[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2011-August-02, 08:06, said:

However, to suggest that he'll lose the next election because he did not do so is emotional non-thinking. By 2012 there will be a lot more water under the dam. In fact, the next four months will be very interesting.

Emotions play a big role in elections, and emotion is not incompatible with thinking. As Helene suggests, we have not yet seen the Republican candidate and, with the Tea Party in full frenzy, there is cause for worry. Still, I think that I am far from the only guy out there who has become convinced that Obama is in way over his head, whether the water is over the bridge, under the dam, or wherever. Apres moi, l'deluge (to continue the H2O metaphor) may have worked for DeGaulle but Obama is no DeGaulle.

[hrothgar]

Two quotes from Andrew Sullivan's blog (both from readers, not Sullivan himself)

Quote

In the aftermath of the debt ceiling debate I am most of all disgusted by the political immaturity and spinelessness of my own party which is literally on display in your reader's post without the slightest hint of irony. They are simply not paying attention to realities of today’s Congress. The nihilism of the Right is so complete and so utterly focused on the destruction of a presidency that avoiding default should be considered a miracle unto itself. Democrats should be winding up to beat Republicans with the extent of their depravity and recklessness in 2012. The fact that Obama slipped in defense cuts without entitlements into the trigger and left the Bush Tax Cuts off the table only further proves he is actually paying attention and his style is the right one.

The correct meme isn’t that Obama caved it’s that he got the best deal he could under insane circumstances.

Quote

When one looks at the immediate impact of the debt ceiling agreement, it appears that the GOP got roughly $25 billion in immediate cuts in exchange for a $2 trillion extension of the debt ceiling through the next election. Everything else, the $2.4975 trillion remainder of their "victory" will have to take place after 2012 AND it will have to include, if no Grand Bargain is reached, equal cuts from the Defense budget for every dime of Discretionary cuts, while leaving out SS and Medicare. In between, we can have an election and the GOP will have to run on continuing the Bush tax cuts which, when they run out under a Democratically controlled Congress (ie: Senate vetoing House belligerence) will add $4 trillion over ten years in increased revenue.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-August-02, 08:06, said:

However, to suggest that he'll lose the next election because he did not do so is emotional non-thinking. By 2012 there will be a lot more water under the dam. In fact, the next four months will be very interesting.

not all of us can be emotionless thinkers... i do agree that it's far too early for emotion to sustain a loss by obama... i've seen things turn around much further, much faster

[kenberg]

I acknowledge some emotion in this and I am pretty well ticked off at the whole political establishment. And I hold the republicans responsible for an act of idiocy in making the threat to default. Nonetheless, a president is supposed to be able to cope with adversity.

My guess is that from now on he will be able to get a bill praising motherhood through Congress. I think he will have a tough time marshalling the troops for a tougher battle. We shall see.

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-August-02, 13:59, said:

i do agree that it's far too early for emotion to sustain a loss by obama... i've seen things turn around much further, much faster

Yes, I think that events and conditions close to an election have a much greater impact than what happened the year before. Obama is in trouble politically for sure, but I don't think that the debt ceiling stuff will have a lot of impact a year from now. The unemployment rate will have a lot of impact though.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2011-August-02, 14:56, said:

I acknowledge some emotion in this and I am pretty well ticked off at the whole political establishment. And I hold the republicans responsible for an act of idiocy in making the threat to default. Nonetheless, a president is supposed to be able to cope with adversity.

My guess is that from now on he will be able to get a bill praising motherhood through Congress. I think he will have a tough time marshaling the troops for a tougher battle. We shall see.

you're right, i think... there will be a chance for him to take the lead very shortly, most likely with some sort of stimulus program... it's paradoxical, but the (imo) best stimulus program for the u.s.a. is one that would be political suicide, for him and maybe even senate dems... this assumes such a program is needed, of course... one like the last would be idiotic... do something, if something must be done, that actually creates (NOT SAVES[?])jobs... our infrastructure is in horrible condition... more railways are needed, bridges that we aren't scared to drive across need repairing, all interstates everywhere need to be 6 lanes minimum

[Winstonm]

While I agree with the argument that today's emotions will have little relevance on the next election, my personal view is that this was not about emotions but about watching a President act during times of duress.

The Republican Party simply ignored this guy. Your enemies may not always fear you, but they should at least respect your capabilities.

IMO Obama looks like a pushover.

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2011-August-02, 07:35, said:

Arguable, the Democrats are going to be in a strong position to negotiate this next time around.
They'll be able to trade the Bush tax cuts off against spending cuts
The trigger will impact defense much more heavily than other programs

During the debt ceiling negotiations, many of the republicans -- foolishly, but sincerely -- considered US default to be a better option than any of the proposals. You can never negotiate an agreement unless both parties believe that a negotiated agreement is better than their best alternative.

But now the dynamic has changed. The new alternative is to let the "triggers" be pulled so that the automatic cuts take place. If the democrats can't forge an acceptable agreement with the republicans, they can simply let those automatic cuts take place and also let all the Bush tax cuts expire. Not great, but nowhere near the disaster that a default would have been.

[kenberg]

I am probably being tiresome but in my mind I keep returning to my youthful game of chicken. I see in the paper this morning that our legislators are all congratulating each other on what a fine job they have done in reaching this compromise. After Neil ad I came within a few inches of scatter our cars and ourselves over the roadway, we did not congratulate each other on our skill and judgment. We agreed that we had been truly stupid and had no wish for a re-run. And we were only sixteen.

I am absolutely furious with these jerks.

Firstly, any Congressman or Senator who supported the idea of default has, in my mind, totally disqualified himself from any future position of trust. If they actually thought default was a good idea they are idiots, and if they realized that it was a bad idea but thought it a good idea to threaten it anyway they are worse than idiots.

Secondly, I have no faith whatsoever in their ability to craft a responsible bill. Apparently the twelve person super committee will consist of six people who will under no circumstances accept any increase in taxes and six more people who will under no circumstances accept any revision to entitlements. So we will all watch a re-run of Budget Chicken.

Third, this seems to be being framed as defense cuts for the liberals versus medicare cuts for the conservatives. I suppose that I qualify more as a liberal than a conservative but I do not favor mindless cuts in defense and I have conservative friends who do not favor mindless cuts in medicare or other social programs. Our representatives seem to dissolve into a puddle at the thought of upsetting the more rabid elements in their base.

I'll be more than happy to congratulate these guys when/if they actually accomplish something.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2011-August-03, 07:44, said:

Firstly, any Congressman or Senator who supported the idea of default has, in my mind, totally disqualified himself from any future position of trust. If they actually thought default was a good idea they are idiots, and if they realized that it was a bad idea but thought it a good idea to threaten it anyway they are worse than idiots.

One of the advantages of being in business is that you can generally avoid having any dealings with such people. I find it interesting (and rather bizarre) that politicians actually campaign for the opportunity to negotiate with fools and crooks.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-August-03, 08:32, said:

I find it interesting (and rather bizarre) that politicians actually campaign for the opportunity to negotiate with fools and crooks.

surely this isn't news to you, and surely you know that this isn't limited to any one group

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-August-03, 12:55, said:

surely this isn't news to you, and surely you know that this isn't limited to any one group

No, I've long been fascinated by it.

Like you, I'd like to see substantial spending on our crumbling infrastructure, which would provide needed jobs and bolster business. And, like you, I'd have much preferred single-payer healthcare reform. But no matter how clear and objective the advantages of these (and other) options are, our numbskull congress cannot bring themselves to choose them.

And it's not just one party at fault, which is why I'm an independent conservative voter. However, it should be clear to everyone that modern republican ideology has fostered fiscal irresponsibility to a much greater degree than that of the democrats.

Aside from opposing ill-considered wars, my biggest issue is fiscal responsibility. So on the national level, I'm usually -- but not always -- practically forced to vote for a democrat. On the local level I hardly pay attention to political party.

[hotShot]

Around here poeple agree that President Obama has lost but they think the Candidate Obama won.

His prize was a premium theme for the re-election campaign.
If the Republicans pick a candidate that is not from the Tea Party, the question will be can this candidate control the Tea Party?
If the candidate is from the Tea Party, the question would be, can the US carry the burden of a president incapable to compromise, to the extend to let the county default.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-August-03, 13:47, said:

No, I've long been fascinated by it.

Like you, I'd like to see substantial spending on our crumbling infrastructure, which would provide needed jobs and bolster business. And, like you, I'd have much preferred single-payer healthcare reform. But no matter how clear and objective the advantages of these (and other) options are, our numbskull congress cannot bring themselves to choose them.

And it's not just one party at fault, which is why I'm an independent conservative voter. However, it should be clear to everyone that modern republican ideology has fostered fiscal irresponsibility to a much greater degree than that of the democrats.

Aside from opposing ill-considered wars, my biggest issue is fiscal responsibility. So on the national level, I'm usually -- but not always -- practically forced to vote for a democrat. On the local level I hardly pay attention to political party.

I wish I had said this but I have to give credit where it is due - from Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture:

Quote

I keep saying I am not a Democrat because I have no idea what their economic policy is, and I am not a Republican because I know EXACTLY what their economic policy is. That is our policy choices: Inept cluelessness on one side, and hapless fantasy-based lunacy on the other.

And in the middle stands Obama, trying to form a compromise between the inept and the delusional.

[kenberg]

This Ritholz guy may be on to something.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2011-August-03, 17:34, said:

I wish I had said this but I have to give credit where it is due - from Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture:

Quote

I keep saying I am not a Democrat because I have no idea what their economic policy is, and I am not a Republican because I know EXACTLY what their economic policy is. That is our policy choices: Inept cluelessness on one side, and hapless fantasy-based lunacy on the other.

And in the middle stands Obama, trying to form a compromise between the inept and the delusional.

The US political system is completely dominated by two firmly entrenched political parties, but there are very many political viewpoints. With the republicans demanding more and more ideological purity, it seems inevitable that the democrats become more fragmented and that the bloc of independent voters grows.

This would not pose so much of a problem if the modern republican ideology were rational.

[PassedOut]

A few posts back I said that the "triggers" set to force a deficit-reduction agreement between the two parties this year are not so disastrous as a default would have been. A negotiated agreement with revenue increases would be better, of course, but if the republicans remain intransigent on taxes, we can be sure that the automatic military cuts won't damage US security at all.

Fareed Zakaria discussed this in the Post yesterday: Why defense spending should be cut

Quote

Serious conservatives should examine the defense budget, which contains tons of evidence of liberalism run amok that they usually decry. Most talk of waste, fraud and abuse in government is vastly exaggerated; there simply isn’t enough money in discretionary spending. Most of the federal government’s spending is transfer payments and tax expenditures, which are — whatever their merits — highly efficient at funneling money to their beneficiaries. The exception is defense, a cradle-to-grave system of housing, subsidies, cost-plus procurement, early retirement and lifetime pension and health-care guarantees. There is so much overlap among the military services, so much duplication and so much waste that no one bothers to defend it anymore. Today, the U.S. defense establishment is the world’s largest socialist economy.

Although much of that spending is useless from a defense perspective, the defense budget is a large part of the social safety net in the US, providing make-work jobs that put money into the hands of folks who would otherwise add to the unemployment problem we face today.

It would be more effective to redirect that money from make-work defense establishment jobs to real infrastructure enhancements. But that approach would make sense, no doubt excluding it from congressional consideration.

[kenberg]

I don't doubt at all that there could be substantial cuts in defense spending that would not jeopardize national security. Most if not all programs, in and outside the military, get a lot of flab on them. However, making effective cuts requires judgment, that's the problem. An unneeded military base in the district of a powerful Congressman may be safe from elimination, adequate body armor may not have a corresponding support system.

Or, for another example, it is my understanding that medical care for our returning soldiers, both physical and psychological, is in need of an increase, not a decrease.

Maybe the trigger should make automatic cuts in the salaries of Congress.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-August-04, 06:09, said:

But that approach would make sense, no doubt excluding it from congressional consideration.

you mustn't forget a congressman's prime directive - ensure at all costs re-election

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-August-04, 09:06, said:

you mustn't forget a congressman's prime directive - ensure at all costs re-election

For sure. Regardless of party, the incumbent invariably insists that all government-funded jobs in his or her district -- no matter how objectively useless -- are absolutely vital to the security of the nation.

Similarly for business subsidies and blocking the regulation of dominant industries. My voting residence is in Michigan, for example, and it is a given that anyone sent to Washington from Michigan, regardless of party, protects the auto industry at all costs.