Support NeoGAF

[polyh3dron]

Let's assume that is what they are saying...why is it an invalid criticism? Obama has been wholly unable to bring the narrative to his side in an effective enough way to get, well, anything. I'd say that is absolutely a failure of leadership.

So do you agree that the narrative the Republicans have been pushing ever since Obama has been elected has been a ruse then?

The Republicans have filibustered EVERYTHING since the day Obama took office. How exactly can you counteract that? It disgusts me that the Republicans are being rewarded for acting in bad faith.

 

[Chichikov]

Obama just can't win. The left is never satisfied, while the right wanted him gone as soon as he won the election.

I almost want Obama to lose so I don't have to hear both sides whining like children. At least one side will be happy and not complain, even if their guy or gal doesn't deliver everything they want.

Why would the left be satisfied with a president that continue (for the most part) the economical and national security policies of GWB?

Also, criticizing Obama does not mean you wish for the GOP to win the election, far far from it actually.

 

[Resident_UA]

It's not symbolic at all. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then the United States defaults on its debt. I think that we have a debt ceiling at all is kind of preposterous to begin with, but it's not appropriate to write it off as symbolic--choose not to pay your bills for a few months and see what happens to your credit rating.

And do you actually imagine this happening? Therefore it is symbolic.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Obama just can't win. The left is never satisfied, while the right wanted him gone as soon as he won the election.

I almost want Obama to lose so I don't have to hear both sides whining like children. At least one side will be happy and not complain, even if their guy or gal doesn't deliver everything they want.

Don't ever say you want Obama to lose. True for the past few months outside of Bin Laden there are some things I've HEAVILY disagreed with him. But a Republican getting elected in 2012 will set the country back another decade if not longer. These guys are utterly batshit insane.

 

[Dude Abides]

And do you actually imagine this happening? Therefore it is symbolic.

I couldn't have imagined it happening a year ago but I can imagine it happening now. It's still not likely but not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[eznark]

So do you agree that the narrative the Republicans have been pushing ever since Obama has been elected has been a ruse then?

I think both sides narratives are mostly bullshit, that's not really the point. Brooks' argument is valid in that Obama has been a pretty piss poor leader. Look at tangentially similar fights between Gingrich and Clinton. Clinton was able to run circles around Gingrich (who at the time was significantly stronger politically than Boehner or McConnell are today) and absolutely destroy him in the court of public opinion. Obama, for all the talk about what a gifted rhetorician the guy is, has been dealing in backrooms instead of the bright lights and I think it is significantly hurting his negotiating position.

Brooks is pretty much just saying what most people in this thread say everyday.

In my opinion Obama is far too worried about getting re-elected. If he simply took some stands and nutted up for his party, he'd get himself re-elected easily. Instead it seems he is trying to either play the moderate or just lacks a backbone. I have a feeling it's the later and that the inexperienced pol is in way over his head.

 

[gcubed]

I think both sides narratives are mostly bullshit, that's not really the point. Brooks' argument is valid in that Obama has been a pretty piss poor leader. Look at tangentially similar fights between Gingrich and Clinton. Clinton was able to run circles around Gingrich (who at the time was significantly stronger politically than Boehner or McConnell are today) and absolutely destroy him in the court of public opinion. Obama, for all the talk about what a gifted rhetorician the guy is, has been dealing in backrooms instead of the bright lights and I think it is significantly hurting his negotiating position.

Brooks is pretty much just saying what most people in this thread say everyday.

In my opinion Obama is far too worried about getting re-elected. If he simply took some stands and nutted up for his party, he'd get himself re-elected easily. Instead it seems he is trying to either play the moderate or just lacks a backbone. I have a feeling it's the later and that the inexperienced pol is in way over his head.

its not that he is dealing in backrooms, its that he is not dealing at all. He will give someone a stern talking to and then give them everything they want. The article is spot on

 

[Invisible_Insane]

And do you actually imagine this happening? Therefore it is symbolic.

It's not symbolic. One half of our political system is taking advantage of the fact that the debt ceiling must be raised to enact its deeply misguided agenda. If it was merely symbolic, the Republicans would not have the same kind of leverage that they do.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

its not that he is dealing in backrooms, its that he is not dealing at all. He will give someone a stern talking to and then give them everything they want. The article is spot on

Anyone still have that "common ground" cartoon? To me illustrated perfectly how Obama works with Republicans, or rather, how they work him.

 

[Skiptastic]

Obama just can't win. The left is never satisfied, while the right wanted him gone as soon as he won the election.

Replace Obama with Bush, flip left and right. Nothing's changed!

 

[BotoxAgent]

Obama, for all the talk about what a gifted rhetorician the guy is, has been dealing in backrooms instead of the bright lights and I think it is significantly hurting his negotiating position.

Brooks is pretty much just saying what most people in this thread say everyday.

In my opinion Obama is far too worried about getting re-elected. If he simply took some stands and nutted up for his party, he'd get himself re-elected easily. Instead it seems he is trying to either play the moderate or just lacks a backbone. I have a feeling it's the later and that the inexperienced pol is in way over his head.

Sadly, I have to agree with this.

 

[Kosmo]

Replace Obama with Bush, flip left and right. Nothing's changed!

Not even the wars or Guantanamo policy.

 

[Measley]

Why would the left be satisfied with a president that continue (for the most part) the economical and national security policies of GWB?

Because I understand that you can't fix 8 years of insanity in 2.5 years. Also progressives dropped the ball MASSIVELY in 2010. That sent a message to the political sphere that Obama's policies were too liberal, even though they were anything but. You're not going to persuade a politician to be more liberal if the voters just put in a wave of conservatives.

Also, criticizing Obama does not mean you wish for the GOP to win the election, far far from it actually.

Yeah, but it weakens the base. Some people on the left and on this very thread are calling Obama a weak leader, when his record is anything but. The right never called Bush a weak leader, and they still hesitate to criticize him now. You think progressives are going to be rushing out to vote for a person perceived to be weak?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Replace Obama with Bush, flip left and right. Nothing's changed!

Bush was able to satisfy the right, what are you talking about.

 

[Measley]

Replace Obama with Bush, flip left and right. Nothing's changed!

DADT? DOMA? The winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan? Student loan forgiveness for teachers? Health Care? Fighting against the privatization of Medicare and SS?

 

[scorcho]

DADT? DOMA? The winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan? Student loan forgiveness for teachers? Health Care? Fighting against the privatization of Medicare and SS?

Obama threw troops into Afghanistan before he decided to take them out. That surely doesn't count.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

DADT? DOMA? The winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan? Student loan forgiveness for teachers? Health Care? Fighting against the privatization of Medicare and SS?

That's a joke, right?

 

[thekad]

DADT? DOMA? The winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan? Student loan forgiveness for teachers? Health Care? Fighting against the privatization of Medicare and SS?

You misinterpreted his post (joke). Your beef is with Kosmo over there.

 

[GaimeGuy]

It's not symbolic. One half of our political system is taking advantage of the fact that the debt ceiling must be raised to enact its deeply misguided agenda. If it was merely symbolic, the Republicans would not have the same kind of leverage that they do.

It would be like if liberals in 2008 said to bush "Repeal the tax cuts, or the banks don't get bailed out."

It is playingchicken with the country, using a potential catastrophe to force yourpolicies into place.

The reason why republicans have been successful is because they've taken every ticking time bomb or need-to-act situation and turned it into a hostage crisis.

The stimulus, the auto industry bailout, the health care bills, student loan reform, wall street reform, all of these were imminent problems that needed the government to act swiftly.

The debt ceiling and bush tax cuts are issues where government inaction means an undesirable change in the status quo.

When the financial system was failing, congress got together and saved it. They didn't use it to abolish the SEC or pass tax cuts or something stupidly irresponsible and far reaching like the republicans are trying to do by abolishing medicare.

 

[AlteredBeast]

DADT? DOMA? The winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan? Student loan forgiveness for teachers? Health Care? Fighting against the privatization of Medicare and SS?

The winding down of Afghanistan is really just bringing it back to down Bush levels...plus a bit still.

 

[eznark]

DADT? DOMA? The winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan? Student loan forgiveness for teachers? Health Care? Fighting against the privatization of Medicare and SS?

Don't both of those still exist?

 

[Measley]

Obama threw troops into Afghanistan before he decided to take them out. That surely doesn't count.

Yeah, but there's a timeline for the troops to eventually leave Afghanistan.

If you notice, McCain and other Republicans wanted us to stay there forever. Hell, McCain and other Republicans have openly opposed the withdrawal of troops, even though its only 10k of them this year.

 

[eznark]

Yeah, but there's a timeline for the troops to eventually leave Afghanistan.

If you notice, McCain and other Republicans wanted us to stay there forever. Hell, McCain and other Republicans have openly opposed the withdrawal of troops, even though its only 10k of them this year.

Remember when there was a time line for closing Gitmo? Time lines are the new fact finding commissions.

 

[Gaborn]

Don't both of those still exist?

Yup, STILL. the "review" is not certified complete still, around 7 months later, and DOMA is still completely existing. Also, the only part of DOMA Obama has "pledged" not to defend (Is that at all like his repeatedly broken promise to end medical marijuana raids? Just wondering...) is section 3. He's said nothing about not defending section 2 in federal court.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, but it weakens the base. Some people on the left and on this very thread are calling Obama a weak leader, when his record is anything but. The right never called Bush a weak leader, and they still hesitate to criticize him now. You think progressives are going to be rushing out to vote for a person perceived to be weak?

Because Bush was not a weak leader; he took stands and held his ground. He was also a complete disaster. No one is asking for Obama to ignore facts and stick to a rigid ideology, we're asking that he take a fucking stand for once. He's so pussywhipped by the GOP that anytime he says something sorta tough (see: his comments on Ryan's plan) they freak the fuck out and he quiets down. Every time. He's so obsessed with maintaining the image of some above the clouds consensus builder he can't bear looking tough.

At one point does Obama simply walk away from the fucking table instead of bargaining away the farm just so republicans will do their job? I have no problem with a compromise on the debt ceiling (although it sets a bad precedent), my problem is with Obama being unwilling to call a bluff or stand firm. It's not compromise if one side won't play ball. If republicans won't accept even the slightest loophole cuts, walk the fuck away - don't give them MORE concessions. The GOP's financial benefactors won't let a default happen, we know that.

If the GOP wasn't so crazy I'd have no problem with him losing next year. Romney strikes me as moderate enough to make a decent president in the right conditions (ie a split house/senate).

 

[Cyan]

Yeah, but it weakens the base. Some people on the left and on this very thread are calling Obama a weak leader, when his record is anything but. The right never called Bush a weak leader, and they still hesitate to criticize him now. You think progressives are going to be rushing out to vote for a person perceived to be weak?

If I'm not satisfied with Obama's leadership, I'm not gonna suck it up on the off chance it might hurt his reelection chances.

 

[empty vessel]

Obama just can't win. The left is never satisfied, while the right wanted him gone as soon as he won the election.

I almost want Obama to lose so I don't have to hear both sides whining like children. At least one side will be happy and not complain, even if their guy or gal doesn't deliver everything they want.

The only thing worth hearing is complaints. Without citizen demands being made (aggressively and loudly and consistently), policy silently goes the way of business execs, at least without adequate campaign finance reform.

 

[thekad]

Remember when there was a time line for closing Gitmo? Time lines are the new fact finding commissions.

Obama doesn't need Congress to bring the troops home.

Too bad he does need to get reelected.

 

[Measley]

Remember when there was a time line for closing Gitmo? Time lines are the new fact finding commissions.

The combat troops left Iraq on time. More troops are leaving Iraq by the end of this year. I take the president at his word at this point. Again, some withdrawal is better than the Republican alternative which was staying in the theater forever.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Isn't Paul being a bit (just a bit) hyperbolic here?

Nope. He's been correct about Obama and his policies from day one. That post was spot-on.

 

[eznark]

The combat troops left Iraq on time. More troops are leaving Iraq by the end of this year. I take the president at his word at this point. Again, some withdrawal is better than the Republican alternative which was staying in the theater forever.

Zero disagreement there.

 

[Loudninja]

Gingrich naming new Georgia leadership team

Newt Gingrich is naming a new Georgia leadership team as he works to rebuild his struggling presidential bid.

The former House speaker has tapped former backers of 2008 presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee to spearhead his efforts in his old home state. Huckabee won Georgia in the Republican presidential primary that year.

Public Service Commissioner Stan Wise, state Rep. Harry Geisinger and grassroots leader Maria Strollo Zack will help lead Gingrich's Georgia campaign.

Gov. Nathan Deal is serving as chairman of Gingrich's Georgia campaign.

http://www.ajc.com/news/gingrich-naming-new-georgia-990679.html

Damn he wont give up!

 

[Measley]

Because Bush was not a weak leader; he took stands and held his ground. He was also a complete disaster. No one is asking for Obama to ignore facts and stick to a rigid ideology, we're asking that he take a fucking stand for once. He's so pussywhipped by the GOP that anytime he says something sorta tough (see: his comments on Ryan's plan) they freak the fuck out and he quiets down. Every time. He's so obsessed with maintaining the image of some above the clouds consensus builder he can't bear looking tough.

At one point does Obama simply walk away from the fucking table instead of bargaining away the farm just so republicans will do their job? I have no problem with a compromise on the debt ceiling (although it sets a bad precedent), my problem is with Obama being unwilling to call a bluff or stand firm. It's not compromise if one side won't play ball. If republicans won't accept even the slightest loophole cuts, walk the fuck away - don't give them MORE concessions. The GOP's financial benefactors won't let a default happen, we know that.

If the GOP wasn't so crazy I'd have no problem with him losing next year. Romney strikes me as moderate enough to make a decent president in the right conditions (ie a split house/senate).

Yeah, because the GOP is a unified front with no dissent, that gave Bush the aura of being a strong leader, because his party simply towed the line. Meanwhile, Obama had the largest majorities in the history of congress and he had conservative Democrats mucking up the works. It doesn't help that when conservatives get mad, they go out and vote, but when progressives get mad, they sit at home and watch television.

And therein lies the problem. You can't expect a politician to go your way when your base doesn't have the political will to see things through. Social conservatives don't wig out when their guy doesn't repeal Roe v. Wade. They keep on the ball, slowly chiseling away at it, and supporting candidates who pay them lip service year after year. Meanwhile, Obama actually passes health care reform and liberals act like he betrayed them because it didn't have everything they ever wanted in it. Never mind the fact that the law is pretty much set up to eventually lead to a universal health care system. If it survives that is, because like most things, liberals will probably abandon it once the political winds start blowing in the opposite direction.

You saying that you wouldn't mind Romney being president is exactly what I'm talking about. Romney would be a complete stooge for the GOP. He'll pass Ryan's plan, repeal Obamacare, and do exactly what those "moderate" governors are currently doing in Wisconsin and Ohio. You know, exactly like the last GOP stooge did when he won the White House.

 

[Measley]

The only thing worth hearing is complaints. Without citizen demands being made (aggressively and loudly and consistently), policy silently goes the way of business execs, at least without adequate campaign finance reform.

I agree. The problem is that one side gets politically active when things don't go their way, and another side gets politically lazy when things don't go their way. Thus, we end up becoming more and more conservative as the years go by.

Case in point; Calling someone a "liberal" is insulting in modern politics.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, because the GOP is a unified front with no dissent, that gave Bush the aura of being a strong leader, because his party simply towed the line. Meanwhile, Obama had the largest majorities in the history of congress and he had conservative Democrats mucking up the works. It doesn't help that when conservatives get mad, they go out and vote, but when progressives get mad, the sit at home and watch television.

And therein lies the problem. You can't expect a politician to go your way when your base doesn't have the political will to see things through. Social conservatives don't wig out when their guy doesn't repeal Roe v. Wade. They keep on the ball, slowly chiseling away at it, and supporting candidates who pay them lip service year after year. Meanwhile, Obama actually passes health care reform and liberals act like he betrayed them because it didn't have everything they ever wanted in it. Never mind the fact that the law is pretty much set up to eventually lead to a universal health care system. If it survives that is, because like most things, liberals will probably abandon it once the political winds start blowing in the opposite direction.

You saying that you wouldn't mind Romney being president is exactly what I'm talking about. Romney would be a complete stooge for the GOP. He'll pass Ryan's plan, repeal Obamacare, and do exactly what those "moderate" governors are currently doing in Wisconsin and Ohio. You know, exactly like the last GOP stooge did when he won the White House.

The fact that he couldn't accomplish much of anything with large majorities in the house and a super majority in the senate tells me he's not a leader. I agree with your general point about health care though, I like the bill overall. But even that was a show of his inefficiency, allowing Bacaus to waste MONTHS courting republicans who had no intention of voting for the bill. Or filling the stimulus with inefficient tax cuts to gain imaginary votes.

Last year I wasn't happy about the Bush tax cut compromise, but I understood it; he truly had no choice there but compromise. But here all the chips are on his side as president, yet he is unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say "this is what you get, take it or leave it." While republicans could have gleefully watched the Bush taxes expire and then slam democrats for raising taxes, they can't let the government default. It's not going to happen. Apparently democrats are talking about a trillion dollars in cuts, which is probably the most vast spending cut in decades. And yet republicans will walk away from the table over corporate loopholes being cut too? And Obama would contemplate taking said loopholes off the table to make nice? That's not leadership, it's the work of a feckless craven.

 

[Gaborn]

The fact that he couldn't accomplish much of anything with large majorities in the house and a super majority in the senate tells me he's not a leader. I agree with your general point about health care though, I like the bill overall. But even that was a show of his inefficiency, allowing Bacaus to waste MONTHS courting republicans who had no intention of voting for the bill. Or filling the stimulus with inefficient tax cuts to gain imaginary votes.

Last year I wasn't happy about the Bush tax cut compromise, but I understood it; he truly had no choice there but compromise. But here all the chips are on his side as president, yet he is unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say "this is what you get, take it or leave it." While republicans could have gleefully watched the Bush taxes expire and then slam democrats for raising taxes, they can't let the government default. It's not going to happen. Apparently democrats are talking about a trillion dollars in cuts, which is probably the most vast spending cut in decades. And yet republicans will walk away from the table over corporate loopholes being cut too? And Obama would contemplate taking said loopholes off the table to make nice? That's not leadership, it's the work of a feckless craven.

Don't buy into the hype. What about 1985? Congress waited 3 months after the debt ceiling was reached to approve a new increased limit. 1995? 4 and a half months. 2002? Another 3 month wait. People are raising a lot of bogey men about the debt ceiling but there is no reason to think if we don't raise the debt ceiling prior to August 2nd that the world will end.

Even if the debt ceiling is reached and congress simply refuses to raise it we're a very long way away from defaulting anytime soon.

 

[gcubed]

Don't buy into the hype. What about 1985? Congress waited 3 months after the debt ceiling was reached to approve a new increased limit. 1995? 4 and a half months. 2002? Another 3 month wait. People are raising a lot of bogey men about the debt ceiling but there is no reason to think if we don't raise the debt ceiling prior to August 2nd that the world will end.

Even if the debt ceiling is reached and congress simply refuses to raise it we're a very long way away from defaulting anytime soon.

ummm... we already reached the debt ceiling in May. The Aug 2nd date is the date in which we can longer shift things around and need to stop paying things. We did that one other time, and it was a shitstorm then.

 

[Gaborn]

ummm... we already reached the debt ceiling didnt we? The Aug 2nd date is the date in which we can longer shift things around and need to stop paying things.

We "softly" reached it, that is, as you say Geithner has started actually looking at our money and found that we have it. We will REACH it on August 2nd. At that point they'll start to do things like close the national parks and a lot of other little stuff. The US isn't going to default any time soon.

 

[speculawyer]

This is why applying Keynesian Stimulus no longer works.

Bridge Comes to San Francisco With a Made-in-China Label

DAVID BARBOZA, On Sunday June 26, 2011, 1:26 am EDT
SHANGHAI — Talk about outsourcing.

At a sprawling manufacturing complex here, hundreds of Chinese laborers are now completing work on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Next month, the last four of more than two dozen giant steel modules — each with a roadbed segment about half the size of a football field — will be loaded onto a huge ship and transported 6,500 miles to Oakland. There, they will be assembled to fit into the eastern span of the new Bay Bridge.

The project is part of China’s continual move up the global economic value chain — from cheap toys to Apple iPads to commercial jetliners — as it aims to become the world’s civil engineer.

The assembly work in California, and the pouring of the concrete road surface, will be done by Americans. But construction of the bridge decks and the materials that went into them are a Made in China affair. California officials say the state saved hundreds of millions of dollars by turning to China.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bridge-Comes-to-San-Francisco-nytimes-295493098.html?x=0

 

[speculawyer]

We "softly" reached it, that is, as you say Geithner has started actually looking at our money and found that we have it. We will REACH it on August 2nd. At that point they'll start to do things like close the national parks and a lot of other little stuff. The US isn't going to default any time soon.

No, we will just destroy our credit rating so that we end up paying higher interest rates.

 

[Gaborn]

This is why applying Keynesian Stimulus no longer works.




http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bridge-Comes-to-San-Francisco-nytimes-295493098.html?x=0

Ridiculous as all the movies outsourced to other states rather than shot in hollywood anymore (it's too damn expensive tax wise for most movies)

 

[PhoenixDark]

We "softly" reached it, that is, as you say Geithner has started actually looking at our money and found that we have it. We will REACH it on August 2nd. At that point they'll start to do things like close the national parks and a lot of other little stuff. The US isn't going to default any time soon.

I think it's safe to say republican leadership will not let the US default, and that the consequences of a default are indeed "not good" regardless of whether they're "catastrophic." It's not going to happen, Boehner knows that. It's time for Obama to realize it too.

 

[gcubed]

We "softly" reached it, that is, as you say Geithner has started actually looking at our money and found that we have it. We will REACH it on August 2nd. At that point they'll start to do things like close the national parks and a lot of other little stuff. The US isn't going to default any time soon.

no, i'm not worried about the US defaulting. I'm worried about the stock market crash surrounding no agreement being reached

 

[Gaborn]

I think it's safe to say republican leadership will not let the US default, and that the consequences of a default are indeed "not good" regardless of whether they're "catastrophic." It's not going to happen, Boehner knows that. It's time for Obama to realize it too.

I agree we will not default, I just think the specter of default is ridiculously overplayed in our sensationalist media.

Spec - Not going to happen either

gcubed - like the great crashes of 2002 and 1995!

 

[PhoenixDark]

I agree we will not default, I just think the specter of default is ridiculously overplayed in our sensationalist media.

Spec - Not going to happen either

It's not just media, it's top economists
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...nd-blow-recovery-out-of-the-water.php?ref=fpb

 

[gcubed]

This is why applying Keynesian Stimulus no longer works.




http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bridge-Comes-to-San-Francisco-nytimes-295493098.html?x=0

it can, if you want to get ballsy with protectionism and tie stimulus funds to american products and workers

gaborn-- trying to find the article i read about the only other time we hit a hard limit and its effects.

 

[Byakuya769]

No, we will just destroy our credit rating so that we end up paying higher interest rates.

YES. Starving the beast!!! We conservatives win again, muahahahaha!

Hey, we're going to ask for more tax cuts soon, btw.

 

[besada]

Sadly, I have to agree with this.

Me too. I took a lot of shit when I called him Clinton 2.0 immediately after his election, but I was wrong. He's Jimmy Carter 2.0. He's a smart man who misunderstands the game he's playing and doesn't have the balls to really play it. That's been obvious since the health care debacle. What astonished me is that he doesn't seem to learn. For a group of bright guys, they've essentially just kept making the same mistakes, over and over.

I keep thinking he might wake up. Instead, like most flailing Presidents, he's finding shit overseas to do that makes him look strong, rather than effectively deal with domestic issues. If he doesn't turn that around, he's fucked.

The Republicans have finally latched onto an issue that's real. He's been a weak leader in a time when the country needs a strong one. That the Republicans are primarily responsible for his inability to get stuff passed doesn't change the argument one iota.

 

[Gaborn]

It's not just media, it's top economists
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...nd-blow-recovery-out-of-the-water.php?ref=fpb

If Congress fails to raise the national debt limit by early August, the Obama Treasury Department will have to choose between defaulting on obligations to the country's creditors -- triggering higher interest rates and perhaps damaging the country's credit rating for months and years to come -- or freezing outlays to contractors, entitlement beneficiaries and others who are also expecting prompt payment as well. In either case, the macroeconomic impact will be staggering, according to Zandi.

The second scenario is more likely and will be inconvenient but hardly destroy the country as long as it's, say for a week or so. The longer we're at the debt ceiling the more pressure there will be to shut down broad services like the national parks and other smaller government offices. Things like getting a passport verified will be delayed, they won't accept new applications to medicaid, etc. Then probably government furloughs.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Me too. I took a lot of shit when I called him Clinton 2.0 immediately after his election, but I was wrong. He's Jimmy Carter 2.0. He's a smart man who misunderstands the game he's playing and doesn't have the balls to really play it. That's been obvious since the health care debacle. What astonished me is that he doesn't seem to learn. For a group of bright guys, they've essentially just kept making the same mistakes, over and over.

I keep thinking he might wake up. Instead, like most flailing Presidents, he's finding shit overseas to do that makes him look strong, rather than effectively deal with domestic issues. If he doesn't turn that around, he's fucked.

The Republicans have finally latched onto an issue that's real. He's been a weak leader in a time when the country needs a strong one. That the Republicans are primarily responsible for his inability to get stuff passed doesn't change the argument one iota.

That's a depressing, but sad truth. Hopefully the campaign can wake his ass up.