So... who won?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

Did the Republicans get p'wnd in a game of 3-dimensional chess with President Obama? Or were the Republicans able to double speak their way to yet another victory?

A really great discussion from earlier today.

Transcripts from UP With Chris Hayes

CH: Republicans seem to be failing politically but seem to be succeeding in achieving their actual ideological goals and setting the terms of the debate in washington.

The lone few voices of sanity have been the members of the progressive congressional caucus, who call for cancelling the sequester focusing on job creation, instead. They, however, remain marginalized thanks to the GOP's success in getting everyone to focus on the deficit. Many Republicans are calling that a victory. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS): "This will be the first significant tea party victory in that we got what we set out to do in changing Washington."

I think what's fascinating about this is the way the sequester is being spun. At the beginning, Republicans said the sequester is a bad thing and it's obama's fault hence the failed Obamaquester. But by the end of it, they said 'It's actually a good thing. This is what we wanted.' You saw a lot of honesty, I felt, from members of the tea party caucus. There's a whole bunch of quotes this week that said, 'Look, this is what we wanted.' Paul ryan, of course, said this back in 2011.

Do you, Mattie (Duppler, Director of Budget & Regulatory Policy for Grover Norquist) view this as a success for fellow travelers in the austerity camp?

MD: Absolutely. I think you are right in terms of republicans winning this debate.

Jared Bernstein (Chief Economist and Economic Adviser VP Joe Bidden): There's another person who's been talking sanely about this in terms of the jobs deficit, which I believe is the most immediate deficit we face, and that's Ben Bernanke. And so, it is a very bad outcome, one that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to, that we're stuck in hair-on-fire deficit obsession, which I believe is a medium or long-term constraint, not an immediate one.

David Sirota (liberal commentator, author, and radio host): It's important what you said about democrats. Bill clinton is the guy who touted surpluses. Talking about surpluses and deficits as opposed to jobs and the economy is, essentially, the box our politics are now in. Dick cheney was the guy who said deficits don't matter.

MD: To that point, deficits don't matter. If you are a conservative, you are looking at the size of government, you don't necessarily care about how much the government is not taking in in taxes, you care about how much they are overspending.

CH: Thank you for saying that. Thank you for being honest. It's true. Conservatives don't care about the deficit.

MD: "Deficits" is a rhetorical device, it's not actually the product we are focusing on.

CD: That is 1000% true!

JD: I know they thought that, I didn't think they said that! But don't you use the deficit as a cudgle to reduce the size of government? Isn't that the idea?

MD: But it's not a cudgle; 'deficit' relates to people, it's a narrative that people understand.

CH: I don't think the deficit does relate to people, A, and B, I totally agree with (MD). The only way to make sense of the Republican position is to ignore when they say they care about the deficit, because they don't care about the deficit. The people who are committed to reducing the size of government...

JD: They don't care about reducing the size of government, either! George Bush was not someone who cared about the size of government.

MD: That's correct, but is he the token Republican?

CH: He's not a token, he lead the party for 8 years! You don't get to call him a token!

CH: Here's what I think is so fascinating about the sequester. My pet theory is...I used to be really convinced that the Republican party wanted to go after social security and medicare, but based on their behavior in the last year, I'm increasingly convinced they don't want to make cuts to social security and medicare. They certainly don't want to make cuts to current beneficiaries, and the reason is, that's their base, A. B. Poll Republicans about cuts to medicare and social security...

JD: Tea Party!

CH: Tea Party! People self-identified Tea Party. Wildly unpopular. And if they really wanted cuts to social security and medicare, if that's what they were really focused on, they could have had them by now, because it has been extended to them time, and time, and time again. I want to show the President complaining about the fact that he has tried to give them this and they won't take 'Yes' for an answer.

President Obama: I've put forward a plan that calls for serious spending cuts, serious entitlement reforms, goes right at the problem that is at the heart of a long-term deficit problem. I've offered negotiations around that kind of balanced approach.

CH: And he's gotten nowhere.

<snip>

CH: ...Republicans came to stop worrying and loving the defense cuts.

MD: Exactly. And you're talking about Republicans winning--as a small government, libertarian-type--this is a great win. This is extraordinarily promising for someone like me, who sees Republicans as being consistent on this message...

JD: Don't get too excited because I don't see a ton of defense cuts coming.

CH: From the perspective of the fact that we still have 8% unemployment: what's so perverse about the way the budget politics have played out is there is a broad consensus that we need a short-term counter cyclical fiscal policy--which is run deficits in the short-term for jobs--but that our deficit problems are genuinely mid-to long-term. What happened is the absolute reverse. Nothing has happened in any of these deals to do anything about the mid-to long-term -- (the affordable care act will do a lot to that) -- it's all been about short-term contraction. So what we've gotten is austerity in the midst of a jobs crisis. It's a perverse out come.

Stephanie Kelton (Modern Money Theory economist at UMKC): Because, by and large, the republicans have convinced everybody that we have this long-term deficit problem, they are able to sell this austerity in the short-term because--'My God, if it's coming, we might as well act now!' And that's how you get people to support the awful economic policies that just make the conditions worse.

<snip>

DS: If Barack Obama wanted a grand bargain, and I think he does, then perhaps he's a poor negotiator. In other words, if we're in a Washington where a republican doesn't want to look like they're making a deal with barack obama, then if barack obama ultimately wants a grand bargain in this middle, then he would take a position that is far to the progressive left with the bully pulpit so that republicans could politically show they forced him to a middle. And that's not what he has done.

CH: That's interesting.

------------------------

WTH (me): That IS indeed interesting!

[hobbit709]

1. so far it looks like us 47%ers lost.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

3. No doubt, the real winners are the rich and the real losers are the rest of us...

The implication is, indeed, just depressing...

[markpkessinger]

2. Just depressing n/t

[dsc]

4. The context in which Clinton was talking about surplusses does matter

there was full employment while we had to surplusses, which under economic theory is how it is supposed to work. You are supposed to borrow money when the economy is weak and then pay it back when it is strong.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. :) and Republicans still found a way to turn that against Dems

You're point is spot on, but, as MD said, people understand the deficit narrative. And as CH was quick to point out, "No they don't." That said, she's right. It's not important whether people truly understand deficits, what really matter is that they believe they understand the "deficit narrative."

Borrow money when the economy is weak; have surplusses when we're at full employment??? Huh, what?

Republicans know that they can say deficits don't matter when they're in office, and 2 years later set their hair on fire over deficits. And they can do this because they have no respect for their base and treat them like the simpletons that they are. You just never see Republicans trying to educate their base. Instead, they only whip them up into a frenzy.

In any event, think Sirota makes a great point, there. You can see this being the Republican M.O. -- putting Dems in a box -- not just here, but in so many other instances. They succeed in making words toxic.

[msongs]

5. republicans know an easy mark when they see one nt

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Funny thing is, the so-called "Democrats" in DC aren't even trying to hard sell this f/ing turd.

Very little "11 Dimensional Chess" or "rope-a-dope" bullsh/t going on this time. They got us by the short hairs, and THEY DON'T CARE that we know they're LYING. What are we gonna do?!