Debt Ceiling Chicken

As an outsider it's really weird watching a country commit suicide.

Greg wrote:

I am not a big fan of the President. But I can't help but be impressed with his press conference. I wish he grew his spine about four years ago. This Debt Crisis could be the bounce that he needs to assert himself as a strong leader.

I would hate to be a Republican Leader today.

FTFY..

lol It's good that polling agrees with reality, but I doubt reality cares.

The amazing thing is that they expected Obama to cave then, and some Republicans think he'll cave yet. Maybe if they'd let him implement their health care act, and taken joint credit for it, he'd have been inclined to give in. But there's only so many times you can walk away from the table before *everyone* figures out that you're not there to negotiate.

In case anyone missed it, here's Obama's address from last night.

bandit0013 wrote:

Polling seems to agree with your statement. If we're just talking about winning elections Obama might be better off letting them drive it off the cliff.

I watched both speeches tonight, and I couldn't help but sigh when Boehner said this wasn't about elections, when we have a leading member of the Republicans saying, on television and on tape, (I believe it was McConnell) that his #1 priority was making Obama a 1-termer. There's an increasing feeling for me that that's really what this is all about, that they feel this is a war, and they're willing to do whatever they have to do to win, including tank the entire damn country if it gives them 2012.

I mean lord, it seems that at this point, Erickson's helping call the shots. Boehner can't actually compromise because if he did, the coup that would transpire would make what happened to Lumumba look pleasant.

We deserve this. We voted these clown shoes in. Here's hoping we do default and everyone gets to see what happens when you vote for ideological purity over governance.

If this was a poker game, the best way to describe what is happening would be that Obama just slow rolled the GOP into going all in on a 2 9 off suit.

Prederick wrote:

Boehner can't actually compromise because if he did, the coup that would transpire would make what happened to Lumumba look pleasant.

He's been able to get the democrats offer concessions that would be a good trade for the republican side if tea party didn't have a bug up its ass about taxes. I think Obama actually WANTS to cut social security and medicare and is looking for a partner on the right to make it happen, but he can't deal with lunatics for whom "good deal" equals "surrender."

DSGamer wrote:

We deserve this. We voted these clown shoes in. Here's hoping we do default and everyone gets to see what happens when you vote for ideological purity over governance.

The only problem with this is that the people who don't understand this yet, simply never will. We default, and it'll be the fault of "those damn liberals" (or worse).

Both sides have examples of ridiculously blinded zealots, but unfortunately the Republican side currently has both politically blinded zealots and religiously blinded zealots supporting them.

What I find odd about this whole situation is why there is such resistance to a compromise from the right. Are they really willing to gamble their entire political future over raising the taxes on one freaking percent of the population?

Personally, I won't take this "debate" seriously until someone stands up and questions why we're spending a bajillion dollars on the military.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House GOP leaders are planning a vote Thursday on a proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. The vote comes as Congress struggles to pass legislation increasing the government's borrowing cap to avoid a U.S. default. Many tea party-backed lawmakers are insisting on passage of a balanced budget amendment before they consider voting for an increase in the debt limit.

Very realistic position there. The time it would take for such an amendment to pass, which these guys don't want anyway, is measured in years.

Funkenpants wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Boehner can't actually compromise because if he did, the coup that would transpire would make what happened to Lumumba look pleasant.

He's been able to get the democrats offer concessions that would be a good trade for the republican side if tea party didn't have a bug up its ass about taxes. I think Obama actually WANTS to cut social security and medicare and is looking for a partner on the right to make it happen, but he can't deal with lunatics for whom "good deal" equals "surrender."

And keep in mind that many logical people agree with Obama that cuts to entitlements would be beneficial. I'm pretty much a turbo liberal and I support increasing the minimum age and reducing benefits to the rich. This seems like an almost deafening example of the GOP being whiny, whiny babies.

Bear wrote:

What I find odd about this whole situation is why there is such resistance to a compromise from the right. Are they really willing to gamble their entire political future over raising the taxes on one freaking percent of the population?

Yes. Because that is a very large chunk of the money who donate to campaigns (practical concerns), and who pay for lobbyists (echo chamber). And it is by no means purely a conservative thing.

Listening to NPR this morning one analyst said that the GOP has been given point after point that they'd asked for, reductions in medicare & social security, 1:1 parity between spending increases and cuts as well as general amounts of cuts and reducing the amount of taxes they were seeking. Though as we've mentioned here the GOP keeps moving the goalposts and that it seems no matter what is offered to them they will just continue to say no.

Hasn't this been going on for years now? I remember talking about that on here a couple years ago. Of course Boehner also stated that he's got the solution, a 6 month increase to the debt limit so that they can continue to debate and that the only reason Obama isn't agreeing to that plan is because it's all about protecting Obama's re-election bid. While I agree the 2 year part of Obama's proposal is about keeping the debt ceiling from becoming a hostage during the 2012 elections I also don't see how Boehner can say, with a straight face, that the only person who's not willing to negotiate on this whole matter is Obama. Reality just doesn't matter any more does it?

Seth wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Boehner can't actually compromise because if he did, the coup that would transpire would make what happened to Lumumba look pleasant.

He's been able to get the democrats offer concessions that would be a good trade for the republican side if tea party didn't have a bug up its ass about taxes. I think Obama actually WANTS to cut social security and medicare and is looking for a partner on the right to make it happen, but he can't deal with lunatics for whom "good deal" equals "surrender."

And keep in mind that many logical people agree with Obama that cuts to entitlements would be beneficial. I'm pretty much a turbo liberal and I support increasing the minimum age and reducing benefits to the rich. This seems like an almost deafening example of the GOP being whiny, whiny babies.

Increasing minimum age or reducing benefits should only be done if Medicare spending increases inflation. But in fact the opposite is true. Medicare actually lowers inflationary pressure of medical expenses.

http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2011/0...

IMAGE(http://thecenturyfoundation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d843653ef0154326e1f79970c-pi)

Funkenpants wrote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House GOP leaders are planning a vote Thursday on a proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. The vote comes as Congress struggles to pass legislation increasing the government's borrowing cap to avoid a U.S. default. Many tea party-backed lawmakers are insisting on passage of a balanced budget amendment before they consider voting for an increase in the debt limit.

Very realistic position there. The time it would take for such an amendment to pass, which these guys don't want anyway, is measured in years.

To me this is a perfect example of how simplistic and juvenile Tea Party thinking is. Do they have such short term memories that they forgot that just a few years ago we needed the government to spend hundreds of billions it didn't have and that would be impossible if the amendment passed?

OG_slinger wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House GOP leaders are planning a vote Thursday on a proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. The vote comes as Congress struggles to pass legislation increasing the government's borrowing cap to avoid a U.S. default. Many tea party-backed lawmakers are insisting on passage of a balanced budget amendment before they consider voting for an increase in the debt limit.

Very realistic position there. The time it would take for such an amendment to pass, which these guys don't want anyway, is measured in years.

To me this is a perfect example of how simplistic and juvenile Tea Party thinking is. Do they have such short term memories that they forgot that just a few years ago we needed the government to spend hundreds of billions it didn't have and that would be impossible if the amendment passed?

EDIT: Never mind! Just realized that YES this is simplistic and juvenile, but I don't think that has anything to do with short memories

Re: the stimulus. I disagree with the Tea Party but I think they are pretty consistent that they would have been satisfied with no stimulus and I can understand why they have trouble seeing direct (and efficient) benefits coming out of having spent it.

Re: TARP. Lots of people in and out of the Tea Party would have been OK with that not happening. And yes, it would have hurt us as a country/economy.

OG_slinger wrote:

Do they have such short term memories that they forgot that just a few years ago we needed the government to spend hundreds of billions it didn't have and that would be impossible if the amendment passed?

I was thinking along the lines of it preventing the Bush tax cuts and mandating tax increases today.

Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Do they have such short term memories that they forgot that just a few years ago we needed the government to spend hundreds of billions it didn't have and that would be impossible if the amendment passed?

I was thinking along the lines of it preventing the Bush tax cuts and mandating tax increases today.

Not at all. For them it would simply mandate extreme cuts to government spending. Tea Partiers are small government zealots who worship at the "starve the beast" altar.

OG_slinger wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Do they have such short term memories that they forgot that just a few years ago we needed the government to spend hundreds of billions it didn't have and that would be impossible if the amendment passed?

I was thinking along the lines of it preventing the Bush tax cuts and mandating tax increases today.

Not at all. For them it would simply mandate extreme cuts to government spending. Tea Partiers are small government zealots who worship at the "starve the beast" altar.

Except there's no way you can afford TARP and two wars without going into debt.

DSGamer wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Do they have such short term memories that they forgot that just a few years ago we needed the government to spend hundreds of billions it didn't have and that would be impossible if the amendment passed?

I was thinking along the lines of it preventing the Bush tax cuts and mandating tax increases today.

Not at all. For them it would simply mandate extreme cuts to government spending. Tea Partiers are small government zealots who worship at the "starve the beast" altar.

Except there's no way you can afford TARP and two wars without going into debt.

Problem solved

Remember the whole brouhaha about how taxes were not raised to fund the war? Yeah...

First round of fact-checking the dueling debt-ceiling speeches is in.

"In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine," Obama said in his press conference. "Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every president has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills."

Although we noted that Obama, as a senator, had voted against a similar measure under George W. Bush -- a vote he now says he regrets -- we found that he was right about how often it has passed under other presidents and rated it True.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, for his part, portrayed a vote by the House to adopt the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act" as a bipartisan achievement. We found that it's common for both parties to claim bipartisan support, even when the numbers of supporters from the opposite party can be counted on one hand, as in this case. We noted that Obama had used the same tactic to claim bipartisanship for an early version of health care reform. We gave Boehner's claim the same rating we had given Obama's, Barely True.

OG_slinger wrote:

Not at all. For them it would simply mandate extreme cuts to government spending. Tea Partiers are small government zealots who worship at the "starve the beast" altar.

Nobody can win an election by slashing social security, medicare, and the defense budget. And there's no other way to balance the budget without raising taxes. As soon as Ryancare went up, the reaction was sharp enough to send republicans running for the hills. The only people who would vote to cut spending to the level required to balance the budget without raising revenues would be the political suicide bombers, and they'd be gone in the next cycle.

So how does moving the problem down 6 months help or hurt either party?

Baron Of Hell wrote:

So how does moving the problem down 6 months help or hurt either party?

The Democrats are concerned that kicking the proverbial can down the road into an election year only increases the chances of a stalemate producing a disastrous default (almost nothing meaningful gets done during an election year, as the political rhetoric on both extremes ratchets up to appease and motivate the base).

The Republicans are hoping that saddling Obama with that possibility during an election year helps their chances, and it'd give the right-wing spin machine another six months to find an angle where the Democrats are the ones unwilling to compromise and risking the credit and credibility of the nation in an attempt to score political points.

Funkenpants wrote:

Nobody can win an election by slashing social security, medicare, and the defense budget. And there's no other way to balance the budget without raising taxes. As soon as Ryancare went up, the reaction was sharp enough to send republicans running for the hills. The only people who would vote to cut spending to the level required to balance the budget without raising revenues would be the political suicide bombers, and they'd be gone in the next cycle.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I was just trying to say that the Tea Partiers mistook voters being upset at the state of the economy and voting incumbents out and them in as being a holy mandate to remake government into their fuzzy recollection of what the Gipper said it should be. The absolute position they are taking is simply not supported by the American public who understand that the rich and corporations need to pay more considering the benefits they've reaped.

You really can't reason with a group of people who thinks allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (as they were intended) or reforming the tax code to get rid of loopholes is something they can't support because Norquist decided it would be the same as raising taxes. I mean I thought Congress swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not some nut's pledge.

Seth wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Boehner can't actually compromise because if he did, the coup that would transpire would make what happened to Lumumba look pleasant.

He's been able to get the democrats offer concessions that would be a good trade for the republican side if tea party didn't have a bug up its ass about taxes. I think Obama actually WANTS to cut social security and medicare and is looking for a partner on the right to make it happen, but he can't deal with lunatics for whom "good deal" equals "surrender."

And keep in mind that many logical people agree with Obama that cuts to entitlements would be beneficial. I'm pretty much a turbo liberal and I support increasing the minimum age and reducing benefits to the rich. This seems like an almost deafening example of the GOP being whiny, whiny babies.

I agree with you so many times.

But I like vodka and you like beer, so we can never be together.

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders Tuesday made increasingly frenzied pleas to their members to approve a plan to temporarily raise the nation’s debt ceiling, but passage seemed in growing doubt...The scramble for votes came as lawmakers’ phone lines and Web sites were overwhelmed in response to President Obama’s plea on Monday night for Americans to call members of Congress and push for a compromise.

I don't understand why Obama hasn't been pushing this issue on the TV for weeks. His TV voice is the loudest one in the room, and if he had spent the past month pointing out that most of these republican leaders voted to raise the debt ceiling like 7 times during the Bush administration, there would be more pressure on the republicans to compromise. Bill Clinton and Bush knew how to use the TV to hammer at their opponents. It's like Obama doesn't like politics as a public contact sport and wants to do as many backroom deals as possible.

If I didn't think I would get shot, I would pie someone for this travesty.