Skip to main content

Cross posted at Voices on the Square and the Stars Hollow Gazette
That's right. I don't know in what world some people are living in, but they should pay attention. Yes they should actually pay attention to what Grover Norquist is saying and how much these stupid debt ceiling crisis I predicted are playing into his hands. (h/t Addison)

Norquist: Republicans Should Hold Federal Government Hostage Every Month

And so this constant state of crisis and delayed/short term appropriations are going to be official soon.

House passes short-term debt limit deal

The Republican-led House today passed a bill to "suspend" the nation's debt limit until May, which if passed by the Senate and signed into law, would stave off for a few months the risk of letting the U.S. government default on its loans.

{.......}

House Democrats, meanwhile, grumbled that the short-term bill amounts to political gimmickry that keeps Washington in crisis mode.

{.......}

"The premise here is pretty simple," House Speaker John Boehner said on the House floor. "It says there should be no long-term increase in the debt limit until there's a long term plan to deal with the fiscal crisis that faces our country. Every hardworking taxpayer in America knows that they have to do a budget. Every hardworking taxpayer understands that you can't continue to spend money that you don't have."

{........}

House Democrats also complained that the bill prolonged the debate over the debt limit rather than solving it.

"The good news is that our Republican colleagues finally realized that America should pay its bills and dropped their condition that that be matched by cuts," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in a news conference. "The bad news is they've decided that America only needs to pay its bills for three more months."

Yes, even when that 3 month suspension becomes a raise only every few months more down the line it won't be close to normal standard procedure as some have tried to claim. This is true for a number of reasons; past raises of debt ceilings were never crisis showdowns and always were routine until Obama put them on the table as something to be negotiated. So given the completely different context comparing past debt ceiling raises to now I needn't go any further, but I will.  What happened in 2011 was unprecedented and we are still dealing with the fallout right here and right now. It almost happened to former President Bill Clinton in the 90s but even Jonathan Chait admits Clinton was much more politically savvy in dealing with it than Obama so it was averted.

Leading up to the post WWII boom from 1940-1945 during FDR's last term there was one debt ceiling raise a year. Then when Truman became President he was savvy enough not to leave it or raising taxes on the rich to fund things instead to the GOP in Congress in sellout deals just to pass routine measures. Also LBJ prevented that from occurring from 1964 to 1967 when there was one debt ceiling raise a year and even one for two years from 1967-1969; these were all years of serious spending and public investment appropriations; the creation of Medicare and the Great Society could not have been possible under this modern political travesty across the political spectrum. FDR, Truman, and LBJ were real leaders who knew how to handle Congress and their threats.

Of course I relate all of this from the past to now thus assuming Obama didn't want this to happen, but one now has to wonder if Obama actually wanted this crisis. After all, he is rejecting the only two solutions for getting out of the mess he made via the fully legal Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin leading to High value Platinum Coin Seigniorage and invoking the 14th amendment but I shouldn't need to explain that again. Back during this whole mess in 2011 President Obama threatened to veto a clean debt ceiling raise unless the dumb-ass sequester would be put in. You know, because austerity is awesome in a prolonged period of high unemployment, higher real unemployment, and rising poverty.

Not to people who really care about such things of course, but you get the idea; the delusion that we live in the 90s and there are such things a confidence fairies and bond vigilantes wanting balanced budgets to get serious about for their investments, which is nonsense BTW. Yeah, because that is what's important instead of real people suffering needing real resources. Nope. And because people need real resources they need income to get those resources and spending is income for all of them. And we need more spending since the bust of the Housing bubble to the this net jobless recovery than we are currently outputting.

So basically in order to excuse having to pay off Congressional appropriations every few months as "normal" one would have to assume that it would have been no problem for Congress to pass portions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 each quarter even though it barely passed as it was. And from that example, one would truly hope some people would understand that you can't authorize or pay for the kind of spending appropriations needed for any real long term good this way. And since debt ceilings have now become legislation fights like the ARRA was we can loosely compare them that way even though the stimulus was just an appropriation that would be paid for over the years by each bi-yearly and then yearly debt ceiling; a badly needed one that helped, but one that wasn't up to the task.

You get the idea. This is a failure, a massive one. I said so multiple times in 2010 and 2011 and that it would lead to this.

How Some Democrats Enabled Failure and Shoved it Down Our Throat

I'm not the only one who has noticed this. The failure that just keeps on being extended amounts to a United States of Crisis to Crisis causing permanent damage. (h/t bobswern)

United States of Crisis Seen Costing Jobs, Wasting Money

 

Congressional Republicans “are determined to try to take advantage of what they believe to be the leverage afforded by these deadlines to force policy changes they could not get through normal politics,” said Ronald Peters, a political scientist at the University of Oklahoma’s Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center. “Once the president and Congress begin to think in terms of leverage points instead of policy, the whole system gets out of kilter.”

It also gets costlier. Unable to agree on annual spending bills to fund the government, Congress and the president have settled for stopgap measures -- known as “continuing resolutions” -- that do little more than maintain current budget levels and breed inefficiencies within agencies.

{.......}

According to estimates prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, the failure to enact a full-year spending measure last year meant, for instance, that the Defense Department couldn’t award a five-year contract for the CH-47 Chinook Helicopter that would have saved the agency $423 million or a multiyear contract for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that was projected to save $762 million because the negotiated pricing agreements expired in December.

Reforms to an affordable housing program estimated to save taxpayers $300 million were also pushed off, according to the panel, while U.S. Customs and Border Protection was left with a $315 million shortfall for salaries and expenses that could harm efforts to guard the nation’s borders.

You see failing to enact a full years' spending measure is not something routine or desirable that we can look back on to now as no big deal as some have tried to claim. when the government has to spend for longer periods because of the damage left over from the downturn of the housing bubble as well as the fact that government just doesn't work well this way it shows that there are really no excuses. Short term appropriations mixed with every short term crisis every few months because of political malfeasance is an example of our government as a whole not being able to govern.

This system is not well designed as it is, but when we have politicians looking to preserve its worst elements by rejecting the only real solutions to this self induced political debt ceiling and austerity crisis it shows a form of entropy. There is too much at stake to keep this circus rolling. This what must change about our system. This is a long piece from Dan Kervick at NEP, but one of the best I have read in a long time. It gets to the heart of the matter of what needs to change about our fiscal and monetary system operating together properly instead of failing the American people like the politicians who refuse to change it.

From Central Bank Independence to Democratic Public Finance

The fundamental point here is that in its decisions about currency issuance and bond issuance our hypothetical government follows Abba Lerner’s Second Law of Functional Finance:
LL2: The government should borrow money only if it is desirable that the public should have less money and more government bonds, for these are the effects of government borrowing.
The use of the term “borrowing” is actually quite misleading in application to a currency-issuing government.   To say the government borrows money only means that it issues bonds and exchanges the bonds for currency that the public already holds, currency that was itself issued earlier by the government.   Lerner’s point is that the government should carry out these swaps only if it sees a public policy interest in swapping interest bearing bonds for non-interest-bearing currency.   Since the government issues the national currency, it can never have the problem of being unable to redeem its IOUs, since it can always simply issue the currency it uses to redeem the bonds.

{…………}

Notice that for our hypothetical currency-issuing government the decision about whether to issue bonds and swap them for currency while running a deficit is strictly a policy option.  The government doesn’t need to borrow to run a deficit, and always has the option of simply spending more currency into the private sector than it taxes out of the private sector, in effect creating and issuing currency in the process.  It doesn’t need to finance the deficit by acquiring the additional money from some external source, since the government itself is the source of the currency.  If the private sector economy is stagnating, and running below capacity with high unemployment, the option of deficit spending without further borrowing might prove best.

Now suppose our imagined government wishes to run a deficit during a given period of time, and voluntarily makes the decision to issue new debt to accumulate back from the public sector a total amount of currency equal to the gap between spending and tax revenues.  We’ll say that the government is in that circumstance operating a bond-driven deficit.  With bond-driven deficit spending the net amount of currency held by the non-governmental sector does not change.  However, the total value of government-issued financial assets held by the public does increase by an amount corresponding to the value of the bonds that are issued. Suppose instead, however, the government carries out its deficit spending in such a way that none of the gap amount is offset by bond sales – it simply spends more into the economy than it taxes out of the economy.  In this case we will say that the government is running a currency-driven deficit.  With a currency-driven deficit, the quantity of currency held by the public increases, while total value of the bonds held by the public does not.  Obviously, our imagined government can operate deficits that fall on a spectrum between the two extremes of a bond-driven deficit and a currency-driven deficit.

Thanks to our Representatives in all branches being essentially unable to govern and a central bank unaccountable to the public, our system is being constrained politically even though it has very little real constraints operationally except for politics. There is very little reason to tie spending to issuing new bonds so the elites in our society that essentially own the bond market can lend us our own money and get paid interest off of it. We can spend using a currency driven deficit and manage wealth that is automatically created for the private sector through these deficits. We can do this while managing government created financial assets on a lesser level to set interest rates per one of the only uses not useful at the moment.

So essentially this is our system's capacity should we be smart enough to realize it and use one of the only two real solutions(high value PCS) to get around the political malaise we are in; especially with a do nothing Congress set for the horizon thanks to Dems revealing that most of them actually like the filibuster and didn't really care about our concerns. It can't be said that there are no solutions. There is just no will.

There is no honesty in Washington DC. They are deluded themselves into thinking this crisis to crisis mode won't have massive damage. And anyone else making excuses for a general lack of governance is also deluded into thinking a system works with broken levers.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Republicans are for POWER. They keep at it (13+ / 0-)

    thanks for bringing this up

    with the deadline passed, people breath a sigh of relief

    but, those who are pushing austerity to the limit are keeping up the pressure

    and even with a few victories in the legislative branch, we cannot let our guard down

    if the Democrats came out with the old time New Deal platform, they could wipe the Republicans off the map

    but what I am afraid of is that the Democrats will wilt under the attacks, and claim that they had no other option, and use austerity to go after the remaining social safety net which includes social security and medicare

    •  Indeed, Don Midwest (9+ / 0-)

      There can be no sigh of relief limping from one crisis to the next every few months in a Congress that cannot pass a budget only stop gaps. Republicans seem aware that it takes a crisis to get what one wants so they will keep extending this self induced one from 2011 with Democrats' help of course willingly or unwillingly just enabling it.

      Democrats have proven they can't stand up to this POTUS and his backroom deals. I see no plans for New New Deal on the horizon. I only see them putting the old one in danger and the Great Society.

      Thanks, Don Midwest!

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:14:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats don't believe in New Deal anymore (5+ / 0-)
      if the Democrats came out with the old time New Deal platform, they could wipe the Republicans off the map
      They'll never do it because while they are afraid of Republican attacks, the brutal truth is that the Democrats themselves simply don't believe in New Deal style relief and interventionism anymore.  I'm not entirely sure what they do believe in ... but it's not that.

      I hate and fear the right wing, but I respect them a hell of a lot more than I do liberals.  I have a much clearer vision in my head of the world they want to create and I know that they will do whatever they can do to make that world a reality. Between our side's circumspect rhetoric and consistent lack of spine, heart, guts, balls, what have you, I'm not at all sure what we can or will do to fix things and make tomorrow better than today and the day after tomorrow even better than that.

      The reality of American politics is that Democrats are the conservative party: you can generally trust them to maintain the status quo at all costs and at most tinker around the edges to preserve the core of our system which is held to be simply untouchable.  It's Republicans who are the radical, revolutionary, brave new world party who want to change everything and bring about what they see as a bright future.  It's a crime that they're the party that feels that way.

      Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

      by Visceral on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:21:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yet the "serious" Democrats insist that everyone (4+ / 0-)

      wants compromise and deficit and debt reduction.

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:39:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  debt ceiling was created by legislation (6+ / 0-)

    It can be eliminated by legislation.  Things might get so bad that Democratic candidates can run and win on eliminating the debt ceiling.

    Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

    by Visceral on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:09:22 AM PST

    •  I think you could be right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gooderservice, poligirl, aliasalias

      Hopefully they will run on PCS too.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:24:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They could pass a bill that says anytime an (8+ / 0-)

      expenditure is approved by Congress that the debt ceiling will be automatically adjusted to accommodate the change. Voila! End of drama and hostage taking and ransom demands by Republicans ( or anyone else in the future)

      The Republicans don't seem to understand that they are both boring and infuriating us simultaneously by forcing us to relive these crises month after freaking month like we're in some horrible Groundhog Day remake where we're all waiting to see if Grover will see his shadow or if we'll have 3 more months of fruitless pontificating and lecturing by the people who want to destroy the economy even more by reducing spending in the middle of a recession, whew! end of run on sentence prompted by relentless Republican nitwittery and chicanery which serves no public purpose or legitimate goal at all, instead dismantling the functions of government and enriching themselves and their connected friends who all want to be on the privatization gravy train and blow up the safety nets in order to enact their vision of a Dystopian Darwinian Ann Randian future peopled only with authoritarian, self-involved, non-empathetic, cruel, sociopaths like themselves.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:35:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Explain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, antooo

    this sentence, please...

    Leading up to the post WWII boom from 1940-1946 there was one debt ceiling raise a year because  Truman was smarter than to leave it to the GOP in Congress for bipartisan-shit's sake or whatever the reason Obama did it.
    which infers that HST, a junior Senator from Missouri until 1945 had fuck all to do with raising the debt ceiling from 1940 to 1945...

    The debt ceiling is a crisis now because of of the GOP's piss fit that the nation has elected a liberal black man President and for no other reason.

    Sheesh.

    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

    by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:15:20 AM PST

    •  The debt ceiling is always between House+Treasury (4+ / 0-)

      and the Treasury in the executive branch(because they are responsible for the debt so they are always involved with the House on the debt ceiling) even though it's technically raised by the House and then Senate; it was once routine as I said. I was just saying Truman didn't have to pass sellout deals to get anything done even what was routine.

      Truman knew better to make matters a matter of trust in the GOP. No, as I pointed our repeatedly the Obama/Bush tax cut deal never included a raise in the debt ceiling and he as asked and warned about this. He had the leverage but didn't add that as part of the deal.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:23:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

        Truman had fuck all

        to do with raising the debt ceiling.

        Soon after the debt limit was increased to $300 billion in April 1945, Truman became president. The debt ceiling was reduced to $275 billion in June 1946, and the Korean War was primarily financed by higher taxes, not increased debt.

        The debt ceiling would not increase until 1954, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president.

        Playing fast and loose with facts will not aid your attempts to smear the President.

        "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

        by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:30:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't say Truman himself raised the debt ceiling (6+ / 0-)

          This is what I said:

          Leading up to the post WWII boom from 1940-1946 there was one debt ceiling raise a year because  Truman was smarter than to leave it to the GOP in Congress for bipartisan-shit's sake or whatever the reason Obama did it.
          It should say 1940-1945. No sellout deals had to be raised to raise taxes or debt ceilings and because taxes were high and progressive no debt ceiling had to be raised during his time to fund things.

          So the point still stands. It's about the sellout deals to get routine things done. Truman didn't cop to that.

          I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

          by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:51:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  so much gobbledegook.... (0+ / 0-)

            you clearly implied such in that very para, either unaware of the facts or trying to mislead your readers.

            In any case comparing the 40's GOP with today's idiots is an exercise in futility, there is no comparison; many Republicans of that time were both sane and responsible citizens while in the Senate the Dems controlled 66 seats to 28 for the Repubs, with Robert M. La Follette, Jr. as that day's Bernie Sanders. The House was constituted 262 to 169. FDR didn't compromise cause he damned well didn't have to.

            "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

            by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I didn't but Truman was VP (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              That p[art could have been worded better, but FDR's treasury presided over the raising of that debt ceiling like one week before Truman was President instead of being VP whom is President of the Senate. So.lol. no. As I said it's between the House and whatever administration's Treasury and what you are whining about is really a distinction without a difference. besides Obama failed to raise taxes like Truman did as I said which actually had to do with my point and all Obama had to do was nothing but couldn't.

              And you fail parliamentary history 101. FDR needed 67 votes to break a filibuster which is why he couldn't pass anti-lynching legislation(tried twice) and implemented FDIC insurance because of Huey Long's filibuster. Oops. This zombie lie is old. Looks like you hope people believe in that revisionism crap, but they don't.

              Sure the GOP was more reasonable than now but plenty of them were anti New Deal including the Dixecrats that turned GOP after the 1948 convention. But that's kind of the point as I said things were more routine, but Bill Clinton dealt with crazies in the 90s too and din't put the debt ceiling up for bargain.

              Thanks for allowing me to correct all of this.

              I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

              by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:38:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Indeed part of the FDR coalalition (0+ / 0-)

                was Dixiecrats, which is why he eschewed racial politics, which would of course set you to howling in 1935, but he deemed the health of the nation as a whole paramount at the time (an Obama like decision).

                But he rarely needed to worry about the filibuster. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 passed the House by a voice vote and the Senate by a margin of 73-7, with 22 Republicans voting in favor and only five opposed. The
                Glass-Steagall Banking Act passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House by a vote of 262-19. The Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 passed the Senate by a voice vote, and the House by a vote of 331-42, with 74 Republicans voting in favor. The Securities Act of 1933 was passed by a voice vote in both houses of Congress. The Securities Exchange Act passed the House by a vote of 281-84 with the support of 22 Republicans, and the Senate by a vote of 62-13, with 14 Republicans in the yes column, one Democrat voting no, and eleven Democrats not voting.The National Industrial Recovery Act passed in the House by a vote of 325-76, with Republicans voting in favor by a margin of 54-50 and 25 Democrats voting no, and in the Senate by a vote of 58-24, with the support of nine Republicans, while four Democrats voted no and nine did not vote.The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 passed the House by a vote of 315-98 with the support of 39 Republicans, and the Senate by a vote of 64-20, with fifteen Republicans voting yes while four Democrats voted no and seven Democrats did not vote.The National Labor Relations Act was passed by a voice vote in the House, and by a vote of 63-12 in the Senate, with 12 Republicans voting in favor while four Democrats voted no and fifteen members of FDR’s party did not vote on the measure.The Social Security Act was passed by a vote of 372-33 in the House, where Republicans supported the measure by a margin of 79-18, and by a vote of 77-6 in the Senate, where Republicans voted in favor by a margin of 15-5 and eight Democrats did not vote.And the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed by a vote of 314-97 in the House, with the Republicans voting in favor by a margin of 46-41 and 56 Democrats defecting. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 56-28, with Democrats casting fully half of the negative votes while nine members of their party did not vote.

                In contrast to Obama FDR's ability to pass legislation was limited only by his adviser's ability  to dream it up...as long as he did not touch the third rail of race. Politics is like that. Grown ups accept it.

                And Truman had fuck all to do with raising the debt ceiling, it was and had always been a matter of routine until after the Kenyan was elected.

                "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

                by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:13:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, FDR knew how to use a crisis (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias

                  Unlike this President. No, that's called having real constraints so I don't howl about it  and yet he still did make some moves on race. Executive Order #8802 and including AA in the WPA. That's not like Obama.

                  FDR welcomed Wall St's hatred along with the public's hatred fo Wall St(even with an attempt on his life via the Business Plot) so there was a lot of pressure there not to pass Glass Steagall. FDR had to worry about the SCOTUS which kept striking down parts of the New Deal like the NIRA, but he fought on and threatened to pack the SCOTUS; even though his bill failed it eventually caused the switch in time to save nine and much of the New Deal then became law. There is no comparison with Obama.

                  There was similar pressure in 2008 after the crash and all conservative ideology was bankrupt though Obama wouldn't say it like FDR did. There was enough public pressure to elect the first AA POTUS(so so much for that excuse) and to go after Wall St, but instead he kept the pitchforks away from Wall St, hired Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers, liked about campaigning on a public option(at least FDR tried Medicare for All with SS but had to drop it for SS to pass).

                  And you glossed over my points about Truman; he didn't need to make deals with the GOP or Dixecrats on what was routine to raise taxes to fund things instead of raising the debt ceiling with Congress; he vetoed Taft Hartley instead of pretending to support the EFCA to combat Taft Hartley. The story about Truman getting everything he wanted with no opposition is fiction; otherwise there would have been the CRA of 1964 much earlier along with his civil rights commission among other tenets of the Fair Deal.

                  There were plenty of fights and defeats but at least he fought them instead of putting what was routine on the table which is what I was talking about as already explained clearly; also well documented in this diary.

                  I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

                  by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:44:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What was glossed overc in your "diary" (0+ / 0-)

                    are the significant victories won by Obama despite universal opposition from a GOP playing to it's peckerwood base. Your diary is muddled and shot thru with historical inaccuracies...perhaps you'll do better next time.

                    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

                    by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:59:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Like putting the full faith and credit of the US.. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      aliasalias

                      as something to debate because he wants austerity? 0 Wall St executives prosecuted? that kind of victory? Or is it Dolecare-Romneycare Heritage Foundation-insurance reform? Was it the backroom deals with Big Pharma killing Byron Dorgan reimportation amendment? Or was it how this WH lobbied to kill Brown Kaufman keeping TBTF?

                      BTW your history is wrong. Huey Long's filibuster of Glass Steagall banking Act in 1933 to make it stronger with FDIC for 3 weeks was one of the longest filibusters ever so yeah you're the one with muddled history.

                      Anyway, my diary is strong which is why you didn't really read but one paragraph and refuted almost nothing. That tells me all I need to know so no need to continue here.

                      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

                      by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:18:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Glass Steagall (0+ / 0-)

                        was not really a part of the New Deal, it passed before the inauguration, it was included to show the bipartisan nature of the Congress in the 1930s...

                        Deals were made before the healthcare bill to keep big pharma money on the sidelines, this is, again, how shit gets done and why reform wasn't rolled like Hillarycare was.

                        Adults accept that politics isn't a perfect process and that few Presidents have the advantages and the historic stage FDR had.

                        "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

                        by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:36:53 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  Loved this line: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman, aliasalias
      that the nation has elected a liberal black man President
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      The Republicans are only facilitating the Grand Bargain here.  Since the Grand Bargain is a "liberal" policy by virtue of its identification with the "liberal black man President" who supports it, it's hard to see what you're complaining about.  

      "I've seen the flame of hope among the hopeless/ And that was truly the biggest heartbreak of all" -- Bruce Cockburn

      by Cassiodorus on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:27:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  meh... (0+ / 0-)

        Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a leftist, Barack Obama is a liberal as are Hil, Joe Biden and LBJ/FDR.

        Perhaps if ya'll would memorize you political terminologies a bit, you wouldn't chew yer tongues in disappointment so much...

        "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

        by durrati on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:33:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  i think that the key question... (4+ / 0-)

    which i can only offer conjectures about, is, "how is it that mr. obama benefits from his abject refusal to take any of the available remedies to the problem of the republicans bullying him on the debt ceiling?"

    none of the answers that i come up with are flattering to mr. obama.

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:42:32 AM PST

    •  That it is, joe shikspack (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica, joe shikspack

      It makes you wonder if there's something else going on behind the scenes of this play.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:56:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  but they look good to those whose flattery MATTERS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman

      to Obama  and the praise is in the wings on the DC talking head circuit for Obama's 'Grand Bargain'.
      No he won't suffer because the corporate media will applaud like they did with Clinton on NAFTA, Welfare deform, Telecom Act, Glass-Steagal repeal and so much more. There will be attacks for not going far enuf by Fox and MSNBC's Team Blue talkers will do the duty for Team Blue.

      Then look at Clinton's personal value AFTER such a Presidency, mercy, the wedding for Chelsea (to a Hedge fund trader) cost more than the one put on by Madonna and it drew no critical eye from the DC circuit, maybe because some were guests.

      Yes Obama will be looking good financially and I imagine his Prez library will dwarf Clintons', the Grand Bargain (as described by Obama) , codifying Executive Branch overreach (in every area) and his 'NAFTA on steroids' (the TPP) are a few of the reasons his ticket is stamped. Hell he will even top Clinton in his attack on Social Security.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:03:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site