4 ms·

Won't it just be the same as last time, i.e. they will be extended? Why should it be any different?

redthrowaway 15y ago
I suspect this sorry affair has hurt Obama's power and credibility within his own party. They would be in a much better position to decide how the US will balance its budget had Obama simply declared the debt ceiling unconstitutional, as Bill Clinton advised him to. Now, they've ceded legitimacy to the Tea Partiers and will have to acknowledge them (and their demands) in future negotiations. To the Democratic senators and congressmen who have been around long enough to know what a bad idea that is, this deal comes off as a betrayal, one made worse by the president's flat refusal to consider the constitutional option. Even if Obama wanted the Senate to capitulate on the Bush tax cuts, he could well face a revolt. The Senate will hold absolute power on that one; they need simply do nothing to see them expire. It was pretty clear that the Tea Party wing of the GOP was willing to see the US default if it meant no increase in revenue and steep cuts to entitlements; I wouldn't be surprised to see Reid et al stick to a "keep the tax breaks for middle income Americans and close loopholes and subsidies for corporations" line, then blame the Republicans for the raise in taxes on the middle class when they don't accept his proposal. After that, it's simply a matter of what a tax break will look like. Democrats have quite clearly stated their willingness to cut taxes for "working Americans" (ugh), so the Republicans would have to argue why they think corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich should be enacted when they will further worsen the deficit. If you're Reid et al, that's a much nicer position to argue from than if you accept Obama's near dogmatic insistence on compromise, or, as many Democrats see it, giving everything away.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  That requires a great deal more self-awareness than I think the Democratic leadership is capable of. Rather, I think the Republicans will get whatever they want, minus some token concession. There's not a great deal of analysis coming from me on that (that sort of thing has gotten too depressing), just a cynical look at the last 30 years and an expectation of the same for the next 30. That said, it's probably good news. If the Tea Party drives America into irrelevance it will be better for everyone in the long run. A monopole world is a terrible idea.

I suspect this sorry affair has hurt Obama's power and credibility within his own party. They would be in a much better position to decide how the US will balance its budget had Obama simply declared the debt ceiling unconstitutional, as Bill Clinton advised him to. Now, they've ceded legitimacy to the Tea Partiers and will have to acknowledge them (and their demands) in future negotiations. To the Democratic senators and congressmen who have been around long enough to know what a bad idea that is, this deal comes off as a betrayal, one made worse by the president's flat refusal to consider the constitutional option. Even if Obama wanted the Senate to capitulate on the Bush tax cuts, he could well face a revolt. The Senate will hold absolute power on that one; they need simply do nothing to see them expire. It was pretty clear that the Tea Party wing of the GOP was willing to see the US default if it meant no increase in revenue and steep cuts to entitlements; I wouldn't be surprised to see Reid et al stick to a "keep the tax breaks for middle income Americans and close loopholes and subsidies for corporations" line, then blame the Republicans for the raise in taxes on the middle class when they don't accept his proposal. After that, it's simply a matter of what a tax break will look like. Democrats have quite clearly stated their willingness to cut taxes for "working Americans" (ugh), so the Republicans would have to argue why they think corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich should be enacted when they will further worsen the deficit. If you're Reid et al, that's a much nicer position to argue from than if you accept Obama's near dogmatic insistence on compromise, or, as many Democrats see it, giving everything away.

bluedanieru 15y ago
That requires a great deal more self-awareness than I think the Democratic leadership is capable of. Rather, I think the Republicans will get whatever they want, minus some token concession. There's not a great deal of analysis coming from me on that (that sort of thing has gotten too depressing), just a cynical look at the last 30 years and an expectation of the same for the next 30. That said, it's probably good news. If the Tea Party drives America into irrelevance it will be better for everyone in the long run. A monopole world is a terrible idea.