Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

[ProfJohn]

FTFY. If the economy crashes and burns because of this manufactured crisis, we certainly will be willing to throw the tea party into the Boston harbor. They took what was a simmering problem that could have been handled in a much more statesmanlike and mature manner and threw gasoline on the fire because they don't get their way. Their petulance is what got us into this mess.

There are 24 members of the Tea Party voting no

There are 193 Democrats voting no


I guess the tea party is to blame and not the Democrats who refuse to even work with the GOP to craft a solution?

 

[Fern]

FTFY. If the economy crashes and burns because of this manufactured crisis, we certainly will be willing to throw the tea party into the Boston harbor. They took what was a simmering problem that could have been handled in a much more statesmanlike and mature manner and threw gasoline on the fire because they don't get their way. Their petulance is what got us into this mess.

IMO, the TEA Party is the one with NO blame. Why blame them, this huge deficit and debt problem wasn't created by them.

There's no "simmering problem". We've got a huge boiling over- type problem. As far as fiscal matters, Washington DC has been an out-of-control dumpster fire for quite a while. And that's what has gotten us into this mess.

Trying to reduce our national debt by $4 trillion as the credit agencies demand cannot be handled by any mere "statesmanlike and mature manner". It's going to be downright ugly and bloody.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Note to liberals...

This is NOTHING like Obamacare because we did not need Obamacare and we NEED this.

The Democrats know that we need this as much as the GOP and yet they are not willing to work with the Republicans to get enough votes to get Boehner through the house.

All it would take is 2 Democrat votes and we are done. No balanced budget amendment either.

If the Democrat leadership would release its members to vote as they want we would have had this done by now and the bill would be in the Senate.

I guarantee that there are Democrats who would vote for this bill if they were allowed too. There are still 26 Blue Dog Democrats in the house.

There are actually more Blue Dog Democrats than there are Republicans who refuse to vote Yes....

 

[wuliheron]

Congress has funneled more money into the banks then ever before and our loosing our credit standing just means the banks can charge that much more interest. These are the guys who supply 40% of all of the congressional election campaign money and are the single largest reason, other then voter ignorance, we have the current dysfunctional government. Boehner has done his job well making the wealthy wealthier, the poor poorer, and the minority Tea Party as powerful as possible.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Boehner has done his job well making the wealthy wealthier, the poor poorer, and the minority Tea Party as powerful as possible.

What the hell do want Boehner to do?

He can't force the TEA Party vote like he wants. He can't force the Dems either.

The guy is in a crappy and difficult situation. And I don't see him getting help from anybody: Reid, the Dems, Obama or the TEA Party members (actually, I think some chunk of them are supporting his current efforts now).

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

What the hell do want Boehner to do?

He can't force the TEA Party vote like he wants. He can't force the Dems either.

The guy is in a crappy and difficult situation. And I don't see him getting help from anybody: Reid, the Dems, Obama or the TEA Party members (actually, I think some chunk of them are supporting his current efforts now).

Fern

Boehner walked out on the only process - the grand bagain - that had a chance of not only breaking the short term logjam, but might have been a large enough package to avoid the bond downgrade. I see no reason to sympathize with him for the difficult situation he is in, which he helped create.

 

[Fern]

Boehner walked out on the only process - the grand bagain - that had a chance of not only breaking the short term logjam, but might have been a large enough package to avoid the bond downgrade. I see no reason to sympathize with him for the difficult situation he is in, which he helped create.

Obama wanted a tax increase, nothing Boehner can do about that.

IIRC, Obama wasn't exactly forthcoming with any details. In fact, still isn't. I saw Chuck Todd of MSNBC at a press conference a couple of days ago pressing the administration for details. He got zip.

Nobody knows if the "Grand Bargain" would have satisfied the credit rating agencies. Insufficient detail.

Do you really believe Obama would agree to enough cuts to meet a $4 trillion reduction in debt? I don't think so, and I'm assuming that ALL the Bush tax cuts would be rolled back. They're only worth about a $100 billion or so. And that would mean Obama breaks his big tax pledge.

You can't raise taxes enough to solve this problem, the money is just not there. That means serious cuts, no way around it. I think Obama knows it, and knows he kills his reelection chances one way or the other, thus he avoids details.

Fern

 

[Generator]

With a few more days to go ProfJohn has already blinked and needs his debt fix like the junkie he is. Everyone pay attention to these boards in the days to come. You will find out who is principled and who is a complete fraud.

we NEED this!

Look at this debt junkie, pathetic...

 

[CountZero]

Obama wanted a tax increase, nothing Boehner can do about that.

IIRC, Obama wasn't exactly forthcoming with any details. In fact, still isn't. I saw Chuck Todd of MSNBC at a press conference a couple of days ago pressing the administration for details. He got zip.

Nobody knows if the "Grand Bargain" would have satisfied the credit rating agencies. Insufficient detail.

Do you really believe Obama would agree to enough cuts to meet a $4 trillion reduction in debt? I don't think so, and I'm assuming that ALL the Bush tax cuts would be rolled back. They're only worth about a $100 billion or so. And that would mean Obama breaks his big tax pledge.

You can't raise taxes enough to solve this problem, the money is just not there. That means serious cuts, no way around it. I think Obama knows it, and knows he kills his reelection chances one way or the other, thus he avoids details.

Fern

Bush cuts are only worth 100 billion? Where did that come from? I don't think I've ever seen them as being only 100 billion.

 

[Fern]

Bush cuts are only worth 100 billion? Where did that come from? I don't think I've ever seen them as being only 100 billion.

The CBO scored them at $180B in June of '07 when the economy was zooming.

Somebody else posted a later revision down to about $150 B.

I saw a CBO chart showing them down again at $98 B two days ago. I'm just having trouble finding it again. It's was in a chart buried in a huge report.

They were scoring the costs of extending them, not their original costs.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Look at this debt junkie, pathetic...

You want to see government cut spending by 40% over night??

Or are you just trollin?

 

[ProfJohn]

Bush cuts are only worth 100 billion? Where did that come from? I don't think I've ever seen them as being only 100 billion.

Eliminating ALL of the Bush tax cuts is worth perhaps $2.5 trillion over 10 years.

$250 billion

The cuts on the rich are less than $100 billion a year, more like $60-70 billion a year.

When we are pilling on $1 trillion a year in debt that isn't much money.

 

[woolfe9999]

Obama wanted a tax increase, nothing Boehner can do about that.

IIRC, Obama wasn't exactly forthcoming with any details. In fact, still isn't. I saw Chuck Todd of MSNBC at a press conference a couple of days ago pressing the administration for details. He got zip.

Nobody knows if the "Grand Bargain" would have satisfied the credit rating agencies. Insufficient detail.

Do you really believe Obama would agree to enough cuts to meet a $4 trillion reduction in debt? I don't think so, and I'm assuming that ALL the Bush tax cuts would be rolled back. They're only worth about a $100 billion or so. And that would mean Obama breaks his big tax pledge.

You can't raise taxes enough to solve this problem, the money is just not there. That means serious cuts, no way around it. I think Obama knows it, and knows he kills his reelection chances one way or the other, thus he avoids details.

Fern

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Obama's plan, which dates back to April, is to mandate $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years. The specifics are to be left to Congress, but he wants a bill that will mandate across the board cuts if Congress does not make specific cuts by a date certain. He has offered some specifics on what he is agreeable to on the cuts - such as raising the eligibility age on Medicare. Quite a concession for a democrat. More can be found by googling. And in addition to the cuts, he wants revenue increases which include getting rid of the Bush cuts on $250K or more (not all), and closing lots of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

What is wrong from the GOP perspective with a bill that mandates $4 trillion in cuts, either by bill from Congress with line item cuts or, failing that, by automatic across the board cuts? Nothing, except that Obama insists on *some* upper income tax increase. That is why we do not have a grand bargain here. The rest is GOP spin.

- wolf

 

[ProfJohn]

Obama's plan

Where is this plan??

They even nailed Obama's press secretary by asking him for details of Obama's plan and he finally admitted that there is no plan.

That is why the GOP walked away. Obama would never put anything on the table. It was like trying to negotiate with someone who keeps changing their mind and won't commit to anything.

 

[Fern]

Eliminating ALL of the Bush tax cuts is worth perhaps $2.5 trillion over 10 years.

$250 billion

The cuts on the rich are less than $100 billion a year, more like $60-70 billion a year.

When we are pilling on $1 trillion a year in debt that isn't much money.

This is one several sources that put the tax cuts for the wealth at $40 b per year.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost about $80 billion over just the next two years

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

Elsewhere in the article you can see them quote $69B.

The difference appears attributable to the economy. The $40B number is for 2010/2011, again presumably because of the economy.

One thing should be clear however - in this poor economy the Bush Tax Cuts just don't 'cost' near as much as in a roaring economy. Rolling them back just isn't going to bring a whole of money, at least not over the next few years.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Obama's plan, which dates back to April, is to mandate $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years. The specifics are to be left to Congress, but he wants a bill that will mandate across the board cuts if Congress does not make specific cuts by a date certain. He has offered some specifics on what he is agreeable to on the cuts - such as raising the eligibility age on Medicare. Quite a concession for a democrat. More can be found by googling. And in addition to the cuts, he wants revenue increases which include getting rid of the Bush cuts on $250K or more (not all), and closing lots of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

What is wrong from the GOP perspective with a bill that mandates $4 trillion in cuts, either by bill from Congress with line item cuts or, failing that, by automatic across the board cuts? Nothing, except that Obama insists on *some* upper income tax increase. That is why we do not have a grand bargain here. The rest is GOP spin.

- wolf

How is that a compromise for Obama? You give me what I want now - permission to borrow more money, plus a tax increase on the evil rich. (Except of course the evil rich aren't touched, just those earning enough to eventually become the evil rich.) In return, I promise to make some unspecified cuts in the future. I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Promises to cut unspecified spending in the future should be met with promises to accept some unspecified tax increase in the future.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What is wrong from the GOP perspective with a bill that mandates $4 trillion in cuts, either by bill from Congress with line item cuts or, failing that, by automatic across the board cuts? Nothing, except that Obama insists on *some* upper income tax increase. That is why we do not have a grand bargain here. The rest is GOP spin.

- wolf

Personally, I don't think most of the GOP would have a problem with $4 trillion in spending cuts and raising taxes on only the wealthy. And given the size of those cuts I don't think many Dems would support it.

But one major problem with talking to Obama is he refers to tax increases as 'spending cuts'.

I suspect the GOP doesn't actually believe there's any offer of $4T in cuts.

The last time I heard anyone talk about Obama's plan, other than complain of no details, was Chris Matthews on MSNBC. This was at the end when Boehner walked out. Matthews was characterizing Obama's plan as an almost 1:1 ratio of tax increases and cuts.

Seems to be an awful lot of confusion about what his plan was really was.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

doube post

 

[woolfe9999]

How is that a compromise for Obama? You give me what I want now - permission to borrow more money, plus a tax increase on the evil rich. (Except of course the evil rich aren't touched, just those earning enough to eventually become the evil rich.) In return, I promise to make some unspecified cuts in the future. I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Promises to cut unspecified spending in the future should be met with promises to accept some unspecified tax increase in the future.

No I'm sorry you did not read what I wrote correctly. Obama will sign a bill that mandates $4 trillion in cuts. The specific line item cuts are left to Congress but if Congress and the POTUS do not agree by a date *certain*, then across the board cuts will automatically kick in. This is not, I'll do something in the future. This is a bill he'll sign right now.

As for the tax increases, give me a break. Raising taxes on the wealthy - modestly - is hardly an extreme gesture given that $4 trillion in cuts are going to come mostly out of the hide of the middle class and poor, no matter how the cuts are done. This isn't wealth transfer from bottom to top. It is mitigating some of the transfer away from bottom and middle that will occur as a result of the cuts.

 

[werepossum]

No I'm sorry you did not read what I wrote correctly. Obama will sign a bill that mandates $4 trillion in cuts. The specific line item cuts are left to Congress but if Congress and the POTUS do not agree by a date *certain*, then across the board cuts will automatically kick in. This is not, I'll do something in the future. This is a bill he'll sign right now.

If these proposed spending cuts have to be real - if we can't, say, count the cost of continuing the Iraq war beyond the date we're ending the Iraq war as a cut, or show projections that Obamacare actually saves us a gazillion dollars so it's okay that we're spending 15% more this year - then that might not be too bad.

Know what would be even better? Pass an increase funding government for another six months, during which time they hammer out the actual deal while everyone is paying attention. Then we can all see what games are being played and who is being honest.

 

[wuliheron]

What the hell do want Boehner to do?

He can't force the TEA Party vote like he wants. He can't force the Dems either.

The guy is in a crappy and difficult situation. And I don't see him getting help from anybody: Reid, the Dems, Obama or the TEA Party members (actually, I think some chunk of them are supporting his current efforts now).

Fern

They've all sworn to protect the constitution and promote the welfare of the country. He needs to shit or get off the pot. He needs to tell the others to either shit or get off the pot. Do the job they swore to entire country to do and forget about any pledges to their constituencies or lobbyists. That, or get another job.

 

[Thump553]

Wow the teaparty/GOP apologist is going into overdrive tonight. Obama never even tried to negotiate with the GOP, tax the evil rich, etc.

Do you honestly think the American public hasn't been getting its fill of the hell no party for weeks of failed negotiations now-and we are supposed to accept a bill that continues the same negotiations with a GOP that will not negotiate in good faith PLUS adds a hastily drafted Constitutional Amendment. Sorry, we don't need to turn the USA into another California with an idiotic national Prop 13.

This entire disgusting saga has been a product of the GOP from beginning to end.

 

[theeedude]

House GOP is going to have a ceremonial revenge vote against Reid's plan. They still don't get it. The country is sick of their posturing and just wants this debt limit raised and this fight over with.

 

[ProfJohn]

House GOP is going to have a ceremonial revenge vote against Reid's plan. They still don't get it. The country is sick of their posturing and just wants this debt limit raised and this fight over with.

Dude why do you even both posting your crap??

Just make a macro
Democrats = good
Republicans = bad

And save yourself some time...


BTW house has passed two plans and the senate has not passed anything. It is not the duty of the senate to do something with the plan given to them.

Plus that is the only way we move forward at this point. The House doesn't have the votes to pass anything else unless some Democrats get on board.

 

[IronWing]

Plus that is the only way we move forward at this point. The House doesn't have the votes to pass anything else unless some Democrats get on board.

Oh, you finally realized this? Good, now Boehner needs to introduce legislation that can gain Dem support. There are twice as many Dems in the House as there are tea party brand Republicans so gaining passage of a bill with Dem support should be easier than the current approach of appeasing Republican fanatics.