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

  •  from your own cited article (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, uffdalib, Calgacus
    THE MOST CRUCIAL difference between Clinton’s debt limit battle and the current crisis is that, in 1996, the Republicans were bluffing. No Republican seriously considered defaulting on the debt to be a viable option. “It was essentially unthinkable,”Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton, told me. “There was nobody in the Congress who really contemplated forcing a default.” Larry Haas, communications director for the OMB from 1994 to 1997, agreed. “Everybody in the White House and on Capitol Hill knew that the conflict had to end at some point,” Hass told me.

    This time around, default seems like a real possibility. Some Republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, have argued that default would be a form of “tough love,” necessary for the country to get its finances in order. Other Republicans simply don’t believe that the government will default if the debt ceiling is not raised. “Even a Clinton, I think, would have had a very difficult time during this current crop of Republicans,” Brookings senior fellowIsabel Sawhill told me.

    The second big difference is that in 1995, the economy was roaring.

    The hate for Clinton was intense, but it still lacked the racism of today's GOP for Obama.  There was no tea party caucus of absolute batshit crazy.  There have been close to 20 more years of economic insanity, the country moving right, in no small part helped by Clinton's concessions.   This is not about Bill Clinton was GOD who made no mistakes and Obama is a wussy sell out.

    And even if Obama was wrong in 2011 and I believe he was,  and I wrote some ill tempered letters to the White House pointing out the stupidity of giving into hostage taking as it only encourages that kind of behavior,  he can and should stand up this time and refuse to deal.      And not by some slight of hand, but plain out "NO".  Simple, two letters, doesn't allow much room for argument.

    This time, in my opinion, he is right to just say no.   I also don't trust him, I think he still seeks a grand bargain, that he will continue to look at cutting the social safety net, but not over this.  

    •  The government still shut down back then (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ek hornbeck, lostinamerica

      Kind of defeats that in reality(and was expensive) and hasn't shut down today.

      I never said this:

      This is not about Bill Clinton was GOD who made no mistakes and Obama is a wussy sell out.
      He can't say no this time because no one believes him and why should they?

      I stand by what I said in this diary. Once you open up Pandora's Box there is no going back.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:13:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  by that reasoning (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        there would never be a chance to correct policy, change course, enact new regulations, and I just don't believe that.  Such an absolutist view that there is only ever one chance to do something and then all opportunity is lost forever doesn't comport with the history of the world.  There are second chances, and fresh starts and better luck the next time around.  The first attempt is rarely the only ever possible attempt.

        •  You should read the Shock Doctrine (5+ / 0-)

          and this diary. Just a suggestion. The evidence is quite strong.

          I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

          by priceman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:27:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you should stop deflecting (0+ / 0-)

            by implying I simply don't understand or need to read more and you need to engage when your own cites don't back up your version of history.

            There is more going on in this fight than just the debt ceiling, and the debt ceiling is a self imposed technicality from an old statute, it isn't about monetary theory or austerity or really the heart of the current battle.

            And things have changed, Obama never used the hostage argument before, we did, he just caved.   Twice now, Boehner has ignored the Hastert rule and allowed law to pass with Democratic votes, changing the power and momentum.  It won't make Obama give up on the grand bargain,  but my very strong feeling is that you all are going for the feint, the debt ceiling, which will pass without a whimper.  The real fight is elsewhere.  Obama has picked his battlefield and it isn't the one you think it is.  We both have strong opinions, time will tell.

            •  You have to take the time to explain how (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ek hornbeck, jellyyork

              Nothing has changed and everything is how I have written it. You have to do the work to explain why you think things are different but you didn't. I deflected nothing.

              Ignoring the Hastert rule means nothing.

              I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

              by priceman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:45:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  actually the Hastert (0+ / 0-)

                ruling falling twice in the last two weeks is meaningful.

                It means a change in the political dynamic, it means the existence of a working and workable congress.   It means the bat shit crazy contingent just lost its absolute veto power over every action.    It isn't the end,  there are plenty of things Obama will still compromise away.   But it is a huge change in the balance of power.  

                That the power still lies with the 1% still hasn't changed, but nobody really expected they were going away that easily, did they?     This is a long war, lots of battles,  and it isn't just about creating austerity.

                Plenty has started to change there as well.    Sufficient issues are pushing a new aspect into the game, too much austerity does kill the golden goose.  Enough so that the official arms of the 1% are rethinking their own game plans.   You don't think the IMF blinking means something?  I do.   They didn't change their goals, but they realize they may be heading down a dead alley.  They are more dangerous if they moderate,   its hard to punch holes in jello.

                •  The only reason Boehner didn't invoke (6+ / 0-)

                  the Hastert rule was because of the bad publicity over Hurricane Sandy aid bill and split with the Northeast Republicans. It made Boehner and the Tea Party look bad. It put Boehner's position in jeopardy. Power is everything to these people

                  I doubt highly that the Hastert rule will be suspended over the debt, sequestration or any legislation in the future that is passed by the Senate.

                  These radical feral children of the House are determined to have their way at any cost and the President, who wants to link Social Security to the chained CPI and cut Medicare, will give in to them.

                  I don't foresee any clean bill raising the debt ceiling.

                  As for an agreement about the manufactured crisis over the sequester, there will be no cuts to military spending, no new revenue and no jobs created.

                  Just my prediction based on past history of the last 4 years.

                  "There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say." W.E.B. Dubois, 1956

                  by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:48:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  The Gov Shutdown (6+ / 0-)

      was in November 1995; it ended in early 1996. Public Law 104-208, the platinum coin legislation didn't get promulgated until 1996.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site