An argument that Obama did OK in the debt ceiling deal, considering the facts on the ground.

Comments

[designation]

Utter horseshit.

Obama did exactly what he wanted to do. Obama will do whatever it takes to do what Erskine Bowles and his band of millionaires couldn't do -- gut what's left of the New Deal.

Screw Obama and all of his remaining enablers.

Take a look at the roll call vote from the NC delegation in the House on this "Super Congress" nonsense.

[David Hoggard]

Not a better response can be given than the first line above.

[Andrew Brod]

Obama was instrumental in constructing the "facts on the ground." He assumed that Republicans wouldn't be the first party to use the debt-ceiling debate to do more than embarrass the party in power*. He assumed that Boehner et al wouldn't actually hold the economy hostage while extracting policy promises. He's been using the language of conservatives in talking about the debt problem and the economy.

Sure, Obama found the middle, but he helped shift that middle to the right. No, this was not a bill that Obama was forced to support. In very significant ways, this was a bill that he helped make.

* In power? How does a party "in power" end up supporting a bill that is so skewed to the policy goals of the other party? It's not because the voters wanted something this extreme, if you believe the polls.

[polifrog]

The idea that the economy was "held hostage" by "tea terrorists" is based on the statist's double assumption that our nation is not first being held hostage to the restraints of debt and that our economy is driven by DC policy.

Freeing ourselves from buy-now-pay-later governance requires recognizing that both of those assumptions are fundamentally wrong, that it is the private sector that drives economic growth while policy hinders that growth and that those who support buying nice things with the intent to pay later are the real terrorists who hold the nation hostage with the debt they produce.

Consider the Volker approach of raising interests rates in the early 80's in a successful battle against stagflation. If such an approach were needed today we would not be able to afford it, as the cost of carrying our debt would become too high.

Just as labeling the SWAT team that dispatches with hostage takers as hostage takers is a symptom of Stolkholm syndrome for the abducted, so is labeling the Tea Party hostage takers for attempting to dispatch the nation of debt an indication of the accuser's mental illness. .

[justcorbly]

Andrew, I'll stick with my contention that Obama and the Democrats aren't really "in charge" because they don't have the votes. They've never had the votes to break Senate filibusters, and the last election turned the House over to the Tea Party.

The GOP in Congress has the ability to do what it just did: Sit on its collective fat ass and say no.

I don't know if Obama might have pulled better legislation out of that cesspool. That would have depended on the willingness of GOP extremists to put the country into default rather than vote for new revenue. However, people wouldn't be calling them extremists if they had shown any willingness to compromise.

Clearly, the Tea Party is not interested in governing. It's interested in standing by whatever it decides is a matter of principle. Conservatives routinely argue that government should be run more like a business, but these characters seem to think governing amounts to asserting your beliefs.