Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

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

That's depressing. A few months of ra ra speechifying can overshadow years of worthless actions. American politics!

 

[Gaborn]

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

Look at 2002 according to the government:

The Debt Limit Issue in 2002
Accumulating debt in government accounts produced most of the pressure on
the debt limit that occurred early in 2002. As deficits reemerged in FY2002,
increases in debt held by the public added to the pressure on the debt limit in the
spring of 2002. During the four fiscal years with surpluses (FY1998-FY2001), the
increases in federally held debt and decreases in debt held by the public produced a
net increase of $405 billion in total debt subject to limit. At the beginning of FY2002
(October 1, 2001), debt subject to limit was within $217 billion of the existing $5.95
trillion debt limit.
20
Between then and the end of May 2002, debt subject to limit
increased by another $217 billion, divided between a $117 billion increase in debt
held by government accounts and a $100 billion increase in debt held by the public,
putting the debt close to the $5.95 trillion limit. Table 2, presented in the Appendix,
shows month-by-month debt totals and accumulations from September 2001 through
September 2007.
In the fall of 2001, the Administration recognized that a deteriorating budget
outlook and continued growth in debt held by government accounts were likely to
lead to the debt limit soon being reached. In early December 2001, it asked Congress to raise the debt limit by $750 billion to $6.7 trillion. As the debt moved closer to
and reached the debt limit over the first six months of FY2002, the Administration
asked Congress repeatedly to increase the debt limit, warning of adverse financial
consequences were the limit not raised.
On April 4, 2002, the Treasury held debt below the limit by invoking its
legislatively mandated authority to suspend reinvestment of government securities
in the G-Fund of the federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). This allowed the
Treasury to issue new debt and meet the government’s obligations. On April 15, debt
subject to limit stood at $5,949,975 million, just $25 million below the limit. Once
April 15 tax revenues flowed in, the Treasury “made whole” the G-Fund by restoring
all of the debt that had not been issued to the TSP over this period and crediting the
fund with interest it would have earned on that debt.
21
By the end of April, that debt
had fallen back $35 billion below the limit.
Resolving the Debt Limit Issue in 2002. By the middle of May 2002, debt
subject to limit had again risen to within $15 million of the statutory limit.
22
At the
FY2002 average spending rate, $15 million equaled about five minutes of federal
outlays. The Treasury, for the second time in 2002, used its statutory authority to
avoid a default. The Treasury’s financing problems, however, would persist without
an increase in the debt limit. On May 14, the Treasury asked Congress to raise the
debt limit or enact other statutory changes allowing the Treasury to issue new debt.
A Treasury news release stated “absent extraordinary actions, the government will
exceed the statutory debt ceiling no later than May 16,” and that
a “debt issuance suspension period” will begin no later than May 16 [2002]....
[This] allows the Treasury to suspend or redeem investments in two trust funds,
which will provide flexibility to fund the operations of the government during
this period.
23
The Treasury reduced federal debt held by these government accounts by
replacing it with non-interest-bearing, non-debt instruments, which enabled it to issue
new debt to meet the government’s obligations. The Treasury claimed these
extraordinary actions would suffice, at the latest, through June 28, 2002. Without a
debt limit increase by that date, the Treasury indicated it would need to take other
actions available to it to avoid breaching the ceiling. By June 21, the Treasury had
postponed a regular securities auction, but took no other actions. With large
payments and other obligations due at the end of June and at the beginning of July,
the Treasury stated it would soon exhaust all options to issue debt and fulfill
government obligations, putting the government on the verge of a default.

During May and June 2002, Congress took steps to increase the debt limit. The
FY2002 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4775) passed by the House on May
24 included, after extended debate, language allowing any eventual House-Senate
conference on the legislation to increase the debt limit. However, the Senate’s
supplemental appropriations bill (S. 2551; incorporated as an amendment to H.R.
4775, June 3, 2002) omitted debt-limit-increasing language. The Senate leadership
expressed strong reluctance to include a debt limit increase in the supplemental
appropriation bill. Instead, on June 11, the Senate adopted a bill (S. 2578), without
debate, to raise the debt limit by $450 billion to $6.4 trillion. At that time, a $450
billion debt limit increase was thought to provide enough borrowing authority for
government operations through the rest of calendar year 2002, if not through the
summer of 2003. With the possibility of default looming over it, the House passed
the $450 billion debt limit increase by a single vote on June 27. The President signed
the bill into law on June 28 (P.L. 107-19, 116 Stat. 734), ending the 2002 debt limit
crisis.

 

[gcubed]

Look at 2002 according to the government:

i'll read that one, this one was something in the 70s i think

 

[empty vessel]

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

Ha. So sending taxpayer money entirely out of the country instead of returning it to the citizens in the form of jobs and wages "saved" money? I wonder what the savings were in comparison to how much would have been returned to the taxpayer through wages and if that's a positive or negative number.

 

[PhoenixDark]

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

Why would it? He's been making the same mistakes since his first major act as president: the stimulus. I felt that was understandable at the time, and assumed he'd realize what the GOP was doing next time. Yet that "aha" moment never came.

He's presiding over a sinking ship and doesn't have the will to change anything that might be tough or unpopular. There's no fucking way Hillary Clinton or even John Kerry would have been this helpless

 

[Snake]

There's no fucking way Hillary Clinton or even John Kerry would have been this helpless

Now you have woken the dragon.

 

[Resident_UA]

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.

I'm not even sure which half you are talking about, because just rising the ceiling does not change anything, it is more about policies that would surround it. Either was there is absolutely no way that the US can default. China would forgive the debt rather than letting that happen...

 

[Resident_UA]

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.

If you look at the actual statistics the economy has been growing for the past two years. The complaint is that it is not growing fast enough. In fact nothing has changed in the past year which is in some ways a bad thing, but it is in no way an indication that this country would default.

 

[mckmas8808]

Krugman sucks, but he's got a point here. This has become completely absurd--the Dems hold the Senate and the White House, and yet they can't seem to do anything at all.

The Republicans are playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and it's completely insane. Raising the debt ceiling is not some leftist liberal thing. It's not a partisan issue. It's not something where Democrats should have to be making giant concessions to Republicans just to get them to go along with it. "Oh hey, this car is speeding toward a cliff. Shouldn't we turn the wheel?" "Well ok, but I'll want some concessions first..."

To let them win here will just embolden them.

Again with the hyperbolic statements. Do some of you guys know what the word means? Can't we make statements like "they aren't getting enough done...blah...blah blah"? And isn't it the same thing that people on the far right say about the GOP when they have the majority in office?

And what if a GOP win on the debt ceiling? And what would it take for you to say they lost?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm not even sure which half you are talking about, because just rising the ceiling does not change anything, it is more about policies that would surround it. Either was there is absolutely no way that the US can default. China would forgive the debt rather than letting that happen...

It sounds like you don't understand what it means to default.

In finance, default occurs when a debtor has not met his or her legal obligations according to the debt contract, e.g. has not made a scheduled payment, or has violated a loan covenant (condition) of the debt contract.

If the payments on the debt are not made on time, then the United States has defaulted on its debt. If you fail to pay your debt on time, it calls your creditworthiness into question. If you want to borrow money, as the United States inevitably will have to, and your creditworthiness is questionable, people will charge you more for the privilege of borrowing.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

FUCK THIS CLINTON NARRITIVE! That assholeic fucker signed both DOMA and DADT, while letting Bin Laden go and he still gets praise as some strong huge dick leader. The fuck mayne?

Out of all people here, I didn't see you falling for that lame crap. I like Clinton, but this narriative has got to go. He signed the bills to alot of GOP agendas in the 90s. Why don't people seem to remember any of this stuff? Is history that unimportant in this country?

 

[Skiptastic]

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

Sure seems that way.

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

About as much as Obama has been able to satisfy the left. Bush did things that pissed off some righties too, ya know (NCLB, Medicare Part D, TARP, expansion of government). If the left can never be satisfied, the same can go for the right.

FUCK THIS CLINTON NARRITIVE! That assholeic fucker signed both DOMA and DADT, while letting Bin Laden go and he still gets praise as some strong huge dick leader. The fuck mayne?

U mad?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Sure seems that way.


About as much as Obama has been able to satisfy the left. Bush did things that pissed off some righties too, ya know (NCLB, Medicare Part D, TARP, expansion of government). If the left can never be satisfied, the same can go for the right.

U mad?

the heck? NCLB, Medicare Part D, and TARP were all things the RIGHT wanted.

 

[eznark]

FUCK THIS CLINTON NARRITIVE! That assholeic fucker signed both DOMA and DADT, while letting Bin Laden go and he still gets praise as some strong huge dick leader. The fuck mayne?

Out of all people here, I didn't see you falling for that lame crap. I like Clinton, but this narriative has got to go. He signed the bills to alot of GOP agendas in the 90s. Why don't people seem to remember any of this stuff? Is history that unimportant in this country?

I said nothing about policy, just that he was able to be proactive instead of reactive. I think he did have some glaring failings in leadership (mostly on international conflicts) though.

 

[polyh3dron]

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.

It's concern trolling of the highest order.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

There's a "don't raise the debt limit" ad at the bottom of this page. Good grief.

 

[Cyan]

Again with the hyperbolic statements. Do some of you guys know what the word means?

Which word? Hyperbolic?

More like... ultrabolic!

Can't we make statements like "they aren't getting enough done...blah...blah blah"?

Why? You clearly knew what I meant.

And what if a GOP win on the debt ceiling? And what would it take for you to say they lost?

A GOP win on the debt ceiling is Obama conceding everything on an issue that shouldn't be partisan to begin with. Basically, they're going to win. A GOP loss would be default--but in that case, we all lose.

 

[Skiptastic]

the heck? NCLB, Medicare Part D, and TARP were all things the RIGHT wanted.

:| wat? Republicans maybe wanted some of those things (though I don't know about NCLB), but "the right"? I don't think so. The counterweights to "the left" that was originally brought up are those who live in zones of political martyrdom. Why would a right winger want government intervention in education? Why would they want an expansion of Medicare? Why would they want a huge bailout?

Meh, whatever. Maybe I had my wires crossed in the original post I was responding to.

 

[Resident_UA]

It sounds like you don't understand what it means to default.


If the payments on the debt are not made on time, then the United States has defaulted on its debt. If you fail to pay your debt on time, it calls your creditworthiness into question. If you want to borrow money, as the United States inevitably will have to, and your creditworthiness is questionable, people will charge you more for the privilege of borrowing.

First of all there is a difference between a person and a country. In perfect capitalistic society where there a lot of independent actors this would be working that way. What you fail to realize is that the country that we are borrowing money from is as dependent on us as we are on them. If the economy in the US is not doing well China is screwed. Yes, this might change in the future, but right now there are more important things to worry about like healthcare, wars, or education that the government should be worried about rather than debt ceiling...

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

The same Clinton that couldn't get a health care bill signed at all? That same Clinton? How did Clinton not let the GOP roll on him? I seem to remember a different history of the 90s than you do.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The same Clinton that couldn't get a health care bill signed at all? That same Clinton? How did Clinton not let the GOP roll on him? I seem to remember a different history of the 90s than you do.

The health care bill had little to do with Obama or Harry Reid, and more to do with Pelosi's never ending commitment. Clinton overreached with a public that was more conservative than it is now, pure and simple.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

First of all there is a difference between a person and a country. In perfect capitalistic society where there a lot of independent actors this would be working that way. What you fail to realize is that the country that we are borrowing money from is as dependent on us as we are on them. If the economy in the US is not doing well China is screwed. Yes, this might change in the future, but right now there are more important things to worry about like healthcare, wars, or education that the government should be worried about rather than debt ceiling...

I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or if you just are not understanding what I'm saying. You don't think there will be consequences if the United States announces to its creditors that it intends to be capricious about when it will service its debt? I'm trying very hard not to be uncharitable.

 

[mckmas8808]

U mad?

lol. Yeah a little bit. It kills me when people like PD and others act like Clinton was the great president that kicked ass and took names. Especially the more liberal out of the bunch say these things.

Because back in the 90s the people further left hated when Clinton would "triangulate" his policies and politics. Now all of a sudden Clinton has become a fire breathing liberal. It's the same crap we've seen with the far right and Ronald Reagon. Conservatives have lied about his record for so long, that they darn near forgot what kind of a president he really was.

And the same thing is happening now with Clinton. I wish people would just stop lying about the man's record.

 

[Measley]

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.

Except he did accomplish a lot with those huge majorities, and he did it with a record level of Republican filibusters. My issue is with progressives actually thinking Obama is going to swing more liberal or progressive when there's no support for candidates that are more liberal or progressive. The political climate seems to indicate that the country wants things more centrist and balanced, and that's exactly how Obama is running the field.

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.

Well the negotiating isn't finished yet. Obama did very well when the GOP threatened to shut down the government (and he got no credit for it), so let's see what he can do with this situation. The liberal horde needs to relax before they claim "game over".

 

[mckmas8808]

A GOP win on the debt ceiling is Obama conceding everything on an issue that shouldn't be partisan to begin with. Basically, they're going to win. A GOP loss would be default--but in that case, we all lose.

So what if we end up getting 1.5 Trillion in cuts over 10 years and $500 Billion in tax increases? Is that a GOP win or is it neutral?

 

[Measley]

The same Clinton that couldn't get a health care bill signed at all? That same Clinton? How did Clinton not let the GOP roll on him? I seem to remember a different history of the 90s than you do.

Same, which is why I'm surprised by the progressive flip out on Obama.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So what if we end up getting 1.5 Trillion in cuts over 10 years and $500 Billion in tax increases? Is that a GOP win or is it neutral?

It's not even going to happen so what's the point in hypotheticals. They will not compromise on taxes, end of story

 

[Zero Hero]

This has to be a joke.

“It’s a very bad idea to expand the notion of self- regulation,” said Denise Voigt Crawford, former commissioner of the Texas State Securities Board. “They’re supposed to oversee the activity of the industry, but they are industry.”

No shit, Sherlock. Why is this even on the table?!

 

[mckmas8808]

The health care bill had little to do with Obama or Harry Reid, and more to do with Pelosi's never ending commitment. Clinton overreached with a public that was more conservative than it is now, pure and simple.

:lol

Come on dude, you can't possibly believe that can you? Pelosi really? So Pelosi could have gotten that same bill passed with McCain as Prezy?

 

[Oblivion]

Right-winger promotes right-wing economic myths! News at 11.

Although BigSicily is wrong that Elmedorf is "Obama's" (the president does not appoint the CBO director), he was not entirely unsurprisingly appointed by Pelosi and Byrd.

Incidentally, the actual quote was: "Higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity to some extent by views of most economists." And I can't find a credible source on the second quote at all.

Big Sicily getting his information from chain e-mails? Color me shocked.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The health care bill had little to do with Obama or Harry Reid, and more to do with Pelosi's never ending commitment. Clinton overreached with a public that was more conservative than it is now, pure and simple.

Holy shit what? There was a Tea Party in the 90s? There were idiots calling Clinton a communist in the 90s?

 

[Resident_UA]

I can't tell if you're deliberately being obtuse or if you just are not understanding what I'm saying. You don't think there will be consequences if the United States announces to its creditors that it intends to be capricious about when it will service its debt? I'm trying very hard not to be uncharitable.

I'm not being obtuse. I really don't think that this will EVER happen. Both sides know what the consequences will be. The "creditors" (as you call China - this is not a huge secret ) know what to expect without the US taking any action. Just look at the history and take into the account the inflation.

I don't want to be overly defensive here, since I do agree that policies around debt ceiling do make a difference, but the actual number is completely arbitrary.

 

[Measley]

The health care bill had little to do with Obama or Harry Reid, and more to do with Pelosi's never ending commitment. Clinton overreached with a public that was more conservative than it is now, pure and simple.

As much as conservatives may have hated Clinton, there's no way that a Republican congressman could call the president a "liar" during the SotU address and still keep his job.

I also don't remember Republican congressmen protesting with anti-government activists on cable news networks.

 

[speculawyer]

FUCK THIS CLINTON NARRITIVE! That assholeic fucker signed both DOMA and DADT, while letting Bin Laden go and he still gets praise as some strong huge dick leader. The fuck mayne?

Whining about DOMA and DADT is Gaborn's job.


DOMA is crap . . . but if it stopped a constitutional amendment from happening, it may have been a blessing indisguise.

DADT was pure Clinton triangulation genius. There is no way the ban was going to be lifted at the time (it still hasn't been done YET!) and DADT was a nice triangulation that acted as a stepping-stone into the future. Gays that didn't mind staying in the closet could join the military. And the fact that they were there and it was known that they were there and everything was fine showed that it would not be a problem. It has now out-lived its usefulness but at the time it was good policy.

Bin Laden? . . . Clinton tried. But he didn't have enough support to really go after him heavily. He got shit for 'wagging the dog' as is because he said he just shot cruise missiles to deflect the news away from Monica.


You wanna whine about Clinton then talk about Glass-Stegall and the commodities futures modernization act.

 

[Cyan]

So what if we end up getting 1.5 Trillion in cuts over 10 years and $500 Billion in tax increases? Is that a GOP win or is it neutral?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Do you want me to spell out what it would take for me not to view the debt ceiling compromise as a GOP win? Because it's too late for that. Obama lost when he allowed the GOP to turn this into a deficit/budget issue. There was zero reason to tie deficit reduction into raising the debt ceiling besides symbolism (callback!). As for the asinine notion going around that somehow deficit spending is causing unemployment, etc... I don't even know what to say about that.

As far as where we are now, the scenario you outline is probably the best the Dems could hope for. So I'll say that given the current state of things, that compromise would look to me like Obama at least making the score respectable in garbage time.

Man, I hate getting into politics as team sports stuff. Makes me feel kind of dirty.

 

[PhoenixDark]

As much as conservatives may have hated Clinton, there's no way that a Republican congressman could call the president a "liar" during the SotU address and still keep his job.

I also don't remember Republican congressmen protesting with anti-government activists on cable news networks.

Holy shit what? There was a Tea Party in the 90s? There were idiots calling Clinton a communist in the 90s?

This is where I'd pull out the "were you even around in the 90s!?" post but alas, I was only born in 1987. Still, Clinton was utterly savaged over healthcare, and the public rapidly turned away over scare tactics concerning the employer mandate. Clinton may not have faced a tea party but the extremist right wing were more violent, and talk radio just as venomous as today (they may not like Obama, but they've yet to accuse him or rape or murder).

Clinton also could not get insurance companies to calm down, whereas Obama made deals with them.

 

[speculawyer]

This is where I'd pull out the "were you even around in the 90s!?" post but alas, I was only born in 1987. Still, Clinton was utterly savaged over healthcare, and the public rapidly turned away over scare tactics concerning the employer mandate. Clinton may not have faced a tea party but the extremist right wing were more violent, and talk radio just as venomous as today (they may not like Obama, but they've yet to accuse him or rape or murder).

Indeed. There is an endless line of faux-clinton scandals. Filegate, travelgate, vince foster, white water, etc. There were so many manufactured scandals about him that it was ridiculous. The fact that they finally nailed him for lying on a deposition that was never used kinda showed that the rest of the stuff was all just manufactured tripe.

 

[CvGz]

Clinton also could not get insurance companies to calm down, whereas Obama made deals with them.

Obama has been more pragmatic, Clinton's triangulation wasn't as flexible for healthcare concerns, or it could of been Hil's headstrong approach that caused the Insurance industry onslaught.

 

[mckmas8808]

Whining about DOMA and DADT is Gaborn's job.


DOMA is crap . . . but if it stopped a constitutional amendment from happening, it may have been a blessing indisguise.

DADT was pure Clinton triangulation genius. There is no way the ban was going to be lifted at the time (it still hasn't been done YET!) and DADT was a nice triangulation that acted as a stepping-stone into the future. Gays that didn't mind staying in the closet could join the military. And the fact that they were there and it was known that they were there and everything was fine showed that it would not be a problem. It has now out-lived its usefulness but at the time it was good policy.

Bin Laden? . . . Clinton tried. But he didn't have enough support to really go after him heavily. He got shit for 'wagging the dog' as is because he said he just shot cruise missiles to deflect the news away from Monica.


You wanna whine about Clinton then talk about Glass-Stegall and the commodities futures modernization act.

Ask the LGBT community if DOMA is a blessing in disguise. And for DADT I sorta agree with you. But it's something that if Obama were to do it today, liberals would say it's Obama not being a strong leader and weak. It was a compromise that's now being done away with.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is where I'd pull out the "were you even around in the 90s!?" post but alas, I was only born in 1987. Still, Clinton was utterly savaged over healthcare, and the public rapidly turned away over scare tactics concerning the employer mandate. Clinton may not have faced a tea party but the extremist right wing were more violent, and talk radio just as venomous as today (they may not like Obama, but they've yet to accuse him or rape or murder).

Clinton also could not get insurance companies to calm down, whereas Obama made deals with them.

So basically Obama was a better leader than Clinton when it came down to health care. You and some others trying to turn him into some clown that continues to get chewed by the GOP and never gets anything done are constantly making hyperbolic statements.

Statements that rival the far right when it comes to talking about Reagan's presidency. And obviously Obama was hit with some stupid crap too like Clinton was. I mean the guy was literally called an illegal alien by 30% of the GOP party.

 

[PantherLotus]

I know it's freak-out day in PoliGAF, but is anyone else here sober enough to realize what President Obama is dealing with?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I know it's freak-out day in PoliGAF, but is anyone else here sober enough to realize what President Obama is dealing with?

Oh, do enlighten us, most sober one.

 

[thekad]

I know it's freak-out day in PoliGAF, but is anyone else here sober enough to realize what President Obama is dealing with?

We get antsy when he's down in the daily tracking. Just wait until next year...

 

[mckmas8808]

It's not even going to happen so what's the point in hypotheticals. They will not compromise on taxes, end of story

So what would you do as President if they will not compromise on any tax increases?

 

[PhoenixDark]

So basically Obama was a better leader than Clinton when it came down to health care. You and some others trying to turn him into some clown that continues to get chewed by the GOP and never gets anything done are constantly making hyperbolic statements.

Statements that rival the far right when it comes to talking about Reagan's presidency. And obviously Obama was hit with some stupid crap too like Clinton was. I mean the guy was literally called an illegal alien by 30% of the GOP party.

No, I'm saying he caved to insurance companies at the beginning of the fight to avoid the heavy lifting Clinton had to do. Congressional leadership (Dole) were more receptive to a deal until the GOP decided to kill the entirety of the bill.

 

[Dude Abides]

As much as conservatives may have hated Clinton, there's no way that a Republican congressman could call the president a "liar" during the SotU address and still keep his job.

Google Dan Burton.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Ah, I see the monthly doom and gloom regarding Obama has reached PoliGaf.

 

[thekad]

This is why applying Keynesian Stimulus no longer works.

We never tried it.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, I'm saying he caved to insurance companies at the beginning of the fight to avoid the heavy lifting Clinton had to do. Congressional leadership (Dole) were more receptive to a deal until the GOP decided to kill the entirety of the bill.

Did he cave or did he work with insurance companies. Me and you see the same thing, but look at it from a different perspective.

I mean it almost seems like you respect the fact that Clinton got nothing done on the health care side of things, just because he didn't want to work with the private insurance industry.

What's the point in being president if you aren't going to work with the same industry that going to handle the paper work? Unless Clinton was going to go for a Medicare for all or straight single payer.

We never tried it.

We did try it. It just wasn't enough. Don't let the crazy wing of the party confuse you.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So what would you do as President if they will not compromise on any tax increases?

I'd let things play out as they had at first, with Biden and Cantor leading the discussions until they reached their limits. I'd agree with the spending cuts, and go further depending on how much military spending they're willing to add on. After that I'd endorse whatever the democrat demands are (payroll tax holiday iirc), and include the tax loophole cuts.

If republicans refuse that compromise, which breaks in their favor significantly, I'd walk away from the table. Get on the road and make clear the talks were stalled over tax loopholes for millionaires and oil companies.

The GOP will not let the US default.