Support NeoGAF

[balladofwindfishes]

At this stage of the game.... does it matter? Everyone in DC thinks the silent majority are peons. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if they are actually serious.

Hmm... someone in the comments of that article noted how that source was the only place with the news and all other articles about the news referenced the Huffington post.

Makes me wonder if it was an intern who heard some crazy deal that was never serious and ran with the story or something.

 

[Averon]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ises-debt-ceiling-framework-today.php?ref=fpa

Boehner Snipes At Obama, Promises Debt Ceiling ‘Framework’ Today

With the hours before the Asian financial markets open -- a waypoint set by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) yesterday -- Boehner promised to propose a new framework to raise the debt ceiling by the end of Sunday. But he couldn't promise a bipartisan deal after a day of talks Saturday that seemed to be unsuccessful.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Boehner said a framework is coming Sunday. But where it goes after that is anyone's guess.

"I'm going to do my best to work with my Congressional colleagues, my House Republican colleagues, to be able to put a framework out there today," Boehner said. "I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solace this problem. If that's not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own. Today."

Yesterday's talks on Capitol Hill were based on a two-tier debt ceiling framework Boehner has proposed. Republicans want a short-term increase with spending cuts now, with a second larger increase tied to cuts that would be proposed out by a bipartisan commission. That would require a second vote on the debt limit next year, which Democrats have rejected. Democrats have expressed interest in a two-part strategy as long as the debt increase through the end of 2012 is completed now.

Boehner also said he's still open to the grand bargain he and President Obama attempted to forge earlier in the process. Boehner's own caucus has opposed a big deal -- which would include revenue increases and spending cuts -- making it tough for Boehner to move forward with that plan. Still, Boehner says he's open to it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I have to wonder what they're thinking.

I mean, rationally, what would potentially hurt the economy more in the long run. A default or tax increases on the wealthy?

I mean, it's not rocket science to see which one of those negatively effects the nation more than the other.

The American people want revenue increases, so it's not a matter of even doing what the voters want these days.


Just give up... I mean, come on, it just doesn't seem worth it for the GOP to fight this losing battle that's going to have a profound effect on their legislative future and their upcoming election.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Everything Obama has tried to do has been severely compromised or gimped by the Republicans. He's had some serious missteps as president as well. So it comes down to voting for four more years of a spineless president who refuses to take charge or four more years of Bush era stupidity.

 

[planar1280]

Everything Obama has tried to do has been severely compromised or gimped by the Republicans. He's had some serious missteps as president as well. So it comes down to voting for four more years of a spineless president who refuses to take charge or four more years of Bush era stupidity.

you mean spineless democrats who refused to unite behind their president

 

[Door2Dawn]

I think the democrats should just give the republicans what they want so we can just get this shit over with. This is scaring the shit out of people.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

you mean spineless democrats who refused to unite behind their president

even when they did unite, the filibuster ruined it.

 

[RustyNails]

Considering he doesn't even have an opponent yet, this doesn't mean a lot. When you look at how they break the polling down, he is, as the article said, most certainly not setting the world on fire. Casey's a shitty campaigner and everyone in the state (left, right and center) knows it, not to mention he's done fuck all for his entire first term as Senator. 2012 will not be like 2006; Casey will actually have to try and won't be going up against a douche like Santorum.

Read the link again. There are quite a few Republican contenders:

The candidates who had lined up to face Casey at the time we took this poll are decidedly B-list. Marc Scaringi has 16% statewide name recognition and trails Casey by 18 points at 47-29. 17% of voters in the state have an opinion about Laureen Cummings and she trails Casey by 20 points at 51-31.

A cadre of prospective candidates who don't seem likely to actually make the race against Casey do better than Scaringi and Cummings, but still all trail by double digit margins. Tim Murphy trails by 12 points at 47-35, and Jim Gerlach and Jake Corman each trail by 16 points at 49-33 and 51-35 respectively.

But all of them are trailing Casey Jr by double digits. There are no serious GOP candidates for PA Senate because there are no serious GOP candidates left at all. But you want to peddle your doom and gloom fear mongering nonsense based on nothing but grumblings in your tummy.

 

[Y2Kev]

What is this "super" idea? It's a sub Congress. Not a super congress. This is such an abuse of terms.

 

[Plinko]

I have to wonder what they're thinking.

I mean, rationally, what would potentially hurt the economy more in the long run. A default or tax increases on the wealthy?

I mean, it's not rocket science to see which one of those negatively effects the nation more than the other.

The American people want revenue increases, so it's not a matter of even doing what the voters want these days.


Just give up... I mean, come on, it just doesn't seem worth it for the GOP to fight this losing battle that's going to have a profound effect on their legislative future and their upcoming election.

It's clear to me that they're merely pandering to those who support their campaigns. The vast majority of Americans are in favor of tax increases on those making over $250,000 a year. This isn't a plan geared toward winning over Americans--it's a plan geared toward winning over political donors and lobbyists.

It will be fun in 2012 watching them try to spin this into anything but what it actually is.

 

[Sky Chief]

Everything Obama has tried to do has been severely compromised or gimped by the Republicans. He's had some serious missteps as president as well. So it comes down to voting for four more years of a spineless president who refuses to take charge or four more years of Bush era stupidity.

Honestly, how are the two any different? Obama has pretty much taken the Bush playbook and done exactly the same things to an even more extreme degree. This is Bush era stupidity on steroids.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Honestly, how are the two any different? Obama has pretty much taken the Bush playbook and done exactly the same things to an even more extreme degree. This is Bush era stupidity on steroids.

That's a bit hyperbolic, but you're right.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It will be fun in 2012 watching them try to spin this into anything but what it actually is.

I have to wonder if it'll actually work again.

If the economy is still bad, it will have been glaringly obvious tax decreases didn't work, and the GOP will have absolutely no prior political policies they enacted while in the house to show that helped at all. Blaming Obama will prove not effective, as Obama remains a widely popular president, even through the worst of times.

They'll have to rely their entire campaign on rhetoric and propaganda, and I'm just not sure how long they can effectively do that as their main demographics slowly dwindle and become much more regional.

If you look at the decreasing religiousness in the country and the growth of atheism and agnosticism, plus our growing number of Democrat voting immigrants in strictly conservative states, it might not be as easy to disillusion the voters as the GOP did last year.

 

[Allard]

It's clear to me that they're merely pandering to those who support their campaigns. The vast majority of Americans are in favor of tax increases on those making over $250,000 a year. This isn't a plan geared toward winning over Americans--it's a plan geared toward winning over political donors and lobbyists.

It will be fun in 2012 watching them try to spin this into anything but what it actually is.

I don't think its even that, we had reports from several high end campaign donors for Cantor that said raise their taxes if it meant avoiding a default. A default is the one thing no one in their campaign donor or their lobbyists lists wants to see happen. At this point I think its a combination just ignorant freshman congressman and an even stupider rapid base. They should not have decided to fight the debt ceiling, it is a game chicken that no one comes out ahead. They should have fought on ground that they could have appeased the base and actually gained some campaign ground, but no they played political games with an issue that affects everyone and they are on the wrong side of it on almost every level. I'd say good riddance if it wasn't so deeply concerning. They are dragging the whole country down because their stubborn stupidity.

 

[besada]

I suspect the entire point of the "Super Congress" is to find twelve guys with safe seats, who don't have to worry about the stain of whatever they do. That way both sides can cry foul, and shriek about how terrible their cuts and/or tax increases are.

It's a massive passing of the buck to avoid their responsibilities, which is par for the course for this Congress.

 

[PantherLotus]

The Obama/Bush comparison is fucking bonkers, coming from complete misinformation, complete "everyone sucks" mentality. You guys could not be more wrong.

If Bush (or his proxy, McCain/Palin) was in office we wouldn't have passed a stimulus, we'd be at 15% official unemployment, 28% actual, we wouldn't have killed Bin Laden, DADT wouldn't be repealed...

I know it's common wisdom to assume that all politicians are basically the same, but c'mon. This is absolute bullshit.



caveat: we probably also wouldn't have the tea party, the debt ceiling would be a non-issue, we wouldn't be in Libya...

 

[Krowley]

I suspect the entire point of the "Super Congress" is to find twelve guys with safe seats, who don't have to worry about the stain of whatever they do. That way both sides can cry foul, and shriek about how terrible their cuts and/or tax increases are.

It's a massive passing of the buck to avoid their responsibilities, which is par for the course for this Congress.

If it breaks the constant deadlocks we see in the current legislative environment, it might help things, even if it isn't necessarily ideal.

The way things are right now, the congress is basically broken. They can't actually do anything. Creating a situation where people are forced to make an up or down vote on things without the ability to set up roadblocks might allow incremental progress to be made.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I wonder if the dems never comprised then what would happen to america.

 

[ThisWreckage]

The Obama/Bush comparison is fucking bonkers, coming from complete misinformation, complete "everyone sucks" mentality. You guys could not be more wrong.

If Bush (or his proxy, McCain/Palin) was in office we wouldn't have passed a stimulus, we'd be at 15% official unemployment, 28% actual, we wouldn't have killed Bin Laden, DADT wouldn't be repealed...

I know it's common wisdom to assume that all politicians are basically the same, but c'mon. This is absolute bullshit.



caveat: we probably also wouldn't have the tea party, the debt ceiling would be a non-issue, we wouldn't be in Libya...

Add wiretapping to your caveat. Along with no prosecution of Wall Street or reforms. Failure to close Gitmo. Expansion of TSA searches, etc.

 

[besada]

If it breaks the constant deadlocks we see in the current legislative environment, it might help things, even if it isn't necessarily ideal.

The way things are right now, the congress is basically broken. They can't actually do anything. Creating a situation where people are forced to make an up or down vote on things without the ability to set up roadblocks might allow incremental progress to be made.

Then the solution is to fix the structural issues with the House and Senate, not create a third body protected from the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, that would require a willingness to actually fight, which might cost someone their seat. It also needs an informed and engaged electorate, and I fear we're decades past that in the U.S.

I wonder if the dems never comprised then what would happen to america.

The government would shut down, and the people would finally start paying attention when their checks stopped coming.

 

[airmangataosenai]

The Obama/Bush comparison is fucking bonkers, coming from complete misinformation, complete "everyone sucks" mentality. You guys could not be more wrong.

If Bush (or his proxy, McCain/Palin) was in office we wouldn't have passed a stimulus, we'd be at 15% official unemployment, 28% actual, we wouldn't have killed Bin Laden, DADT wouldn't be repealed...

I know it's common wisdom to assume that all politicians are basically the same, but c'mon. This is absolute bullshit.



caveat: we probably also wouldn't have the tea party, the debt ceiling would be a non-issue, we wouldn't be in Libya...

Bu bu bu both sides man! Both sides are wrong or something! They're all the same because they ummm.... sorry, I don't really follow politics.

Add wiretapping to your caveat. Along with no prosecution of Wall Street or reforms. Failure to close Gitmo. Expansion of TSA searches, etc.

Give it a rest people. It's not as if he just decided to keep the place open because he loves having POW, it's either releasing the last few guys who we know for a fact are dangerous or keep them there after congress passed that ridiculous bill. He was kneecapped by congress on this one and you know it. Call me an apologist if you must but there really is very little he can do politically here.

And it's even more ridiculous to compare him to Bush on this issue too. Had Bush been still around we would still be expanding Gitmo, when was the last time you heard about new prisoners being sent there? I say it all the time and it's true: With Dems skewed view of the recent past and apathy towards the future they deserve whatever they get. Look where we are because you people didn't give a shit during the midterms.

 

[Draft]

There is a level beyond Congress. You could call it Super Congress.

 

[Snake]

I can't wait 'til we get to Super Congress 3. Majin Buu's debt shenanigans won't stand a chance.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Bu bu bu both sides man! Both sides are wrong or something! They're all the same because they ummm.... sorry, I don't really follow politics.


Give it a rest people. It's not as if he just decided to keep the place open because he loves having POW, it's either releasing the last few guys who we know for a fact are dangerous or keep them there after congress passed that ridiculous bill. He was kneecapped by congress on this one and you know it. Call me an apologist if you must but there really is very little he can do politically here.

And it's even more ridiculous to compare him to Bush on this issue too. Had Bush been still around we would still be expanding Gitmo, when was the last time you heard about new prisoners being sent there? I say it all the time and it's true: With Dems skewed view of the recent past and apathy towards the future they deserve whatever they get. Look where we are because you people didn't give a shit during the midterms.

The argument was if Bush were still president, Gitmo would still be open. Just like it's still open and operational under Obama. That's a fact. Arguing about theoretical expansion doesn't change that.

 

[besada]

Call me an apologist if you must but there really is very little he can do politically here.

Then maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't have announced to the American people that he was going to close it. I don't feel much pity for him regarding the difficulties of enacting his agenda, because he's the one that acted as if he could do such a thing by fiat. When you overpromise, it's no one's fault but yours when you can't deliver. He should have been fully aware of the difficulties he'd face, and yet he didn't say, "Hey, we're going to maybe try and close Gitmo, or at least reduce the number of people held there," because that's not a very effective slogan. He promised to shut down Gitmo during the campaign. If he didn't have the power (or willingness to use it) to do so, in what way was he not simply lying to the electorate?

And if he was lying to the electorate, why, exactly, should anyone cut him a break on it?

Note: I laughed my ass off when Bush, Sr. promised no new taxes and then had to eat that promise. Why should I feel differently from Obama, who also promised something any reasonable observer knew was a lie?

 

[Diablos]

there's a huge vocal backlash against the GOP.

It would be a very odd election if the GOP was so unpopular, yet actually gained seats anywhere The GOP is even unpopular right now in areas usually held by the GOP.

That sort of stuff just does not happen in American history.

The GOP might lose a few seats, but nowhere near enough to lose the House majority and they're going to make gains in the Senate if anything. Best case scenario is the Senate goes back to around 50/50 but that's not really desirable either. Gridlock++

you are such an inconsistent poster that solely uses stats to peddle only your bullshit that its humorous to watch you

I'm not inconsistent, I'm not peddling bullshit, and I don't solely use stats. If all you can do is sling what are largely personal insults my way, please don't address me.

Read the link again. There are quite a few Republican contenders:

But all of them are trailing Casey Jr by double digits. There are no serious GOP candidates for PA Senate because there are no serious GOP candidates left at all. But you want to peddle your doom and gloom fear mongering nonsense based on nothing but grumblings in your tummy.

It's a Senate election that hasn't even warmed up yet. The lead will tighten once the GOP sinks money, rhetoric and advertising behind their candidate. It'll be a much closer race than you are thinking. Trust me, you don't need someone like Pat Toomey to have a decent shot at taking Casey's seat.

I have to wonder if it'll actually work again.

If the economy is still bad, it will have been glaringly obvious tax decreases didn't work, and the GOP will have absolutely no prior political policies they enacted while in the house to show that helped at all. Blaming Obama will prove not effective, as Obama remains a widely popular president, even through the worst of times.

They'll have to rely their entire campaign on rhetoric and propaganda, and I'm just not sure how long they can effectively do that as their main demographics slowly dwindle and become much more regional.

If you look at the decreasing religiousness in the country and the growth of atheism and agnosticism, plus our growing number of Democrat voting immigrants in strictly conservative states, it might not be as easy to disillusion the voters as the GOP did last year.

If unemployment is still the same as or above what it was when Obama took office, history suggests he's most likely not getting re-elected.

Their main demographics are dwindling but not so rapidly that it's going to be a profound difference between 2008 and 2012. Maybe in another 10 years, sure.

The growth of non-religious and immigrant voters again is something to take note of, but they're not going to make any significant gains in four years time, certainly not to the point where it's going to be seriously offsetting or surpassing GOP voters. No way. That's going to take time, a lot of time.

Just give up... I mean, come on, it just doesn't seem worth it for the GOP to fight this losing battle that's going to have a profound effect on their legislative future and their upcoming election.

They're likely hoping to let the stupid "SUPER CONGRESS" form.

 

[empty vessel]

Then the solution is to fix the structural issues with the House and Senate, not create a third body protected from the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, that would require a willingness to actually fight, which might cost someone their seat. It also needs an informed and engaged electorate, and I fear we're decades past that in the U.S.

And that would require a functioning news media. And that would require an informed and engaged electorate. And that would require a functioning news media. And that would require an informed and engaged electorate. It's like that commercial about that guy who works to make more money to buy more cocaine.

We have to find a way to short the circuit and create either a functioning news media or an informed and engaged electorate without the other. I'm pretty pessimistic as well, but I know it's been done before, so I have to think it can happen again. Hopefully those who believe a severe and sustained crisis is required for that to occur aren't correct about that and we can there short of that.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Obama/Bush comparison is fucking bonkers, coming from complete misinformation, complete "everyone sucks" mentality. You guys could not be more wrong.

If Bush (or his proxy, McCain/Palin) was in office we wouldn't have passed a stimulus, we'd be at 15% official unemployment, 28% actual, we wouldn't have killed Bin Laden, DADT wouldn't be repealed...

I know it's common wisdom to assume that all politicians are basically the same, but c'mon. This is absolute bullshit.



caveat: we probably also wouldn't have the tea party, the debt ceiling would be a non-issue, we wouldn't be in Libya...

That's ridiculous. Whoever won was going to pass a stimulus. It probably wouldn't look too different from Obama's, and would have been as ineffective in the long term.

The Bin Laden mission started before Obama became president, there's a chance he would have been found by McCain as well.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Step 1. Wait until congress doesn't come up with a plan by 4pm eastern and asian markets open.
Step 2. Buy the dip
Step 3. ?????
Step 4. Profit

 

[besada]

And that would require a functioning news media. And that would require an informed and engaged electorate. And that would require a functioning news media. And that would require an informed and engaged electorate. It's like that commercial about that guy who works to make more money to buy more cocaine.

We have to find a way to short the circuit and create either a functioning news media or an informed and engaged electorate without the other. I'm pretty pessimistic as well, but I know it's been done before, so I have to think it can happen again. Hopefully those who believe a severe and sustained crisis is required for that to occur aren't correct about that and we can there short of that.

I agree with you on what needs to be done. The country is based on the idea of an informed electorate. Alexis de Toqueville saw it before America was fully formed. So did Jefferson.

My concern is that we're so far gone that we're no longer able to correct fundamental problems. The fourth estate is in shambles, and the only body who might be able to fix that is doing their level best to abandon all responsibility to the people.

The parties who benefit from this broken democracy have become masters at anesthetizing the people, whether it's by the proliferation of cheap consumer goods and the constant striving for more, or the constant drumbeat that tells them they can have no effect on the world. I'm not sure how to fight against that. When half of the youth consume news less than once a week, we've already lost the fight. Following and engaging with the world around you is a habit that needs to start young. When we age, the pressures of the world steal the time we need to inform ourselves, unless we've already developed the habit.

I haven't been this pessimistic about our future for a long time, and I lived through the end of Nixon's attack on the structure of government.

I can think of any number of plans to repair the damage, as can you, I'm sure. But I can't see how any of those plans might be enacted with the government we currently have, regardless of which party controls it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If unemployment is still the same as or above what it was when Obama took office, history suggests he's most likely not getting re-elected.

History has also suggested Obama would be a very unpopular president with rapid swings in approval ratings, but he's managed to go against the grain and maintain a stable rating through most of his presidency against all odds.

I'd say we're looking at an election where the normal "rules" might not entirely apply.

 

[GhaleonEB]

That's ridiculous. Whoever won was going to pass a stimulus. It probably wouldn't look too different from Obama's, and would have been as ineffective in the long term.

The Bin Laden mission started before Obama became president, there's a chance he would have been found by McCain as well.

The stimulus would have been massively tilted toward corporate tax breaks and been marginally effective for it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

History has also suggested Obama would be a very unpopular president with rapid swings in approval ratings, but he's managed to go against the grain and maintain a stable rating through most of his presidency against all odds.

I'd say we're looking at an election where the normal "rules" might not entirely apply.

This is also true. If we were to go by history, Obama shouldn't have been elected for another 16 years or so.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Awesome, people in New York City are blocking protestors at churches doing gay marriages with rainbow colored umbrellas.

I have a feeling those opposed to it are incredibly outnumbered in New York City.


Opponents are calling for a Constitutional amendment (not the state constitution, THE Constitution) defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and claim it's not a religious issue, it's done to protect marriage and children.
Talk about an uphill battle for them haha.

 

[Gaborn]

Awesome, people in New York City are blocking protestors at churches doing gay marriages with rainbow colored umbrellas.

I have a feeling those opposed to it are incredibly outnumbered in New York City.


Opponents are calling for a Constitutional amendment (not the state constitution, THE Constitution) defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and claim it's not a religious issue, it's done to protect marriage and children.
Talk about an uphill battle for them haha.

Yeah, their best opportunity for THAT was when the Republicans controlled everything and they couldn't even come particularly close to passing the FMA then. This is heading to being an inevitably settled issue. It's just a matter of time and frankly we've made INSANE progress the last 7 years.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The stimulus would have been massively tilted toward corporate tax breaks and been marginally effective for it.

So you're basically saying the economy would pretty much be in the same position it is today. Agreed.

 

[Byakuya769]

So you're basically saying the economy would pretty much be in the same position it is today. Agreed.

Give or take 3-5 percentage points in unemployment.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Awesome, people in New York City are blocking protestors at churches doing gay marriages with rainbow colored umbrellas.

I have a feeling those opposed to it are incredibly outnumbered in New York City.


Opponents are calling for a Constitutional amendment (not the state constitution, THE Constitution) defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and claim it's not a religious issue, it's done to protect marriage and children.
Talk about an uphill battle for them haha.

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for these bigots... almost

 

[Jackson50]

Considering he doesn't even have an opponent yet, this doesn't mean a lot. When you look at how they break the polling down, he is, as the article said, most certainly not setting the world on fire. Casey's a shitty campaigner and everyone in the state (left, right and center) knows it, not to mention he's done fuck all for his entire first term as Senator. 2012 will not be like 2006; Casey will actually have to try and won't be going up against a douche like Santorum.

It's a Senate election that hasn't even warmed up yet. The lead will tighten once the GOP sinks money, rhetoric and advertising behind their candidate. It'll be a much closer race than you are thinking. Trust me, you don't need someone like Pat Toomey to have a decent shot at taking Casey's seat.

The lack of GOP activity may be a result of Casey's strength. In the seats where Democrats are most vulnerable, the GOP is already fielding quality candidates. MO, NE, MT, and a few others, all attracted quality GOP candidates early. The absence of a quality challenger indicates that there is some reluctance among potential candidates to challenge Casey. Still, it is early. And the race is still fluid. It would be foolish to read too much into the current situation. But if he were as vulnerable as you suggest, I would expect a quality candidate to have already appeared.

Otherwise, I agree with your general assessment. The Democrats have an inordinate number of seats to defend, and few veteran Senators are retiring. Their majority is vulnerable. It is going to be a slog.

 

[gcubed]

N/m don't feel like leaving it

 

[RegularCitizen]

The Democrats have to compromise in order for this to work.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So you're basically saying the economy would pretty much be in the same position it is today. Agreed.

No. I didn't say that at all, actually.

Give or take 3-5 percentage points in unemployment.

Yup. That's what I was getting at.

The Democrats have to compromise in order for this to work.

Democrats have compromised out the wazoo. What compromise has the GOP made? Name one.

 

[Suikoguy]

Democrats have compromised out the wazoo. What compromise has the GOP made? Name one.

They are agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, duh!

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Congress ditches Obama

First came the Biden talks. When those blew up, the Obama-Boehner talks took center stage. And when that failed, the McConnell-Reid talks looked promising. And after they faltered, the Obama-Boehner talks tried to find a new life.

Now it’s all come down to the Boehner-Reid-Pelosi-McConnell talks to solve the debt crisis. Notably absent? The president.

 

[gcubed]

Congress ditches Obama

First came the Biden talks. When those blew up, the Obama-Boehner talks took center stage. And when that failed, the McConnell-Reid talks looked promising. And after they faltered, the Obama-Boehner talks tried to find a new life.

Now it’s all come down to the Boehner-Reid-Pelosi-McConnell talks to solve the debt crisis. Notably absent? The president.

Who do you think is taking the picture?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How disrespectful of them

He has to sign it, he needs to be a part of the discussions...

 

[Escape Goat]

Pelosi is going to offer them everything they want. I'll call it now.

 

[theBishop]

Congress ditches Obama

First came the Biden talks. When those blew up, the Obama-Boehner talks took center stage. And when that failed, the McConnell-Reid talks looked promising. And after they faltered, the Obama-Boehner talks tried to find a new life.

Now it’s all come down to the Boehner-Reid-Pelosi-McConnell talks to solve the debt crisis. Notably absent? The president.

Oh shit, if you turn your head sideways and squint, it almost looks like the legislative branch is discussing legislation independent of the executive branch. How can this be?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Pelosi is going to offer them everything they want. I'll call it now.

She already had, until the goal posts moved again.

I love how Obama said his only bottom line for whatever they put together is the ceiling raised high enough to get to 2013. Immediately after, Boehner said he was pushing a two step solution, the first step being a short-term extension. The one thing Obama said he'd veto.

This late in the game, and he's still fucking around.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Oh shit, if you turn your head sideways and squint, it almost looks like the legislative branch is discussing legislation independent of the executive branch. How can this be?

the president has always input his opinion into the legislative branch.

That's part of his job. He's suppose to be in the discussions because he ultimately has to sign it, and enforce the rules.