heard that this increase is more long term than that.

Second of all, you have not yet answered my question: would you prefer a default?

Third of all, this situation only continues while the GOP holds the House. If Obama can stave off a default until 2012, and then the Democrats retake the House, we might actually be able to resolve the situation without global disaster.

Furthermore, this is not as one-sided as it appears. Yes, their are big cuts and no tax hikes. But a lot of those cuts are apparently going to come from a Republican favorite, defence. And the crazier Tea Party crap (like the balanced budget amendment or simply letting the country default) has been averted. Its not a perfect deal. But when do you ever get a perfect deal in politics? Again, this is like attacking Obama for not being Q.

[Sea Skimmer]

Again he had the 14th amendment option, he also had the line item Veto option where in the President picked and chose what would get payed and would not get payed in essence the default giving him the power to kill any program in the entire Federal government he did not like. Killing all Congressional salaries for one might have a wonderful effect on some of these freshmen Republicans.

The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court many years ago and never used. Try to do that and low and behold, the Congress now has a completely valid reason to impeach Obama.

[Prannon]

Again he had the 14th amendment option, he also had the line item Veto option where in the President picked and chose what would get payed and would not get payed in essence the default giving him the power to kill any program in the entire Federal government he did not like. Killing all Congressional salaries for one might have a wonderful effect on some of these freshmen Republicans.

The Line Item Veto option is something that Congress gave to President Clinton back in the 90s, which was promptly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the US. There is no line item veto option that the president can currently exercise.

[aerius]

First of all source that this is going to come up within a year, because I've heard that this increase is more long term than that.

The increase is what $2.1 trillion? Minus the $200 billion or so they robbed from the government pension funds which they now have to put back. That gives $1.9 trillion of room left. The US is currently running a deficit of about $1.5-1.8 trillion depending on which estimates you go by, either way you're going to hit the limit again in about 12-15 months.

Second of all, you have not yet answered my question: would you prefer a default?

Question: Default now or default later when things are further down the shitter?

Third of all, this situation only continues while the GOP holds the House. If Obama can stave off a default until 2012, and then the Democrats retake the House, we might actually be able to resolve the situation without global disaster.

By then you'll have a couple trillion of extra debt to deal with, the US may lose its AAA debt rating and have to pay higher interest rates on its debt, and barring a miracle the economy's going to be even worse than it is today. The longer you let it go the harder it becomes to fix the problem, compound interest is a bitch.

[The Romulan Republic]

The increase is what $2.1 trillion? Minus the $200 billion or so they robbed from the government pension funds which they now have to put back. That gives $1.9 trillion of room left. The US is currently running a deficit of about $1.5-1.8 trillion depending on which estimates you go by, either way you're going to hit the limit again in about 12-15 months.

Hmm. That's concerning. But at least it buys a little time.

Question: Default now or default later when things are further down the shitter?

That assumes a default is inevitable.

By then you'll have a couple trillion of extra debt to deal with, the US may lose its AAA debt rating and have to pay higher interest rates on its debt, and barring a miracle the economy's going to be even worse than it is today. The longer you let it go the harder it becomes to fix the problem, compound interest is a bitch.

Granted, but it seems it isn't really solvable while the GOP holds the House, other than by cutting massively from various programs, which hurts a lot of people anyway.

[Minischoles]

Not surprised - Obama bent over again, and no doubt that 'special' committee will be completely pointless. I can already see Fox News spinning like crazy to prove the democrats are unwilling to compromise and all those big cuts are going to come out of Defence - to which Obama will readily bend over and take it again, and absolutely nothing will be solved except for him getting laughed out of office and the country dragging the rest of the world with it when it inevitably defaults because TAXES ARE EVIL!

[Illuminatus Primus]

So, Obama just bended over. Again. Can't say I'm surprised, but why? Why can he never find his balls?

Why is it so hard for some people to just pursue the parsimonious answer that he just doesn't give a fuck about me or you?

Of course, I am sure every well-meaning liberal will line up quietly and obediently in a year and vote for him anyway, because of the endless hysteria. I tell you what the Tea Party is best for: making sure Democrats can vote like 90's Republicans and take no responsibility for it, ever. The U.S. Constitutional system electorally seemed built from the ground up to make sure everyone is suckered into lesser-evil votes tying them to the really pretty broad policy consensus not just nation-wide, but world-wide (austerity for all, it is the social programs which are hurting profits making the economy bad for everyone).

No significant change or diversion from the major policy preferences of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the typical feelings one could casually survey on Wall Street will ever be yielded through picking Thing A or Thing B through the legal political system. We didn't leave Vietnam because people elected Nixon, either.

[Zaune]

So, Obama just bended over. Again. Can't say I'm surprised, but why? Why can he never find his balls?

Why is it so hard for some people to just pursue the parsimonious answer that he just doesn't give a fuck about me or you?

Because it's wrong. He's a politician. Politicians require votes in order to keep being politicians. Neither is he dumb enough to think this isn't costing him votes, though I'm sure I don't know who else you're supposed to vote for if you're even slightly to the left of Glenn Beck.

But Obama can be the President who let his opponents dictate terms to the long-term detriment of the country, or the President who stood firm on a point of principle and took the country down with him. For better or worse, he chose to be the former.

[K. A. Pital]

Because it's wrong. He's a politician. Politicians require votes in order to keep being politicians.

The electorate is dumb enough to vote again considering a very narrow amount of choices. Besides, how is he going to stop being a politician if he loses a presidential election? So far I heard, all former US presidents spent their post-presidency life as wealthy fucks with no problems in life - except the few ones who got murderized, like Kennedy and Lincoln. You have to be truly crazy to think your NYAH NYAH vote seriously makes Obama's life worse.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So, Obama just bended over. Again. Can't say I'm surprised, but why? Why can he never find his balls?

Why is it so hard for some people to just pursue the parsimonious answer that he just doesn't give a fuck about me or you?

Because it's wrong. He's a politician. Politicians require votes in order to keep being politicians.

Wrong. Elections are primarily driven by public relations and rich donors and basically the same way you find out which toothpaste you'll buy. The atomized individualized public is not an active agent in the process.

Neither is he dumb enough to think this isn't costing him votes, though I'm sure I don't know who else you're supposed to vote for if you're even slightly to the left of Glenn Beck.

I just said that no meaningful political or social change comes from merely voting, or even voting at all.

But Obama can be the President who let his opponents dictate terms to the long-term detriment of the country, or the President who stood firm on a point of principle and took the country down with him. For better or worse, he chose to be the former.

Obama was the candidate of the financial industry, and he has continued to shill very well for corporate interests, whatever his meaningless rhetoric, since 2008. His party has almost no popular institutions represented whatsoever, since the relative social peace in the various 'identity-based' groups since the 1970s, and with organized labor being at below 10% of the entire labor force, and getting it head kicked in constantly.