Skip to main content

View Diary: Magic tricks, loopholes, government shutdowns and the debt ceiling (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, it is now pretty much... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton, FistJab, kat68

    moot, to the odd disappointment of many here.  

    How anti-climatic of the House Republicans to inadvertently take the wind out of the platinum coin idea.

    Some folks here were so, so, so invested in the coin that they seem almost upset that this confrontation will not happen.  

    Weird.  The coin was a temporary solution to an artificial problem, yet many here embraced it as if it were the answer to all our prayers.

    The whole idea just fizzled out, as it should have.

    Nothing worth noting at the moment.

    by Bonsai66 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:18:31 AM PST

    •  My own thoughts are (13+ / 0-)

      that counting on the Republicans to be rational is risky business.

      I think the Administration should have played its cards close to the vest.

      But, as you say, apparently a moot point now.

      And when it comes to government shutdowns, counting on GOP rationality is not the prudent choice imo.

      •  Seems that Obama knows the situation... (0+ / 0-)

        better than you do:

        http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

        White House adviser David Plouffe suggested Sunday that Republicans had given up on the idea of holding the debt limit hostage in order to extract spending and entitlement cuts.

        "We don't think short term is the way to go about this," Plouffe said on ABC's "This Week" in reference to House Republicans' new plan to raise the debt limit for three months.

        "But on the other hand, this is a big departure for them, you know?  They were saying, the only way they were going to pay the bills they've racked up is to basically hold the…"

        Asked by host George Stephanopoulos if he thinks Republicans have "caved," Plouffe replied, "yeah, I think they have, on this principle, and that's very important."

        Isn't this what we really wanted all along?  Seems like a pretty aggressive statement for the WH to put out there if they felt that hadn't gotten what they wanted.

        Time will tell of course...

        Nothing worth noting at the moment.

        by Bonsai66 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:40:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hope they know the situation better than I do (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, chuckvw

          I am not confident that you read my post though.

        •  what some of us want (10+ / 0-)

          is to ensure that social security, medicare and medicaid aren't cut, and that the age of retirement isn't raised. we shall see what happens.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:50:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Interestingly, those comments by Plouffe (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          midwesterner, 3goldens, chuckvw, Creosote

          are contradicted by Obama's comment, less than a week ago, responding to reports that the GOP were going to go for a 3 month extension:

          "I'm not going to have a monthly or every-three-months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills," Obama said. "Because that in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate."
          So to answer your question, "No. This isn't what we've really wanted all along.  What we really want is for Congress to quit using threats to get what they can't get otherwise."  

           Just because the WH makes a statement doesn't mean it's consistent with their other statements or that it makes good strategic sense.  When you compare the blockquotes in our two posts, the juxtaposition only makes Obama look like he's backtracking from a duel with the house, using Plouffe as his second.

          Also note that this extension was made following the GOP strategy retreat last week where (same link as above):

          At one of the closed door sessions at the retreat, rank and file members viewed a slide show that highlighted how one of the last major deficit reduction packages – known as Gramm-Rudman – was preceded by a series of short term extensions in the debt ceiling.

          Fleming said many conservatives backed the idea.

          "I think we're all pretty much on board," Fleming (R-LA) said, and noted that impetus behind it was to keep the pressure on for reaching a broader deal to cut spending.

          When you said "Isn't this really what we wanted all along," I'm left wondering who the "we" is?

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

          by nailbender on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:23:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your thoughts were wrong (0+ / 0-)

        and so are you. There is no back up plan whether republicans were reasonable or not.

        You were also wrong on the fiscal cliff deal and what it meant for the debt ceiling fight. Reverse the trend there buddy.

    •  Do you think? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NWTerriD

      I wish I were so sanguine.

      After all, they have already committed to reexamining the debt ceiling every three months, assuming they lift it at all (which is still hardly certain). One of the major reasons that they're making gestures in the direction of raising the debt ceiling at all is almost certainly because they think that they can get everything they want out of the sequester and the threat of government shutdown.

      But if we've learned anything from the past 40 years, it's that they never get everything they want. Even if Obama hands them everything they ask for on a silver platter, three months later they'll have a whole new set of 'urgent priorities'. And if, by some wild chance, Obama comes out ahead in those negotiations (by which I mean 'the Republicans get somewhere between nothing and ALMOST everything they want, but don't get EVERYTHING') then they are going to be really, really mad.

      You are seeing that they appear not to be crazy enough to drop an atomic bomb on our economy today (when they have a whole bunch of conventional ammunition to use against the president). And you are taking this as evidence that, three months later, once they've run through all their conventional stuff, they won't be insane enough to use it, even if they've won, but especially if they 'lose'.

      I wish I believed you were correct.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site