So we hit the debt limit...

[Admiral Yi]

I'm just curious, Yi; why are you so eager to bend the rules of logic to cast the GOP in a more positive light over this one?  After all, the GOP's "playing chicken," too.  In fact, they're the ones tacking on demands.  As a matter of principle, I can understand why Obama and Reid would be reluctant to rubber-stamp a bill arising from that kind of childish behavior.

In a more positive light than what?  I never claimed the GOP wasn't playing chicken too. 

[MadImmortalMan]

Mostly I think the legislated limit has to be there to ensure constitutional legislative powers aren't moved to the executive.

[Admiral Yi]

Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.

Except they've already gone down the government shut down path about 4 times this year, and came away with about 30 million dollars for their efforts.

[dps]

Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.

Except they've already gone down the government shut down path about 4 times this year, and came away with about 30 million dollars for their efforts.

That's not much of a return on the investment of the political capital involved, considering the size of the budget.

[MadImmortalMan]

It occurs to me that Boehner and Ryan may not have a choice in playing chicken. It may be that they simply can't muster the votes to pass a compromise that has tax increases in it of any kind.

[grumbler]

It occurs to me that Boehner and Ryan may not have a choice in playing chicken. It may be that they simply can't muster the votes to pass a compromise that has tax increases in it of any kind.

Luckily, they wouldn't have to.  All they have to do is create a compromise that enough Republicans and Democrats can vote for, and the law gets passed.  Individual congressmen and senators don't have vetoes, even if they were in the majority.

[alfred russel]

Even worse, you have a meeting on a new fuel expense agreement just around the corner. If the Republicans in the House want cuts in the budget, just don't pass the spending in the next budget. Legislatively, Republicans hold the better cards--they can block anything they don't like, and both the spending and tax changes they don't want require legislation to pass.

Except they've already gone down the government shut down path about 4 times this year, and came away with about 30 million dollars for their efforts.

This makes no sense to me. They can pass a budget that excludes all the spending they don't like, at the risk of a government shutdown (a short term problem that has happened in the past and has few long term consequences). Or you can threaten to force a default, which would be far more disruptive and create long term financing issues, if the president doesn't agree to cut spending that has already passed.

If they don't have the balls to force a government shutdown, but they are making credible threats regarding the debt ceiling, then I can only assume they are crazy.

[Admiral Yi]

This makes no sense to me. They can pass a budget that excludes all the spending they don't like, at the risk of a government shutdown (a short term problem that has happened in the past and has few long term consequences). Or you can threaten to force a default, which would be far more disruptive and create long term financing issues, if the president doesn't agree to cut spending that has already passed.

If they don't have the balls to force a government shutdown, but they are making credible threats regarding the debt ceiling, then I can only assume they are crazy.

That's because you're equating the threat of a default with actual default.

Gingritch learned the lesson that if you threaten a shutdown and you get called on your bluff, the public will blame you for it and you won't get what you want.  Threatening a default is different precisely because you don't expect to get called on it.  Clinton was able to call Gingritch's hand because the results were irritating but manageable.  Boehner and co. are calculating that Obama won't call their hand because the results would be devestating. 

Interesting enough Obama in his news conference today appeared to be softening his prediction of the magnitude of the effects.  He also said the results would be unpredictable, which I think is true.  This is a reasonable negotiating ploy.  The administration's earlier dire warnings played right into the GOP's hands.  If a default truly is Apocalyptic, then surely it's more reasonable to cave into the GOP's outrageous, radical demands rather than experience much worse with a default.  If it's maybe more in the range of pretty bad, then that changes the cost/benefit on caving in.

[grumbler]

That's because you're equating the threat of a default with actual default.

Gingritch learned the lesson that if you threaten a shutdown and you get called on your bluff, the public will blame you for it and you won't get what you want.  Threatening a default is different precisely because you don't expect to get called on it.  Clinton was able to call Gingritch's hand because the results were irritating but manageable.  Boehner and co. are calculating that Obama won't call their hand because the results would be devestating. 

Interesting enough Obama in his news conference today appeared to be softening his prediction of the magnitude of the effects.  He also said the results would be unpredictable, which I think is true.  This is a reasonable negotiating ploy.  The administration's earlier dire warnings played right into the GOP's hands.  If a default truly is Apocalyptic, then surely it's more reasonable to cave into the GOP's outrageous, radical demands rather than experience much worse with a default.  If it's maybe more in the range of pretty bad, then that changes the cost/benefit on caving in.

I think you are equating economic consequences with political consequences.  The same act can have horrific economic consequences, but great political benefits (banking deregulation, for example), and politicians can endure a lot of other peoples' pain if the political benefits for themselves are sufficiently enticing.  The question in Washington that counts is "what are the political consequences of a default?"  That's the question that will determine whether bluffs will be called or not, and it doesn't seem top me that it is thus automatically politically "reasonable" to bow to the Republicans' "outrageous, radical demands" merely to avoid an apocalyptic default.

[Admiral Yi]

You are incorrect.

[Razgovory]

Question for Yi:  Do you see both sides as morally equivalent in this situation?  GOP members threatening to tank the economy unless they get their way and the President's refusal to give in to those demands.  Are these things equal in your mind, or is one worse then the other?

[Admiral Yi]

Question for Yi:  Do you see both sides as morally equivalent in this situation?  GOP members threatening to tank the economy unless they get their way and the President's refusal to give in to those demands.  Are these things equal in your mind, or is one worse then the other?

I see it about 60/40, with the GOP on the bad side.  Maybe 65/35.  If the GOP puts taxes back on the table that swings dramatically.

[alfred russel]

That's because you're equating the threat of a default with actual default.

Gingritch learned the lesson that if you threaten a shutdown and you get called on your bluff, the public will blame you for it and you won't get what you want.  Threatening a default is different precisely because you don't expect to get called on it.  Clinton was able to call Gingritch's hand because the results were irritating but manageable.  Boehner and co. are calculating that Obama won't call their hand because the results would be devestating. 

Yi, I have been arguing that Obama should just tell them to fuck off and not negotiate with them. If they are bluffing, they will look like fools, if they aren't bluffing, they are mad and there isn't much sense in negotiating with crazed terrorists anyway.

Don't you see the danger in this? The threat of a shutdown comes up frequently because a budget needs to be passed every year. Debt ceiling increases also need to be negotiated frequently. If holding the president hostage to do x,y, and z through the threat of default becomes accepted, it isn't going to be long before negotiations break down and payments are missed.

[Admiral Yi]

Yi, I have been arguing that Obama should just tell them to fuck off and not negotiate with them. If they are bluffing, they will look like fools, if they aren't bluffing, they are mad and there isn't much sense in negotiating with crazed terrorists anyway.

I understand that.  The problem with that approach is it treats the debt limit issue as one of assigning political blame, rather than a legislative/economic one.  Or conversely if the Republicans blink, it's political genius.

Don't you see the danger in this? The threat of a shutdown comes up frequently because a budget needs to be passed every year. Debt ceiling increases also need to be negotiated frequently. If holding the president hostage to do x,y, and z through the threat of default becomes accepted, it isn't going to be long before negotiations break down and payments are missed.

Yes I see the danger in that.  Absolutely. 

Do you see the danger of punting 10% of GDP deficits and unfunded entitlements down the road year after year after year?

[Razgovory]

Seems similar to the danger of radioactive waste compared to the danger of someone threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.