Boehner: Nation on the path to default if Obama doesn't give concessions for ACA

Status
Not open for further replies.
mj1108 said:
Part of it is that Obama doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. Dem's are basically calling the GOP bluff and seeing just how far the GOP is willing to take it before they blink.

The GOP is just piling on now in hopes to get Obama and Reid to cave. I expect things to get worse from the GOP before they get any better.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think Obama or Senate Dems are bluffing. I don't think the Tea Party is bluffing. I think it's going to take the sane members of the GOP to stand up to the Tea Party caucus. Whether or not they will is the question.
 
Jooney said:
Really puts to bed this stupid talking point that its the democrats wanting to shut down the government.
Click to expand...
But if Fox news doesn't report it, it certainly never happened, and if it did happen, it certainly didn't happen in the nefarious way they spell it out in this liberal rag, and even if it did happen exactly as described in the NY Times, that's only because it was entirely justified all along and Republicans wanted to get the word out to garner further public support. Because tax cuts. Freedom. True Americans founding fathers socialisms power of the purse word salad. Bork bork bork.
 
mj1108 said:
Part of it is that Obama doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. Dem's are basically calling the GOP bluff and seeing just how far the GOP is willing to take it before they blink.

The GOP is just piling on now in hopes to get Obama and Reid to cave. I expect things to get worse from the GOP before they get any better.
Click to expand...

The GOP's bread and butter, the top 1%, will feel the effects of a tanking economy pretty quickly. Unless they themselves are politicians, they'll stop giving a fuck about a political battle as soon as they see the effects this stupidass game of chicken is bringing.

Idiots like Ted Cruz and his Tea Party posse think this is their "glory" moment, his Miley Cyrus "shake your pancake ass and be omg controversial to get attention" moment. They've shut down the government and feel like they're "taking on the President". This is their way to relevance, to gain political nationwide attention. They'll be heralded as the saviors of the party.

I mean holy shit, can you believe the idolatry from conservatives that would follow if this were to succeed? ACA has been a thorn on the GOP's side since it was first put on Obama's agenda. If this succeeds, it means Cruz and his cronies will have undone years of work of a president who was elected twice over this. It will have nullified it being ruled constitutional by the supreme court. It becoming law would not have mattered at all. It basically would've trampled the entire government process and will have become a super-veto, not by the president, and one that can't be overturned. It means they've found a way to steamroll over the entire political process, and it will have made Obama's entire presidency a complete failure.

You give this proposition to an idiot rookie politico like Ted Cruz or any of the Tea Party novices and you bet your ass they'll be salivating like the starving dogs they are. These fools have no future. Their platforms and fringe ideologies have only niche appeal with the staunchest and most ignorant minority of conservatives. This is their only way to amplify their influence in politics. It's why they're going through with this against all reason and morality. The higher the stakes, the bigger the reward.
 
slit said:
Unfortunately, I don't think Obama or Senate Dems are bluffing. I don't think the Tea Party is bluffing. I think it's going to take the sane members of the GOP to stand up to the Tea Party caucus. Whether or not they will is the question.
Click to expand...
I would imagine once all those Wall Street lobbyists and supporters from Lockheed and Boeing make it known that all support will be given to the DNC if they don't knock it off, most of the GOP will come around quickly...

I hope.
 
whytemyke said:
I would imagine once all those Wall Street lobbyists and supporters from Lockheed and Boeing make it known that all support will be given to the DNC if they don't knock it off, most of the GOP will come around quickly...

I hope.
Click to expand...
It does make me wonder if their financial overlords inadvertently created a monster they couldn't control. I guess we'll see soon enough (or they focused more on, say, senators, and not as much on the individual congress members.)
 
whytemyke said:
I would imagine once all those Wall Street lobbyists and supporters from Lockheed and Boeing make it known that all support will be given to the DNC if they don't knock it off, most of the GOP will come around quickly...

I hope.
Click to expand...

Which would be ironic since it was them who created the Frankenstein that's about to eat their prosperity alive.
 
NullPointer said:
But if Fox news doesn't report it, it certainly never happened, and if it did happen, it certainly didn't happen in the nefarious way they spell it out in this liberal rag, and even if it did happen exactly as described in the NY Times, that's only because it was entirely justified all along and Republicans wanted to get the word out to garner further public support. Because tax cuts. Freedom. True Americans founding fathers socialisms power of the purse word salad. Bork bork bork.
Click to expand...

NYTarticle said:
What happens when you shut down the government and you are blamed for it?” The suggested answer was the one House Republicans give today: “We are simply calling to fund the entire government except for the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare.”
Click to expand...

They are spinning it to their base like this:

its the Democrats refusing to compromise ... We are more than willing to fund the government (as evidenced by dozens of bills shot down by the Senate), however, we will not authorize funding for Obamacare in our overall budget bill. The Democrats are causing the shutdown through their refusal to negotiate.

Not saying I agree with this but that's how its being spun in conservative media.
 
slit said:
Which would be ironic since it was them who created the Frankenstein that's about to eat their prosperity alive.
Click to expand...

Yeah. This is the incredible thing about all this. The rich lobbyists created the tea party so the GOP can get back in power to implement tax cuts and deregulation. The tea party were suppose to sit down, shut up, and go along with the GOP leadership. But that didn't happen. Now the very monster they help create is threatening the very wealth they sent the tea party to Congress to grow and protect in the first place.
 
Eusis said:
It does make me wonder if their financial overlords inadvertently created a monster they couldn't control. I guess we'll see soon enough (or they focused more on, say, senators, and not as much on the individual congress members.)
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think that Tea Party people are beyond the control of the rich.

It would help if the "sane" Republicans were as organized as focused as the Tea Party though. Tea Party takes out attack ads against Republicans who want to keep the government running? Fine, then organize some PACs to run attack ads against the nutbags who want to ruin the economy over Obamacare.
 
border said:
I honestly don't think that Tea Party people are beyond the control of the rich.

It would help if the "sane" Republicans were as organized as focused as the Tea Party though. Tea Party takes out attack ads against Republicans who want to keep the government running? Fine, then organize some PACs to run attack ads against the nutbags who want to ruin the economy over Obamacare.
Click to expand...

People don't understand the Tea Party at all. Yes there is astroturf, freedom works and the Koch's. But the Tea Party has over a thousand chapters across the country, extremely politically organised. It is the largest political movement in the US and is controlled by no-one but the people at the bottom.
 
Dr.Acula said:
This is really interesting when you think about it.

So much industry in the US is dependent on lobbying to operate. Whether is be a chemical company that needs the EPA to look away, or a brokerage that needs to skirt the SEC, industry really relies on government to be able to operate freely. If you have a group like the Tea Party, which is truly independent, of course Wall Street is going to be freaking out, because Wall Street can't play unless the deck is stacked.

Will this result in more responsible private entities that try to operate within the law, because they know they can't just call up their personal slave in DC and have them push through some deregulation? Prolly not.

It is really telling how indignant some of the quotes in that article are. They are angry with Tea Partiers because they aren't dependent on lobby money, and therefore aren't helping their firms. Before this crisis, I'm sure people on Wall Street would say that they donate money to support democracy, and that elected representatives are beholden to their constituents, but now that it's the 11th hour they're just coming out and screaming, "WE CAN'T MAKE THESE PEOPLE DO WHAT WE TELL THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TAKING OUR MONEY!"
Click to expand...

Their schadenfreude would be enjoyable if it wasn't for the fact the crazies are trying push us over a cliff and their actions won't amount changing much of the wealthy's behavior.

Well the majority of wealthy people who weren't privately backing the Tea Party movement in some fashion. I wonder if those who did play a hand in organizing them are regretting the crisis they helped create.
 
Style Fox said:
How do you cut debt/spending without hurting growth?
Click to expand...

If the American economy were running at or near full employment, cutting gov't spending could relinquish resources back into the more efficient private sector and actually increase overall productivity and therefore profits/wages, making people better off and increasing growth.

^ Under a whole stack of assumptions we don't need to pick apart here. That's the story you would tell though.
 
maniac-kun said:
What is this 14th amendment option Obama has?
Click to expand...

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.[/b]
Click to expand...

Declare the roadblocks insurrectionists?
lol

Probably this:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Click to expand...

You say "haha syke debt ceiling itself was unconstitutional" I guess?
 
huacst21 said:
Which college are you going to? If you're going to UF, that's in Gainesville in North Florida, which is predominately white. Central and South Florida are much different.
Click to expand...

This is very true. The more south you go here the more "northern" or "liberal" it becomes in its politics.
 
maniac-kun said:
Ok sounds like a solution if they dont give up.
Click to expand...

I confess I have no idea how viable an option that is, procedurally. I guess Obama instructs Treasury Secretary in the cabinet to ignore the debt ceiling, then Republicans in Congress file suit and I'd expect the Supreme Court files issues an injunction which would probably say "uphold current law until we hear the case", and then the default happens anyway.

I'm not clear on how the timeline plays out. Is it possible to even know of that's a viable end-around until you try it at prime time literally on the day it matters?
 
Fuck these terrorists.

Obama needs to bully pulpit the fuck out of the Republicans if it gets close to debt ceiling time with no resolution. Some Bush-esque "emboldening our enemies" type shit would be nice. Get angry and black.
 
2MF said:
That sounds like it protects existing debt, not giving permission for new debt. The whole point of raising the debt ceiling is increasing debt.
Click to expand...

Well, kind of, but not really. The debt ceiling needs to be raised so that we can increase the amount of debt denominated in Treasury bonds. But we actually already have all this debt in the form of long-standing financial obligations, mandatory spending, and rollover costs. Otherwise we could hardly default on it! All the Treasury really does is turn America's short-term paper into long-term loans. If we cut that off, we end up holding a big pile of short-term paper.
 
This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican party as we know it. They don't have public support and even their party is split. Obama's administration won't cave on this, it'd mean the last 5 years were for nothing.
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Sad that veteran conservatives are only now realizing that they hitched their wagon to a bunch of crazy horses. What does Boehner get out of this? His legacy will be one of gross malfeasance if he lets this happen.
Click to expand...
A lot of the moderate Republicans left years ago, after finding that extremists were taking over.
 
Barzul said:
This could be the beginning of the end of the Republican party as we know it. They don't have public support and even their party is split. Obama's administration won't cave on this, it'd mean the last 5 years were for nothing.
Click to expand...

Basically. Caving on this makes obama a lame duck with 3 years to go. Boehner is bluffing to try to get a concession, the work stoppage alone is going to cost him some of those precious gerrymandered seats. Crashing the economy again could cripple his party come 2014.
 
2MF said:
That sounds like it protects existing debt, not giving permission for new debt. The whole point of raising the debt ceiling is increasing debt.
Click to expand...

No, it's to authorize the debt that congress has already agreed upon.

Say you have a debt at 12 trillion, the debt ceiling is at 12.5 trillion, and you pass an annual budget which will run a $800 billion dollar deficit.

Well, what happens now is, about midway through the year, we begin to have this brinksmanship where congress has to agree to raise the debt ceiling, because the deficit they've agreed upon is going to push the debt past the current limit.

It's a fucking pointless thing to have.
 
Zeus Molecules said:
Basically. Caving on this makes obama a lame duck with 3 years to go. Boehner is bluffing to try to get a concession, the work stoppage alone is going to cost him some of those precious gerrymandered seats. Crashing the economy again could cripple his party come 2014.
Click to expand...

I want to believe Boehner is bluffing and I still believe he is (like 60-40)

But at this point, we have to wake up and realize that the party itself may be so irrational and non-self aware that anything is possible.

I posted this in Poli-GAF to explain my position here.

The federal government is shut down, we’re about to hit the debt ceiling (with disastrous economic consequences), and no resolution is in sight. How did this happen?

The main answer, which only the most pathologically “balanced” reporting can deny, is the radicalization of the Republican Party. As Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it last year in their book, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become “an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

But there’s one more important piece of the story. Conservative leaders are indeed ideologically extreme, but they’re also deeply incompetent. So much so, in fact, that the Dunning-Kruger effect — the truly incompetent can’t even recognize their own incompetence — reigns supreme.

To see what I’m talking about, consider the report in Sunday’s Times about the origins of the current crisis. Early this year, it turns out, some of the usual suspects — the Koch brothers, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation and others — plotted strategy in the wake of Republican electoral defeat. Did they talk about rethinking ideas that voters had soundly rejected? No, they talked extortion, insisting that the threat of a shutdown would induce President Obama to abandon health reform.

This was crazy talk. After all, health reform is Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement. You’d have to be completely clueless to believe that he could be bullied into giving up his entire legacy by a defeated, unpopular G.O.P. — as opposed to responding, as he has, by making resistance to blackmail an issue of principle. But the possibility that their strategy might backfire doesn’t seem to have occurred to the would-be extortionists.

Even more remarkable, in its way, was the response of House Republican leaders, who didn’t tell the activists they were being foolish. All they did was urge that the extortion attempt be made over the debt ceiling rather than a government shutdown. And as recently as last week Eric Cantor, the majority leader, was in effect assuring his colleagues that the president will, in fact, give in to blackmail. As far as anyone can tell, Republican leaders are just beginning to suspect that Mr. Obama really means what he has been saying all along.

Many people seem perplexed by the transformation of the G.O.P. into the political equivalent of the Keystone Kops — the Boehner Bunglers? Republican elders, many of whom have been in denial about their party’s radicalization, seem especially startled. But all of this was predictable.

It has been obvious for years that the modern Republican Party is no longer capable of thinking seriously about policy. Whether the issue is climate change or inflation, party members believe what they want to believe, and any contrary evidence is dismissed as a hoax, the product of vast liberal conspiracies.

For a while the party was able to compartmentalize, to remain savvy and realistic about politics even as it rejected objectivity everywhere else. But this wasn’t sustainable. Sooner or later, the party’s attitude toward policy — we listen only to people who tell us what we want to hear, and attack the bearers of uncomfortable news — was bound to infect political strategy, too.

Remember what happened in the 2012 election — not the fact that Mitt Romney lost, but the fact that all the political experts around him apparently had no inkling that he was likely to lose. Polls overwhelmingly pointed to an Obama victory, but Republican analysts denounced the polls as “skewed” and attacked the media outlets reporting those polls for their alleged liberal bias. These days Karl Rove is pleading with House Republicans to be reasonable and accept the results of the 2012 election. But on election night he tried to bully Fox News into retracting its correct call of Ohio — and hence, in effect, the election — for Mr. Obama.

Unfortunately for all of us, even the shock of electoral defeat wasn't enough to burst the G.O.P. bubble; it’s still a party dominated by wishful thinking, and all but impervious to inconvenient facts. And now that party’s leaders have bungled themselves into a corner.

Everybody not inside the bubble realizes that Mr. Obama can’t and won’t negotiate under the threat that the House will blow up the economy if he doesn't — any concession at all would legitimize extortion as a routine part of politics. Yet Republican leaders are just beginning to get a clue, and so far clearly have no idea how to back down. Meanwhile, the government is shut, and a debt crisis looms. Incompetence can be a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/opinion/krugman-the-boehner-bunglers.html
 
2MF said:
Thanks. I still don't see how that proves the debt limit is unconstitutional though, even if it's a bad idea.

Seems to me like if it was, that would have been used against in the past.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody think the 14th Amendment approach would be a slam-dunk victory, but if it reaches the point where we have to get into a Constitutional battle, here at least is something the Administration can hold up and say there's enough here to justify a fight instead of a summary dismissal.
 
GaimeGuy said:
No, it's to authorize the debt that congress has already agreed upon.

Say you have a debt at 12 trillion, the debt ceiling is at 12.5 trillion, and you pass an annual budget which will run a $800 billion dollar deficit.

Well, what happens now is, about midway through the year, we begin to have this brinksmanship where congress has to agree to raise the debt ceiling, because the deficit they've agreed upon is going to push the debt past the current limit.

It's a fucking pointless thing to have.
Click to expand...

Yep. Allows politicians to argue about something they have already agreed to for a second time. In this case, they are doing so while pretending it is something new they are arguing about.
 
GaimeGuy said:
No, it's to authorize the debt that congress has already agreed upon.

Say you have a debt at 12 trillion, the debt ceiling is at 12.5 trillion, and you pass an annual budget which will run a $800 billion dollar deficit.

Well, what happens now is, about midway through the year, we begin to have this brinksmanship where congress has to agree to raise the debt ceiling, because the deficit they've agreed upon is going to push the debt past the current limit.

It's a fucking pointless thing to have.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the already-agreed-upon deficit probably implies the debt will have to be increased. But that doesn't mean a consitutional article protecting the validity of existing debt also extends to protect the validity of "debt which doesn't exist yet but we'll probably need to have".

IANAL (I am not a lawyer, lol) but as others said, this reasoning is far from certain to work in practice.
 
Riki said:
I know a lot of GAF seems to hate her or something, but god I love her show. She just nails every point.
Click to expand...

i dont hate her, but everytime she opens up a big segment explaining the situation relating to the next guest, she'll ask them did she get everything right? Im like ok we get it, you need your ego stroked, we know your fucking clever already...
 
I have a feeling what's going to happen is that the repubs will fold at the last minute and then Obama will sell us down the river on entitlement reform in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. That will be the 'compromise'.
 
Black Republican said:
i dont hate her, but everytime she opens up a big segment explaining the situation relating to the next guest, she'll ask them did she get everything right? Im like ok we get it, you need your ego stroked, we know your fucking clever already...
Click to expand...

I've noticed that's Olbermann's thing as well
"Say controversial thing"
Bring in guest with unique perspective on issue
"Am I right or what?"
 
pizza dog said:
I confess I have no idea how viable an option that is, procedurally. I guess Obama instructs Treasury Secretary in the cabinet to ignore the debt ceiling, then Republicans in Congress file suit and I'd expect the Supreme Court files issues an injunction which would probably say "uphold current law until we hear the case", and then the default happens anyway.

I'm not clear on how the timeline plays out. Is it possible to even know of that's a viable end-around until you try it at prime time literally on the day it matters?
Click to expand...

If Obama ignored an injunction he wouldn't be the first president to do so. I doubt he wants this as a part of his legacy but if he means what he says then defying even a final Supreme Court ruling wouldn't be out of the question for any President with at least one house of Congress on his side.
 
mavs said:
If Obama ignored an injunction he wouldn't be the first president to do so. I doubt he wants this as a part of his legacy but if he means what he says then defying even a final Supreme Court ruling wouldn't be out of the question for any President with at least one house of Congress on his side.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Supremes don't want anything to do with this mess. If it get to that point were the 14th is used and an injunction stops its validity in regards to defaulting, the supreme court would have their hands as dirty as everyone else.
 
Republicans wouldn't bother with the supreme court. They'd just go straight to impeachment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Brazilian news] Based girl doesn't give her place in the window plane
Opinion Drama Cringe 
47
4K
Avid Reading Horse replied
  • Poll
Former employee says Microsoft doesn't really care if you pirate Windows
Business  2
67
5K
Diddy X replied
  • Locked
Why doesn't the boss close down this place??
34
2K
EviLore replied
Something odd happened today, want your take on if it's something or nothing
2
50
314
YCoCg replied
India: Why a nation of 1.45 billion wants more children
31
2K
Lukaku's First Touch replied
Top Bottom