MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
Obama, Congress Reach a Debt Deal
By AmericanDreamer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:52pm |Reposting this, with (hopefully) the correct link this time...
URL:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-reach-debt-deal-003853348.html
- Add new comment
- 4482 reads
Comments
Fitting, some might say, that the goof on the link showed a person with anorexia.
Here's the one I meant to link to (I think, knock on wood): http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-reach-debt-deal-003853348.html
Much more trickling out by now. The headline should have read "Obama and Senate Reach a Debt Deal". Not clear what the House will do with this.
by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:39pm
Can Boner and Pelosi get their troops to vote for it ? I seriously doubt it. Not radical enough for the teabaggers and too conservative for the so called progressive caucus.
I see it going down in flames on Monday.
by cmaukonen on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:41pm
Ah, the $2.4 Trillion question. But c'mon. This one's baked in the cake.
by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:46pm
Only the poor and the old get to eat cake.
by cmaukonen on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:50pm
Another pathological optimist...Have you had your PET scan too>
Not that I don't dream of a righteous, thundering, "NO!" from the allied progressives and baggers in the House....But we all know what a lousy prophet I am.
by jollyroger on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:33am
The progressive caucus just said they'll be voting no.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:44pm
Link to a "Fact Sheet" the White House is putting out on the agreement it reached with Senate leaders tonight, at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people
by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:13pm
Former Atlantic Editor James Fallows, half an hour ago:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-nauseating-debt-ceiling-solution/242852/
Chad Stone, with Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a highly respected middle class and poor budget watchdog group, with a useful summary and data on why deficit reduction now is such a bad idea:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-nauseating-debt-ceiling-solution/242852/
If you're interested, check out CBPP's website tomorrow AM to see if they have a take on the WH-Senate leaders deal: http://www.cbpp.org
by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:38pm
You linked twice to Fallows, but not to Stone.
by acanuck on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:42pm
OK, now it's fixed. Thanks.
by acanuck on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:27am
As soon as I sent that, it unfixed itself. Something really weird is happening with that second link.
by acanuck on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:34am
Here's the Stone link:
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/budget-deadlock-could-derail-recovery-that%E2%80%99s-already-running-out-of-steam/
Sorry. Had a bad day on the links yesterday.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:34am
The Republicans have set this up as another political jujitsu move so they can do the same 'hostage taking' of the debt limit next year before the election, to:
(1) prevent Obama from raising taxes on millionaires in 2012 when the extended Bush tax cuts expire in synchrony with the first installment of the debt raise.
(2) blame Obama for the increased deficit from the double dip recession these cuts may cause, along with blaming him for the job losses that might have been prevented by raising taxes on the rich for a second job saving stimulus.
...one wonders if the voters are dumb enough to keep voting for these scoundrels.
by NCD on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:08am
The score so far: Smart voters-0%, Dumb voters 100%,
Count me among the dumb voters, incidentally, I not only voted for Obama, I cried when he won.
Well, I'm cryin' now, but for a different reason.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, it's business as usual.
I must be a fool.
by jollyroger on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:29am
He did promise us change.
"President Obama is going to seek reelection. His slogan this time? 'Change you can believe in. This time I promise. Really.'" –Jay Leno
by Resistance on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:59am
There are new GDP downgrades for this year and next. It's really hard to see how the unemployment rate can ever go down in that scenario and how Obama can escape being blamed for it. So in hoping that Obama will be elected I think anyone would have to assume that this time will be different--i.e. a president can be re-elected in the midst of such high unemployment numbers.
It's my understanding that the Bush Tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, after this second stage will have been decided.
by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:17pm
The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester [the trigger mechanism] would go into effect," the white house fact sheet reads. "These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:49pm
If you are saying the GOP has agreed to let Obama raise taxes on only high incomes with a stroke of his pen in 2012 or 2013, or ever, I frankly do not believe it.
by NCD on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:10pm
Not saying that at all. First I was just clarifying when the tax cuts expire. And whether there was some agreement with GOP or not, the reality is that unless they get their act together, Obama can let the tax cuts expire by using his veto pen. Of course, how it all plays out will depend on the outcomes of the 2012 elections.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:44pm
Some observations that seem clear enough, to me at least.
The WH negotiated with Senate leaders because that is where there was a possibility of a deal that could draw bipartisan support and pass.
If the Senate votes yes this morning or mid-day, all the pressure goes to the House, where if I am Boehner I am...um...really, really nervous.
The Democrats are at liberty to vote no and force the GOP to pass on a party line vote. It's not at all clear that is going to happen, but the ball is squarely in their court, for all the world to see.
If this deal, which many of them don't like, sinks in the House, Boehner and Cantor and the GOP House get the full weight of the blame.
Obama, naturally having prepared a backup plan in case this scenario plays out, and committed above all else to avoid a default, invokes the 14th amendment or some other Constitutional argument at the 11th hour to avoid a default.
Obama is widely praised for his tireless efforts to get a deal. If the House sues or impeaches him, he says, "Look, you guys rejected the deal that gave you a whole lot you wanted. You left me no other choice than to act unilaterally."
In order for this to be the way this round plays out, the Senate would have to approve the deal and all House Democratic members should vote no, forcing the GOP to get all the votes necessary for passage from their own party.
It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:05am
I for one would be very, very surprised if Obama were to act unilaterally. That would be out of character. His whole modus operandi is to lay it all on congress.
Letting the country default would be more in his line. "Hey, it was up to you and you blew it."
by cmaukonen on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:24am
If it comes to that, Wall Street and the corporate lobbies would, I would think (destor?), privately want him to act unilaterally and avoid the default, although I'm not at all sure any of them will say that publicly. Default would introduce just too much instability. They'd prefer the further political instability that unilateral action would lead to to the economic instability that no deal plus no unilateral action = default would lead to. Politicians to that crowd are interchangeable parts, easily replaced.
Who knows with this President, but my gut agrees with yours that he very much wants to avoid the situation where the deal fails Congress. Because...
If the deal goes down in Congress and he acts unilaterally he knows he could be impeached, and will surely be sued and pilloried in the RW media for being King George the Tyrant, shredding the Constitution, etc. etc. even though the corporate crowd will privately be relieved he acted to avoid a default.
If the deal goes down in Congress and he doesn't act unilaterally we get a default and who knows what that leads to, but the RW media will blame him, and only him, for the economic damage.
Since as we know, in the RW media, Obama is the villain, no matter what he does.
Obama would rather the House passes the deal and that way next year he can try to share the blame for the bad economy by pointing to the GOP House that went along with the deal. Lacking any capability to get policies adopted which might improve the economic situation for next year, his hope of political survival is to make the GOP own our nation's economic policies along with him.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:49am
AD, I got sucked into the drama of this thing over the last two weeks. Somehow I thought Obama would score points other than those for the "great compromiser".
But now I don't think there is any chance this legislation won't pass the House.
As for the tea party, I don't see a good vote for them--which is a good thing, and perhaps part of the intent of the process.
by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:36pm
Perhaps. We'll see, right?
What I don't get is why any House Democrat who actually thinks austerity is bad policy now and wants the hostage-taking to end at some point would even think about voting yes, and thereby helping to bail out the House Republican majority. Which would or could enable many of the far-right GOP members of the caucus who want to vote "no" to preserve their purity and radical cred to do so without sinking the deal.
Actually, I think I do know the answer to that question. I'm sure those Dems who rely heavily on corporate funding for their campaigns and whose views and ideology are more corporate and Wall Street, versus Main Street-friendly are getting insistent phone calls from those folks asking/telling them to vote yes.
If a large share, say, 30% +, of House Dems vote for this surrender I will take that as further evidence that my earlier decision (predating this mess) not to give to the DCCC this election cycle, but instead to try to target whatever contributions I make to viable economically progressive candidates in the primaries and general election, was the right one. Last election cycle I gave more money to the DCCC than I had ever given to it, to try to save the House Dem majority.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:04pm
I doubt it. If liberals and Tea Partiers jointly vote it down, the media theme will be: polarized politicians kill bill.
But I expect that there will be enough arm-twisting to get a yes vote. The leaders on both sides of the aisle are desperate to pass it.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:55pm
I get it--the House minority, whether it be Democrats or Republicans at a given time--has almost no power and cannot stop the majority from passing anything it wants to. But when the Republicans control the House and have been passing whatever they want this entire session, if something doesn't pass, it's both parties' fault. Just checking.
Headline couldn't possibly even be: "House Rejects Debt Deal"?, if "GOP House Rejects Debt Deal" would get some poor headline writer at yahoo news fired?
And the logic behind House Democrats voting yes would be...to tie themselves to President Obama's bad economy next year, while enabling more far-right GOP caucus members to distance themselves from that bad economy, and enhance their re-election chances, by voting no?
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 3:18pm
Blame it on the liberal media...
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 3:24pm
You'd have to ask Josh Marshall why the media is so in love with the partisan conflict theme. I suspect that a lot of is the old misplaced desire to appear evenhanded. But I certainly wasn't excusing it.
As for what the Democrats should do, I would like enough of them to vote for the bill to pass the damn thing already (if necessary). Obama and the Dem leadership has mostly mishandled this thing from the get-go, but at that this point, a failure to pass the bill will create serious problems that are not justified by the desire to register disappointment with Obama. It's a raw deal, but one day before the deadline, it's the only deal on the table. (I think that the 14-amendment option, if it's even a legally defensible option, will create additional uncertainty that is the last thing we need right now.)
If the votes are not necessary, then I'm happy for liberal congresspeople to express their contempt for it by voting against it.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:13pm
Do you reject coin seignorage out of hand? If you find the trillion dollar coin outre, consider that there reside at present 2 billion one dollar presidential coins in the vault, each of which costs 30 cents to stamp.
How about 7 trillion one dollar coins, for a net to the treasury of 4.9 trillion swept into the various payor accounts?
What's so bad about that? (other than the unfortunate wheelbarrow/weimar association...)
by jollyroger on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:21pm
I don't think that I could stand to see all those gold-buyers gloating.
But if I get a cut, I'm open to anything.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:34pm
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 7:52pm
Sadly, no one has seen fit to give me a qut of anything, but I'm still optimistic.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:27pm
Well I have to agree with Professor Krugman this morning, who writes about the surrender of the president:
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:31am
Agree. The outcomes at this stage are among train wrecks of varying degrees of severity, with the possible exception of a unilateral action scenario where the President were to somehow find his voice and start to turn things around. Which no one I know or have read at this point thinks he wants to do, or would do.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:58am
It's not going to happen AD; Obama is wedded to this "compromise". I guess I'm one of his biggest defenders around here, which given 2008, is ironic I think. But I'm not a potted plant and I'm really devastated by what happened yesterday.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:12am
Links to reactions from Robert Kuttner, at The American Prospect online:
http://blog.prospect.org/robert_kuttner/2011/08/a-disgraceful-deal.html
and Harold Meyerson, at the same place:
http://blog.prospect.org/harold_meyerson/2011/08/government-withdraws.html
Meyerson says that Pelosi has signed onto the deal negotiated with the Senate leaders last night. If that is correct...wow. She could be doing that to try to preserve or gain a seat at the table in future discussions while quietly and privately hoping her caucus votes it down. She could believe, or know, that unilateral action is something the WH will not do, no matter what, and think the least bad thing is to avoid a default which might otherwise ensue if there aren't enough GOP votes to pass it. Who knows? But, boy...this should not be a difficult decision if you're a Democrat in the House. Vote no.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:38am
Or, just maybe, the deal isn't nearly as bad as the hand-wringers on the left are claiming that it is.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:53am
Perhaps. Although folks you may think of as "hand-wringers on the left"--Krugman, Kuttner, Fallows, Meyerson among them--make sense to me.
Suppose you're right, that the deal isn't as bad as those folks are saying it is. What is a scenario you would offer whereby things start to turn around instead of continuing to move in a far right direction on economic policy?
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:41pm
Only possible scenario: Getting more liberal Democrats elected to DC, taking back the House, and and extending the Democratic majority in the Senate.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:50pm
I don't think the handwringers are wrong on the underlying issues - austerity at any time is probably bad, but especially do during times of negative or weak private sector growth; we should be spending more, not less on education, infrastructure, etc.
Where I think they are wrong is on the politics of all this. The establishment and the low information middle of the electorate love them some small government and hate them some paying taxes. We are getting backloaded cuts to minimize the pain; the most vital services are walled off from the cuts; and if* the Bush tax cuts expire, we are in a position to take the deficit stick off of the table for the last four years of Obama 's presidency.
I don't think that the deficit hysteria or this bill can in any way be considered good things from a liberal perspective. I just think the bill is so full of plausible alternative scenarios and kicking things to commissions that no one can confidently predict what it's effects will be. And, regardless of what the nihilists on the left think, its passage makes the election of Obama more likely in 2012, which will be good thing. I think, after reading coverage of the deal both slanted and straight, the proper response for a reality-based liberal is a hearty "meh."
*a big if, I'll agree - Jonathon Chait made it sound like Obama might pursue "broad based tax reform" instead of taxing obscenely high income more heavily. Ugh.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:20pm
Do you want House Dems to vote yes or no on the deal?
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:23pm
I want them to vote yes for political (as opposed to policy) reasons.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:26pm
But do the "low information" middle of the electorate, in your view, love small government more than they loathe a bad economy? If you're a House Democrat and you voted for an austerity deal that ties you to the President, aren't you tying yourself to the President's bad economy? The President isn't speaking at the moment for the people who voted for House Democrats. And if you were to ask me I don't think he's focused on what becomes of them next November. He's speaking to what David Plouffe tells him is his target voting bloc with an agenda favored by the typical Republican voter, maybe a bit right of that.
If House Democrats vote no the distance they put between themselves and the President will stand them in good stead with a bad economy a certainty. Plus, it'll be good practice for what they'll need to be doing a lot of in 2013 and beyond, if Obama gets re-elected. There's no way Obama stops moving farther and farther right unless Democrats in Congress just won't give him the votes to do that.
Plus, as I've written elsewhere today, if the House Dems vote no, that will force the GOP to pass the deal with only GOP votes, including the votes of many of their far-right bombthrowers who really, really don't want to vote yes on this. Which will maximize fissures and tensions within the GOP caucus. If House Dems vote yes, enough of them, it enables more far-right GOP caucus members to vote no, the way they want to, but the deal passes anyway, and the GOP avoids the potentially disastrous blame for a default if the deal goes down.
by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 2:39pm
I don't think that this bill is going to make the economy any worse than it already is. I also think that whatever slim hope there was for additional stimulus died when the Republicans took over the House.
Finally, if Obama goes down in 2012, the House Democrats know that they are still going to be in the minority, probably a smaller one than they have now. There are several potential political upsides (takes a Republican ransom demand off the table, allows Dems to look reasonable, economy may get better on its own) to voting for the bill with a clear political downside (economy tanks, "liberal" Dems get blamed) for voting against. I think your scenario, where congressional Dems are successful in 2012 by creating space between themselves and Obama is a bit of a stretch; I can't think of an election where a party outperformed expectations by running against the head of their own ticket.
Of course, if the stench of defeat is all over Obama, they might minimize their losses by repudiating him. But I don't see how they use it to regain the majority in Congress.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 4:45pm
Basic economics says shrinking government spending during a recession/depression will make things worse, especially in a globalized economies where corporations will simply move operations and revenue overseas.
by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 5:00pm
We are not, technically, in a recession. And the cuts proposed to take place during the first two years if this bill are so minimal that I seriously doubt you can make a case that they make any significant contribution to either economic growth in the immediate future or a slide into a negative growth territory.
by brewmn on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 11:04pm
I hope the tea-baggers do refuse to accept the deal. That way when we do default, the blame will be squarely on their shoulders and will end their reign of terror over the public. The cost of a default is the price we all must pay when a minority of less than stellar people are allowed to screw with something they have no clue about.
by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:07pm
Some miscellaneous thoughts on surveying the wreckage:
*The 5 members of the House for whom I have the most respect, apart from Pelosi, voted no. Krugman, the logic of whose writings seemed to point to a no vote had he had one, confirmed that before the House vote, acknowledging risks in that course of action as well as all other available ones.
*I'm waiting for someone in the liberal blogosphere to write a piece about how the wingers braying incessantly about how Obama was a Manchurian Candidate may turn out to be right after all. Only he wasn't a Manchurian candidate from the left, but from the right. If the right were to construct their dream Democratic President, they'd construct one who enable them to a) change the debate in their favor b) get things done to advance their agenda c) create maximum demoralization and division among Democrats.
*Those trying to find, highlight and focus on the positives of the debt deal are pointing out that IF Democratic members insist on revenue increases the Republicans will be forced to accept revenue increases or else the trigger kicks in, which will mean further defense cuts. That's a big if. All the Republicans will need to get what they want is one appointed Democratic member who will join with them to propose only cuts and no revenue increases. The advocacy task seems clear enough--ask those appointing the Democratic committee members in both chambers--Pelosi and Reid I would assume--to appoint only members who will insist on substantial new revenues.
*Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote the other day of the American Dream Movement Van Jones is trying to make a force and a factor. I'll be looking into that--Jones is strong, smart, and a very good guy.
*Three Washington Post reporters have an article in today's edition perfectly reflecting the official ideology of what is left of Washington's Establishment. It's called "In Debt Deal, the triumph of the old Washington." David Broder's spirit lives. Broder himself would be smiling. It may have been an awful deal. It may have harmful effects on the country. But it was bipartisan, dangit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI.html?hpid=z1
*George Will, in case anyone thought we might get some of the occasional honesty we see from him, in case anyone thought he might praise Obama for accepting so much of what the GOP wants and its narrative, is piling on, offering previews of the GOP election year themes. One of the headline descriptors of his column today at the website is "Obama's 2012 Problem: The President Cannot Run from his Liberalism." I kid you not. The headline for his column in the print edition is something like "A Record He Can't Run From." It may be, on many decisions he has made, a record reflecting GOP views and priorities. But it's now his, redefined as "liberalism".
*The night before last, after the House vote I recorded my thoughts. Not being a cry-in-my-beer kinda guy, and not being an internet drama king, I declined to post it. The main theme, reflecting absolutely no standing or authority I have, was an imaginary apology to all those who are the ones right now who are unemployed or scrambling to survive who have placed their faith in the Democratic party, and an affirmation of solidarity with them, to keep fighting, no matter what.
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 10:15am
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 10:56am
Only it's not a binary set of alternative explanations. And one person's "malice" is another person's risk or gamble or momentary setback or learning experience on the road to realizing (their notion of) a good intention. Or trying to. Or deciding they don't think they can after all. Etc.
But then you know all that.
You've been in academia, no (although not anywhere near the critical theory folks, I gather), no? Isn't this what is sometimes known as "problemitizing" a claim or assertion?
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:27am
I've spent considerable time in academia, and I even have a good friend with a PhD in English (his dissertation dealt with pornography and censorship), but I'm afraid my critical theory knowledge is limited to what I've obtained through osmosis, with no active study of the field. So, the answer to your question:
is "huh?" OK, so I've just gotten back from Wikipedia (which is not as bad as most of its detractors make it out to be), and I still don't quite get that question as it pertains to Hanlon's razor. That said, I agree that I'm oversimplifying. I think it's not just incompetence, but also probably improper manipulation by greedy external forces, and part of what makes that manipulation possible is Obama's own ambitions.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:37am
I have no background in critical theory, either, and it may be that the term "problemitizing" does not come from that discipline. It's a term I've come across a few times. From the context, I took it to be just an academic term referring to recognizing and inserting more nuance, ambiguity, or complexity into the interpretation of an assertion or a story than it seems to reflect on a surface reading. In applying it to your Hanlon's Razor reference, I meant rejecting "incompetence" and "malice" as the only two explanations--because I think it's more complicated than either of those terms suggest.
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:51am
I see. I was misunderstanding what "this" referred to in your question (I thought it referred to my use of Hanlon's razor, and not to your broadening of the options). I understand now, and would agree with your assertion.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 08/03/2011 - 11:53am