Boehner says 60 Reps. won't accept any deal on debt

[EVAY]

Today's AP reports that Boehner said this week that "more than 60 of his members are unwilling to support any deal. Many say they are unworried about potential default."

My question to you all is this: Does this represent a lack of leadership on Boehner's part (the inability to move his own party members to accept any deal whatsoever), or does it represent the fact that these folks will pay no attention to anyone in their party leadership? If it is the latter, I fear that the Republican Party is in more trouble than most rank-and-file Republicans imagine.

As far as I can tell, only Rush Limbaugh and his audience believe that there would be no problem with failing to raise the debt limit. Are these 60 folks idealogues or cynical?

[CosmicCowboy]

Today's AP reports that Boehner said this week that "more than 60 of his members are unwilling to support any deal. Many say they are unworried about potential default."

My question to you all is this: Does this represent a lack of leadership on Boehner's part (the inability to move his own party members to accept any deal whatsoever), or does it represent the fact that these folks will pay no attention to anyone in their party leadership? If it is the latter, I fear that the Republican Party is in more trouble than most rank-and-file Republicans imagine.

As far as I can tell, only Rush Limbaugh and his audience believe that there would be no problem with failing to raise the debt limit. Are these 60 folks idealogues or cynical?

I see it as a high stakes poker game with neither side having a great hand and both sides bluffing.

[boutons_deux]

"only Rush Limbaugh and his audience believe that there would be no problem with failing to raise the debt limit"

nope.

Bachmann last weekend said Geithner can and would pay up after a default (when you make up your own Biblical/Constitutional shit interpretations, you are free to ignore all laws and rules made by man), so a default was no problem, nothing but crying wolf. Other anarchist right-wing nutcases are saying the same.

At the state level, WI of all German places is running out beer because the shutdown is blocking processing of state liquor licenses.

[coyotes_geek]

I think there's a bunch of republicans who are pretending to take a hard line stance because they know a deal will get done with or without their vote.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see it as a high stakes poker game with neither side having a great hand and both sides bluffing.

I think CC summed it up nicely..

[coyotes_geek]

I see it as a high stakes poker game with neither side having a great hand and both sides bluffing.

Agreed. Both sides know a deal has to be done. Both sides know that deal will upset a lot of their constituents. Both sides want to make it look like the deal is the other side's doing and they were forced into going along with it.

[Drachen]

To a sane person, what was wrong with the deal that Boehner and Obama presented (last week I think).

(the grand bargain)

[baseline bum]

Agreed. Both sides know a deal has to be done. Both sides know that deal will upset a lot of their constituents. Both sides want to make it look like the deal is the other side's doing and they were forced into going along with it.

I gotta agree 100% with this. It'll be great ammo for both sides in 2012.

[hater]

To a sane person, what was wrong with the deal that Boehner and Obama presented (last week I think).

(the grand bargain)

it would have made Obama look capable

[boutons_deux]

House Republicans Introduce Bill To Pay Military If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised |

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/14/269178/house-republicans-bill-pay-military-debt-ceiling/

nutters Bachmann and TX Gohmerde co-sponsored

[EVAY]

To a sane person, what was wrong with the deal that Boehner and Obama presented (last week I think).

(the grand bargain)

The significant word here is 'sane'. Or substitute 'reasonable'. In the Obama/Boehner plan, everybody's ox got gored, and the country would have been able to reduce the debt by over $4 T in a decade. NO other plan being put forward has that amount involved, including Cantor's.

I really thought it was a courageous move by both men, but it appeared almost certain to go down to defeat by both parties' extremists before it ever got a start.

Which leads me back to an expansion of my first question...can neither Obama or Boehner lead their parties?

They certainly can't seem to command the kind of obedience that used to prevail in parties.

[EVAY]

I see it as a high stakes poker game with neither side having a great hand and both sides bluffing.

As far as it goes, CC, I think you are right. Neither side has a great hand. But it is exactly the height of the 'stakes' that makes me angry with both sides for the gamesmanship. Posturing in public is one thing...but this seems to me to go further than that by some, and that has me worried about the breakdown of political party leadership on both sides.

No leadership acknowledgment by rank and file congressional representatives equals chaos, imho.

I don't see how you get a real negotiated compromise without accepted leadership.

[coyotes_geek]

The significant word here is 'sane'. Or substitute 'reasonable'. In the Obama/Boehner plan, everybody's ox got gored, and the country would have been able to reduce the debt by over $4 T in a decade. NO other plan being put forward has that amount involved, including Cantor's.

I really thought it was a courageous move by both men, but it appeared almost certain to go down to defeat by both parties' extremists before it ever got a start.

Which leads me back to an expansion of my first question...can neither Obama or Boehner lead their parties?

They certainly can't seem to command the kind of obedience that used to prevail in parties.

Good take.

Obama & Boehner appear to be capable of playing their politics while still working towards a deal that needs to get done. Cantor is the guy being the real jackass about all this.

[Drachen]

The significant word here is 'sane'. Or substitute 'reasonable'. In the Obama/Boehner plan, everybody's ox got gored, and the country would have been able to reduce the debt by over $4 T in a decade. NO other plan being put forward has that amount involved, including Cantor's.

I really thought it was a courageous move by both men, but it appeared almost certain to go down to defeat by both parties' extremists before it ever got a start.

Which leads me back to an expansion of my first question...can neither Obama or Boehner lead their parties?

They certainly can't seem to command the kind of obedience that used to prevail in parties.

Good question. Maybe everyone comes together on the last day and puts it through after a week of political posturing (fuckin weak). It makes both guys and parties look good if they pass this. Even conservative columnists are asking WTF are the congressional repubs doing ("deal of a lifetime" I believe was the quote).

The thing that makes me the most nervous is the crap that people are trying to put through as a contingency for the day after like paying the troops. Not that I want the troops to not get paid, but all that does is allow for them to kick the can even further. Just get this shit done. We are past the need for austerity.

[boutons_deux]

What was cut in the $4T?

I know the MIC/DoD just got double digit increase for next year. Those vampire squid fuckers never fail to suck $Ts out of Human-Americans.

[EVAY]

Good question. Maybe everyone comes together on the last day and puts it through after a week of political posturing (fuckin weak). It makes both guys and parties look good if they pass this. Even conservative columnists are asking WTF are the congressional repubs doing ("deal of a lifetime" I believe was the quote).

The thing that makes me the most nervous is the crap that people are trying to put through as a contingency for the day after like paying the troops. Not that I want the troops to not get paid, but all that does is allow for them to kick the can even further. Just get this shit done. We are past the need for austerity.

I agree with all of your points.

Does anyone think that Boehner could get a deal passed with none of the 60 plus republicans voting for it (I genuinely don't know the answer to this because I have no clue how the house breaks down on passing stuff). For example, does this mean that all the dems would have to vote for it?

I would love to think that "everyone" coming together on the last day ismore than wishful thinking. I just don't know, and it is making my stomach hurt.

[coyotes_geek]

He can get something passed without those 60. He only needs 218 votes to pass something, so that's 217 spots for the hardliners and those wanting to be perceived as hardliners to vote against a deal.

Now Harry Reid and the senate OTOH............

[EVAY]

He can get something passed without those 60. He only needs 218 votes to pass something, so that's 217 spots for the hardliners and those wanting to be perceived as hardliners to vote against a deal.

Now Harry Reid and the senate OTOH............

Thanks, CG. That's useful information.

I honestly worry less about the senate because I believe those folks (maybe except the 1/3 due for reelection next year) are more likely to do what is best for the country.

Am I being naive?

[CosmicCowboy]

He can get something passed without those 60. He only needs 218 votes to pass something, so that's 217 spots for the hardliners and those wanting to be perceived as hardliners to vote against a deal.

Now Harry Reid and the senate OTOH............

Yeah, when it comes down to the actual vote it will look very similar to the Republican version of the Democrat health care vote...they will count their votes and then decide how many more they need...then they will look at every single no vote and see how vulnerable they are politically in their district. They will get enough of the "safe" representatives to begrudgingly switch their vote to pass it and let the vulnerable ones stick on no...

[MannyIsGod]

Sadly yes. All it takes is one asshole in the Senate to fuck it up for the entire nation.

[boutons_deux]

"one asshole in the Senate to fuck it up for the entire nation"

and there's plenty of "Christian" assholes who believe that "God wants ME ME ME to fuck up the nation (or start a war, or ...)"

[EVAY]

Yeah, when it comes down to the actual vote it will look very similar to the Republican version of the Democrat health care vote...they will count their votes and then decide how many more they need...then they will look at every single no vote and see how vulnerable they are politically in their district. They will get enough of the "safe" representatives to begrudgingly switch their vote to pass it and let the vulnerable ones stick on no...

This is sort of what I assume.

[boutons_deux]

Default risk widens rift within GOP

The once-vaunted unity of congressional Republicans has become a distant memory, crumbling under the pressure of the deadline to raise the government's credit limit.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a political warning that the party risked losing the next election if Republicans persisted on their current path.

So far, such warnings have had little impact in the House of Representatives, where many members of the Republican majority, particularly newly elected "tea party" conservatives, have vowed to let the government default on its bills rather than vote for any debt ceiling increase. House GOP leaders have said they will vote for an increase only if it is accompanied by a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, deep cuts to Medicare, or other spending restrictions that President Obama has rejected.

Currently, there is not a single debt limit proposal that can pass the House," Majority Leader Eric Cantor

"Look, he owns the economy," McConnell said. "We refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy."

McConnell fired back Wednesday, saying Republicans who think that the public will support them in the event of a government default were disastrously wrong. Default "destroys your brand," he said.

"Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "We've got nobody to blame but ourselves. We shouldn't have said that if we didn't mean it."

These Republicans dispute Obama's warnings that Social Security checks and other obligations may go unpaid.

"I would encourage the speaker not to believe the president anymore when he says things like that," Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Wednesday at a news conference organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-budget-stress-20110714,0,946391.story

[boutons_deux]

"Look, he owns the economy," McConnell said. "We refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy."

=========

McConnell always in touch with The American People:

Poll: Americans blame Bush for bad economy by wide margin

By a wide margin, more Americans blame former President George W. Bush for the national economic outlook than they do President Barack Obama, according to a new poll.

Numbers out of Quinnipiac University Thursday morning indicated that 54 percent of Americans say Bush is to blame for exploding the federal deficit and swelling unemployment, whereas just 27 percent believe it is President Obama's fault.

Those figures are bad news for Republicans, who are hoping to hang the nation's poor economic state around the president to defeat him in 2012.

By and large, Americans told Quinnipiac that they trust Obama on the economy more than congressional Republicans, despite a growing dissatisfaction. Fourty-five percent also said they trust the president to help the U.S. economy, versus 38 percent who believe Republicans could do a better job.

The poll also found that voters will largely blame Republicans, rather than Obama, if the debt limit is not raised. A further 67 percent of respondents said any debt deal out of Washington must include tax hikes for the wealthiest Americans.

Republicans, who voted nine times during the Bush-era to raise the nation's debt limit by over $4 trillion, have insisted that social safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security must be cut to balance the budget, but they've refused to even consider going back to pre-Bush tax rates for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, which they had once planned to do.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/14/poll-americans-blame-bush-for-bad-economy-by-wide-margin/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[RandomGuy]

A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

[ChumpDumper]

even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.Liberal blog!

[RandomGuy]

"Look, he owns the economy," McConnell said. "We refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy."


That was one of the most douchebaggiest things I have heard in a long time.

All the blame for the bad economy, but you can bet your sweet ass that if it were going great, he would be claiming credit. :bang

This jackass is just as responsible as the executive branch for both bad and good.

[CosmicCowboy]

That was one of the most douchebaggiest things I have heard in a long time.

All the blame for the bad economy, but you can bet your sweet ass that if it were going great, he would be claiming credit. :bang

This jackass is just as responsible as the executive branch for both bad and good.

We agree

It's OUR economy.

[boutons_deux]

But it's the criminal casino Banksters' Great Depression

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry - I know the Dems aren't very good - but they can't even hold a candle to this fucking GOP in terms of absolute idiocy.

[ElNono]

They'll bend over and sign the dotted line once they're done with the dog and pony show.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm afraid they won't. There's at least a sizeable risk of that at this point. And that in and of itself - when dealing with credit - is a bad thing.

[spursncowboys]

Since 06 when the Dems made the Pay-Go promise, have they actually done it once? They have been in power and overspent time and time again. Now everyone thinks the answer is to just increase the debt ceiling? this is ridiculous. Make the cuts now! I like Eric Cantor's position. If Obama wants to make a deal, he needs to talk to the real leader of the Republicans-Cantor. Instead of storming out of the meeting without answering his questions. IMO

[MannyIsGod]

Cantor turned down 4 trillion in cuts.

4 trillion in cuts.

4,000,000,000,000 in cuts.

Thats a lot of cuts.

[spursncowboys]

Hey I havterrible internet here. Can you give me the link of the breakdown from 4 trillion. i've been out of the loop.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Cantor

[MannyIsGod]

U.S. Republicans to pursue scaled-back deficit reduction in debt talks
English.news.cn 2011-07-10 10:34:06 FeedbackPrintRSS
WASHINGTON, July 9 (Xinhua) -- U.S. House Speaker John Boehner on Saturday rejected a 4-trillion-dollar deficit reduction deal with the White House, saying he would pursue a "smaller measure" in Sunday's upcoming talks at the White House.

"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes," Boehner said in a statement released Saturday night.

Boehner said he believes "the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."

The White House is negotiating with congressional leaders on a deal to raise the 14.29-trillion-dollar debt ceiling, it also involves cutting the federal budget deficit. The White House has proposed an ambitious plan to cut budget deficit by 4 trillion over 10 years, in exchange for closing some tax loopholes.

Boehner's statement means the two sides will focus on a scaled-back option of cutting 2 trillion deficit. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on Budget Negotiations put out a statement saying "we cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well."

The parties are due to attend talks Sunday in the White House. Pfeiffer said come Sunday, President Barack Obama "will make the case to congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge."

[ElNono]

What the GOP wants is to have this debt dog and pony show every 6 months all the way to the elections... They already got away with it once in March. They don't care about cuts or the limit. Cantor is the GOP's Pelosi, tbh.

[coyotes_geek]

Cantor turned down 4 trillion in cuts.

4 trillion in cuts.

4,000,000,000,000 in cuts.

Thats a lot of cuts.

All Cantor had to do was STFU and go along. Republicans would have gotten to brag about getting the largest package of spending cuts ever, with only having given up some corporate jet tax loopholes in return. Obama would have had to go explain to his base how he just gave away the largest package of spending cuts ever, with only having gotten some corporate tax loopholes in return. It was a clear win for the Republicans, but no. Cantor had to fuck it all up for them.

[MannyIsGod]

What the GOP wants is to have this debt dog and pony show every 6 months all the way to the elections... They already got away with it once in March. They don't care about cuts or the limit. Cantor is the GOP's Pelosi, tbh.

Bullshit, TBH. If Pelosi had gotten a shot at the Liberal equivalent of those cuts she would have taken it. Look at what she did with Obamacare. It was't perfect but she got down to business when she needed to. Cantor is a fucking idiot.

[EVAY]

Cantor seems incapable of accepting 'yes' for an answer.

[ElNono]

Bullshit, TBH. If Pelosi had gotten a shot at the Liberal equivalent of those cuts she would have taken it. Look at what she did with Obamacare. It was't perfect but she got down to business when she needed to. Cantor is a fucking idiot.

Pelosi wouldn't pass up some political grandstanding even if her life depended on it. And she did what she did with Obamacare because she had the majority of the chamber. That's exactly what Cantor and the GOP are doing.

[ElNono]

BTW, Cantor's proposal is to have the ceiling raised for 3 months and have talks again. It's not that he's opposing raising the ceiling. He's opposed to a longer term deal.

[MannyIsGod]

I dont' give a shit about political grandstanding as ALL politicians do that. My point is that she was handed a shit sandwich from the Senate regarding the bill - especially when you consider what the house had passed - and she didn't sit there and pout and reject it. She worked on it and passed it. She handled the house extremely well.

When Cantor does that, then you can compare him to Pelosi. For now he's just doing jack shit but stalling and hurting everyone involved in a debate where the stakes are even higher than the health care law.

Its the popular "centrist" thing to hate on Pelosi, but she's actually one hell of a pragmatic politician when she has to be.

[spursncowboys]

All Cantor had to do was STFU and go along. Republicans would have gotten to brag about getting the largest package of spending cuts ever, with only having given up some corporate jet tax loopholes in return. Obama would have had to go explain to his base how he just gave away the largest package of spending cuts ever, with only having gotten some corporate tax loopholes in return. It was a clear win for the Republicans, but no. Cantor had to fuck it all up for them.
If there were exact details. the 4 trillion was just future promised cuts. If Obama wanted to truely cut back he would start with any one of his cash cow social experiements. He wasn't serious and is wanting this as much politically as you are saying cantor did.

[spursncowboys]

Anytime a politician says we have to act now; that it's an emergency- hold on to your wallets.

[ElNono]

I dont' give a shit about political grandstanding as ALL politicians do that. My point is that she was handed a shit sandwich from the Senate regarding the bill - especially when you consider what the house had passed - and she didn't sit there and pout and reject it. She worked on it and passed it. She handled the house extremely well.

When Cantor does that, then you can compare him to Pelosi. For now he's just doing jack shit but stalling and hurting everyone involved in a debate where the stakes are even higher than the health care law.

Its the popular "centrist" thing to hate on Pelosi, but she's actually one hell of a pragmatic politician when she has to be.

You're comparing Apples and Oranges. Pelosi pulled through using her majority a law that the administration of the same party wanted. In that instance she had shown leadership and that she had full control of the majority.
If you want to pat her in the back for 'getting stuff done' when the administration is the opposing party, then you have to tap her in the back for not opposing the TARP and getting that done.

What Cantor is doing though, is undermining Boehner's leadership. Boehner was ready to sign off on the debt-limit negotiated with Biden but Cantor and his cronies won't budge, in another 'leadership' dog and pony show.

[EVAY]

If there were exact details. the 4 trillion was just future promised cuts. If Obama wanted to truely cut back he would start with any one of his cash cow social experiements. He wasn't serious and is wanting this as much politically as you are saying cantor did.

Obama said he was willing to take the heat on entitlement reform...he already has gone along with raising the age of eligibility for SS and some modifications to Medicare. You really need to catch up on what is being said by each side before you start opining.

You are a bit behind in the facts area.

[ElNono]

If there were exact details. the 4 trillion was just future promised cuts. If Obama wanted to truely cut back he would start with any one of his cash cow social experiements. He wasn't serious and is wanting this as much politically as you are saying cantor did.

Boehner thought the cuts were legit, as he negotiated them with Obama. What Boehner didn't like was the proposed tax hikes.

[Ignignokt]

lol Toros janitor

[EVAY]

What Cantor is doing though, is undermining Boehner's leadership. Boehner was ready to sign off on the debt-limit negotiated with Biden but Cantor and his cronies won't budge, in another 'leadership' dog and pony show.

This. +1000

[Ignignokt]

I dont' give a shit about political grandstanding as ALL politicians do that. My point is that she was handed a shit sandwich from the Senate regarding the bill - especially when you consider what the house had passed - and she didn't sit there and pout and reject it. She worked on it and passed it. She handled the house extremely well.

When Cantor does that, then you can compare him to Pelosi. For now he's just doing jack shit but stalling and hurting everyone involved in a debate where the stakes are even higher than the health care law.

Its the popular "centrist" thing to hate on Pelosi, but she's actually one hell of a pragmatic politician when she has to be.

She passed a bill without reading it. Yeah, total cunt.
fuck that bitch.

[spursncowboys]

I wouldn't call 60 repubs cronies. just because you don't believe in the tea party doesn't mean it is a bunch of politicians moving with the winds of popular opinion. especially cantor.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you really think every Republican reads every bill he or she votes on in its entirety, gtown?

[Ignignokt]

Cantor turned down 4 trillion in cuts.

4 trillion in cuts.

4,000,000,000,000 in cuts.

Thats a lot of cuts.

Promised cuts. That doesn't mean shit from this president who is not good with promises to his own base much less his opponents.

[ElNono]

I wouldn't call 60 repubs cronies. just because you don't believe in the tea party doesn't mean it is a bunch of politicians moving with the winds of popular opinion. especially cantor.

You give him too much credit. He's ready to sign raising the debt limit. He said as much himself and even offered it to Obama yesterday. He just wants to do it for a few months, not until the next presidential elections.

Not to mention that this makes Boehner looks like a powerless idiot. They're cronies because defaulting is irresponsible and affects everybody, not just one party. This looks worse on the GOP than you think.

[Ignignokt]

Do you really think every Republican reads every bill he or she votes on in its entirety, gtown?

Technically Pelosi doesn't have to read the whole bill, i'm fine if she atleast knows it's entirety, she could have her staffers summarize it for her, but this Obamacare bill was passed so fast that Pelosi didn't give time for anyone to truly research it. She emphasize the necessity to pass the bill first and then research it. That's idiotic. Fine, politicians will not read a bill but skim it, get a summary and pass it. But to openly acknowledge you've done neither and have no clue what's in the bill and then push it along is well, i shouldn't point it out for you.

[EVAY]

She passed a bill without reading it. Yeah, total cunt.
fuck that bitch.

Iggy...the articulate contributor to political and economic discussion.

[ElNono]

Promised cuts. That doesn't mean shit from this president who is not good with promises to his own base much less his opponents.

Budgeting is done by Congress. If Congress passes the cuts, only Congress can undo them.

[Ignignokt]

You give him too much credit. He's ready to sign raising the debt limit. He said as much himself and even offered it to Obama yesterday. He just wants to do it for a few months, not until the next presidential elections.

Not to mention that this makes Boehner looks like a powerless idiot. They're cronies because defaulting is irresponsible and affects everybody, not just one party. This looks worse on the GOP than you think.

Do you know what defaulting really means?

[Ignignokt]

Budgeting is done by Congress. If Congress passes the cuts, only Congress can undo them.

cool, then why does obama have to promise them? Ask him why don't you.

[Ignignokt]

Iggy...the articulate contributor to political and economic discussion.

Evay.... who's evay?

[spursncowboys]

If we are gonna hold Bush accountable for overspending, Obama needs to be held accountable too. Also Boehner is a powerless idiot. The irresponsibility is every politician on both sides spending, knowing this would happen. Bush was given the briefs of the spending and the consequences. Repubs were thrown out for that. Obama pushing obamacare, green energy initiative, tarp, etc in a pre-stagflation is the irresponsible one who needs to fix the problem. not try and get politcal cash and capital for the future election.

[ElNono]

Do you know what defaulting really means?

Sure I do. Do you?


cool, then why does obama have to promise them? Ask him why don't you.

Because that's how negotiations are done? Until they put it on paper and passes both chambers of Congress and the prez signs off on it, it's not official.

[ElNono]

If we are gonna hold Bush accountable for overspending, Obama needs to be held accountable too.

I don't think anybody is leaving Barry blameless for overspending. Especially on things he campaigned he was going to shut down, like the wars.

[clambake]

...not try and get politcal cash and capital for the future election.

you've been away a long time.

[spursncowboys]

Obama tried to build political support for an ambitious package of spending cuts and new tax revenue that would reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years. But from the moment he proposed it, Republicans said they would reject any tax increases and Democrats objected to spending cuts in some of their most prized benefit programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-seek-smaller-2-trillion-deal-002231729.html

[spursncowboys]

a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joe Biden had already identified, but not signed off on, about $2 trillion in deficit reductions, most accomplished through spending cuts.

[Ignignokt]

Sure I do. Do you?



Because that's how negotiations are done? Until they put it on paper and passes both chambers of Congress and the prez signs off on it, it's not official.

We would be fine aslong as we made interest payments. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean we can't be able to do that. Plus SS has a trust fund so seniors can still get their checks. If this agreement is so urgent and emergency, why doesn't Obama take boehner's short term plan?

[spursncowboys]

I like that they are getting atleast 2 T cuts. However I would love to see every loophole and subsities tak out. Best way to do that is a flat tax.

[ElNono]

We would be fine aslong as we made interest payments. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean we can't be able to do that. Plus SS has a trust fund so seniors can still get their checks. If this agreement is so urgent and emergency, why doesn't Obama take boehner's short term plan?

There are other side effects that are more problematic, like raised interest rates for everybody. You're also sending the message that you're not a trustworthy debtor, and that has implications on their own (other countries going away from using the dollar as a backing for their currency, which in turn reduces the leverage the US has)

Fortunately, I personally don't owe much so I don't think I would be affected much, but I think I'm in the minority here.

Obama won't take the short term plan because he doesn't want this to be this dog and pony show again 6 months from now. And again, and again.

Ultimately, if some sort of middle ground can't be reached, he might not have an option though. I can't think both the GOP and the Dems would be so irresponsible as to default.

[ElNono]

I like that they are getting atleast 2 T cuts. However I would love to see every loophole and subsities tak out. Best way to do that is a flat tax.

Supposedly, the 'tax hikes' weren't such. They were closing loopholes used today by very large corps. I don't think that was going to fly with either party tbh. Just a rumor though.

[Ignignokt]

There are other side effects that are more problematic, like raised interest rates for everybody. You're also sending the message that you're not a trustworthy debtor, and that has implications on their own (other countries going away from using the dollar as a backing for their currency, which in turn reduces the leverage the US has)

Fortunately, I personally don't owe much so I don't think I would be affected much, but I think I'm in the minority here.

Obama won't take the short term plan because he doesn't want this to be this dog and pony show again 6 months from now. And again, and again.

Ultimately, if some sort of middle ground can't be reached, he might not have an option though. I can't think both the GOP and the Dems would be so irresponsible as to default.
If it's an emergency, you'll take what you can get.

[ElNono]

http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-seek-smaller-2-trillion-deal-002231729.html

Yep. Dems are not flying with some of that stuff. Barry even said he would fight them if he had to. But the GOP didn't bite either.

[ElNono]

If it's an emergency, you'll take what you can get.

Right. The D-day is Aug 2nd. We'll see where we are then. If nobody is budging, then you would think there's no such emergency.

[Ignignokt]

And once again, reaching the debt limit doesn't mean you can't make interest payments. This is all baloney.

[Ignignokt]

Right. The D-day is Aug 2nd. We'll see where we are then. If nobody is budging, then you would think there's no such emergency.

The republicans don't have to budge, they're not saying that not meeting the deadline is catastrophic. This is all on the dems.

[spursncowboys]

Yeah and Geitner. And he's never used the scare tactic before, and has a proven record of competence.

[ElNono]

The republicans don't have to budge, they're not saying that not meeting the deadline is catastrophic. This is all on the dems.

Mitch McConnell is saying exactly that.

[ElNono]

"If we're unable to come together, we think it's extremely important the country reassure the markets that default is not an option," McConnell said (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078884-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody).

[ElNono]

Yeah and Geitner. And he's never used the scare tactic before, and has a proven record of competence.

tbh, they all used it before from both sides of the aisle... Paulson was just as adamant with the TARP.

[spursncowboys]

Paulson was almost criminal with his hyperbole and making the Banking CEO's sign and accept the tarp even when some banks didn't want it.

[ChumpDumper]

Technically Pelosi doesn't have to read the whole bill, i'm fine if she atleast knows it's entirety, she could have her staffers summarize it for her, but this Obamacare bill was passed so fast that Pelosi didn't give time for anyone to truly research it. She emphasize the necessity to pass the bill first and then research it. That's idiotic. Fine, politicians will not read a bill but skim it, get a summary and pass it. But to openly acknowledge you've done neither and have no clue what's in the bill and then push it along is well, i shouldn't point it out for you.You didn't answer the question.

Par for the course.

[Jamtas#2]

Can't we all just be honest and place the blame on both parties?

A very simplified generalization:
Democrats have run on platforms of making things more available to their voters by way of government spending without rasiing the revenue for it, and Republicans have run on platforms of cutting taxes without eliminating spending to make up for it.

They both have been buying votes at the expense of our futures down the line. Basically, tell the people what they want to hear and get elected.

Trouble is, our bill as a nation is starting to become due and no true leadership has emerged.

Puit a damn nanny cam in the room and televise this thing on CSPAN after they finish for the day. Would love to hear what they say when they think there is no one recording them. We already see what comes out of their mouths when they know it.

[spursncowboys]

I agree completely Jamtas. I would love to hear what they say too but one thing Greenspan said in his book was when they started recording his Fed Chairman meetings, alot of brainstorming was lost because no one wanted to say the wrong thing.

[boutons_deux]

"lot of brainstorming was lost because no one wanted to say the wrong thing."

I read where the entire US economics profession works for the Fed, gets paid for writing papers, doing studies, giving speeches, etc.

If you want a career in economics, you don't cross the Fed, like calling out Greenspan and his sycophants for completely missing the housing/mortgage bubble and the insanely risky betting in the Wall St casino with CDO, CDS, etc, for not raising the interest rate to stop the bubble.

Greenspan said it was "exuberant enthusiam" and "Wall St would regulate itself". He's one of the primary culprits/enablers in the Banksters' Great Depression.

[LnGrrrR]

My question to you all is this: Does this represent a lack of leadership on Boehner's part (the inability to move his own party members to accept any deal whatsoever), or does it represent the fact that these folks will pay no attention to anyone in their party leadership? If it is the latter, I fear that the Republican Party is in more trouble than most rank-and-file Republicans imagine.

It proves there's at least 60 stupid Republicans in Congress.

[MannyIsGod]

Can't we all just be honest and place the blame on both parties?

A very simplified generalization:
Democrats have run on platforms of making things more available to their voters by way of government spending without rasiing the revenue for it, and Republicans have run on platforms of cutting taxes without eliminating spending to make up for it.

They both have been buying votes at the expense of our futures down the line. Basically, tell the people what they want to hear and get elected.

Trouble is, our bill as a nation is starting to become due and no true leadership has emerged.

Puit a damn nanny cam in the room and televise this thing on CSPAN after they finish for the day. Would love to hear what they say when they think there is no one recording them. We already see what comes out of their mouths when they know it.

Plenty of Democrats have run on raising taxes.

[CosmicCowboy]

I like the nanny cam idea.

Put this shit on CSPAN.

[Jamtas#2]

I agree completely Jamtas. I would love to hear what they say too but one thing Greenspan said in his book was when they started recording his Fed Chairman meetings, alot of brainstorming was lost because no one wanted to say the wrong thing.

Oh, I'm not saying they shouold be aware it is being recorded...hence the nanny cam and not a traditional recording device.

[Jamtas#2]

Plenty of Democrats have run on raising taxes.

I don't dispute that. That is why I started by saying that I was making a very simplified generalization.

But the takeaway still is that the democratss may campaign on the taxes to pay for the programs, but when the programs come, the revenue isn't there to pay for them and when the republicans get their tax cuts, they are paid for by reduced spending...again, in general.

[MannyIsGod]

I can't fault Democrats for their inability to raises taxes given GOP obstructionism. I definitely wish that Obama and congressional Democrats had fought harder on that front, but in the end the GOP most definitely own those tax cuts.

[MannyIsGod]

Not to mention that without the Bush cuts we wouldn't even need to talk about raising taxes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The republicans don't have to budge, they're not saying that not meeting the deadline is catastrophic. This is all on the dems.



Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's said on Thursday that there is a 50 percent chance it will downgrade the U.S. government's credit rating within three months because of the congressional impasse over approving an increase in the debt ceiling.

In a statement, the rating agency said it is placing the United States on a credit watch with at least a one-in-two likelihood that it will lower the country's debt rating within the next 90 days.

The S&P action marked the second credit warning in the past two days. On Wednesday, Moody's Investors Service said it is reviewing the government's triple-A bond rating because it believes the White House and Congress are running out of time to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit and avoid default.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/14/standard-poors-warns-it-may-downgrade-us-credit-rating/#ixzz1SBPN9q00


:lmao