Fiscal Cliff

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I can sympathize with that position, but I do think that Obama has a tactical point here. One can gain an advantage in negotiation by limiting one's own options. As long as the Republicans in the House think that Obama can fall back on the trillion-dollar coin or the fourteenth amendment, they can continue to pretend that they're actually negotiating over the debt ceiling rather than just holding the nation's economy hostage. By taking away his fall-back positions, Obama is telling the GOP that he has no room to negotiate, and that the choice is down to two options: raise the ceiling or risk financial disaster.

It may not be the right negotiating strategy, but it's a strategy.

An old homily from the strategic deterrence literature was to the effect that the ultimate tactic in a game of chicken is throwing yoiur steering wheel out the window in full view of the other driver.

Both sides can consider this option equally well.

For example the Republican house could vote substantial budget cuts and even entitlement reforms, pass them to the Senate, and then add an equivalent debt ceiling increase as an amendment.

I'll agree that so far obama has played the hold your breath game a bit better than have the Republicans.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

The Republican budget cuts won't work; they'll want to cut social security, MediCare, and Obamacare, but do nothing about cutting defense. We all know that's not going to fly even before the engine starts.

I see the Republican Party on self-destruct. They've already lost the black, Hispanic, women, and Asian voters. What other groups can they sacrifice for their game of chicken?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I see the Republican Party on self-destruct. They've already lost the black, Hispanic, women, and Asian voters. What other groups can they sacrifice for their game of chicken?

meanwhile Dems insist on continuing to hand out candy to all these groups, candy that no one is willing to pay for, and they are willing to crash the economy if they get told no.

I dont see any winner here.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You,

Quote:

Dems insist on continuing to hand out candy to all these groups

.

What "candies" are you talking about? Who's not willing to pay? The GOP.
They've already stripped our funding for education, infrastructure, and health care for the poor.

The "winners" are the Americans who voted for Obama.

The GOP is still on destruct mode with their threat on the debt ceiling - that will impact all the economies of the world. There's not cure for s......

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I think what the people who support the GOP want us to do, ci, is to vote for the party that pretty much tells us: Screw you...we are going to protect the right of the rich to get richer...and if you cannot make it on your own...die, goddamit!

Apparently they think doing that is smarter, more intelligent, and more moral than what they think the people who don't vote for the GOP are doing.

They actually think the people who don't vote for the GOP are dupes...suckers being used...and that they who vote for the GOP are the ones making wise choices.

AMAZING!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What "candies" are you talking about? Who's not willing to pay?

the american people. We borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent by Washington. Dems want to keep spending the same amount, then more because the health system has not been right sized and the boomers are retiring, and they claim that they can if only they gt the rich paying enough. the numbers dont even come close to supporting the Dem claims, the Repubs are correct that spending must be greatly reduced. We could still fix the health system, but no one wants to do that either, and that alone will not solve the problem.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Who says the dems wants to keep spending the same amount? Do you ever keep up with the news?

From wonkblog.com.

Quote:

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

Get your head out of your arse.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who says the dems wants to keep spending the same amount?

All indications point toward a continuation of Obama's reckless
spending, that says the dems will spend even more than before.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

You're too stupid to have any discussion with. Drunk

0 Replies

That's what we say, cicerone imposter is too stupid to have a meaningful discussion with, he's a dumb ass.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well, most of the Republicans I know think that much more can and should be done at the community level than the federal level. That it's impossible to be compassionate and provide a "hand up" (they love that phrase) when the care comes from the feds. I don't completely disagree. We can and should do more at the local level and switch things like block grants to the states (you know, the ones who receive more in benefits than pay in in taxes) and let the voters of those states decide once and for all how they feel about their lot in life.

It really comes down to a debate in the roll of federal government. Both sides have a point. And we need to decide which way we're going to go and stop this incessant pissing match that causes full scale paralysis.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

That's not true. Show me where Dems want to keep borroowing 40 cents out of every dollar.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I hope you're right. But the confrontation here is different. On one side, we have a ransom victim who talks tough now, but so far has a consistent history of paying up when push comes to shove. On the other side, we have ransom takers with a consistent history of getting paid. Given the history on both sides, how does the latter bunch have a credibility problem for not having walked the crazy walk? They never had to walk it because the victim always caved in.

0 Replies

Also, what good does it do the Obama administration to play chicken, given that the platinum-coin option allows it to play jiu-jitsu instead? Everybody knows epic confrontations aren't Obama's thing. So what good does it do his administration to prefer the epic confrontation over the Big Fizzle?

2 Replies

@JPB,

It is mainly a "hand-up" for those administering the care. They are middle-class and have power over the clients. Wonderful I believe.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Obama would have just dropped his platinum coin in a slot the next time
he was in Vegas, so it's a good thing production of the coin was refused.

He would have blamed Bush for the loss.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I don't think Obama wants to go down in history as the president who issued the trillion-dollar coin. The administration may have also done some internal polling or focus groups that gave Obama reason to think that this option wouldn't play well with the public. If the US defaults because of GOP intransigence over the debt limit, the GOP will get blamed, and everybody knows that. Obama is probably sticking with the result that he can predict rather than the one he can't.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Obama would rather go down in history as the president who destroyed the American economy and her prosperous way of life.

Obama is well on his way to living his dream of knocking this country down a few notches. ... He must not be allowed to do this.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

For example the Republican house could vote substantial budget cuts and even entitlement reforms, pass them to the Senate, and then add an equivalent debt ceiling increase as an amendment.

Theoretically they can do that, but they're not willing to identify any spending cuts or entitlement "reforms," largely because voters only want cuts that affect somebody else. That's why Mitt Romney wanted to balance the budget by cutting funding to PBS. Or, to put it in the words of the teabaggers, "Federal Government - hands off my Medicare!"

3 Replies

@H2O MAN,

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31246562.jpg

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know