Skip to main content

View Diary: The White House Rejects Solutions to the Mess it Made. We Will Pay for it With Austerity (220 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You'll forgive me if I don't agree (15+ / 0-)

    since their laughable interpretatations of many things including due process. I laid the law out so therefore since no rebuttal has been offered people can feel all they want, but the POTUS and his legal counsel have to answer many other credible analysts including Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and others. Sorry. It's legal. Gotta find a better excuse.

    I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

    by priceman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:37:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  apparently actual debate is not necessary (9+ / 0-)

      snickering and ad-hom attacks with a heaping helping of "No, we aren't going to do that" is all that's required.

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:01:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  priceman - even if Laurence Tribe thinks it's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, uffdalib, notrouble

      legal that does not make it so. There is certainly no overwhelming consensus on these approaches. None of us will know if it is legal unless one of these approaches is implemented and then litigated and decided by the courts. It is the opinion of those within the Administration who would have to defend these actions that counts. If in their collective view they didn't feel comfortable defending them then that's what counts. The views of those of us on the sidelines, including luminaries like Lawrence Tribe, don't count when making these decisions. We don't have to defend the actions.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:12:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Regardless of the adminsitration's view of the (7+ / 0-)

        legal status, why reject the idea at all? All they had to say was that all options were on the table when asked about it - let the other side waste time and oxygen on it.

        •  Elected Dems rarely want a strong hand. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, Nada Lemming

          And even if they have a strong hand, they don't play it that way.

          Obama rejected the tools that would have strengthened his hand in negotiations. On purpose. They are always doing this kind of stuff.

          Continually throwing life lines to the Repubs. Validating their "expertise" by nominating them for Sec Def, etc.

      •  VClib this is not a strong argument at all (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cassiodorus, aliasalias, ek hornbeck

        Because this WH wants to sell out and make cuts to SS doesn't make Laurence Tribe's opinion less valid. Neither does anyone's lazyness in citing the law in this diary make it any less valid.

        "If the President does it or decides not to do it, it's not legal."
        yeah. OK.

        I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

        by priceman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:22:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never stated that they aren't legal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          All I wrote was that in the view of the WH these were not approaches they were willing to defend. They have a lot of company in the legal community. This is a judgement call they get to make. A different administration might try using one of these options.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:35:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  VClib - here's how we know HVPCS is likely to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, ek hornbeck

        be ruled legal, the liberals on the SCOTUS would probably not rule against Obama, were his administration to take it to court, and the subject of broad Presidential authority is something Roberts might be persuaded to support but - here's the kicker - it is a pet project of Scalia. Anything, let me repeat, ANYTHING that is likely to get support from liberals AND SCALIA is as sure as a bet can be.

        "When in doubt, do the brave thing." - Jan Smuts

        by bunnygirl60 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:38:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not just Tribe (4+ / 0-)

        1. Tribe

        2. Jack Balkin, Yale Constitutional Law Professor

        3. Probably Jonathan Turley GWO Con Law Professor who publish a favorable blog post on his site back in summer 2011

        4. Beowulf (Carlos Mucha) the brilliant lawyer who discovered PCS in the law

        5. Philip Diehl, Clinton's Director of the Mint who co-wrote the Law

        6. Me a Ph.D. political scientist with a bit of background in Con Law

        7. The general consensus of people who've written about the coin. The illegality of PCS is contended by a minority. Most, even those who are against using the coin, acknowledge its legality, while often ridiculing for other, not very good, reasons.

        The Administration didn't try to contest the legality of the coin. The Treasury Secretary just said they wouldn't use and joined with the Fed in saying they didn't think it was appropriate for the debt ceiling. Their response really didn't take the coin off the table. What it was intended to do was to short circuit the coin discussion before people realized that it provided a way to get rid of debt instrument-based creation of money.

        The Administration, which has sold out to Wall Street and the Fed, Wall Street creature that it is, didn't want that. They like their interest payments and their risk-free investments.

      •  If we actually believed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ek hornbeck, Nada Lemming, priceman

        that Obama was acting in good faith this might seem plausible.  But Obama has one and only one goal in sight, and that is the Grand Bargain.  He lives and breaths Simpson Bowles.  The Grand Bargain is his legacy--as "the adult in the room."  He honest-to-God believes we have run out of money and that the Financial Sector takes preference in all matters.  So he needs to be stopped.  The $60T "coin" is currenty the best defense against his Grand Bargain goal.  We should be stampeding the streets in support of it, not laughing along with the totally deluded Jon Stewart.  As Priceman points out, its time we fessed up to Obama's deluded ambitions.  It's not the Republicans we should fear most, it's the Democrats that embrace austerity who pose the most long term danger.

    •  Even if legal IMO it is not politcally saleable (4+ / 0-)

      It looks like an end run around the Congress (well, more than looks like: it is). And try explaining the trillion-dollar coin to the average voter, that it's just an accounting maneuver, etc. Fox has been feeding paranoia about Obama usurping the Constitution, burying the nation in debt etc. for years. Minting the coin only reinforces these, sensible as it might otherwise be.

      •  Doesn't the average voter read Krugman's blog? (0+ / 0-)
      •  Like offering cuts to raise the debt ceiling? Yeah (8+ / 0-)

        Try explaining to them why their SS is cut too. So what, the POTUS has emergency powers to invoke and exploits legal loopholes all the time but for something important, NO. And it's only a temporary runaround of Congress until the do nothing Congress gets its act together without austerity. See, I don't support failures that lead up to austerity and I support legal monetary reality .

        Yeah, because normal people don't understand things we should give up. let's not do anything about climate change while we are at it. hey will never understand unless a better effort is made as explaining the trillion dollar coin and beyond would start the conversation towards monetary reality and that is very valuable.

        preaching deficit hysteria thanks to the political fail this POTUS caused putting us here is what's politically dangerous.

        Sorry, you're wrong. the political argument for this is staggering, against it is self defeating. This is the mess that was made it should be cleaned up this way and for good.

        I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

        by priceman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:53:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  so what ? Congress said he couldn't go to war in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, limpidglass, David Futurama

        Libya, so he didn't, technically,... but tens of thousands of bombing sorties later, a Country in shambles and chaos from a "kinetic action", ( the 'disposition matrix' on steroids), the results were the same as if a war had been waged 'officially'.

        Obama also has the biggest microphone available and he can explain to the American public the difference between doing it vs NOT doing it. Then he can send forth all his people to be on all the talking head shows, in the meantime it works and nothing Faux Noise said happened, Y2K passed uneventfully folks.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:28:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Duh!!! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, Calgacus, ek hornbeck

        Congress passed the PCS law; so how is this going around them? And how does a minority of the House, which is a majority of the Republican members, get to be equated to "the Congress?" What the President would doing is avoiding breaching, the debt ceiling law, while paying the bills of the United States; so how is that "going around the Congress?"

        Also, the things the President has been usurping, and there are many, aren't the things that Fox is excited about. It's our rights to exercise our basic first amendment freedoms he's usurping.

        Finally, if Obama minted the $60 T coin and began to quickly pay down the debt, then Fox would shut up about he's burying the nation in debt.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site