Originally posted by Kunsoo
If there's much more polling like this, I expect the Republicans will cave on the debt ceiling discussions, especially with Bernanke warning that steep cuts could cause another recession.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/a-bad-economy-could-harm-house-republicans/

During the economic collapse everyone linked the failing economy to "W" and the GOP even though the Dems were in control of Congress. Will this change this go round? I thought people only payed attention to who is president and hang everything on him? The same can be said for the Iraq war. "W" went to war while all the democrats who voted to go were ignored.

If the public finally notices that their exists within the federal government a thing called "Congress" for the first time then I suppose you might have a chance of this happening.

Originally posted by whodey
I thought people only payed attention to who is president and hang everything on him?

You have some cheek. I don't think I have ever come across anyone - and certainly not in the RHP community - who seems to want to hang everything on President Obama as much as you do. Bizarre attempts to conflate disparate information; strawmen marching across your OPs by the legion; hijacked threads by the dozen; paranoid theories by the blatherful.

Originally posted by Soothfast
My theory is that Obama is trying to triangulate on a position as close to "moderate" as he can get to ensure re-election, at which point he may push more aggressively for progressive reforms. At any rate it's critical he be re-elected, not only to keep the Executive Branch out of the clutches of Republicans but to get a shot at bringing sanity back to the Supreme Court.

This is my theory when I'm in a generous mood, anyway.

Actually, there was a story out a few weeks ago which suggests that Obama may have the Constitutional authority to up the debt limit unilaterally. If he's serious about that possibility, this whole theater is probably about generating the narrative in which such a move will look heroic as opposed to dictatorial.

Originally posted by whodey
During the economic collapse everyone linked the failing economy to "W" and the GOP even though the Dems were in control of Congress. Will this change this go round? I thought people only payed attention to who is president and hang everything on him? The same can be said for the Iraq war. "W" went to war while all the democrats who voted to go were ignor ...[text shortened]... ed "Congress" for the first time then I suppose you might have a chance of this happening.

Well, this Congress has been so blatant in its extremist obstructionism that the public can't help but notice.

Eric Cantor in particular fell right into Obama's hands. I noticed that the Republicans have shut him up, but Boehner and McConnell are falling out of favor with the fringe, and they're not comfortable with that even if they are in safe districts.

But the die was cast when so many "moderate Republicans" (an endangered species) voted for the Ryan plan. They've got themselves in a bunch.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Actually, there was a story out a few weeks ago which suggests that Obama may have the Constitutional authority to up the debt limit unilaterally. If he's serious about that possibility, this whole theater is probably about generating the narrative in which such a move will look heroic as opposed to dictatorial.

Perhaps, but Congress does have the "power of the purse" so it could in theory cut off funding for government operations that it sees as unessential.

The idea of a "debt limit" is, at any rate, rather pointless. The original idea was to draw a line in the sand and keep government expenditures behind that line, but it just doesn't work. When Clinton left office there were government surpluses. Then along came Shrub, who starts two wars under false pretenses (still lookin' for those WMDs) and bam: raising the debt limit becomes an annual tradition again. The Democrats, for their part, should never have allowed Shrub to resume his dad's Holy War in Iraq.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Perhaps, but Congress does have the "power of the purse" so it could in theory cut off funding for government operations that it sees as unessential.

The idea of a "debt limit" is, at any rate, rather pointless. The original idea was to draw a line in the sand and keep government expenditures behind that line, but it just doesn't work. When Clinton le ...[text shortened]... ts, for their part, should never have allowed Shrub to resume his dad's Holy War in Iraq.

If Obama signs off on the budget. And thanks to the Republicans of the 1990s, he has the line-item veto.

When the "nuclear option" story broke several weeks ago, I think the Republicans were actually kind of relieved. It would take them off the hook. They could scream bloody murder even though privately they knew that Obama is saving the economy. So I think Obama is simply prepping the stage to make sure that Republicans pay a political price for forcing him to do it.

Anyway, it has to do with the 14th Amendment.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/schumer-obama-may-not-need-congress-to-avoid-default----but-congress-needs-to-act.php

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper

re·ces·sion/riˈseSHən/Noun
1. A period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.

The fact that this hasn't happened since, oh, sometime in 2009?

And how does a definition prove that we are out of the recession? Anyways...

Here is the National Bureau of Economic Research's qualified assertion of the supposed end of the Great Recession:


Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity?

A: It's more accurate to say that a recession–the way we use the word–is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when economic activity is contracting. The following period is an expansion. As of September 2010, when we decided that a trough had occurred in June 2009, the economy was still weak, with lingering high unemployment, but had expanded considerably from its trough 15 months earlier.


Sounds like smoke and mirrors if you ask me.

Originally posted by FMF
You have some cheek. I don't think I have ever come across anyone - and certainly not in the RHP community - who seems to want to hang everything on President Obama as much as you do. Bizarre attempts to conflate disparate information; strawmen marching across your OPs by the legion; hijacked threads by the dozen; paranoid theories by the blatherful.

In an "Attack of the Neocons" horror show, the ordinance used in the opening salvo of the moaning zombie right-wing hordes would be Whodey threads -- used as smoke screens in an attempt to obscure facts and turn logic circuits fuzzy.

On the other hand, people suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome more deserve our pity than our scorn.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
And how does a definition prove that we are out of the recession? Anyways...

How does the Distributive Property of real number multiplication prove that a(b+c)=ab+ac?

How does the definition of the square of a number prove that 3^2=9?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Tea party types will hold them to that, and yet will also hold them partly accountable if the economy crashes on their watch. The Republicans have truly painted themselves into a corner, having said "NO" to everything -- even to ideas that were originally theirs and the president expressed support for -- and having committed themselves to a course that put the country last in their zeal to try to make Obama a "one-term president".

Speaking of playing both sides...

I find it funny (although admittedly politically clever) that Tea Party candidates such as Bachmann seem all-too-willing not to flinch at the prospect of reaching our debt limit because we can simply "pay off the interest." They have this imaginary course of action that the United States could potentially take to avert crisis, and by its inherently undefined nature, it allows them to criticize absolutely any negative consequences of fiscal stupidity. Apparently, if the U.S. literally doesn't have enough money to pay its bills anymore, it should pay off the interest on its debt first; if social security or scholarships or military funding vanishes, then it was due to the Obama administration's failure to prioritize correctly; and if the whole global market collapses, then it was still somehow the fault of Obama and the Democrats.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Speaking of playing both sides...

I find it funny (although admittedly politically clever) that Tea Party candidates such as Bachmann seem all-too-willing not to flinch at the prospect of reaching our debt limit because we can simply "pay off the interest." They have this imaginary course of action that the United States could potentially take to aver ole global market collapses, then it was still somehow the fault of Obama and the Democrats.

Nobody else other than Obama and his big gov progressive cronies crammed the trillion dollar stimulus down our throats. The blame rest with them. The last election was a referendum on this as well as 2012 will be.
Blaming GW and or the GOP is not cutting it with American people any longer.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
And how does a definition prove that we are out of the recession? Anyways...

Here is the National Bureau of Economic Research's qualified assertion of the supposed end of the Great Recession:


Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity?

A: It's more accurate to say that a recession–the way we use the word–is a period of dim ...[text shortened]... ably from its trough 15 months earlier.


Sounds like smoke and mirrors if you ask me.[/b]

Holy crap. Do I need to breakout the crayons?

The definition proves we're out of the recession because the conditions that define a recession haven't been met since 2009.

Q: When was the last time we've had two consecutive quarters where GDP has fallen?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Nobody else other than Obama and his big gov progressive cronies crammed the trillion dollar stimulus down our throats. The blame rest with them. The last election was a referendum on this as well as 2012 will be.
Blaming GW and or the GOP is not cutting it with American people any longer.

It's not unreasonable to blame Obama and Democrats for contributing to the deficit (although factually it was a major problem during GWB's presidency, and Democrats have pushed for tax increases indirectly and directly throughout Obama's term). It is unreasonable, however, to obstruct continually Obama's efforts to fix his own mistakes, particularly if your incentive in doing so is more political than practical.

Originally posted by wittywonka
It's not unreasonable to blame Obama and Democrats for contributing to the deficit (although factually it was a major problem during GWB's presidency, and Democrats have pushed for tax increases indirectly and directly throughout Obama's term). It is unreasonable, however, to obstruct continually Obama's efforts to fix his own mistakes, particularly if your incentive in doing so is more political than practical.

Well, but for the jobs generated by the stimulus, the deficit would be much worse for lack of revenues. So no, Obama isn't to blame. Republicans fixate on the spending, but ignore the revenues.

The tragedy here is that even though the Republicans are losing the debt debate, they've won the narrative, because the real crisis is unemployment - NOT the deficit.

Originally posted by wittywonka
It's not unreasonable to blame Obama and Democrats for contributing to the deficit (although factually it was a major problem during GWB's presidency, and Democrats have pushed for tax increases indirectly and directly throughout Obama's term). It is unreasonable, however, to obstruct continually Obama's efforts to fix his own mistakes, particularly if your incentive in doing so is more political than practical.

Contrary to the popular belief of liberals, Obama cannot walk on water nor can he "fix" a 14+ Trillion dollar deficit.
If he is being blocked for anything it is to stop him from making a even bigger mess than he has already caused.