In the discussion over the $1 trillion platinum coin, Kevin says:
If you really want to stop debt ceiling hostage taking in the future, the way to do it is to make Republicans pay a political price for it. That will stop them.
True. But you know what? Most of us lefties don't want an economic collapse that everyone agrees is the GOP's fault, for which they pay a terrible price at the polls. Rather, we don't want an economic collapse at all.
If the platinum coin will forestall a GOP-induced economic calamity, then I'm all for it. We can figure out political winners and losers later.
[Why this video? Because the GOP is trying to take the economy hostage, along with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The platinum coin (and other workarounds) deprive the GOP of its hostage. And as John Goodman's character says (at about the 0:50 mark), "Without a hostage, there is no ransom. That's what 'ransom' is. Those are the fucking rules." 'Nuff said.]
Kevin's one of my favorite bloggers, and when I say I hate to call him out, I mean it: I really hate to call him out.
And really, I think he probably just lost sight of the implications of what he was saying. I've been reading him since his CalPundit days, and he's not the type to put political wins over doing substantive good or harm to real people.
But I think it's important to reiterate, at any point where there might be confusion, that beating up on the GOP isn't our goal; doing things that make this country work better for its citizens is. Beating up on the GOP is necessary to the extent that the GOP chooses to stand in the way, but if we can move them out of the way by other means, that suffices.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | January 08, 2013 at 03:12 PM
this whole discussion makes me tired. again.
persons attempting to demonstrate "fiscal responsibility" by crashing the economy cannot be taken seriously as statesmen.
if all of this is kabuki, then there isn't a hostage. i tend to think that most of 'em are not going to go through with denying a raising of the debt ceiling.
going to the 14th amendment or the platinum
albumcoin would be extraordinary measures -- a last-ditch salvation, should congress prove even stupider than usual. creating a conversation about them only detracts from the one clear message: we need the debt ceiling raised, no strings.Posted by: kathy a. | January 08, 2013 at 05:20 PM
Looks like a good many people are weary of our Congressional crew and its antics. Polling < head lice, colonoscopies and Trump. Might be funnier if they weren't so dangerously stupid.
Posted by: nancy | January 08, 2013 at 06:58 PM
I think Kevin's a supporter of 'ignore the debt limit as unconstitutional', which kinda takes the air out of the whole disaster thing.
Posted by: Crissa | January 08, 2013 at 06:59 PM
The question of where the threshold for stopping hostage negotiations is, has been the big splitting point on the leftier US blogosphere.
Posted by: Mandos | January 09, 2013 at 04:40 AM
Oh. My. God.
I didn't think even Republicans could be this dumb.
And this isn't some random wingnut. This is the NRCC, the National Republican Congressional Committee.
No, you imbeciles, you don't need $1 trillion worth of platinum in a platinum coin with face value of $1 trillion.
Good Lord almighty.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | January 09, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Must be a joke. Here's one I like:
pourmecoffee @pourmecoffee
Obama's worst day: "Honey, have you seen my trillion dollar coin? I can't find it." "Check the laundry, I think I heard something."
Posted by: paula | January 09, 2013 at 12:19 PM
they are not so good at critical thinking. ever hearda folding money?
here is how things are with the debt ceiling:
1. congress decides what to spend money on.
2. the executive branch carries out what congress decides; in this case, paying those debts. the executive is REQUIRED to pay the stuff congress has racked up.
3. which is why congress has always, in the past, raised the debt ceiling so the country can pay its bills.
who would loan money to a bum who racks up charges on the credit card, then refuses to pay the bill? how they think they can blame obama is beyond me.
Posted by: kathy a. | January 09, 2013 at 12:26 PM
OT, but related: Obama's nominee for next Treasury Secretary is a liberal with a head for numbers.
Posted by: oddjob | January 09, 2013 at 01:05 PM
lew looks great, oddjob. have only skimmed the backgrounder referenced in your link, but it looks very interesting. numbers whiz, meticulous prep, stays out of the spotlight, has both the economic and political savvy -- and he is devoted to protecting programs like SS and medicare.
Posted by: kathy a. | January 09, 2013 at 01:54 PM
CBS is highlighting that Lew is a "former Citibank executive." Big deal, he managed a hedge fund. He is not associated with the Federal Reserve and is not affiliated with the housing bubble. Basically a lifetime in public service. He looks fine to me.
Posted by: Bill H | January 10, 2013 at 01:11 AM
Lew was apparently deeply involved in the Clinton-era financial deregulation, and doesn't feel that failure to regulate meaningfully contributed to the crash of 2007-08.
Nonetheless, probably the only thing to be gained by objecting to Lew from the left is that it might convince the GOP that he can't be all that bad. It's not like we're going to get anyone better, and as y'all have pointed out, there are some positives in his resume as well.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | January 10, 2013 at 09:03 AM
yeah, ltc, that is the down side of lew. but it is not something that the GOP can exactly complain about. and the up sides -- to me, from a distance -- seem strong.
despite his deliberately low profile (which is a plus), he comes across as a bulldog on issues like the social safety net; he sounds very sensible on finance-related issues of the day.
Posted by: kathy a. | January 10, 2013 at 05:08 PM