If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

posted at 4:32 pm on July 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

I tossed that question out on Twitter this morning and no one had an answer. Verum Serum and Ace have been thinking the same thing and they don’t have answers either. Simple question: If, as the White House insists, hitting the debt ceiling would be the economic equivalent of an asteroid hitting the Earth, and if the only way to avoid that (i.e. the only way to get something through the House) is with a scaled-down bill that would raise the ceiling only until mid-2012, why isn’t the Lightbringer okay with that? Granted, it would mean he’d have to face another asteroid next year in the middle of the campaign, but so what? How is that a reason to let this asteroid hit right now?

To put it another way, is there any policy reason why Obama won’t agree to a short-term deal or is this really as horribly cynical as it looks — that he simply refuses to do anything that might complicate his reelection campaign, even if that means a default by the United States? Jake Tapper pressed Carney about that in today’s briefing — which is worse, default or a short-term deal? — and Carney actually said, no joke, “Both are bad; I can’t choose which is worse for you.” In a sane world, that answer would shatter the White House narrative that hitting the ceiling is an avoid-at-all-costs risk since, evidently, the Perpetual Campaigner thinks another slugfest over this next year is a greater risk than defaulting now would be. The only policy rationale I can come up with for his position is that, in the middle of a brutal campaign, the two sides will be even further dug in than they are now such that there’ll be zero chance of a deal next year compared to the very, very slim chance that there is for one now. But who knows if that’s true: If the presidential race is tight at the time, which is likely, brinksmanship will be extremely risky for both sides lest a default occur and their party be blamed by the public right before the election. In fact, if the economy is still sluggish and the GOP nominee is benefiting in the polls, Republicans will have added incentive not to risk their political advantage by going to the wall on the debt ceiling. So there’s no reason to think Debt Ceiling II would necessarily be bloodier than Debt Ceiling I. The only sure thing is that it would take away time from Obama to fundraise and campaign, which, I guess, is worth gambling the full faith and credit of the U.S. government on.

Chuck Schumer, among other liberals, has innocently wondered whether the GOP is deliberately trying to tank the economy for political advantage, so let me repay the kindness here. Is Obama drawing the line on short-term deals because he thinks that, if it comes to this, he might be able to spin a default next month for electoral gain? There’s already reason to believe that voters will blame the GOP if we hit the ceiling; if that’s so, then O has a ready-made scapegoat for his biggest political liability next year. Unemployment still above nine percent come fall 2012? Why, that’s the Republicans’ fault for letting America default, the DNC will say. If only we’d reached a debt-ceiling deal, you see, then we never have had that jolt and unemployment would be below eight percent and dropping. That’s what Obama’s economists will claim. You trust his economists to tell you the truth about unemployment, don’t you?

Needless to say, the House’s next move now should be to pass a short-term debt-ceiling increase keyed to something like $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and dare Obama to veto it. That would accomplish the same thing as McConnell’s plan, basically, by putting the decision on the ceiling squarely in The One’s court. If he’s so appallingly self-centered that he’d veto an opportunity to avert default simply to avoid making his own life tougher next year, then let’s make sure everyone knows that. And if House Republicans are unhappy with such a small bill, good news: The “big” bill was kind of a joke anyway. I’ll leave you with this video of Reid dumping on Eric Cantor on the Senate floor this morning, which is the latest attempt by Democrats to confound the Republican caucus by driving a wedge between him and Boehner. That’s another example of them putting politics above policy: If getting something passed to avert a default is paramount and the House is the big stumbling block in that endeavor, all this does is slow things down further by aggravating tensions among the GOP and reducing Boehner’s “moderate” leverage. And yet, here Reid is anyway. Go figure.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

For the same contemptible reason that he/they moved immediately to menace SosSec and mil pay, despite the monthly revenues still outstripping the mandatory debt payments – pure BS manipulation. Stage play. The hollow demands for hollow ideas by hollow men.

rayra on July 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

wouldn’t it be due to Moody saying we now rate at such and such rating (lets say a BBB)which wouldn’t make our bonds complete junk(or close to it) but would also make the interest on the “bonds” more inflated and many more people would buy into them?

Just a thought.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Reid is like the scorpion in the old joke. It’s in his nature to attack other people even if it really prevents him from getting anything done.

Ace has some great transcripts from Tapper’s grilling of Jay Carney on this by the way.

rockmom on July 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

That wouldn’t be a catastrophe catastrophe. C’mon AP, you knew this.

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM

He knows that the quicker he can force any “compromise” down our throats, the less time people have to mobilize against it. Also he is thinking the entire ’95 battle. All of which will mean nothing since even after that battle the Republican Congress was able to force welfare reform from Slick. Da One also does not have the advantage of a tech stock boom to help buffer the coffers, so this is poised to blow back into his face big time. Of course we are waiting to see if the Republicans crater because they aren’t getting any “love” from the press.

TQM38a on July 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Oboehner, as one commenter at NRO said, didn’t raise the white flag, but wanted the Democrats to know he has one and knows how to use it. The GOP has lost the PR war and will be rolled by Obama.

cartooner on July 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Simple question: If, as the White House insists, hitting the debt ceiling would be the economic equivalent of an asteroid hitting the Earth, and if the only way to avoid that (i.e. the only way to get something through the House) is with a scaled-down bill that would raise the ceiling only until mid-2012, why isn’t the Lightbringer okay with that?

“We’ll get Bruce Willis. The best deepcore driller in my @ss.” – Billy Bob Thornton, Armageddon outtakes

On a slightly more serious note, the answer is obvious. Obama either wants to GOP to cave so badly that it demoralizes the Tea Party and conservatives. Or he wants no deal to get passed and pin the entire economy on Republicans. This is all political. It’s why he’s playing games with seniors’ checks when everyone in DC knows there’s plenty of money in the Treasury to cover those entitlements, debt ceiling hike or not.

I hate to say it, but I think the GOP should just pass a small package in the House(without tax hikes of course), send it over to Reid in the Senate and see if the Dems really have the stones to gamble with the entire economy in order to pursue a political strategery.

Doughboy on July 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Knucklehead on July 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Needless to say, the House’s next move now should be to pass a short-term debt-ceiling increase keyed to something like $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and dare Obama to veto it. That would accomplish the same thing as McConnell’s plan, basically, by putting the decision on the ceiling squarely in The One’s court.

Agree 100%

RedRedRice on July 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM

I can’t really remember what happened in the last shutdown in 94-95. Was it a BFD?

I say, hang tough, GOP. We can’t kick the can down the road again; the road deadends with Obama, as emperor, in 2012.

PattyJ on July 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Cuz he’s a lying, narcissistic, anti-American POS.

That is the answer to any question that starts with Why does Obama….

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I can’t really remember what happened in the last shutdown in 94-95. Was it a BFD?

I say, hang tough, GOP. We can’t kick the can down the road again; the road deadends with Obama, as emperor, in 2012.

PattyJ on July 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM

I don’t remember either. I was in college then and didn’t follow politics at all. I kind of remember hearing something about govt shutting down. But my life didn’t change one bit because of it.

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I’m here to provide some cheery thoughts: 0 wants his way so much that he would be willing to make sure we default on the interest payments just to show the GOP. Also believing he would be protected by the media blaming it on the GOP. Anyone disagree? And I think that thought is in the minds of the GOP negotiators.

Oleta on July 14, 2011 at 4:46 PM

when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Obozo only knows campaigning, whether it is community organizing or campaigning for a political office. That’s it, other than he plays golf.

Soros-tool-in-chief will be a useful Soros tool until he fails to deliver and then you will see him vanish from the political scene.

belad on July 14, 2011 at 4:46 PM

What happened when the possibility of Obama agreeing to cuts for Medicare and Social Security was floated? Oh, yeah: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/olbermann-scolds-obama-entitlement-cuts-a-betrayal-of-who-you-are/ and http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/obama-faces-dem-backlash-over-possible-concessions-in-deficit-talks/ Any Obama compromise will have the Left screaming “Sell-out!”

And why should Obama compromise now? Worst case scenario: U.S. defaults — they blame the GOP — and it would probably work:

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the “current condition” of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.

As AP and others have pointed out, a short-term debt ceiling deal would expire uncomfortably close to the election next year, leaving the WH to come grovelling to Congress for another advance on its allowance. It’s not just the WH that’s up for grabs next year, either, don’t forget that.

cynccook on July 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Ace has some great transcripts from Tapper’s grilling of Jay Carney on this by the way.

rockmom on July 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Whats this? Tapper growing another set of Thatchers?

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Hell, Obama’s so vainglorious that he’s trying to scare a ‘solution’ to prevent interfering with his BIRTHDAY PARTY in Chicago on Aug3, much less the 2012 campaign.

rayra on July 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Remember, when it comes down to it, Obama is scared shirtless of any sort of face-to-face personal confrontation, which is part of the reason why he walked out on Cantor Wednesday night. If he can’t handle dealing with the No. 2 person of the opposing party in the House, just think of how he’d basically crap in his briefs at the thought of having to confront his core supporters if he actually did negotiate a good-faith agreement with the Republican leadership.

Obama’s more afraid of having to face down his base than he is a government shutdown, and at this point still thinks he and his crew have the brainpower (and know they have the big media support) to pressure the GOP to cave into his demands and/or get the swing voters to blame the Republicans for any action Obama takes if the debt ceiling deadline isn’t met.
That’s the difference between this president and the last Democrat in the White House — when push came to shove, Bill Clinton was perfectly willing to throw the left of his party under the bus to win re-election. Obama still thinks he can win another term by throwing the GOP under the bus, and odds are will never have the stomach Clinton did to tell his core supporters to pound sand, knowing they have no other option but to vote for him or stay home next November.

jon1979 on July 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Granted, it would mean he’d have to face another asteroid next year in the middle of the campaign, but so what?

I think the answer is as simple as that. He’s cornered, and the last thing he’s going to do is bring this back up next year, where anything other than the best possible outcome would create a landslide against him in the general.

MadisonConservative on July 14, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Since Obama brought it up:

Whats the difference between Reagan and Obama?

One was an actor. The other is acting.

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Oleta on July 14, 2011 at 4:46 PM

I will give you that. But I don’t think the media will be worshipping him if this happens though.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Obama stormed out on asking for another hike before the election, not taxes. Obama’s good with a 1.7T deal- ALL CUTS. He just doesn’t want to ask again next summer.

So yes, this is all about Obama’s re-election, not default.

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 4:49 PM

TQM38a on July 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM

It also isn’t 1995 anymore, and that playbook won’t work. In 1995, the economy was on an upward trend, and this made voters complacent. in 2011, voters are hungry, angry, and scared. Engineering a shutdown to blame the GOP isn’t going to be as successful this time, I think.

Sekhmet on July 14, 2011 at 4:50 PM

I think the answer is as simple as that. He’s cornered, and the last thing he’s going to do is bring this back up next year, where anything other than the best possible outcome would create a landslide against him in the general.

MadisonConservative on July 14, 2011 at 4:48 PM

He also doesn’t wanna have to work at all next year. 2012 for him will be all about campaigning. Pelosi kind of admitted this today when she said he’s too busy for these negotiations.

Doughboy on July 14, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Re Dingy “dumping on Eric Cantor”, I can barely hear him speak. What is wrong with Dingy? I can see why he’s not capable of going toe to toe with Republicans, he’s near catatonic.

slickwillie2001 on July 14, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Catastrophes are racist! So are debt ceilings.

search4truth on July 14, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Because he has only one agenda and that is to get himself reelected. He couldn’t care less about veterans, active military, seniors or anyone else in this country. He is a despicable loser. And just out of curiosity, does he intend to pay or provide funds to himself, his chef, his administration, his union buddies, Acorn, planned parenthood or any several dozen other slimy left wing entities? Thank you enlightened voters, you really stuck it to us this time.

rplat on July 14, 2011 at 4:52 PM

And speaking of the 2012 election, what are the odds that 0 cannot agree on a suitable time for a debate? He was fine in 2008 with his smoke and mirrors, but 2012 isn’t going to be the same.

Oleta on July 14, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Because the President is a liar and a hypocrite, and because he knows that the news media will successfully blame the Republicans.

Really Right on July 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

Good question. Here’s another one that was posed on Rush’s program today: If there will be hundreds of billions in federal tax receipts in August, and Obama doesn’t pay interest on our debt and withholds S.S. payments and Medicare payments, then who will receive all those tax receipts? If Obama fails to pay our bills then who will receive the money?

Weight of Glory on July 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Too bad he couldn’t as The Won that question.

Cindy Munford on July 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM

he simply refuses to do anything that might complicate his reelection campaign

Yep. Because it’s all about Barry all of the time.

GarandFan on July 14, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Big ups to Tapper for making that imbecile Carney give up the game for Obama- using the threat of a disasterous default as cheap political leverage.
It’s all on him now- the GOP needs to hammer this admission by little Jay.

jjshaka on July 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Politicians who think the American people support their positions are more than happy to vote on something just prior to election day.

That Obama threatens to shut down the government to keep this from happening tells you everything you need to know.

MayBee on July 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM

The jolt theory has a problem: ‘stimulus’.

That was supposed to do it and made things work.

These ‘jolts’ to the economy are not something to get the heart started they are, instead, kicks to the groin. If all the spending heretofore hasn’t done it to the tune of $1 trillion+ then NOTHING government does in INCREASED spending will do it.

Then the other solution must be tried.

Stop the spending.

And our debt rating is going to go down if we spend more… we are overspent. And the only reason the markets are jittery are the ‘default’ talk while there is plenty of cash to cover our current debt burden. The reason we HAVE a federal government is to PAY OFF DEBT. That is why the Confederal system had to be replaced. If our federal government can’t do that, then it is a complete, utter and absolute failure a the only thing it used to be able to do.

ajacksonian on July 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Allah:

Jake Tapper pressed Carney about that in today’s briefing — which is worse, default or a short-term deal? — and Carney actually said, no joke, “Both are bad; I can’t choose which is worse for you.”

These are words that should be in BOLD!

Abby Adams on July 14, 2011 at 5:00 PM

They are making too much of Moody’s threat to lower the credit rating of the US. What’s the big problem? Are they scared that will cause interest rates to skyroocket? In 1980, the credit rating of the US then was AAA, just as it is now, but interest rates were around 15%.

Emperor Norton on July 14, 2011 at 5:00 PM

It’s very easy for me to say this because I’m not ‘in the game’, but here it goes: the Democrats will spin anything to help them win reelection. If it has nothing to do with the debt ceiling, it’ll have to do with something else, and it will entail just as much venom and hatred as us humans can possibly handle. So, we might as well go all-out on this debt ceiling thingy. Republicans are going to be the bad guys no matter what, so we might as well die on this hill and see what happens. As far as blaming the GOP, all the polls I’m reading want a plan heavy on cuts and light on new taxes. If the Dims want something heavy on taxes and light on cuts and we end up with no deal because of it, I don’t see why the Dims wouldn’t be blamed as well.

joejm65 on July 14, 2011 at 5:00 PM

I’m not worried about my military retirement check this month, or SS. You know why?

They deposit on the 1st.

I’ll worry about it if we’re still here a month from now.

Pelley is a hack, serving up softballs to let Obama scare people and set up the narrative.

JeffWeimer on July 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Look, just don’t call his bluff, man!

Blacklake on July 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Stop trying to use logic, Allah. It makes it harder to scare people.

John the Libertarian on July 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM

To put it another way, is there any policy reason why Obama won’t agree to a short-term deal or is this really as horribly cynical as it looks

It’ simple, if you look at how the ‘short-term’ deals are expected to play out. The GOP is proposing a set of smaller deals where each agreement is tied to spending cuts. Each set of spending cuts will ultimately affect the middle class most and avoid eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the upper class.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM

AP: you should not be asking such embarrassing of Bluffy, THE POUTUS. He might just get angry and leave in a tiff.

The War Planner on July 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Allah’s question reminds me of this beauty:

“If you gave an order that Private Santiago wasn’t to be touched and your orders are always followed, why would he have needed to be transferred off the base?”

Ha! The answer is self-evident.

hooligan on July 14, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Oh for the good old days…when Jimmy Carter was president.

sdd on July 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership has no intention of cutting anything except the military budget.

bw222 on July 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

It’ simple, if you look at how the ‘short-term’ deals are expected to play out. The GOP is proposing a set of smaller deals where each agreement is tied to spending cuts. Each set of spending cuts will ultimately affect the middle class most and avoid eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the upper class.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Which Obama is also fine with up to $1.7 trillion dollars.

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Knucklehead on July 14, 2011 at 4:42 PM

And sometimes you need to manufacture a crisis , so it wont get wasted.

the_nile on July 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

“If you gave an order that Private Santiago wasn’t to be touched and your orders are always followed, why would he have needed to be transferred off the base?”

hooligan on July 14, 2011 at 5:04 PM

“I asked if was he in danger, you said yes, I asked if it was grave danger, you said is there any other kind? You do remember saying that? Because I could go back and read the court transcripts.”

John the Libertarian on July 14, 2011 at 5:07 PM

The policy rationale was, is, and will always be the same: Obama must be re-elected, no matter what. Failure to achieve that is the most disastrous consequence imaginable for him. In fact, it would be the ultimate abandonment.

All else is noise.

Christien on July 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Because PBHO wants things to collapse?

Bishop on July 14, 2011 at 5:09 PM

It’ simple, if you look at how the ‘short-term’ deals are expected to play out. The GOP is proposing a set of smaller deals where each agreement is tied to spending cuts. Each set of spending cuts will ultimately affect the middle class most and avoid eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the upper class.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Which Obama is also fine with up to $1.7 trillion dollars.

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

If you look at the numbers published by WSJ and others, the middle class will bear the brunt of deficit reduction unless previous tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Politically, that’s very difficult for Obama to accept.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Needless to say, the House’s next move now should be to pass a short-term debt-ceiling increase keyed to something like $1.5 trillion in spending cuts

There isn’t going to be $1.5 trillion in cuts because congress can’t bind future congresses. The Republican Party should stop making promises that are impossible for them to keep and just stick to cuts in the ’12 budget, about which they’ve actually already made promises to cut spending and now have the means to deliver on their promises, (unlike in 10 or 12 years long after we’ve thrown their azzez out of power).

So instead of passing a sham bill, IMO, the Republican’s should pass a clean bill through the House without a bunch of gimmicks. For every dollar they raise the debt limit they should cut a dollar from the ’12 budget and not pretend like they can influence spending in the future.

If a 1:1 ratio doesn’t cut it, maybe they can try to explain that to the American people who might be sold on a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. But perhaps I’m wrong and the America people will decide that 1:1 is most suitable.

FloatingRock on July 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

The policy rationale was, is, and will always be the same: Obama must be re-elected, no matter what. Failure to achieve that is the most disastrous consequence imaginable for him. In fact, it would be the ultimate abandonment.

All else is noise.

Christien on July 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Yes.

the_nile on July 14, 2011 at 5:12 PM

And sometimes you need to manufacture a crisis , so it wont get wasted.

the_nile on July 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Yep.

Operation Fast & Furious

Crickets.

Knucklehead on July 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM

If you look at the numbers published by WSJ and others, the middle class will bear the brunt of deficit reduction unless previous tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Politically, that’s very difficult for Obama to accept.
bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

“Politically” is right. Americans should be happy that a presidential election looms, because political concern is the only reason PBHO would give a flying turd about the middle class.

Bishop on July 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Obama is holding the country hostage.

novaculus on July 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM

In fact, it would be the ultimate abandonment.
Christien on July 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM

I’m sort of tired of America having to atone for PBHO’s daddy issues.

Bishop on July 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Obama is holding the country hostage.

novaculus on July 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM

All he ask for is to get reelected…

the_nile on July 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM

.
So. This must be the way one blackmails one’s way back to the Presidency …
.

Arbalest on July 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Why is the House still negotiating with the terrorists?!? Pass a freakin’ bill and make them choke on it.

SouthernGent on July 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM

If you look at the numbers published by WSJ and others, the middle class will bear the brunt of deficit reduction unless previous tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Politically, that’s very difficult for Obama to accept.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM

He’s fine with 1.7 trillion in cuts. Who do you think that hurts the most?

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM

because political concern is the only reason PBHO would give a flying turd about the middle class.

Bishop on July 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Unless Obama saved your job at GM, Ford, or Chrysler.

You guys are too much. You too easily fall for the us vs. them story line. Both sides of the aisles have respectable positions and respectable motivations. Neither Obama or Boehner is evil.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Republican envoy: Odaffi has a plan to blow up America rather than lose power.

Christien on July 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Unless Obama saved your job at GM, Ford, or Chrysler.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Non-union jobs didn’t fare so well.

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:23 PM

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

GM & Chrysler should have gone through existing bankruptcy where just as many jobs would have been saved, creditors would have gotten a better deal and dealership owners could have kept their business. The U.S. government has no business picking winners and losers.

Cindy Munford on July 14, 2011 at 5:28 PM

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

I’ll take “Because he’s an incompetent, power-hungry ideologue who’s h#ll bent on growing nanny state gub’mint at all costs” for $500, Alex.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 14, 2011 at 5:29 PM

I’m not sure the Republicans should do anything at this point. Every time they are asked, “what are you going to do about X?”, or, “what do you have to say about Y?”, their response should be for the Democrats to put their cards on the table in writing. The Senate should pass a budget and or Obama should release a budget for consideration. Boehner’s tried, now it’s the Democrats turn, it’s time for them to put their cards on the table.

At least try that for a while, I think it will work. I think the America people will agree that the Democrats should put their cards on the table and the fact that they haven’t proves that they are not taking this process serious, not in the least. The Democrats are making a mockery of the process.

FloatingRock on July 14, 2011 at 5:30 PM

If Republican’s are asked the status of negotiations I think the status should be we are waiting on the Democrats to put their cards on the table.

FloatingRock on July 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM

GM & Chrysler should have gone through existing bankruptcy where just as many jobs would have been saved, creditors would have gotten a better deal and dealership owners could have kept their business. The U.S. government has no business picking winners and losers.

Cindy Munford on July 14, 2011 at 5:28 PM

FOX 2 News’ hidden cameras have captured Chrysler Group LLC workers drinking beer and smoking what appears to be marijuana in a parking lot at United Auto Workers Local 372 near the company’s Trenton Engine Plant during their breaks. Another worker was shown drinking before reporting for work at the plant.

Local officials would not comment on the footage.

cynccook on July 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Unless Obama saved your job at GM, Ford, or Chrysler.

You guys are too much. You too easily fall for the us vs. them story line. Both sides of the aisles have respectable positions and respectable motivations. Neither Obama or Boehner is evil.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Obama saved 50,000 jobs at the expense of 500,000 jobs and 3 trillion dollars.

You think that is reasonable.

What does that say about you?

portlandon on July 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM

If I were Boehner I would take all previous negotiations off the table until the Democrats put their cards on the table. Don’t let the Democrats capitulate and accept one of those deals because if they are forced to put their cards on the table we’ll get a much better deal.

FloatingRock on July 14, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Excellent summation of things political in the USA today, AP!

why isn’t the Lightbringer okay with that?

POUTUS

pilamaye on July 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Brilliant, from the Obamateurism thread.

The American people must see that it’s all about Obama, all the time.

The NPD’d creature must be exposed, if only the right had some.

Schadenfreude on July 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Unless Obama saved your job at GM, Ford, or Chrysler.

You guys are too much. You too easily fall for the us vs. them story line. Both sides of the aisles have respectable positions and respectable motivations. Neither Obama or Boehner is evil.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

How many jobs do you think were actually saved at GM and Chrysler, as opposed to allowing them to go through a regular bankruptcy and void their union contracts?

Talk about falling for a storyline!

rockmom on July 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Neither Obama or Boehner is evil.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Obama is most definitely evil.

Schadenfreude on July 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM

What does that say about you?

portlandon on July 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Harlot

Schadenfreude on July 14, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Everyone should be reading Verum Serum these days. An excellent post notes that the debt celeing was raised 7 times since Democrats took control of Congress, and NOT ONE TIME did either the Congressional leadership nor President Obam,a suggest any tax increases as paet of the deal.

This entire stupid exercise is about Democrats trying to force Republicans into swallowing a tax increase, which they know will lead to a revolt of the GOP base and an easy campaign theme to throw at them in 2012. They would not propose such an increase when they had control of both houses of Congress, but suddenly it becomes a deal-breaker now that Republicans have control of the House. They are willing to risk default and chaos to score that political point.

rockmom on July 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM

I think the Republicans should just pass a “no debt limit increase” bill, and let the President figure out where to cut. After all, outside of funding Congress and the Supreme Court, its all Executive branch expenditures, anyway.

Oh, and let the President know that anything he does not pay for will be deemed ‘non-essential’ and will not be funded in next year’s budget. Wonder what he’d do then with his Social Security threat…

ss396 on July 14, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Obama saved 50,000 jobs at the expense of 500,000 jobs and 3 trillion dollars.

You think that is reasonable.

What does that say about you?

portlandon on July 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Your numbers are unfounded, ideological nonsense- esp. when you consider the employee base of the 3 major automakers, dependent suppliers, and jobs throughout communities where these workers are employed.

Alan Greenspan, Hank Paulson, and the vast majority of preeminent Wall Street economists though the stimulus was a necessary step to avoid a much deeper recession. China and Germany enacted similar policies.
You think you know better? What does that say about you?

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM

What is so funny, is every action POTUS takes backfires in a huge way. This is his crisis, he owns it. The leaders of both chambers have offered him a way out, at a small price. But noooooo……. he likes his rock and hard place. Madness. Complete and utter madness.

flackcatcher on July 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Granted, it would mean he’d have to face another asteroid next year in the middle of the campaign, but so what? How is that a reason to let this asteroid hit right now?

Because he can’t credibly fold now and re-bluff the same hand next time. And it will be the same hand at best. If he believes the “second dip recession” forecasts, it could be even worse. If he can’t sell tax increases in this economy, what’s his case in a worse one? By his lights, he has one chance, and only one, to bluff his way past a debt limit expiration prior to the election.

Barnestormer on July 14, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Your numbers are unfounded, ideological nonsense- esp. when you consider the employee base of the 3 major automakers, dependent suppliers, and jobs throughout communities where these workers are employed.

Alan Greenspan, Hank Paulson, and the vast majority of preeminent Wall Street economists though the stimulus was a necessary step to avoid a much deeper recession. China and Germany enacted similar policies.
You think you know better? What does that say about you?

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Link?

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:55 PM

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I think you’ve found the root answer for everything BO does.

katiejane on July 14, 2011 at 5:55 PM

How many jobs do you think were actually saved at GM and Chrysler, as opposed to allowing them to go through a regular bankruptcy and void their union contracts?

I agree it would have been far better to see the unions dissolved, but obviously you can’t name a single industry expert who believed for a second that the automakers could have emerged from ‘normal’ bankruptcy proceedings.

You’re overlooking white collar jobs that were saved, as well as all the non-union jobs outside of the automakers. In this country and at this time, a American job is an American job. It’s kind of pointless for people on either extreme of the political spectrum to complain about whether its unionized or not.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Link?

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:55 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Cuz he’s a lying, narcissistic, anti-American POS.

That is the answer to any question that starts with Why does Obama….

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I’ve been telling all who can comprehend. This explains him, to perfection. See also the Symptoms section.

Schadenfreude on July 14, 2011 at 5:58 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:57 PM

No mention of:

Alan Greenspan, Hank Paulson, and the vast majority of preeminent Wall Street economists though the stimulus was a necessary step to avoid a much deeper recession.

Care to try again?

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM

bayam, take your Cash for Clunkers Pimp to Venezueala. Stay there, both of you.

Schadenfreude on July 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM

which is worse, default or a short-term deal? — and Carney actually said, “Both are bad.”

That, right there, is a stunning admission.

If anyone is still in the dark, about this being anything more than hyperbole and scare talk, you’re not paying attention.

It really doesn’t matter, if no deal is reached by Aug. 2nd.

The world doesn’t come to an end.. No one’s pay gets withheld.. None of those dire predictions will happen.

You’re being huckstered by a two-bit hustler, and his willing and pliable press.

The emperor has no clothes.

Carney’s statement is proof of that.

franksalterego on July 14, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Nice post Allah. Very politely asking the question: IS HE FRICKIN NUTS. Is the President of the United States in full melt down mode. Not sure I want to know.

flackcatcher on July 14, 2011 at 6:09 PM

unfounded, ideological nonsense-

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM

An Expert on the subject checks in!

Del Dolemonte on July 14, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Little Bammie (PBUH) didn’t ‘save’ GM and Chrysler, they are both headed for another bankruptcy, and let’s hope when that happens it’s under a better president that won’t interfere with the legal process. Then perhaps American auto manufacturing can throw off the shackles of the failed and corrupt greedy unions.

slickwillie2001 on July 14, 2011 at 6:12 PM

cynccook on July 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Isn’t it the same plant where they caught them before?

Cindy Munford on July 14, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Alan Greenspan, Hank Paulson, and the vast majority of preeminent Wall Street economists though the stimulus was a necessary step to avoid a much deeper recession.

Care to try again?

Chuck Schick on July 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Chuck I don’t have time to hunt down links for you. You can Google any of those names and ‘stimulus’ to find relevant articles. Or refer to WSJ / Barrons from the relevant timeframe.

bayam on July 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Ron Paul’s first canpaign ad: No Compromise

Say no to debt ceiling compromises

Spathi on July 14, 2011 at 6:15 PM

And lets not forget the Cloward – Piven strategy, to overwhelm the system to collapse it. I think that is the long-haul, big picture for him.

Mirimichi on July 14, 2011 at 6:22 PM

If default would be a catastrophe, why is Obama opposed to a short-term deal that would avert it?

Radical change, baby.

kingsjester on July 14, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Politico on Paul’s first ad buy

The spot, set to begin airing Friday, follows on Paul’s aggressive stand on the debt issue, as the Texas Republican is also part of a grassroots effort encouraging Americans to lobby Congress against raising the debt ceiling

and

The 60-second spot, made with all the flare of a Hollywood movie preview, is part of a six-figure ad buy in the early-voting states, just the latest step forward in the Texas congressman’s increasingly serious campaign

Also if you pause the ad at the beginning, Paul highlighted the word MISES in the opening.
Someone named Jon Downs at FP1 productions produced the ad.

Spathi on July 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2