Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

Financial secession. SomeDude was right!

If only we'd listened to him!

 

[besada]

I can't remember who it was (I swear my memory's gotten worse since I stopped smoking weed) that was talking about playing chicken and the best strategy for it, but what we're seeing here is a game of chicken where neither side has a steering wheel.

 

[DasRaven]

Wonder how many people will zero out their portfolios tomorrow and move to a Caribbean island?

I did my normal quarterly rebalance and moved the majority of my Roth into cash and gold.
It'll stay there until after the continuing resolution ends and a budget is passed sometime in October.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Hey guys, this debt stuff is boring.

How come were not talking about the REAL Megaton.

Nintendo dropped the 3DS price by $80.

Damn, Nintendo's stock dropped 20 percent today. Hasn't been this low since 2004.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=TYO:7974

 

[TacticalFox88]

Can someone help respond to this guy:


"I'd let that argument fly except compromise wasn't really needed under Obama's honeymoon. If his party had towed his line while they had an unstoppable majority they could have passed any kind of legislation they wanted--including the debt ceiling. It didn't happen because people in his own party didn't have the courage to back him. It's not so black and white or good vs bad guys. Neither party is completely innocent or guilty. In the end it comes down to if you want government or private sector to do more or less. You can't play a game alone. Both sides are playing it. They're both just answering to their constituencies. Neither side has some mandate from the American people and both are going to do whatever they can to bring success in the eyes of their supporters."

The Debt ceiling crisis is entirely the fault of Republicans and their Tea Party backers. Don't try and put a false equivalence on something that's not their fault. Democrats NEVER thought the debt ceiling would be an issue, so in a way it kind of blindsided them as a "Why the hell is this an issue".

 

[besada]

I normally don't crosspost like this, but I can't resist. From FR:

F you Boehner. F you Cantor. F you whoever you are Fitzgerald.

F the cowards in the GOP House that is trying to save us nothing but a smaller increase in debt and more debt on top of debt.

Quit whining about how “this is the best we can do” or “we don’t have the numbers” crap.

Pull the damn trigger and let the Dems deal with it. Tell Obama to drop dead.

Tell McConnell to shut up along with McCain and Graham.

CUT REAL SPENDING and let the feces hit the fan. Push the limit you cowards. Take it down. Force the real cuts.

But no, we have Cry-Baby (played by Boehner instead of Johnnie Depp) saying “this is the best we can do”. Increasing spending by 7 trillion over the next 10 years instead of 9 trillion is the best that they can do.

Drop dead Boehner. I hope you rot in hell.

 

[Escape Goat]

Can someone help respond to this guy:


"I'd let that argument fly except compromise wasn't really needed under Obama's honeymoon. If his party had towed his line while they had an unstoppable majority they could have passed any kind of legislation they wanted--including the debt ceiling. It didn't happen because people in his own party didn't have the courage to back him. It's not so black and white or good vs bad guys. Neither party is completely innocent or guilty. In the end it comes down to if you want government or private sector to do more or less. You can't play a game alone. Both sides are playing it. They're both just answering to their constituencies. Neither side has some mandate from the American people and both are going to do whatever they can to bring success in the eyes of their supporters."

Respond to what guy?

 

[Oblivion]

Can someone help respond to this guy:


"I'd let that argument fly except compromise wasn't really needed under Obama's honeymoon. If his party had towed his line while they had an unstoppable majority they could have passed any kind of legislation they wanted--including the debt ceiling. It didn't happen because people in his own party didn't have the courage to back him. It's not so black and white or good vs bad guys. Neither party is completely innocent or guilty. In the end it comes down to if you want government or private sector to do more or less. You can't play a game alone. Both sides are playing it. They're both just answering to their constituencies. Neither side has some mandate from the American people and both are going to do whatever they can to bring success in the eyes of their supporters."

Horseshit. If Obama and the Dems knew beforehand the Reps would pull this shit, they would have voted for the increase way back when. I'm sure they thought that although the republicans are massive assholes, that even they wouldn't fuck over the entire global economy.

"It's not MY fault that I decided to take that kindergarten classroom hostage. It's YOUR fault for thinking I wouldn't do it!" isn't a good excuse.

 

[Jeels]

Respond to what guy?

An old college friend...who is a hardcore Republican.

 

[speculawyer]

I really want to know what it will take for moderate Republicans to repudiate those individuals that are really out there. Why must they constantly shift to the right and embrace the crazy? What will it take? I guess we'll have to go to the edge to keep the Republican party in one piece. Heaven forbid that the sane ones team up with Democrats and actually governor.

I guess there is always someone to your right that will blow things up. The Dems had to deal with the Blue dogs that screwed up their plans. The GOPers have to deal with the Tea partiers that screw things up.

 

[speculawyer]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/the-monster-years/


:Krugmancry

Paul Krugman

November 5, 2008, 8:25 AM
The monster years
Last night wasn’t just a victory for tolerance; it wasn’t just a mandate for progressive change; it was also, I hope, the end of the monster years.

What I mean by that is that for the past 14 years America’s political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people.

And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was “shrill.”

Four years ago it seemed as if the monsters would dominate American politics for a long time to come. But for now, at least, they’ve been banished to the wilderness.

Well . . . yeah, it is really sad that we are back to having nuts in high office.

The United States is literally allowing a few dozen batshit elected officials to take potentially crippling shots at their own economy... and everyone else's.

I've been watching and reading US coverage every day since I got here (I'm visiting for a month), but I just give up now. I really did watch and read everything. I have tried to understand, with no success.

The situation is beyond my fucking comprehension.

The key to understanding the situation is that you have to realize that a large subset of the politicians and country have a completely parallel media world that operates with a whole different set of facts. A world where Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, Jesus endorsed torture, tax cuts always raise revenues, being gay is a 'choice', climate change is Al Gore's hoax to make a buck, and abstinence-only is an effective sex education policy. When reality is irrelevant then you can make all sorts of arguments that sound convincing. No need for them to be logical or true. They just need sufficient 'truthiness'.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The best part of tomorrow will be Boehner trying to blame Dems when it dies in the Senate. Assuming it ever gets out of the House.

 

[RustyNails]

Wouldn't Reid's plan also need to pass the House? What is Reid betting on for it to pass in the house when Republicans' own plan so far is causing huge problems?

 

[ToxicAdam]

What a tweest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/religious-leaders-arreste_n_912337.html

Religious Leaders Arrested At Capitol For Budget Protest


WASHINGTON -- Capitol Hill police arrested 11 people -- many of them members of the clergy -- protesting the Republican House budget-cutting plan, a police spokeswoman said.

The group, organized by Common Cause's president, the Rev. Bob Edgar, occupied the center of the historic Rotunda for more than a half hour Thursday, praying and singing until police closed the massive chamber and arrested the group, one by one.

Before officers closed the Rotunda, many visitors sang along, clapped, and filmed the prayers, although it was not clear that passersby understood what the group was protesting.

Common Cause spokeswoman Mary Boyle said they were trying to make a simple point.

"They were trying to send the message to Congress that the budget cannot be balanced on the backs of the poor, the middle class, or the neediest in society," Boyle said.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Damn, Nintendo's stock dropped 20 percent today. Hasn't been this low since 2004.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=TYO:7974

That's what happens when you launch a poorly designed, expensive handheld with no software, and pretend like a series of ports from the late 90s will make everything better.

Anyway, cheering for Boehner to fail seems short sighted

The evidence of Mr. Boehner’s shaky leadership unsettled administration officials. For all their differences, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Obama had developed a working relationship this year, only recently coming close to a compromise package of spending cuts and revenue increases that would do more to reduce the projected growth of the national debt than the fallback bills now before the House and Democratic-controlled Senate.

If Mr. Boehner loses his leverage over the House majority, administration officials fear, the White House could be left without a negotiating partner in a chamber full of uncompromising conservatives, on the debt issue and others in coming months that ultimately will demand bipartisan action.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/capitols-tremors-unsettle-white-house-too/

I'm no fan of the guy, but he seems like a reasonable enough republican. He throws his red meat to the party but ultimately seems like a good negotiating partner, especially from a conservative perspective. The guy was born to take Obama's lunch money. Not long ago a 4T spending cut deal that also cut Medicare/SS would be a republican's dream.

 

[Averon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-vote-tonight/2011/03/29/gIQABiJ8fI_blog.html

Why no vote tonight

A House aide just e-mailed me: “Buckets of crazy.” That’s as good an explanation as any as to why Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) won’t be able to hold a vote tonight on his debt-ceiling bill. The burn-the-building-down set is weakening, but the speaker is still short on votes.

...

Outside of Congress, some of the most aggressive conservatives were urging Congress to make a deal. Even extreme rightwing bloggers will have a hard time casting conservative lightning rod Ann Coulter as a “squish.”(She told Fox News host Sean Hannity that it was time to get this done.)

There are a couple of benefits to drawing this out (although I have no indication whatsover from conversations with half a dozen House Republican offices this evening that the delay is attributable to anything other than difficulty in rounding up the votes). First, Boehner will certainly have a strong argument that nothing OTHER than this bill can get through the House before August 2. And second, as time slips away, there is less and less time for the Senate to come up with an alternative that can pass both houses by August 2.

The smart money is still on the eventual passage of the Boehner bill. But it’s not going to happen without extracting every last drop of patience from the American people, not to mention the media covering one of the most agonizing votes in recent memory.

As for the Senate, the aide reminded me that the bill now under consideration is essentially the same bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had, along with the speaker, taken to the White House last weekend. In other words, if the House can manage to get the bill out, Reid may in fact drop his own bill, bring up the Boehner bill, and be done with this.

 

[RustyNails]

An old college friend...who is a hardcore Republican.

My response would be word for word Oblivion's. I mean, we have raised the debt ceiling without much fuss 102 times. 18 times in Reagan's administration. Who'd have thought that raising it again for the 103rd time would bring the country a spit away from a screeching halt?

 

[Escape Goat]

As for the Senate, the aide reminded me that the bill now under consideration is essentially the same bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had, along with the speaker, taken to the White House last weekend. In other words, if the House can manage to get the bill out, Reid may in fact drop his own bill, bring up the Boehner bill, and be done with this.

 

[Oblivion]

What a tweest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/religious-leaders-arreste_n_912337.html

Not really. They're actually secular progressives, so it's fine to arrest them.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Now that the right wing of the right wing is doing for the right wing what the the right wing has been doing for the country, a fractal loop has been created and soon the entire Tea Party caucus will have strokes and end up with right-side paralysis. After that I guess their pinkies will fall off.

 

[piddledy]

Wouldn't Reid's plan also need to pass the House? What is Reid betting on for it to pass in the house when Republicans' own plan so far is causing huge problems?

They'd just keep negotiating until they come up with something that passes the Senate and House.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Who all bets Obama will sign a bill, literally, at the very last possible moment to do so.

 

[Jonm1010]

accoring to rich lowry



unbelievable

The GOP's sacred cows in this negotiation?

- Farm Subsidies that skew our food system to make us unhealthy and fat and kills the small town farmer.
- Keeping outrageous oil subsidies while these same companies are making some of their highest profits in their history.
- Tax breaks for the one sect of society that is actually seeing their wealth INCREASE during this downturn.
- And defense spending which is now an albatross of bloated and unnecessary projects that only serve to pad the pockets of defense contractors.

And what MUST be cut or the GOP is willing to drag our economy into the abyss?
- Pell Grants
- student loans
- healthcare for the poor/elderly
- S.S.

If Democrats had a single lick of sense they would copy this list and read off it on every news show, every interview and at every rally or event. They would make copies and send it out to every college Democrat office on every campus in the country, scan it and email it out to every person who has ever signed up for left leaning emails. Which, of course, since its common sense means it will never happen.

 

[Trurl]

Why do Democrats prefer Reid's plan over Boehner's? Is it simply because it allows for a longer period of time before the debt ceiling would need to be raised again?

 

[RustyNails]

Why do Democrats prefer Reid's plan over Boehner's? Is it simply because it allows for a longer period of time before the debt ceiling would need to be raised again?

Because Reid's bill pushes the debt ceiling past 2012 elections. And of course, who wouldn't want to take credit for slashing debts.

 

[Lambtron]

Well, being tired of doing menial office jobs for insulting wages for the last 10 years I was thinking of going back to school to get my bachelor's degree to do slightly less menial office jobs for slightly less insulting wages. I'm glad that my hope for some assistance in that isn't going to happen. Ugh.

 

[Trurl]

Because Reid's bill pushes the debt ceiling past 2012 elections. And of course, who wouldn't want to take credit for slashing debts.

Wow, what a great rallying cry.

I do appreciate the value in delaying the time this process will happen again, but is there anything in the specifics that would make Reid's plan more palatable to progressives? The lump projected sums (which is all I have seen) seem more fiscally contractionary in Reid's plan than Boehner's. I'm honestly confused.

 

[Incognito]

Why do Democrats prefer Reid's plan over Boehner's? Is it simply because it allows for a longer period of time before the debt ceiling would need to be raised again?

the election and obama's penchant for doing things 'big,' no matter how stupid policy-wise it is.

 

[Jackson50]

Listening to BBC interview some tea party congressman, they really seem stuck on this idea that there is no reason to act hastily and compromise because the treasury will still have money til at least the 9th or 10th.

When pushed on the economic repercussions they seem to dodge and weave talking about the real downgrade will be not passing something that cuts the total the debt ceiling will be raised. And then claiming the ball is in the democrats court because they already passed something.

I listened to a similar interview on the radio. The schmuck insisted reaching the ceiling was insignificant because we would not default. I remarked "moron." I then tuned to Colin Cowherd's show. Again, I remarked "moron." I then listened to the Naked and Famous. It was an uneventful commute home.

 

[RustyNails]

Wow, what a great rallying cry.

I do appreciate the value in delaying the time this process will happen again, but is there anything in the specifics that would make Reid's plan more palatable to progressives? The lump projected sums (which is all I have seen) seem more fiscally contractionary in Reid's plan than Boehner's. I'm honestly confused.

Only good thing from it is that it cuts defense spending, whereas Boehner Bill doesn't. Out of 2.2t in cuts, 1t is from winding down our war machine in Iraq and Afghanistan. Half trillion will come from defense cuts, and the rest from cuts in federal programs like Medicare, SS. Some tax loopholes are also revised, bringing in another 50b in savings. No tax hikes though. We'd have to wait for bush tax cuts for that.

 

[Byakuya769]

I listened to a similar interview on the radio. The schmuck insisted reaching the ceiling was insignificant because we would not default. I remarked "moron." I then tuned to Colin Cowherd's show. Again, I remarked "moron." I then listened to the Naked and Famous. It was an uneventful commute home.

Hahaha. Got to tough it out until Jim Rome comes and saves the day at 12 est.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why do Democrats prefer Reid's plan over Boehner's? Is it simply because it allows for a longer period of time before the debt ceiling would need to be raised again?

Because a good chunk of Reid's cuts are through the ending of the wars (over a ten year period). Which is a ridiculous way to count savings, but that's the way the CBO scores it. Also, it leaves the sacred cows alone. Which is what the Republicans were going to attack in their second round of cuts.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60018.html


Here's a more detailed look:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12338/SenateBudgetControlAct.pdf

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Some Republicans see this as their chance to fundamentally change the way our government has been working since the 1960s. When Democrats created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they had ample majorities in both chambers to do it. Republicans don't care that they only control the House. The issue has gone far beyond the debt ceiling to something many refuse to compromise on. Democrats are willing to slash funding for a couple years to keep the essence of our government alive and be reborn in a more prosperous era. Republicans want to strangle the programs while they are on their knees. You can't reconcile these two view points. Something is going to have to give, and it probably will be the economy.

"Shoot the hostage."

 

[Vestal]

Wow, what a great rallying cry.

I do appreciate the value in delaying the time this process will happen again, but is there anything in the specifics that would make Reid's plan more palatable to progressives? The lump projected sums (which is all I have seen) seem more fiscally contractionary in Reid's plan than Boehner's. I'm honestly confused.

No.. the reason being is that who in their right minds would want to have this debate again during an election year?

Remember 2008? Remember the infamous "suspending my campaign" trick pulled my McCain? Well that almost destroyed the deal that was being worked out by congress..

Not to mention that the longer deal would ensure stability PAST the election which in turn would reassure the markets.

Also the good things about reids plan is that it does not touch the big three, and most of the cuts come from something EVERYONE wants, the winding down of both wars.

 

[SlipperySlope]

No.. the reason being is that who in their right minds would want to have this debate again during an election year?

Remember 2008? Remember the infamous "suspending my campaign" trick pulled my McCain? Well that almost destroyed the deal that was being worked out by congress..

Not to mention that the longer deal would ensure stability PAST the election which in turn would reassure the markets.

Also the good things about reids plan is that it does not touch the big three, and most of the cuts come from something EVERYONE wants, the winding down of both wars.

The good things? Those three programs need reform. And the ending of the wars will happen on their own terms by themselves. His plan won't change that. Which is why you see many calling 1 trillion of his cuts phony. So what you have is like a 850 billion dollar cut, combined with a 2.4 trillion dollar debt extension. That ratio doesn't add up. Needs to be at minimum 1:1. What you have in real cuts is like .35:1. Misses the mark completely.

Boehner's plan is 1:1. Makes the grade.

 

[besada]

"Shoot the hostage."

Over on FR, they are in serious "smash the state" mode. For these guys, it's not a bluff. They want the government to collapse. They see moderate Republicans (and their definition of moderates include people like Cantor, McConnell, and Boehner) as traitors to the cause and don't fear a default.

 

[Chichikov]

I listened to a similar interview on the radio. The schmuck insisted reaching the ceiling was insignificant because we would not default. I remarked "moron." I then tuned to Colin Cowherd's show. Again, I remarked "moron." I then listened to the Naked and Famous. It was an uneventful commute home.

I'm seriously getting sick and tired of Obama.
How can the commander in chief allow for Colin Cowherd to remain un-assassinated is beyond me.
Send the seals dammit!

 

[Chichikov]

The good things? Those three programs need reform. And the ending of the wars will happen on their own terms by themselves. His plan won't change that. Which is why you see many calling 1 trillion of his cuts phony. So what you have is like a 850 billion dollar cut, combined with a 2.4 trillion dollar debt extension. That ratio doesn't add up. Needs to be at minimum 1:1. What you have in real cuts is like .35:1. Misses the mark completely.

Can you please explain to me why the ratio of ceiling adjustment to cuts matters?
It makes zero sense to me.

 

[manipulate]

The whole debt extension thing is a joke anyway. If you pass the budget you pass the budget ffs.

 

[Cyan]

Can you please explain to me why the ratio of ceiling adjustment to cuts matters?
It makes zero sense to me.

It doesn't matter at all. It's completely arbitrary.

It's a notion the Republicans pulled out of their asses in an attempt to force deep cuts without any real basis. It seems to be working.

I'd be interested to see SS attempt to defend it, though.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Can you please explain to me why the ratio of ceiling adjustment to cuts matters?
It makes zero sense to me.

It's a decent trajectory to eventual deficit neutrality. It's not perfect, but with our fiscal situation, it may be the best and easiest way to
1) Keep our finances from falling off of a cliff
2) Keep damage to the economy as minimal as possible

It's not perfect, but with today's climate it's good enough. The best part is it is simple math and easy to sell.

 

[Phoenix]

The good things? Those three programs need reform. And the ending of the wars will happen on their own terms by themselves. His plan won't change that. Which is why you see many calling 1 trillion of his cuts phony. So what you have is like a 850 billion dollar cut, combined with a 2.4 trillion dollar debt extension. That ratio doesn't add up. Needs to be at minimum 1:1. What you have in real cuts is like .35:1. Misses the mark completely.

Boehner's plan is 1:1. Makes the grade.

There is a difference between saying that something needs reform and then actually doing the real work of reform and saying "it needs work - just stop spending money".

 

[Trurl]

The good things? Those three programs need reform. And the ending of the wars will happen on their own terms by themselves. His plan won't change that. Which is why you see many calling 1 trillion of his cuts phony. So what you have is like a 850 billion dollar cut, combined with a 2.4 trillion dollar debt extension. That ratio doesn't add up. Needs to be at minimum 1:1. What you have in real cuts is like .35:1. Misses the mark completely.

Boehner's plan is 1:1. Makes the grade.

What do you mean by "need?" Simply a need to make it through congress?

Here's an idea to get a 1:1 ratio for raising the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars. Once a year randomly select one person to lose a dollar from his or her social security benefits. Do this for the next 24 billion centuries. Problem solved!

 

[Phoenix]

Who all bets Obama will sign a bill, literally, at the very last possible moment to do so.

That depends entirely on when he receives it - which is something that he himself doesn't control. Hell we can't get anything out of the House at this point because their is a breakdown in the GOP so more than likely any bill might come to Obama well after the deadline anyway.

 

[Vestal]

It's a decent trajectory to eventual deficit neutrality. It's not perfect, but with our fiscal situation, it may be the best and easiest way to
1) Keep our finances from falling off of a cliff
2) Keep damage to the economy as minimal as possible

It's not perfect, but with today's climate it's good enough. The best part is it is simple math and easy to sell.

You realize that by cutting 2.4 trillion dollars, you are taking 2.4 trillion dollars from circulating in the economy?

 

[Chichikov]

It's a decent trajectory to eventual deficit neutrality. It's not perfect, but with our fiscal situation, it may be the best and easiest way to
1) Keep our finances from falling off of a cliff
2) Keep damage to the economy as minimal as possible

It's not perfect, but with today's climate it's good enough. The best part is it is simple math and easy to sell.

This particular figure has nothing more to do with balancing the budget than any other number.
It's just another point on the path from where we are, to where we want our budget to be.

You can argue that Reid's cuts are too small, but you can't really tie your argument to the ceiling adjustment amount.

Your 2 assertions cannot be explained at all by that ratio.

For example, how do you know that our economy wouldn't fall off the cliff even with Boehner's plan?

 

[Stinkles]

It's a decent trajectory to eventual deficit neutrality. It's not perfect, but with our fiscal situation, it may be the best and easiest way to
1) Keep our finances from falling off of a cliff
2) Keep damage to the economy as minimal as possible

It's not perfect, but with today's climate it's good enough. The best part is it is simple math and easy to sell.

You know what would be simpler? Massive cuts to the artifice of the military industrial complex. Eliminate tax loopholes and the Bush tax cuts. Create universal healthcare and regulate the industry correctly so that we don't all piss our income into a voracious and bottomless pit of middlemen. And stabilze the markets by regulating the shit out of Wall Street. And reform campaign finance once and for all.

And by simpler, I mean better.

There needs to be a "Tea Party" movement in the Republican party that resets the party to a sensible meaningful institution and not just a foxhle of religion, racism and corporatism.

If we're going to have a two party system they should both be serious about governing and building this country. Right now, things are hopelessly fucked.

 

[Incognito]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60125_Page3.html#ixzz1TT7qI97J

...As hours slipped away and pizza boxes emptied, a handful of other undecideds and Republicans opposed to the bill also flowed into McCarthy’s suite, with Boehner joining the session. Among the holdouts were Flake, Trent Franks, Mo Brooks (Ala.), Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), Rick Berg (N.D.). and freshman Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.).

For most of the day, from different locations, Boehner met face-to-face with Republicans who didn’t want to hand over their votes.

First to go into Boehner’s office was Tennessee Rep. Chuck Fleischmann. Fleischmann was first grabbed off the floor by Barry Jackson, Boehner’s powerful chief of staff, and that was followed by two quick meetings with the speaker himself. Fleischmann came out in favor of the plan Thursday afternoon.

Florida Rep. Dennis Ross was next into Boehner’s office, and then California Rep. Gary Miller, who was described as “all over the place” by one GOP aide. California Rep. Tom McClintock got some face time with Boehner, as did Florida Rep. Bill Posey.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky helped usher members into their meetings with Boehner. While Rogers can’t hand out bridge and road projects like his predecessors, he has a wide network of contacts after three decades in Congress, both in Washington and beyond. This network is being worked hard by Boehner and other top Republicans. Former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, now an executive with the bank UBS, was also calling lawmakers.

“We’re calling governors, donors, former senators, anyone we can to talk to these guys,” said a Republican staffer involved in the frantic arm-twisting effort.

After a meeting with Boehner, long-time appropriator Rep. Jack Kingston said he’s leaning yes.

“We need to stay in this fight,” Kingston told POLITICO.

i suppose enlisting phil gramm to drum up support is better than passing out industry checks, but still... :lol

 

[SlipperySlope]

What do you mean by "need?" Simply a need to make it through congress?

Here's an idea to get a 1:1 ratio for raising the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars. Once a year randomly select one person to lose a dollar from his or her social security benefits. Do this for the next 24 billion centuries. Problem solved!

You miss the point. This year's deficit ALONE will be 1 and a half TRILLION dollars. So to stay solvent the ceiling will have to be raised by 1 and a half trillion dollars to compensate for this year's shortfall. So we'd have to thus enact a 1.5 trillion dollar 10-year cut to extend the ceiling.

Let's keep it at simple math, and say the 1.5 trillion dollar cut is evenly split and cuts 150 billion from next year's deficit. So next year's deficit is ~ 1.35 trillion barring outside factors. So you enact a new 1.35 trillion dollar 10-year cut, and extend the ceiling by another 1.35 trillion.

Keep it up over 4 or 5 years, and things would theoretically be better under control.

It's a decent plan if we stick to it. After 4-5 years though we'd have to change the ratio. Switch it to 2:1. Then shortly after 3:1. Then finish the deficit off in one swoop.

Not perfect. The math is very simple. But easy to sell.

Edit - The 1:1 should be a minimum. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

 

[Chichikov]

You miss the point. This year's deficit ALONE will be 1 and a half TRILLION dollars. So to stay solvent the ceiling will have to be raised by 1 and a half trillion dollars to compensate for this year's shortfall. So we'd have to thus enact a 1.5 trillion dollar 10-year cut to extend the ceiling.

Let's keep it at simple math, and say the 1.5 trillion dollar cut is evenly split and cuts 150 billion from next year's deficit. So next year's deficit is ~ 1.35 trillion barring outside factors. So you enact a new 1.35 trillion dollar 10-year cut, and extend the ceiling by another 1.35 trillion.

Keep it up over 4 or 5 years, and things would theoretically be better under control.

It's a decent plan if we stick to it. After 4-5 years though we'd have to change the ratio. Switch it to 2:1. Then shortly after 3:1. Then finish the deficit off in one swoop.

Not perfect. The math is very simple. But easy to sell.

Edit - The 1:1 should be a minimum. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

Wait, what?
My brain hurts, I really don't understand what you're saying.

The ceiling is not the budget, the budget is the budget, the only thing the ceiling adjustment amount affect is when's the next time we'll have this dog and pony show.

Why does it matter to anything?
Anything other than partisan high stakes poker, which is what this is all about.
The GOP want to have this crap again in an election year and the dems don't.

This is all that remains (after the dems caved completely).