Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

They aren't "fully behind" not raising the debt ceiling. The last I looked it was close to half and half.

Fake editz: I see you guys already covered this.

That wasn't really my point, regardless. It's that policy policy snapshot polls are wholly meaningless.

 

[RustyNails]

The new deal is two-phase. The first one is cut spending, raise debt limit. The second one has some tax reforms which the gang of 6 outlined:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is expected to outline a blueprint calling for roughly $2.7 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade while raising the debt limit by $2.4 trillion -- an amount sufficient to fund the government through the 2012 election. Reid's plan would not require any new tax hikes or reforms to politically popular entitlement programs.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is expected to outline a two-stage plan. The first stage calls for approximately $1.2 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling through the end of 2011, two Republican leadership aides told CNN. The second stage would raise the debt limit through 2012, but tie the increase to major tax reforms and entitlement changes outlined by a bipartisan commission composed of Senate and House members.

 

[gcubed]

It should not matter if 100% of Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling--most children object to eating their peas. They still have to do it.

I wonder if we would have to deal with less of this stupidity if we stopped directly electing senators--why did we start?

Sidebar: I've gone to posting fully from my work computer, and it is a miserable change. Internet explorer is holding me back.

i'm not sure the other way would be particularly better

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Now that the NFL is back, here is what I propose:

Lets get a tackle football game involving congress. Have a draft, one practice, and then suit the players up in gear. The game will consist of two 20 minute half's. Whoever wins, their team gets to choose the plan to raise the debt ceiling. The teams can and will consist of both men and women.

GO GO GO

 

[eznark]

Now that the NFL is back, here is what I propose:

Lets get a tackle football game involving congress. Have a draft, one practice, and then suit the players up in gear. The game will consist of two 20 minute half's. Whoever wins, their team gets to choose the plan to raise the debt ceiling. The teams can and will consist of both men and women.

GO GO GO

Heath Shuler can be a star again!!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Heath Shuler can be a star again!!

Nanci Pelosi and Michelle Bachman as linebackers! Harry Reid and Boehner as QB's.

 

[eznark]

Nanci Pelosi and Michelle Bachman as linebackers! Harry Reid and Boehner as QB's.

Harry Reid is probably dumb enough to start himself instead of the NFL QB he has at his disposal, you're right.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Harry Reid is probably dumb enough to start himself instead of the NFL QB he has at his disposal, you're right.

Just sayin'

 

[gcubed]

Harry Reid is probably dumb enough to start himself instead of the NFL QB he has at his disposal, you're right.

That would be the request of the other team, he would agree.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That would be the request of the other team, he would agree.

lol.

 

[sc0la]

To be honest I would rather any deal forgo revenue increases in the short term that pre-empt the expiration of bush tax cuts. Those "deals" are worse than 1 trillion in cuts with no new revenues IMO. 1/3 the revenue of the "do nothing" plan is not a win.

This is all predicated on Obama not caving on renewing those, which is not self evident of course.

 

[Dude Abides]

Shuler's a blue dog. He'd probably insist on playing for the GOP team.

 

[Evlar]

The Ryan plan is an eternal spring of rebukes to every possible Republican claim to fiscal responsibility. Democrats are going to be mining that shit for talking points for years. Here's the latest treasure unearthed by Ezra Klein:

Included in Harry Reid’s proposal to cut $2.7 trillion from the deficit is a trillion or so dollars in savings from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Lori Montgomery reports that “counting money not spent on wars that the nation is already planning to end is widely viewed as a budget gimmick, and House GOP leaders have been reluctant to include it as savings.”

There’s some truth to this argument, as I’ll explain in a minute. But the GOP is trying to have it both ways. Boehner uses the Congressional Budget Office’s deficit estimates. He doesn’t subtract trillions because he doesn’t believe the agency’s war-spending estimates are faulty. Nor do I remember him calling the savings from Paul Ryan’s budget — which Boehner voted for — fake.But the Congressional Budget Office counts trillions in war spending in its budget baseline, and Ryan’s budget cut a trillion dollars from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In fact, cutting war spending was one of Ryan’s largest sources of savings over the first decade. The following table, which you can find in larger form in this document (pdf) at the House Budget Committee’s Web site, estimates them at $1.04 trillion against the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline.

The background to this issue is that the Congressional Budget Office projects the future cost of the wars by taking current spending and assuming it grows by inflation. We know that won’t happen. But insofar as “the deficit” is a budget concept measured by the CBO, officially cutting war spending cuts the deficit. The fact that it’s not a painful cut that requires taxes to rise or Medicaid beneficiaries to pay more for their health care should make it more appealing, not less. And it is very hard to understand how Republicans could have touted those savings in their budget but object to them when Reid includes them in his proposal.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

well, at least we won't default and the cuts are fairly minor so it shouldn't have too much of an effect on the economic situation, at least not as bad as it could have been had we defaulted.

It's just too bad holding the economic future of the world's economy is now a bargaining chip

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

well, at least we won't default and the cuts are fairly minor so it shouldn't have too much of an effect on the economic situation, at least not as bad as it could have been had we defaulted.

It's just too bad holding the economic future of the world's economy is now a bargaining chip

Not that I think we will but what plan are you referring to in assuming it will be passed and thereby stop us from defaulting?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

i'm not sure the other way would be particularly better

Did some brief reading on the seventeenth amendment, and the special interest argument cuts both ways, I suppose. I think it might tend to mitigate some of the Senate's polarization and reduce some of the stupidity inherent in making senators campaign. Just think: we were almost in a place where we'd have to address people like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle as "Senator," and that shouldn't be a possibility.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Not that I think we will but what plan are you referring to in assuming it will be passed and thereby stop us from defaulting?

one of these two here, which was posted a few posts up

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is expected to outline a blueprint calling for roughly $2.7 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade while raising the debt limit by $2.4 trillion -- an amount sufficient to fund the government through the 2012 election. Reid's plan would not require any new tax hikes or reforms to politically popular entitlement programs.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is expected to outline a two-stage plan. The first stage calls for approximately $1.2 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling through the end of 2011, two Republican leadership aides told CNN. The second stage would raise the debt limit through 2012, but tie the increase to major tax reforms and entitlement changes outlined by a bipartisan commission composed of Senate and House members.

Whichever one, as they seem alright I guess, if we have to not do tax increases.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

this one here, which was posted a few posts up

Oh, yea those. So far Obama has remained steadfast against signing a short term extension that would require congress to act twice before the elections. Will he remain true to his word? lol.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Oh, yea those. So far Obama has remained steadfast against signing a short term extension that would require congress to act twice before the elections. Will he remain true to his word? lol.

we're kind of at the final straw here.

Any wrong decision at this point could have disastrous effects on the economy. We don't have time for Obama to say one wrong thing and have the GOP shred any deal talks and storm out of the room like the last 4 weeks.

So he really can't stay true to his word, I'd hope he'd be more responsible than that and see he's working with very dangerous, self-destructive people, and he needs to calmly do what they want while trying to maintain some aspect of damage control.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

we're kind of at the final straw here.

Any wrong decision at this point could have disastrous effects on the economy. We don't have time for Obama to say one wrong thing and have the GOP shred any deal talks and storm out of the room like the last 4 weeks.

So he really can't stay true to his word, I'd hope he'd be more responsible than that and see he's working with very dangerous, self-destructive people, and he needs to calmly do what they want while trying to maintain some aspect of damage control.

Or he can simply use the 14th amendment and let the Republicans take him to court and threaten him with impeachment.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Or he can simply use the 14th amendment and let the Republicans take him to court and threaten him with impeachment.

I don't want to see this drawn out any longer than it needs to.

Allowing Obama to be tied up in an impeachment is just what the GOP wants

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't want to see this drawn out any longer than it needs to.

Allowing Obama to be tied up in an impeachment is just what the GOP wants

I disagree. I think that it would make them look even worse. What are they going to say? Obama refused to cut social security, medicare without any tax increases so instead he kept the economy from going over the cliff? I'd love to see them try.

 

[mckmas8808]

The new deal is two-phase. The first one is cut spending, raise debt limit. The second one has some tax reforms which the gang of 6 outlined:

Don't care for this plan either. Why would they strike a deal in 2012, when they can't strike on now (ie A non election year)?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I disagree. I think that it would make them look even worse. What are they going to say? Obama refused to cut social security, medicare without any tax increases so instead he kept the economy from going over the cliff? I'd love to see them try.

but is being able to use that against them worth essentially shutting down legislation for months, let alone the media spinning it to make Obama into a raging, anti-Constitutional tyrant.

The GOP has been making plenty of material for campaigning Democrats to use. A drawn out impeachment process just does not seem worth it in the long run, and would just be a big time waster.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

but is being able to use that against them worth essentially shutting down legislation for months, let alone the media spinning it to make Obama into a raging, anti-Constitutional tyrant.

The GOP has been making plenty of material for campaigning Democrats to use. A drawn out impeachment process just does not seem worth it in the long run, and would just be a big time waster.

They've been shutting down legislation since they took office in 2010. What would be any different now? They have been trying to show Obama as a raging anti-Constitutional tyrant. What would be any different now? Republicans would lose that fight.

 

[mckmas8808]

They've been shutting down legislation since they took office in 2010. What would be any different now? They have been trying to show Obama as a raging anti-Constitutional tyrant. What would be any different now? Republicans would lose that fight.

The country would lose too, so lets not be too proud of this either.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The country would lose too, so lets not be too proud of this either.

The country will lose if he signs off on this 2-step process as well. They have been losing since the Republicans took the house. The very idea of congress having to authorize an increase in the debt ceiling is preposterous and for most of our country's existence was never even questioned. Its a lose-lose situation. At least with this avenue Obama doesn't need to have the Republicans continue holding up this paramount action.

 

[RustyNails]

Don't care for this plan either. Why would they strike a deal in 2012, when they can't strike on now (ie A non election year)?

Because the Republicans won't budge. They can't get their teabag caucus in order, even in the face of their corporate overlords' ire. It will be a very interesting 2012.

 

[SirButterstick]

Honestly, fuck the Republicans. Why does there need to be a "deal" in the first place? Hasn't the debt ceiling been raised without issue every time?

Let it default. Even though it would be disastrous, it would destroy the republican party. And I would be a happy man.

 

[mckmas8808]

Harry Reid Calls House Republicans’ Bluff
By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 25, 2011 at 9:59 am

Something you often see in negotiations is a mismatch between one side’s stated sticking points and its real sticking points. In the debate over the debt ceiling, for example, Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare. Having repealed Medicare, it then gives seniors vouchers to purchase more expensive private health insurance. And having replaced Medicare with a voucher system, it then ensures that the vouchers will grow steadily stingier over time. It was only after voting for this plan that Republicans seem to have realized that repealing Medicare is unpopular. Since that time, they’ve been trying to entrap Democrats into reaching some kind of Medicare détente with them, which would immunize them from criticism. Reid’s plan doesn’t do that.

Second, while Reid’s plan doesn’t raise taxes, it also doesn’t take tax increases off the table. Currently, the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 2012. If Reid’s all-cuts plan passes, that still leaves the door open to significant revenue increases. Now that doesn’t mean this is brilliant 11-dimensional chess. The Reid Plan is consistent with substantial revenues coming online in 2012, but that will only happen if President Obama and Senate Democrats stand firm and play hardball on the tax issue. Back in December 2010, they utterly failed to do so.​

#################


Now I would love this plan, if I knew Obama was 150% behind letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But I don't see that happening so........we still aren't anywhere. This process seems to be going no where fast.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm pretty sure the Bush tax cuts will expire, unless GOP gets a majority in both the houses.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm pretty sure the Bush tax cuts will expire, unless GOP gets a majority in both the houses.

On what grounds? They were extended with Democratic control of both houses.

 

[polyh3dron]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Dems = Batman
Republicans = Joker

 

[gcubed]

i have no problem if Obama would say "sure, we will do 100% spending cuts for this bill, but just so you know the Bush tax cuts are gone" I have no faith in him doing this, or enough democrats not joining the GOP to make it veto proof

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The thing with the letting the tax cuts expire, is that the Democrats would hold the "if this debate goes on and nothing happens we win" card that the GOP seems to always hold.

But I just don't see the Democrats taking advantage of that and just letting discussion of it not ever happen, therefore letting them expire.

 

[slidewinder]

On man, that Harry Reid! Always so sly and crafty!

 

[KevinRo]

This debt impasse is pissing me off.

All those senators and representatives shouldn't be allowed to go home or receive pay until this shit gets fixed. They're own self greed is fucking the rest of us over.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

This debt impasse is pissing me off.

All those senators and representatives shouldn't be allowed to go home or receive pay until this shit gets fixed. They're own self greed is fucking the rest of us over.

would they get paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

Probably some clause that excludes them from it, but they are still federal employees

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm pretty sure the Bush tax cuts will expire, unless GOP gets a majority in both the houses.

Yeah right. Obama would have to let the middle class's taxes go "up" as well.

 

[eznark]

The thing with the letting the tax cuts expire, is that the Democrats would hold the "if this debate goes on and nothing happens we win" card that the GOP seems to always hold.

But I just don't see the Democrats taking advantage of that and just letting discussion of it not ever happen, therefore letting them expire.

Politically speaking, the GOP would love it if Obama raised taxes.

 

[RustyNails]

On what grounds? They were extended with Democratic control of both houses.

If Obama wanted to extend them indefinitely, the congress would have pushed the extension at least past 2016. There's no point in bringing up the vote a couple of years later. Remember, he had been under tremendous pressure from the left to let them expire, which culminated into his infamous "this nation was founded on compromise" quip. I doubt he wants to go through the trials again. Then there wouldn't be an election he and his party would have to worry about. Now Reid is giving signals that letting those cuts expire could be a part of the deal.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

If Obama wanted to extend them indefinitely, the congress would have pushed the extension at least past 2016. There's no point in bringing up the vote a couple of years later. Remember, he had been under tremendous pressure from the left to let them expire, which culminated into his infamous "this nation was founded on compromise" quip. I doubt he wants to go through the trials again. Then there wouldn't be an election he and his party would have to worry about. Now Reid is giving signals that letting those cuts expire could be a part of the deal.

What he claims he wants to happen has precious little to do with what actually happens. All the pressures that existed the last time will come to bear the next time, and I don't see any reason to be optimistic about a different outcome.

My only hope for any sort of positive outcome is that gridlock keeps Congress from agreeing on anything and the tax cuts expire entirely for everyone.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Politically speaking, the GOP would love it if Obama raised taxes.

If we have to redo the debt ceiling thing we just did this month right before the election, not even Obama raising taxes could possibly help the GOP.

And tax increases on the wealthy are very popular with voters.

 

[eznark]

If we have to redo the debt ceiling thing we just did this month right before the election, not even Obama raising taxes could possibly help the GOP.

And tax increases on the wealthy are very popular with voters.

You think talking about the debt hurts the challenger? You're nuts. No matter which party is in charge, discussion of the debt is bad for the incumbent.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You think talking about the debt hurts the challenger? You're nuts. No matter which party is in charge, discussion of the debt is bad for the incumbent.

this past month the approval rating of the house, specifically, the GOP has tanked
70%+ of people disapprove of how the GOP is handling this debate

Such an event happening a month before a major election could be devastating to the GOP's chances.

 

[eznark]

this past month the approval rating of the house, specifically, the GOP has tanked
70%+ of people disapprove of how the GOP is handling this debate

Such an event happening a month before a major election could be devastating to the GOP's chances.

How's Barry's approval rating been working out?

No one cares about the approval ratings of a body as a whole. Routinely the House and Senate are looked at unfavorably in polls, yet incumbents keep winning. Weird how that works.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

How's Barry's approval rating been working out?

No one cares about the approval ratings of a body as a whole. Routinely the House and Senate are looked at unfavorably in polls, yet incumbents keep winning. Weird how that works.

Obama's approval ratings stay pretty much the same, in the best of times and in the worst of his presidency.

There's quite a bit of difference from the polls you reference, which may have a 51/49 split or something, and the poll I'm talking about which has 71% of people disapproving.

And with elections becoming increasingly party oriented, approval ratings of an entire party will become a whole lot more relevant.

 

[reilo]

How's Barry's approval rating been working out?

No one cares about the approval ratings of a body as a whole. Routinely the House and Senate are looked at unfavorably in polls, yet incumbents keep winning. Weird how that works.

Better than Reagan's or Clinton's in their respective time as president. Better than any prior president with similar economic conditions, actually.

 

[eznark]

And with elections becoming increasingly party oriented, approval ratings of an entire party will become a whole lot more relevant.

I see no real indication of that, especially with elections as granular as Congress. I think you're also forgetting the truly important elections of last year...Governor's races in a redistricting year.

There is roughly zero chance of the GOP losing the House in 2012.

Better than Reagan's or Clinton's in their respective time as president. Better than any prior president with similar economic conditions, actually.

I didn't mean in a vacuum, I mean in relation to Congress. Both are trending down. But like I said, polls don't matter a whit when talking about congress as a whole.

 

[Diablos]

So basically revenues are going to be front in center in 2012, an election year, which is a big part of what the GOP wanted.

Fuck Congress. Boehner is such a little asswipe. "Too big to do in one step" my ass. Do your fucking job you PUSSY.