Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:56 AM Jan 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama was afraid of going over "the cliff" but he will be tough on the debt ceiling? (Original Post) BlueStreak Jan 2013 OP
We did go over the cliff, and Obama wanted to go over the cilff. bemildred Jan 2013 #1
The negotiations were all pre-cliff BlueStreak Jan 2013 #4
The deal is not law yet, and the bush tax cuts are no longer law, and we did go over the cliff. bemildred Jan 2013 #5
He made it clear he was not willing to go "over the cliff" BlueStreak Jan 2013 #6
What concessions? He made no concessions, he gave them a couple fig leafs, that's it. bemildred Jan 2013 #7
I'm not going to argue about it. Go read the actual bill. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #9
Oh, Kay Bailey Hutchison says the bill is OK and that's all I need to know. bemildred Jan 2013 #12
IMHO, we have entered complete BS time, we somehow celebrate this DINO game of "chess". mother earth Jan 2013 #2
we caved again. Dkc05 Jan 2013 #3
RedState hates the deal. As do Malkin and her ilk. Off that alone I'm good.... smorkingapple Jan 2013 #8
Once again, we are counting on teabaggers in the House to kill this thing. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #10
Re:Debt Ceiling tweeternik Jan 2013 #11
No. He doesn't have the balls to do it. He doesn't even have the balls to hint at it. BlueStreak Jan 2013 #15
Doubt it. Obama is the Caver in Cheif. No backbone no soul,or heart. Just A Caver. MassedPole Jan 2013 #13
I agree. I would rather see Obama fight for a new stimulus plan to put the unemployed back to work politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2013 #14
Thanks for having the courage to say that BlueStreak Jan 2013 #16
What answer would you have for those depending on geek tragedy Jan 2013 #17
I'm just saying it is telling that Obama would fight for that but not fight for economic stimulus BlueStreak Jan 2013 #18
it IS stimulus and it directly helps those geek tragedy Jan 2013 #19
Rightwing puke talking points from a supposed geek tragedy Jan 2013 #20
He said he won't negotiate which means he totally will budkin Jan 2013 #21

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
1. We did go over the cliff, and Obama wanted to go over the cilff.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:02 AM
Jan 2013

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.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
4. The negotiations were all pre-cliff
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:15 AM
Jan 2013

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.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
5. The deal is not law yet, and the bush tax cuts are no longer law, and we did go over the cliff.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:25 AM
Jan 2013

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.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
6. He made it clear he was not willing to go "over the cliff"
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:45 AM
Jan 2013

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.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
7. What concessions? He made no concessions, he gave them a couple fig leafs, that's it.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:03 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
9. I'm not going to argue about it. Go read the actual bill.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:53 PM
Jan 2013

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.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
2. IMHO, we have entered complete BS time, we somehow celebrate this DINO game of "chess".
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:08 AM
Jan 2013

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?

 

Dkc05

(375 posts)
3. we caved again.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:10 AM
Jan 2013

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.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
10. Once again, we are counting on teabaggers in the House to kill this thing.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:55 PM
Jan 2013

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.

tweeternik

(255 posts)
11. Re:Debt Ceiling
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:34 PM
Jan 2013

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?

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
15. No. He doesn't have the balls to do it. He doesn't even have the balls to hint at it.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:27 PM
Jan 2013

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.

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
14. I agree. I would rather see Obama fight for a new stimulus plan to put the unemployed back to work
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:18 PM
Jan 2013

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.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
16. Thanks for having the courage to say that
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:52 PM
Jan 2013

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?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
19. it IS stimulus and it directly helps those
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:16 PM
Jan 2013

suffering from the economy.

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

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
20. Rightwing puke talking points from a supposed
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:20 PM
Jan 2013

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.'

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Obama was afraid of going...