Just how is it working? More attention? More noise? As Howard pointed out, results haven't resulted yet. I'm thinking back to last fall when just about every head in the punditry ( except Liberal Cynic ) warned of a colossal red wave and I personally got all funked up and then when the results resulted they weren't that result. I think we're a bunch of backseat drivers, and the actual driver and his team have steered this country very well indeed and maybe they aren't stupid and are not operating with the goal of getting their noise and faces on screens.
Republicans are getting budgetary concessions outside of normal budget negotiations aren't they? The hostage takers are getting their demands--at a minimum--partially met. Dems should have held the line that budget discussions should only occur when they're passing a budget. Instead, we get budget negotiations 2 times a year now instead of just one--all because dems caved to the economic terrorists when they pointed a loaded gun at the US economy. And this only ever happens when there's a dem in the WH because dems love to cave to GOP hostage-taking and then never fight fire with fire by demanding taxes on the rich when they have the majority under a GOP president. So not only do dems allow the precedent to set in, they also never take advantage of it to get their own demands met even after they allow the precedent to be set. That's called getting suckered and being weak.
Sorry but have you thought this through? This is a game of chicken. Biden is best saying little and getting McCarthy to blink. Sadly the GOP wants nothing. They are like a whiney bteenager who would cut off her nose to spite her face.
It is not that Dems love to cave but the weaker party is the one who wants something - like to pass good legislation.
Dems are caving by entertaining hostage-taking with the party taking the economy hostage. They'll keep doing this every time they have a house majority under a dem WH until dems put their foot down and make the GOP own the default they're threatening. In addition, the public will get more and more numbed to this shit and it'll become normalized for the GOP to take the debt ceiling hostage every time there is a dem president. Remember all the shit we've been talking about since Trump came along about an assault on norms? This falls squarely into that window. The time to negotiate a budget is *during budget negotiations,* not during national debt payments. Keep letting the GOP run over norms and usurp the dems in public while the dems bend over willingly for them. I'm sure it'll keep going so well for the dems that way.
Sorry but I don't see that Dems really can do much. Again, it is like dealing with a teenager. The GOP was not like this in the 80s under Reagan. I may be wrong but the party who wants nothing holds the cards.
Maybe the GOP got this way because the dems let them all along? This started when dems caved to the Tea Party and started negotiating with them when they pointed the default pistol at the national economy in 2011. Had they put their foot down and let the Tea Party push us into default back then the GOP would have taken the kind of political losses to discourage them from doing this shit again now. Instead, they negotiated with terrorists and set the precedent that it's okay to put a default pistol to the head of the national economy to get budget demands. The dems set the precedent back then and the GOP is simply picking the pistol back up again because they know that using it works against weak sauce dems.
I'm not grateful. I'm mad as hell. Dems keep encouraging the "REPUGNANTS" to be more repugnant in the future by agreeing to negotiate. If you negotiate with terrorists, it only encourages more terrorism in the future because they will point at the last time they got things they wanted by committing economic terrorism. Do you get what "setting a precedent" means?
One party is lobbing hand grenades while the other party cowers in fear at the thought of hand grenades going off. Know what that encourages? More hand grenade throwing in the future. If a grenade goes off now and the GOP owns it, know what that does? It discourages future hand grenade throwing once the damage of a grenade going off is seen by all. Then all of a sudden it's not so cool to hold debt ceilings hostage anymore because there's an economic body count in the historical record associated with doing that sort of thing.
I get what youтАЩre saying Travis but in the game of chicken involving 2 drivers heading towards each other, and neither car avoids the head on collision at 100mph, youтАЩre likely to have everybody in both cars dead. Sure, I agree this should not be happening, but the chicken game needs to be be banned (ie. made impossible to play) at a time when we donтАЩt have the two cars barrelling towards each other. And yeh I know thatтАЩll be hard to do (filibuster etc.) but maybe the 14th amendment solution could be litigated after a deal to help avoid future chicken games. Or else weтАЩll have to wait to vote in enough reasonable congresspersons sometime in the future. But all parties being dead from the game is not a good result.
Getting bent over a barrel in public is NOT "governing." They're refusing to put their foot down against economic terrorists and they're getting owned in public as a result. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. No wonder so much of the American voting public sees dems as being weak as shit when in power. They're getting bent over HARD in public right now and you call that "governing" lol.
I'm looking for the dems to stand up to the bomb-throwers and not let them get away with throwing bombs in exchange for hostage demands anymore. The time for deals is during budget negotiations, not when we're about to pay the nation's bills. My point is that caving to terrorists only encourages more future terrorism. Remember that whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing that this county has always been about since the 1970's? It comes into play here for the very same reason. You don't allow precedents to be set that revolve around negotiation-by-threat-of-catastrophe. That's my point.
Please stop encouraging the dems to negotiate with terrorists just because you don't want your 401k gains from the last couple of years to get wiped dude. You're setting really bad precedents by being greedy as shit about your retirement gains. Maybe think about future generations and their having to deal with more economic hostage taking because people like you are too worried about whether or not you can cash out a 401k in the next 12-18 months.
Is it really? GOP tried this with the mediaтАЩs help when Obama was in the WH and with Clinton and it backfired. Did you just notice GOP is always on TV because they are. Media covers their every utterance. Dems can call a million press conferences but the media wonтАЩt respond the same way they do to the GOP. They love to do the spin. Imagine if a Dem talked openly about extracting concessions from a тАЬhostage.тАЭ That would be the lead story for days. The GOP says it out loud and itтАЩs crickets. Blame the media. They have been doing this for years.
Republicans are getting the negotiations they demanded for budgetary purposes outside of normal budget negotiations aren't they? Dems should let them send us into default and hang this around their necks rather than entertain negotiations with hostage-takers. They only encourage more of this in the future and numb the public into normalizing this behavior by agreeing to negotiations.
I'm 36 years young. You can hold off a few more years on retirement. Recessions don't last forever and the market comes back after shocks wear off. I'm sure you've already seen that happen a lot what with all your years of experience. Know what *does* last forever though? Bad precedents that the dems are allowing to be set by negotiating with economic terrorists.
Do you agree to negotiate with your kids if they threaten to light the house on fire if you don't raise their allowance too? Or do you just support doing that with the GOP?
If they've doused the house in gasoline and have a lighter in their hands, yes.
My take is that a default will be more catastrophic to our nation's long-term health than is worth the danger of negotiating.
Where I'd put my righteous fury is with democrats who didn't kill the debt ceiling while they had the chance. To follow on from your analogy, yes I negotiate. I then make sure my kid never has access to the lighter and the gas again.
I personally cannot hold with the automatic no negotiating with terrorists rule in this situation. For one thing, unlike people with AK's who have taken over a plane, Republicans aren't universally regarded as terrorists. You and I might agree that they are, but this is politics, and thus they eye of the voter is what matters.
For another, terrorists have never had as a hostage anything so valuable as our economy. But it isn't just our economy at stake in the normal sense of, "oh, we might have a recession" It is our global standing as the world's reserve currency. If we lose that, we won't get it back as part of some economic cycle. And that, is one of the pillars upon which rests a very favorable global order for us.
So I'm open to negotiations in the moment. I will hope that down the road we can convince enough people that these games of chicken with our economy are as dangerous as I think and as terroristic as we agree that they are. The problem is, I don't see any evidence from the past that encourages me. The debt goes up more under republicans. Do voters seem to care? Republicans presided over the 2009 Great Recession. How long did Obama keep his congressional majority? We've had these debt ceiling standoffs before. Has our voting public ever woken up to how bad they are and punished the terrorists accordingly?
The voting public doesn't wake up to the danger of doing this until they feel the consequences of what it's like when it comes to pass. If the public never feels the consequences of a default, then they'll keep thinking the debt ceiling is something that is okay for politicians to play around with. In order for children to understand that touching hot stoves is a bad idea, they often have to get their hands burned by the stove first.
Our standing as the global reserve currency comes more from the fact that we have the most wealth and innovation in the world--and therefor the currency that will be the most stable. Yes, trust in our ability to pay our debts is a factor, but so is the fact that OPEC+ only sells oil to other countries in $USD. That forces every country that imports OPEC+ petroleum to keep $USDs in their bank in order to keep the energy imports flowing. Defaulting on our debt would discourage foreign countries from buying our govvie bonds, but it wouldn't end the $USD as a global reserve currency.
And could a default cause OPEC+ to make a change? They know how much it benefits us, giving changing conditions and an opportunity...?
I don't think a default would be a global catastrophe right away, but it could be a pretty big domino to fall in an uncertain world. How sure are we that a default would ensure 4 more years for Biden vs. a return of Trump? Obviously every policy or action can't be looked at through that lens, but I think we may be a bit of an inflection point, historically speaking. Couple a default with another Trump presidency and the world we know could be replaced in short order with a Europe left to fend for itself (and thus not support us), an emboldened China taking Taiwan while our Pacific allies look on in fear, and America's economic position as the reserve currency seriously threatened.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ending these stupid games, but from my view we get past the moment (if possible, the 14th is an option), and then get that gun they keep picking up and get rid of it.
Copying Republican pandering to assign blame for the debt-ceiling debacle would be like killing for peace - you would destroy that which you would create.
How can you work a deal with a party not interested in governing in the first place? They were only ever going for ratings and trying to assign blame. Maybe focus on not letting them play that game with impunity.....again....for the thousandth time it seems?
Well said.
And yet, it's working for the infant republicans now isn't it?
Just how is it working? More attention? More noise? As Howard pointed out, results haven't resulted yet. I'm thinking back to last fall when just about every head in the punditry ( except Liberal Cynic ) warned of a colossal red wave and I personally got all funked up and then when the results resulted they weren't that result. I think we're a bunch of backseat drivers, and the actual driver and his team have steered this country very well indeed and maybe they aren't stupid and are not operating with the goal of getting their noise and faces on screens.
Republicans are getting budgetary concessions outside of normal budget negotiations aren't they? The hostage takers are getting their demands--at a minimum--partially met. Dems should have held the line that budget discussions should only occur when they're passing a budget. Instead, we get budget negotiations 2 times a year now instead of just one--all because dems caved to the economic terrorists when they pointed a loaded gun at the US economy. And this only ever happens when there's a dem in the WH because dems love to cave to GOP hostage-taking and then never fight fire with fire by demanding taxes on the rich when they have the majority under a GOP president. So not only do dems allow the precedent to set in, they also never take advantage of it to get their own demands met even after they allow the precedent to be set. That's called getting suckered and being weak.
Sorry but have you thought this through? This is a game of chicken. Biden is best saying little and getting McCarthy to blink. Sadly the GOP wants nothing. They are like a whiney bteenager who would cut off her nose to spite her face.
It is not that Dems love to cave but the weaker party is the one who wants something - like to pass good legislation.
Dems are caving by entertaining hostage-taking with the party taking the economy hostage. They'll keep doing this every time they have a house majority under a dem WH until dems put their foot down and make the GOP own the default they're threatening. In addition, the public will get more and more numbed to this shit and it'll become normalized for the GOP to take the debt ceiling hostage every time there is a dem president. Remember all the shit we've been talking about since Trump came along about an assault on norms? This falls squarely into that window. The time to negotiate a budget is *during budget negotiations,* not during national debt payments. Keep letting the GOP run over norms and usurp the dems in public while the dems bend over willingly for them. I'm sure it'll keep going so well for the dems that way.
Sorry but I don't see that Dems really can do much. Again, it is like dealing with a teenager. The GOP was not like this in the 80s under Reagan. I may be wrong but the party who wants nothing holds the cards.
Maybe the GOP got this way because the dems let them all along? This started when dems caved to the Tea Party and started negotiating with them when they pointed the default pistol at the national economy in 2011. Had they put their foot down and let the Tea Party push us into default back then the GOP would have taken the kind of political losses to discourage them from doing this shit again now. Instead, they negotiated with terrorists and set the precedent that it's okay to put a default pistol to the head of the national economy to get budget demands. The dems set the precedent back then and the GOP is simply picking the pistol back up again because they know that using it works against weak sauce dems.
I'm not grateful. I'm mad as hell. Dems keep encouraging the "REPUGNANTS" to be more repugnant in the future by agreeing to negotiate. If you negotiate with terrorists, it only encourages more terrorism in the future because they will point at the last time they got things they wanted by committing economic terrorism. Do you get what "setting a precedent" means?
So just roll over and take it is the preferred outcome? What does that solve long term?
One party is lobbing hand grenades while the other party cowers in fear at the thought of hand grenades going off. Know what that encourages? More hand grenade throwing in the future. If a grenade goes off now and the GOP owns it, know what that does? It discourages future hand grenade throwing once the damage of a grenade going off is seen by all. Then all of a sudden it's not so cool to hold debt ceilings hostage anymore because there's an economic body count in the historical record associated with doing that sort of thing.
I get what youтАЩre saying Travis but in the game of chicken involving 2 drivers heading towards each other, and neither car avoids the head on collision at 100mph, youтАЩre likely to have everybody in both cars dead. Sure, I agree this should not be happening, but the chicken game needs to be be banned (ie. made impossible to play) at a time when we donтАЩt have the two cars barrelling towards each other. And yeh I know thatтАЩll be hard to do (filibuster etc.) but maybe the 14th amendment solution could be litigated after a deal to help avoid future chicken games. Or else weтАЩll have to wait to vote in enough reasonable congresspersons sometime in the future. But all parties being dead from the game is not a good result.
Getting bent over a barrel in public is NOT "governing." They're refusing to put their foot down against economic terrorists and they're getting owned in public as a result. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. No wonder so much of the American voting public sees dems as being weak as shit when in power. They're getting bent over HARD in public right now and you call that "governing" lol.
I'm looking for the dems to stand up to the bomb-throwers and not let them get away with throwing bombs in exchange for hostage demands anymore. The time for deals is during budget negotiations, not when we're about to pay the nation's bills. My point is that caving to terrorists only encourages more future terrorism. Remember that whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing that this county has always been about since the 1970's? It comes into play here for the very same reason. You don't allow precedents to be set that revolve around negotiation-by-threat-of-catastrophe. That's my point.
Please stop encouraging the dems to negotiate with terrorists just because you don't want your 401k gains from the last couple of years to get wiped dude. You're setting really bad precedents by being greedy as shit about your retirement gains. Maybe think about future generations and their having to deal with more economic hostage taking because people like you are too worried about whether or not you can cash out a 401k in the next 12-18 months.
Is it really? GOP tried this with the mediaтАЩs help when Obama was in the WH and with Clinton and it backfired. Did you just notice GOP is always on TV because they are. Media covers their every utterance. Dems can call a million press conferences but the media wonтАЩt respond the same way they do to the GOP. They love to do the spin. Imagine if a Dem talked openly about extracting concessions from a тАЬhostage.тАЭ That would be the lead story for days. The GOP says it out loud and itтАЩs crickets. Blame the media. They have been doing this for years.
Republicans are getting the negotiations they demanded for budgetary purposes outside of normal budget negotiations aren't they? Dems should let them send us into default and hang this around their necks rather than entertain negotiations with hostage-takers. They only encourage more of this in the future and numb the public into normalizing this behavior by agreeing to negotiations.
I'm 36 years young. You can hold off a few more years on retirement. Recessions don't last forever and the market comes back after shocks wear off. I'm sure you've already seen that happen a lot what with all your years of experience. Know what *does* last forever though? Bad precedents that the dems are allowing to be set by negotiating with economic terrorists.
Do you agree to negotiate with your kids if they threaten to light the house on fire if you don't raise their allowance too? Or do you just support doing that with the GOP?
If they've doused the house in gasoline and have a lighter in their hands, yes.
My take is that a default will be more catastrophic to our nation's long-term health than is worth the danger of negotiating.
Where I'd put my righteous fury is with democrats who didn't kill the debt ceiling while they had the chance. To follow on from your analogy, yes I negotiate. I then make sure my kid never has access to the lighter and the gas again.
I personally cannot hold with the automatic no negotiating with terrorists rule in this situation. For one thing, unlike people with AK's who have taken over a plane, Republicans aren't universally regarded as terrorists. You and I might agree that they are, but this is politics, and thus they eye of the voter is what matters.
For another, terrorists have never had as a hostage anything so valuable as our economy. But it isn't just our economy at stake in the normal sense of, "oh, we might have a recession" It is our global standing as the world's reserve currency. If we lose that, we won't get it back as part of some economic cycle. And that, is one of the pillars upon which rests a very favorable global order for us.
So I'm open to negotiations in the moment. I will hope that down the road we can convince enough people that these games of chicken with our economy are as dangerous as I think and as terroristic as we agree that they are. The problem is, I don't see any evidence from the past that encourages me. The debt goes up more under republicans. Do voters seem to care? Republicans presided over the 2009 Great Recession. How long did Obama keep his congressional majority? We've had these debt ceiling standoffs before. Has our voting public ever woken up to how bad they are and punished the terrorists accordingly?
The voting public doesn't wake up to the danger of doing this until they feel the consequences of what it's like when it comes to pass. If the public never feels the consequences of a default, then they'll keep thinking the debt ceiling is something that is okay for politicians to play around with. In order for children to understand that touching hot stoves is a bad idea, they often have to get their hands burned by the stove first.
Our standing as the global reserve currency comes more from the fact that we have the most wealth and innovation in the world--and therefor the currency that will be the most stable. Yes, trust in our ability to pay our debts is a factor, but so is the fact that OPEC+ only sells oil to other countries in $USD. That forces every country that imports OPEC+ petroleum to keep $USDs in their bank in order to keep the energy imports flowing. Defaulting on our debt would discourage foreign countries from buying our govvie bonds, but it wouldn't end the $USD as a global reserve currency.
And could a default cause OPEC+ to make a change? They know how much it benefits us, giving changing conditions and an opportunity...?
I don't think a default would be a global catastrophe right away, but it could be a pretty big domino to fall in an uncertain world. How sure are we that a default would ensure 4 more years for Biden vs. a return of Trump? Obviously every policy or action can't be looked at through that lens, but I think we may be a bit of an inflection point, historically speaking. Couple a default with another Trump presidency and the world we know could be replaced in short order with a Europe left to fend for itself (and thus not support us), an emboldened China taking Taiwan while our Pacific allies look on in fear, and America's economic position as the reserve currency seriously threatened.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ending these stupid games, but from my view we get past the moment (if possible, the 14th is an option), and then get that gun they keep picking up and get rid of it.
Copying Republican pandering to assign blame for the debt-ceiling debacle would be like killing for peace - you would destroy that which you would create.
How can you work a deal with a party not interested in governing in the first place? They were only ever going for ratings and trying to assign blame. Maybe focus on not letting them play that game with impunity.....again....for the thousandth time it seems?