The New Republic

Most any compromise plan to increase the debt ceiling really guarantees a long Great Recession at best, 2nd Great Depression a good possibility. And honestly blamable on BHO as much as the Repubs. A recession/depression in a liquidity trap is a big problem. A debt ceiling crisis is real, but less serious and more easily fixed. ...It is, at least in its origin, a politically manufactured crisis rather than a long-time--in-producing economic crisis---- eliminate the debt-ceiling law is one such quick-fix solution. Hence, from everything I'm seeing and hearing, y'all better pray the debt crisis negotiations fail to produce a "compromise solution" pushed by BHO.

- drofnats1

July 20, 2011 at 10:32am

Correct, 'drof'. A very shaky economic recovery is NOT the time to be cutting spending. It IS the time to be restoring the Clinton tax-rates -- that worked well economically in 1986 and 1992, and it would work well now. Politically, it's very difficult to do, which is why Obama's agreeing to extension of the Bush tax-rates was incredibly stupid. My only hope for the current debacle is that spending cuts are far enough down the road that the economy can recover some BEFORE they kick in (and perhaps they can be prevented from kicking in at all if the economy recovers enough). But that's a faint hope.

- AllanL5

July 20, 2011 at 10:49am

This would be brilliant politically if the average voter understood what was going on without prompted by a pollster. I'm not at all sure that they do.

- epicciuto

July 20, 2011 at 10:53am

Plus, Obama can win all the "political" battles he wants to right now. But it's the state of the economy in September 2012 that will decide the election. No one will care then that Obama won some "political" battle in August 2011, if unemployment continues to rise because he kow-towwed to Republican economic policies. For instance, no one cares that he "compromised" back in December and renewed the Bush tax-rates, that gets him no benefits in this debate. Nor is anyone pointing out he agreed to 34 billion in cuts just back in April. The only point about winning a political battle now is if it lets him implement policies to rebuild the economy -- and that's not happening.

- AllanL5

July 20, 2011 at 10:54am

The credulous dro predicts a falling sky right along. This is a discerning post, Jonathan, and one that will be far beyond the reach of most commenters out here. As Andrew Sullivan continually writes, meep meep. As ever, I would dearly love to see the loudmouths in the catbird's seat. Not that any of you know any psychology, but a plethora of studies show that people often act quite differently from how they say that would act in situation x. And that is for the common run of people, never mind the blarney-champions that disfigure TNR. I think if thrust in to power, facing enormous responsibilities and truculent opposition, a lot of you John Waynes would be fleeing the White House before the first day was over, and possibly DC, too, for all time. I know your type, I went to school with you. You were the ones spoiling for a fight after school, sometimes even instigating it, and then you ran away at 3 PM, leaving us to face down the enemy,

- liberalref

July 20, 2011 at 11:04am

On principle, extending the Bush tax rates was terrible, I agree. But it wasn't so bad for the unemployed, who received extended benefits because of the compromise. Unless, of course, you are saying the extra benefit it gave the unemployed wasn't worth the two-year extension of the tax rates, Allan.

- scrubby

July 20, 2011 at 11:28am

Sorry lib ref aka blue dog- you've been wrong on most everything up til now-- and while imperfect, he past is the best predictor of the future, all psychobabble aside. Better a debt crisis now than a second Great Depression later. Better a chance for voters to see the calamitous policies of BHO and the Repubs for what they have mutually wrought-- with some (small) hope of a Progressive challenge to BHO before primaries begin. I agree this is unchartered territory and that this post- and others of a similar analysis over the last two years you have constantly called crazy.. I also note that my crazy, loopy assessments of how bad Obama's decisions were on the filibuster, stimulus bill, health care bill, BP response, Iran war, Afghan war, tax extension, negotiations with Repubs, etc for two years to date have been right on-- and BHO’s, most pundits, and most Dem Leaders (Krugman and Pelosi are exceptions) have been way off as to results and voter approval of the policies --as opposed to personal approval of BHO. What you and many other (putattive) Dems have not squarely faced is the reality that BHO is now as much of the problem as is Cantor, Ryan, and the Repubs. All must go. The sooner the better.

- drofnats1

July 20, 2011 at 11:42am

I still haven't heard a credible alternative to what Obama was supposed to do on the Bush taxt cuts last December. Taking a point from Scrubby, was he supposed to hang the unemployed out to dry by letting their benefits run out? Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthy are awful, but again, what about the unemployed?

- ballston

July 20, 2011 at 11:57am

Obama screwed the unemployed because he didn't whip out his magic wand and make everything all better in the first 100 days. A total failure. Now the country is going to implode and we need some left-wing nutjobs to stage a primary opposition to Obama so we can get this compromiser-in-chief out of office.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2011 at 12:33pm

The Greenwald camp really has this magical negro quality to their thinking. At the same time that they are critical of executive power and its overreach, they seem willing to assign mystical responsibility to Obama for failing to completely overwhelm the legislative side.

- miceelf

July 20, 2011 at 12:36pm

- I crunched the numbers on "All must go. The sooner the better." and ended up with Alan Grayson running the House, George Allen in charge of the Senate and pick one from Perry, Bachmann or Romney at POTUS. But JC offers the available options: Right of center or lunatic fringe. However, kick 'em all out or staying home and bitching didn't work so well last year.

- michaelg

July 20, 2011 at 12:44pm

The credible alternative was to separate the tax cut extension debates into "middle-class" and "wealthy folks" segments and organize a vote on them in early Fall 2010 before the election. This was discussed at various points on TNR and I believe a couple of JC's blog posts advanced the idea, which would have forced the GOP to vote for the middle-class cuts or be condemned. The 250k plus part of the process could then have been allowed to sunset with a solid Dem majority voting against extension. In reality, what happened was that the GOP was given a priceless opportunity to hide their going to bat for the very rich inside a smokescreen of rhetoric about taxes in a recession. This seems to have not been Obama's fault, or at least not primarily, as the impression was given of a notable lack of focus by the Dems in the House, who seemed to be taken by suprise (again!) when the Republicans dug their heels in.

- ironyroad

July 20, 2011 at 1:14pm

"This seems to have not been Obama's fault, or at least not primarily, as the impression was given of a notable lack of focus by the Dems in the House, who seemed to be taken by suprise (again!) when the Republicans dug their heels in." Precisely, ironyroad. Senators and Congress-people have jobs and roles, but the democrats have been slacking and it's been Obama that's gotten the heat for it. "Most any compromise plan to increase the debt ceiling really guarantees a long Great Recession at best, 2nd Great Depression a good possibility. " Normally, dro, I just skip your posts altogether but I couldn't help but notice this as I was looking past and I have to say this is possibly the stupidest thing to have come out of your account since you signed up; and you've written some pretty stupid things. For starters, with appropriate activity by both houses of congress, anything that passes law right now can be undone almost before the law goes into effect assuming democrats take control of the house. Besides, the Great Recession was almost a foregone conclusion; it took decades, with several years of 100% employment and a dramatic reduction to the size of the American workforce to bring America out of the clasp of the Great Depression. We're on the brink again now, for nearly the same reason thanks to having repealed the laws put in place after the great depression to prevent another occurrence...so WTF makes you think for a single second Obama could have made everything better right off the bat? Oh, that's right, you wanted the other candidate; perhaps you have a selection bias problem you should look in to?

- GSpinks

July 20, 2011 at 1:40pm

* I should amend that not ALL congress-people have been slacking, kudos to Pelosi and the few others who actually brought their spines to work with them this session.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2011 at 1:41pm

Spinks-- speaking of stupid. The debt limit increase bill must take effect by 8/2-- if iuts to have any effect-- and the next Congress is seated Jan 20,2012. That's well after the limit increase-- and other provisions in the bill-- are likely to take effect. Now, you may be assuming that those other provisions will help BHO, rather than hurt. On that, I grant that the past is not the only predictor of the future--- and you may yet get one right. I'll be happy to take that bet with you. Even odds?? Or are you so certain you'll give me say 5:1??

- drofnats1

July 20, 2011 at 2:46pm

Actually, correct the typo---that's Jan, 2013.

- drofnats1

July 20, 2011 at 2:47pm

And the Great recession was NOT a foregone conclusion. A non-stupid Keynesian calculation (and there were lots in 1/09) showed that a much bigger, better targeted stimulus was needed--and that the Obama proposal would result in EXACTLY what happened to the economy AND the Democrat's chances in 2010. Recall that BHO- and supporters like Spinks-- pooh-poohed such crazy critiques--and repeatedly described the BHO stimulus as "just right". How's all that worked out???

- drofnats1

July 20, 2011 at 3:34pm

- I expect to hear crazy talk from the right, it was their disaster. But don't trivialize the problem by asserting Obama to refused to act. You can find loads of economic data drawn from 2008 to refute "And the Great recession was NOT a foregone conclusion.". The prosperity of the decade was an illusion, the jobs and wealth that were erased before Obama took the oath were based on multiple financial scams. I doubt a generous WPA would have paid those failed mortgages and money for the house wouldn't get a person back to work. But I'd first need a figure of how many trillions we'd have needed to fill in the blanks and the names of sixty senators who would get that bill to the floor. Considering the constitutional clout that 40 senators have had and the currently divided congress it's folly to claim Obama is the weak link in progressive policy.

- michaelg

July 20, 2011 at 4:12pm

You are letting actual facts get into your argument, michael. You need to get on with the program, extremist progressive style.

- scrubby

July 20, 2011 at 4:27pm

I wasn't talking about the debt ceiling, I was talking about the spending compromises which will have to be phased in over time because projects have to be wound down and can never be applied retroactively. I also said "almost", as if to imply that some spending cuts would occur before jan, 2013.
You mean the same liberal, financial idiots who thought repealing Glass-Steagal was a good idea thought we could sweep away 8 years of fiduciary decay if only we throw enough money at the problem? The same idiots who ignored all the talk about shovel ready projects and didn't care about who would be on the other end of the Great Money Toss of 2009 and when they would be ready to do anything with that money? The same idiots who continue to ignore the fact that the stimulus bill didn't even come up for a vote until 3 Republican senators broke rank to allow cloture in exchange for basically a line-item veto which they used to trim off hundreds of billions of dollars in spending? You trust those guys? That explains some things: like why you think it couldn't have been a foregone conclusion. Yes, I pooh-pooh'd them as pie-in-the-sky air heads that they are. I'm not an economist, and I can tell they weren't considering all the variables in play. The sheer fact that people like you still refuse to acknowledge that we required three Republican votes to be able to pass the stimulus, and that those 3 republicans trimmed hundreds of billions of dollars off the stimulus that came out of the House, proves for a fact that people like you deserve to be pooh-pooh'd and dismissed as the hacks you are. And the stimulus wasn't going to get any more targeted than it already was considering it takes time to identify available targets and then prioritize and select from that list of available targets. I thought they did a darn good job with the targeting that did occur, actually. Of course, as the current ruler of the liberal kvetching class on these boards, it's no surprise you don't think so highly of what was accomplished. And I never described the stimulus as "just right", and I'm not sure who did. I used the words "all we're going to get since we had to allow 3 Republican senators to have their way with the entire bill before it could be passed". You can keep that straw man all for yourself. Feel free to chew on it at your leisure. As for how things turned out, I'd say they turned out better than I expected while dems controlled the house, and they're better than I'd feared considering the level of Republican obstructionism. As for the future, I would love more stimulus but given the current political climate that'll have to wait until Dems control congress or the Republican party regains its senses. In the interim, I think Obama is doing a pretty decent job of keeping the actual damage from the Republicans to a minimum and positioning himself to win in 2012 in spite of the economy. And as the most popular politician in the country, he may well have some coattails for some extra demcrats to make it to congress.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2011 at 4:37pm

You guys' learned helplessness is depressing. "There's nothing to be done...High unemployment was a foregone conclusion...Republican intransigence makes progress impossible." Let's take on the last one which, I will allow, is arguably true at least at present. Suppose it is the case that Republican obstructionism and hate of government, full stop, is making it impossible for the government to function? It seems to me that such a state of affairs constitutes a major crisis in the history of the United States. Is it the ideal response to such deeply destructive behavior on the part of one of our two major governing parties for the president to continue to indulge the fiction that we all want what's best for America and that the current crop of Republican drones can be dealt with in good faith? It seems to me that such treatment arms such vandalistic zealots with a cloak of reasonableness that they do not deserve and thereby enables their reelection. THAT'S my main criticism of Obama. Today's Republicans want to cripple the United States government. Obama has been late in recognizing this threat--I'm not sure he recognizes it even now--and has all too often assumed the role of passive enabler.

- AaronW

July 20, 2011 at 5:20pm

It's a far cry better than martial law, Aaron. As for going full-liberal on republicans and tit-for-tat with policy makers and pundits, there's no real telling how that would play out except it seems that Faux News is actually pulling the lame-stream media with it to the right and so I'd say his chances, without having started a Democrat-centric media outlet 20 some years ago to sustain an actual propaganda machine of his own, are slim. As for not recognizing the threat...I don't know. Either their more incompetent than a room full of paraplegics, or Obama has been doing something right. They've been out to destroy this country since Nov 5, 2008, and so far all they've done is capture a majority in the House. Obama turned RyanCare into a lead weight that can be used to drown the political career of just about any republican in the House. Cut, Cap and Trade just came out; it's too soon to tell, but I have a feeling that'll be another electoral victory point for any democrat that wants to run against a republican incumbent. And these are the best of the Republicans accomplishments.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2011 at 6:28pm

Oh, and what's this about learned helplessness? Who's acting helpless? If not being upset because obama wasn't born with a magic wand in his pants makes me suffer from learned helplessness, then maybe I am. I dunno. I just think that in an environment where there is no winning scenario, it just makes sense to minimize damage and wait for the next battle. I really don't see any point to tit-for-tat talking points and political propaganda, responding in kind, and whatever else I didn't read about what y'all want him to do to the Republicans in revenge for what they're saying about him. You keep talking about framing the debate and all this stuff, but recent polling shows Obama is already the most popular guy on the hill. And this poll suggests that he's winning the policy battle as well. Of course, maybe I'm just being helpless, but it seems to me we can always add more corrective policy later if the current proposal is deemed too little. But we can only do that if dems and sensible republicans have total control of the federal government.

- GSpinks

July 20, 2011 at 6:38pm

"It's a far cry better than martial law, Aaron. " I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, G. Martial law? I would simply like the president and other Democrats to speak clearly and honestly about the nature of the opposition. Obama has not done that. The Republicans want the government not to function, and because they control the House and have de facto veto power in the Senate, if they don't want the government to work, it won't. Yet Obama continues to employ the rhetoric of bipartisan cooperation, chastising Congress generically for gridlock and lack of action, as if Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans. Such rhetorical slaps at the do-nothing Congress por lo general may redound to Obama's personal political advantage and enhance his chances of reelection--I continue to predict that Obama will win reelection quite easily--however they do nothing to combat the fundamental problem which is that one of the two major parties has rejected the premise that the federal government should do anything other than guard borders and enforce contracts. Obama will win reelection. The Repubs will retain the House and will gain ground in the Senate, possibily securing majority control. The Federal government will continue to limp and the economic slump will drag on for another decade. Helplessness? Several of the posters here are sounding pretty helpless to me. The default response to any criticism of the president suggesting ways that he could have acted differently is, "What're you gonna do? The world is what it is, how could Obama have changed it?" You call that "realism" but at some point "realism" becomes "defeatism."

- AaronW

July 20, 2011 at 7:50pm

Wait, so an understanding that not all power resides in the executive branch is learned helplessness, now? Let's be clear- the dispute is about how much of the blame for the various and sundry current bad situations resides with Obama and how much resides with congressional dems (I assume we all agree with the proposition that the GOP is at best a malevolent force of nature at this point). I don't see how saying that the congressional dems could and should have done x and y and that this is the real source of the problem, rather than Obama's behavior is at all an example of learned helplessness. If we're just talking about the rhetoric that Obama should have used, then this is a much more narrow debate that at least has the advantage of relation to reality. On this point, two things to consider: given the utter stupidity of at least some dems in congress, it would at least limit Obama's degrees of freedom, assuming he wants to either maintain or increase the number of dems in congress. The other assumption at play here is that Obama means exactly what he says and it's not conceivable that he could be aware of something (say, the unreasonableness of republicans) that he doesn't think is pragmatic to voice. This notion that Obama is a naif, because his rhetoric doesn't exactly match a knowledge of the world we think he should have, and that he's not simply making a different pragmatic calculation, is eerily similar to criticisms of him from the right in terms of foreign policy. (replace republicans with ahmedinijad, for example, and you have Drofnats fitting pretty comfortably on the typical Fox News panel.)

- miceelf

July 20, 2011 at 9:38pm

micelf, Obama hasn't tried. It's that simple. I don't expect him to have won many victories, but he hasn't even taken a punt. At least since the midterm debacle, his strategy has been to define what he wants entirely in terms of what he thinks he can get, which, thanks to GOP zealotry, is slim pickins. Obama's response to being presented with a shit sandwich is to redefine it as Nutella. Your response is to say, "Well, the brown stuff isn't actually Nutella, but it's probably the best that we can expect under the circumstances and any sandwich is better than none." Strikes me as pretty helpless.

- AaronW

July 20, 2011 at 10:55pm