Great. So why won’t they pick up the gun every single time now?
I wonder, would Hilary have handled it better? I’m thinking yes.
Me too. But she wasn’t an option for most of us. She would at least have the ba…the guts to stand up for something.
At this point I wonder if McCain might have been less disastrous, and I’m no fan of the man.
In considerable measure by not inspiring the election of a bunch of madmen, but also by not then being just a wet noodle in confronting their ilk. What a catastrophe.
The whole Super Committee thing doesn’t seem to make much sense.
If there are punishment mechanisms in place so that unfavorable stuff happens if they don’t reach an agreement (and this seems to be the case), what makes democrats think republicans won’t just do the same thing again, threatening to tank the economy if democrats don’t cave? Democrats did just reinforce that behavior once again after all.
Having threatened to suicide bomb the economy once, a second time isn’t much worse. Republicans would be stupid not to do it. If the public didn’t blame them for the first time, they won’t for the second. If they did blame them for the first time, they are damned anyway, so why not a second time?
Yes, i am starting to wonder too. Obama campaigned strongly as being in the middle and reaching across the aisle, something that has hamstrung his ability to do anything. I got that feeling a lot less from Hilary. Whatever the case, i think the democrat’s next presidential candidate (after obama obviously) will not talk about compromise as much.
I am generally not a fan of “voting against” policies or parties (i.e., as opposed to “voting for” a party that represents policies you agree with), but that attitude presupposes a multi-party system such as the one we have in Denmark or Norway - not a two-party situation. How does “not voting” even remotely make sense with the current political situation in the US? Isn’t that part of what got the US into the current mess in the first place (i.e., people deciding that the Democrats hadn’t done that well in the first two years, so let’s punish them by not voting in the mid-term)?
I guess it comes down to this for the people whining, is this deal so bad we should just default to avoid it?
When the deal emboldens the party that put a gun to the nation’s head to do it again to keep getting its way, maybe. . .just maybe. . .there’s more to this situation than the binary choice of what’s behind door #1 or #2.
I’m not whining about the deal itself necessarily. I’m whining (if you want to use that word) about the means to getting the deal and the way one party caved to the underhanded tactics of the other. I WANT both parties to have power. I want compromise. This isn’t that. This is dictatorship in all but name.
No at this point it is either default, or don’t default, there really aren’t other choices at this point. Avoiding a default is what is most important I think.
Go argue to the american people in 2012 about the process and what the republicans did.
I would certainly prefer the negotiations on this “compromise” break down if the alternative is Obama going to the mattresses and employing other means to avoid a default. The political costs would be very high, but this deal may very well concede the presidency in 2012, quite apart from the more direct “wrongness” of doing extreme damage to the US and global economies and creating a host of fiscal crises at all levels of government.
His using ‘other means’ of questionable legality to avoid a default will cost him the election in 2012.
This national hostage-taking involved the threat of an unconstitutional default. Wah wah questionable legality. And given that he’s quite possibly conceding the presidency with this economy-killing surrender…
It would be a constitutional crisis that would have to be decided by the supreme court. That is not a bad thing?
And how does avoiding a default kill the economy?
Cutting spending during a recession is what kills the economy.
Though I’m less convinced that will happen (or be possible to pin on this bill). I’m more upset by the precedent.
So thats worse then the meltdown of the world economy from a default?
I also am not happy about how things happened, but now it does give a clear choice to the american people in 2012, they will show what side they prefer then.
Please stop. You know that no one wanted a default. The options we are choosing from are:
-
Avoid default by giving into the demands of a small minority willing to default rather than give in.
-
Find some other way to avoid default.
Quit with your red herring already.
Obama has just effectively hamstrung his first (and quite possibly, only) term.
This isn’t a compromise. The only thing the extremist didn’t get was a balanced budget amendment, and cuts to Medicare and SS - which they’ll get next time.
You can’t govern through slogans. “Reckless spending” isn’t the cause of the anemic economy or lack of job growth. Repeating the same bullshit repeatedly doesn’t make it true. The Tea Party’s stupidity is beyond measure - they do not understand democracy, the democratic process, or the economy. “Mainstream” Republicans OTOH are not - they’ll use those tea party morons to continue to exact whatever they want from Obama. He has caved on virtually every important issue since elected to office.
Clinton turned it around. I’m close to convinced Obama won’t.
Hugin
1799
It’s kind of doubtful the Supreme Court would even take the case, because it’s unclear who has standing on the prosecution side.
Obama has said over and over he wont use those other methods. So its either a bill that will pass congress or a default. There are no other choices, so go shove your red herring some where.
