HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Obama was afraid of going...

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:56 AM

Obama was afraid of going over "the cliff" but he will be tough on the debt ceiling?

Right ......

The guy wasn't willing to stand up to the Republicans on "the cliff" and instead caved in to essentially do 98% of what Grover Norquist wanted. Obama traded PERMANENT tax cuts for TEMPORARY extensions to unemployment and other things Obama wanted. That locks us into the strategy Norquist always wanted: permanent, structural deficits. These structural deficits mean that every 6 months, the Republicans can take hostages on the debt ceiling -- and they will.

Had we gone "over the cliff", there were no huge, immediate consequences to the economy. The major items (taxes on the 98% and unemployment would have been fixed quickly. The rest of the consequences would have come gradually. But Obama didn't have the guts to do that.

Now compare that to the debt ceiling. If we shut down government and stop paying our bills, the consequences will be IMMEDIATE, and a further downgrade of our credit rating is likely, leading to increased costs of interest. And Obama wants us to believe that he didn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP on "the cliff" but don't worry, he'll be tough as nails when the Republicans threaten to shut down the government in a couple of months.

Anybody who believes that is a complete sucker.

See http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/dems-to-gop-no-debt-limit-negotiations----any-default-is-on-you.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

21 replies, 2095 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama was afraid of going over "the cliff" but he will be tough on the debt ceiling? (Original post)
BlueStreak Jan 2013 OP
bemildred Jan 2013 #1
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #4
bemildred Jan 2013 #5
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #6
bemildred Jan 2013 #7
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #9
bemildred Jan 2013 #12
mother earth Jan 2013 #2
Dkc05 Jan 2013 #3
smorkingapple Jan 2013 #8
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #10
tweeternik Jan 2013 #11
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #15
MassedPole Jan 2013 #13
politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2013 #14
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #16
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #17
BlueStreak Jan 2013 #18
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #19
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #20
budkin Jan 2013 #21

Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:02 AM

1. We did go over the cliff, and Obama wanted to go over the cilff.

The problem was to keep the lame-duck Teapublican Congress from meddling with it, while still sticking the Republicans with the blame; and they still have to pass law to fix the defects in the situation like restoring UI insurance. But it sounds like Obama got pretty much what he wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:15 AM

4. The negotiations were all pre-cliff

That is completely different from letting the laws expire and then starting from the new post-cliff baseline. This deal:

- Gave Norquist what he wanted PERMANENTLY
- in exchange for a few things Obama wanted on a TEMPORARY basis
- kicked the can down the road on the sequester stuff
- Did nothing to stop the hostage-taking on the debt ceiling

In fact this made the hostage-taking worse because it locked in the structural deficits, which is why we need the frequent debt authorizations.

When you trade permanent things the other guy wants for temporary things you want and get nothing else in return, you got your clock cleaned.

It is hard to believe we just won the damn election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:25 AM

5. The deal is not law yet, and the bush tax cuts are no longer law, and we did go over the cliff.

Right now we have the Clinton tax rates back.
And nothing new will become law unless Obama signs it, or his veto get overridden.
And the object of the negotiations was as I said, to get over the cliff intact.
Now the Republicans must vote themselves to get what they want, piece by piece, no tricks, no obfuscation, and get it past the Senate and the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:45 AM

6. He made it clear he was not willing to go "over the cliff"

You are technically correct that in the narrowest sense of the words, we did actually go past midnight. But the concessions Obama gave were all intended to avoid standing up to the Republicans. The fact that it went past midnight isn't really significant. That is just the Republicans taking it to the last second to squeeze more concessions out of Obama.

My point is that he talks tough about how he isn't going to negotiate with hostage-takers in a few months, but that is exactly what he just did.

And he will do it again. That is who he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:03 AM

7. What concessions? He made no concessions, he gave them a couple fig leafs, that's it.

That was all theater, show business.

NO SPENDING CUTS. UI restored. Taxes on the rich go back to Clinton rates. The new Congress is more Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:53 PM

9. I'm not going to argue about it. Go read the actual bill.

When people like Kay Bailey Hutchison say it is a balanced bill that tells you all you need to know. The translation is that it was heavily slanted to the right-wing positions.

We won the damned election. Since when does one expect a "balanced" bill following an election debated on precisely these issues, resulting in a strong mandate for the progressive position. That should never result in a "balanced" bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:38 PM

12. Oh, Kay Bailey Hutchison says the bill is OK and that's all I need to know.

Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:08 AM

2. IMHO, we have entered complete BS time, we somehow celebrate this DINO game of "chess".

When you are getting nothing new & more of the same, is it now considered "victory"? Sorry, a contrived continued crisis kicked down for two more months is just nothing but theater. And for this shit they get a raise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:10 AM

3. we caved again.

We have no guts. The rich got what they wanted. 10,000,000 tax free estate tax.
Our party is the party of the rich. No spine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:20 PM

8. RedState hates the deal. As do Malkin and her ilk. Off that alone I'm good....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smorkingapple (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:55 PM

10. Once again, we are counting on teabaggers in the House to kill this thing.

Hopefully they will run out the clock on this Congress and the process will have to start over again when the new Congress is seated on Thursday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:34 PM

11. Re:Debt Ceiling

How does it play out if Obama tells Treasury to continue honor US financial commitments? ....
That the US will pay it's bills. Period. Would they try to impeach him? Would he have the balls to do it? Would it be a wise move?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tweeternik (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:27 PM

15. No. He doesn't have the balls to do it. He doesn't even have the balls to hint at it.

That is the whole 14th amendment issue.

Absolutely insane to take the 14th Amendment option off the table unilaterally.

There is plenty of time to cave on that later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:48 PM

13. Doubt it. Obama is the Caver in Cheif. No backbone no soul,or heart. Just A Caver.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:18 PM

14. I agree. I would rather see Obama fight for a new stimulus plan to put the unemployed back to work

rather than a continuation of the unemployment insurance. I know that some will say that the unemployment insurance IS stimulus, but as such it is a bandaid and doesn't amount to continued employment and we as a nation have nothing to show for it longterm. On the other hand, a major round of infrastructure stimulus spending would at least fix our crappy bridges, roads, electrical grid, and develop mass transit systems on the scale of those being developed in China, and parts of Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:52 PM

16. Thanks for having the courage to say that

There are all sorts of folks here making the argument that any amount of capitulation is justified because Obama got a TEMPORARY extension of the extended unemployment benefits.

Frankly that just adds to the stereotype of Democrats as favoring "welfare queens". I know a lot of people, through no fault of their own, and having a hard time finding a job above the poverty level. But the answer has to be rebuilding the economy. How do we get a bill that dumps hundreds of billions into what is, sorry to be blunt, a welfare program and don't get a single penny of infrastructure investment or anything else that will propel the economy forward?

Or at minimum, some economic triggers on the extended unemployment so that the Republicans will have more of an incentive to work with us to get some decent jobs going in this economy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:54 PM

17. What answer would you have for those depending on

those benefits after you had bargained them away?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:02 PM

18. I'm just saying it is telling that Obama would fight for that but not fight for economic stimulus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:16 PM

19. it IS stimulus and it directly helps those

suffering from the economy.

It speaks well of Obama that he fought for it, and poorly of those who object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:20 PM

20. Rightwing puke talking points from a supposed

lefty critic.

Just call him the food stamp president while you're using right wing memes like calling UI (only collected by those who paid UI premiums) a 'welfare program.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:32 PM

21. He said he won't negotiate which means he totally will

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread