Washington's Debt Negotiations Debacle
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-27/washingtons-debt-negotiations-debacle
The White House versus Republican leaders over the deficit and debt ceiling: the threat to America's standing in the world, what comes next and who voters will blame.
Guests
Stephanie Cutter
assistant to the president and deputy senior adviser in the Obama administration.
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthor of "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."
Alice Rivlin
senior fellow, Brookings Institution, vice chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (1996-99); director, White House Office of Management and Budget (1994-96); and founding director, Congressional Budget Office (1975-83).
Sudeep Reddy
economics reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Dianne,
I am wondering how much of the more extreme republicans do not only to defeat Obama (1 term president) but also to put in place a Milton Freidman style pure market economy as they have tried to impliment in South America and elsewhere. Anyone who has read the "Shock Doctorine" by Naomie will know what I am referring to.
Cicero wrote:
conesnail wrote:
"I had a bit of a problem with the guest list. There were no progressive voices. I suppose that Alice Rivkin was supposed to be the more moderate person, but she was to the RIGHT of Norm Ornstein of AEI."
"I'm sorry, but I hope that it's a long time before I have to hear form Alice Rivkin again. "
----------------------------------------------------
Thanks for admitting that liberals demand NPR only broadcast liberal opinions. But that you could even question Alice Rivlin's liberal credentials, whom POTUS Obama appointed to his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and formerly POTUS Clinton's deputy director of Office of Management and Budget, is indeed spooky.
---------------------
"conesnail" demanded no such thing; the complaint was his/her assertion of a COMPLETE absence of a true progressive viewpoint - not a request to hear only that.
I assume from your moniker that you presume yourself some high-minded intellectual - guess again.
donholl wrote:
"conesnail" demanded no such thing; the complaint was his/her assertion of a COMPLETE absence of a true progressive viewpoint - not a request to hear only that.
I assume from your moniker that you presume yourself some high-minded intellectual - guess again."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A "true progressive?" I guess Fidel Castro was too ill to attend TDRS.
But let's examine who was on the show today.
Susan Paige; USA Today, liberal
Stephanie Cutter - Deputy Senior Advisor to POTUS Obama, liberal
Sudeep Reddy-lWSJ blogger, liberal
Alice Rivlin- liberal
That leaves Norman Ornstein, a conservative-leaning political scientist. Is it not sufficient for conesnail, or for you, that the ratio of liberals to conservatives is 5 to 1, but the liberals are not liberal enough. OK.
BTW: Does your chat handle mean the godfather of holl?
cicero,
You have to understand the way liberal progressives think. There are two rules major rules:
1) Anyone who says something I agree with is "fair and balanced".
2) You are entitled to my opinion.
ecgberht wrote:
"cicero,
You have to understand the way liberal progressives think. There are two rules major rules:
1) Anyone who says something I agree with is "fair and balanced".
2) You are entitled to my opinion."
----------------------------------------------------
Exactly! As donholl explains, "a COMPLETE absence of a true progressive viewpoint" will not be tolerated by NPR/TDRS liberal listeners. Even when liberals were rewarded with far left loons 24/7 on Air America, it still went bankrupt. I'm sure the significance of this was lost on donholl and conesnail.
layeni wrote:
"Dianne,
I am wondering how much of the more extreme republicans do not only to defeat Obama (1 term president) but also to put in place a Milton Freidman style pure market economy as they have tried to impliment in South America and elsewhere. Anyone who has read the "Shock Doctorine" by Naomie will know what I am referring to."
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are a disciple of Naomie Klein? All one need know about this conspiracy book is that it touts the endorsements of actors Tim Robbins and John Cusack.
Even Shashi Tharoor of The Washington Post said of Klein:
"This is part of my problem with Klein's thesis; she is too ready to see conspiracies where others might discern little more than the all-too-human pattern of chaos and confusion, good intentions and greed, playing out in the wake of catastrophes."
"And her argument raises the question: If the private sector did not ride to the rescue after disasters, who would? The state has been withering away in much of the developing world, and nearly five decades of official development assistance have not built enough state capacity to transform the lives of poor people for the better. More and more governments, afflicted by corruption, bureaucratic sclerosis and inefficiency, are realizing that the private sector is an indispensable partner in the long quest for development. Klein acknowledges little of this."
And this from Johan Norberg, Swedish author and historian, devoted to promoting liberal positions.
"Klein's historical examples also fall apart under scrutiny. For example, Klein alleges that the Tiananmen Square crackdown was intended to crush opposition to pro-market reforms, when in fact it caused liberalization to stall for years. She also argues that Thatcher used the Falklands War as cover for her unpopular economic policies, when actually those economic policies and their results enjoyed strong public support."
Steve on Plum Isle writes:
"Each "payday" money goes into the trust funds. Between the money coming in and the money in the supposed :lock-box" the money for social security is there!"
Steve, there is no Social Security trust fund and there is no lock-box. Social Security money has been placed in the general fund and spent long ago. Instead the Social Security program has been left with promises of future payments (government bonds).
Every year Social Security is funded as a pay as you go program. Congress estimates its liabilities for the current fiscal year and appropriates the money.
Can anyone point to any substantive differences between a Ponzi Scheme and Social Security?
Hippo writes:
"The Justice Dept. could preempt a lawsuit by filing, in federal court, a request for a declaratory judgment confirming that the president can issue an executive order raising the debt ceiling."
How about just eliminate the debt ceiling completely? It didn't exist until Congress passed it during the first world war. It's completely phony. It is just a political football that politicians of both sides throw at each other year after year. It always gets raised in the end. It is pure political theater.
The president, senators, and representatives are not serious people. They are laughing stocks, pretenders, silly people, jesters, and evil, but they are not serious people.
Likewise today's show was not a serious discussion. It perpetuated the same silliness and obfuscation that emanates from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Alice tried to make this point, but in as delicate as a way possible--the issue here is Republican obstructionism at every turn. Boehner's congress has passed 12 bills this year, while Pelosi had hundreds through by this point. I get that they are the opposition and their main goal is to slow down the Democrats, but they've just taken it too far here.
I think Harry Reid and Obama have made some tactical blunders--mainly the White House for allowing the budget debate to get tied to the debt ceiling in the first place, and then moving into the realm of spending cuts as the solution to our Nation's problems. We know short term cuts will likely make things worse.
The Republicans know that they are going to lose their Bush Tax Cuts in 2013, which is why they are fighting to gut the budget quickly before that happens. The money people are very concerned about Capital Gains taxes going up 5%. I think Obama is giving them a show, but they will have to give in and raise the debt ceiling by Monday.
qsoundrich wrote:
" I think Obama is giving them a show, but they will have to give in and raise the debt ceiling by Monday".
It's a game of chicken, no doubt. In a game of chicken, it's the one who has the most to lose that gives in and jerks the wheel to the shoulder.
My first clue as to where this was headed was in the Carney press briefing today. In two different statements he referred to the "Obama-Boehner plan" (ha ha), and the "Obama-Reid plan" when he had NOTHING to do with either one of them! He's ready to give, he just wants to make sure the outcome gets spun as some sort of success for him and the spin has already begun.
There is one thing I know for sure and this is the very bottom line. Obama does not want to be the only President in history to default on the country's debt. He is the one who has the most to lose and he knows it. Sorry, but he is ready to jerk the wheel to the shoulder.