Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[Simon_Jester]

I'm trying to get a sense here for the fraction of people who answered the poll who think that, in light of the current situation, Obama's compromise was unnecessary.

I'm sure many think it should never have been necessary, that it will lead to bad things, that if Obama had done things differently he could have avoided it.

But given the situation in Washington as of, say, one week ago... should Obama have chosen to compromise, or not to compromise?

[Lonestar]

Not. He should have played chicken with the Teabaggers. Instead he is choosing to live up to David Frum's adage:

"Republicans fear their base, Democrats despise theirs."

[Zaune]

Not. He should have played chicken with the Teabaggers.

And if they didn't blink first? Someone in a previous thread estimated that between fifty and one hundred million US citizens would be made unemployed and potentially homeless if the default was allowed to happen. That's between what, a sixth and a third of the population of the country?

[Lonestar]

We wouldn't have "Defaulted", not really. The US would still be bringing in revenue, it just means the bondholders would have been paid first. It would have been "Government shutdown 2.0" instead.

[Thanas]

And it would have finally sent a message. Instead all the GOP hears is "next time I will really be cross with you." They heard that after the stimulus vote, after the BS about the tax cuts....when is freaking "next time"?

[Stark]

That's what I was getting at with my question earlier; if their position is 'lets ruin the country', obviously it's a very weak one, because they won't do it. They're bluffing, so ... where's the need to compromise?

On the flip side, they know he'll cave on anything if you hold out long enough, so why would they ever agree to anything when they can score infinite points by holding out until he compromises?

[Patrick Degan]

The deal was a shit sandwich and the only one Obama could make under the circumstances without risking the unilateral 14th amendment option, which would have had consequences of its own.

That said, Obama has nobody to blame but himself for being put in that position in the first place. He started painting himself into that corner from the moment he started trying to find "reasonable" Republicans to compromise with back in 2009 and not understanding that you can't reason with unreasonable people, who dedicated themselves from the day after the election to the destruction of his presidency.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's what I was getting at with my question earlier; if their position is 'lets ruin the country', obviously it's a very weak one, because they won't do it. They're bluffing, so ... where's the need to compromise?

On the flip side, they know he'll cave on anything if you hold out long enough, so why would they ever agree to anything when they can score infinite points by holding out until he compromises?

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

[Simon_Jester]

That's what I was getting at with my question earlier; if their position is 'lets ruin the country', obviously it's a very weak one, because they won't do it. They're bluffing, so ... where's the need to compromise?

It's entirely possible they're not bluffing. From the sheer number of people among their hardcore supporting base urging, no, demanding that they run the country into default if that was what it took... I wouldn't be willing to take the chance.

On the flip side, they know he'll cave on anything if you hold out long enough, so why would they ever agree to anything when they can score infinite points by holding out until he compromises?

And this is an excellent point.

[Stark]

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

Says who? Paranoia? Since they know he'll back down eventually, it's in their interest to appear as intent to disrupt the process as possible, even if they aren't. If there's a pattern where xyz group obstructs the government, the government flaps around like a fish for a bit, and then compromises, then of course everyone and their dog is going to start acting like they're DEAD SERIOUS, just to get concessions.

Isn't this the sort of thing Obama should have learnt lower down the political tree? Isn't this PLAYING HARDBALL?

[The Romulan Republic]

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

Says who? Paranoia? Since they know he'll back down eventually, it's in their interest to appear as intent to disrupt the process as possible, even if they aren't. If there's a pattern where xyz group obstructs the government, the government flaps around like a fish for a bit, and then compromises, then of course everyone and their dog is going to start acting like they're DEAD SERIOUS, just to get concessions.

Isn't this the sort of thing Obama should have learnt lower down the political tree? Isn't this PLAYING HARDBALL?

No, I don't know for sure that the Teabaggers wouldn't back down. Neither do you know for sure that they would. You are talking about gambling with the wealth, security, even lives of millions upon millions of people on the chance that the other side is bluffing.

[weemadando]

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

Says who? Paranoia? Since they know he'll back down eventually, it's in their interest to appear as intent to disrupt the process as possible, even if they aren't. If there's a pattern where xyz group obstructs the government, the government flaps around like a fish for a bit, and then compromises, then of course everyone and their dog is going to start acting like they're DEAD SERIOUS, just to get concessions.

Isn't this the sort of thing Obama should have learnt lower down the political tree? Isn't this PLAYING HARDBALL?

No, I don't know for sure that the Teabaggers wouldn't back down. Neither do you know for sure that they would. You are talking about gambling with the wealth, security, even lives of millions upon millions of people on the chance that the other side is bluffing.

The man on the street teabagger who genuinely believes the bullshit they're fed would let it go that far because they wouldn't understand the consequences.

The people who actually run the Tea Party know that their portfolios would take far too big of a hit to actually go through with it. They would have blinked.

[Stofsk]

Well we'll never know whether they would or wouldn't have; this specific discussion appears to be academic.

Everyone knows that Obama would be the first to blink; THAT'S the problem.

[Simon_Jester]

So, a lot of people here who oppose the compromise just think that if Obama hadn't blinked, the Tea Party would have done an about-face and swiftly passed a clean debt ceiling increase, or one with tax increases and other such measures?

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

Says who? Paranoia?

Them. They themselves.

Not just the politicoes he's dealing with directly, but a huge number of people 'behind' those politicoes. Media talking heads, and protestors, and whatnot. They said they were opposed enough to the federal government to shut it down via default rather than tolerate tax increases (which would be pretty much the bare minimum of an Obama Holds Out For This deal).

Maybe it was all bullshit, but it's not bullshit I'd be totally confident about calling- might not be a bluff.

"You don't have the guts" are some very famous last words.

[Bakustra]

Wait, are people seriously arguing that every Republican is a Tea Partier? Seriously? We already saw that the Republican leadership is only using the Tea Party earlier this year when Democrats abstained en masse from a vote on the Tea Party budget proposal. Republicans narrowly defeated Republicans to vote down the measure. If Obama had been willing to play hardball, the Republicans would likely have fractured over it. The Republican leadership doesn't care about the debt- after all, Wall Street wants to raise the debt ceiling as well. They just saw this as a chance to start killing social welfare and extracting blood from the Democratic party. And Obama gave it all to them. At this stage in US history, there is no economic difference between the leadership of the Republicans and the Democrats, and it seems more and more likely that social differences are much smaller than they pretend- after all, Obama went from supporting gay marriage, to opposing it when he was running for the presidency, to finally starting to let his true feelings show a little bit now- but not after trying to suppress the fact of Obama supporting gay marriage before he started in national politics. Rahm Emanuel's comment that liberals were "retarded" for wanting the party to take positions based on ideology rather than expedience explains what has gone wrong with American politics recently- it's become all about winning rather than beliefs.

[Lonestar]

@Simon,

I think that after a week of the federal government not functioning and a promise that no entitlement payments are forthcoming *enough* GOP types would seriously attempt to compromise. As it is Boner and the House GOP already learned during the threatened shutdown that Obama would blink, and so Obama would have had to go through with the debt ceiling expiring in order to prove he wasn't bluffing.

[Stark]

So, a lot of people here who oppose the compromise just think that if Obama hadn't blinked, the Tea Party would have done an about-face and swiftly passed a clean debt ceiling increase, or one with tax increases and other such measures?

Is this some kind of strawman? If someone caves on important issues under pressure, of course their enemies will use this against them. This is ALWAYS the danger of being too ready to compromise, especially on politically sensitive points.

That you've swallowed political marketing to the extent you believe a group would ruin your country is very strange to me, but their actual intentions aren't relevant. Whatever they actually wanted, they may have decided to appeal to this radical stereotype simply to pressure him.

[TheHammer]

I'm starting to think this whole thing is much ado about nothing...

I'm going to quote from this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/15/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Phase one

• This bill would cut $917 billion in spending over 10 years.

• And it would raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion.

• Lawmakers involved say they believe the first phase gives the United States the borrowing power it needs through early 2012.

So the Trillion dollars over 10 years. Sounds like a big deal doesn't it? Except that, as we all know future congresses can simply change their mind and pass new legislation.

Phase two

• The debt limit could increase $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in this phase, attached to deficit cuts of the same magnitude.

• The debt deal sets up one of three ways that Congress could trigger the next debt increase.

• Trigger one: A balanced-budget amendment -- The debt ceiling would increase another $1.5 trillion if Congress passes a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. That requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

• Trigger two: Super-committee -- The debt ceiling would increase up to $1.5 trillion if Congress passes broad deficit reform measures as recommended by a new joint committee. The ceiling would increase only by the amount of deficit cuts passed by the committee and Congress. Thus, if the committee passes $1.3 trillion in deficit cuts, the president could ask for only a $1.3 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.

• Trigger three: Automatic cuts -- If neither of the above options happens, the lack of action triggers automatic across-the-board cuts in government. Those cuts would be up to $1.2 trillion and would trigger an increase in the debt ceiling of the same amount. Cuts would be up to 2% for Medicare, but the bill dictates they should not affect beneficiaries.

Trigger one - Will Never Happen. The Balanced budget admendment is a political ploy and nothing more. It'll never get 2/3rds approval in both houses. Even most Republicans know its a bad idea to handcuff the government in that regard.

Trigger Two - Not nearly as bad as some people are painting it. It merely creates a smaller committee that can actually come up with realistic cuts, rather than simply try to score political points. They still need approval from both houses of congress, and I assume the President's signature. It's not an "all powerful super congress" that can simply pass spending cuts on its own as some appear to believe.

Trigger Three - automatic cuts, but ones that cut from military as well as domestic programs - while still protecting social security and programs to benefit the poor. Not an ideal situation, but again not the end of the world.

Initial spending cuts

• The $917 billion in cuts in phase one come as spending caps over the next 10 years.

• The bill does not delineate which agencies would take what amounts of cuts. Instead it would limit appropriators in future years to certain spending caps. Where the cuts hit would be up to future committees and Congresses.

• The caps do not cut total government spending year to year but instead shrink how much that spending grows. Put another way, under this plan discretionary government spending would still increase year to year but would increase by significantly less than under current policy.

• These are cuts in future spending.

So we have cuts that are supposed to average 91.7 Billion a year over 10 years, but as noted future congresses can simply write new legislation that voids the cuts. So if the Tea Party insanity is cured during the next election cycle, then a swing back to Democrats would make these future cuts moot.

Joint committee

• Who: Twelve members of Congress, including six Republicans and six Democrats. Party leaders in each chamber chose the members.

• When: The committee has until Thanksgiving to come up with a plan to cut up to $1.5 trillion from future deficits. Congress must vote by December 23.

• Vote: The reform package would require a simple majority -- not the usual 60 votes -- to move through the Senate.

• What: The committee can recommend any reforms in the federal budget. Its goal is to find $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts.

Congress has committees all the time to come up with various plans. The big key difference in this one? It guarantees the recommendations will recieve an up or down vote without tacking on additional legislation. Meaning Tea Party republicans can't bastardize recommendations by adding their own bullshit, nor can they filibuster it in the senate. Anything really bad won't pass in the Democratically controlled Senate anyway.

After reading this, I can understand why a lot of Tea Party members feel like they didn't get all that much in this deal. It seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to help the Tea Party republicans save face with their members, but really isn't quite the "satan sandwhich" some Dems would have you believe.

[weemadando]

It's a bullshit plan.

Cutting a trillion over a decade isn't doing shit to fix the problem of having 14 trillion or so of debt now. Especially when you aren't doing anything to raise revenue, like, oh I don't know RAISING TAXES.

The fact that Obama wasn't ready to throw down on what was one of the most important items of his term in office (as unlike most of the others this can seriously effect the whole world) and which should have been the easiest argument in the world to win not just for this policy, but for his party too (empirical proof that this is pretty much all the GOPs fault? It's there.) shows that he's worthless and doesn't deserve the office.

[Simon_Jester]

So, a lot of people here who oppose the compromise just think that if Obama hadn't blinked, the Tea Party would have done an about-face and swiftly passed a clean debt ceiling increase, or one with tax increases and other such measures?

Is this some kind of strawman? If someone caves on important issues under pressure, of course their enemies will use this against them. This is ALWAYS the danger of being too ready to compromise, especially on politically sensitive points.

That you've swallowed political marketing to the extent you believe a group would ruin your country is very strange to me, but their actual intentions aren't relevant. Whatever they actually wanted, they may have decided to appeal to this radical stereotype simply to pressure him.

Stark, when men market themselves, of their own free will, as being willing and ready to bring about disaster (while bullshitting about how it wouldn't be so bad)... am I supposed to just ignore that?

Maybe what's so bizarre about my politics is that there really are people so far out into fucking la-la land that they are willing to dynamite the foundations of the US economy because they think dynamite is candy or something. I don't know. I'm afraid to find out, because they sure act like they think dynamite is candy.

If they're bluffing, it worked, because I'm not that fond of Russian roulette.

@Simon,

I think that after a week of the federal government not functioning and a promise that no entitlement payments are forthcoming *enough* GOP types would seriously attempt to compromise. As it is Boner and the House GOP already learned during the threatened shutdown that Obama would blink, and so Obama would have had to go through with the debt ceiling expiring in order to prove he wasn't bluffing.

At this point, yeah, he would've.

Or, in other words, Obama has such a long history of losing at the game of chicken that by now, he has to crash his car into people before they'll realize he isn't going to swerve. I'm not sure I actually want him to crash the car in this case, either, because some people I'm partial to are riding in it.

I think you underestimate the fanaticism of the Teabaggers. Their are some who genuinely believe that a default shutting down the government would be a good thing- they're that opposed to the Federal Government.

Are there 217 of them who would feel that way then staring at the incoming train?

Here's the problem.

Suppose you're Boehner. You design a plan for cutting the deficit all by yourself that achieves everything the Republicans want. This plan pleases the Tea Party. It also pleases non-Tea Republicans, because by and large the Tea Party wants all the same things other Republicans (claim to?) want. The Tea Party just wants them more, and is more willing to stir up shit to get them.

This bill is practically guaranteed to pass the House with roughly 240 Republican votes plus a handful of conservative Dems. It's also fucking doomed, because it won't pass the Democratic senate and it won't pass Obama's desk.

The Democrats (Obama, Reid, whoever) counter with a proposal that gives them what they want: tax hikes for rich people, fewer F-35s, maybe means-testing for Social Security (which even most liberals will admit is a reasonable way to cut costs, since it isn't hurting anyone who needs the money badly). This will pass Obama, and might pass the Senate Dems (remember the blue dogs, though). But it won't pass the House, because no Republicans will agree to it, not when they have to go back to Republican primary voters in a year's time and face the music for doing it.

The obvious solution? Compromise. Make up half the deficit with 'Democrat' ideas (tax capital gains) and half with 'Republican' ideas (cut Medicare).

The problem is that you now have something that much of each party despises. A Republican congressman still can't vote for it, because if they do, they're going to have to go home and run in a primary against some ambitious young Turk who's trying to dislodge them from office by saying "he voted for higher taxes!" So far as I know, no Republican candidate has run successfully on a platform of "raise taxes" for decades, and few if any have been able to raise taxes and have their career survive. Democrats can get away with voting against the party line more easily, since primary challenges from the left are (for now) less of a threat than primary challenges from the right... but it's still an unpalatable solution.

So now you have something that Obama will pass- unless IP is right and he's just a total corporate shill, but I don't want to argue that point because it's irrelevant. Because the Senate won't pass it- plenty of Democrats will vote against "cut Medicare" on principle, and nearly every Republican will vote against "raise taxes" on principle, if only for fear of being successfully challenged from the right.

So what compromise can pass? Even if most Republican congressmen would rather raise taxes than wreck the country, none of them want to be the ones to get stuck holding the bag. Not every Republican has to be a Tea Party man for the shadow of the Tea Party to affect their voting decisions.

[TheHammer]

It's a bullshit plan.

Cutting a trillion over a decade isn't doing shit to fix the problem of having 14 trillion or so of debt now. Especially when you aren't doing anything to raise revenue, like, oh I don't know RAISING TAXES.

The fact that Obama wasn't ready to throw down on what was one of the most important items of his term in office (as unlike most of the others this can seriously effect the whole world) and which should have been the easiest argument in the world to win not just for this policy, but for his party too (empirical proof that this is pretty much all the GOPs fault? It's there.) shows that he's worthless and doesn't deserve the office.

Everyone knows its a bullshit plan. Obama didn't give up taxes being raised, he simple decided this wasn't the hill he was going to die on. Allowing a default to make a point would be irresponsible. You should also take note that the Bush era tax cuts aren't permanent, they expire Dec 31st 2012. If the American Public is a little bit wiser in their voting during the next round of elections, having seen the Tea Party insanity, then the defacto revenue raising will be there. If not, well I guess we're fucked either way then aren't we?

[Thanas]

The Bush tax cuts will not be enough. Not by a long shot.

[erik_t]

Gee, I dunno, seems like a pretty solid place to start.



If taking care of 2/3 of the problem in one fell swoop isn't enough 'by a long shot', then I guess we define words a bit differently.

[Simon_Jester]

Erik, that chart is obviously based on the assumption that the economy will start getting a lot better in 2011-12, because it assumes effectively no more recovery spending and reduced effects of the current depression. I see no evidence that the economy will recover that fast, so I suspect we'd still be running a deficit anyway, even without the wars and the tax cuts. Which is normal, since we're in a depression. What's not normal is the structural deficit, one that was in place even when times were great back in the mid-'00s.
_________

Thanas, you're right, eliminating the Bush tax cuts wouldn't fix the US deficit. It would still help a lot. One big advantage is that restoring Clinton-level taxes would show the American people's commitment to solving their debt problem even if it means stepping on the toes of powerful interests. At the moment, no one has much faith in that.

[Uraniun235]

Everyone knows its a bullshit plan. Obama didn't give up taxes being raised, he simple decided this wasn't the hill he was going to die on. Allowing a default to make a point would be irresponsible. You should also take note that the Bush era tax cuts aren't permanent, they expire Dec 31st 2012. If the American Public is a little bit wiser in their voting during the next round of elections, having seen the Tea Party insanity, then the defacto revenue raising will be there. If not, well I guess we're fucked either way then aren't we?

They were originally supposed to expire some time ago, but they keep getting renewed. Obama had his chance to let them expire and decided to play for election points instead.