Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Krugman's Perspective on the Deal [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)91. You had a really key phrase there...
"I know we think we can play chicken with them in February, but chicken works only if the other side is rational enough to care about the vehicle coming at them from the other side."
This is and has been the problem all along. They are not rational.
I am afraid that until they are rational, or until they are relegated to zero ability to affect progress of legislation, we are going to have to fight political holding actions against them. Its a victory when no entitlements are cut and its a major victory when any kind of tax increase is made on the highest income folks. We got both of those in the deal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's right. The flip side of negotiation is appeasement. As the UK learned in the late 30s, the
coalition_unwilling
Jan 2013
#49
Yeah, I'm okay with this latest deal. But I was also okay with going off the cliff, and thought
Honeycombe8
Jan 2013
#74
I'm ok with this temporary deal, although the estate tax is now permanent.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2013
#10
The difference is in the short-term effects versus the long-term effects.
Jackpine Radical
Jan 2013
#19
No, the effects of climate change and good predictive evidence on the other points are clear enough
alcibiades_mystery
Jan 2013
#48
If President Obama can't stand firm on raising the debt ceiling, the Senate Democrats must.
RickFromMN
Jan 2013
#9
It is sad that so few at DU understand this, even though it is right out in the open
BlueStreak
Jan 2013
#58
Krugman is expert at using multivariable calculus and differential equations to describe the economy
stevenleser
Jan 2013
#64
I think Krugman is right. And also that Obama is infinitely smarter than his political foes.
Zen Democrat
Jan 2013
#41
Not a dime. They kicked that down the road, and it will get caught up in the next hostage-taking
BlueStreak
Jan 2013
#59
But at the same time they did this nominal increase in tax rates, they also gave multi-millionaires
BlueStreak
Jan 2013
#60
I love that you and the other "pragmatic" third wayers are throwing Sanders' name around.
MessiahRp
Jan 2013
#78
I'm not a "3rd wayer", but nice try at deflection. You have no explanation so you attack.
stevenleser
Jan 2013
#81
I've seen a number of people who attack Sanders at every turn, bandy his name about today
MessiahRp
Jan 2013
#90
If that is your theory then why get sore at the natural responses to getting poked?
TheKentuckian
Jan 2013
#71
"...evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff
Egalitarian Thug
Jan 2013
#75
Bad taste in what progressives' mouths?? I think most of the progs who wanted Bush Tax Cuts expire
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2013
#79