empty vessel
Member
Cyan said:
Don't let him get away with this kind of reframing. The proposal is to raise the fucking debt limit. That is what Republicans are rejecting.
-
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
Don't let him get away with this kind of reframing. The proposal is to raise the fucking debt limit. That is what Republicans are rejecting.
Cyan said:
I think it's still a bit vague but I actually like the framework it lays out. Again though, my concern remains when they throw out a number on spending cuts... what are they? It's easy to say "I support $x spending cuts" but what does that mean practically? What programs are you open to cutting and what programs are you not open to cutting? Are there some you want to protect from any cuts? Some you want to increase funding to? Any you agree to eliminate entirely?
Again, I like the frame work, but I don't think it qualifies as a full fledged plan. It's a great starting road map though. Keep in mind I'm unlikely to be truly satisfied by ANY plan that is finally agreed to because I'd support cutting a helluva lot more. In terms of what I expect more or less to get though that would be a good start. especially cutting the agricultural subsidies.
Chichikov said:
I realize that. The Republicans are using the debt limit to put pressure on the Dems to actually cut spending though (something I have no illusions about them doing if a Republican was in the white house, but still). I wasn't confusing the two, I was speaking in terms of the current political reality. Personally I would rather the debt limit not be raised at all but if it's going to I like that we're doing it this way.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
So how would we pay for things in America if the debt limit wasn't raised? If you were President what would you do?
To be fair, the reframing is happening at a much higher level than a single message-board poster.empty vessel said:
I was honestly just curious what Gaborn thought, given his earlier comments about the lack of proposals from Dems.The real issue is that the Dems have bought into the reframing (at least publicly), as evidenced by Pelosi's comments quoted a bit earlier.
Heh, gotcha. I doubt anyone will be satisfied by whatever random hodge-podge ultimately comes out of this process.Gaborn said:
RustyNails
Member
I was expecting a lot worse. I wasn't expecting defense spending to be on the table, and half of the cuts fall in the "no shit?" category, like the winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan wars.Chichikov said:
mckmas8808 said:
Pretty much this. The full video makes another good point though. Reaching the debt ceiling is not the same as defaulting on our debt. It's like maxing out a credit card. As long as you pay the minimum amount due the credit card company doesn't care. In this case you're only required to pay interest on the debt to avoid default.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Gaborn said:
I can't view the video (stupid work proxy), but you think it would a good idea to not pay on our debts? And just pay the interest? I thought someone like you would be 100% against something like that.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
TacticalFox88
Banned
Abolish the Senate, now. Jesus christ.Suikoguy said:
mckmas8808 said:
What the video suggests is essentially, get through the year by selling TARP assets, the government has $320 billion in TARP assets sitting there doing nothing. Use that to get through the year, paying interest on the debt. Next year you sit down and you actually hammer out a budget that cuts spending and borrowing and at THAT point if it is appropriate to raise the debt ceiling you consider it. But I don't think force feeding a plan to raise the debt limit or force feeding a budget in a few weeks is smart.
Honestly... How long do you think this country will put up with no Social Security checks being cut while, simultaneously, payments continue to be made on bond obligations? Particularly when so many Americans have been convinced that the holders of those bonds are mostly foreigners?gcubed said:
While this is possible, it seems to me entirely unsustainable in political terms.
Evlar said:
This would not be an issue if the government sold off TARP assets. The current debt limit fight is basically saying we will be out of cash on hand and need to borrow more money - or do something CRAZY like selling off some of the mountains of assets the government has.
Again, what do you base it on?RustyNails said:
This could be ALL of the non defense discretionary spending.
I obviously don't think it will be, but this can be terrible beyond words, where's the optimism come from?
It can't come from trusting either party do to the right thing.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Speaker Boehners Big Gamble
BY: Nate Silver
The Republican Speaker John A. Boehner, following the collapse of negotiations with President Obama, appears to be considering a path that would involve the House Republicans voting to raise the federal debt ceiling on their own terms, with little expectation of Democratic support.
Its unclear what Mr. Boehners proposal, set to be unveiled on Monday, will entail. Some reports suggest that it might consist of a six-month increase in the debt limit, which would put the issue into play again in January or February just as the Iowa caucuses are taking place. But Mr. Boehner also hinted that his plans could include elements of the Republicans cut, cap and balance proposal, which was approved by the House last Tuesday but is stymied in the Senate.
If the House was able to approve any kind of increase to the debt limit, it would transfer focus to the White House and to the Senate. Mr. Obama has threatened to veto a short-term increase, but he would have little time left before the Treasurys Aug. 2 deadline and perhaps little leverage. The Democratic-led Senate would probably be the bigger barrier: it could move to vote on its own proposal, leading to a potential standoff between the two chambers. Still, Mr. Boehner could put Democrats on the defensive, if not necessarily into checkmate.
Mr. Boehner, however, has a math problem. Republicans have 240 members in the House, and 217 votes are currently required to pass a bill. That means they could lose at most 23 votes, or about 10 percent of their caucus, assuming they picked up no Democratic support.
Mr. Boehner had previously indicated, however, that at least 59 Republicans would not vote to raise the debt limit under any circumstances, a number that appears to coincide with the 60 Republicans who are members of the Tea Party Caucus.
It is telling, perhaps, that the cut, cap and balance bill, although winning the support of all but 11 Republicans, did not raise the debt ceiling. Instead, it erected another barrier to it, requiring that a balanced budget amendment be approved by two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress before additional borrowing authority was given to the Treasury.
In addition to Republicans who might defect for ideological reasons, some others might do so for electoral ones. Polling on the debt limit, which at earlier points had appeared to show a clear plurality of Americans against any increase, has now become highly ambiguous, with widely varying results depending on question wording. But both the debt limit increase and the spending cuts attached to it are likely to inspire mixed feelings in voters, and the roughly 75 Republicans serving in swing districts would need to consider the contours of the proposal carefully.
Thus, the sharp rhetoric in the Republican conference call Sunday, in which Mr. Boehner and other Republican leaders took a number of swipes at Mr. Obama while also urging their members to unite behind the proposal. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House majority whip, reportedly told his colleagues that Mr. Obama was throwing a fit because hes worried about the election. The idea seems to be that, if the most conservative Republicans arent swayed by pressure from Wall Street, or from the potential effects to the economy, perhaps the only thing that can move them is the potential to force Mr. Obama to concede defeat.
But if the vote on Mr. Boehners proposal fails, the risks to him are clear. It would presumably rattle markets, while making him look ineffectual. Most importantly, it would demonstrate that Republicans could not pass a bill, even through the House, without Democratic support, which would substantially reduce their leverage, as Mr. Boehner explicitly acknowledged in the conference call.
Then again, even if the Republican bill failed in the House, the counterproposal by Democratic leaders in the Senate would reportedly focus solely on spending cuts with no tax increases. Although some of the savings the Senate bill might claim to achieve would reflect an accounting treatment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that seems as much like a victory for Republicans as a defeat.
Meanwhile, although calling Mr. Obamas bluff on his stated refusal to accept a short-term increase might qualify as a tactical victory for Republicans, its longer-term implications are ambiguous. Polls show that the public has a lukewarm view, at best, of how Mr. Obama has handled the negotiations. But the ratings for Republicans are much worse, calling into question whether they would benefit from another round of negotiations next winter under the heat lamp of the presidential primaries. There are increasing suggestions in the polling that the public could tell both Mr. Obama and the Republican Congress to find a new line of work.
Thus the real gamble that Mr. Boehner is taking: in seeking to trip up Mr. Obama, he may be putting his own majority at risk.
###############
Didn't know 60 GOP tea partiers will not vote for any debt ceiling bill. Hell I'm starting to wonder if Boehner can get 217 votes in the House now.
BY: Nate Silver
The Republican Speaker John A. Boehner, following the collapse of negotiations with President Obama, appears to be considering a path that would involve the House Republicans voting to raise the federal debt ceiling on their own terms, with little expectation of Democratic support.
Its unclear what Mr. Boehners proposal, set to be unveiled on Monday, will entail. Some reports suggest that it might consist of a six-month increase in the debt limit, which would put the issue into play again in January or February just as the Iowa caucuses are taking place. But Mr. Boehner also hinted that his plans could include elements of the Republicans cut, cap and balance proposal, which was approved by the House last Tuesday but is stymied in the Senate.
If the House was able to approve any kind of increase to the debt limit, it would transfer focus to the White House and to the Senate. Mr. Obama has threatened to veto a short-term increase, but he would have little time left before the Treasurys Aug. 2 deadline and perhaps little leverage. The Democratic-led Senate would probably be the bigger barrier: it could move to vote on its own proposal, leading to a potential standoff between the two chambers. Still, Mr. Boehner could put Democrats on the defensive, if not necessarily into checkmate.
Mr. Boehner, however, has a math problem. Republicans have 240 members in the House, and 217 votes are currently required to pass a bill. That means they could lose at most 23 votes, or about 10 percent of their caucus, assuming they picked up no Democratic support.
Mr. Boehner had previously indicated, however, that at least 59 Republicans would not vote to raise the debt limit under any circumstances, a number that appears to coincide with the 60 Republicans who are members of the Tea Party Caucus.
It is telling, perhaps, that the cut, cap and balance bill, although winning the support of all but 11 Republicans, did not raise the debt ceiling. Instead, it erected another barrier to it, requiring that a balanced budget amendment be approved by two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress before additional borrowing authority was given to the Treasury.
In addition to Republicans who might defect for ideological reasons, some others might do so for electoral ones. Polling on the debt limit, which at earlier points had appeared to show a clear plurality of Americans against any increase, has now become highly ambiguous, with widely varying results depending on question wording. But both the debt limit increase and the spending cuts attached to it are likely to inspire mixed feelings in voters, and the roughly 75 Republicans serving in swing districts would need to consider the contours of the proposal carefully.
Thus, the sharp rhetoric in the Republican conference call Sunday, in which Mr. Boehner and other Republican leaders took a number of swipes at Mr. Obama while also urging their members to unite behind the proposal. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House majority whip, reportedly told his colleagues that Mr. Obama was throwing a fit because hes worried about the election. The idea seems to be that, if the most conservative Republicans arent swayed by pressure from Wall Street, or from the potential effects to the economy, perhaps the only thing that can move them is the potential to force Mr. Obama to concede defeat.
But if the vote on Mr. Boehners proposal fails, the risks to him are clear. It would presumably rattle markets, while making him look ineffectual. Most importantly, it would demonstrate that Republicans could not pass a bill, even through the House, without Democratic support, which would substantially reduce their leverage, as Mr. Boehner explicitly acknowledged in the conference call.
Then again, even if the Republican bill failed in the House, the counterproposal by Democratic leaders in the Senate would reportedly focus solely on spending cuts with no tax increases. Although some of the savings the Senate bill might claim to achieve would reflect an accounting treatment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that seems as much like a victory for Republicans as a defeat.
Meanwhile, although calling Mr. Obamas bluff on his stated refusal to accept a short-term increase might qualify as a tactical victory for Republicans, its longer-term implications are ambiguous. Polls show that the public has a lukewarm view, at best, of how Mr. Obama has handled the negotiations. But the ratings for Republicans are much worse, calling into question whether they would benefit from another round of negotiations next winter under the heat lamp of the presidential primaries. There are increasing suggestions in the polling that the public could tell both Mr. Obama and the Republican Congress to find a new line of work.
Thus the real gamble that Mr. Boehner is taking: in seeking to trip up Mr. Obama, he may be putting his own majority at risk.
###############
Didn't know 60 GOP tea partiers will not vote for any debt ceiling bill. Hell I'm starting to wonder if Boehner can get 217 votes in the House now.
balladofwindfishes
Member
the Tea Party may force bi-partisanship if they make it so the GOP has to appease a few Democrats to avoid a default.
Which would be hilarious.
Which would be hilarious.
RustyNails
Member
A wise man in butt clinging blue jeans and cowboy boots once said, "Gotta have faith, faith, faith. I gotta have faith."Chichikov said:
happyfunball
Member
TacticalFox88
Banned
60 would vote not to raise it under ANY circumstances? Kill me now please.
The Chosen One
Member
Invisible_Insane said:
*swoon*
TacticalFox88
Banned
The comments made my jaw drop, in disgust. What pieces of shit.happyfunball said:
balladofwindfishes
Member
Sounds like the start of a Fallout game.happyfunball said:
I wonder if we do default if a country will go to war with us because we destroyed their economy.
TacticalFox88
Banned
And said war will make sure their economy never recovers.balladofwindfishes said:
balladofwindfishes
Member
I don't know, WWII brought new life into our economy.TacticalFox88 said:
Maybe WWIII is just the sort of economic boost we need.
happyfunball
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Holy shit, I didn't click on the comments button before but Mike Judge is fucking Nostradamus.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's Politico
You take your sanity into your own hands when you read the comments on that site
You take your sanity into your own hands when you read the comments on that site
worldrunover
Member
Just a refresher on why we're having this debate right now. Someone should show Republicans.
*cough*
*cough*
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
worldrunover said:
gosh, why do you keep bringing up Bush man. Be a leader and take ownership already!
polyh3dron
Banned
YOUR LIBRUL GRAPHS DONT IMPRESS ME
OBAMA'S TEH BIG SPENDER IN CHIEF
OBAMA'S TEH BIG SPENDER IN CHIEF
worldrunover
Member
ToxicAdam said:
Because it is a representation of cost of new policies under each administration.
The point is the GOP is just as much to blame if not moreso, and are not taking any responsibility for it. It also shows that Washington spending didn't suddenly become out of control in January 2009.
polyh3dron said:
Your contributions to this thread are continually shit. Stick to sports threads.
worldrunover said:
It still could make it's point without the blatant misrepresentation.
I don't think any conservative was very happy with the Bush administration and the spend- happy ways. You could argue that was the genesis of the tea party movement in early 2007. A disillusionment of fiscal conservatives and the resulting backlash that ebbed with the 2008 economic meltdown.
At this point is it even possible to get a bill passed on time?
I'm thinking we're going to have to use the 14th amendment option.
Can you show some anger against the Bush administration from conservative media circa 2007? I don't remember any of it. All I remember is a flare up of conservative anger right around the time Obama took office.
I'm thinking we're going to have to use the 14th amendment option.
Can you show some anger against the Bush administration from conservative media circa 2007? I don't remember any of it. All I remember is a flare up of conservative anger right around the time Obama took office.
ToxicAdam said:
Are we still pretending any of this shit still has to do with spending?
The amount of conservatives who were disappointed with Bush because he was a big spender probably amounts to the same proportion of conservatives who believe in evolution.
worldrunover
Member
ToxicAdam said:
The tea party, if it existed as early as 2007, was a very minor fringe group that had no traction. It wasn't until early 2009 that they became prominent. And I don't think it was a coincidence.
Look, this is the larger point I want to make. John Boehner can't go out there (even though he does) and say that raising the debt ceiling is giving the democrats what they want and is their concession in all this. Nonsense. They have blood on their hands in the debt. A lot of it. That is NOT a concession to the democrats and frankly it's insulting for it to be framed that way.
polyh3dron
Banned
That's revisionist history if I've ever seen it. Republicans had YEARS to protest against all the reckless spending the Bush admin did. They didn't form this Tea Party thing until Obama got elected and these Tea Party protesters blamed the bailouts (such as TARP) on Obama. From 2001-2008 deficits didn't matter.ToxicAdam said:
I would almost go as far as to say that this particular contribution of yours to this thread was objectively shit, and from the looks of it I am not alone in this. If these Tea Partiers disapproved of Bush as you said then what's the deal with signs like this:ToxicAdam said:
and the bumper stickers:
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think it's arguing more against the conservative cheerleaders on Fox News, who defended Bush and his policies to the death but have now embraced the tea party, because it generally translates into Republican votes.ToxicAdam said:
Personal anecdote: A lot of "teabaggers" I know loved Bush. There are a few libertarian types who have disowned him but prefer him over Obama anyway.
In fairness, there was a tea party movement that started in support of Ron Paul, but Fox News quickly picked up on it after Obama was elected and turned it into something completely different and completely stupid.
ToxicAdam said:
I assume you mean other than the ones who voted for him repeatedly, donated massive amounts of cash to him, and went around saying what a great President he was. I'm perfectly willing to accept that SOME conservatives were not happy with his spending, but the idea that Bush had no fans among conservatives is ridiculous and at odds with the facts.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
This is hilarious. Bush was a conservative. He was no progressive. A progressive would not propose to privatize Social Security. Conservatives need to stop running from candidates they put into office. They also need to stop demonizing any Democrat that makes it into the executive branch. First it was Clinton that was going to destroy the country. Now a days he is consider an OK guy and a moderate president. Obama is now the devil incarnate, but as soon as he leaves office and say Cuomo wins in 2016, he turns out to be not such a bad guy. Bush was a conservative and a part of the Republican party. That is not up for debate.ToxicAdam said:
happyfunball
Member
ToxicAdam said:
I've heard this from plenty of crazies and it sounds just as delusional coming from you.
The teabaggers are the same ignorant band of right-wing white nutters that come along every time their leaders (Rush, Robertson, etc..) get them stirred up about the next communist in the White House who will take their guns, kill their babies, and put them in FEMA prison camps.
Fixing the government budget deficit is right below saving the whales on their usual priorities list.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
If Republicans wanted a real conservative they would have nominated Orrin Hatch or Pat Buchanan way back in 2000. Instead they choose someone who was going to give them something like all candidates who run for office. Bush ran on giving tax cuts and revamping education. Republican voters knew what they were getting. There was no off the wall proposals coming from the Bush campaign. No candidate for president has ever won by promising to take things away from voters. Look at Romney's campaign. He is promising to fix the economy. That is what the voters want: government intervention to get us out of this nightmare. People want their government to act to solve problems, not to sit on its ass and let the market work it out.
- Status