PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
Just last month Trump was saying a default would be crazy, and shouldn't be pursued. Dude's a piece of shit.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Just last month Trump was saying a default would be crazy, and shouldn't be pursued. Dude's a piece of shit.
Aaron Strife
Banned
We'll probably hold onto the Senate narrowly (thinking we'll lose NE and ND, and one of MT or MO - while holding everything else, winning in NV and maybe MA), and win back the House.Diablos said:
I honestly feel like letting the US default would completely blow up in the GOP's face, as well as a potential shutdown in September. They really haven't learned from Gingrich vs. Clinton.
"I didn't sign up to go mano e mano with the president" is going to be Boehner's "WAAH, CLINTON PUT ME IN THE BACK SEAT OF AIR FORCE ONE"
PhoenixDark
Banned
Aaron Strife said:
How are they comparable. One is the childish complaint of an ideologue, the other is an old statesman lamenting the childish ideologues in his party.
If we default, the GOP will get the initial blame. But the economy damage will blamed on Obama eventually. There's no way he gets re-elected if the global economy crashes.
There's no way we default though. Obama is going to cave.
Diablos said:
The same Iran-Contra that didn't stop George Bush Sr. from taking the Presidency even though he was in the heart of it? Or the Iran-Contra scandal that caused a precipitous drop in Reagan's numbers, only to vanish like smoke, leaving him with nearly his pre-scandal numbers before he left office?
And what, exactly, does an "Iran-Contra, but for global economics" mean anyway? That a handful of people will watch a bunch of dry show trials, but no one will really care, and only fringe participants will get in trouble, while the ringleaders get pardoned by the next President?
Chichikov said:
I was responding more to the assertion that the many of the poor and middle class vote for republicans because they think they're going to be rich some day and are afraid they might have to pay too much tax when that happens.
I don't believe this is the case at all. I think the reason they vote for republicans is because they find the message of self sufficiency that republicans preach to be empowering, whereas they are sometimes put off by the helping hand message coming from liberal candidates, along with certain obvious cultural barriers like gun control and abortion. There was a time when the liberals knew how to fire people up with some economic populism but that sort of rhetoric is frowned on now, and almost nobody has the guts to go there for fear of irritating the business community.
Honestly, I think you're basically right to say that most of the poor, including many poor republicans, favor a fairly progressive tax system, especially right now. There is definitely a sense that the rich corporations are screwing everybody and ruining the country, and regular people need to take some of that back. But it's also a case of how you sell it.
Another day, another report revealing Afghan corruption and the misappropriation of U.S. funds; see my post last week on the SIGAR's audit. The latest report indicates that $2.16 billion in transportation contracts have been funneled to the Taliban. If we truly want to promote reconciliation and facilitate the Taliban's inclusion into Afghanistan's constitutional framework, I supposing buying their favor could (not really) work.
Of course. The impasse matters politically insofar that it affects the economy. Voters may currently blame Republicans, but they will punish Obama for the terrible economy. Obama has the most at stake in the impasse and potential default; politically, that is-bviously, all citizens have a lot at stake in this. Moreover, it is already proving deleterious. Republicans love to harangue Democrats about the effects of uncertainty; of course, they conveniently abandon this point when it contravenes their goals. Regardless, they would be correct in this instance.TacticalFox88 said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Jim DeMint: Boehner Plan Doesnt Have The Vote
Benjy Sarlin | July 26, 2011, 3:07PM
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the leading hardliners on the right in the debt ceiling fight, is predicting Speaker Boehner (R-OH) will not be able to pass his new plan for a two-tier deficit reduction package without help from Democrats.
"I'm getting mixed e-mails now form the House on whether they have the votes. I don't think they're going to have 218 Republicans," he said. DeMint added that he thinks there's a possibility some Democrats could cross party lines to ensure its passage, perhaps in exchange for a concession like eliminating the proposed bipartisan committee that would come up with more cuts later on down the line.
"I think it's all in play right now," he said.
Democratic leaders have said they will urge members to vote against Boehner's proposal and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) believes few, if any, Democrats will jump ship. On the House side, influential conservative Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said earlier today that he doesn't believe Boehner can pass his current plan with only Republican votes.
##################
And he also compared Boehner's plan to TARP. So you know he damn well ain't voting for it.
Benjy Sarlin | July 26, 2011, 3:07PM
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the leading hardliners on the right in the debt ceiling fight, is predicting Speaker Boehner (R-OH) will not be able to pass his new plan for a two-tier deficit reduction package without help from Democrats.
"I'm getting mixed e-mails now form the House on whether they have the votes. I don't think they're going to have 218 Republicans," he said. DeMint added that he thinks there's a possibility some Democrats could cross party lines to ensure its passage, perhaps in exchange for a concession like eliminating the proposed bipartisan committee that would come up with more cuts later on down the line.
"I think it's all in play right now," he said.
Democratic leaders have said they will urge members to vote against Boehner's proposal and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) believes few, if any, Democrats will jump ship. On the House side, influential conservative Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said earlier today that he doesn't believe Boehner can pass his current plan with only Republican votes.
##################
And he also compared Boehner's plan to TARP. So you know he damn well ain't voting for it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Nate Silver put forth an interesting scenario.PhoenixDark said:
Democratic Congress + President Romney.
The thing is, poll after poll shows that voters trust the GOP less than they do Obama, and if he loses, save for some major reversal of fortune, I think the House majority is going down too.
timetokill
Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Obviously.
My point was that the word "recovery" is a bitter term for the jobless numbers that keep growing, the unemployed masses that have been unemployed for so long the government stops tracking them because it would make the numbers look too scary.
Telling people "things are getting better" when there's nothing they can hold on to really just makes them feel worse. "Oh, things are getting better, just not for you."
When you hear that for long enough without seeing any benefits yourself, it's easy to lose hope that it will ever find its way to you.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
timetokill said:
Yeah, but I don't think the gov't stops tracking them because it would make the numbers look scary. But if you have some info on the history of the BLS and why they run the numbers that way, I'd love to read it.
The CBO scores Boehner's plan as reducing spending by $850b over ten years, less than Boehner had been selling at. That's likely to further solidify opposition to it from the hardliners in the House. They felt burned after the last $60b cut bill turned out to score much lower, this is that all over again but on a greater scale.
People are paying attention to this. The GOP will get the blame for not compromising.Chichikov said:
Democrats will keep control of the Senate. It is pointless worrying about the Senate. They would need to win 60+ seats to actually be effective. The main focus is the House. They just need to get enough seats to regain control of the House. Nancy Pelosi back in control in the House will help Obama's 2nd term a lot.Diablos said:
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I would hate for Obama to loose, but at least Romney isn't bachmann or Perry. I see Romney being a centrist once he gets in.
speculawyer
Member
Well, two can play at that meme.Diablos said:
The economy was recovering in 2009 and 2010. Then the GOP congress took control in 2011 and the nation slipped back into recession.
(That misleading political rhetoric but factually accurate.)
TacticalFox88
Banned
Romney is part of the Republican party.....the Party currently is batshit insane....he will cave to them. You don't want ANY of them near the white house.Doc Holliday said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
Meh. I honestly think he'd be better with a democrat congress/senate than Obama. He's a leaf in the wind, but he's also not a pure conservative - and in fact has a history of somewhat liberal results
speculawyer
Member
Romney has a brain. Bush is a lazy frat-boy that let the Neocons run the country over the cliff.GhaleonEB said:
Romney does flip-flop in pursuit of popularity and that would be a very good thing compared to Bush who would follow the same brain ideas even with mountains of evidence indicating failure.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
TacticalFox88 said:
You're right. Just trying to have some hope that this won't end up as bad as it can in 2012.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
PhoenixDark said:
I'dcall him a pragmatist. Isn't his healthcare system the most effective too?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
His liberal results happened because he had a liberal state and people vote him in. This will not be the case in 2012. Why you think Romney would be better for your personal view of what PD wants America to be like than Obama confuses me.
You think Romney would push for these more to the left than Obama would? And you seriously think the GOP would let him?
PhoenixDark
Banned
mckmas8808 said:
The GOP would fall in line. If there was a democratic house and senate, we'd get moderate to right-leaning legislation: the exact same thing we have now. Just with lower corporate/business taxes, which is fine with me.
Nor is Romney an extreme warhawk. I'd be fine with him winning. Pawlenty, Romney, etc? No.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Sorry if old but
lol. And round and round we go, where we stop...
CNN said:
lol. And round and round we go, where we stop...
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Poll: Americans Favor Balance In Debt Deal
Kyle Leighton | July 26, 2011, 3:00PM
A new Reuters/IPSOS conducted overnight on Monday seems to bolster the case that President Obama has been making all along: 56% of Americans favor a balanced debt deal that includes both spending cuts and new revenues.
The new numbers come as the only remaining deals on the table in Congress at the moment include no new revenue, due to Republican insistence that none be included in the final deal. The 56% number was coupled with a finding that 83% of those polled were concerned about the debt ceiling situation, and a majority of the full sample, 54%, saying they were "very concerned."
These numbers came as more results from last week's Washington Post/ABC poll were released, showing that the only individual components of a debt deal that were able to garner a majority of support from the respondents were revenue increases, with 59% staying yes to raising taxes on oil companies, 72% for people with incomes over $250,000, 64% for hedge fund managers, 61% for raising Medicare premiums on "wealthier retirees," and 66% favoring an increase in the amount of Social Security taxes paid by people with over $107,000 in income per year.
The Reuters/IPSOS poll had a sample size of 600 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percent. The Washington Post/ABC poll used interviews with 1,001 adults conducted from July 14th to 17th, with a margin of error within 3.5 percent.
#################
ARGH!!! America pisses me off sometimes. I hate to sound like a baby, but this is so unfair with what's going on. The majority of Americans want a balanced approach and the two bodies of Congress can only muster up a spending cut only approach.
I can see why Obama is still hammering for the balanced approach now. But what the hell is wrong with the Congress? I wish we could start seeing some protest from Americans asking Congress for a balanced bill.
Kyle Leighton | July 26, 2011, 3:00PM
A new Reuters/IPSOS conducted overnight on Monday seems to bolster the case that President Obama has been making all along: 56% of Americans favor a balanced debt deal that includes both spending cuts and new revenues.
The new numbers come as the only remaining deals on the table in Congress at the moment include no new revenue, due to Republican insistence that none be included in the final deal. The 56% number was coupled with a finding that 83% of those polled were concerned about the debt ceiling situation, and a majority of the full sample, 54%, saying they were "very concerned."
These numbers came as more results from last week's Washington Post/ABC poll were released, showing that the only individual components of a debt deal that were able to garner a majority of support from the respondents were revenue increases, with 59% staying yes to raising taxes on oil companies, 72% for people with incomes over $250,000, 64% for hedge fund managers, 61% for raising Medicare premiums on "wealthier retirees," and 66% favoring an increase in the amount of Social Security taxes paid by people with over $107,000 in income per year.
The Reuters/IPSOS poll had a sample size of 600 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percent. The Washington Post/ABC poll used interviews with 1,001 adults conducted from July 14th to 17th, with a margin of error within 3.5 percent.
#################
ARGH!!! America pisses me off sometimes. I hate to sound like a baby, but this is so unfair with what's going on. The majority of Americans want a balanced approach and the two bodies of Congress can only muster up a spending cut only approach.
I can see why Obama is still hammering for the balanced approach now. But what the hell is wrong with the Congress? I wish we could start seeing some protest from Americans asking Congress for a balanced bill.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Unsurprisingly, American Public shows that it has no clue what it wants, nor what's really going on.
*sigh* I sometimes wonder why I even follow politics.PRINCETON, NJ -- Seventy-three percent of Americans in Gallup Daily tracking over the July 22-24 weekend say the U.S. economy is getting worse. This is up 11 percentage points from the three days ending July 6, and the worst level for this measure since the three days ending March 12, 2009.
Gallup tracks consumer perceptions of the U.S. economy daily and reports the results in three-day rolling, weekly, and monthly averages. More Americans have been saying the U.S. economy is getting worse throughout June and early July than said this over most of the previous five months. However, the number of Americans feeling this way has risen further over the last few weeks.
Half Rate the Current Economy "Poor"
Fifty-one percent of Americans rated current economic conditions "poor" over the weekend. This is up from 43% in early July, reflecting a continued deterioration in many Americans' views.
I mean seriously democrats. The public views the Republicans as the problem, they want revenue with cuts - THEY WANT YOUR AGENDA! Grow some fucking balls!
I know its too late now to go back to square one but shit, why the fuck cant the democrats learn to negotiate properly. They did a piss-poor job of controlling the narrative and yet they are still the more favorable option in the public's eye.
And yet we have a shitty house plan on the table and a senate plan that has no revenue and looks to tie the president down trying to raise the ceiling during his election campaign. Not only are democrats caving they are doing everything they can to make it hard for them to get elected in November.
I know its too late now to go back to square one but shit, why the fuck cant the democrats learn to negotiate properly. They did a piss-poor job of controlling the narrative and yet they are still the more favorable option in the public's eye.
And yet we have a shitty house plan on the table and a senate plan that has no revenue and looks to tie the president down trying to raise the ceiling during his election campaign. Not only are democrats caving they are doing everything they can to make it hard for them to get elected in November.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Look, we have two plans for raising the debt ceiling (bolded is one of the hold ups):
Boehner
-Two step process where more cuts will be demanded in 6 months for another raise
-A symbolic vote schedule for Balance Budget Amendment in the future (doomed to fail like it did previously)
-All spending cuts with some from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Reid:
-Single vote to extend the limit to after the 2012 election
-All spending cuts but leaves the big three alone
-Good amount comes from drawing down the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan (Republicans touted this in Ryan's budget)
And here are the factions:
Far right Republicans (make up a significant part of the House):
-Believe that not raising the ceiling will not harm the economy (probably will not vote for a raise under any circumstances)
-Want a Balance Budget Amendment for their vote (bill is a trick that only makes it harder to raise taxes in the future (2/3 majority needed), as well as cap spending at a level not seen since the 1960s)
-No tax increases even in the form of closing loopholes
Realistic Republicans:
-Know the ceiling has to be raised
-Do not want to be blamed for a bad economy
-No tax increases even in the form of closing loopholes
Democrats:
-Want to raise the debt ceiling
-Willing to cut spending
-Want to raise taxes through the closure of loopholes but willing to abandon this for now
One of two things is going to happen:
We raise the debt ceiling with a mixture of the Reid/Boehner plan. No Balance Budget Amendment is actually passed (might have a symbolic vote on it). Ceiling is raised to carry us through to 2013. Tea Party gets to complain like they been doing since they were founded (not really solving problems).
We do not raise the debt ceiling. Tea Party is blamed for the drop in the economy (We didn't pass TARP the first time and lost 7% on the DOW). A scramble is made to repair the damage, but the recovery is set back a ways. Am I missing anything?
Boehner
-Two step process where more cuts will be demanded in 6 months for another raise
-A symbolic vote schedule for Balance Budget Amendment in the future (doomed to fail like it did previously)
-All spending cuts with some from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Reid:
-Single vote to extend the limit to after the 2012 election
-All spending cuts but leaves the big three alone
-Good amount comes from drawing down the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan (Republicans touted this in Ryan's budget)
And here are the factions:
Far right Republicans (make up a significant part of the House):
-Believe that not raising the ceiling will not harm the economy (probably will not vote for a raise under any circumstances)
-Want a Balance Budget Amendment for their vote (bill is a trick that only makes it harder to raise taxes in the future (2/3 majority needed), as well as cap spending at a level not seen since the 1960s)
-No tax increases even in the form of closing loopholes
Realistic Republicans:
-Know the ceiling has to be raised
-Do not want to be blamed for a bad economy
-No tax increases even in the form of closing loopholes
Democrats:
-Want to raise the debt ceiling
-Willing to cut spending
-Want to raise taxes through the closure of loopholes but willing to abandon this for now
One of two things is going to happen:
We raise the debt ceiling with a mixture of the Reid/Boehner plan. No Balance Budget Amendment is actually passed (might have a symbolic vote on it). Ceiling is raised to carry us through to 2013. Tea Party gets to complain like they been doing since they were founded (not really solving problems).
We do not raise the debt ceiling. Tea Party is blamed for the drop in the economy (We didn't pass TARP the first time and lost 7% on the DOW). A scramble is made to repair the damage, but the recovery is set back a ways. Am I missing anything?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Plinko said:
With 9% unemployment and rising? Nah
I certainly see EZNark's point (that everyone hates politicians because they can't get anything done), but I'd like to add why I always found this so troubling. I believe it gives incentives -- in the economic sense -- for Republicans to obfuscate, obstruct, and complicate.
If you believe the government is ineffective, possibly corrupt, and wholly ineffective, then reaching a stalemate with your opposition actually serves your purposes.
As an example, let's say I'm trying to reduce government spending on entitlement programs. If I succeed in reducing the scope of these programs, then congratulations, I've won. If I don't succeed -- if we reach a stalemate for months, show up on CNN bickering with my opponents back and forth -- then I've proved that the government can't compromise and we'll never get anything done.
To emphasize: there is strong incentive for small government proponents to gridlock the system, because it provides evidence that the government can't get things done, thus proving your point. By the standards of Game Theory, there is basically no way for me to lose, and I have little incentive not to stick to my guns at all times. I either 1) Get what I want or 2) Prove that government struggles to get anything done.
If you believe the government is ineffective, possibly corrupt, and wholly ineffective, then reaching a stalemate with your opposition actually serves your purposes.
As an example, let's say I'm trying to reduce government spending on entitlement programs. If I succeed in reducing the scope of these programs, then congratulations, I've won. If I don't succeed -- if we reach a stalemate for months, show up on CNN bickering with my opponents back and forth -- then I've proved that the government can't compromise and we'll never get anything done.
To emphasize: there is strong incentive for small government proponents to gridlock the system, because it provides evidence that the government can't get things done, thus proving your point. By the standards of Game Theory, there is basically no way for me to lose, and I have little incentive not to stick to my guns at all times. I either 1) Get what I want or 2) Prove that government struggles to get anything done.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I still wonder if Citing the 14th might be the best option if no deal is reached by Friday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/usa-debt-legal-idUSN1E76P0OF20110726
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/usa-debt-legal-idUSN1E76P0OF20110726
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
U.S. Downgrade May Increase Interest Costs by $100 Billion, JPMorgan Says
By Michael J. Moore and John Detrixhe - Jul 26, 2011 3:44 PM CT
Political wrangling over a plan to reduce the deficit may cost the U.S. its AAA rating, adding $100 billion a year to government costs while dragging down economic growth, according to Wall Street bond dealers.
A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nations borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 to 70 basis points over the medium term, JPMorgan Chase & Co.s Terry Belton said today on a conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Standard & Poors, which has given the U.S. a top ranking since 1941, reiterated on July 21 that the chance of a downgrade is 50 percent in the next three months and may cut the nation as soon as August.
That impact on Treasury rates is significant, Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call held by the securities industry trade group. That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and thats money being taken away from other goods and services.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the U.S. will exhaust measures to avoid breaching its $14.3 trillion debt threshold on Aug. 2. The government reached its borrowing limit on May 16. President Barack Obama has threatened a presidential veto of House Speaker John Boehners two-step plan slated to be voted on tomorrow to raise the U.S. debt ceiling and cut $3 trillion in government spending.
################
So.....angry right now. I feel like the HULK. Why is this even going on this long? That $100 Billion a year is more than the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.
By Michael J. Moore and John Detrixhe - Jul 26, 2011 3:44 PM CT
Political wrangling over a plan to reduce the deficit may cost the U.S. its AAA rating, adding $100 billion a year to government costs while dragging down economic growth, according to Wall Street bond dealers.
A U.S. credit-rating cut would likely raise the nations borrowing costs by increasing Treasury yields by 60 to 70 basis points over the medium term, JPMorgan Chase & Co.s Terry Belton said today on a conference call hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Standard & Poors, which has given the U.S. a top ranking since 1941, reiterated on July 21 that the chance of a downgrade is 50 percent in the next three months and may cut the nation as soon as August.
That impact on Treasury rates is significant, Belton, global head of fixed-income strategy at JPMorgan, said during the call held by the securities industry trade group. That $100 billion a year is money being used for higher interest rates and thats money being taken away from other goods and services.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the U.S. will exhaust measures to avoid breaching its $14.3 trillion debt threshold on Aug. 2. The government reached its borrowing limit on May 16. President Barack Obama has threatened a presidential veto of House Speaker John Boehners two-step plan slated to be voted on tomorrow to raise the U.S. debt ceiling and cut $3 trillion in government spending.
################
So.....angry right now. I feel like the HULK. Why is this even going on this long? That $100 Billion a year is more than the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.
bodyofanamerican
Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
re: Realistic Republicans, I'd drop Coburn in that group and he's open to closing loopholes, ending subsidies, etc. I'd say the realistic GOPers are open to some sort of revenue.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Dave Weigel just confirmed to me (on twitter) that Reid's plan will be scored by the CBO "soon"
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Yeah, I agree with you, but he is only one Senator. Also, his agreement to tax loophole closures comes from an overall tax reform measure that lowers rates as well. I was really trying to be broad in realistic republicans like McConnell and Boehner. They know a debt ceiling increase is necessary.i_am_not_jon_ames said:
IrishNinja
Member
hey, i know we're (rightfully) on about the deadline, just wanted to see if this had been discussed:
CBS
not a fan of the ATF, but it's already being spun by the right as the story the liburul media's not running with etc etc, wanted to see if you guys had some thoughts on it.
CBS
not a fan of the ATF, but it's already being spun by the right as the story the liburul media's not running with etc etc, wanted to see if you guys had some thoughts on it.
- Status