Support NeoGAF

[balladofwindfishes]

They're basically betting the farm on the senate and obama caving on the brink of economic collapse.

I read the Senate can gut the bill and rewrite it with Reid's plan, and lob it back into the house and make it their problem again to pass it.

 

[thekad]

Yep. No way does it get 60 in the Senate. It would be interesting to see what would happen if it passed in the Senate. No way in hell would Obama veto.

He'll veto a short-term extension.

 

[mckmas8808]

They're basically betting the farm on the senate and obama caving on the brink of economic collapse.

The Senate has already cave. Fuck Harry Reid for taking out more tax revenues when his bill won't pass the Senate anyway.

Why did Reid screw up so bad? But then again this is what Reid does.

 

[Averon]

The GOP already won this. No matter what happens, deep cuts and no tax revenues will be in any compromise package. The only question is how deep the cuts are and where. All we are at now is fidgeting with the details.

 

[gcubed]

so what exactly is in Boehners bill? +1T in cuts, a raise of the debt ceiling for 6 months, and then the super congress bullshit? Then a forced up/down vote for the balanced bullshit?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

He'll veto a short-term extension.

There were conflicting statements by 2 members of his administration. One outright said he'd veto and the other said they will have to take a look at it. As of today I am not sure Obama knows what he'd do.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The GOP already won this. No matter what happens, deep cuts and no tax revenues will be in any compromise package. The only question is how deep the cuts are and where. All we are at now is fidgeting with the details.

Yup. We are debating two Republican bills, one batshit crazy, one just plain crazy.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Yup. We are debating two Republican bills, one batshit crazy, one just plain crazy.

isn't it wonderful h aving harry reid as senate majority leader? *sigh*

 

[GhaleonEB]

isn't it wonderful h aving harry reid as senate majority leader? *sigh*

I was surprised, after Obama's speech, he didn't put revenues back in the bill. That would at least tip the midpoint of the two poles over a bit and give him another big bargaining chip.

My speculation for the reason why: he couldn't get that by his own caucus. Which is just another reminder of how they governed when they had the House as well - cowardly.

 

[Matt]

Yup. We are debating two Republican bills, one batshit crazy, one just plain crazy.

Save for the fact that Obama's deal would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent, where as now they will still expire at the end of 2012. Maybe after the election the Democrats will be willing to let that happen? Who knows.

 

[thekad]

isn't it wonderful h aving harry reid as senate majority leader? *sigh*

You're forgetting someone.

 

[Clevinger]

Obama's deal would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent

Do you have a source for that?

 

[richiek]

Bummer. Do heart related problems cause breathing issues?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/n...fter-breathing-difficulties.html?ref=nyregion

According to the NYT, Christie suffers from asthma.

 

[mckmas8808]

I was surprised, after Obama's speech, he didn't put revenues back in the bill. That would at least tip the midpoint of the two poles over a bit and give him another big bargaining chip.

My speculation for the reason why: he couldn't get that by his own caucus. Which is just another reminder of how they governed when they had the House as well - cowardly.

I'm so mad he didn't do this. Especially considering his bill won't pass anyway.

 

[mckmas8808]

You're forgetting someone.

Who Pelosi? She also agreed with Reid that a cuts only bill would eventually be the right way to go.

 

[RustyNails]

It's still not clear Boehner has enough votes. It looks like the teaparty caucus has split right down the middle: 30 something pledging support for boehner, and 30 something undecided. As for those undecided, FreedomWorks is actively trying to make them vote against Boehner plan.

Washington (CNN) – A leading grassroots conservative organization and an influential fiscal conservative group say they're making final pushes Thursday to try and defeat House Speaker John Boehner's plan to reduce the nation's debt.

FreedomWorks says it's reaching out to its conservative allies in the House, including lawmakers and their staff, in the hours before the chamber is expected to hold a pivotal vote on the Republican Speaker's proposal.

"We've been spending time sending last minute emails, making phone calls and alerting our members and tea party leaders in some of these districts about our opposition to this plan. This morning we plan to stop by as many House offices as possible to deliver our message in person to staff as the debate is occurring on the House floor," Brendan Steinhauser tells CNN.

"Our goal is to peel off enough Republican votes in the House to stop this bad debt plan, which doesn't meet the criteria of cut, cap and balance, and won't fix our overall debt problem."

I'd say that Boehner has about 210-215 votes as of right now.

 

[Clevinger]

He'll get 'em.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Isn't there speculation that these 'super comittees' that will be created with these bills (Reid or Boehner's) could have the possibility of instituting revenue creating provisions back into these bills? A 'trojan horse', as it were?

That was the fear mongering I read from some tea party people.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Isn't there speculation that these 'super comittees' that will be created with these bills (Reid or Boehner's) could have the possibility of instituting revenue creating provisions back into these bills? A 'trojan horse', as it were?

That was the fear mongering I read from some tea party people.

There is some argument about this. Reid's bill makes it open ended, but Boehner's makes it so that only spending cuts are considered, no revenue.

Last I heard McConnell was working with Reid to adapt the same language.

No points for guessing who will win out.

 

[mckmas8808]

There is some argument about this. Reid's bill makes it open ended, but Boehner's makes it so that only spending cuts are considered, no revenue.

Last I heard McConnell was working with Reid to adapt the same langage.

No points for guessing who will win out.

Crap like this is what makes me hate our gov't. Why do the GOP continue winning when they only have 1 part of Congress, no President from their party, and the public are against their plans?

Are the DEMs really that in bed with the rich too?

 

[Cyan]

It's still not clear Boehner has enough votes. It looks like the teaparty caucus has split right down the middle: 30 something pledging support for boehner, and 30 something undecided. As for those undecided, FreedomWorks is actively trying to make them vote against Boehner plan.

Eh. They're Republicans. They'll fall in line in the end.

 

[ronito]

Eh. They're Republicans. They'll fall in line in the end.

no one really knows that any more thanks to the teatard effect.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Crap like this is what makes me hate our gov't. Why do the GOP continue winning when they only have 1 part of Congress, no President from their party, and the public are against their plans?

Are the DEMs really that in bed with the rich too?

Yes, in part. They are also more idiologically diverse and so less likely to agree with one another. And their leadership is unwilling to call out the members that constantly fuck things up (Blue Dogs, etc). They protect their own, to the detriment of everyone else.

 

[Escape Goat]

I miss the days when we were concerned with Anthony Weiner's weiner and Palin's trollery.

 

[Clevinger]

no one really knows that any more thanks to the teatard effect.

Dude. Allen West fell in line because of a fucking movie clip. They'll get enough votes from these idiots.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Crap like this is what makes me hate our gov't. Why do the GOP continue winning when they only have 1 part of Congress, no President from their party, and the public are against their plans?

Are the DEMs really that in bed with the rich too?

The dems don't give leadership positions to ideologues traditionally, or the best policy wonks. It's all based on seniority.

Guys like Harry Reid and Max Baucus are basically goldwater republicans. If someone like Al Franken were in charge of proceedings you'd see a much different result. As it stands, conservatives hold the majority in the house and most of the powerful positions in the senate.

Remember, pretty much every liberal policy passed by the house when the dems controlled the white house and both chamberes of congress was gutted and neutered by the senate. Even the public option and medicare buy ins were killed for health care, and those supposedly had ~55 supporters, more than enough to pass under reconciliation to avoid the cloture vote stonewalling.

Also, the GOP has leveraged against things like food stamps and the debt ceiling to get what it wants. They've gone scorched earth wherever they can most easily make a stand. In 2009-2010 it was in the senate due to the conservative and weak leadership of reid and structural/procedural flaws in the senate rules (which still exist). In 2011 it's in the chamber they control (the house). You need to pass legislaiton in bot chambers, so making a successful stand in either the house or the senate is good enough to get things done your way.

 

[Averon]

Crap like this is what makes me hate our gov't. Why do the GOP continue winning when they only have 1 part of Congress, no President from their party, and the public are against their plans?

Are the DEMs really that in bed with the rich too?

1.) GOP fears their base; Dems despises theirs.

2.) Dems are just as in bed with special interests as the GOP are. The only difference is that Dems will at least throw us a bone as long as it doesn't hurt their special interests.

3.) Dems messaging sucks. It's not entirely their fault, though. The GOP have an entire news network carrying their water.

4.) The GOP's message is short and simple to understand for the average voter.

5.) As much as we don't like to admit it, this country is center-right, with that center constantly drifting rightward.

 

[tokkun]

The GOP already won this. No matter what happens, deep cuts and no tax revenues will be in any compromise package. The only question is how deep the cuts are and where. All we are at now is fidgeting with the details.

I think the GOP would have had more of a victory with the Obama plan. With these new plans, they don't have the tax increase on the wealthy. Small win.

With the Obama plan, they would have had entitlement cuts started by a proposal from the Democrats. That would have provided political cover for a lot of Republicans who have signed on to the politically risky Paul Ryan plan. I think that would have been a much more valuable win for them than taxes, especially when they are going to have to fight the tax fight again at the next expiration date.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I think the GOP would have had more of a victory with the Obama plan. With these new plans, they don't have the tax increase on the wealthy. Small win.

With the Obama plan, they would have had entitlement cuts started by a proposal from the Democrats. That would have provided political cover for a lot of Republicans who have signed on to the politically risky Paul Ryan plan. I think that would have been a much more valuable win for them than taxes, especially when they are going to have to fight the tax fight again at the next expiration date.

it's funny how in terms of spending cuts, as well as deficit reductions, obama's original offer is still the best, followed by his revised offer that boehner walked away from, followed by biden's offer, followed by reid's offer, followed by everything the the gop has come up with. Even the plans with no revenue increases proposed by hte dems have more cuts than thosep roposed by the GOP. It's pathetic that the GOP still claims they're about low spending and fiscal responsibility and gets away with it

 

[gcubed]

it's funny how in terms of spending cuts, as well as deficit reductions, obama's original offer is still the best, followed by his revised offer that boehner walked away from, followed by biden's offer, followed by reid's offer, followed by everything the the gop has come up with. Even the plans with no revenue increases proposed by hte dems have more cuts than thosep roposed by the GOP. It's pathetic that the GOP still claims they're about low spending and fiscal responsibility and gets away with it

what, you find it funny that the Democrats are actually the party of fiscal responsibility?

Considering the fact that in my lifetime when democrats hold the white house, the gov't has been the most "responsible" as far as deficit. ("responsible" in comparison only)

 

[RustyNails]

what, you find it funny that the Democrats are actually the party of fiscal responsibility?

I thought Democrats were nothing but tax and spend liberals!

 

[reilo]

A fire in McKinney appears to have been intentionally started.

At approximately 10:05 p.m. Tuesday, the McKinney Fire Department was dispatched to a reported structure fire at Planned Parenthood, 1720 Eldorado Parkway, in McKinney.

First arriving units found a small fire burning on the exterior of the building in the area of the main entrance. The fire was quickly extinguished with minor damage. Initial investigation reveals an incendiary device containing flammable liquid appears to have been thrown at the building.

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2011/jul/27/planned-parenthood-mckinney-may-be-victim-arson/

Words and vitrol have no meaning, right GOP?

 

[GaimeGuy]

what, you find it funny that the Democrats are actually the party of fiscal responsibility?

No, that the republicans reject their plans for not offering real solutions and spending cuts, then offer plans of their own which are worse solutions and have less spending cuts.


It'd be one thing if they offered solutions whre the spending cuts were greater, but the combination of spending cuts + tax increases was less. They can't reduce spending as much as the dems can though.

Which confirms they don't want to fix the problems because that would make obama look good. there's no other reason they'd offer less spending cuts than obama after rejecting his.

 

[ToxicAdam]

That's been my problem with the GOP since they took the house. They have been clearly disingenous about spending cuts the entire time. First it was to 'roll back' all spending to 2008 levels (why not 2000 or 2004?), then it was the government shutdown where they proposed a paltry list of cuts (but all their proposals were for Democrat pet projects like Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting) now it's for less cuts than other plans AND a renewal of this debate next year. An election year.

So, every step of the way their spending cuts have been more politically motivated than actually for real concern about the systemic spending problems within our government.

 

[GaimeGuy]

That's been my problem with the GOP since they took the house. They have been clearly disingenous about spending cuts the entire time. First it was to 'roll back' all spending to 2008 levels (why not 2000 or 2004?), then it was the government shutdown where they proposed a paltry list of cuts (but all their proposals were for Democrat pet projects like Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting) now it's for less cuts than other plans AND a renewal of this debate next year. An election year.

So, every step of the way their spending cuts have been more politically motivated than actually for real concern about the systemic spending problems within our government.

It's gotten worse and worse though. Before it was sort of veiled or at least you would have to connect the dots. But when they're negoatiating witih obama by saying "No, $3T won't do, we demand $1.2T!" it's not even hidden or at a different time anymore.

 

[DasRaven]

I hate to link the TPM for this since some will dismiss it out of hand but they're the first with a linkable story.

Susan Crabtree (of The Hill) reports that Speaker Boehner was asked if passage of his bill would help prevent the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.

His response? "That is beyond my control"

Maybe Rachel's right about this one...

Regardless, here's a live whip count from The Hill:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173745-whip-list-on-boehners-new-plan-on-debtdeficit

 

[GhaleonEB]

That's been my problem with the GOP since they took the house. They have been clearly disingenous about spending cuts the entire time. First it was to 'roll back' all spending to 2008 levels (why not 2000 or 2004?), then it was the government shutdown where they proposed a paltry list of cuts (but all their proposals were for Democrat pet projects like Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting) now it's for less cuts than other plans AND a renewal of this debate next year. An election year.

So, every step of the way their spending cuts have been more politically motivated than actually for real concern about the systemic spending problems within our government.

To your last point, their last time in power illustrated plainly enough that they don't care about spending or deficits. It's political theater, consequences be damned.

Believe it or not, I consider myself a fiscal conservative, in the sense that I want the governemnt to be paying DOWN its debt, not reducing its deficit; we have the means to do this, now, while also supporting economic growth. Personally, I have a steep aversion to debt.

Edit: to the above, isn't much of the entire point to prevent downgrading of US debt? That's one remarkable quote, especially since S&P has spelled out their criteria for a downgrade.

 

[empty vessel]

So, every step of the way their spending cuts have been more politically motivated than actually for real concern about the systemic spending problems within our government.

There is no systemic spending problem within our government. There is a systemic revenue problem, because taxes on the wealthy and corporations have been obscenely low the last thirty years.

Believe it or not, I consider myself a fiscal conservative, in the sense that I want the governemnt to be paying DOWN its debt, not reducing its deficit; we have the means to do this, now, while also supporting economic growth. Personally, I have a steep aversion to debt.

Same here. I'm all in favor of paying for what we spend, although I do think one of the benefits of government is its capacity to borrow cheaply, and so there are times that benefit ought to be utilized to stave off injuries to the public.

 

[Particle Physicist]

so what exactly is in Boehners bill? +1T in cuts, a raise of the debt ceiling for 6 months, and then the super congress bullshit? Then a forced up/down vote for the balanced bullshit?

I think he has cuts to entitlement on there as well. Not sure though.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think he has cuts to entitlement on there as well. Not sure though.

Big cuts to SS and Medicare, apparently

 

[Doc Holliday]

Has there ever been a Morning joe episode in which Joe Scarbaraough doesn't mention his glory days back in congress? jesus

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Big cuts to SS and Medicare, apparently

Ouch, the Democrats better not let them get away with those cuts

Sounds the trumpets and go to the people.
List the real consequences of cutting those programs.

 

[speculawyer]

If we are debating such big cuts in things then why can't we prioritize just pulling out of Afghanistan?

Support for the war has plummeted on all sides. We have put in a ten year effort, I don't think people could say we didn't give Afghanistan a fair shot. If they plunge in anarchy, so be it. NotMyProblem.gif

 

[Particle Physicist]

Crap like this is what makes me hate our gov't. Why do the GOP continue winning when they only have 1 part of Congress, no President from their party, and the public are against their plans?

Are the DEMs really that in bed with the rich too?

It's quite simple really, the filibuster makes the basically the majority party in the senate.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Same here. I'm all in favor of paying for what we spend, although I do think one of the benefits of government is its capacity to borrow cheaply, and so there are times that benefit ought to be utilized to stave off injuries to the public.

Aye. I'm for the save in good times, run counter cyclical deficits to combat recessions approach. And really, the tax and spending code should be structured to respond automatically, rather than await sluggish Congressional action.

 

[Plumbob]

I would be in favor of a five or ten year balanced budget amendment

 

[GaimeGuy]

I would be in favor of a five or ten year balanced budget amendment

stupid.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Big cuts to SS and Medicare, apparently

and my mom the other day asked me why Obama wanted to cut SS.

>(


She is not even a conservative, it's just what she has been hearing.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I would be in favor of a five or ten year balanced budget amendment

Including tax cuts and wars? cause............................

 

[Clevinger]

and my mom the other day asked me why Obama wanted to cut SS.

>(

She is not even a conservative, it's just what she has been hearing.

Well, Obama's been offering Republicans Medicare, SS, and Medicaid cuts, so she's hearing right.