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

[DACrowe]

I said I wasn't going to post again, but I have to respond to that last sentence....damn.

I think he had his Harry Truman moment of "Give 'em hell, Harry." That is remembered because a POTUS who was viewed as a bad negotiator and weak finally fought back.

His approval rating slid to the low 40s because people are angry at the system's incompetence. The GOP's approval rating in that same time frame slid to under 25 percent. I think if the crisis is really over (i.e. the House actually passes it), his approval ratings will go back to their average (high 40s, low-low 50s) and the GOP's will go up, but not above 40 percent and not above Obama's which they were before Bin Laden and about average after that bump.

I think, like Truman, this may be one of the few times the people blame the Congress over the president and that Obama will not come out looking worse--even if he doesn't come out looking better, if that makes sense.

P.S. If we're talking actual governance? I'm very worried that the GOP set a precedent of blackmailing/extorting our government to get their way by threatening an economic meltdown. And they got their way for the most part. The ramifications of this precedent go well beyond Obama or Boehner, I am afraid.

 

[runawayboulder]

This entire debacle has convinced me of one important thing.......I will not be voting Republican for a long time. They made themselves look terrible on this one.

 

[redhawk23]

P.S. If we're talking actual governance? I'm very worried that the GOP set a precedent of blackmailing/extorting our government to get their way by threatening an economic meltdown. And they got their way for the most part. The ramifications of this precedent go well beyond Obama or Boehner, I am afraid.

Exactly. Especially with this whole "trigger" written into the deal which basically allows each party to extort each other. We've reached a ridiculous moment in our politics.

 

[chaseter]

This entire debacle has convinced me of one important thing.......I will not be voting Republican for a long time. They made themselves look terrible on this one.

They both suck. The last 2 years of Obama and the Democrats have been awful. The last few years of Bush and the Republicans were awful. Both sides suck.

But, it's better when both sides have power and they have to fight and bicker. That creates compromise. Just 6 months ago Obama and the left had no intentions for cutting spending. All they wanted to do was raise taxes on everyone making $250k or more to net $85 billion a year in revenue. We borrow $4 billion a day. That couldn't cover 30 days of borrowing. I do agree though that the Republicans have been extremely hard headed about all of this and they deserve to lose their seats in Congress.

 

[DACrowe]

They both suck. The last 2 years of Obama and the Democrats have been awful. The last few years of Bush and the Republicans were awful. Both sides suck.

But, it's better when both sides have power and they have to fight and bicker. That creates compromise. Just 6 months ago Obama and the left had no intentions for cutting spending. All they wanted to do was raise taxes on everyone making $250k or more to net $85 billion a year in revenue. We borrow $4 billion a day. That couldn't cover 30 days of borrowing. I do agree though that the Republicans have been extremely hard headed about all of this and they deserve to lose their seats in Congress.

The theory of divided government is solid. But are we really seeing compromise? A good compromise would have been the "Grand bargain" but that didn't happen because one side ideologically hates the other. Instead, the GOP kept throwing temper tantrums until they got their way or the'd crash the economy. And they got their way.

I'm very worried that the partisan cable news future of our government will longer be about compromise...it'll be about extortion and gamesmanship like we saw in April and even more horrifically this month.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I said I wasn't going to post again, but I have to respond to that last sentence....damn.

I think he had his Harry Truman moment of "Give 'em hell, Harry." That is remembered because a POTUS who was viewed as a bad negotiator and weak finally fought back.

His approval rating slid to the low 40s because people are angry at the system's incompetence. The GOP's approval rating in that same time frame slid to under 25 percent. I think if the crisis is really over (i.e. the House actually passes it), his approval ratings will go back to their average (high 40s, low-low 50s) and the GOP's will go up, but not above 40 percent and not above Obama's which they were before Bin Laden and about average after that bump.

I think, like Truman, this may be one of the few times the people blame the Congress over the president and that Obama will not come out looking worse--even if he doesn't come out looking better, if that makes sense.

P.S. If we're talking actual governance? I'm very worried that the GOP set a precedent of blackmailing/extorting our government to get their way by threatening an economic meltdown. And they got their way for the most part. The ramifications of this precedent go well beyond Obama or Boehner, I am afraid.

Yeah.....telling the opposition to eat their peas is nowhere near a "give them hell" moment. And I don't recall Truman being pushed to the side the way Obama was.

 

[StorminNorman]

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.

The nuts and bolts of this debate will be irrelevant next November. The Republicans have turned the discussion in Washington to be about cutting the budget and on that issue the GOP are the inevitable winners.

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

I think that is an unfair critique of Boehner. I am not a Boehner guy, but the issue isn't a lack of leadership - is the the lack of cohesion. What we are seeing in Washington is a very rare thing, people elected to Congress who aren't selling out. It is very difficult for an establishment Republican to lead a Tea Party driven party. I don't think a Cantor would have much greater success. Paul Ryan could, perhaps, but I am not a fan of his either.

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

I am just glad my August recess has been saved!

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.

Regardless of what you heard, this wasn't a case of "right and wrong" in regards to raising the debt ceiling. There is a case to be made for not raising the ceiling. What caused this standoff was that the GOP leadership came out weak. Instead of making it a debate about raising the debt ceiling, the issue was what can we get out of raising the debt ceiling. GOP leadership accepted Obama's rules to the game, it is unsurprising that they were the biggest losers.

 

[Marx]

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.

Very good points DA.

The nuts and bolts of this debate will be irrelevant next November. The Republicans have turned the discussion in Washington to be about cutting the budget and on that issue the GOP are the inevitable winners.

The Republicans put their "party before country" mentality on grand display for everyone to see. Both sides did to some extent. If either side truly cared about what was best for this country and wanted to solve the debt situation...they'd have done it months ago...and with a lot less unnecessary spectacle. No one comes out a winner in this ridiculousness.

 

[StorminNorman]

The Republicans put their "party before country" mentality on grand display for everyone to see. Both sides did to some extent. If either side truly cared about what was best for this country and wanted to solve the debt situation...they'd have done it months ago...and with a lot less unnecessary spectacle. No one comes out a winner in this ridiculousness.

I disagree. Emasculating your party leader is not an example of "party before country", it is a demonstration of standing for ideology (which, it could be argued, is actually putting "country before party"). The Tea Party did not want to raise the debt ceiling, the GOP did. The Tea Party wouldn't compromise their ideology for "the good of the party". Now you can argue that the Tea Party's position is wrong (there are plenty of economists who would agree with them, in spite of what Geithner and the Rating Cartels - SOME OF THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HELPED CAUSE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS - say), but you can't contend that they were being partisan about it.

 

[Cousin Itt]

Sooooooo we're not all gonna die now?

 

[Prison Mike]

Won't all the spending cuts lead to more job loss?

 

[wiegeabo]

Won't all the spending cuts lead to more job loss?

Probably, but how many depends how much of the cutting can be taken care of through efficiency increases.

But these are public sector jobs that consume federal revenues rather than contributing to them through income taxes. If the demand for the services that used to be provided by the government still exists, the private sector will move to supply it. And if the private sector is smart, they'll pick up the people that the government has let go because they're already trained and have built up tons of useful connections.

 

[Kelly]

There's no cutting with this thing, it is simply slowing down the rate of the growth....that's it.

But hey, if they like pulling the band aid off slowly and painfully....ok.

 

[DACrowe]

I disagree. Emasculating your party leader is not an example of "party before country", it is a demonstration of standing for ideology (which, it could be argued, is actually putting "country before party"). The Tea Party did not want to raise the debt ceiling, the GOP did. The Tea Party wouldn't compromise their ideology for "the good of the party". Now you can argue that the Tea Party's position is wrong (there are plenty of economists who would agree with them, in spite of what Geithner and the Rating Cartels - SOME OF THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HELPED CAUSE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS - say), but you can't contend that they were being partisan about it.

You're right, emasculating your leader is not good politics.

They put ideology above country and partisanship over governance and responsibility. This is the kind of mindset that allows leaders to fiddle while Rome burns. That's not what I want and I hope voters reject it next year because that's the only way politicians may learn that holding the world economy hostage for ideological stunts is a bad idea. But I doubt that will happen.

 

[DACrowe]

Won't all the spending cuts lead to more job loss?

Yes. There's the big kicker, we've been put in a position where if we don't get trillions in cuts we either default or would still get a downgrade because of how pathetic our government came off looking to investors for this kabuki crisis (deservedly so). But even conservative economists who want to see the US curb down its deficit and debt note that cutting so much now in a stagnate economy will only depress it further and possibly cause a dip back into recession.

It's really been a lose-lose for the country the last month.

 

[StorminNorman]

You're right, emasculating your leader is not good politics.

They put ideology above country and partisanship over governance and responsibility. This is the kind of mindset that allows leaders to fiddle while Rome burns. That's not what I want and I hope voters reject it next year because that's the only way politicians may learn that holding the world economy hostage for ideological stunts is a bad idea. But I doubt that will happen.

You hold an ideology because you think it is the right thing - so you don't put "ideology above country", you promote ideology BECAUSE OF country. Now you can allow ideology to obstruct objectivity, as you are so brilliantly demonstrating. You holding tight to the belief that not raising the debt ceiling was a bad idea - if you look at the situation understanding that there were actually alternatives to raising the debt ceiling, or that there were benefits to not doing it, then your point disappears completely.

Again, partisanship over governing is not the case either. All the parties were using partisan rhetoric - no one was better than the other - but Boehner and the GOP establishment were willing to make a Obama's deal - the Tea Party refused to on ideological (non partisan) grounds.

The world was not held hostage due to the Tea Party, the crisis came from over a decade of legislative negligence.

The Tea Party is not fiddling while Rome burns, they are actively trying to break the fiddles.

Yes. There's the big kicker, we've been put in a position where if we don't get trillions in cuts we either default or would still get a downgrade because of how pathetic our government came off looking to investors for this kabuki crisis (deservedly so). But even conservative economists who want to see the US curb down its deficit and debt note that cutting so much now in a stagnate economy will only depress it further and possibly cause a dip back into recession.

It's really been a lose-lose for the country the last month.

Kenyesianism failed.

 

[Marx]

The current incarnation of the Tea Party are obstructionists as far as I'm concerned. You can defend them till the end of time but it will not change my opinion.

 

[StorminNorman]

Of course they are obstructionist. They are a minority of a minority in Washington (the Democrats still own two thirds of the governing branch). When the natural habit of Washington is growing Washington, it is natural that a limited government movement would try to halt that.

 

[DACrowe]

You hold an ideology because you think it is the right thing - so you don't put "ideology above country", you promote ideology BECAUSE OF country. Now you can allow ideology to obstruct objectivity, as you are so brilliantly demonstrating. You holding tight to the belief that not raising the debt ceiling was a bad idea - if you look at the situation understanding that there were actually alternatives to raising the debt ceiling, or that there were benefits to not doing it, then your point disappears completely.

We're not the same Normin'. I value compromise, good governance and strong leadership. Throwing a temper tantrum until you get your way is not leadership (and the case can be made giving into the stupid child is also not good leadership). The "grand bargain" which would have favored your ideology 3-to-1 would have been a reasonable deal that would be best for the country given the extreme circumstances (that the Tea Baggers put us in). The Tea Party's inability to see that shows they have no place in leading this country and those who believe they do value their group-think over the well-being of the country.

The Tea Party is not fiddling while Rome burns, they are actively trying to break the fiddles.

By throwing them into the bonfire.

They start the fire and say unless you give them everything they want, they'll prevent anyone from putting out the fire. And they're fine with it all burning down while they sit there with their thumbs up their asses, because they think it would have burned anyway.

Kenyesianism failed.

Uh-huh. Well supply side has never single-handidly worked once, ever. So call me skeptical when I think it will not work now.

 

[Marx]

There's a very clear difference between acting on principle and still being able to compromise...and being nothing more than an obstructionist. Having a "my way or the highway" mentality is not how ANYONE in government should act.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

The tea party want to make Obama a one term President and damn anybody who gets in the way.

The debt ceiling needed to raised to meet the budget, if they had a problem they shouldn't have passed the budget. But they would be blamed for that, they were hoping to pass the buck to Obama on this one.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Debt deal passes in the House 269-161, Gabrielle Giffords showed up to vote as well.

 

[Kelly]

Well, I'll be damned.....Gabby Gifford is on the floor of the house to vote on the Debt Deal....*shakes head* that is one hell of a woman.

 

[8wid]

When is the Senate vote scheduled to take place?

 

[Kelly]

Tomorrow...