Skip to main content

President Barack Obama meets with bipartisan House and Senate Leadership in the Cabinet Room of the White House to discuss his upcoming fiscal policy speech, April 13, 2011. Seated with the President from left are: Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Mitch McC
Fun times in the White House.
House Speaker John Boehner has given President Obama a powerful weapon by volunteering the information that House Republicans fully intend to take the debt ceiling hostage again, aside from their refusal to responsibly negotiate the fiscal cliff curb. Obama can, and is, using against House Republicans. Today, he's doing so in a meeting with business leaders at the Business Roundtable.
The president is embarked on an aggressive campaign to pressurecongressional Republicans to compromise on steps to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. He will argue to corporate executives that it would hurt the nation's economy to have another protracted political fight over raising the debt limit, the official said.

"The President will highlight why it would hurt our economy and our nation's businesses if we do not find a solution to avoid another debt ceiling crisis, and will ask the business leaders for their help in supporting an approach that resolves the debt limit without drama or delay," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The downgrading of the U.S. credit rating and the stumble in the economy recovery that happened over the last Republican-manufactured debt ceiling crisis gave a massive scare to the business world. That lingering fear can and should be used against Republican intransigence now.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:53 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Excellent news! For some reason I can't rec diary. (8+ / 0-)

    There is no star at the top of the diary for me to rec.

    Oh dear...

    I voted for the human beings.

    by denig on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:58:53 AM PST

    •  Ashley Judd needs to run for this relic's seat. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eps62, glorificus, jerrypw, RUKind

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:51:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anyone with an average or higher IQ needs to (0+ / 0-)

        run for the Turtle Seat.

        "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

        by glorificus on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:17:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  McConnell: "A hostage worth taking" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glaze, jerrypw, For Dean in Dixie

      That is how he described the republican's abuse of the debit limit in fiscal negotiations.

      It is extortion, not negotiation. Republicans are willing to inflict short and long term pain on our citizens and the reputation of our government to protect a small portion of income for the richest of us. Money for the rich is all that matters to them, and lacking the electoral power to get what they want they will use every means at the disposal to do it.

      Obama needs to explicitly call them out on it, loudly and over and over.

  •  I hope he talks up the infrastructure program too (27+ / 0-)

    Stimulus spending is seriously needed to keep the economy growing.  If any conservative audience would have an affinity to Keynesian spending, you'd think it would be CEO's that would benefit from that spending.

    Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

    by Dallasdoc on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:03:13 AM PST

  •  Live now (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, TomP, glorificus, LOrion

    at 9:00 eastern
    http://www.cnn.com/...

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:03:49 AM PST

    •  ..AND Rachel last night ...noted how 250 CEO's .. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glaze, democrattotheend, hulibow

      have been to the WhiteHouse since the reelection.
      That almost all of them supported Romney. and PBO has been magnanimous but....very clear

      ... as he applauded both the election of Senator Elizabeth Warren,

       AND NOW her placement on the Senate Banking Committee!

      GOTCHA!

      Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial,Multigender and MiddleClass

      by LOrion on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:31:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wasn't there a "Nuclear Option" on the Debt (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vatexia, TomP, jck, rb608, blue aardvark, glorificus

    that progressives were pushing for the last time.

    Also the House "Leadership" had a conga line of crazy photo op of Whine and Cheezy  regarding the Debt about an hour ago.

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:10:41 AM PST

    •  There are two apparently legal . . . (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, TofG, ferg, glorificus, divineorder, Pluto

      means for Obama to ignore the debt limit, although no doubt the howling and screaming, not to mention the litigation, would be horrific beyond human imagination.

      A) Congress has already appropriated the money, after the last time they raised the debt ceiling. If two laws conflict, the latter one takes precedence. By appropriating the money, they de facto eliminated the earlier debt ceiling, already.

      B) The president can create money at will. He's not allowed to mint gold or silver without an act of congress, but he can mint platinum or iridium or whatever. He can instruct the Treasury to mint a trillion dollars worth of gold plated latinum coins and store them in a vault. No more borrowing needed, just pay the bills. (Yes, inflationary. Good thing at present.)

      •  I like option A). You know the nutty GOP House (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, Pluto

        will eventually fall into the impeachment trap anyway.

        "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

        by TofG on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:53:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Inflation is a good thing if you can increase (4+ / 0-)

        your income to match and you have assets that will increase in value.

        Some of us don't fall in either category.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:01:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not inflationary as long as economy is flat. (6+ / 0-)

        With 23 million underemployed and unemployed willing workers, and with capacity running at something like 75-80% there is virtually no risk of inflation from deficit spending. In fact, current deficits are miniscule compared to the size of the hole in the economy that accounts for $8-9 billion per day in lost production. That is the real debt, not the treasury/fed scorecard which is largely irrelevant.

      •  Does it have to be a metal coin? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eps62, glorificus, hyperstation, glaze

        I was under the impression that the Fed can simply print 100 million 100 dollar bills when they want and sell and/or them into circulation, no fancy metalurgy required. They simply expand the money supply. And with inflation as low as it is and has been for a while, the danger of pushing us into hyper-inflation is very unlikely. This is the difference between the Government's budget and a family budget, families don't get away with printing their own money.
        If they do strike a trillion dollar coin (as has been suggested) I hope it has Obama's face on it.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:09:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The constitutionality of A is debatable (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, RUKind

        The 14th amendment states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." But you notice that it says "authorized by law". That, read in conjunction with Article I, which authorizes Congress to borrow money, could very well be read to mean (and was likely intended to mean) that the debt shall not be questioned if authorized by law, meaning a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.

        The White House looked into this option, but the constitutional law scholars the president talked to were not convinced it was constitutional. Furthermore, the uncertainty over whether it was constitutional could shake the lenders' confidence in the bond markets and cause them to raise the interest rate on the US debt. Which of course would have the impact of increasing the amount of the federal budget used for debt service and give Republicans yet another excuse for why we "need" cutbacks.

  •  It may take letting the nation default (30+ / 0-)

    to end the extortion.  We can't give the Republican House control of the executive and legislative branch through extortion.    

    Government by extortion is worse than a default and the Rs plan to do this every time the debt ceiling comes up to a vote.  

    Either ignore the debt ceiling and let courts decide after the fact or let the defualt happen and cut government by a percent in the Rs districts first.

    This is not democracy.  The R House is not the entire congress.  By using extortion, however, theyseek to run the entire nation (and destroy social security and medicare).

    Business and the entire nation will pay the price in a recession, but the price is higher if we cut spending (placing us into a recession) and the price to democracy is too high if we let the Rs run the nation's government by extortion.

    If this is what it takes to keep our republic, so be it.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:14:17 AM PST

    •  Greg Sargent predicts (35+ / 0-)

      no negotiations over the debt ceiling:

      If this happens, Obama will refuse to negotiate over the debt limit, just as he’s refusing to negotiate over tax rates on the rich. The message will be clear: We’re not talking, if the debt ceiling — and the nation’s economy — have a gun pointed at their head.

      snip

      But there is reason to believe that this time, Obama and Democrats will tell Republicans that they won’t brook the debt ceiling having any part in the talks.

      The argument is straightforward: This isn’t 2011 anymore. Last time, Republicans had won an election; this time, Obama and Democrats won. Polls show the public increasingly sees Republicans as the intransigent party and the primary obstacle to compromise in Washington. The economy is on the mend; by threatening another drawn out debt limit battle, Republicans are recklessly putting the recovery at risk. The GOP’s brand is in tatters, and the party will ultimately cave on this point rather than risk more public blame for threatening to tank the economy again. Powerful GOP-aligned interests in the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, won’t tolerate another debt ceiling fight. Having perennial fights over whether the country will pay its bills is no way to govern, and it simply must stop. The only way to put an end to this madness is to refuse to negotiate if the GOP insists on trying it again. Therefore, no discussions over the debt ceiling. Period.

      This may sound like an optimistic prediction, but this is exactly what’s happening over whether to raise tax rates on the rich: Dems are refusing to negotiate. If Republicans seriously attempt a rerun of the 2011 debt ceiling playbook, my bet is this is how things will unfold.

      WaPo, The Plum Line: "The Morning Plum: Why Obama won’t negotiate with GOP over debt ceiling."
       

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:18:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How does the debt ceiling cause the nation to (0+ / 0-)

      default?

      I've never been real clear on the concept.  It seems like the debt ceiling is a way to avoid defaulting, ie, don't keep running up the debt.

      If you're borrowing more money to make payments on the current debt, you're only building a bigger and bigger prolem.

      Now -- not a terrible strategy in today's low interest climate to swap out high interest debt for low, but that shouldn't increase the debt ceiling, just increase available funds by reducing payments for interest.

      So -- what am I missing?

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:04:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I understand it, the debt ceiling is not to set (2+ / 0-)

        a budget of what to spend going forward, it is an agreement to pay bills coming due.

        "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

        by glorificus on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:31:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then it's very badly mis-named. (0+ / 0-)

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:43:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Come on folks, you know better. (0+ / 0-)

            This new found sky-is-falling austerity has only two real goals. Shrink domestic spending and ultimately, "the size of government."

            And given how much Congressional Republicans, too, like to spend (on their bucket lists of goodies), these goals are as hypocritical as saying Freeom is Everything ... but a woman isn't free to have a lawful abortion - and her doctor is not free to give her the advice he or he believes is suitable - despite the long-standing law of the land.

            Of course the debt ceiling is badly named. Let's call it, "That which can be managed, along with our other national priorities, by increasing revenues."

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:41:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whatever the goal, fiscal stupidity ends up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              divineorder

              hurting everybody.

              I presume that you are too young to remember the 70s and early 80s.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:13:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The GOP is just as guilty of building up the debt (0+ / 0-)

                ... and its new found frenzy of must-do-Austerity-now-that-we-are-not-in-total-control ill becomes them. It's beggary conservatism gone to Washington.

                I'm old enough to remember the night Truman beat Dewey. We've been through all kinds of "fiscal stupidity" over the decades. I don't like this level of debt either, but our very drawn out recovery from the irresponsibility of financial industries, dwindling good and well-paying jobs and the need to maintain security nets in the face of these factors are greater concerns to me than the rising debt level.

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:33:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So who the hell cares whose fault it is? (0+ / 0-)

                  Fault is great for dinner conversation, I suppose, but doing something about it is what matters.

                  OOC --

                  Why do you presume that restoring jobs is disconnected from the debt level?

                  Long term job restoration and growth is dependent on a vibrant economy.  Too much debt at the wrong time can drag an economy down just as it can drag a company down (Check out Steve and Barry's for a case study).  An economy that isn't working doesn't employ as many people as it could.

                  Debt is a useful short-term tool that we should never be afraid to use.  It is also a dangerous and addicting drugs on which we can easily overdose.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 07:15:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Congress, like most businesses and many ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... households, regards debt as a reasonable and responsible way to fund what government is supposed to do (even though I don't much care for comparing the Federal government to how business must run - after all, they have totally different missions and responsibilities). I'd be amazed if successful businesses aren't enjoying and taking advantage of - in every sense of those words - today's low debt costs. And I think there are relatively few businesses that can finance expansion out of proceeds from normal operations; that when businesses issue stock and borrow money.

                    On the basics: I believe a business succeeds when people buy goods and services from it. No demand for them, no business. No money to buy, no business. In times of business slowdowns as well as boom times, innovate, which may well require more capital than the extra left over from meeting the payroll. And I believe the time-honored adage that you cannot cost-cut your way to greatness is absolutely correct.

                    That's a simple set of ways of looking at business. But for me, that's SO much more compelling than suggesting - with no discernable evidence to the contrary - that supply governs business ... and that business people won't work if you tax them a little more.

                    As E.J. Dionne - noted observer of the human condition - has observed, "Conservatives seem to think that wealthy people will work more if you give them more ... and poor people will work less."

                    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:39:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Demand drives business, not supply. (0+ / 0-)

                      People without money don't buy things.

                      And while you can't cost-cut your way to greatness, you have to pay your bills at some point. You can run a negative balance sheet for a while, but not forever.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 11:35:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Are there a lot of businesses these days with ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... negative balance sheets?

                        Business is suffering, too, from reduced consumer demand, due chiefly (I think) to not having enough money to spend, to consumers needing to keep something in the pocket whenever possible against the possibility of further economic misfortune.

                        That's why focussing on deficit and debt now - above all, it seems given the House GOP - is a bad idea. Growing debt is a third or fourth order problem. And a significant part of the solution is revenues increasing in a more robust and hopeful economy!

                        Earlier, I mentioned members of both parties being responsible for our growing deficts because the GOP keeps accusing Democrats of spending money we have to borrow when they created those two tax cuts and provided no special funding for our two "longest wars". And when we mention that history, the GOP starts a "blame game" defense to divert from their culpability in this mess and worse to justify continuing to reduce tax revenues. That is hypocrisy writ large.

                        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                        by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 12:31:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There lots of businesses running with negative (0+ / 0-)

                          balance sheets.
                          If it keeps up much longer, there will be fewer of them -- and not in a good way.

                          It's an interesting thing you do all within the scope of a single comment, however:

                          1.`Acknowledge that consumers drive the economy with their spending,
                          2.  That they probably don't have enough to spend, but then
                          3. Complain about tax cuts that gave consumers more to spend!

                          Going to war without raising money to pay for it was just as stupid as it was when LBJ did it back in the 60s (or was it that he paid for Vietnam, but not the Great Society?  I can never remember which).  OTOH, a $900 billion "stimulus" plan that wasn't targeted to need and was rushed into place before the administration had grasped the scope and nature of the problem wasn't exactly brilliant, either.

                          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                          by dinotrac on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 01:47:12 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. (0+ / 0-)

                            The substantial revenue shortfall produced by the Bush tax cuts is one major reason (of three or four) for this Fiscal Cliff nonsense, the GOP having gained a new found religion about curing. And it's a bait-and-switch Cliff because the GOP uses the rationale to cut and slash spending selectively, meaning cutting spending they don't like and sparing spending they adore.

                            I think we agree: the middle class (and others short of the top, say, 5%) needs money to spend. I wasn't complaining about the middle class brackets and the payroll tax cut. My point was that the GOP conveniently ignores its governing role in helping create the very revenue shortfalls they're now so desperate to cure ... by doing other counter-productive things to the economy.

                            As for stimulus, remember George Bush signed a $160B stimulus in February 2008, convinced "the measure was large enough to have an impact." It wasn't. It didn't. Then in the fall of 2008 ("the fall" and it was October), Bush disappeared for all practical purposes and left his Treasury Secretary to beg Congress for a $700B bailout package.

                            The elements of the $787B stimulus passed by Congress in April 2009: (1) tax cuts!, (2) health care spending, including Medicare and VA, (3) education, partly to prevent teacher layoffs, (4) support for unemployment comp, (5) transportation and infrastructure projects.

                            The administration that "rushed" to respond to a growing crises probably should have rushed faster (the Bush administration, such as it was then, dawdled; Obama proceeded) and should have spent a heckuva lot more on stimulus.  The economy and we the people are paying for such weak measures to this day.

                            And the Republicans are now All for Austerity. Proving the old adage that converts are the worst kind!

                            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 02:32:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  False premise: lost revenue (0+ / 0-)

                            The numbers don't show any revenue decline from the Bush tax cuts.  The real problem is that we went to war without paying for it.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 02:58:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you believe no revenue was lost due to ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... the Bush era tax cuts? Honestly?

                            The tax cuts had a huge impact on revenues, beginning when the first tranche was passed in 2001 and "doubled down" on in 2003. That's why Congress had to sunset the provisions, so they wouldn't have to calculate the impact in the farther out years.

                            As Glen Kessler in WaPo wrote just one year ago (on December 6, 2011, in an article "fact-checking" President Obama):
                            The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected [Clinton] surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.
                            Now I'm aware that supply siders argue that tax cuts pay for themselves in economic activity, but (1) that's an article of faith, not an evidentiary based conclusion, and (2) not even zealots try to argue that tax cuts don't reduce revenues. Remember how George Bush I termed Reagan's description of that theory "Voodoo Economics"?

                            For some "numbers" looking forward, how about the (admittedly liberal) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities?

                            Tax cuts do reduce revenues. You don't cut taxes thinking revenues remain the same. You may choose to engage in Magical Thinking - that cutting taxes means more investment, meaning more business, meaning ultimately higher revenues. Yes, and in that unproven long run, our weak economy really will be dead.

                            Yes, we need to pay attention to mounting deficits and the debt load. But that's not Priority No. 1 as we struggle with this economy. Playing Tea Party politics with the debt ceiling is irresponsible governance.

                            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                            by TRPChicago on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 04:32:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not a matter of belief. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'll leave that for others.

                            It's a matter of looking at the numbers - not the numbers looking forward, which are notoriously hard to predict -- but at the actual numbers looking backward, which are measured.

                            You may choose to engage in Magical Thinking, but I prefer  the numbers, and they don't support your characterization.

                            You can reasonably claim that the numbers would have been higher without the tax cuts.  

                            That might be true.  
                            Beats me.

                            Bush's real problem, however, was going to war without coming up with a way to pay for it.

                            Obama's problem is selling a peace dividend that doesn't exist because the war was fought on borrowed money.  The only way to get a "peace dividend" from a war that wasn't paid for is to raise taxes.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 04:56:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  It's akin to uppimg your credit card limit (0+ / 0-)

        ...to cover what's already been spent plus some extra to spend more.   We're spending money we don't have yet. That's why it's called deficit spending

        "Good morning, brothers Koch. I see you're doing well. If I had me a shotgun, I'd blow you straight to hell." w/apologies to R. Hunter

        by RUKind on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 03:12:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama has a constitutional duty not to default (6+ / 0-)

      If congress insists on default, the president is empowered under current law to bypass debt limit legislation with various tools including Coin Seigniorage, issuing treasury warrants, and other workarounds that exist under current law.  

      •  I think that only works for so long (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        I know there are things treasury can do to avoid an immediate default but only for a short period of time...not indefinitely.

        •  Not really, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder, RUKind

          Coin Seigniorage for example could be used to produce 1000 coins of $1Trillion face value. That would fill the treasury's purse without touching the purse strings, without incurring debt, and it would provide future policy space of $500Trillion. That would last most of indefinitely. The author of the Coin Seigniorage link in the diary has offered a similar suggestion, striking a pair of $60T coins to fill the purse. Remember, the debt ceiling is BS - it is money that has already been budgeted by congress, appropriated by congress, and authorized by congress. They had three bites at the apple if they didn't want to spend. Now they have made the purchases, put it on the credit card, TAKEN the merchandise, and when the bill comes they refuse to pay? Well, isn't that just typical for deadbeat republicans?  

      •  Minting coins is a gimmick. Let the GOP do ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... gimmickry, not us.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:44:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why is it a gimmick? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          The idea was reviewed by numerous legal scholars and judged to be constitutional and compliant with current law. So where is the gimmick? Please explain your objection on either sound historical, political or economic grounds. Else the "gimmick" is yours.

          •  As a way of handling the "debt ceiling," (0+ / 0-)

            ... minting a big valuable coin - titanium or otherwise - is a gimmick.

            US History doesn't show us any "sound" precedent for it. Economics? Well, that particular science is about as rigorous as alchemy. And as for politics, what in the world about politics is solid, stable precedent for anything substantive. Politics is a process that can be manipulated to justify almost anything ... and has.

            Leroy don't want that gimmick!

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:09:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, it is a gimmick because you say so. (0+ / 0-)

              OK Leroy

              •  OK, I give. It's not gimmickry. Chicanery, maybe? (0+ / 0-)

                One dictionary says chicanery is: "the use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose." Sounds smack on.

                And "trickery" works for me because minting a new big tremendously valuable coin(s) and claiming that does something to relieve our constitutionally established debt problem does sound like a magic trick, no matter what authorities may endorse the illusion.

                The debt ceiling is magic thinking all by itself. I wouldn't like to pile on and make it worse.

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:05:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, I see. Did you look up "trickery"? (0+ / 0-)
                  trickery |ˈtrikərē|
                  noun ( pl. trickeries )
                  the practice of deception: the dealer resorted to trickery.
                  deception, now we're getting somewhere . . .
                  deception |diˈsepSHən|
                  noun
                  the action of deceiving someone: obtaining property by deception.
                  • a thing that deceives: a range of elaborate deceptions.
                  so, to deceive . . .
                  deceive |diˈsēv|
                  verb [ with obj. ]
                  • (of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage: I didn't intend to deceive people into thinking it was French champagne.
                  • (of a thing) give a mistaken impression: the area may seem to offer nothing of interest, but don't be deceived | [ no obj. ] : everything about him was intended to deceive.
                  • (deceive oneself) fail to admit to oneself that something is true: enabling the rulers to deceive themselves about the nature of their own rule.
                  • be sexually unfaithful to (one's regular partner).
                  No, sorry, no deception so chicanery doesn't cut it. But the third example of "to deceive" in the above definition may be operative in your objection. ;)
  •  Stop Negotiating Over Things Taht Must be Done (10+ / 0-)

    Taxes on wealthy must go up to eliminate deficit.
    Debt must be paid.

  •  What I wish he would say: (10+ / 0-)

    "If you don't support me on this, I'm gonna make Roosevelt seem like Steve Forbes. Don't make me sic Warren on you."

  •  is business community / Chamber of Commerce really (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, TrueBlueDem, Timothy J, glorificus

    interested in helping, or merely giving lip service to helping?  Are they making calls and having one-on-one talks with GOP members to really push for a resolution - or more likely telling Obama one thing and then in the privacy of meetings with GOP members of Congress telling them something different.  We have no evidence that the business community can be trusted to do anything to help.  Talk is cheap.  They need to walk the talk.

  •  GOP meets with itself......gets nowhere. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, Pinto Pony, eps62, glaze, TRPChicago
  •  You have to wonder if the GOP almost WANTS to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Pinto Pony, ferg, eps62

    lose in 2014....by the way they are still holding their ground.  It is a no-win situation.

    Fail now, lose big in 2014.

    •  They plan on making for up all this bullshit with (0+ / 0-)

      charm later on.

    •  Probably for the same reasons they were convinced (0+ / 0-)

      Rmoney was going to win in a landslide.

      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

      by glorificus on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:33:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're counting on the media to confuse people (0+ / 0-)

      The MSM never calls them out on their lies and distortions. Maybe right now the polls say americans will blame republicans more if everything goes south. But republicans know from experience that the media will give platform to their ideas and recriminations, and in the end, they think they won't pay a big price for being hostage takers, and destroyers.

      It's all about the political game. And because of the MSM's ineptitude, the game has nothing to do with reality nor fairness.

      I honestly don't know how Barack Obama, Timothy Geitner, Jack Lew, Gene Sperling, and all the team, are able to retain their sanity. I would have had a nervous breakdown if I had to deal with republican idiots and ideologues on a daily basis.

  •  And I will bet the Mouse I am using now... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, eps62

    That Business Leaders at the end of the day, still will NOT care about this President.  Years from now, in our History Books, a lot of kids growing up with wonder....WTF???!!!

  •  First I listened to the GOP (5+ / 0-)

    press thing. Boehner posturing & lying flanked by congresspeople with serious faces and head nodding made me angry. Fools, all of them, about to take a 5-6 day weekend.
    Then I listen to the President. Smart, to the point, honest. Addressing those who may not agree with him respectfully. What a contrast.

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:38:41 AM PST

  •  Behold the GOP (7+ / 0-)

    They have lost and driven away

    1. Blacks
    2. Gays
    3. Women
    4. Jews
    5. Muslims
    6. Young People
    7. Scientists
    8. Business leaders ... wait, what?

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:39:13 AM PST

  •  But but but Politico said... oh nevermind :) (0+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 08:39:29 AM PST

  •  This is one of the things I don’t get… (11+ / 0-)

    The Republicans seem to think that the finite, manageable deficit is so cataclysmically threatening to our future, and at the same time, they believe that the earth’s atmosphere is so infinite it can absorb all the greenhouse gasses we can spew out.  Hmmmmm.

  •  Hilarious: the Flat Tax proposal's back (4+ / 0-)

    Courtesy of Louis "Gomer" Gohmert. And supported by Texas' newly elected batshit lunatic. It makes about as much sense as his "George Soros/UN will steal our golf courses" fear.

    Josh Marshall put it best:

    In other words, the answer to public belief that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up as part of an effort to rein in the federal deficit should be addressed by dramatically cutting upper income tax rates and ballooning the deficit.

    Good times.

  •  Rep intransigence = 2014 losses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, eps62

    If the Republican doesn't come back to reality and good-faith negotiations over the future of our nation, they must be made to suffer significant losses in the 2014 mid-term elections.

    Right now they believe they can lose presidential elections but win enough off-year to retain substantial minority power.  We have to both reduce minority power and boost off-year turnout to turn them out.

    I think the evident Rep strategy of government shutdowns and endless crisis can be made to "prolong" the 2012 election season into 2014.  Make it so.

  •  Hopefully the case to the Biz leaders (0+ / 0-)

    was made in PowerPoint.  
    It's the language they understand.  

    Why, even vast shareholder destroying mergers look good in PowerPoint !
    http://edition.cnn.com/...

    Conversely, good ideas may languish if simply scribbled on a cocktail napkin, or as just another talk in a conference room.

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:00:08 AM PST

  •  1 mo since election & billionaires back at table (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eps62

    Obama's either talking to the wrong people, or getting the wrong ideas put into his head.  Business leaders are rich men who want the standard Republican platform of lower taxes, less regulation, less government competition (health care, etc.), and a frightened and desperate workforce willing to put up with anything in order to keep their jobs.  They're the last people to look for support on anything other than more austerity.

    Obama should be making his case to the We The People, not psychopathic billionaires who make money hand over fist no matter what the economy is doing.

    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

    by Visceral on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:03:05 AM PST

    •  Obama can win them over (4+ / 0-)

      In general, business leaders want to make money.  Their support for the Republicans is predicated on both parties being roughly equivalent in terms of economic growth.

      If the Republicans continue to take bad-for-business stands (like the debt-ceiling debacle), businessmen wont support them no matter what their platform.

      If Obama can split the pro-business Republicans away from the Tea Party and RR factions it could shatter the GOP and pave the way for a couple years of productive, progressive legislation.

      That would not be a bad thing.

      •  Business leaders = leverage over republicans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        democrattotheend

        You got that right.

        Barack Obama knows that there are only two things that may bring republicans to the table:

        1) fear of losing votes in the next elections

        2) pressure from their money backers , fear of losing campaign money

        Item 1) can be mitigated if republicans are confident the media won't call them out on their behavior

        Item 2) is more powerful.

      •  I don't believe it's all about money (0+ / 0-)

        I believe there's a whole power trip angle that doesn't get the attention it deserves.  I believe that the rich are willing to sacrifice quite a lot of money if it means tightening their grip on society as a whole and elevating themselves even farther above the rest of us.

        The rich want a society that works only for them, where they have first dibs or an outright monopoly on power and opportunity, and where anything good that happens for the rest of us is only an unintended consequence of servicing the rich.  The rich want a country full of people who'll do what they're told, take what they're given, and be grateful for it.  The rich want a society where they can do anything they want - from pollution to sending all the jobs away to China - and where we have no recourse either political or economic.  The rich want to widen the gap between them and everyone else, and a sinking tide lowering all boats is an excellent way to achieve that, because they'll have a slightly shorter yacht while we're treading water with sharks circling.

        Finally, I believe that Obama is ideologically committed to a grand bargain - austerity for billionaires' pocket change - and simply will not fight for anything more.

        To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

        by Visceral on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:34:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  awesome (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eps62, glorificus, pamelabrown, glaze

    i would love to see obama get the business community to rain hell down on the republicans for this BS.

    just as the party of "national security" failed to get bin laden, now we get to see the party of "big business" get taken to the woodshed by corporations?

    so awesome.

    If only Michael Phelps hadn't smoked that pot...imagine what he could have accomplished with motivation and good lung capacity.

    by papa monzano on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:12:16 AM PST

  •  Um, is Pelosi breaking with Obama on this? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Let's do some Fiscal Cliff Jumping (0+ / 0-)

    Let it go over the cliff.  Then take the show on the road and educate the middle class and poor what is really going on.  In two years the Teabaggers will be primaried heavily and voted out.  One could only hope.

    This past election shown a light on who the Republican Party truly represents.   Can we call them the Republican Whig Party now?

    "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” --Napoleon Bonaparte

    by Paddy999 on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:39:53 AM PST

  •  Can't squeeze blood from a turnip (0+ / 0-)

    The middle class on down are the turnip. It is high time that the wealthy paid their fair share. The wealthy have pocketed just about all the gains in the last twenty years.

    It's the planet, stupids!

    by tsunami on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:00:20 AM PST

  •  Business Owners Won't Go Galt & Destroy Dollar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    democrattotheend, Pluto

    The Tea Partiers are retired  flabby mall shoppers with some sort of Maoist back-to-the-land fantasy where their barter economy will magically support an antebellum lifestyle.  The are Nihilists.

    Most business people would be adverse to two things:
    1) Destroying the profitability of their businesses by triggering a global downturn.
    2) Destroying the value of their assets and savings by further eroding the value of the dollar.

    They just aren't too keen on collapsing civilization to experiment with the the Tea Party fantasy of an economy based on acorns and pine cones.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 10:02:57 AM PST

  •  rethugs don't give a rat's ass about doig harm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto

    If we go over the fiscal cliff, ok with them. If the world financial markets crash because they refuse to raise the debt limit, ok with them. If the US gov't collapses, ok with them.

    These people are traitors, and I hate them.

    the Republican brand is totally bankrupt.

    by vlyons on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:05:02 PM PST

    •  All true and shared. (0+ / 0-)

      Except for this notion

      If the world financial markets crash...
      The world has been preparing for the collapse of the US since 2003. Extraordinary measures have been put into place to protect themselves (except for the UK) and to thrive.

      This has very much been a hot conversation in 2012 (outside the US). The central banks of the world are fortified with gold, now, especially India, China, and Russia. Currency swap treaties are in place. They know they will take losses on their dollar holdings -- but this has largely been mitigated since 2003 as acceptable losses. I've written several Diaries on what is about to happen this year.

      So, please, don't be concerned about the world financial markets. This is going as planned -- and it is a very good thing, indeed. For the long game of the rest of the world.


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 12:28:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Boehner used the phrase "we can't just negotiate (0+ / 0-)

    with ourselves," trying to co-opt Obama's position for their own.  Typical Publican trick book play.

    Pray the polity sees through the orange tan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site