PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama continues to "demand" even after a disastrous week of doing nothing


HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 09:55 AM
I have to wonder what is going on in the White House and what people are saying and doing. The President has basically dropped the ball and has shown zero ability to move either side toward the other, he refuses to provide and concrete plan, is allowing his own party to take over the role of being obstinate and immoveable, the very thing they screamed bloody murder over about a handful of new republicans.

He has given the same speech over and over, no one seems to be paying any attention to him, and now in his weekly radio address he rolls out the same tired shit.

Leadership seems to escape him. Decision making is gone. The ship has no captain



Politico) — Just days ahead of the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline and as partisan rankling continued on Capitol Hill, President Barack Obama urged Congress to show him a plan that would divert the country from national default by Tuesday.

In the weekly address to the nation, the president maintained that House Republicans had wasted too much time passing a bill that doesn’t offer a long-term solution to the debt crisis.

Speaker Boehner’s deficit ceiling bill passed late Friday but within hours was tabled by the Senate.

The House plan, Obama argued, would expose the country to another impasse in a few months. “It would hold our economy captive to Washington politics once again,” he said. “If anything, the past few weeks have demonstrated that’s unacceptable.”

Using similar language he had used during Friday morning’s news conference, the president said a default could only be avoided with a bipartisan plan.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans is not wide, he added, pointing out areas where he said there was general agreement, including on spending cuts, and tax and entitlement reform.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 10:47 AM
The President has basically dropped the ball and has shown zero ability to move either side toward the other, he refuses to provide and concrete plan, is allowing his own party to take over the role of being obstinate and immoveable, the very thing they screamed bloody murder over about a handful of new republicans.

This statement just has a whole lot of things wrong with it on its face. You can't negotiate with crazy people when you offer the crazy people 75-90% of what they want and their response is "no, we want complete and total surrender. Either you renounce everything you believe in and give us everything we want, or we'll blow this joint up"

What we have with the tea party representatives is something between a hostage negotiation and a terrorist attack. There is not a democrat on the planet who could bridge this gap.

The only way out at this point is to ignore the tea party and hope that Boehner + a few republicans put country above politics by accepting what, really, should have been considered a huge republican win in the first place.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 11:01 AM
This statement just has a whole lot of things wrong with it on its face. You can't negotiate with crazy people when you offer the crazy people 75-90% of what they want and their response is "no, we want complete and total surrender. Either you renounce everything you believe in and give us everything we want, or we'll blow this joint up"

What we have with the tea party representatives is something between a hostage negotiation and a terrorist attack. There is not a democrat on the planet who could bridge this gap.

The only way out at this point is to ignore the tea party and hope that Boehner + a few republicans put country above politics by accepting what, really, should have been considered a huge republican win in the first place.


If the President of the US finds it outside his ability to sit down with two opposing sided and lead a process to arrive at an agreement on a single issue.....then he has no business being President.

If your only approach is to make demands and you cannot guide a process to an amicable solution, then what on earth is he doing there? Imagine if this was a life and death issue. This isnt even that difficult....its clear we have to extend the debt ceiling and neither side wants default. And spending has to be cut and it has to begin day one not 10 years from now. Obama has failed in every case on every level to lead and provide process and direction....because he has no clue how to do it. He has never had to lead, create process, work through issues, and bring people together.

Harry Reid and the dems have no ground to stand on and throw rocks at the House. They are every bit as bad if not worse. And that is the Presidents fault for not providing more leadership to his party in the Senate.

ClevelandBronco
07-30-2011, 11:06 AM
..."no, we want complete and total surrender. Either you renounce everything you believe in and give us everything we want, or we'll blow this joint up"

If only. That would be a party I could believe in.

DJ's left nut
07-30-2011, 11:11 AM
This is a fundamental failure w/ Obama's presidency.

Nixon gets tabbed as the "Imperial" President, but Obama really does take the cake in this regard. In a situation such as this, Obama should be acting as something of a mediator; an arbiter of sorts. He has his own branch of the government to deal with, he damn sure shouldn't by trying to impose his will on the legislative branch.

Instead he's doing what he's done this whole time - divide and demand. At no point has he attempted to act as a leader to pull any of these sides together. At no point has he sought any sort of common ground towards a resolution.

From day 1 of his Presidency he's acted as an elected dictator. He's essentially tried to bully anyone and everyone and if he can't get what he wants, he goes and gives some populist speech and tries to further divide and conquer. He hasn't acted as a Chief Executive; he's acted as the Chief Democrat. He hasn't shown any willingness to step beyond his party, but simply looks to slam their agenda through.

He's a truly terrible leader. I respect the hell out of Bill Clinton because he was able to look past the D after his name and recognize the weight of his office (as well as where his office ended). He acted as a President should and tried to simply frame the debate and/or find common grounds between the parties and work from there. He was a very good President and an effective leader.

Bush was a clear step down in that regard and Obama is simply a plunge into the abyss from there. I've never seen a President that was a less effective moderator and Chief Executive than Obama is. He's a politician and that's it. It's more and more apparent with every passing day.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 11:39 AM
If the President of the US finds it outside his ability to sit down with two opposing sided and lead a process to arrive at an agreement on a single issue.....then he has no business being President.

If your only approach is to make demands and you cannot guide a process to an amicable solution, then what on earth is he doing there? Imagine if this was a life and death issue. This isnt even that difficult....its clear we have to extend the debt ceiling and neither side wants default. And spending has to be cut and it has to begin day one not 10 years from now. Obama has failed in every case on every level to lead and provide process and direction....because he has no clue how to do it. He has never had to lead, create process, work through issues, and bring people together.

Harry Reid and the dems have no ground to stand on and throw rocks at the House. They are every bit as bad if not worse. And that is the Presidents fault for not providing more leadership to his party in the Senate.

You are asking for the impossible, as if Obama is to blame for the heat wave.

The tea party is basically asking for total surrender even though their party controls only half of one branch of government. They were offered a deal that tilts heavily in their favor, but its their way or the highway as far as they are concerned.

This is a situation where the media's attempts (successful or not) to always treat both sides of an issue equally serves us poorly. In this issue one side is willing to sign on to a deal that is 75-90% tilted towards the other side, and the other side is completely insane wanting 100% and if they don't get their way they are willing to bomb the economy into a smoking ruin. One side is bargaining in good faith, and the other side has lost its mind, and they should be portrayed as such.

The house GOP is not negotiating in good faith. They are instead playing a game of chicken, except they have rigged the GOP car to have no driver. The Dems can see the other car has no driver and is programmed to crash if they don't veer off and "lose".

You are criticizing Obama for not convincing the GOP driverless car, pre-programmed to not stop no matter what, to slow down or stop in this rigged game of chicken. It is not a negotiation, it is a hostage situation with a gun pointed at the economy.

BucEyedPea
07-30-2011, 11:44 AM
This is the way our govt is supposed to work imo.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 12:16 PM
You are asking for the impossible, as if Obama is to blame for the heat wave.

The tea party is basically asking for total surrender even though their party controls only half of one branch of government. They were offered a deal that tilts heavily in their favor, but its their way or the highway as far as they are concerned.

This is a situation where the media's attempts (successful or not) to always treat both sides of an issue equally serves us poorly. In this issue one side is willing to sign on to a deal that is 75-90% tilted towards the other side, and the other side is completely insane wanting 100% and if they don't get their way they are willing to bomb the economy into a smoking ruin. One side is bargaining in good faith, and the other side has lost its mind, and they should be portrayed as such.

The house GOP is not negotiating in good faith. They are instead playing a game of chicken, except they have rigged the GOP car to have no driver. The Dems can see the other car has no driver and is programmed to crash if they don't veer off and "lose".

You are criticizing Obama for not convincing the GOP driverless car, pre-programmed to not stop no matter what, to slow down or stop in this rigged game of chicken. It is not a negotiation, it is a hostage situation with a gun pointed at the economy.


You cannot see the issue outside of your Obama defender blinders. The House passed two bills to address the issue. The Senate didn't even offer opportunity to discuss, debate or vote. Its within the rules to do that but the fact is it is chickenshit. They should have allowed debate, offered amendments, voted on the amendments and passed a bill to send back. They failed to do that and wont do that. And Obama has offered no guidance to move away from a stalemate. He is every bit as guilty, maybe more so.

There is zero evidence of anything done by the White House or the Senate in "good faith".

orange
07-30-2011, 12:29 PM
If the President of the US finds it outside his ability to sit down with two opposing sided and lead a process to arrive at an agreement on a single issue.....then he has no business being President.


That is no doubt why the founders left any mention of "veto" or "override" completely out of the Constitution.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 12:39 PM
You cannot see the issue outside of your Obama defender blinders. The House passed two bills to address the issue. The Senate didn't even offer opportunity to discuss, debate or vote. Its within the rules to do that but the fact is it is chickenshit. They should have allowed debate, offered amendments, voted on the amendments and passed a bill to send back. They failed to do that and wont do that. And Obama has offered no guidance to move away from a stalemate. He is every bit as guilty, maybe more so.

There is zero evidence of anything done by the White House or the Senate in "good faith".

The house bills were not a serious attempt to resolve the issue. Any bill which ignores one of Obama's only veto-backed demands (get through 2013) and tacks on a requirement for a constitutional amendment before the 2nd increase to boot, is a stupid bill.

The senate basically is doing what you want, so your 2nd complaint is groundless. Maybe you aren't aware of the irrelevant little details of what the senate is actually doing. They will amend and debate the house bill because there is no time to work up a senate bill from scratch. (If they amend the house bill they only have to go through one cloture vote and can do it in a couple days. If they try to write their own bill from scratch, they have to go through 2 cloture votes which would take too long.)

Finally, to say there is zero evidence that the White House is bargaining in good faith doesn't even pass the giggle test.

They agreed to a massive re-write of the tax code which would result in marginal income tax rates reduced to lower levels for everyone, including the rich. That would be offset by limiting or removing some deductions, but they were only apart by a few hundred billion when the tea party forced Boehner to walk, which is basically nothing. They agreed to a 3:1 split, and were talking about being willing to go to a 4:1 split of cuts/taxes, which by any reasonable measure is lopsided to the republicans.

Most incredibly, a democratic president was willing to reduce social security benefits (via lower COL increases), revise ages to qualify for social security and medicare, and other entitlement cuts. The left was screaming bloody murder to the point where a lot of liberals want to primary him. This was an incredible opportunity where Obama was practically willing to give up the store for an irrelevant amount of tax increases and a debt ceiling increase.

Frankly, I'm pissed that the republicans passed on this opportunity because if the Dems win in 2012, the next deal will be tilted to the left. I have stopped self-identifying as a republican and consider myself independent simply because of this one issue. If that is not bargaining in good faith to you, then you are blinded on this issue for some odd reason.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 01:06 PM
That is no doubt why the founders left any mention of "veto" or "override" completely out of the Constitution.


That would take balls to do. You think he would? He has created a specter of default as a scare...would he actually send us off that cliff?

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 01:07 PM
The house bills were not a serious attempt to resolve the issue. Any bill which ignores one of Obama's only veto-backed demands (get through 2013) and tacks on a requirement for a constitutional amendment before the 2nd increase to boot, is a stupid bill.

The senate basically is doing what you want, so your 2nd complaint is groundless. Maybe you aren't aware of the irrelevant little details of what the senate is actually doing. They will amend and debate the house bill because there is no time to work up a senate bill from scratch. (If they amend the house bill they only have to go through one cloture vote and can do it in a couple days. If they try to write their own bill from scratch, they have to go through 2 cloture votes which would take too long.)

Finally, to say there is zero evidence that the White House is bargaining in good faith doesn't even pass the giggle test.

They agreed to a massive re-write of the tax code which would result in marginal income tax rates reduced to lower levels for everyone, including the rich. That would be offset by limiting or removing some deductions, but they were only apart by a few hundred billion when the tea party forced Boehner to walk, which is basically nothing. They agreed to a 3:1 split, and were talking about being willing to go to a 4:1 split of cuts/taxes, which by any reasonable measure is lopsided to the republicans.

Most incredibly, a democratic president was willing to reduce social security benefits (via lower COL increases), revise ages to qualify for social security and medicare, and other entitlement cuts. The left was screaming bloody murder to the point where a lot of liberals want to primary him. This was an incredible opportunity where Obama was practically willing to give up the store for an irrelevant amount of tax increases and a debt ceiling increase.

Frankly, I'm pissed that the republicans passed on this opportunity because if the Dems win in 2012, the next deal will be tilted to the left. I have stopped self-identifying as a republican and consider myself independent simply because of this one issue. If that is not bargaining in good faith to you, then you are blinded on this issue for some odd reason.


His veto scare was a ploy. No one believes he has the balls to do it nor will he do it if it really will take us to a full on default.

orange
07-30-2011, 01:10 PM
That would take balls to do. You think he would? He has created a specter of default as a scare...would he actually send us off that cliff?

He has nothing to veto. He already threatened to veto the House Bill - but he won't have to.

He also supports the Reid version, so unless you know about something out there that no one else seems to, he's not going to have to veto anything.

Interesting, though, that you acknowledge the existence of "the veto" and yet you seem to think a "true" president is supposed to snap his fingers and everybody agrees.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 01:15 PM
He has nothing to veto. He already threatened to veto the House Bill - but he won't have to.

He also supports the Reid version, so unless you know about something out there that no one else seems to, he's not going to have to veto anything.

Interesting, though, that you acknowledge the existence of "the veto" and yet you seem to think a "true" president is supposed to snap his fingers and everybody agrees.

Not at all what I said you moron....snapping fingers and agrees is what Obama thinks it is.....he has only the power to lead and influence. The problem is he cannot seem to do either.

A true president would never have allowed this to get this far without extraordinary efforts to find a meaningful solution. But this president loves crisis. Its his method of working. He cannot lead.

patteeu
07-30-2011, 03:52 PM
This statement just has a whole lot of things wrong with it on its face. You can't negotiate with crazy people when you offer the crazy people 75-90% of what they want and their response is "no, we want complete and total surrender. Either you renounce everything you believe in and give us everything we want, or we'll blow this joint up"

What we have with the tea party representatives is something between a hostage negotiation and a terrorist attack. There is not a democrat on the planet who could bridge this gap.

The only way out at this point is to ignore the tea party and hope that Boehner + a few republicans put country above politics by accepting what, really, should have been considered a huge republican win in the first place.

That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say given that the only thing the President cares about is getting the debt limit increased high enough to take it out of the 2012 election picture and that he seems completely unwilling to compromise on that purely political principle.

A compromise has been available for a long time with Republicans giving in on the amount of real savings being accomplished (down to almost zero) in return for a shorter period before the issue is revisited.

patteeu
07-30-2011, 05:14 PM
You are asking for the impossible, as if Obama is to blame for the heat wave.

The tea party is basically asking for total surrender even though their party controls only half of one branch of government. They were offered a deal that tilts heavily in their favor, but its their way or the highway as far as they are concerned.

This is a situation where the media's attempts (successful or not) to always treat both sides of an issue equally serves us poorly. In this issue one side is willing to sign on to a deal that is 75-90% tilted towards the other side, and the other side is completely insane wanting 100% and if they don't get their way they are willing to bomb the economy into a smoking ruin. One side is bargaining in good faith, and the other side has lost its mind, and they should be portrayed as such.

The house GOP is not negotiating in good faith. They are instead playing a game of chicken, except they have rigged the GOP car to have no driver. The Dems can see the other car has no driver and is programmed to crash if they don't veer off and "lose".

You are criticizing Obama for not convincing the GOP driverless car, pre-programmed to not stop no matter what, to slow down or stop in this rigged game of chicken. It is not a negotiation, it is a hostage situation with a gun pointed at the economy.

Wow. I don't think you understand this situation at all.

The tea party faction is a minority of one house of Congress. If they were being as unreasonable as you believe, there'd be plenty of opportunity to build a majority to bypass them.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 07:20 PM
Wow. I don't think you understand this situation at all.

The tea party faction is a minority of one house of Congress. If they were being as unreasonable as you believe, there'd be plenty of opportunity to build a majority to bypass them.

Pretty much that.

banyon
07-30-2011, 07:53 PM
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say given that the only thing the President cares about is getting the debt limit increased high enough to take it out of the 2012 election picture and that he seems completely unwilling to compromise on that purely political principle.

Why isn't the converse true? That the only thing Republicans care about is continuing to leave this issue around in 6 months so they can hang it around Obama's neck in the 2012 elections?



A compromise has been available for a long time with Republicans giving in on the amount of real savings being accomplished (down to almost zero) in return for a shorter period before the issue is revisited.

6 months? They'll have to start debating it again almost immediately. Might as well be an offer to extend it 6 minutes.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 08:04 PM
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say given that the only thing the President cares about is getting the debt limit increased high enough to take it out of the 2012 election picture and that he seems completely unwilling to compromise on that purely political principle.

I completely disagree with what I've bolded above. He wants to get through 2013 because if we have this fight in an election year, willingness to compromise plunges through the floor and the probability of a default would massively increase. Hell, I'd argue that it would be politically advantageous for Obama to have this fight again in 2012. If the republicans are willing to see a default and a resulting economic collapse months before the election because we failed to pass a damned constitutional amendment of all things, that is practically a gold-edged engraved signed invitation for the Democratic party to win in a total wipeout.

If Obama was a hard-core liberal hack who wanted to play politics we wouldn't be talking about a debt negotiation. He would have went straight for the throat after the Ryan plan, banged that big-ass "replace Medicare with vouchers" drum that lost the GOP a red seat until his poll numbers go up, and try to ride class warfare fear into a blowout win.

Many republicans think Obama is a pure evil political demon, but the evidence points to someone who took the 2010 election serious enough to bargain with the GOP in, hell not good faith but more than good faith by giving the republicans basically a very conservative right-leaning deal.

Obama's flaw in this issue is that he was naive enough to think his opponents were not political hacks and were bargaining in good faith.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 08:06 PM
I completely disagree with what I've bolded above. He wants to get through 2013 because if we have this fight in an election year, willingness to compromise plunges through the floor and the probability of a default would massively increase. Hell, I'd argue that it would be politically advantageous for Obama to have this fight again in 2012. If the republicans are willing to see a default and a resulting economic collapse months before the election because we failed to pass a damned constitutional amendment of all things, that is practically a gold-edged engraved signed invitation for the Democratic party to win in a total wipeout.

If Obama was a liberal who wanted to play politics we wouldn't be talking about a debt negotiation. He would have went straight for the throat after the Ryan plan, banged that big-ass "replace Medicare with vouchers" drum that lost the GOP a red seat until his poll numbers go up, and try to ride class warfare fear into a blowout win.

Many republicans think Obama is a pure evil political demon, but the evidence points to someone who took the 2010 election serious enough to bargain with the GOP in, hell not good faith but more than good faith by giving the republicans basically a very conservative right-leaning deal.

Obama's flaw in this issue is that he was naive enough to think his opponents were not political hacks and were bargaining in good faith.

Wow. Just wow.

banyon
07-30-2011, 08:10 PM
Wow. Just wow.

It is a good post. You are right. :D

mlyonsd
07-30-2011, 08:34 PM
I completely disagree with what I've bolded above. He wants to get through 2013 because if we have this fight in an election year, willingness to compromise plunges through the floor and the probability of a default would massively increase. Hell, I'd argue that it would be politically advantageous for Obama to have this fight again in 2012. If the republicans are willing to see a default and a resulting economic collapse months before the election because we failed to pass a damned constitutional amendment of all things, that is practically a gold-edged engraved signed invitation for the Democratic party to win in a total wipeout.

If Obama was a hard-core liberal hack who wanted to play politics we wouldn't be talking about a debt negotiation. He would have went straight for the throat after the Ryan plan, banged that big-ass "replace Medicare with vouchers" drum that lost the GOP a red seat until his poll numbers go up, and try to ride class warfare fear into a blowout win.

Many republicans think Obama is a pure evil political demon, but the evidence points to someone who took the 2010 election serious enough to bargain with the GOP in, hell not good faith but more than good faith by giving the republicans basically a very conservative right-leaning deal.

Obama's flaw in this issue is that he was naive enough to think his opponents were not political hacks and were bargaining in good faith.Obama is a hard-core political hack because he's only interested in keeping his job.

patteeu
07-30-2011, 09:10 PM
I completely disagree with what I've bolded above. He wants to get through 2013 because if we have this fight in an election year, willingness to compromise plunges through the floor and the probability of a default would massively increase. Hell, I'd argue that it would be politically advantageous for Obama to have this fight again in 2012. If the republicans are willing to see a default and a resulting economic collapse months before the election because we failed to pass a damned constitutional amendment of all things, that is practically a gold-edged engraved signed invitation for the Democratic party to win in a total wipeout.

If Obama was a hard-core liberal hack who wanted to play politics we wouldn't be talking about a debt negotiation. He would have went straight for the throat after the Ryan plan, banged that big-ass "replace Medicare with vouchers" drum that lost the GOP a red seat until his poll numbers go up, and try to ride class warfare fear into a blowout win.

Many republicans think Obama is a pure evil political demon, but the evidence points to someone who took the 2010 election serious enough to bargain with the GOP in, hell not good faith but more than good faith by giving the republicans basically a very conservative right-leaning deal.

Obama's flaw in this issue is that he was naive enough to think his opponents were not political hacks and were bargaining in good faith.

Good grief, you're uncharacteristically gullible in this case. If spending were cut back to pre-Obama levels, it would score as more than $10 trillion cut over the next 10 years. Tea partiers, who don't want the debt to increase at all, were willing to support a debt limit increase in return for rolling back a fraction of that new spending. Obama wanted either massive tax increases to provide a new baseline for future spending or almost no cuts combined with kicking the issue past the next election. Either of those options would be a huge victory for fans of government spending. It's insane to accuse tea party Republicans of negotiating in bad faith because they refuse to betray the voters who supported their platform of fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

RINGLEADER
07-30-2011, 11:08 PM
You'd think he'd take a look at his polls.

Unfortunately, the only way to get a deal is for someone to take a big left hook on the chin.

splatbass
07-31-2011, 12:47 AM
There is no need for a "deal". Congress can raise the debt ceiling anytime they want in a simple vote. They refuse to unless they get their way, which makes them the ones holding it up.

It amazes me that they have so many people convinced they can't raise the debt ceiling without a deal, and that the press lets them get away with it.

The truth is that they are blackmailing the president. They are saying "give us what we want or else we destroy the economy". Unconscionable.

RINGLEADER
07-31-2011, 12:50 AM
There is no need for a "deal". Congress can raise the debt ceiling anytime they want in a simple vote. They refuse to unless they get their way, which makes them the ones holding it up.

It amazes me that they have so many people convinced they can't raise the debt ceiling without a deal, and that the press lets them get away with it.

The truth is that they are blackmailing the president. They are saying "give us what we want or else we destroy the economy". Unconscionable.


Blackmailing the president? Like he's entitled to piss away more of my money on his experimental economic policies based on "fairness"?

Really don't understand this line of thinking.....

splatbass
07-31-2011, 01:01 AM
Blackmailing the president? Like he's entitled to piss away more of my money on his experimental economic policies based on "fairness"?

Really don't understand this line of thinking.....

"Do what we want or we destroy the economy" is not blackmail? The Republicans in congress - and only them - have the ability to raise the debt ceiling. They refuse to unless their demands are met.

BucEyedPea
07-31-2011, 07:01 AM
There is no need for a "deal". Congress can raise the debt ceiling anytime they want in a simple vote. They refuse to unless they get their way, which makes them the ones holding it up.

It amazes me that they have so many people convinced they can't raise the debt ceiling without a deal, and that the press lets them get away with it.

The truth is that they are blackmailing the president. They are saying "give us what we want or else we destroy the economy". Unconscionable.

Blackmail? Huh? This is the kind of fight that's needed that's been lacking for too long. I also fail to understand how it destroys an economy when it's already destroyed. As for anyone else it harms those whose wealth is connected to govt. Time for that to end as well. This raise in the debt ceiling is really just for new spending.

Lastly, mostly all of them up there are doing what they feel they need to do to get reelected.

patteeu
07-31-2011, 01:06 PM
There is no need for a "deal". Congress can raise the debt ceiling anytime they want in a simple vote. They refuse to unless they get their way, which makes them the ones holding it up.

It amazes me that they have so many people convinced they can't raise the debt ceiling without a deal, and that the press lets them get away with it.

The truth is that they are blackmailing the president. They are saying "give us what we want or else we destroy the economy". Unconscionable.

The President can have a debt limit increase anytime he wants simply by convincing Senate democrats to support one of the two bills already passed in the House and then signing it, which makes them the ones holding it up.

It's unconscionable that he threatens to destroy the economy over a few hundred billion dollars worth of mostly fake cuts from the inflated baseline that his out of control spending created.

patteeu
07-31-2011, 01:07 PM
"Do what we want or we destroy the economy" is not blackmail? The Republicans in congress - and only them - have the ability to raise the debt ceiling. They refuse to unless their demands are met.

The Republicans have voted to raise the debt ceiling. The only obstacles remaining are democrats (and the unrealistic possibility of a Republican filibuster).

splatbass
07-31-2011, 01:16 PM
The Republicans have voted to raise the debt ceiling. The only obstacles remaining are democrats (and the unrealistic possibility of a Republican filibuster).

No, they voted to raise the debt ceiling WITH CONDITIONS that they know are unacceptable to the Democrats.

They need to raise the ceiling with no conditions. It is what adults would do. Instead they are acting like petulant children throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way.

One more time: The debt ceiling can be raised by a simple vote. No deal, no conditions, are needed. This is what has happened for 93 years, since the first debt ceiling in 1917. Reagan raised it almost 20 times. He didn't play politics with it. He was far more of a man that anyone in the current GOP.

It is sad that the GOP has moved so far to the right that Reagan looks like a liberal.

KC Dan
07-31-2011, 01:49 PM
They need to raise the ceiling with no conditions. It is what adults would do. Instead they are acting like petulant children throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way.


No, adults make a budget and live to it. They do not continue to get more and more credit cards with higher limits expecting the revenue bunny to drop off the cash to pay off the minimums. Children, like Congressmen and women refuse to make up a budget and spend, spend, spend, spend like teenage girls. Then stomp their feet and complain that the world will end when you try to limit their spending.

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 02:47 PM
No, they voted to raise the debt ceiling WITH CONDITIONS that they know are unacceptable to the Democrats.

.

This is akin to creating a faux insurance coverage system against the will of the entire opposing party.


HOW DARE THEY?

KCWolfman
07-31-2011, 02:56 PM
"Do what we want or we destroy the economy" is not blackmail? The Republicans in congress - and only them - have the ability to raise the debt ceiling. They refuse to unless their demands are met.

Actually, according to the last vote in the Senate, you are wrong. The Dems can't even get their own party to agree on a plan in a single arm of the lawmaking body. Bernie Sanders, Ben Nelson, and Joe Manchin (All Democrats) voted against Harry Reid's counter-proposal. At least the Republicans can pass a bill on to the next step.

The Dems seem to be the ones who are hemming and hawing until demands are met.

HonestChieffan
07-31-2011, 03:28 PM
Actually, according to the last vote in the Senate, you are wrong. The Dems can't even get their own party to agree on a plan in a single arm of the lawmaking body. Bernie Sanders, Ben Nelson, and Joe Manchin (All Democrats) voted against Harry Reid's counter-proposal. At least the Republicans can pass a bill on to the next step.

The Dems seem to be the ones who are hemming and hawing until demands are met.


all the while, with Orange and Banyon and al in chorus, screaming "Winning!!!!!"

orange
07-31-2011, 03:38 PM
Today 3:24 PM Reid Signs Off On Deal

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has tentatively signed off on a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling, which has been primarily negotiated between his Republican counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and President Barack Obama.

"Senator Reid has signed off on the debt-ceiling agreement pending caucus approval," Reid's spokesman, Adam Jentleson, said in a statement on Sunday afternoon.

In coming out in favor of the deal, Reid paves the way for its passage in the Senate. There are likely to be members of both parties who will end up opposing the measure, which would cut $1 trillion in spending over the course of ten years before giving way to a super committee of lawmakers to find $1.8 trillion in additional cuts. But that chamber seems like less of a steep hurdle for passage.

The real question mark is the House of Representatives. On Sunday, Democratic aides suggested that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was inching towards formally supporting the deal. But no formal word has been issued from her office. Her caucus, which is compromise of more progressives than the Senate, presents a far tougher sell than Reid's.

Even without Pelosi's support, the real question remains whether House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will end up backing the measure. Members of his conference have raised concerns that the enforcement mechanism to ensure that the committees recommendations are passed into law leans too heavily on cuts to the defense department's budget. Democrats have countered that the triggers are disproportionately weighted against their interests, as they include no revenue raisers and involve steep cuts to domestic spending and Medicare suppliers.

Boehner is expected to hold a conference call with his members on Sunday. A request for comment from his office was not returned.

gochiefs_va
07-31-2011, 04:15 PM
A tentative plan that will cut 1 trillon...Ok where. What programs are going to get cut? Or is that more of the when irag/afghan stop, cause that's not a cut at all.

The other 1.8 trillion is sometime in the future, if they can find stuff to cut? You are seriously proud of that plan? I hope they vote it down again...Playing funny numbers with hopes of finding stuff to cut in the future is NOT A CUT. If you havent defined that X program, and Y grants, and X tax breaks are gone, but instead say " Well we'll find 1.8 more someday from somewhere" How the heck is that cut ?

orange
07-31-2011, 04:20 PM
A tentative plan that will cut 1 trillon...Ok where. What programs are going to get cut? Or is that more of the when irag/afghan stop, cause that's not a cut at all.

The other 1.8 trillion is sometime in the future, if they can find stuff to cut? You are seriously proud of that plan? I hope they vote it down again...Playing funny numbers with hopes of finding stuff to cut in the future is NOT A CUT. If you havent defined that X program, and Y grants, and X tax breaks are gone, but instead say " Well we'll find 1.8 more someday from somewhere" How the heck is that cut ?

It doesn't sound like they're counting the drawdowns at all, or the numbers would be $1 trillion higher.

As for "how the heck is that a cut?" - it's a cut because if the Supercommittee doesn't come with a plan that passes, specific automatic cuts that nobody likes will take place (the so-called "trigger").

stevieray
07-31-2011, 04:31 PM
They need to raise the ceiling with no conditions. It is what adults would do.

irresponsibility coupled with elitism.....?

GTFO

banyon
07-31-2011, 05:03 PM
all the while, with Orange and Banyon and al in chorus, screaming "Winning!!!!!"

You're a black liar, sir. I haven't supported any of this nonsense and I defy you to find a post where I did.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 05:45 AM
No, they voted to raise the debt ceiling WITH CONDITIONS that they know are unacceptable to the Democrats.

They need to raise the ceiling with no conditions. It is what adults would do. Instead they are acting like petulant children throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way.

One more time: The debt ceiling can be raised by a simple vote. No deal, no conditions, are needed. This is what has happened for 93 years, since the first debt ceiling in 1917. Reagan raised it almost 20 times. He didn't play politics with it. He was far more of a man that anyone in the current GOP.

It is sad that the GOP has moved so far to the right that Reagan looks like a liberal.

What you're telling me is that raising the debt ceiling wasn't really a top priority for democrats.

Today's GOP is certainly not to the right of Reagan. What has changed is that 30 more years of democrat-driven socialism has brought the country to the brink of fiscal disaster.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 05:48 AM
You're a black liar, sir. I haven't supported any of this nonsense and I defy you to find a post where I did.

I'll vouch for you on this.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 06:34 AM
What you're telling me is that raising the debt ceiling wasn't really a top priority for democrats.

Today's GOP is certainly not to the right of Reagan. What has changed is that 30 more years of Republicrat-driven socialism has brought the country to the brink of fiscal disaster.

FYP It was too partisan and thus false.

Amnorix
08-01-2011, 06:45 AM
Wow. I don't think you understand this situation at all.

The tea party faction is a minority of one house of Congress. If they were being as unreasonable as you believe, there'd be plenty of opportunity to build a majority to bypass them.

So you're thinking Boehner would turn his back on the tea party members and form a coalition of non-tea party Republicans plus Democrats.

If so, I got a bridge to sell you.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 07:28 AM
So you're thinking Boehner would turn his back on the tea party members and form a coalition of non-tea party Republicans plus Democrats.

If so, I got a bridge to sell you.

He'll sell that same bridge back to you — at a profit.

Boehner and Obama supported the Big Bank Bail Out remember. That could happen again.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 07:48 AM
So you're thinking Boehner would turn his back on the tea party members and form a coalition of non-tea party Republicans plus Democrats.

If so, I got a bridge to sell you.

Aren't many tea party Republicans saying he turned his back on them today? :shrug:

patteeu
08-01-2011, 07:51 AM
FYP It was too partisan and thus false.

Republicans haven't been blameless, but any suggestion that they are equally to blame is even worse than ignoring their contribution.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 09:10 AM
Republicans haven't been blameless, but any suggestion that they are equally to blame is even worse than ignoring their contribution.

They are nearly equally to blame. Particularly because of the housing socialism with cheap and easy credit under Bush which is a BIG part of the financial crisis we had and why we're not coming out of the situation as quickly as other recessions but could haven taken years even without an Obama in the WH.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 10:09 AM
They are nearly equally to blame. Particularly because of the housing socialism with cheap and easy credit under Bush which is a BIG part of the financial crisis we had and why we're come out of the situation as quickly as other recessions but could haven taken years even without an Obama in the WH.

I disagree that the situation we're now in is based as much on recent history as you're suggesting. The housing collapse may have been a precipitating event, but the underlying vulnerability of our creeping big government addiction is a far bigger problem to overcome.

mlyonsd
08-01-2011, 10:33 AM
I disagree that the situation we're now in is based as much on recent history as you're suggesting. The housing collapse may have been a precipitating event, but the underlying vulnerability of our creeping big government addiction is a far bigger problem to overcome.Just imagine if all that money paid into SS and Medicare for all those years was actually 'there'.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 10:37 AM
I disagree that the situation we're now in is based as much on recent history as you're suggesting. The housing collapse may have been a precipitating event, but the underlying vulnerability of our creeping big government addiction is a far bigger problem to overcome.

I don't deny that and have said as much myself but those years of creeping big govt addiction has big Republican legislation earlier too. Still, neither party can fix the housing part of the problem because there is too much inventory on the market a no matter how much Obama tries to prop it up. RE market drives many other markets too. Still, Rs under the Bush regime's leadership, did contribute to the financial crisis and bailed out the same people responsible for causing it exacerbating it all. There was eight years of it. If Rs were really free-market capitalists they would have allowed the market to punish those responsible instead of providing socialism for them. They needed to liquidate the bad debt. So we are left stuck with many of the same problems and problem people.

Deal with it. It's the truth.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't deny that and have said as much myself but those years of creeping big govt addiction has big Republican legislation earlier too. Still, neither party can fix the housing part of the problem because there is too much inventory on the market a no matter how much Obama tries to prop it up. RE market drives many other markets too. Still, Rs under the Bush regime's leadership, did contribute to the financial crisis and bailed out the same people responsible for causing it exacerbating it all. There was eight years of it. If Rs were really free-market capitalists they would have allowed the market to punish those responsible instead of providing socialism for them. They needed to liquidate the bad debt. So we are left stuck with many of the same problems and problem people.

Deal with it. It's the truth.

Deal with what? The fact that you're essentially agreeing with me even though you can't restrain yourself from finding a way to criticize Republicans at the same time you admit I'm right? OK, consider it dealt with.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 01:29 PM
nope

splatbass
08-01-2011, 01:38 PM
What you're telling me is that raising the debt ceiling wasn't really a top priority for democrats.

Today's GOP is certainly not to the right of Reagan. What has changed is that 30 more years of democrat-driven socialism has brought the country to the brink of fiscal disaster.

You have got to be kidding. Republicans destroyed our economy and you are blaming liberals?

You probably think the economy was booming when Bush left office. :doh!:


Here is what a smart Republican thinks:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- I'm a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night's last-minute budget deal, I see some things I don't believe in:

Forcing the United States to the verge of default.

Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.

Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.

Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

This is David Frum.

He also said this:

You can't save the system by destroying the system.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 01:58 PM
You have got to be kidding. Republicans destroyed our economy and you are blaming liberals?

You probably think the economy was booming when Bush left office. :doh!:


Here is what a smart Republican thinks:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- I'm a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night's last-minute budget deal, I see some things I don't believe in:

Forcing the United States to the verge of default.

Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.

Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.

Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

This is David Frum.

He also said this:

You can't save the system by destroying the system.

David Frum is left of center. I'd classify him as a progressive and most conservative Republicans would as well. Funny, how a NC like Frum no longer supports creative destruction which is what his ilk referred to when invading Iraq.

Tea Partiers have no interest in saving a corrupt, unworkable, unsustainable system. What a silly argument. However, the left is equally to blame.

splatbass
08-01-2011, 02:02 PM
David Frum is left of center.

No, he isn't. Ridiculous. You are just so far to the right that you can't see the center.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:04 PM
No, he isn't. Ridiculous. You are just so far to the right that you can't see the center.

Nope he is. He's a NeoCon. The center has shifted leftward since the 1930s. So pssst, anyone wanting to save the system is left of center also. I think it shows how far left you are instead.

orange
08-01-2011, 02:04 PM
Here is what a smart Republican thinks:


You obviously never got the memo: Frum, Bartlett, Stockman, Brooks, Greenspan, McCain et al. are not Republicans.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 02:10 PM
You obviously never got the memo: Frum, Bartlett, Stockman, Brooks, Greenspan, McCain et al. are not Republicans.

They are Republicans but that doesn't say what kind. Many are left of center today. Why do you think they get called RINOs?

splatbass
08-01-2011, 03:13 PM
Nope he is. He's a NeoCon. The center has shifted leftward since the 1930s. So pssst, anyone wanting to save the system is left of center also. I think it shows how far left you are instead.

This is a right-center country. Our liberals would be conservative in most western countries. We have moved to the right in the last 40 years.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 03:15 PM
This is a right-center country. Our liberals would be conservative in most western countries. We have moved to the right in the last 40 years.
Nope.

Did you know that even the AEI threw Frum out for supporting Obamacare. That's hardly right of center.

Our liberals are not liberals either. You stole that label. They are lefties—Progressives and Socialists who would fit right in Europe.

splatbass
08-01-2011, 03:20 PM
Nope.

Did you know that even the AEI threw Frum out for supporting Obamacare. That's hardly right of center.

Our liberals are not liberals either. You stole that label. They are lefties—Progressives and Socialists who would fit right in Europe.

It isn't so just because you say so. I have spent time with Europeans and spent much time in Asia. They all consider me a conservative.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 03:21 PM
It isn't so just because you say so. I have spent time with Europeans and spent much time in Asia. They all consider me a conservative.

I've been with Europeans in Europe too. Worked with a few even and they don't even think they're socialist. Says all.

Still doesn't prove Frum is right of center....if he was he'd be libertarian-leaning.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 04:29 PM
You have got to be kidding. Republicans destroyed our economy and you are blaming liberals?

You probably think the economy was booming when Bush left office. :doh!:


Here is what a smart Republican thinks:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- I'm a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night's last-minute budget deal, I see some things I don't believe in:

Forcing the United States to the verge of default.

Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.

Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.

Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

This is David Frum.

He also said this:

You can't save the system by destroying the system.

No, I'm quite serious.

I'm rarely moved by David Frum's opinions and this isn't an exception. It's ironic that you quote Frum after declaring that today's Republicans would view Reagan as a liberal since Frum has explicitly argued that Republicans should move beyond the Reagan revolution and come up with a new form of conservatism. He apparently thinks too many of today's Republicans still cling too much to Reagan conservatism.

patteeu
08-01-2011, 04:33 PM
No, he isn't. Ridiculous. You are just so far to the right that you can't see the center.

Leave aside where the "center" is. Frum is definitely "left" enough to be persona non grata in conservative circles.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 04:48 PM
Reagan isn't the model for conservatism.

Drug wars, says it all. His drug war has left a bloodbath and billions(probably trillions) wasted fighting a lost cause. He also raised the debt ceiling and spent plenty. How about Iran Contra? That isn't conservative.

I don't know why anybody would use him, as the model for conservatism. In fact, I would say his war on drugs was the beginning of the end in this country. He's hardly the conservative, so many claim he is.

He was a decent president, but the revisionist history doesn't fool me.

ROYC75
08-01-2011, 05:51 PM
You have got to be kidding. Republicans destroyed our economy and you are blaming liberals?

You probably think the economy was booming when Bush left office. :doh!:


Here is what a smart Republican thinks:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- I'm a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night's last-minute budget deal, I see some things I don't believe in:

Forcing the United States to the verge of default.

Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.

Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.

Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

This is David Frum.

He also said this:

You can't save the system by destroying the system.

If you think Liberals are blameless, you are just naive. Politicians from both sides of the isles have left this country in a desperate situation over the last 30 years.

But to think this is all on Bush and the R's is just your silliness sticking your head into the sand when it comes time to lay the blame.

Since we are on this subject, the last 2 years of Bush's presidency the house & senate was controlled by whom? The D's / L's

The 1st 2 years of Obama's presidency was controlled by whom? D's / L's

But let's not let any of this have anything to do with your logic, you are too busy with your head in the sand.

If Obama wanted change as he claimed, why didn't he hit the brakes, throw out the anchor when the problem got critical at the end of Bush's presidency? To slow down and not spend is not the Democratic / Liberal way. Now way, instead of reverse and anchoring down the spending, he and the D's as well as all the L's had to step on the gas and try to outrun the deficit. They had to spend more, more $$$ than any President ever, even more than all of them up to Bush combined, in 2 1/2 years.

That's really a solution, right, spend more money you do not have and increase debt.

An open charge card didn't work, never has, never will when the people have to pay for it.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 09:07 AM
Reagan isn't the model for conservatism.

Drug wars, says it all. His drug war has left a bloodbath and billions(probably trillions) wasted fighting a lost cause. He also raised the debt ceiling and spent plenty. How about Iran Contra? That isn't conservative.

I don't know why anybody would use him, as the model for conservatism. In fact, I would say his war on drugs was the beginning of the end in this country. He's hardly the conservative, so many claim he is.

He was a decent president, but the revisionist history doesn't fool me.

Your anti-Reagan opinion is noted. You're certainly out of step with mainstream conservatism. I have to admit that that comes as no surprise to me.