Quote :

"Yes they will. The government will repudiate the debt in order to save the currency. It will be an awesome day when creditors finally realize that government debt is a bad investment."

This is a possibility, but an unlikely one. If the president came out and publicly said, "We're not paying any of our debt," I would be more shocked at that moment than at any point in my life. I cannot imagine there being a massive default on that scale, and I'm not even sure what the consequences of that would be. With that said, I think a default would be better for us, and more honest, and it wouldn't result in the destruction of the currency.

1/26/2010 4:50:37 PM

It wouldn't be like that, it would be a structural default (we're going to stop paying interest on the debt right now, and then pay everyone back slowly over time).

That said, you are right, that is not going to happen in my life-time. But our children will be all on that.

1/26/2010 5:33:51 PM

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=strategic_deficit_redux

Quote :

"President Ronald Reagan's budget director David Stockman coined the phrase "strategic deficit" to describe the usefulness of creating long-term budgetary shortfalls to undercut political support for governmental spending. As Stockman privately told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1981, accruing large deficits "gives you an argument for cutting back programs that really weren't desired and giving you an argument against establishing new programs you don't really want." Moreover, strategic deficits can enable opponents of public investments to sound compassionate -- "We can't steal from our children to pay for our short-term desires.""

It looks like the right is STILL trying to play this game.

1/28/2010 7:23:32 PM

Caught a little bit of GMA and George S. asked Michael Pence (R-IN) if he/they'd support Obamas tax cut, nuclear, and the other 'Republican' proposals...and they guy couldn't even say "yes we support those". He had to get all political about it and after George S. asked him the second time he basically says "we support tax cuts across the spectrum".

Shit like that is why I voted for Obama in the first place.

1/29/2010 7:14:59 AM

^^ Just because they say it does not mean they don't believe it (???).

And who was running the $1.9 trillion dollar deficit in a single year? Clearly it was not the Republicans that ran up that tab, seeing as they have been out of Congress since 2006.

1/29/2010 12:09:59 PM

Quote :

"A month ago, a bipartisan group of senators asked Obama for his "strong support" for a commission to solve the national debt crisis. "We don't recommend this special process lightly," they wrote, calling it "the best way to reach a lasting bipartisan solution that will put our nation back on a sound long-term fiscal path." One of the signatories, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), issued a news release trumpeting his sponsorship of the legislation. "Now is the time," he proclaimed. On second thought, maybe not. Obama heeded the letter writers' advice and backed the commission. But when the proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor Tuesday, four of the Republican signers -- Crapo, Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Robert Bennett (Utah) -- voted no. So did three other Republican senators who had also been co-sponsors of the legislation -- 2008 presidential nominee John McCain (Ariz.), Sam Brownback (Kan.) and John Ensign (Nev.). An eighth co-sponsor, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), didn't vote. Thanks to these defections, the commission legislation fell seven votes short -- and with it went any hope of tackling the debt crisis anytime soon. Even by recent standards, this may be a new level of legislative fecklessness. "

lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903874.html

1/31/2010 1:47:01 PM

Quote :

"Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, CongressDaily (sub. req.) reports. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold. "While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report, "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal." Shelby has been tight-lipped about the holds, offering only an unnamed spokesperson to reporters today to explain them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the news of the blanket hold this afternoon after Shelby announced it to him in a letter sent today. Reid aides told CongressDaily the hold extends to "all executive nominations on the Senate calendar." According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. CongressDaily laid out the programs Shelby wants to move forward or else: - A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From the report: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." - An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal." Though a Shelby spokesperson would not confirm that these programs were behind the blanket hold, the Senator expressed his frustration about the progress on both through a spokesperson earlier in the day, the magazine reports. Back in Alabama, the Mobile Press-Register picked up the story early this afternoon. The paper confirmed Reid's claim of a blanket hold, and reported that a Shelby spokesperson "did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages seeking confirmation of the senator's action or his reason for doing so." A San Diego State University professor and "Congressional expert" told the paper "he knew of no previous use of a blanket hold" in recent history."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php

(reposted from the GOP credibility watch thread)

2/4/2010 11:38:54 PM

^
Not unexpected. Once they learned that Harry Reid pays the ransom (Landrieu, Nelson etc), more senators are going to kidnap the gov't.

2/5/2010 10:37:20 AM

Quote :

"Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold. [...] According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else: - A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold. - An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal.""

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php


The GOP's ability to outpace satire is amazing.


[from the thread Boone made, reposted here for posterity]

2/5/2010 1:33:58 PM

From the NY Times, June 23, 2005:

Mr. Bush has reacted by railing against Democrats for obstruction — as if Democrats are duty-bound to breathe life into his agenda and, even sillier, as if opposing a plan that the people do not want is an illegitimate tactic for an opposition party.

2/9/2010 6:53:20 PM