Discussion: The Economy, National Debt, And Other Financial Issues II

[enterthemadness]

A deal reached? Yes, ETM thought while he read headline on MSN.

About 1 trillion cut in 10 years. ETM facepalmed and lost his damn mind.

That's it? 1 trillion. SMDH.

 

[redfirebird2008]

John Bachelor is speaking as if this is a loss for Obama. Is it? Where does this put the president for 2012? Weaker, stronger, no difference?

Weaker. The fact that it took so long for this to be taken care of shows poor leadership by everyone involved, including the POTUS.

 

[wiegeabo]

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a record number of incumbents lose their seats next year. I'm also expecting a rather brutal and nasty campaign from both sides as they keep bringing this up to use a ammunition against each other, trying to save their jobs after looking so incompetent.

 

[Marx]

I do not think this ridiculousness makes President Obama look bad. Polls overwhelming show that the majority of the blame for this situation falls on the republicans.

 

[hippie_hunter]

John Bachelor is speaking as if this is a loss for Obama. Is it? Where does this put the president for 2012? Weaker, stronger, no difference?

Weaker, this debt argument showed just how ineffective both Obama and Boehner are as leaders. The real leaders here are Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

With John Boehner, it showed how he was completely unable to keep the Tea Party faction within his caucus in line.

Barack Obama got it far worse though. Obamacare pretty much cost him almost all of his political capital, but this debt ceiling debate completely obliterated his standing. Democratic leaders in Congress no longer have faith in him. At best they see him as a lousy negotiator to the point where they sidelined him and at worst as one Democratic Senator says "watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes." And even though many progressives love to point out how more people would blame the GOP in the event of a possible default, they failed to mention how at the same time, Obama's poll numbers are cratering. Voters don't like seeing the President acting childish and ineffective and the business community sees him as the cause of uncertainty and fear within the economy (which in turn will make voters go out even more against him).

While Boehner should step down as Speaker in favor of someone who is far more effective and doesn't cry as much, he'll at least survive this. He'll simply be seen as someone who is weak and ineffective while many will probably consider Eric Cantor to be the de-facto Speaker of the House (same way that many considered Haley Barbour to be the de-facto head of the Republican Party while Michael Steele was Chairman).

Obama on the other hand, probably will not.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I do not think this ridiculousness makes President Obama look bad. Polls overwhelming show that the majority of the blame for this situation falls on the republicans.

Except at the same time, Obama's poll numbers have been demolished during this entire debt ceiling debate. While most would blame the GOP in the event of a default, they still saw Obama as acting incredibly childish (with his stupid "eat your peas" statement and going on prime time for no good reason) and incredibly ineffective. This whole thing made almost everyone look bad, some worse than others.

The only people who look good now are Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

 

[8wid]

It looks like all the children have agreed to play nice, stop the political posturing, and make a deal. This whole process has really demonstrated what is wrong with government...

Actually I guess it still has to be put to a vote in the Senate and in the Congress that should be happening on Monday, at the earliest, so we're not out of the woods yet.

 

[Marx]

Except at the same time, Obama's poll numbers have been demolished during this entire debt ceiling debate. While most would blame the GOP in the event of a default, they still saw Obama as acting incredibly childish (with his stupid "eat your peas" statement and going on prime time for no good reason) and incredibly ineffective. This whole thing made almost everyone look bad, some worse than others.

The only people who look good now are Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

I can agree with that. It's like I was saying before though - this whole process has shown just how badly our government is run. Politicians from both sides of the aisle showed that they are only concerned about themselves and their party above anything else. The country didn't matter. Their constituents didn't matter.

Actually I guess it still has to be put to a vote in the Senate and in the Congress that should be happening on Monday, at the earliest, so we're not out of the woods yet.

Yeah, it still seems like it could be screwed up.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I can agree with that. It's like I was saying before though - this whole process has shown just how badly our government is run. Politicians from both sides of the aisle showed that they are only concerned about themselves and their party above anything else. The country didn't matter. Their constituents didn't matter.

The biggest problem is that we have ineffective leaders. Barack Obama and John Boehner don't know what they're doing.

 

[Kelly]

I do not think this ridiculousness makes President Obama look bad. Polls overwhelming show that the majority of the blame for this situation falls on the republicans.

And his poll numbers have dropped 10 points in the last month.

Congress always gets low numbers, ALWAYS.....nobody likes them, and they did a piss poor job of getting their ideas out there to the people, so they deserve those numbers. But Obama's are dropping fast, if he gets a bump from this, I'll be surprised.

 

[8wid]

The debate is scheduled to begin in the senate first at around noon and then be hopefully passed to the house by the evening for a final vote and then over to the white house to be signed into law. Default though is still a very real possibility.

 

[DACrowe]

John Bachelor is speaking as if this is a loss for Obama. Is it? Where does this put the president for 2012? Weaker, stronger, no difference?

Politically, I have no idea. The right will paint it as weak leadership skills, but considering he gave them everything they wanted and more (twice) and they walked away, I suspect he comes off looking better in the short term. I have doubts whether this will be a major issue in October 2012.

In terms of governing he both succeeded in preventing a default (and hopefully a downgrade), so it is an achievement that he got the Tea Party to do their job. However, he had to cede revenue increases from likely happening and even had to water down defense cuts because Boehner is still a neocon at heart. The fact that he he had most of the leverage this weekend and the deal still came out heavily in favor of one side is disheartening for what it means to the middle class, in my opinion. Though a plummeting market would be much worse.

However, again, politically? He comes off looking the least worst. Not a major campaign slogan, but at least he has highlighted what GOP leadership is in this decade.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Politically, I have no idea. The right will paint it as weak leadership skills, but considering he gave them everything they wanted and more (twice) and they walked away, I suspect he comes off looking better in the short term. I have doubts whether this will be a major issue in October 2012.

In terms of governing he both succeeded in preventing a default (and hopefully a downgrade), so it is an achievement that he got the Tea Party to do their job. However, he had to cede revenue increases from likely happening and even had to water down defense cuts because Boehner is still a neocon at heart. The fact that he he had most of the leverage this weekend and the deal still came out heavily in favor of one side is disheartening for what it means to the middle class, in my opinion. Though a plummeting market would be much worse.

However, again, politically? He comes off looking the least worst. Not a major campaign slogan, but at least he has highlighted what GOP leadership is in this decade.

Obama did nothing. He showed absolutely no leadership or governance skills. This deal was the making of the Senate leaders not the President or House leaders who were completely ineffectual. It was so bad that Democratic Senators have said that the President came off like a peevish professor and Jimmy Carter in the making. They sidelined him because Democratic leaders in Congress have no faith anymore in his negotiating skills.

 

[bell110]

Awww, so what am I supposed to do all of monday?

 

[hippie_hunter]

From liberal columnist Maureen Dowd after talking to several Democratic Senators:

Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already “neutered” the president, as one told me. They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator. They worry that he should have been out in the country selling a concrete plan, rather than once more kowtowing to Republicans and, as with the stimulus plan, health care and Libya, leading from behind.



As one Democratic senator complained: “The president veers between talking like a peevish professor and a scolding parent.” (Not to mention a jilted lover.) Another moaned: “We are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.”

 

[DACrowe]

Weaker, this debt argument showed just how ineffective both Obama and Boehner are as leaders. The real leaders here are Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

With John Boehner, it showed how he was completely unable to keep the Tea Party faction within his caucus in line.

Barack Obama got it far worse though. Obamacare pretty much cost him almost all of his political capital, but this debt ceiling debate completely obliterated his standing. Democratic leaders in Congress no longer have faith in him. At best they see him as a lousy negotiator to the point where they sidelined him and at worst as one Democratic Senator says "watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes." And even though many progressives love to point out how more people would blame the GOP in the event of a possible default, they failed to mention how at the same time, Obama's poll numbers are cratering. Voters don't like seeing the President acting childish and ineffective and the business community sees him as the cause of uncertainty and fear within the economy (which in turn will make voters go out even more against him).

While Boehner should step down as Speaker in favor of someone who is far more effective and doesn't cry as much, he'll at least survive this. He'll simply be seen as someone who is weak and ineffective while many will probably consider Eric Cantor to be the de-facto Speaker of the House (same way that many considered Haley Barbour to be the de-facto head of the Republican Party while Michael Steele was Chairman).

Obama on the other hand, probably will not.

I think you're overstating it with Obama. '44 does not have a good personal relationship with the Beltway establishment the way Clinton or LBJ did, but the fact that he has achieved (as politically damaging as it may have been for him) the majority of his agenda means he is not Carter--who also had the aura of weakness from foreign policy which is something that, ironically, Obama is pretty strong on for the next election.

I think all progressives are very upset at Obama and the criticism that he can give up too much ground on the negotiation table is more than easy to say and this time I'm truly worried (though I still think the December '10 deal and HCR were the smart moves, no matter how much the progressives whine). But I too have read Peggy Noonan and Krauthammer. This is right-wing spin attempting to recast the light and blame away from the Tea Party and House Republicans. However ineffectual or aloof one thinks Obama is, the truth is he came off as reasonable. The left are upset that he was too reasonable. The reason there wasn't a deal, and a better deal at that with $4 trillion in real cuts and no can-kicking, was because of recalcitrant House Republicans and Boehner being unable to get his party in line. Boehner had to delay a vote on a partisan bill that was meant solely to be an FU to the POTUS for 48 hours because the Tea Baggers were still upset. That says a lot about the failure of leadership in the House.

Obama does not come off looking good to the beltway or far left from this long Kabuki performance. However, I wonder how much he ever truly associated himself with the far left and he has always held the beltway in disdain (that was his 2008 campaign!), so their disappointment in him may mean little politically if he can keep average liberals and independents happy. And to the former this stunt reinforced their disdain for the Tea Party and its radical, fanatical and ideological base. For the latter, he comes off as the adult in the room. He won that messaging war.

I do not think he was hurt politically at all by this. I'm not sure he was helped either, it's too early to tell. The Republicans and most specifically the Tea Party has lost a ton of credibility with independents though. I'm more worried about how the concessions he made will effect the country. Also, if he is reelected, he is not going to have many friends on Capitol Hill, but we're just looking at 2012 right now.

 

[DACrowe]

Obama did nothing. He showed absolutely no leadership or governance skills. This deal was the making of the Senate leaders not the President or House leaders who were completely ineffectual. It was so bad that Democratic Senators have said that the President came off like a peevish professor and Jimmy Carter in the making. They sidelined him because Democratic leaders in Congress have no faith anymore in his negotiating skills.

I honestly do not discredit the president for bad negotiating in the sense of appealing to Boehner. My criticisms more lie in what he had to concede--though according to yourself it was all Reid to McConnell, which seems not quite accurate when Reid was the first publicly endorse the deal while it was still being ironed out at the White House in the face of (surprise, surprise) a reluctant Boehner.

In any event, Obama made a grand overture twice to Boehner for a $4 trillion and then $3 trillion "grand bargain." Both times it was Boehner's inability to lead his Tea Party members and his own personal fear of Eric Cantor that led to the deals falling through. Simply put, Obama could not negotiate with someone whose balls were held by people that thought the president was Hitler/Mao/Stalin/Dracula returned to ruin America.

The far left has a fair line of complaints but it does not stem from him not being able to cut a deal at the negotiating table. It stems from negotiating with people who hate (or are told to hate) him too much to ever be reasonable.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm not overstating it with Obama. The fact is that Obama pretty much obliterated his political capital by his horrific performance during this debt ceiling debate. Republicans loathe him. Independents are done with him. And Democrats within the Hill have no faith in him anymore.

When it has gotten to the point where Democratic Senators are now saying that they see Obama as another Jimmy Carter and that most in the Hill now think that he's lousy at negotiating, along with the fact that he was sidelined, to think that he isn't hurt politically by this is just flat out wrong. He was hurt tremendously.

The Tea Party has certainly been hurt as well, but it's a wait and see approach to see just how much. I think that it's currently impossible to say if they were hurt just a little, or a lot. If there is one Republican that was hurt by this, it's John Boehner, he came off just as ineffectual as Obama.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I honestly do not discredit the president for bad negotiating in the sense of appealing to Boehner. My criticisms more lie in what he had to concede--though according to yourself it was all Reid to McConnell, which seems not quite accurate when Reid was the first publicly endorse the deal while it was still being ironed out at the White House in the face of (surprise, surprise) a reluctant Boehner.

In any event, Obama made a grand overture twice to Boehner for a $4 trillion and then $3 trillion "grand bargain." Both times it was Boehner's inability to lead his Tea Party members and his own personal fear of Eric Cantor that led to the deals falling through. Simply put, Obama could not negotiate with someone whose balls were held by people that thought the president was Hitler/Mao/Stalin/Dracula returned to ruin America.

The far left has a fair line of complaints but it does not stem from him not being able to cut a deal at the negotiating table. It stems from negotiating with people who hate (or are told to hate) him too much to ever be reasonable.

The current deal was pretty much hammered out by Reid and McConnell. It has their hands all over it. The inability to come to an agreement before hand was due to the ineffectiveness of both Obama and Boehner. To think it was just simply one of those two is blind partisanship.

I've repeatedly stated, it's gotten to the point where Democrats on the Hill think that Obama handled this horribly, because he was a horrid negotiator (and I'll repeat again, as well as Boehner). And you go off saying how Obama was making these grand gestures, yet he kept on insisting on unacceptable demands onto Boehner. He kept moving the benchmark just as much as Boehner did.

And Boehner is reluctant for the obvious reasons, he sucks as Speaker of the House. While Pelosi may have been a frigid ice queen, at least she kept her caucus under tight control. Boehner on the other hand, cannot. If Pelosi said something was going to be done, it was going to be done. Boehner cannot make those guarantees.

 

[Team Andino]

I'm honestly scared to think what's to come when the people in charge can't seem to get things in order for the sake of our countries future.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm not sure if you're mixing political capital with legislative capital. I think he's going to be dealing with an unfriendly Congress for the next year beyond Harry Reid--though little changes in that regard with the shape of the House right now.

Politically, I think he will either be unaffected because the GOP looks much, much worse or he'll get a bump because of how bad the GOP looks. Over 70 percent of the country blames House Republicans and the Tea Party. Around 50 percent think Obama has been reasonable. Politically he either lost nothing from this or he gained a swing in independent support. His approval rating with Democrats (not progressives) is still over 70 percent and is unlikely to change as Bush never dipped below 60 percent himself with Republicans pre-fall 2008, even when his approval ratings were around 25 percent overall.

Again, I think you're blowing the right wing spin, that was trying to take the light away from Boehner, Cantor and the Tea Party, out of proportion. Legislatively, he doesn't have too many friends (though more than Carter ever did, hence the difference in legislative accomplishments).

The wait and see game is whether Obama can turn this into leverage over the House. I'm going to guess not because....well look at the last three or four months. But the only ones politically who are getting the heat outside the beltway are Republicans and the Tea Party. Obama's biggest liability has and will always be the economy. This just gave him some ammunition to use in the next election. I wonder if he will be able to use it. I wonder more how much pain the middle class is going to feel, especially if that trigger is pulled because the House GOP is fine with "defense" cuts over actually raising revenue to deal with the debt in this country.

 

[Excel]

John Bachelor is speaking as if this is a loss for Obama. Is it? Where does this put the president for 2012? Weaker, stronger, no difference?

It doesnt make Obama look good, but there has been a big increase in anti-Republican sentiment as well. I'd say both sides came out looking bad.

In the end, obama got a deal done and the problem was solved, so I dont think it will be too big of an issue

 

[DACrowe]

The current deal was pretty much hammered out by Reid and McConnell. It has their hands all over it. The inability to come to an agreement before hand was due to the ineffectiveness of both Obama and Boehner. To think it was just simply one of those two is blind partisanship.

I've repeatedly stated, it's gotten to the point where Democrats on the Hill think that Obama handled this horribly, because he was a horrid negotiator (and I'll repeat again, as well as Boehner). And you go off saying how Obama was making these grand gestures, yet he kept on insisting on unacceptable demands onto Boehner. He kept moving the benchmark just as much as Boehner did.

And Boehner is reluctant for the obvious reasons, he sucks as Speaker of the House. While Pelosi may have been a frigid ice queen, at least she kept her caucus under tight control. Boehner on the other hand, cannot. If Pelosi said something was going to be done, it was going to be done. Boehner cannot make those guarantees.

You see the problem is what you call "unreasonable demands" on Boehner would be what 70 percent of Americans call a blaanced approach. It wasn't unreasonable that for every $3 of cuts Boehner got, Obama got $1 in revenue increases, especially if most of them came for revenue increases they already voted for in the Ryan Plan.

I do put most of the blame on Boehner between the two and even more on the Tea Party and opportunistic Eric Cantor than Boehner. I've said all along that moral equivalency on this issue is non-existant. The House created this crisis by holding the economy hostage and then walked away from two deals that were both better than the "historic victory" Ronald Reagan achieved when he cut a grand bargain with Tip O'Neal. Why? Because Boehner's caucus thinks Obama is pure evil. There was no chance for a real negotiation.

I understand that when bad things happen (as well as good things) the president gets the blame/credit and you can make that argument. But the only reason there wasn't a grand bargain two weeks ago is because Boehner couldn't control his caucus. He wanted the deal because he realized that a 3-1 victory was not an "unreasonable demand" it was common sense. The deal he is getting behind tonight isn't half as good for his fiscal goals. Obama's biggest mistake in this whole process was not using his leverage more at the end or having effectively used the bully pulpit to whip up public support before July, in my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

It doesnt make Obama look good, but there has been a big increase in anti-Republican sentiment as well. I'd say both sides came out looking bad.

In the end, obama got a deal done and the problem was solved, so I dont think it will be too big of an issue

I think you just said it best. I don't think he gains from it personally. He either gains nothing due to disgust with the system or indirectly gains from anti-Republican sentiment. You actually succinctly nailed what I've been trying to say the last few posts.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm not sure if you're mixing political capital with legislative capital. I think he's going to be dealing with an unfriendly Congress for the next year beyond Harry Reid--though little changes in that regard with the shape of the House right now.

Politically, I think he will either be unaffected because the GOP looks much, much worse or he'll get a bump because of how bad the GOP looks. Over 70 percent of the country blames House Republicans and the Tea Party. Around 50 percent think Obama has been reasonable. Politically he either lost nothing from this or he gained a swing in independent support. His approval rating with Democrats (not progressives) is still over 70 percent and is unlikely to change as Bush never dipped below 60 percent himself with Republicans pre-fall 2008, even when his approval ratings were around 25 percent overall.

Again, I think you're blowing the right wing spin, that was trying to take the light away from Boehner, Cantor and the Tea Party, out of proportion. Legislatively, he doesn't have too many friends (though more than Carter ever did, hence the difference in legislative accomplishments).

The wait and see game is whether Obama can turn this into leverage over the House. I'm going to guess not because....well look at the last three or four months. But the only ones politically who are getting the heat outside the beltway are Republicans and the Tea Party. Obama's biggest liability has and will always be the economy. This just gave him some ammunition to use in the next election.

I'm not trying to take the light away from Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party, because both you and I both agree that they will be hurt by this. Both you and I agree that Boehner is an ineffective Speaker of the House. Both you and I agree that the Republicans deserve blame. Therefore, there is no point in focusing on it because both you and I agree on this fact. The only real difference is that you think that they will be hurt massively, while I think that the amount of damage done is still to be determined. It could be massive the way you say it is, but it could also be rather minor and they move on.

But the fact is that Obama's polling numbers have plummeted from this debt ceiling debate. He came off as ineffectual with piss poor negotiating skills and with Hill Democrats losing faith in him. He came off as childish by pretending to be the only adult in the room when he wasn't, absurd statements like how the Republicans should eat their peas, and unnecessarily asking for prime time coverage by the major networks for a speech that delivered absolutely nothing in substance.

It's exactly as Excel said, both sides came out looking bad. Obama came out looking worse though because in the end, he's the President, and most people view the Presidency with "The Buck Stops Here" mentality that developed through Harry Truman. And people saw him acting very un-Presidential as well.