-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Diablos said:
I can't be angry at Boehner. He is simply doing what his most vocal constituents and fellow congressmen and women are demanding while Reid and Obama are not.
Byakuya769
Member
Seems like Will Wheaton doesn't know the meaning of compromise.
StopMakingSense
Member
Averon said:
Wil Wheaton has a pretty big nerd community following from his blog he's had since forever. 1.8 million followers on twitter.
Dude Abides
Banned
Byakuya769 said:
He had a leech on his balls, cut him some slack.
Aaron Strife
Banned
GOP holding the house is about as likely as russ feingold winning in 2010eznark said:
Blergmeister
Member
This
seems to suggest that the debt limit is illegal more so than this seems suggests that people have the freedom to carry guns in a private business:
Dude Abides
Banned
Blergmeister said:
If Obama had balls, he'd be threatening to do this, rather than saying "My lawyers say big no no."
I don't think the argument that doing it that way would be particularly unsettling to the bond market very persuasive. The court would probably stay out of it as a political question, and I'd imagine the markets would be comforted by the notion that the President can unilaterally borrow rather than having to wait for the current congressional clown show.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Dude Abides said:
Pretty much.
Manmademan
Member
Dude Abides said:
is being tied up in impeachment trials over the next year or so the best thing for the country?
He'd probably win- but it would be really, really ugly.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Manmademan said:
How would it be any different than what we have been going through the last 8 months? But its quite possible that the threat alone would do enough damage that the Republicans would be willing to truly negotiate a deal, knowing that they wouldn't receive any credit to increasing the debt ceiling but would receive a great deal of the blame for putting Obama in the position to have to use the 14th amendment.
Dude Abides
Banned
Manmademan said:
Why do you think this in particular would necessarily lead to impeachment?
In any event it'd certainly better than a default, and probably better for the country than whatever deal might be reached.
StopMakingSense
Member
Manmademan said:
Impeachment requires a criminal act, as defined by the Constitution, this should be settled in court.
People like to throw it around in instances it doesn't apply (like the action in Libya) because it grabs headlines.
Technically the House CAN impeach for whatever. But doing so would be suicidal.
If I was Obama... 3-4 days before August 2, I would come out and say - "We have exhausted all options and have not been able to reach a bipartisan plan. Therefore, I want a clean debt ceiling bill on my desk. A up-down vote. You either want to raise the debt ceiling or you don't. And as I have said before - elections have consequences. We will see who's right in 2012. The American people do not want to see our country default. I expect it on my desk before the August 2nd deadline."
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's the only thing that keeps me sane.eznark said:
Btw, Obama's still winning in Virginia:
I think it's interesting that Obama's doing poorly in traditionally Democratic states like Michigan and Pennsylvania but holding his surprise Bush state wins from 2008. Nate Silver thinks we're entering an alignment period for elections, which I guess would go with that.PPP said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
Bishman said:
Agreed 100%. The problem with all these various deals and plans is that it will take awhile for both the house and senate to agree to something in conference. He should definitely demand a clean bill in a couple days, as the GOP has clearly squandered any chance at a big cuts package. They shouldn't be rewarded for this.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Some thread levity, posted for PantherLotus' benefit, via the twitness:
"DVRalert: @MHarrisPerry is hosting @maddow tonight! Unprecedented in corporate media: black feminist in anchor seat. #MediaCriticApproved"
"DVRalert: @MHarrisPerry is hosting @maddow tonight! Unprecedented in corporate media: black feminist in anchor seat. #MediaCriticApproved"
PhoenixDark
Banned
On a side note, Rick Perry is now favored to be the republican nominee on Intrade.
Invisible_Insane
Member
When I think about organizations that know how to promote growth, I definitely think of the IMF.
The IMF, Moody's, S&P, and all the other so-called credible evaluators of risk need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
The IMF, Moody's, S&P, and all the other so-called credible evaluators of risk need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Well, Reid's plan looks like a great "call your bluff" offer to both sides
*Meets all the Rep demands for no guaranteed revenues and more cuts than the requested increase in debt ceiling.
*Meets all the Dem demands for no MC/MA/SS cuts & includes the widely popular wind down of our two major war efforts
*Meets the WH's demands for an increase significant enough to last beyond 2012.
*Pits Reps against their previous votes on Ryan and uses Boehner's already agreed to number for discretionary cuts.
If the Reps can't accept this, they must be in it solely to strip safety net programs and protect the mega-rich. They aren't for that are they? *trollface.jpg*
Hell, I see this as a great deal on the assumption that in 2012, President Obama sticks with not renewing the Bush/Obama tax cuts. No revenues now, big revenues in 2013.
*Meets all the Rep demands for no guaranteed revenues and more cuts than the requested increase in debt ceiling.
*Meets all the Dem demands for no MC/MA/SS cuts & includes the widely popular wind down of our two major war efforts
*Meets the WH's demands for an increase significant enough to last beyond 2012.
*Pits Reps against their previous votes on Ryan and uses Boehner's already agreed to number for discretionary cuts.
If the Reps can't accept this, they must be in it solely to strip safety net programs and protect the mega-rich. They aren't for that are they? *trollface.jpg*
Hell, I see this as a great deal on the assumption that in 2012, President Obama sticks with not renewing the Bush/Obama tax cuts. No revenues now, big revenues in 2013.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Or the quality of the jobs.Plinko said:
The 14th Amendment option is a doomsday weapon... not because it will cause impeachment hearings, but because it's unlikely to really solve the problem. The issue here is not just whether granny gets paid or the bond market crumbles (both of which are very, very important for the wellbeing of many people)... It's also whether the "full faith and credit" of the US government has been undermined such that bond-holders wonder if they'll get paid in the future. That is dependent on how stable our political and fiduciary systems are perceived to be. The uncertainty bred by Presidential emergency powers being invoked to just pay the damn bills, plus the spectacle of impeachment over whether the President has the power to just pay the damn bills, will have a negative impact on our ability to borrow at low interest rates. And THAT is a potentially devastating blow to our ability to reduce the debt problem in the future.
Manmademan
Member
StopMakingSense said:
This whole debt ceiling business should be suicidal for the house, but it isn't- since this is what the vocal minority that is the tea party wants.
Same thing with an obama impeachment. Teabaggers are foaming at the mouth for this to happen.
this also.
Manmademan
Member
Diablos said:
I can't recall Romney ever "bringing the fire" during the last round of primaries- instead he got repeatedly owned by Mike Huckabee.
empty vessel
Member
Invisible_Insane said:
Seriously:
The IMF can take a long fucking walk on a short pier. The fucking audacity to propose economic policy prescriptions to my government, and prescriptions of such utter inanity as spending cuts, is so far beyond the pale that it should not be countenanced. Surely the IMF must know that the US government spends among the least of all industrialized countries as a percentage of GDP? The obvious prescription is substantial tax increases to increase government revenue. If anything, spending as a whole needs to be sharply increased.
This should enrage everybody that the IMF is attempting to impose structural adjustment on the US, however indirectly. You should be reaching for your pitchforks right now.
Dude Abides
Banned
Evlar said:
As opposed to the stability and certainty of the current situation, where Congress has to repeatedly raise the ceiling and it turns into a political fight each time?
I know the above is the beltway consensus but it makes little sense.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Manmademan said:
Yea. Now that he has a legitimate opponent with very little baggage (in conservative's eyes), Romney is going to be on the defensive just as he was in 08.
Bachman's honeymoon will be over the minute Perry jumps in
DasRaven said:
Follow-up: WH will endorse Reid plan. Senate vote today.
Boehner's plan is in the mix and continues to push for a BBA thus dooming it in the Senate.
Yes, as opposed to that. The markets will be reassured if the debt ceiling problem goes away. Having it tied up in courts for years is NOT making it go away.Dude Abides said:
EDIT: I mean, what trader want to wake up next April to the news that, oh hey, you know those T-bonds you've been buying the past eight months? They've been declared illegitimate by some appeals court in Virginia! How the hell will you unwind that?
Dude Abides
Banned
Evlar said:
It won't be tied up in court. It's a political question and the courts won't touch it.
If I'm a holder or potential holder of T-bonds I'm much more comfortable if I know it's up to one guy to decide whether I get paid rather than 536.
Dude Abides
Banned
Evlar said:
And that's precisely the type of situation that the SC doesn't want to touch, and why they've invented the political question doctrine.
I understand your point, but the SC can only avoid so much; we know they will act if they feel they must to avoid a Constitutional crisis. See: Bush v. Gore.Dude Abides said:
I am being jaded; I admit it; hard not to be in the context of the current madness. At any rate I'm only expressing what I believe could be market fears, not what I actually think must happen.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
ToxicAdam said:
I darn sure hope that's apart of the deal.
Dude Abides
Banned
Evlar said:
They will not embroil themselves in a constitutional crisis by enjoining Obama from borrowing or declaring all the T-bonds issued after X date invalid.
Even if people think they might, I don't think the uncertainty would be substantially worse than the current uncertainty, and certainly not worse than an actual default, and I don't see why Geithner et al. are hamstringing themselves by making this argument.
jamesinclair
Banned
Harry Reid is a traitor and terrorist.
His job record is delicious. I want to see him pull it out and watch it fail all over his face.
I think everyone who thinks Perry is wonderful has clearly not been following news in Texas.
Lets see whats happening in Texas:
Now, what does 100% of Texas being in drought have to do with Perry?
Ok, people are angry they have to spend money, but what are the political implications?
Hey look, its republican "no regulations in texas!" growth, where people can build what they want without having to consider the environmental implications.
So besides the lack of regulations, whats the second cornerstone of a GOP governership?
Oil and gas.
When your kitchen sink doesnt have water because of fracking....that 10% is mighty relevant.
Go ahead and read the comments. 90% are about how these unregulated subdivisions are ruining the state and how the fracking will result in death for everyone.
Nobody in the comments is pointing fingers at Perry yet, but you just need to connect the dots between:
GOP says no to regulation = too many straws in the aquifer cup
GOP says we need a small government = lack of planning for water management
GOP says yay to oil and gas = fracking using huge amounts of water
And suddenly, the GOP doesnt look so good in their heartland, because GOP policies, like everyone else, are reaping what they have sown.
Id like to see Parry talk about how many jobs hes created when people start abandoning their homes due to a lack of water....which he helped create.
The comment section is packed with stuff like this:
The peasants are growing reckless.
Plinko said:
His job record is delicious. I want to see him pull it out and watch it fail all over his face.
I think everyone who thinks Perry is wonderful has clearly not been following news in Texas.
Lets see whats happening in Texas:
Now, what does 100% of Texas being in drought have to do with Perry?
Ok, people are angry they have to spend money, but what are the political implications?
Hey look, its republican "no regulations in texas!" growth, where people can build what they want without having to consider the environmental implications.
So besides the lack of regulations, whats the second cornerstone of a GOP governership?
Oil and gas.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/23/3241673/drought-is-taking-toll-on-texas.html
When your kitchen sink doesnt have water because of fracking....that 10% is mighty relevant.
Go ahead and read the comments. 90% are about how these unregulated subdivisions are ruining the state and how the fracking will result in death for everyone.
Nobody in the comments is pointing fingers at Perry yet, but you just need to connect the dots between:
GOP says no to regulation = too many straws in the aquifer cup
GOP says we need a small government = lack of planning for water management
GOP says yay to oil and gas = fracking using huge amounts of water
And suddenly, the GOP doesnt look so good in their heartland, because GOP policies, like everyone else, are reaping what they have sown.
Id like to see Parry talk about how many jobs hes created when people start abandoning their homes due to a lack of water....which he helped create.
The comment section is packed with stuff like this:
The peasants are growing reckless.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Because there are no institutional incentives in place to avoid another one?Chichikov said:
bodyofanamerican
Member
Ok, this HAS to be a hidden camera show at this point, right?
- Status