Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

clover wrote:

They obviously didn't read the label. Plan B only works within 72 hours.

Winner.

Maybe the Republicans couldn't get Plan B because they met an economist that refuse to dispense it due to his religion?

Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Well even as a matter of politics, I wonder about that move. You can blame Obama all you like, he is not up for re-election. And there are a lot of republicans up for a new bid in 2014.

The thing with blaming Obama is you can just make it stick with the "four more years of [lame duck candidate]" chant.

Except it didn't work this year in the election... or did I miss a recount?

Sorry, I was talking about blame, not effectiveness.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Well even as a matter of politics, I wonder about that move. You can blame Obama all you like, he is not up for re-election. And there are a lot of republicans up for a new bid in 2014.

The thing with blaming Obama is you can just make it stick with the "four more years of [lame duck candidate]" chant.

Except it didn't work this year in the election... or did I miss a recount?

Sorry, I was talking about blame, not effectiveness.

No... I got that. I just can't see that blame-shifting move being effective for the GOP with anyone except the groups who already think the President is responsoble... which based on polls lately is not as large as the group that blames the GOP.

One commentator with Roll Call noted that it seems to him that the 2010 Tea Party House Republicans don't get divided government. In the past, divided government has meant "we have to compromise to get anything passed". But they seem to take it as "Democrats can't do anything without us, so they must do only what we want". And with that, nothing gets done, and the only possible narrative for them is "Why won't the Democrats do what we want? It's their fault nothing is happening!"

I heard that latter argument yet again from a co-worker yesterday. "The House passed the tax bill; the Senate should take it up, but Reid won't let them!" He was unaware that the House had *not* passed the tax bill and was uncertain I was correct in saying that.

Demosthenes wrote:

No... I got that. I just can't see that blame-shifting move being effective for the GOP with anyone except the groups who already think the President is responsoble... which based on polls lately is not as large as the group that blames the GOP.

Sure, but there's something to be said for keeping on message. The people who will already blame the President need to be reminded to keep doing so. Sort've like how Coke advertises mainly to keep themselves in people's minds.

Robear wrote:

One commentator with Roll Call noted that it seems to him that the 2010 Tea Party House Republicans don't get divided government. In the past, divided government has meant "we have to compromise to get anything passed". But they seem to take it as "Democrats can't do anything without us, so they must do only what we want". And with that, nothing gets done, and the only possible narrative for them is "Why won't the Democrats do what we want? It's their fault nothing is happening!"

That's an interesting point. I don't think all Republicans or conservatives think this way, but the ones that do get the reality of the situation thrown in their faces and have to rationalize it somehow that still leaves the GOP blameless. I couldn't figure out how until now.

Robear wrote:

One commentator with Roll Call noted that it seems to him that the 2010 Tea Party House Republicans don't get divided government.

It seems like the Tea Partiers also don't get the differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate...

Bloo Driver wrote:

That's an interesting point. I don't think all Republicans or conservatives think this way, but the ones that do get the reality of the situation thrown in their faces and have to rationalize it somehow that still leaves the GOP blameless. I couldn't figure out how until now.

There are about 40 or 50 Representatives who take that stance - more than enough to deny the Speaker the votes he needs to pass a one-sided bill.

So, the upshot is, either Boehner does what the Democrats want, or the tax hikes and spending cuts take effect.

You know you've got a serious debt problem when merely slowing the rate of borrowing threatens to crater your economy. We can't stop taking the drug, we'll go into withdrawal.

It's not going to crater the economy. It's just going to slow recovery at a point where that is inconvenient. It's also going to damage services, because there's no rhyme or reason to the cuts, just 10% off the top.

But isn't this the shock to the system you've been recommending all along, Malor? Well, maybe a tenth of what you've suggested, but you've always said we should take the hit and let things crash. I'd think you'd be smiling in your bunker right about now.

I second that it's not going to crater the economy, but if it was portrayed as anything less that the end of civilization as we know it then more people would stop watching the news and enjoy their Holiday, and they aren't going to have that.

Oh, we absolutely have to do something like this. We have to stop borrowing, because borrowing has to be repaid. In exchange for growth now, we trade away more future growth.

We've traded away at least a decade's worth of growth, just to hold things in the status quo for the last five years, and the deficit spending in prior years adds probably another twenty years of low to negative growth.

This should just illustrate to you how severe a problem this is... that even slowing the rate of borrowing is going to shrink the economy by 4 to 5% next year. And we're not even repaying anything yet, we're just making the problem worse more slowly.

The Tea Partiers are doing the right thing; forcing the pain now reduces the total amount of pain we'll have to endure.

Just like Greece, we are living way, way beyond our means. And just like Greece, actually dealing with our problems is deeply unpopular and painful.

This should just illustrate to you how severe a problem this is... that even slowing the rate of borrowing is going to shrink the economy by 4 to 5% next year. And we're not even repaying anything yet, we're just making the problem worse more slowly.

I'm well aware of how serious it is. But I'm not sure your source is correct. The CBO estimates the effects at 0.7% growth and 800,000 jobs lost by the end of 2013, not 4% to 5%. The reason that's bad is that we're finally coming up out of 2% growth after five years stagnation, and so that's a big reduction in *growth*, which is what is the real problem. (Well, for me, too, there's the risk of my job going away, if spending goes way down.)

What I was commenting on was your characterization of that 0.7% reduction in *growth* as "cratering" the economy. It's not. I think it's a good idea to avoid the cliff, and it would certainly benefit me personally, but frankly, if we go over, it's not the end of the world. It's just a vivid example of how dysfunctional the Republicans have made Congress.

(BTW, the CBO report gives the effect of the fiscal cliff as reducing the *deficit* by 4%-5% of GDP in the next year, maybe that's where the numbers came from.)

Well, the number I saw claimed to be from the CBO, and claimed that the impact would be -4 or -5% growth next year -- maybe my source was bad. I don't remember what it was, so I can't check it.

Malor wrote:

Well, the number I saw claimed to be from the CBO, and claimed that the impact would be -4 or -5% growth next year -- maybe my source was bad. I don't remember what it was, so I can't check it.

CBO: Economic Effects of Policies Contributing to Fiscal Tightening in 2013[/url]]
According to CBO’s projections, if all of that fiscal tightening occurs, real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) will drop by 0.5 percent in 2013 (as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013)—reflecting a decline in the first half of the year and renewed growth at a modest pace later in the year. That contraction of the economy will cause employment to decline and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013.

The CBO is saying that going over the fiscal cliff will throw us into a (hopefully) mild recession for the first half of the year. If all things go according to their projections, the economy will get righted and economic growth will resume in the 2nd half of the year, but that growth will be anemic.

Cutting a deal would, depending on the details, have our economy grow by anywhere from 0.75% to 3% in 2013.

The 4-5% reduction is from an earlier CBO projection that shows that if we would go over the cliff that the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP would shrink 4% to 5.1% between fiscal year 2012 and 2013.

A 4-5% reduction in our GDP would be catastrophic. 2008, for example, saw the economy shrink by 6.2%.

At this point, it looks like going over the cliff will get the President about $800B in tax revenue with no quid pro quo at all, which is better than what Boehner wanted to offer with strings. (The WSJ reported that Boehner asked Obama if he'd be willing to put the 2011 deal back on the table, and Obama refused. Then Boehner offered $800B in tax revenue, and asked what he'd get for that. Obama replied "Nothing, I get that for free." Now I see why - there's a bill that passed in the Senate that's very popular and just ready to go, which would drop the $5T in tax increases to $700B by preserving tax cuts up to $250,000, and that's $700B right there.)

Then, Congress will likely approve more entitlement reductions, but the consensus is that Obama can ask for 1-1 tax increases for entitlement cuts, meaning that he'll likely end up with more than the $1.2T deal he offered Boehner in 2011. The republicans wanted $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, but they probably won't get that, and it's hard to imagine a deal that's smaller than $500B even coming to the table. So my opinion today is that we're going over the edge; it's far more politically harmful to Republicans and it actually gets the Dems some things they want in the process, with the promise of a small or large deal in the future to add more for both sides.

Ezra Klein has a good article on it in today's WaPo, page A2, but I can't find it online yet.

Judging by the brinksmanship that is going on right now, and the fact that Congress hasn't been called back to session.....My gut tells me we're going into the new year without a solution to the finances in place.

anyone think a last minute deal is going to be reached? I think the democrats are going to use the intractability of congressional republicans to score political points.

JC wrote:

anyone think a last minute deal is going to be reached?

Nope. And sadly, I just can't bring myself to be overly concerned. Hell, even when they DO work out "deals", it isn't necessarily to our benefit (witness the past decade and the kid glove treatment of the banking and securities industries while the working class took a financial beating).

I think the democrats are going to use the intractability of congressional republicans to score political points.

And why not? If being reasonable doesn't work, time to play the same games as the Republicans instead of trying to get them to play your game fairly.

That seems to be their stance, and I get it. Doesn't mean I especially like it, but what else are they going to do? When compromise is a dirty word to the opposition (or at least elements of it), then you run out of options really quick asside from smash the next elections to make sure we get more seats in the House. And, this course of action for them is basically already proven from polling numbers to help them, and all they have to do is... nothing, seeing as how the Republicans have painted a nice picture of themselves that is titled "My Way or the Highway".

JC wrote:

I think the democrats are going to use the intractability of congressional republicans to score political points.

Why would they need to? The polls have already indicated that if no deal is made, the public will already blame the GOP.

The fact that Boehner recessed the House and has no intention of recalling them back into session before Jan. 1 will only solidify public opinion against the GOP.

The Democrats don't need to do anything; the GOP is doing their work for them.

Obama cut his vacation short, and returned to the White House early, but Boehner's just sitting in Ohio. He's apparently condescended to have a phone conference with the House Republicans (only). If the House isn't in session, there will be no deal, and the House isn't in session because Boehner sent everyone home. If they were both onsite and negotiating, you could argue that a failure to compromise was either party's fault, but if the Republican can't be arsed to even show up, then it's 100% on them.

But, as folks mentioned upthread, the fallout from this won't be that serious... after Robear pointed out that I'd misunderstood the numbers, it struck me that this should probably be called the Fiscal Speed Bump.

There are a lot of groups out there trying to help you misunderstand it to forward their agendas... The reality is unpleasant, but the spin is world-ending.

Malor wrote:

Obama cut his vacation short, and returned to the White House early, but Boehner's just sitting in Ohio. He's apparently condescended to have a phone conference with the House Republicans (only).

I think you may have meant consented, but this play on words is much better.

Seth wrote:
Malor wrote:

Obama cut his vacation short, and returned to the White House early, but Boehner's just sitting in Ohio. He's apparently condescended to have a phone conference with the House Republicans (only).

I think you may have meant consented, but this play on words is much better. :)

No, Malor's pretty deliberate with his phrasing, I expect the play on words was intentional. And yes, funny (and sad, at the same time).

Farscry wrote:
Seth wrote:
Malor wrote:

Obama cut his vacation short, and returned to the White House early, but Boehner's just sitting in Ohio. He's apparently condescended to have a phone conference with the House Republicans (only).

I think you may have meant consented, but this play on words is much better. :)

No, Malor's pretty deliberate with his phrasing, I expect the play on words was intentional. And yes, funny (and sad, at the same time). :)

Soooo... he's only willing to talk to people that he doesn't really need to compromise with and ignoring the entire other party. Where's my parachute, I'm jumping off this cliff right now.

I thought Boehner since called the House back on Sunday?

Yeah Boehner called the house back to go into session Sunday at something like 6:30 in the evening. Which allows 1 day for them to "do stuff"

I'm calling bullsh*t. Congress was brought back so that the republicans can say "We came back and tried, they didn't want to work with us." Just like showing up to a college class, signing your name for attendance reasons, and ducking out.

Doesn't matter, the House Republicans aren't going to pass anything worth considering. The Teo Cons' desires are too far out there for the establishment Republican Party to agree with(see: Plan B), and they are both too far out to propose anything that might garner Democrat support.

Farscry wrote:
Seth wrote:
Malor wrote:

Obama cut his vacation short, and returned to the White House early, but Boehner's just sitting in Ohio. He's apparently condescended to have a phone conference with the House Republicans (only).

I think you may have meant consented, but this play on words is much better. :)

No, Malor's pretty deliberate with his phrasing, I expect the play on words was intentional. And yes, funny (and sad, at the same time). :)

That's not even a play on words I don't think, I believe that is a completely grammatically valid sentence, not a pun.

dictionary.com wrote:

con·de·scend [kon-duh-send] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.
2.
to stoop or deign to do something: He would not condescend to misrepresent the facts.
3.
to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior: He condescended to their intellectual level in order to be understood.
4.
Obsolete .
a.
to yield.
b.
to assent.

I actually kind of disagree that the fourth usage is really obsolete, although perhaps I have read it that way in older books, or newer books mimicking older usage. Basically it means the same thing as "consent" but with the connotation that you are giving the impression that you are doing someone a huge favor even when that is not really the case.

Yonder wrote:

I actually kind of disagree that the fourth usage is really obsolete, although perhaps I have read it that way in older books, or newer books mimicking older usage. Basically it means the same thing as "consent" but with the connotation that you are giving the impression that you are doing someone a huge favor even when that is not really the case.

Actually, your usage there is number 2. Number 4 would be "They asked him to take the job, and he condescended." Which would be a very unusual sentence today.