So what Exactly did the left get out of the debt deal

[gendoikari]

Holy crap, I've been busy and the only explainations of the new deal have been lengthy at best, can anyone give me a basic run down?

[CornetJoyce]

We got screwed again.

[Martin Blank]

The liberal left will probably say that they fended off cuts to Social Security and Medicaid in the current agreement, even though these are being left to the new "Super Congress" to sort out.

Other than that, they got nothing. More to the point, they got John Boehner's original offer, with a couple deadlines extended (for the "Super Congress", stretched out until Thanksgiving; for the debt ceiling, most likely until the beginning of 2013).

As far as working people are concerned, we got austerity in slow motion and the transformation of Congress into a rubber stamp for the Twelve Patriarchs and First Consul Obama.

[RadioRaheem84]

I just got off of work (funny how work can cut you off from the world) and do not know what the hell happened.

Could someone plz give me a quick run through and how we got screwed again?

[Welshy]

I just got off of work (funny how work can cut you off from the world) and do not know what the hell happened.

Could someone plz give me a quick run through and how we got screwed again?

Basically the Debt deal got passed. This deal would include about $1 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 year with $22 billion this year. No cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid and etc. The Super Congress is established which will have a trigger of $1.8 trillion in automatic spending cuts from defense and domestic spending (apparently social security, medicare, medicaid and etc. will not be included in this trigger) if the Super Congress can come up with cuts by Thanksgiving or if Congress doesn't pass the cuts they come up with. So far no tax increases have been included in the trigger and the republicans claim that the Super Congress won't increase taxes though the democrats say that tax increases will be on the table.

[¿Que?]

I don't know much about this, but the defense cuts is actually a positive outcome.

However, why go through all this in the first place? Obama could have used the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling, and tell the tea party jerks to go fuck themselves.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't know much about this, but the defense cuts is actually a positive outcome.

However, why go through all this in the first place? Obama could have used the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling, and tell the tea party jerks to go fuck themselves.

Because it would make him look like an undemocratic authoritarian when the elections are getting nearer.

[¿Que?]

Because it would make him look like an undemocratic authoritarian when the elections are getting nearer.
I see your point. However, I believe this would have galvanized the left around him, seeing as the general consensus even among Dems is that he's a spineless pushover and an ineffectual leader.

EDIT: Furthermore, it seems to me the only time this president has shown real leadership is when he's killing teenage pirates or invading sovereign countries to murder a has been terrorist... Let's not forget that discretionary spending includes education :(

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I see your point. However, I believe this would have galvanized the left around him, seeing as the general consensus even among Dems is that he's a spineless pushover and an ineffectual leader.

EDIT: Furthermore, it seems to me the only time this president has shown real leadership is when he's killing teenage pirates or invading sovereign countries to murder a has been terrorist...

I think he's proven many times that he doesn't care about what the left thinks, it couldn't be more clear that he really does care what the right says. Or in more correct terms he doesn't give a shit about workers but really does care what cappies think of him. Why else would he have so brazenly given us the finger and propose cuts that went beyond what Repubs even initially wanted? To show them he's open to austerity measures being pushed through. Not to mention his support of "Super Congress" which is just going to be a way to push their stuff through faster.

[¿Que?]

I think he's proven many times that he doesn't care about what the left thinks, it couldn't be more clear that he really does care what the right says. Or in more correct terms he doesn't give a shit about workers but really does care what cappies think of him. Why else would he have so brazenly given us the finger and propose cuts that went beyond what Repubs even initially wanted? To show them he's open to austerity measures being pushed through. Not to mention his support of "Super Congress" which is just going to be a way to push their stuff through faster.
Exactly. With such a strong bargaining chip as the 14th amendment, you'd think things would have turned out a little better for the left and workers in general. If what you said wasn't true, then I think things would have gone a lot better, and we revolutionaries would be having a harder time of convincing liberals and social dems that the system is truly screwed.

[gendoikari]

The liberal left will probably say that they fended off cuts to Social Security and Medicaid in the current agreement, even though these are being left to the new "Super Congress" to sort out.

Other than that, they got nothing. More to the point, they got John Boehner's original offer, with a couple deadlines extended (for the "Super Congress", stretched out until Thanksgiving; for the debt ceiling, most likely until the beginning of 2013).

As far as working people are concerned, we got austerity in slow motion and the transformation of Congress into a rubber stamp for the Twelve Patriarchs and First Consul Obama.

Hold the fucking bus there, what's this about a super congress?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Hold the fucking bus there, what's this about a super congress?

6 people from both parties decide what the law is going to look like and then it goes to Congress where they can only vote on it. Really no debate for them, they can't add amendments, they just say yay or nay then it goes to the president.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The upshot is that some of the cuts will probably come out of military overspending. Then again, chances are slim that we'd see the serious changes in the level of military spending that are really needed. And of course there aren't the needed taxes for the rich.

[Fulanito de Tal]

6 people from both parties decide what the law is going to look like and then it goes to Congress where they can only vote on it. Really no debate for them, they can't add amendments, they just say yay or nay then it goes to the president.

How are super congress people chosen?

[gendoikari]

6 people from both parties decide what the law is going to look like and then it goes to Congress where they can only vote on it. Really no debate for them, they can't add amendments, they just say yay or nay then it goes to the president.

Jesus fucking christ. So this is where it all begins, the beginning of the end.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

How are super congress people chosen?
From what I understand people from within both parties, meaning party leaders.

[Ingraham Effingham]

echoes of the enabling act of 1933...just slightly less obvious, and in slow motion

[Martin Blank]

echoes of the enabling act of 1933...just slightly less obvious, and in slow motion

Not the Enabling Act, but the 18th Brumaire (http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200:the-18th-brumaire-of-barack-obama&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=53).

[Leonid Brozhnev]

poHeeM5-sZI

Any truth to this? I know RT can be biased, but this shows the US is no farther from falling off the cliff. The only thing that is certain is that working class people are getting shafted while a small few reap the benefits... guess nothing's changed in that respect.

[gendoikari]

The worst part about it is that no one seems willing to do anything about it. The liberal left is just saying they'll vote for obama or a third party, while we get stuck choosing between two tyrants. A choice between two tyrants is not democracy.

[Aazadi]

The 'left' ? In the US congress? Hahaha :rolleyes:

[gendoikari]

in congress there are no lefties, there are only moderate conservatives and goose stepping pinheads.

[socialistjustin]

The Super Congress won't do anything so we're pretty much guaranteed to have the trigger cuts happen. I like that defense is on the table, but the discretionary cuts are going to hurt.

I remember talking to many social democrat friends about Obama before he got elected about how he might be a different kind of president, a european social democrat. Well we didn't even get that, we got a full third term of Bushonomics and Bush doctrine foreign policy. I hope people dont buy this "hope and change" garbage the next time sombody uses it as a campaign slogan.

[Wired]

The Super Congress

Can someone explain to me what this is? I've heard about it a few times in passing but I still dont have much of an idea.

[Welshy]

Can someone explain to me what this is? I've heard about it a few times in passing but I still dont have much of an idea.

It is a committee of 6 republicans and 6 democrats from the house and senate, who will come up with $1.5-$1.8 trillion in cuts for the next 10 years that would be put before both the house and the senate for an up or down vote. If they fail to come up with the cuts or if congress fails to pass the cuts they come up with, we get $1.5 trillion in automatic cuts split between military and domestic spending.

[gendoikari]

It is a committee of 6 republicans and 6 democrats from the house and senate, who will come up with $1.5-$1.8 trillion in cuts for the next 10 years that would be put before both the house and the senate for an up or down vote. If they fail to come up with the cuts or if congress fails to pass the cuts they come up with, we get $1.5 trillion in automatic cuts split between military and domestic spending.

I highly doubt we're going to see the automatic cuts. Something about this "super Congress" Sounds downright Orwellian. I mean what's next a super board of education to decide what really happened in "history". No, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The Super Congress won't do anything so we're pretty much guaranteed to have the trigger cuts happen. I like that defense is on the table, but the discretionary cuts are going to hurt.

I remember talking to many social democrat friends about Obama before he got elected about how he might be a different kind of president, a european social democrat. Well we didn't even get that, we got a full third term of Bushonomics and Bush doctrine foreign policy. I hope people dont buy this "hope and change" garbage the next time sombody uses it as a campaign slogan.
Why don't you think the Super Congress will do anything? 6 members of both parties who probably have the most political influence getting together to make austerity measures for us. Or do you think the good ol' Democrats won't let that happen, and can't be pressured into it even though they've been shown to be total frauds when it comes to every other "progressive" measure. If Super Congress doesn't get something done I will be very surprised and if anything better than a miniscule amount of defense spending gets cut I will be surprised to.

Capitalists want austerity, Super Congress is made to try and push it through in a very authoritarian manner that bypasses all this discussion in the Senate or House.

[gendoikari]

12 Corporate moles go in, one consulate of the new aristocracy will walk out. That's how I see this thing going down. Maybe not in name but ... still.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

12 Corporate moles go in, one consulate of the new aristocracy will walk out. That's how I see this thing going down. Maybe not in name but ... still.
Exactly, not good news for us.

[gendoikari]

Exactly, not good news for us.

granted that's a bit of a hyperbole, but it's not going to be FAR off.

[BostonCharlie]

What did the left get out of this? The possibility of reaching some people who see the screwing coming their way and are open to the idea that both capitalist parties are their enemies and that revolutionary transformation is the only alternative to ruin.

As to whether much of anyone in the US left is capable of successfully reaching out to such people is a different issue.:crying:

[¿Que?]

For those of us who thought cutting defense was a good idea, I would suggest reading Amy Goodman's piece today which connects the debt ceiling bill with militarism.
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/08/us-debt-ceilings-connection-war

The security category includes "Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence community [and] international affairs." This sets up a dynamic where hawks will be trying to cut as much as possible from the State Department's diplomatic corps, and foreign aid, in order to favour their patrons at the Pentagon and in the weapons industry.
So it looks like what's going to happen with the cuts is less diplomacy, less foreign aid, so as not to sacrifice spending on weapons and hardware. Fuck all this mess, period.

[Luc]

"So what exactly did the left get out of the debt deal"

An ass wopin'

[gendoikari]

For those of us who thought cutting defense was a good idea, I would suggest reading Amy Goodman's piece today which connects the debt ceiling bill with militarism.
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/08/us-debt-ceilings-connection-war

So it looks like what's going to happen with the cuts is less diplomacy, less foreign aid, so as not to sacrifice spending on weapons and hardware. Fuck all this mess, period.

Really? I'm a pro gunner and I see several military projects that should have been cut long ago. Fortunately the F-22 and the F-35 program were. But there's still the osprey that should have been cut decades ago, the commanche which while dead now is a colossal waste, the Laser jumbo jets. ... the list goes on. oh and the XM8 program. What kind of moron thought it was going to be a good idea to put a semi automatic grenade launcher on an infantry weapon. Come on people. What ever happened to the military programs that were aimed at increasing the fighting power of the american military and decreasing it's budget, like that which created the F-16.

[BostonCharlie]

What ever happened to the military programs that were aimed at increasing the fighting power of the american military and decreasing it's budget, like that which created the F-16.

I would hope that they would all shrivel up and blow away. The amerikan military is the enemy of all working people of the world and its demise as a weapon that amerikan capitalists wield against the oppressed people of the world is a necessary precondition for a humane socialist world.

[¿Que?]

Really? I'm a pro gunner and I see several military projects that should have been cut long ago. Fortunately the F-22 and the F-35 program were. But there's still the osprey that should have been cut decades ago, the commanche which while dead now is a colossal waste, the Laser jumbo jets. ... the list goes on. oh and the XM8 program. What kind of moron thought it was going to be a good idea to put a semi automatic grenade launcher on an infantry weapon. Come on people. What ever happened to the military programs that were aimed at increasing the fighting power of the american military and decreasing it's budget, like that which created the F-16.
Pretty much what BostonCharlie said. Keep talking though, let's see where this goes. You think the US military should be setting up military bases in foreign countries as well?

[~Spectre]

The only bright side is that it further exposes the fraud that is "capitalist democracy". Now to do something about.

[socialistjustin]

Why don't you think the Super Congress will do anything? 6 members of both parties who probably have the most political influence getting together to make austerity measures for us. Or do you think the good ol' Democrats won't let that happen, and can't be pressured into it even though they've been shown to be total frauds when it comes to every other "progressive" measure. If Super Congress doesn't get something done I will be very surprised and if anything better than a miniscule amount of defense spending gets cut I will be surprised to.

Capitalists want austerity, Super Congress is made to try and push it through in a very authoritarian manner that bypasses all this discussion in the Senate or House.

The Dems will send in 6 liberals while Boehner already said 6 anti tax repubs will be named to the super congress. The result will be a stalemate. I would be surprises if the Dems pass only cuts again because they would have to worry about primary challenges.

[gendoikari]

Pretty much what BostonCharlie said. Keep talking though, let's see where this goes. You think the US military should be setting up military bases in foreign countries as well?

oh hell no. The military budget is way over bloated. But still. I'm only pro military so far as it's necessity. It's use as a tool for oppression is tragic but an ironic one at that. See the military service members are human. And a good deal I know are either far left or socialists themselves. So if it comes down to a full scale revolution. We might actually be able to count on the military, or part of it. Especially the brass whom are actually educated.

[Metacomet]

oh hell no. The military budget is way over bloated. But still. I'm only pro military so far as it's necessity. It's use as a tool for oppression is tragic but an ironic one at that. See the military service members are human. And a good deal I know are either far left or socialists themselves. So if it comes down to a full scale revolution. We might actually be able to count on the military, or part of it. Especially the brass whom are actually educated.


You honestly think so?

[gendoikari]

You honestly think so?

.... I honestly HOPE so. otherwise we're fucked. Cause our next best option is the NOC, and that's a long shot at best, albeit the ideal solution.

[MarxSchmarx]

What did the left get out of this? The possibility of reaching some people who see the screwing coming their way and are open to the idea that both capitalist parties are their enemies and that revolutionary transformation is the only alternative to ruin.

As to whether much of anyone in the US left is capable of successfully reaching out to such people is a different issue.:crying:

Good point.

The question is which people? I can't think of most working-class Americans as having any real investment in this debt ceiling debate.

To be sure there is a segment of NPR-sy liberal crowd that is incensed and for whom this is a teachable moment. And the problem with that group is their material circumstances are such that capitalism works quite well for them.

One subgroup that the left should stop lampooning are liberal ex-Obama supporting young people who are not really benefiting from capitalism, but who still follow enough current events and have a life outside of politics. I think the key is to fundamentally change their discourse about capitalism as such rather than this or that policy. That's a logical starting point.

That the left has no interest in making its message to these groups more compelling is just maddening.

[gendoikari]

Well to be fully honest there are two things we need to do.

1. Educate the general populace on what socialism really is, and dispell the propaganda.

2. Unite ALL socialist parties in america so we aren't fighting against one another and self sabotaging ourselves like the republicans/tea party.

Edit: Easier Said than done, though.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The Dems will send in 6 liberals while Boehner already said 6 anti tax repubs will be named to the super congress. The result will be a stalemate. I would be surprises if the Dems pass only cuts again because they would have to worry about primary challenges.
And what makes you confident that they'll send in 6 "liberals" which will end in a deadlock? Where are these liberals, do they even exist anymore and are they politically even relevant with major clout in the government? I have a feeling they will send in the Democrats who will be like "Hey we're going to make a compromise" like they have been since Obama got elected. Democrats have a funny way of showing they're such progressives and that they care about anybody but the rich because they consistently buckle under their demands. And that presupposes that they aren't just playing this game where they act like they care about workers and keep telling us that they have to buckle to these demands. But okay let's pretend like these politicians pass something down the road either through Super Congress or through the regular method(Because this isn't going away anytime soon). What will happen? Majority will be cuts and they might raise taxes a little bit or close tax loopholes. Who's winning in this situation? Yay they raised taxes a little bit, such a victory! But that will come with bigger cuts for us and maybe more taxes on us. A Dem or Repub "win" is not a win for anybody but the cappies and to expect the Dems to suddenly come out of the corner swinging with the track record they have seems a little naive to me.

When we see who gets picked for the Super Congress everything will be a lot clearer, but that's just where I think it's going towards from right now. Either way working people are going to get fucked with cuts and maybe more taxes to pay.

[AnonymousOne]

Does it have to be six from each party? Because then there goes our good friend Bernie Sanders from being involved at all.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Does it have to be six from each party? Because then there goes our good friend Bernie Sanders from being involved at all.
That's a good question, I think it's just six from the House and 6 from the Senate(which means six Repubs from the House since they control it and six Dems from the Senate since they control it). But yeah they're not going to pick Bernie Sanders out of all people, then nothing would get done and they know it...

[Martin Blank]

The Super Congress is composed of 12 people:

Three leading House Republicans
Three leading House Democrats
Three leading Senate Republicans
Three leading Senate Democrats

They will all be senior officials. Perhaps not exactly people like Boehner or Pelosi or McConnell or Reid but rather their chief lieutenants, like Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer. Boehner may put Paul Ryan on the Super Congress, but we'll see. Similarly, McConnell might put Rand Paul on there, but that's less likely. Do not expect to see any liberal Democrats from the House or Senate on the Super Congress -- especially not Sanders, since he is neither a Democrat (he only caucuses with them) nor close enough to the leadership.

[bcbm]

The question is which people? I can't think of most working-class Americans as having any real investment in this debt ceiling debate.

if the debt ceiling wasn't raised that would have impacted people on ssi and a lot of other government programs, which would be a lot of working class people. the 'compromise' reached slashes a lot of those programs as well, things like education, child care, environmental protection, nutrition, job training... (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/united-states-of-austerity)

[MarxSchmarx]

if the debt ceiling wasn't raised that would have impacted people on ssi and a lot of other government programs, which would be a lot of working class people. the 'compromise' reached slashes a lot of those programs as well, things like education, child care, environmental protection, nutrition, job training... (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/united-states-of-austerity)

But people weren't making that connection. Most Americans who work work in the private sector and with the exception of social security, medicaid and their children's school receive very little in the means of substantive benefits from the government already. None of these programs were seriously under threat because they fall outside of the discretionary spending rubric.

Only programs that served very poor people, disabled people and that affect a technocratic middle class were really threatened, but these have also been cut down so massively that they are at the federal level quite useless. I suppose there are a few high profile symbolic institutions like the national parks or something but those are far-removed from most people's minds. Besides, no one seriously expected the united states to default.

People are worried about jobs. Except the elderly, American workers receive by and large so little help from the state that the whole debate was quite abstract and removed from people's day to day lives.

[A Marxist Historian]

The Super Congress is composed of 12 people:

Three leading House Republicans
Three leading House Democrats
Three leading Senate Republicans
Three leading Senate Democrats

They will all be senior officials. Perhaps not exactly people like Boehner or Pelosi or McConnell or Reid but rather their chief lieutenants, like Eric Cantor, Steny Hoyer, John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer. Boehner may put Paul Ryan on the Super Congress, but we'll see. Similarly, McConnell might put Rand Paul on there, but that's less likely. Do not expect to see any liberal Democrats from the House or Senate on the Super Congress -- especially not Sanders, since he is neither a Democrat (he only caucuses with them) nor close enough to the leadership.

Actually, I think it doesn't matter who is picked, because I find it very hard to imagine that the Super Congress will be anything other than deadlocked. Obama wants to compromise, but the Tea Partyites and the Republicans in general do not.

And why should they? If it all comes crashing down and catastrophe ensues, Obama, being the President, gets blamed and you get a smashing Republican victory in 2012.

Obama might like to just pretty much do what the Tea Party wants, but the Democrats in Congress, being closer to the voters and worried about their re-election, really can't.

Perfect recipe for deadlock.

So if you want to know what will actually happen, look over the failsafe provisions for what happens in the case of a deadlock. Pretty grim stuff. OTOH it does involve big cuts in the military budget, might compel the US to actually get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and drop the Libya thing.

Which is something Obama wants at this point, since the US has pretty much lost the Iraq war already, is in the process of losing in Afghanistan, and is getting nowhere fast in Libya. So Obama badly needs a cover for getting out and letting Iran, the Taliban and Qaddafi win. And this would be the perfect excuse.

This would also mean slashing all social programs without exception to ribbons, but that's something Obama wouldn't mind either, if he can blame the Republicans for it.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

oh hell no. The military budget is way over bloated. But still. I'm only pro military so far as it's necessity. It's use as a tool for oppression is tragic but an ironic one at that. See the military service members are human. And a good deal I know are either far left or socialists themselves. So if it comes down to a full scale revolution. We might actually be able to count on the military, or part of it. Especially the brass whom are actually educated.

Sure, a lot of soldiers are not going to want to shoot at their friends and relatives if the American people rise up. That's exactly what happened in the '60s. When they sent in the 82nd Airborne to put down the massive ghetto revolt in Detroit in 1967, they had to pull it out 'cuz it was mostly black and minority, and replace it with the mostly white southern 101st.

And by the end of the Vietnam War, your average soldier was much more interested in smoking dope and fragging his officers than fighting the Vietcong, which is why Nixon had to get out.

Now we don't have a draft army anymore, but it is if anything even *more* heavily minority than during Vietnam, because of the "economic draft." Trying to use a heavily minority US army vs. a genuine popular rebellion here, which inevitably would be led by the racial minorities, just wouldn't fly.

But it's the rank and file soldiers who will go over to the people. Not the brass!

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Good point.

The question is which people? I can't think of most working-class Americans as having any real investment in this debt ceiling debate.

To be sure there is a segment of NPR-sy liberal crowd that is incensed and for whom this is a teachable moment. And the problem with that group is their material circumstances are such that capitalism works quite well for them.

One subgroup that the left should stop lampooning are liberal ex-Obama supporting young people who are not really benefiting from capitalism, but who still follow enough current events and have a life outside of politics. I think the key is to fundamentally change their discourse about capitalism as such rather than this or that policy. That's a logical starting point.

That the left has no interest in making its message to these groups more compelling is just maddening.

MS has a point there. The outraged NPR crowd at most will decide Obama is a sellout, flirt with the idea of voting for Ralph Nader next time, and then come election time remember what happened the last time some of them voted for Nader, and will hold their noses, vote for Obama, and grumble about it uselessly.

The young folk who voted for Obama because they really thought he'd bring "change we can believe in" can definitely be talked to, and the thing to say to them is *not* that Obama is a sellout, but that capitalism is no good, socialism is the answer, and the Democratic Party is just as bad as the Republican, including the "progressive left wing" Democrats too.

As far as I am concerned, the only change we can really believe in is the dictatorship of the proletariat. That does however have to be explained in more popular terminology.

-M.H.-

[Martin Blank]

There is some truth in what you're saying here, but I would not count on it staying this way for long. I have a sense that the ground is going to shift greatly in the coming weeks and months.

MS was right in his comments about the whole debt debate being an abstraction to those who are not directly affected. I tend to think that was somewhat intentional -- i.e., that making the "negotiations" into a kind of sick Kabuki theater for petty-bourgeois "public opinion" was a great way to bury the real issues at stake and keep most people from noticing the anti-democratic, anti-worker foundation of the entire agreement, most notably the so-called "Super Congress". Even on here, there were members who hadn't heard of it until after the deal was signed.

At the moment, the question isn't whether or not the "Super Congress" will actually be able to do something, but rather it's a question of how far beyond its mandate the "Super Congress" will ultimately go. The current economic situation (especially as it has been developing recently) could intensify the existing conditions and give this body a greater relevance for the ruling classes, allowing it to more properly fulfill its role as the replacement for the old bourgeois-democratic forms.


Actually, I think it doesn't matter who is picked, because I find it very hard to imagine that the Super Congress will be anything other than deadlocked. Obama wants to compromise, but the Tea Partyites and the Republicans in general do not.

And why should they? If it all comes crashing down and catastrophe ensues, Obama, being the President, gets blamed and you get a smashing Republican victory in 2012.

Obama might like to just pretty much do what the Tea Party wants, but the Democrats in Congress, being closer to the voters and worried about their re-election, really can't.

Perfect recipe for deadlock.

So if you want to know what will actually happen, look over the failsafe provisions for what happens in the case of a deadlock. Pretty grim stuff. OTOH it does involve big cuts in the military budget, might compel the US to actually get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and drop the Libya thing.

Which is something Obama wants at this point, since the US has pretty much lost the Iraq war already, is in the process of losing in Afghanistan, and is getting nowhere fast in Libya. So Obama badly needs a cover for getting out and letting Iran, the Taliban and Qaddafi win. And this would be the perfect excuse.

This would also mean slashing all social programs without exception to ribbons, but that's something Obama wouldn't mind either, if he can blame the Republicans for it.

[Metacomet]

Sure, a lot of soldiers are not going to want to shoot at their friends and relatives if the American people rise up. That's exactly what happened in the '60s. When they sent in the 82nd Airborne to put down the massive ghetto revolt in Detroit in 1967, they had to pull it out 'cuz it was mostly black and minority, and replace it with the mostly white southern 101st.

And by the end of the Vietnam War, your average soldier was much more interested in smoking dope and fragging his officers than fighting the Vietcong, which is why Nixon had to get out.

Now we don't have a draft army anymore, but it is if anything even *more* heavily minority than during Vietnam, because of the "economic draft." Trying to use a heavily minority US army vs. a genuine popular rebellion here, which inevitably would be led by the racial minorities, just wouldn't fly.

But it's the rank and file soldiers who will go over to the people. Not the brass!

-M.H.-

I thought the military was more and more white, upper middle class evangelicals?

[MattShizzle]

Does the Left ever get anything out of politicians in the US?

[A Marxist Historian]

There is some truth in what you're saying here, but I would not count on it staying this way for long. I have a sense that the ground is going to shift greatly in the coming weeks and months.

MS was right in his comments about the whole debt debate being an abstraction to those who are not directly affected. I tend to think that was somewhat intentional -- i.e., that making the "negotiations" into a kind of sick Kabuki theater for petty-bourgeois "public opinion" was a great way to bury the real issues at stake and keep most people from noticing the anti-democratic, anti-worker foundation of the entire agreement, most notably the so-called "Super Congress". Even on here, there were members who hadn't heard of it until after the deal was signed.

At the moment, the question isn't whether or not the "Super Congress" will actually be able to do something, but rather it's a question of how far beyond its mandate the "Super Congress" will ultimately go. The current economic situation (especially as it has been developing recently) could intensify the existing conditions and give this body a greater relevance for the ruling classes, allowing it to more properly fulfill its role as the replacement for the old bourgeois-democratic forms.

You could be absolutely right. If the European debt crisis leads to a fullblown worldwide capitalist collapse, 2009 again but worse, then the Democrats and Republicans will forget their squabbles and the Super Congress will be the instrument for doing exactly what the bankers tell them to do, no more no less, and Congress and Obama will go along like sheep.

And that *would* mean ripping up all the things that are allegedly protected from being messed with in the budget deal, notably Social Security, Medicaid and (but only partially!) Medicare. They'd find a loophole, or line up the Congress sheep to give them one.

Would the American working class simply put up with that like more sheep? I don't think so. Historically, the history of the American working class has been marked by long periods of seeming passivity interrupted by explosions of working class struggle *exceeding* those in most other countries in their militancy.

We shall see.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I thought the military was more and more white, upper middle class evangelicals?

Not from what I hear. Now that service in the military is just about the *only* way for racial minorities to get out of poverty, other than the drug trade, you have increased enlistment by minorities, fear of death in Afghanistan or not. After all, the drug trade is pretty dangerous too.

Now at the officer level is another story.

-M.H.-

[KC]

Not from what I hear. Now that service in the military is just about the *only* way for racial minorities to get out of poverty, other than the drug trade, you have increased enlistment by minorities, fear of death in Afghanistan or not. After all, the drug trade is pretty dangerous too.

Do you have sources to support this? The only sources I can find are from 5-10 years ago and iirc don't reflect this.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I thought the military was more and more white, upper middle class evangelicals?
I don't know about them being white or not but they definitely are not mostly upper class. We had a thread in here a while ago that showed the incomes military people came from and the overwhelming majority of the people in the military came from families or incomes that were less than $100,000 a year. I would show you the evidence but I'm doing this with my PS3 so it really is not a good time to try and find that thread/source again...

[Reznov]

We got screwed again.

I don't see why so many people seemed surprised?

We are Communists, and we can only settle for the complete abolishment of Capitalism.



... Oh okay, I admit it, I don't care to read about the debt deal.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

And to add a little more dynamics to the situation our credit rating just got downgraded by S&P...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html

[AnonymousOne]

And to add a little more dynamics to the situation our credit rating just got downgraded by S&P...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SampP-downgrades-US-credit-apf-2107320979.html

Yeah, not only did we get screwed over by the debt deal, but what we were trying to avoid happened anyway. God. Damn. It.

[Welshy]

Things like this:


The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.and this:


S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees less reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period.makes me think that the Super Congress and the Presidency will push for more austerity out of a sense of urgency to prevent further down grades.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

With things like this:



and this:



makes me think that the Super Congress and the Presidency will push for more austerity out of a sense of urgency to prevent further down grades.
Exactly what I was thinking. Obama's and the Dem's reason for buckling will now be because they didn't want to get downgraded even more.

[tanklv]

Deleted by author for duplication and problems with transmission because of internet problems...

[tanklv]

We got screwed again.

Beaurifully put - succinct and eloquent.

I had written nice long response, but the internet "timed out" again and I lost everything I wrote.

So I'll try to be brief before I "crap out" again:

Amerikkka = alcoholic
Alchoholic has to "reach bottom" before they can begin healing.
Amerikkka is on the way to finding that bottom

We will find out what would have happened if the US did not follow FDR's path - something the intellectually curious always wondered about.

The US has virtually no "left" in the country to speak of - it is marginalized and unorganized and miniscule.

Amerikkka = Weimar Germany at this point, in it's own unique version.
Amerikkka is more likely to find similar results with a fascist "solution" to it's problems - 10 to 1 - instead of a Russian/Cuban solution - there are too many ignorant sheeple out there who will be easily frightened and mislead.

[tanklv]

The Dems will send in 6 liberals while Boehner already said 6 anti tax repubs will be named to the super congress. The result will be a stalemate. I would be surprises if the Dems pass only cuts again because they would have to worry about primary challenges.

The repukes will send in 6 teabaggers.
The dems will send in 6 conservative dems (IOW dems in name only)

There will be no "compromise" just like this time around - only capitulation by spineless dems.

"Liberals"? - Thanks for the laugh...

[KC]

makes me think that the Super Congress and the Presidency will push for more austerity out of a sense of urgency to prevent further down grades.

Austerity is short term. We are going to see a long-term rolling back of social services and publicly funded programs.

[heirofstalin]

the right wing pushed us closer into madness and a bloodbath, but they dont realize that tides can turn fast, and it could be them that drowns in the wrath of the people.

[Martin Blank]

Austerity is short term. We are going to see a long-term rolling back of social services and publicly funded programs.

Agreed that austerity is short term. What I expect is that the whole of the "austerity" package will be so deep and far-reaching that, when there is an inevitable ending of the period and easing of the "austerity measures, it would take long, protracted struggles to get back even half of what would be cut or eliminated.

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you have sources to support this? The only sources I can find are from 5-10 years ago and iirc don't reflect this.

5-10 years ago things were different. No particular sources, just what I pick up thru the grapevine, talking to people I know.

-M.H.-

[KC]

5-10 years ago things were different. No particular sources, just what I pick up thru the grapevine, talking to people I know.

I'd be interested to hear some sources, because I have friends in the military and have heard the opposite both from them and "thru the grapevine".