Boehner walks from White House debt talks

[ProfJohn]

Great Op-Ed on the subject-

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=819654&f=28

That might be the best thing Republicans can ask for since it would lay the blame 100% at Obama's feet and it would rob him of the chance to try and claim victory in this battle.

What we are seeing now is more about 2012 that it is about the debt ceiling. Obama see the Republicans as being weak on this issue and is using it for political gain. I believe that Obama has had more press conferences in the last month than the previous year.

At this point we may end up with the Senate plan since it is the one that comes closest to letting everyone claim victory.

 

[ProfJohn]

The Bush tax mistake has needed to be undone since it started. It's not something new because of Obama.
It's ridiculous to argue that higher spending means we don't need to raise taxes.

Why didn't the Democrats do that when they had complete control then?

Why did they cave in last fall when they still had control as well?

Here is a hint: Democrats are only for tax increases when they can get Republicans to vote for them too. Otherwise they won't raise taxes either.

 

[IronWing]

Remember all that fighting over funding for the wars where Democrats wanted to attach withdrawal time tables and other limitations on the money and the Republicans wanted a straight up deal?

How come I don't recall all of you calling for the 'simple' deal back then?

Pathetic diversion on your part. The House Republicans passed a budget that included deficit spending and now instead of raising the debt ceiling to support the borrowing they passed these irresponsible weasels want do overs. Disgusting, dishonest, irresponsible, a blight on our country these Republicans.

 

[senseamp]

Lets go into govt shut down. Did wonders for Republicans in the 90s

 

[Tom]

Why didn't the Democrats do that when they had complete control then?

Why did they cave in last fall when they still had control as well?

Here is a hint: Democrats are only for tax increases when they can get Republicans to vote for them too. Otherwise they won't raise taxes either.

What's your point ? That it's ok for Republicans to not vote for what's best for the country but to risk the health of the country for political gain ?

 

[RampantAndroid]

And you believe that Democrats, once they have taken over everything, can merely keep borrowing and spending more and more money, forever?

You're totally right: the repubs win more by doing nothing other than block. The answer isn't to raise the ceiling and continue spending. It's to raise the ceiling a SMALL amount, allow some more spending, but reign it all it. You balance the effing budget now or we go bankrupt. It's about time we say that. Obamacare needs to die. Now. All assumptions made about it paying for itself were wrong and erroneous as many have shown (taxing Cadillac healthcare plans: funny - all companies with the plans they hoped to tax have since stopped offering those plans. Sooo...you're not going to be able to tax anything.)

Cut down military spending. Close loop holes. Find all the people on disability who CAN work and cut them off. Find the immigrants who, when they came into the country agreed to not collect welfare and now ARE collecting and evict them. From the country. It's time we look inward and solve our problems. If that means we go isolationist again, then so be it: all military forces in Japan, Germany, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and such come back to the US. Effective NOW. You begin to play hardball with countries that want to sell shit to us but not let our products into their country (Japan, China) and jumpstart OUR industry while doing so.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why didn't the Democrats do that when they had complete control then?

Why did they cave in last fall when they still had control as well?

Here is a hint: Democrats are only for tax increases when they can get Republicans to vote for them too. Otherwise they won't raise taxes either.

Please, PJ- playing that old saw is beyond reprehensible. Dems never really had complete control at all, certainly not the more progressive elements in the party. That lasted only a few months, anyway, until Ted Kennedy died.

I'll agree that Dems played ending the Bush tax cuts rather poorly from a political perspective when they paid the ransom on extending unemployment benefits so as to support what would be working familes if the "Job Creators" were actually, uhh, creating jobs at all...

 

[CPA]

The Republican idea of compromise is Democrats giving them EVERYTHING they want. This isn't one of those situations where there are two sides to the story and everybody is equally to blame. It's purely Republicans playing politics and refusing to compromise, because their rhetoric has painted them into a corner.

Oh, BS, the Republicans have already agreed to sunset many of the Bush tax cuts.

 

[Lemon law]

Non Prof John is a well spring of bad analogies. Congress, both democratic and Republican approved of the deficit spending, but suddenly in GOP speak only Obama is responsible for deficit spending? Especially after a totally republican legislative branch during most of the GWB years kited the deficit like drunken sailors.

But if its any comfort to you, recent polls show the American people still largely blame our bad economy on the policies of GWB and and the GOP. If weeping John gets his way, the GOP will send the USA from a long but manageable recession and into a full blown depression.

But ole non Prof John still thinks image without substance will save the GOP anyway.

 

[IronWing]

Lets go into govt shut down. Did wonders for Republicans in the 90s

The government doesn't have to shut down if the debt ceiling is not raised. It has a legal budget (passed by the Republican controlled House) to spend through Oct 1st. The Republican debt ceiling tantrum is just pandering to their wackjob base who apparently are too stupid to understand that the Republican House already passed legislation to increase borrowing.

 

[Lemon law]

Now Non Prof John has the chutzpah to say, "Why didn't the Democrats do that when they had complete control then?"

I have a two word reply, GOP filibusters. Nothing but nothing could get past a 59 to 41 democratic Senate majority against a GOP Senate Filibuster.

But interesting thing, when it came time to dope slap the house in the Senate on weeping John's recent house bill, democrats and Republicans in the Senate united to swiftly say no to the house.

 

[ProfJohn]

How is it that the Republicans can get shit done when they don't even control the Senate but when Democrats control it 60-40 they can't get anything done??

Your excuses are lame. The truth is right in front of your faces. The Democrats will NOT vote for tax increases unless the Republican agree to go along.


BTW when the Bush tax cuts were passed the Republicans only had 50 Senate seats... how did they manage to get anything done when you guys all claim that Democrats can't pass a thing with 59 seats?

 

[Jhhnn]

How is it that the Republicans can get shit done when they don't even control the Senate but when Democrats control it 60-40 they can't get anything done??

Your excuses are lame. The truth is right in front of your faces. The Democrats will NOT vote for tax increases unless the Republican agree to go along.


BTW when the Bush tax cuts were passed the Republicans only had 50 Senate seats... how did they manage to get anything done when you guys all claim that Democrats can't pass a thing with 59 seats?

Repubs had 51 seats in 2003, plus Cheney, and Dems weren't keen on on standing in the way of tax cuts in the wake of the shellacking they'd received from the party of the "War President" a few months before. They also weren't interested in abusing the power of the filibuster as Repubs have gleefully done over the last 3 years... the last 5 years, actually. They also had some addled notion that Repubs could be brought to reason through compromise, the same notion Obama suffers from, too...

 

[MovingTarget]

Could you please provide details for said 'deals'

Thanks...

I should've referred to Obama's proposal and the so called "gang of six" proposal coming out. To a lesser extent you could include the McConnell proposal as well, but only the fact that it may keep us from paying higher interest on the debt by raising the ceiling (but not much else...it is the mother of all punts).

 

[ProfJohn]

I should've referred to Obama's proposal and the so called "gang of six" proposal coming out. To a lesser extent you could include the McConnell proposal as well, but only the fact that it may keep us from paying higher interest on the debt by raising the ceiling (but not much else...it is the mother of all punts).

There is NO Obama proposal.

The Democrats has not put anything forward at all during this debate. Not one thing!

Everything has come from Republicans or via the gang of 6.

 

[ProfJohn]

Repubs had 51 seats in 2003, plus Cheney, and Dems weren't keen on on standing in the way of tax cuts in the wake of the shellacking they'd received from the party of the "War President" a few months before. They also weren't interested in abusing the power of the filibuster as Repubs have gleefully done over the last 3 years... the last 5 years, actually. They also had some addled notion that Repubs could be brought to reason through compromise, the same notion Obama suffers from, too...

The first round of tax cuts were passed in May 2001, thanks for playing though...

 

[Throckmorton]

Obama jacked up spending by $800 billion in his first two years and now he wants the Republicans to raise taxes to pay for it.

Think of it this way...
Your wife goes away for the weekend and you go on a spending spree and buy a new TV, computer and camera.

When she gets back she freaks out and rips your head off.

So you offer to return the TV and camera and when she stays mad you ask her why she won't compromise with you...

I don't know if you've been living under a rock or what, but Obama had to increase spending to improve the recession creating by Bush, Clinton, and Reagan.

 

[IronWing]

There is NO Obama proposal.

The Democrats has not put anything forward at all during this debate. Not one thing!

Everything has come from Republicans or via the gang of 6.

Liar.

 

[cubby1223]

Liar.

He's more right than you are.

Obama doesn't have a proposal. He has a few basic guidelines he wants congress to work out. That's not a proposal.

And I have yet to see the Democrats with the majority in the Senate put forth a budget to vote on.

The Democrats did not even put forth a budget when they had the overwhelming majority in the House and Senate to pass damn near anything they wanted.

The Dems know any budget will be toxic, and are playing politics to the maximum benefit of their party over the other party.

 

[Throckmorton]

He's more right than you are.

Obama doesn't have a proposal. He has a few basic guidelines he wants congress to work out. That's not a proposal.

And I have yet to see the Democrats with the majority in the Senate put forth a budget to vote on.

The Democrats did not even put forth a budget when they had the overwhelming majority in the House and Senate to pass damn near anything they wanted.

The Dems know any budget will be toxic, and are playing politics to the maximum benefit of their party over the other party.

LOL. I like how in the right wing mind, even working with Republicans to come up with a budget makes Democrats evil.

If they made up their own budget, you'd whine that they excluded Republicans.

 

[IronWing]

He's more right than you are.

No, the Dems put trillions in cuts on the table. The Republicans were kicking ass and taking names but they wanted to win by even more so they walked away from what would have been their greatest partisan victory in years.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Links? The only actual proposal I've seen is the Republican Cut Cap and Balance bill, which Obama promised to veto. Everything else I've seen has been reports of compromises with no details, vague agreements in the vein of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." We went through this with Reagan and the spending cuts simply didn't happen.

When I say cuts, I mean cuts NOW, not cuts supposedly happening half a decade out. Those cuts will not happen, and everyone knows this.

And I've already posted a link showing Obama promising to cut "spending in the tax code". It was only a press conference on NATIONAL FUCKING TELEVISION.

It's very hard to tell who's telling the truth in all this. I would support the type of deal that some claim Obama has offered. On the other hand the Republican's claim that he didn't really offer such a deal, at least not in any concrete way.

All I can say is that if I was in Obama's position and was going to offer a relatively conservative plan, I'd definitely do it in public so I could claim victory and look like I led on the issue.

 

[umbrella39]

Says he will now work with the Senate. As an outsider this whole thing is just a big clusterfuck of a joke on all sides. So many people have painted themselves in different corners and no one wants to budge.

He needs to quite trying to paint himself as someone who gives a shit about the American public. He is a pathetic actor.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's more right than you are.

Obama doesn't have a proposal. He has a few basic guidelines he wants congress to work out. That's not a proposal.

And I have yet to see the Democrats with the majority in the Senate put forth a budget to vote on.

The Democrats did not even put forth a budget when they had the overwhelming majority in the House and Senate to pass damn near anything they wanted.

The Dems know any budget will be toxic, and are playing politics to the maximum benefit of their party over the other party.

Senatorial Dems cannot pass any budget proposal w/o Repub support. It's a complete waste of time to even try. Any attempt to do so would just be posturing, and they're better off to leave that to HOR Repubs.

They couldn't do it even when they theoretically had 60 votes, given the composition of that majority. Dems would have been better off to have tossed Lieberman out of the caucus in 2009, for example, stripped him of his chairmanships, worked with 59 votes. At least the false attributions would be less today.

 

[soccerballtux]

Most people seem to be rather impressed with the way the GOP is handling themselves by not budging until they receive moderate concessions. It's just like in the Clinton after '96 days, spending got reigned in. That's what most of the polls on CNN are showing at least. Democrats need to lay off the partisan stuff a bit, Republicans doing pretty well.