How the GOP lost on the debt deal

[mimi85]

By Daniel Markovits
LA Times Op-Ed

Wednesday August 3 2011

The chorus of liberal lament began even before the details of the deal to raise the debt ceiling were known. Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive caucus, complained that the deal “trades peoples’ livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals. Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, called the deal a policy “catastrophe” and “an abject surrender on the part of the president.”

In the bigger picture, however, the debt deal represents a substantial success for President Obama and the Democrats. It does indeed impose cuts that will slow the economic recovery and unjustly burden working Americans. But the deal is uch nearer an affirmation of the president’s core commitments than a surrender. Moreover, the deal that the president got is much, much less bad, from the progressive point of view, than a coldly rational observer would have predicted. The reason the president beat the odds is simple: The Republicans blinked.


The rest: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-markovits-demswon-20110803,0,2334100.story

[daleanime]

1. .........

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :popcorn: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :cry: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[daa]

7. +1

[enlightenment]

2. Ah - the new 21st century rationalization of everything.

"Much, much less bad"

*sigh*

The problem with that is the line before it - "It does indeed impose cuts that will slow the economic recovery and unjustly burden working Americans."

But hey - it's better than nothing according to the new rationale.

Like nicking an artery is better than slitting a throat . . . or is it? Better a slow death, watching the blood spurt, or a sudden pain and a quick end?





edited for word change

[Owlet]

3. Talk about convoluted reasoning...(NT)

[katnapped]

4. Hey, it's just a knife wound

Would you rather bleed to death slowly or get shot and have it happen quickly?

:sarcasm:

[European Socialist]

5. It depends on who gets appointed to the Commission.

Much more likely to get a DINO from the Dems than a RINO from the Repukes. Odds are the Ruling Class will get the Safety net cuts they want.

[daa]

9. No it doesn't If you haven't out the outcome by now it will be

good by Medicare 9-3, maybe 8-4 and the we will hear the bullshit excuses about how it could have been worse. Think, don't be fooled again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Pyrrhus' version is much more accurate.

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.
—Plutarch

[DainBramaged]

They lost nothing.

[ThomWV]

8. Well, after having read the guy's opninion, all I can say is ... huh?

What a load of shit. Obama came out ahead because he could have lost a lot more because the Tea Party had nothing to lose.

No, Obama came out behind because he had no backbone. He would not demand what each of his predecessors in the living memory of most of the people who will read this got without so much as a whimper from the right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Funny.

[proud patriot]

11. Great article

:thumbsup:

[Me.]

12. Well By All Means Let Us Celebrate Then

Nevermind that it will "impose cuts that will slow the economic recovery and unjustly burden working Americans."

[Proles]

13. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this reasoning.

"It's better than nothing" tends to be the motto of the Democratic party. That, and "we tried, but they were stronger than us."

I think this whole debt cieling debacle is something he wanted all along. Don't tell me that an intelligent adult and President of the United States couldn't see this coming.

If he really wanted to avoid deficit cuts, he would have pushed for a debt cieling increase when we still had a Democratic Congress in December of 2010. But no, he wanted a way to painlessly cut down the deficit during an economic recession.

This doesn't mean the republican are blameless. Far from it in fact. They further proved themselves to be the insane radicals that they are. But I remain almost convinced that Obama actually agrees with many aspects of conservative economic philosophy. That is dissapointing, but its just reality. The most we can hope for are a few bones thrown at us -- better than what we can ever expect from a republican.

Or, Obama may not be the center-right opportunist that he is, and could in fact have been very naive about the republican's hostility -- I'm not sure which one scares me more. Because even a semi-educated citizen could see the hostility of the republican party towards Obama miles away.

Some hope for Obama can be redeemed if he refuses to extend tax cuts for the rich. If he "caves" on that, then I will be completely disillusioned.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Lost me at "It does indeed impose cuts that will slow the economic recovery"

We all lose.