Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

^
I was going to post the same thing.

I've slowly warmed up to this idea.

This debt ceiling vote nonsense needs to be eliminated. However, it is the way things have been done for a long time, but this time around it is threatening financial havoc. We've never had a sizable radical minority in a position to wreck the economy. But that is a long term solution.

In the short term, Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment next Monday on the grounds that Congress has failed to come up with an acceptable plan. He should say time is too short now to work out complex legislation and the country cannot afford to risk default. He should make it clear that he is acting in his role as chief executive to defend the country from irresponsible radicals.

He should then say he's still in favor of a Grand Bargain and is willing to consider any idea anyone has that will address the debt in a constructive fashion, just as he's said all along, but point out that something this important should not be worked on in the hot house environment of a phony crisis--panic does not lend itself to good legislation.

Next he should urge passage of a jobs bill that includes borrowing more money and explain that shrinking the government so far has added a half million people to the unemployment roles since he came in to office and that this needs to be reversed.

Finally, he should say very directly that if the radicals in Congress want to impeach him, he's ready for the fight. I think this approach would be a slam dunk with the public in the present environment. The Tea Party would howl, but they have shown themselves to be unreasonably radical.

[visitorq]

[shifter2009]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[visitorq]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[visitorq]

[Ya-ta Boy]

It seems right wing radical Republicans aren't the only ones playing politics with the debt ceiling:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration has grown increasingly frustrated with Standard & Poor's during the U.S. debt limit crisis and accused the ratings agency of changing the goalposts in its downgrade warnings.

Since October, S&P has accelerated its deadline three times for when it might downgrade the United States' coveted AAA credit rating as efforts in Washington to reach a deal on cutting long-term deficits have faltered.

S&P's latest downgrade warning last week came as time runs short for Congress to raise the federal government's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit. Without a deal by August 2, the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and then default, triggering devastating economic consequences.

In telephone calls to top S&P officials, the Obama administration has asked why the ratings agency keeps shortening its timeframe for long-term deficit reduction, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

In October 2010, S&P said it wanted to see a meaningful deal to rein in long-term deficits within three to five years.

In April, it revised the U.S. outlook to negative and warned that a deal on medium- and long-term "budgetary challenges" needed to be struck by 2013.

Last week, S&P said it could downgrade the top-notch U.S. rating within three months and cast doubt on the ability of the divided politicians to ever strike a meaningful deficit deal.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-officials-clash-p-over-downgrade-threats-200358261.html

I knew Moody's had said they might change the rating in 'the middle of July' if something weren't done, and that seemed a reasonable warning, but this is the first I've heard of S&P issuing floating deadlines. Maybe there's an innocent reason for doing this, but it sure looks political to me right now.

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

US President Barack Obama confirmed Friday that tough budget negotiations with his Republican foes had collapsed and said he was willing to take sole responsibility for raising the debt ceiling.

Obama slammed his Republican foes for walking away from an "extraordinarily fair" deal and called new talks with congressional leaders on Saturday at 11:00 am (1500 GMT), adding he was "confident" that the nation would not default on its debt.

The president was speaking after Republican House Speaker John Boehner announced he was pulling out of talks with the White House on averting an early August debt default and would work with the Senate to reach a deal.

"I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders of the Senate in an effort to find a path forward," Boehner said in a letter to members of the House of Representatives.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-press-statement-2200-gmt-220257502.html

Coburn walked out, Cantor walked out, now Boehner has walked out. This seems to be turning into a habit with Republican legislators.

[sirius black]

I haven't been reading much politics because frankly, its depressing. However, I want to be fair about this debt crisis thing. A friend was discussing it (he's a Democrat) and said that Obama was willing to compromise (on cuts) but Republicans were not willing to compromise on revenue (taxes on the rich and corporations). Basically, that only one side is compromising. Is that unfair or does he have a point?

As for Obama, I'm disappointed in his performance but he is certainly not anywhere near as bad as Republicans claim he is. My issue with Obama is that he has become part of the establishment. He's governed as a centrist actually, imho.

Both parties demonize the oppositoin president. Been that way for a while. Sometimes deservedly but its how they are. Clinton and Reagan were president during economic booms and the opposition parties both regard them as bad presidents. You have to go before Johnson to find someone that today both parties would say is a good president. JFK, Ike and Truman.

[Ya-ta Boy]

In deference to the Stopped Clock principle, here is a piece by Conor Friedersdorf:

Grover Norquist's Pledge Is a Colossal Failure

In fact, it is more important than ever to be rid of The Pledge, because it has been a colossal failure. Does anyone think that fiscal conservatives should be happier with the state of our nation's finances now than they were when the pledge began 25 years ago? Does anyone still harbor the illusion that "starve the beast" is an effective method of shrinking the federal government?

Here is why The Pledge has failed. Time and again, it has contributed to the GOP tendency to make taxes their top priority, deficits be damned...What Norquist doesn't understand or won't admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you've got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you've created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they're consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you're making big government more palatable.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/grover-norquists-pledge-is-a-colossal-failure/242340/

[visitorq]

[ontheway]