I think the people calling for Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment were idealistic. There was too much downside potential. It would have gone to SCOTUS and a loss would have been devastating. Obama would then have had to go back to the table with the US in default and no bargaining power. The more I read about the deal I am becoming convinced that what Obama did was to provide cover for the Republicans to allow a tax increase without them having to vote directly for it. The cuts that have to be done without it are just not going to happen. I read a good explanation of the mechanics of the deal and why this was the most likely outcome. I will see if I can find it.

I concur with a lot of this. I also think that the prominent people who were calling for him to invoke the 14th were doing it deliberately to make sure there was a threat on the table, and it was a necessary threat. Had not a deal happened, I believe he would have done it.

I guess I keep coming back to my main motto in politics: if I wouldn't want a President Palin to have the power of ______, I don't want a democratic president to use such a power unless it were absolutely beyond question necessary. (It's a new motto.) We can go around and around on whether the 14th was necessary in this case, but I'm not sure I completely buy it at the moment. It WOULD have been necessary, it was necessary to have the knowledge that it could have been used, but with a deal, it wasn't.

Also, I do believe that the deal does include revenue increases, just ones put on the table by the super committee. I don't see how that's avoided, particularly now with the wording in the credit downgrade explanation. The wording of the folks commenting after the deal was passed seemed to make it clear that revenue was NOT off the table, and it certainly seems that way now.

As always, I could be wrong. I've only had my first cup of coffee.

As painful as it will be for those on fixed budgets, a little inflation right now would be helpful. This downgrading will be inflationary. It may kick start something. The key is for the benefits to outweigh the disadvantages. For a large portion of the population already reeling, this is going to be an even more difficult time. But there may be a silver lining in the clouds.

I've always wondered WTF good a silver lining is.

No "deal" that didn't include revenue would prevent this catastrophe. All this "deal" did was damage our economy further while utterly failing to avert the catastrophe used as justification for doing it.

While this may not be quite the catastrophe an actual default would have been, Obama could have unilaterally prevented the default itself. It is my belief that keeping that option on the table, and presenting an appearance of serious intent of using it, would have had a greater chance of obtaining concessions. Further, whether or not he won or lost in a year in court, the action would have been irrevocable by then. Obama would also have been seen as saving the economy from imminent catastrophe.

As it is, Obama is completely complicit in whatever now happens and, worse, is absolutely insanely claiming that S&P is wrong. Why? Because he is now politically married to it, even though he obviously signed it with the equivalent of a gun to his head, having "nobly" promised he wouldn't use his own gun before the fight even started.

It may, in fact, have been politically impossible to avoid anything but the default itself, but if you're the President, the buck stops with you, and if you have signed a "deal" and continue to endorse it after its clearly catastrophic results, it's your fault.

I see no canny political calculation here, just capitulation and disaster. What is especially galling is that now the very terrorists who forced this issue, the teabaggers, will be able to gloat that they were opposed to this "deal," while this albatross will be around Obama's neck forever.

As James Carville once said: "If Hillary gave Obama one of her balls, they'd both have two."

There is the potential of revenue increases. I won't believe that actually happens until I see it, though. Without some incredible new technology, I don't see the Democrats having any more spine in 2012 or 2013 than they do now.

SCOTUS sometimes makes a vastly unpopular choice but rarely one in which they would be actually flushing the economy down the toilet with 80 percent of the population opposed. When they make such a decision, generally it is either somewhat against the trend, with a growing minority supporting something (striking down sodomy laws or laws against interracial marriage), or against the trend in the opposite direction, when a majority supports something which is, in actuality, an expansion of government power (Lochner Era cases).

Not even in the Lochner Era has the Supreme Court made a decision that literally would throw the country off a cliff with immediate effect. They might get four for such a decision (I think either Alito or Roberts would side with the executive), but no way does a pragmatist like Kennedy go along with that.

Even a loss would have to be 5-4, along partisan lines, and would have to be narrowly and deferentially worded to get Kennedy aboard. It would also probably be prospective in effect, as SCOTUS would be entirely powerless to un-spend the money, in which third parties would by then have vested property rights, or to order Congress to enact legislation or to impeach the President. What could they reasonably do?

This is just not the kind of thing even a partisan SCOTUS does.

The right branch to address such an actual usurpation by the President (since my personal opinion is that unilaterally raising the debt ceiling actually is unconstitutional) is Congress. They could impeach or STFU. What they'd actually do is blame the President, very likely ratify his actions after the fact to retain the illusion that they have the power, and keep spending.

Obviously, IMO.

There was no need to cut this "deal" to stop the default. If the downgrade was inevitable, though, as many seem to think, there was no reason to sign a "deal" that wouldn't stop it, and that accomplishes nothing but screwing over America.

Interestingly, some on the left are claiming that Obama actually intended this horrible outcome. I'm not yet inclined to view the President as an outright villain, though.

Oh, well. This "deal" at least doesn't preclude something better after the election, but a Republican may very well be at the helm. The short-term economic devastation that will happen as a result of Obama's failure to lead will be at its height during election season, an outcome I am sure the Republicans intended. Obama was led down a primrose path to the slaughterhouse.

Rinse and repeat.

One thing that drives me batty is this Lionisation of Hillery Clinton to downgrade Obama. Guess what, Hillery would have forged a deal too and it probably would have been the same deal Obama forged. FDR would have taken a deal. Hell FDR forged horrible deals with Dixiecrats and he actually HAD a filibuster proof majority. Hell even the mighty FDR "caved" to Republicans and Dixiecrats in 1938 and caused a new recession. Stop bitching that previous presidents would not have done this deal because they would have.

And the 14th amendment would not have gained new revenues. It would have meant Obama would have to cut al around him to paythe depts. He was already beginning to draw up lists to prioritize what payments make in order to service the debts, so he WAS quietly invoking the 14th already. It was not simply a matter of raising the debt ceiling himself as he does not have the power to do that. In short, invoking the real 14th would have been disastrous, far worse than the deal.

The GOP Used its power under the constitution to land a heads I win tails you lose scenario. Invoking the real 14th, not the one inside peoples heads, would have casued a downgrade as much as the deal and lead to an even worse recession.

Are we going to be listening to this whining for the next 18 freaking months, as I really don;t feel like reading Obama being blamed for Boehner farting. Even the S&P dosen't lay the blame on Obama, and Obama is the one politician on this who's approval has actually gone UP.

That's an interesting perspective ZorbasLeGreque. I hadn't heard that one before.

What Suranis said x50.

S&P made it quite clear who's at fault here. Obama did what he had to do to get something passed despite Republican House leaders so afraid of teabaggers that they could not function and the overriding threats of filibuster in the Senate.

A SCOTUS case and near-certain impeachment hearings by the 'baggers over invocation of the 14th amendment in the house during the 2012 campaign would have thrown this country into even more chaos.

And I'm so SURE Hillary would have done such a better job...

Assume that Obama knew two things:

1) That the GOP's intent was and is to damage his Presidency so that he cannot be re-elected.
2) That neither he nor any other president could or would permit the U.S. to default on its debt.

Should he have played chicken with the Republicans? I think so. With his constant meetings with Republican leaders, very frequent appearances on national television, and ultimate acceptance of a deal that solves no problems in the long term, he projected an image of weakness and indecisiveness. He went all the way from "must have a clean raising of the debt ceiling" through "any deal must contain revenue enhancements" to "I accept this deal even though I don't like it," followed by "S&P is wrong to condemn this deal." The Republicans stood fast. The people lost. Unless the Republicans nominate a certifiable nut, I cannot see Obama being re-elected. Nor can I see another Democrat being elected in the near future. The mantra will be that Democrats cannot be trusted to manage the economy. Obama lost big time, and he has cost the country big time.

We'll have to disagree on FDR in 1938, though he cut a bad deal. If Obama should be imitating anyone under circumstances like the debt ceiling debate, it would be LBJ.

However, if I've gotten snarky in these exchanges, I will point out precisely why, right here.



If there's anything that's genuinely angered me in these exchanges, it is this kind of stuff. Stop telling me what to say, please. It's as uncivil as it gets. I will say what the goddamn hell I please. With all due respect.

In general I do not think the President of the United States should be playing chicken. I don't consider it a leadership quality.

Obama told that jerk, Cantor not to call his bluff.

The jerk did.

Obama caved.

And it didn't help that Obama told Cantor it was a bluff. As I've said before, Obama wants to be liked and to seem reasonable. So when he plays 5 card stud he turns his hole card up before the betting begins.

Obama should never have taken the 14th amendment option off the table. When he did he lost all of the leverage he had.

When I voted for Obama I knew he was a middle of the road conciliator but I also thought he'd be true to his core beliefs. I saw strength when the economy tanked and McCain panicked. Obama didn't panic. His campaign stayed on course and on message. I haven't seen that President much when things have gotten tough. The Republicans are now playing hardball and Obama is playing badminton. Sad, really. I think he's blown his opportunity to be re-elected unless the Republicans nominate someone other than Mitt Romney.

Booman just quoted something which puts the debt negotiations in a new light



Which means there was more going on behind the scenes. Obama knew that 4 trillion deal was what was needed to save the ratings, So Obama pushed for that and Pelosi stood beside him pushing it with him (as progressives screamed), and when Bohner walked away from it the ratings were in serious danger and the dems would have pushed for the best deal they could.

So, if this was correct, there was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes none of us knew about and probably STILL don't know about.

What he actually said was that his bottom line was that there could be no repeat of this in 6 months. And he was preparing to use the 14th regardless. The real 14th. And regardless of what you think of his image, I repeat that he was the only figure who's approval has gone up since the negotiations.

Why is it that I always feel like I';m the only one who remembers the context of that quote



The bluff that was being called was The GOP asking FOR A SHORT RESOLUTION AND ANOTHER FIGHT IN 6 MONTHS. The President held the line on that. The Presidents Bluff was called and The president got what he wanted.

It had NOTHING to do with the flipping 14th amendment. Obama was actually beginning to invoke the 14th when talks were concluded.

Good grief. Disagree with the guy all you want but don't put words into his mouth he didn't say or misquote him out of context.

Just like everything else having to do with the economy, we have the competing views of the analysts as to what it means and what the markets are going to do. They seem to agree it is not a good thing and that our government is not acting rationally to put itself on a more secure footing. Markets hate uncertainty. We got a deal to raise the debt ceiling but the deal was not one that really settled anything down the line and left a gigantic cloud of uncertainty hanging over the whole picture.

We saw a minor meltdown in the stock market on Thursday, but there seemed to be no safe place to run to. Even gold dipped which is very unusual in a big sell off. Europe is in bad shape and is having its own default crises one after the other.

I think a lot depends on whether or not Congress gets the message and begins to act rationally. I am not betting on it. When you look at all the various actions that have cost more that any savings, like the FAA fiasco, the real threat to recovery are the people elected to destroy the ability of the government to function. Are the voters going to do a better job of looking out for their interests and the welfare of their children? Not likely as long as the media continues feeding them anti-government garbage. There is no good reason why we did not have a WPA type jobs program early on in the recession. There is still no reason not to do it now. But the Tea Party is not rational and will not allow it to pass.


For the time being, Crazy has won and nobody knows how to deal with this level of insanity.

Well, in my system Parliament would have been dissolved over this mess and you would have them out of office by now. Unfortunately in yours once you elect crazy you are stuck with them for 2/6 years. That's one weakness of your system, sadly

Obama said a lot of things over the months leading up to the debt ceiling. They encompassed all that I mentioned.

Where do you find support for the assertion that Obama's approval rating has gone up since the negotiations? He is indeed doing far better than Congress. However, Obama's approval ratings were at an all-time low for him a few days ago. It's too early for the polls to reflect S&P's decision.

Please provide proof of this statement.

That's what Viscount James Bryce argued in The American Commonwealth (1888). He did not understand how a system of fixed terms could work without invoking cumbersome methods of reading the public mind between elections. These methods included referenda, which he saw as too expensive and slow to be practical. Bryce also favored a parliamentary system. Somehow the American democracy has survived this flaw

This I believe to be true. Our side can say the future now holds revenue increases but I will believe it when I see it. We need to start declaring first principles that we will not violate and then sticking to those principles in all these "negotiations."

If the Republicans can declare no higher taxes and stick to it, surely we can find some lines we will not cross, some principles we will not barter, some citizens we will not throw under the bus for expediency.