Will the Government shut down on the 27th of March?

[CountDeMoney]

Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.

Like the Affordable Care Act

[Razgovory]

Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.

What is this in response to?

[derspiess]

To you, Rain Man.


Or maybe Shelf. Too buzzed right now to care.

[Admiral Yi]

Cutting across the board will reduce effectiveness across the board.  It's usually better to target cuts in some particular area, by say removing some programs or budget items entirely, then settle with everything being weaker.  No idea why you'd nationalize something.  That seems like it would make matter worse.

Nationalize??  What are you talking about.

I think you've missed my point Raz.  I'm not arguing that it's impossible to cut more intelligently than the sequester has done.  I think it's very possible.  I'm pointing out that Obama likes to comment on the stupidity of the cuts without offering an alternative.

[Admiral Yi]

The point of giving the president the ability to target the cuts was to allow the Republicans to take credit for cutting spending in general and reducing the deficit (two things that are popular), leaving the president with the blame for cutting specific things (something which is almost always unpopular).

I agree Yake.  It was a poisoned chalice.  But the fact that he was offered the option does undercut significantly his current rhetoric about the sequester being stupid.

[Sheilbh]

Isn't it about what's good for the country? Sometimes leadership means doing the right thing even if it hurts you politically.

Yep. But as you say that's sometimes. Of recent moments I think the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling and TARP are ones which require leadership - choosing the precise composition of a fixed amount of cuts, less so.

Cute how you guys defend the president's decision due to political implications.  You'd be nailing a GOP prez to the cross if the roles were reversed.

I don't think so. I mean if the Republicans and the Democrats had agreed to raise taxes by x amount but how they were raised was entirely for Republicans to decide I'd entirely understand if the GOP said no.

Edit: And I think they'd be perfectly within their rights to moan about the across-the-board nature.

So you think Obama should have settled for privatizing Medicare.  That's a real restaurant.

Nothing wrong with efficient privatised healthcare with provision for the poor. The Dutch privatisation shows that.

As I say I think the unique American combination of inefficient private and public healthcare is the biggest long-term issue you've got.

I agree Yake.  It was a poisoned chalice.  But the fact that he was offered the option does undercut significantly his current rhetoric about the sequester being stupid.

Again it's worth remembering: no-one wanted the sequester to happen. It was no-one's idea of a good policy. That it happened at all was stupid.

[Razgovory]

Cutting across the board will reduce effectiveness across the board.  It's usually better to target cuts in some particular area, by say removing some programs or budget items entirely, then settle with everything being weaker.  No idea why you'd nationalize something.  That seems like it would make matter worse.

Nationalize??  What are you talking about.

I think you've missed my point Raz.  I'm not arguing that it's impossible to cut more intelligently than the sequester has done.  I think it's very possible.  I'm pointing out that Obama likes to comment on the stupidity of the cuts without offering an alternative.

Shelf brought up Nationalizing.  God knows why.  Is the President in a position to offer an alternative?

[Admiral Yi]

Again it's worth remembering: no-one wanted the sequester to happen. It was no-one's idea of a good policy. That it happened at all was stupid.

Obama could legitimately say he was blackmailed into agreeing to any spending cuts at all and that if given his druthers he would be spending away like a crack head, but that's not the line he's taken.  Instead he's taken the line that these particular cuts are stupid.  Which suggests that there are intelligent cuts that could have been made instead.  Yet he declined to select those intelligent cuts when given the choice.  Which tells us that when given the choice between selecting intelligent cuts and ducking the issue, he chose to duck the issue.  He put politics ahead of the well being of the country.

[Razgovory]

I'm still fuzzy on when and how Obama was given this "choice".

[grumbler]

Obama could legitimately say he was blackmailed into agreeing to any spending cuts at all and that if given his druthers he would be spending away like a crack head, but that's not the line he's taken.  Instead he's taken the line that these particular cuts are stupid.  Which suggests that there are intelligent cuts that could have been made instead.  Yet he declined to select those intelligent cuts when given the choice.  Which tells us that when given the choice between selecting intelligent cuts and ducking the issue, he chose to duck the issue.  He put politics ahead of the well being of the country.

This is true, but I am not sure that it is more true of Obama than it was of the Republican presidential candidates, who actively challenged each other to see who could most sacrifice national interests in the interest of getting elected.  It is certainly true of both sides in the Senate, and even more so both sides in the House.  The House hasn't passed an actual Federal budget in, what, 5 years?  The Republican leadership there wants to claim that they can solve the problem, without actually doing anything to solve the problem.  Insofar as I can see, the House leadership wants to see the country fail and misery increase, so that Obama and the Democrats get the blame, and the Republican chances to take the White House increase.

So, Obama is guilty, but so is pretty much everyone else.

[Neil]

Cute how you guys defend the president's decision due to political implications.  You'd be nailing a GOP prez to the cross if the roles were reversed.

I think that the popular narative is that the Democrats generally act out of cowardice and stupidity, whereas the Republicans act out of hatred and avarice.  The first breeds pity, whereas the second breeds anger.

[Sheilbh]

I think that the popular narative is that the Democrats generally act out of cowardice and stupidity, whereas the Republicans act out of hatred and avarice.  The first breeds pity, whereas the second breeds anger.

It's nonsense too. From here it looks like the Democrats are pretty ruthless and the Republicans not massively competent.

Edit: I do find the liberal moaning absolutely mental. 'If only we were as ruthless and united as the Republicans we could be enjoying all of their success'

It's like the Tories now who think that the reason they lost the last election was because they didn't talk enough about Europe, immigration and why British people need to work harder. Those issues, however, had nothing to do with why they lost in 2001 and 2005 

Obama could legitimately say he was blackmailed into agreeing to any spending cuts at all and that if given his druthers he would be spending away like a crack head, but that's not the line he's taken.  Instead he's taken the line that these particular cuts are stupid.  Which suggests that there are intelligent cuts that could have been made instead. 

The sequester happened because Congress failed to come up with an alternative. That was stupid. The way the cuts are being made is also stupid. I don't think that to point that out you have to have a detailed and public alternative position - we've had this argument for years.

He put politics ahead of the well being of the country.

On something that doesn't matter so much. If spending's going to be cut (or taxes raised) by a fixed amount anyway then the political heat of getting to take all the blame isn't worth it. If you're given discretion over the size and the pace and specifics of a fiscal consolidation then I'd agree it's worth it.

[Admiral Yi]

The sequester happened because Congress failed to come up with an alternative. That was stupid. The way the cuts are being made is also stupid. I don't think that to point that out you have to have a detailed and public alternative position - we've had this argument for years.

The sequester happened because the Republican House was unable to agree with Democratic Senate and the Democratic president on alternative cuts.  It's stupid to call the inability to reach a better agreement stupid when you were a party to the negotiations.

On something that doesn't matter so much. If spending's going to be cut (or taxes raised) by a fixed amount anyway then the political heat of getting to take all the blame isn't worth it. If you're given discretion over the size and the pace and specifics of a fiscal consolidation then I'd agree it's worth it.

If it doesn't matter so much then Obama is stupid for spending all this air time talking about how stupid and important it is.

[Sheilbh]

The sequester happened because the Republican House was unable to agree with Democratic Senate and the Democratic president on alternative cuts.  It's stupid to call the inability to reach a better agreement stupid when you were a party to the negotiations.

That's why they appointed a supercommittee. Both sides made bad bets. The Democrats thought the threat of automatic defence cuts would drive Republicans to cave. I think the Republicans expected that the Democrats would be willing to do more or less anything to get rid of the sequester.

I also think you're mistaking Obama's role as that of the BBC or Mitch McConnell as opposed to a normal politician

[Admiral Yi]

I also think you're mistaking Obama's role as that of the BBC or Mitch McConnell as opposed to a normal politician

I am pointing out the logical inconsistency in his rhetoric.  Normal politicians are supposed to say things that make sense, even if you don't agree with them.  When they don't, we should call them on it.