[Economics] If Obama actually gives us the VSP Grand Bargain

[Shatner]

It looks like the sequester is going to happen. One of the (many) things I don't understand are the motivations behind the Republican response. Are they hoping the negative effects of the Sequester's austerity will make Obama's administration more unpopular (poisoning the well, if you will), are they unable or unwilling to make a deal for fear of being seen as collaborating with the enemy, or is it something else entirely?

Also, with the sequester going off, what stages are left in this particular battle? Has this train finally reached the end of the line?

[Ancient History]

tl;dr version - Yes, it looks like the Republicans are willing to obstruct legislation even with dire economic consequences, blatantly throwing the middle class under the bus for the benefit of the rich and political leverage - and it might work.

Long version:

The Republican party's entire strategy since Obama's first election has been obstructionism, and ever since Obama's re-election they've stepped up the game. Instead of seeking any middle ground, the Republicans are refusing to put anything on the table - forcing the Democrats to come to them if they want anything to pass, trying to put the public focus entirely on the president and the Democrats.

Now, the Republicans have backed down and made 11th-hour deals before, even though that brinkmanship cost the country dearly. The problem is twofold: the Republicans are intransigent (no new taxes, lower current taxes, gut spending on social services), and the President is a centrist. Which means that not only are the Republicans not actually putting for any effort to negotiate, any deal they might make isn't going to be a middle-of-the-road give-and-take deal, it's going to be a right-of-center deal - the only question is how far to the right.

Compounding it is that the sequester is just the first domino. The debt ceiling rears its ugly head in a month, which could result in a government shutdown, and there are further battles over a possible budget after that. So the Republicans are probably going to drag this out as long as possible, as painfully as possible, because even if they do the mid-term elections are so gerrymandered that the Republicans are favored to gain more influence - voters who see Congress doing nothing will blame all sitting senators, and Democrat canidates are going to face a tough time fending off new faces untainted by exposure to a toxic Congress, even if those people are the same party causing the problem.

[name_here]

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that the Republican Party no longer has any coherent leadership structure or plan, but its members at least believe, possibly accurately, that it can still destroy any congress-member who breaks rank. So with no one able to bring the party as a whole to the table in any real sense and no one willing to go off on their own, the only thing they can get behind is stopping the Democrats from doing anything. They've passed the point of even pretending to be trying to negotiate after shooting down Boehner's plan back in December.

[Ancient History]

Well in this debacle, John Boehner is the voice and public face of the Republican party...and he won't even have a discussion about a deal that involves increases in revenue. Which means there is no appreciable discussion to be had.

[name_here]

Well in this debacle, John Boehner is the voice and public face of the Republican party...and he won't even have a discussion about a deal that involves increases in revenue. Which means there is no appreciable discussion to be had.

John Boehner was openly defied by at least half the republicans in Congress last time he proposed a budget with a laughably small tax increase. He's not the one calling the shots in the party, and I don't really think anyone is at the moment.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, the corporate whore media with its weirdass obsession with the cancelled White House tours has pretty much shown us the trajectory of the centrist shill gambit.

1.) Whine about the most visible cuts, ignore the less visible ones.

2.) Whine that Obama is being intentionally mean and grandstandy in order to make a political point and that he could've made the pain go away if he wasn't such a mean ol' Democrat.

3.) Therefore, any pain caused by the sequester is his fault.

Is the American public going to by this drivel? I mean, it's pretty obvious that the conservatives are going to by it -- since anything Obama can do is a Morton's Fork of 'hate him more' -- but I wonder how it's going to play with 'moderates' and 'independents' and 'low-information voters'.

I'm sticking with my previous prediction that the putrid and deeply retarded American voting public completely blames the wrong faction due to the corporate whore media and votes in the actual culprits to bring them a second helping of pain. Worked like a charm with the 'keep your government hands off of my Medicare!' canard.

[Lago PARANOIA]

DP.

[RobbyPants]

I don't know. Recent polls still show that Republicans are still getting more blame. A left-leaning source says they're still getting blamed, and a very right leaning source complains that "Obama's sequester is still being blamed on the GOP by desperate, dishonest Dems". So, even the right-leaning source admits they're getting more of the blame, despite thinking that's it's all a bunch of mean lies!

[name_here]

The republicans have been trailing democrats in general and Obama in particular in polls since at least the original debt ceiling mess.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Obama has just pretty much ensured his impeachment in 2015.

[Mistborn]

Obama has just pretty much ensured his impeachment in 2015.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1.) Look at the title of this thread.

2.) Turn the television to a news channel. Specifically, the one about Obama's budget raising taxes (on the wealthy) to reduce Social Security benefits.

3.) Recall how Obama got shellacked in 2010 over his centrist-fellating gestures that the GOP was able to demagogue into 'keep your government hands off of my Medicare!'

4.) Note that unlike then, the attacks will actually be somewhat true.

5.) Recall the Republican spectacle of 1998 of impeaching Clinton for absolutely no reason.

6.) Recall that the GOP is even crazier now than then.

With this staggeringly simple chain of logic, Obama has ensured his impeachment in 2015.

Will they be able to convict? Doubtful. But the Republicans will definitely have enough momentum following the 2014 midterms to get a conviction vote in the House. Who knows what the excuse will be? Clinton got impeached over a blowjob and was more popular.

[Ancient History]

Yeah, not following. The liberals and Democrats hate his budget, but he hasn't actually broken any new laws that I'm aware of.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yeah, not following. The liberals and Democrats hate his budget, but he hasn't actually broken any new laws that I'm aware of.

Bill Clinton says hi.

[Ancient History]

Trivia for the day: when Bill Clinton was impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment) one of the Republican senators voted "not proven" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven) which is a special Scottish-only verdict otherwise known as the bastard verdict. Which has fuck-all to do with American law.

So yes, the Republican-controlled House could probably drum up a charge to impeach him, but it would never pass the Senate so they probably won't unless they get a surprise majority in the Senate.

[Maj]

Clinton perjured himself.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So yes, the Republican-controlled House could probably drum up a charge to impeach him, but it would never pass the Senate so they probably won't unless they get a surprise majority in the Senate.

Again, Bill Clinton says hi.

The odds for conviction are pretty low, but impeachment is near-guaranteed short of some positive black swan and/or a sudden and convincing reversal of Obama on this issue.

[erik]

Clinton perjured himself.

Since he wasn't actually convicted of this, can't we just as well say he did everything else he was accused of yet not convicted of? =-)

[edit:] I should note I am being snarky.

He likely expected he could get away with his affair given the history of the presidency. Before it was unprecedented to have the secret service compelled to testify against the president in fishing expeditions for wrongdoings and having to face a $70M crusade against his penis.

Clinton was getting impeached no matter what anyway, it wasn't about whether he should be, it was about whether the Republicans could attempt it. Which I think is Lago's point. There could have been zero wrong-doing by Clinton with Lewinski, and he still would have been impeached.

Now, I don't think it will happen to Obama mostly because Republicans are too fractured and some number of them can remember that they failed against Clinton.

[Mistborn]

Again, Bill Clinton says hi.

The odds for conviction are pretty low, but impeachment is near-guaranteed short of some positive black swan and/or a sudden and convincing reversal of Obama on this issue.

Attempting to impeach Clinton was a political disaster for the GOP and the have even less ground to charge Obama with something. The may be batshit insane but you would think they wouldn't fuck themselves over in the exact same way.

[K]

Clinton perjured himself.

He actually didn't. He used legal wording to obscure the truth, a perfectly legal tactic.

By the legal definition of "sex," he didn't have sex. Legally speaking, blowjobs only count as "sodomy," so they could not impeach him because there was no evidence to contradict his statement from a legal standpoint since all parties testified to blowjobs and not intercourse.

If they had only asked, "did you ever sodomize that woman?", then they might have been able to get him to lie.

That being said, you can impeach the President on any grounds. He really is mostly a figurehead for Congress.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Attempting to impeach Clinton was a political disaster for the GOP and the have even less ground to charge Obama with something. The may be batshit insane but you would think they wouldn't fuck themselves over in the exact same way.

Where the hell has your ass been for the last 4-4.5 years? Or just yesterday? The GOP is engaged in much crazier forms of self-harm than politically-motivated impeachment. Like, oh, the Ryan budget or immigrant-hating or minority vote suppression. They've tried to repeal the ACA literally dozens of times and mounted a credible threat to make the U.S. default on the budget.

Trust me, the insanity isn't going to abate if the GOP expands their majority in the House and captures a Senate majority.

[Kaelik]

Hey Lago, are you going to admit you are wrong and completely full of shit when this crazy asspull prediction fails just like every other crazy asspull prediction you have ever made?

No, great, then I can go back to ignoring everything you say about politics.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hey Lago, are you going to admit you are wrong and completely full of shit when this crazy asspull prediction fails just like every other crazy asspull prediction you have ever made?

Oh, I've been wrong about a bunch of stuff. For example, the Tea Party revolt for the 2013 SotH elections that never came to be. I thought that they were more organized than they were -- I wasn't expecting it to be that pathetic. And I also completely fucked up on predicting that Boehner wouldn't suspend the Hastert Rule for the past several rounds of budget negotiations.

I may be wrong about this crazy-ass prediction, too, but I think the underlying logic is plausible if a bit cynical. Specifically, which premise do you disagree with or want to forward that would destroy the chain of logic? That this proposal won't cause a 2014 Republican sweep for any number of reasons? That the Republicans are crazy but not that crazy?

Help a poster out here, Kaelik.

[Kaelik]

1) No, this won't cause a 2014 sweep because this, just like everything else that happens before October will have absolutely no bearing on the election.

2) Even if the Republicans did have a majority they would not be stupid enough to impeach Obama over nothing. Republicans are stupid, but their stupidity is not universal and undirected. Otherwise they wouldn't be so good at lying to people. Their directed stupidity does not involve engaging in an impeachment campaign against Obama when that will allow the Democrats to make fools of them by voting it down. They learned that lesson, and converted it into a successful campaign of just lying over and over where they can't be contradicted on Fox news.

3) Your contention that because Republicans once did something they will do it again doesn't even apply, because Clinton at least questionably did something that someone untutored in the law could believe was perjury, where as Obama has done fuck all nothing that is even remotely considered illegal by anyone.

[John Magnum]

Excuse me, but what about Benghazi Soetoro Solyndra College Records Drone Al-Awlaki Whistleblower Fast & Furious Eastergate Sharia Hussein Kenya? I'm pretty sure that's the most illegal shit ever conceived. And that's aside from the fact that Obama personally performed three abortions for his own daughters.