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/Cons utional 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 cons uents. 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 cons uents. 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/20...-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 subs ute '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 subs ute '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 subs ute '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 ( in 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 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 ers 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 ( in 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 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 it up for the entire nation.

[boutons_deux]

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

and there's plenty of "Christian" assholes who believe that "God wants ME ME ME to 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 Cons ution, 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/nationwo...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/2011/07/1...e+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