Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

This is why the democrats take back Congress next election.

Don't forget that Democrats had the opportunity to pass these things and couldn't get them through the House or Senate back when they controlled both. Sorta makes it hard to draw a bright contrast. "Trust us, we'll pass these things this time, honest."

 

[PhoenixDark]

Since when did you become best friends with Dave Weigel?

I'm well respected in the Jewish community
http://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/95994523435544577

Very curious to see how they handle Reid's take on the war spending/draw down

 

[Byakuya769]

Don't forget that Democrats had the opportunity to pass these things and couldn't get them through the House or Senate back when they controlled both. Sorta makes it hard to draw a bright contrast. "Trust us, we'll pass these things this time, honest."

I hope there are entire chapters of history texts devoted to the most cowardly supermajority ever.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I hope there are entire chapters of history texts devoted to the most cowardly supermajority ever.

Except it wasn't a supermajority. Leiberman isn't exactly a Democrat. Others are consistently voting across party lines. The notion that Dems had 60 solid votes in the Senate is wrong. Sure, they were weak but supermajority they were not.

 

[jamesinclair]

The Republicans are doing a bang up job shooting themselves in the foot these last few months, I dont know if they've done that good of a job.

Republicans just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about American culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in Italy where you can become successful by being an asshole. If you screw someone over in America, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the American public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to vote for any Republican, nor will they donate to any GOP campaign. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Republicans have alienated an entire country with this move.

Republicans, publicly apologize and pass the deal or you can kiss your election chances goodbye.

 

[gcubed]

Did I fall asleep somewhere?

My friend was telling me today that the CBO supposedly re-scored the healthcare law and it is no longer projected to provide any savings?

I googled for it but found nothing, so I figured maybe he was just repeating hearsay.

Take a few steps back and think what you are being told. You wouldn't have to Google it if it was true.

 

[Jonm1010]

Take a few steps back and think what you are being told. You wouldn't have to Google it if it was true.

Well, like I figured....... Im guessing he got mixed up with that CBO report that rated some pilot programs or something.

 

[slit]

Honestly, I think Democrats in both houses should just accept that proposal of 2.7 trillion of nothing but cuts to entitlements and etc and no revenue increases even if it means they have to swallow their pride ahead of the 2012 elections. Just fight another day I guess?

That proposal doesn't include cuts to entitlements. Not the big 3 anyway.

 

[FLEABttn]

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.

I've made this argument elsewhere. I'm surprised it doesn't come up very often.

 

[Jonm1010]

Take a few steps back and think what you are being told. You wouldn't have to Google it if it was true.

Alright I found this linked on a website, what does this mean?

Although CBO has updated its baseline projections of federal spending on health care programs, that update does not automatically result in a complete reestimate of
the budgetary impact of last year’s major health care legislation under the assumptions of the new baseline. Nevertheless, the costs or savings from some aspects of that
legislation can be separately identified in the baseline projections. In particular, the provisions related to expanding health insurance coverage were projected to increase the
deficit between 2012 and 2021 by $1.04 trillion, on net, in CBO’s January baseline; they are now projected to increase the deficit by $1.13 trillion over that period. Those effects are only a part of the total budgetary impact of the legislation, however. CBO’s previous estimate showed that the effects of the other provisions on mandatory spending and revenues, taken together, would reduce the deficit by roughly $1.25 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—meaning that the legislation, as a whole, was projected to reduce the deficit over 10 years. The budgetary effects of all of those other provisions cannot be separately identified in the new baseline.

Obviously its not saying what he was saying but I guess there has been some reassessments downward no?

 

[Particle Physicist]

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.

What do you want them to do? They don't control the House or the Senate (due to the now routine filibustering of everything)

 

[Jonm1010]

What do you want them to do? They don't control the House or the Senate (due to the now routine filibustering of everything)

Well basically what ive said since the beginning of the Obama presidency. He, and the democrat's start at a compromised position and do a piss poor job of holding their ground.

It was more so just an emotional outburst when I posted that but I do still feel the Democrats and Obama are too unwilling to put their foot down and draw a line in the sand.

Shit throw a stalking horse out there to see how the public reacts to a 14th amendment appeal. Force the Democrats to put up an alternative that isnt just a progressive window dressing bill that plays to liberal districts. Honestly, he should have stuck his ground longer when he came out with the 4 trillion dollar plan that called the Houses bluff.

 

[Chichikov]

What do you want them to do? They don't control the House or the Senate (due to the now routine filibustering of everything)

What I wanted them to do is not to cave in so easily.
Once you established that hostage taking works, people will keep on doing it.

But right now?
If I'm Obama I announce that I'm raising the debt ceiling through executive power or whatever.
I would then go on and explain that my lawyers are not sure it's legal, but I'm certain it's the right thing to America, and invite congress to impeach me if they think I've overstep my bounds, saying I'll accept their judgment.

 

[besada]

What do you want them to do? They don't control the House or the Senate (due to the now routine filibustering of everything)

Shame they didn't take the opportunity to deal with that structural issue when they had the chance.

 

[RoninChaos]

Shame they didn't take the opportunity to deal with that structural issue when they had the chance.

That's what bugs me the most. It's like they had all the opportunity in the world, and instead they spent their time fighting the president.

 

[The Chosen One]

Melissa Harris-Perry

<8

 

[empty vessel]

Except it wasn't a supermajority. Leiberman isn't exactly a Democrat. Others are consistently voting across party lines. The notion that Dems had 60 solid votes in the Senate is wrong. Sure, they were weak but supermajority they were not.

I understand the point being made, but, at the end of the day, they were Democrats and therefore inseparable from the Democratic party. The party still gets the blame, in my opinion. What can I say, I like to broaden notions of accountability and responsibility wherever possible. I think narrow conceptions of responsibility go a long way to explaining the current dysfunction of modern American society.

 

[Byakuya769]

Except it wasn't a supermajority. Leiberman isn't exactly a Democrat. Others are consistently voting across party lines. The notion that Dems had 60 solid votes in the Senate is wrong. Sure, they were weak but supermajority they were not.

If you want to define supermajority as "does everything I want", sure it wasn't. However you might want to consider that having 60 senators that caucus with you, no matter how shortly (hell they gave a seat away, basically) is considered a supermajority by most..

 

[Jackson50]

Well, two can play at that meme.

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.)

Unfortunately for Obama, the public does not play that game. Perhaps it is unfair and illogical, but the public blames the president for poor economic performance. It is a function of being the premier institution in the U.S. political system.

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

This is ridiculous. I understand your disapproval of Obama, but this is absurd. Come on.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm posting the whole thing, damnit.

'Centrism': The Cult That Is Destroying America
by Paul Krugman
New York Times

Watching our system deal with the debt ceiling crisis — a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences — it’s increasingly obvious that what we’re looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.

And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.

No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.

Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what’s really going on.

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.

And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.

It’s a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.​

The end.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Dave Weigel just confirmed to me (on twitter) that Reid's plan will be scored by the CBO "soon"

Too much GAF in my life. I saw this retweet.

 

[BruiserBear]

So Obama threatened a veto today, after preaching compromise last night. Hmm.

 

[Measley]

Honest question; If the House GOP won't even go along with Boehner's plan, what chance of compromise is there? If you can't get anything through the House, NOTHING is going to get passed.

So Obama threatened a veto today, after preaching compromise last night. Hmm.

Compromise means that the other party has to give a little as well.

 

[Escape Goat]

Honest question; If the House GOP won't even go along with Boehner's plan, what chance of compromise is there? If you can't get anything through the House, NOTHING is going to get passed.

No chance unless Boehner doesn't want his job anymore.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Honest question; If the House GOP won't even go along with Boehner's plan, what chance of compromise is there? If you can't get anything through the House, NOTHING is going to get passed.

Boehner goes to the Dems with a clean proposal?

 

[empty vessel]

Compromise means that the other party has to give a little as well.

What's there to compromise on? Raising the debt limit is a yes-or-no proposition.

 

[Measley]

Boehner goes to the Dems with a clean proposal?

Yeah, but again, nothing will pass the House unless its pure Tea Party dogma.

What's there to compromise on? Raising the debt limit is a yes-or-no proposition.

Ask the Tea Party Caucus. They're trying to make this into their Alamo.

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah, but again, nothing will pass the House unless its pure Tea Party dogma.

Clean proposal would pass the House, there are enough Republican votes when added to the Democratic caucus which would unanimously pass it.

 

[empty vessel]

Ask the Tea Party Caucus. They're trying to make this into their Alamo.

So let them.

 

[Rubenov]

Yeah, but again, nothing will pass the House unless its pure Tea Party dogma.

Unless Boner gets all non-TEA Pary Repubs and enough Democrats... he can do this by throwing a Bone or two to the Dems.

 

[elrechazado]

What's there to compromise on? Raising the debt limit is a yes-or-no proposition.

You keep saying that. Who exactly has put forward a plan to raise the debt limit with zero conditions?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Yeah, but again, nothing will pass the House unless its pure Tea Party dogma.




Ask the Tea Party Caucus. They're trying to make this into their Alamo.

Their Alamo, eh? Didn't they lose?

 

[Measley]

Their Alamo, eh? Didn't they lose?

Yep. If the Tea Party Caucus has their way, we all lose.

Clean proposal would pass the House, there are enough Republican votes when added to the Democratic caucus which would unanimously pass it.

Then YTF isn't anyone proposing a clean bill?

 

[sc0la]

Anybody know what the Boehner plan changes to Pell Grants and Student Loans are?

 

[Tamanon]

Yep. If the Tea Party Caucus has their way, we all lose.



Then YTF isn't anyone proposing a clean bill?

Because the whole reason for this stupid debate is that the GOP wanted to turn the Debt Ceiling into a budget.

 

[tekumseh]

Anybody know what the Boehner plan changes to Pell Grants and Student Loans are?

At this point, Boehner's plan is out, because the CBO just said that his math did not add up. Back to his spray on tan and nicotine stained drawing board...

 

[empty vessel]

You keep saying that. Who exactly has put forward a plan to raise the debt limit with zero conditions?

Everybody except Boehner. That's the entire reason why negotiations are occurring.

Here is a trusted source for you: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...t_ceiling_hike_crashes_and_burns_in_the_house

 

[ToxicAdam]

Well, like I figured....... Im guessing he got mixed up with that CBO report that rated some pilot programs or something.

http://www.ibj.com/cbo-no-great-savings-from-health-reform/PARAMS/article/28351


If you skimmed an article like this, you may come to that conclusion.

 

[ronito]

I can't be the only one that's thought

Let the motherfucker burn. Today.

 

[elrechazado]

Everybody except Boehner. That's the entire reason why negotiations are occurring.

Here is a trusted source for you: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...t_ceiling_hike_crashes_and_burns_in_the_house

So there's no real plan, other than one that can only get 70 votes from house dems? Ok, you're totally vindicated.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I'm not a big fan of Ed Schultz, but I like how he brings on different guests to create confrontation. It's entertaining at least.

 

[sc0la]

At this point, Boehner's plan is out, because the CBO just said that his math did not add up. Back to his spray on tan and nicotine stained drawing board...

I count nothing out until something is passed or we default

Pell Grants and Student Loans are two things that make me physically ache when they are cut.

 

[empty vessel]

So there's no real plan, other than one that can only get 70 votes from house dems? Ok, you're totally vindicated.

You sure?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...e-democrats-dismiss-as-political-charade.html

I think you should think harder.

 

[Clevinger]

So Obama threatened a veto today, after preaching compromise last night. Hmm.

After continually saying (even last night) that his only demand is no mini-raise, six month bullshit, which Boehner's plan still has. Hmm.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Ugh. I just thought about it...even if we do raise it now...the issue is going to come up several times before we can throw these clowns out of office. WTF!

 

[ToxicAdam]

House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon has just sent around a memo to fellow Republicans on his committee, warning that Harry Reid's debt ceiling budget plan (which has been endorsed by President Obama) drastically and dangerously slashes defense spending.


"Based on our analysis the proposal would result in $868 Billion in defense cuts over 10 years when weighed against the FY11 budget request," McKeon writes. "Let me be clear, this is a real cut. It would have a disastrous impact on our military and we wouldn’t be able to carry out our missions."

McKeon breaks down the numbers in the Reid-Obama plan, essentially saying that it's worse than it might seem. "Immediately the plan would cut defense in real terms below the FY11-enacted level of $553 billion and hold defense below the FY11-enacted level through FY13. It represents a $16 billion cut to our FY12 levels for next year and a $26 billion cut for the following year."

And the chairman reminds his fellow Republican committee members that "defense has already shrunk $439 billion over 10 years."

McKeon also derides "phony" cuts the Reid plan finds through the end of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In addition, the Obama/Reid plan contains $1 trillion in phony savings from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq," McKeon writes. "This gimmick first assumes an extension of the troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan through the next ten years, and then assumes the surge level will wind down on time for budget savings. This is a gimmick and should be treated as such, everyone knows the wars are winding down. This does not to change the spending habits of Washington."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ajor-defense-cuts-reid-obama-plan_577638.html

 

[Particle Physicist]

Don't forget that Democrats had the opportunity to pass these things and couldn't get them through the House or Senate back when they controlled both. Sorta makes it hard to draw a bright contrast. "Trust us, we'll pass these things this time, honest."

They didn't pass the debt limit increase earlier because it has never ever ever been a point of contention like this.

 

[Averon]

They didn't pass the debt limit increase earlier because it has never ever ever been a point of contention like this.

I guess the lesson going forward is that any legislation (routine or not) that's required to keep the government functioning is now a potential political weapon for the GOP.

*sigh*

 

[Bishman]

Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l?fb_ref=NetworkNews&fb_source=home_multiline

 

[happyfunball]

Stewart/Colbert have got to be paying these bitches under the table...

McKeon writes. "Let me be clear, this is a real cut."

followed shortly thereafter by...

" This does not [sic] to change the spending habits of Washington."

Logic, not a strong suit for Republicans.