[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

That kind of thinking just amazes me. Currently at this moment the mess is fixable. And I don't see any problems with Obama's plans which is some cut backs on spending and some tax breaks being removed. Its a balanced approach. Instead you would rather sink the US economy, create billions of additional costs in interest which will require future and higher debt ceilings and higher interest rates on borrowing for all levels, from the person to the business to the city to the State governments. Something that could cause another round of bankruptcies, lost jobs, more housing defaults. For what? Its like saying lets fix the crack in the wind shield by smashing the entire thing just to have to put it all back together again. Your thinking is flawed on many levels.

The mess is not fixable by any measure on the table. Zero. This is how out of control our debt has become. For those paying attention, the S&P is not saying; "we need a balanced approach from the US, A Grand Compromise; one that cuts $1billion in debt the first year of a 10-year proposal with budget-gadegetry like counting spending cuts from nonexistent surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan" when the govt currently spends $4billion per day. They're saying they don't have faith that this government is capable of trimming the debt. Period. They're saying they need to see the kind of serious cuts proposed by Obama's bipartisan debt commission, the one he ignored. All of the things you mention above are possibilities not because of an unwillingness to increase the debt ceiling, but because we have to continue increasing the debt ceiling with no hope of a balanced budget anywhere, ever. It astounds me how folks are so interested in compromise that they can't see how we've "compromised" ourselves into this hole.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm beginning to suspect there was a passable compromise in place a few weeks ago, except someone decided not to accept it figuring since so much time was left, they could run out the shot clock and get a better opportunity, only to have the entire play fall apart instead. It increasingly looks like if a compromise is made it will be a desperation heave, a weak-ass band-aid compared to what was being rumored in talks previously.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The mess is not fixable by any measure on the table. Zero. This is how out of control our debt has become. For those paying attention, the S&P is not saying; "we need a balanced approach from the US, A Grand Compromise; one that cuts $1billion in debt the first year of a 10-year proposal with budget-gadegetry like counting spending cuts from nonexistent surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan" when the govt currently spends $4billion per day. They're saying they don't have faith that this government is capable of trimming the debt. Period. They're saying they need to see the kind of serious cuts proposed by Obama's bipartisan debt commission, the one he ignored. All of the things you mention above are possibilities not because of an unwillingness to increase the debt ceiling, but because we have to continue increasing the debt ceiling with no hope of a balanced budget anywhere, ever. It astounds me how folks are so interested in compromise that they can't see how we've "compromised" ourselves into this hole.

I agree, a lot needs to be cut, at the same time revenue needs to be increased at well. Republicans want a 100% cut route with no increase in revenue. The Democrats want smaller cuts plus increased revenue. A tax increase to those making more then 275k a year is going to be less damaging to the economy in the long run then any kind of instability that causes interest rates to increase. Because if the interest rate increases on the national debt, even with large cuts like the Republicans want it wont be enough to be in the black because the interest portion is going to be so much higher and will still require a debt ceiling increase but now instead of money going to services, its going to bankers. Your at square one again but this time with less services for the people. Not to mention the higher interest rates hitting every person and business as well which will be much larger of a impact then any tax increase would have been. This is what I mean about forcing instability and RISK of a default is a very very bad idea.

The way I see it, with a 2 Trillion Dollar debt increase this allows 2 years to get the books in order at current deficit spending. Long enough for the economy to pick up to shorting some of the deficit, small increase in taxes to make up more revenue on top of that, it might only require a 500 Billion cut from programs to be in the black. There is a lack of trust that over this time period nothing will change. And you know what I personally don't think it will either. Because any attempts to increase revenue or reform anything is going to be meet with so much resistance nothing will change. Look at how badly medical reform went.

Republicans don't want reforms that could reduce costs. They want programs gone period. I should read up on how the Roman Empire started to fall. I wonder if there are any parallels with government becoming so dysfunctional.

[BadKosh]

How about putting Owe-bamacare on the chopping block? Its Unconstitutional anyway, so dumping it will recover 1.7 trillion, and reduce some of the useless regulations and save the states some bucks.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I agree, a lot needs to be cut, at the same time revenue needs to be increased at well. Republicans want a 100% cut route with no increase in revenue. The Democrats want smaller cuts plus increased revenue. A tax increase to those making more then 275k a year is going to be less damaging to the economy in the long run then any kind of instability that causes interest rates to increase. Because if the interest rate increases on the national debt, even with large cuts like the Republicans want it wont be enough to be in the black because the interest portion is going to be so much higher and will still require a debt ceiling increase but now instead of money going to services, its going to bankers. Your at square one again but this time with less services for the people. Not to mention the higher interest rates hitting every person and business as well which will be much larger of a impact then any tax increase would have been. This is what I mean about forcing instability and RISK of a default is a very very bad idea.

Wrong. Reid's plan will cut $2.2 trillion. The Republican plan is only for $850 billion.

It's just that Republicans want to play the debt ceiling game next year in 2012 so they can influence the presidential election by bringing the debt ceiling up again and messing with the economy.

[Lateralus]

Okay, so we're not going to default - granted. But does anybody think we'll still avoid a credit rating downgrade at this point?

I can't help but think we've rattled the confidence in US debt by even playing this game. Additionally I'm fairly sure that whatever package winds up getting passed will be so shit that it won't satisfy the ratings agencies in the way that the packages on the table a few weeks ago would have.

[hyteckit]

200 point drop in DOW today.

No consequences eh?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

It's just that Republicans want to play the debt ceiling game next year in 2012 so they can influence the presidential election by bringing the debt ceiling up again and messing with the economy.

Wasn't it just a week or so ago that Eric Cantor was saying that multiple debt ceiling votes was a bad idea?

Turns out Republicans opposed multiple short-term debt ceiling votes before they proposed them. The No. 2 House Republican, Eric Cantor of Virginia, last month voiced a preference for a single debt ceiling vote and in an argument remarkably similar to Obama's said: "I am not so sure that if we can't make the tough decisions now, why we would be making those tough decisions later."

The Associated Press: SPIN METER: Short-term debt hike confounds 2 sides

So who's really moving the goalposts?

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Okay, so we're not going to default - granted. But does anybody think we'll still avoid a credit rating downgrade at this point?

I can't help but think we've rattled the confidence in US debt by even playing this game. Additionally I'm fairly sure that whatever package winds up getting passed will be so shit that it won't satisfy the ratings agencies in the way that the packages on the table a few weeks ago would have.

It's be harder for businesses and consumers to borrow money. The cost of borrowing money will be higher. US dollars will be worth less. Cost for everything will go up. Effectively a 'tax increase' on everyone.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Okay, so we're not going to default - granted. But does anybody think we'll still avoid a credit rating downgrade at this point?

I can't help but think we've rattled the confidence in US debt by even playing this game. Additionally I'm fairly sure that whatever package winds up getting passed will be so shit that it won't satisfy the ratings agencies in the way that the packages on the table a few weeks ago would have.

Doubtful. Which is why the GOP should have never done this retarded sh*t in the first place. Not when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. You know when all this intransigence and downright hypocrisy when it comes to spending would have been a lot more appropriate?

The 2012 budget debate.

Isn't that where future spending decisions are made? Raising the debt ceiling is about having enough funds on hand to cover past spending decisions that have already been made.

OAW

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Effectively a 'tax increase' on everyone.

One that our debt will be none the lower in spite of.

Man, the 21st century is turning out to be awesome.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Okay, so we're not going to default - granted. But does anybody think we'll still avoid a credit rating downgrade at this point?

I can't help but think we've rattled the confidence in US debt by even playing this game. Additionally I'm fairly sure that whatever package winds up getting passed will be so shit that it won't satisfy the ratings agencies in the way that the packages on the table a few weeks ago would have.

And the run away train effect. If its harder to borrow and costs more to borrow that will affect business far more then any tax increases would have. Those already in debt if they are close to what they can afford now any increase could push them over the edge. New round of foreclosures? New round of car payment defaults? More credit risk for the banks?
I can see more families ruined, more joblessness and a weaker economy over all this. I can see it being worse then the 2008 - 2010 down turn because there is no money for stimulus, no money to bail out companies and banks. And the final blow, the interest paid out on the already accumulated debt grows a lot making future deficits larger or resulting in larger cut backs beyond what it would have been needed to get in the black. Its a lose lose no matter what.

[lpkmckenna]

McCain rips lawmakers demanding amendment to balance the budget

“The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against ... Barack Obama,” he said, quoting the paper. “The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.”

Ha! From now on, I will call them the Tea Hobbits, not the Tea Party.

[Dork.]

McCain was quoting this WSJ Op-Ed:

Review & Outlook: The GOP's Reality Test - WSJ.com

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Tell me again how the US came to have a military base in Panama Glenn.

The US built Panama Canal, which was completed in 1914. A deal was made with the "rebel" leadership of what was then Colombia's break-away northern provinces (bad back story involved, read up on it some time) for the US to recognize their establishment of Panama as an independent country in exchange for buying a strip of land several miles wide along the intended path of the canal, the Canal Zone. Bases were established there to defend what was then a very crucial national asset: the canal allowed the US to have a 2-ocean navy that did not depend on entirely separate fleets in the Atlantic and Pacific.

I was stationed at Howard AFB, on the Pacific side of the canal, from late 1987 through the end of 1989. That was a particularly rocky bit of Panamanian history, which I invite everyone to read up on.

This is an excellent example of a "deal that benefits both sides," at least at the beginning. From the 1940s, Panama's governments increasingly used US presence as a distraction from their corruption, with the end result being that they wound up under an extremely heavy-handed dictator who ruled through terror and narcocapitalism. Displacing Noriega was a piece of work that should have been addressed as far back as the 1950s when a thug running Panama pressured Truman, and later Eisenhower to make changes in the Canal Treaty that were entirely to the benefit of Panama. Later Torrijos pressured Johnson to do more, using staged "nationalist" confrontations. Torrijos and Noriega used both mob action and suggestions of threats to the Canal to twist Carter's and Regan's arms enough to agree to a new treaty which GAVE the multibillion dollar Canal, all the property owned by the US along both sides (remember, that was bought and paid for in around 1904), and certain other concessions. Apparently it was less aggravating to give the little men what he wanted rather than to be distracted from a very warm Cold War.

Much has been made of Noriega's being a graduate of the School of the Americas. Of the thousands of career soldiers who graduated from that school, a handful has risen to positions of power and presumably used their training to oppress their own people, or in the case of Noriega to terrorize both his own people and the Americans who lived there for the purpose of operating the Canal. It can hardly be said that the School of the Americas made Noriega the terrorist he was. Rather, he appears to have been very good at playing all sides against each other. As for his "using his US training" in the way he did, he obviously did not appreciate the core points of military service being "service" rather than access to weapons and power. To contrast, thousands and thousands of other graduates of that school have gone on to build solid service-oriented careers and build cultures of national service in their own countries' military forces, with the result being that most Latin American governments have significantly less corrupt, less autonomous military forces than was the case in the middle of the 20th Century.

[Big Mac]

I salute McCain's service, but it's time for him to step down. He's become a useful idiot for the Left.

[ghporter]

While a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget is a great ideal, introducing it now, when we have a "debt crisis" ongoing, is a bad idea. Instead, they could have made the amendment a planned "next step" after getting control of the current budget-which, by the way the Republican House has messed up rather thoroughly during their current tenure. Running 6 months behind in the budget process is as unacceptable now as it was in the 1980s when Republicans berated the Democrats who were then in power for doing exactly the same thing. The current House leadership seems to ignore relatively recent history: Carter's administration and Democrats in general wound up losing very badly in 1980 and '82 because Republicans then, quite accurately, characterized them as ideologically incapable of performing their day to day job. Looks like things have flipped the other way now.

While I think Sen. McCain is not a "great leader" for our time, he hits the nail on the head in characterizing the current "let's amend the Constitution" rhetoric as a distraction meant to insulate Republicans from responsibility for the current brinksmanship. Sure, getting a handle on the National Debt is an important issue, but instead of making it a fundamental ideal in their negotiations with the Senate and President, it's been used as an "asteroid of doom," as if we didn't already know that we had shifted more and more to borrowing to service debt. Insisting that people who receive entitlements shoulder all the burden for reducing the budget imbalance while fervently insisting that the rich and already extremely lightly taxed businesses get a pass does not seem to be a smart idea. Currently the rich and large businesses provide the majority of tax revenue to the US, but their effective tax rates, as opposed to their theoretical rates without the vast number of loopholes, credits and exclusions they use, are significantly lower than Joe Taxpayer's rate. If someone making $60k pays an effective rate of 18-20%, that has an extremely large impact on his spendable income, while businesses often pay an effective rate of less than 10%, and GE paid NOTHING in income taxes last year... How does this help the American People?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I salute McCain's service, but it's time for him to step down. He's become a useful idiot for the Left.

It's unfortunate that you think so little of one of the few politicians who's willing to think beyond party politics, look at the bigger picture and actually voice his opinion.

[Big Mac]

If his opinion is brain dead, I don't place much value on it. Without the Tea Party and the members of Congress it elected, we wouldn't be having this crucial standoff. If not for the Tea Party the Democrats would most likely have held the House, and this debt ceiling would have been surpassed swiftly. The Tea Party has made the debt crisis and spending cuts household topics and has moved the debate from the status quo of spending as usual to significant cuts. Therefore, attempts to mock the Tea Party are moronic. It may be the force that saves the country.

McCain wants to be his true self - a RINO. He wants to articulate views that are appealing to his left-wing daughter. Fine. Get the hell out of Congress. We need a Barry Goldwater in that seat, not a John McCain.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If his opinion is brain dead, I don't place much value on it. Without the Tea Party and the members of Congress it elected, we wouldn't be having this crucial standoff. If not for the Tea Party the Democrats would most likely have held the House, and this debt ceiling would have bypassed swiftly. The Tea Party has made the debt crisis and spending cuts household topics. Therefore, attempts to mock the Tea Party are moronic. It may be the force that saves the country.

I completely agree that having a strong opposition in government makes for better solutions. But, only if that opposition is actually willing to work *toward* a legitimate solution. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with the WSJ and McCain that it appears the opposition's goal is to discredit Obama and the Democrats rather than to actually try to find a solution that everyone can live with.

McCain doesn't appear to be saying that the Tea Party shouldn't be in Congress. It seems that he's saying they should focus on *realistic* solutions.

[Big Mac]

There's no way to compromise with the modern Democrats whose party is controlled by the far-left. The country needs to be saved. The Democrats offer financial calamity billed as kindness to the poor and middle class. Their solutions nearly guarantee our destruction. There can be no compromise with them, at least not in their current far left-wing state. They need to be defeated. Those who wish to compromise are seeking to sign on to deals that won't fix the problem because the Dems don't want a fix. They want business as usual because enormous government and the Entitlement/Welfare State are the sources of their power.

The Republicans should be smart and not go off the cliff on principle if they can avoid it. But they can't sell out in the way the Dems want them to - with phony cuts. Crashing against this debt ceiling may be the wake up call the country needs to return to Constitutionally mandated limited government and fiscal sanity.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There's no way to compromise with the modern Democrats whose party is controlled by the far-left. The country needs to be saved.

This is the problem. The Democrats are controlled by the far-left and the Republicans are controlled by the far-right. Both need to move closer to the center and work together if the US is to be saved.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

They want business as usual because enormous government and the Entitlement/Welfare State are the sources of their power.

As long as Republicans are pushing for social regulations and refuse to cut military budgets, I will always find the anti-"big government" argument to be disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Crashing against this debt ceiling may be the wake up call the country needs to return to Constitutionally mandated limited government and fiscal sanity.

Unfortunately, doing so would take the rest of the world down with you. The US has a broader responsibility here as well. Yes, shame on us for relying on you, but I think you'll find that after a debt ceiling crash there will be more foreign effort to rely less on the US economically and that the US won't be as import in global economics.

[BadKosh]

Compromise means HIGHER TAXES too.
Not just cutting the spending, repealing expensive BS, and capping.
This is why I don't want to compromise with the left.
Its their turn to compromise with the right.

Its time the lazy and stupid start taking care of themselves(Personal responsibility).
Buy your own health care and retirement plans.
Get up off your butt and LEARN about the options.

Forget about Government help.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its their turn to compromise with the right.

For anybody who actually cares, it shouldn't come down to "it's their turn to compromise". In this case, BOTH sides must compromise.

[Athens]

HA! I love this from CNN

"Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there's a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time.
Ironically, there's no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds."

3 ways Obama could bypass Congress - CNN.com

Maybe it should be billion dollar coins so some really really rich collectors can buy them too

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There's no way to compromise with the modern Democrats whose party is controlled by the far-left. The country needs to be saved. The Democrats offer financial calamity billed as kindness to the poor and middle class. Their solutions nearly guarantee our destruction. There can be no compromise with them, at least not in their current far left-wing state. They need to be defeated. Those who wish to compromise are seeking to sign on to deals that won't fix the problem because the Dems don't want a fix. They want business as usual because enormous government and the Entitlement/Welfare State are the sources of their power.

The Republicans should be smart and not go off the cliff on principle if they can avoid it. But they can't sell out in the way the Dems want them to - with phony cuts. Crashing against this debt ceiling may be the wake up call the country needs to return to Constitutionally mandated limited government and fiscal sanity.

So you're complaining about Democrats not wanting to compromise, but you want Republicans to not compromise?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Maybe it should be billion dollar coins so some really really rich collectors can buy them too

They should make some Millions, too, because what's more badass for a collector to spend $1B on: one billion dollar coin, or a few rolls of million dollar coins?

What should be on the Billion Dollar coin? It's probably like the Post office -- you can only put pictures of the dead on them. So who should it be?

JFK?
Reagan?
Elvis?
Cobain?
John Boehner's career as House Speaker (if his big vote fails)?

[turtle777]

If they do this coinage thing, Gold will immediatelly pop 20% on the day.
Silver probably 40%.

Bring it on, Obama, you'll make me rich.

-t

[Kerrigan]

Compromise means HIGHER TAXES too.
Not just cutting the spending, repealing expensive BS, and capping.
This is why I don't want to compromise with the left.
Its their turn to compromise with the right.

Its time the lazy and stupid start taking care of themselves(Personal responsibility).
Buy your own health care and retirement plans.
Get up off your butt and LEARN about the options.

Forget about Government help.

But..but.. think about the Children!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

So you're complaining about Democrats not wanting to compromise, but you want Republicans to not compromise?

For the life of me I don't know how he seems the Democrats as the ones unwilling to compromise. Obama seemed willing to compromise on cuts to programs that he would take flak from from the far left/left base including Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. According to the CBO the Democratic plan represented more in cuts than the Boehner plan, and it was Boehner that walked away from negotiations, but somehow it is the Democrats that are unwilling to compromise.

What is going on seems plain and simple to me: this is the Obama version of Monika Lewinsky. The Republicans want to destroy the Obama presidency using this as a tool, or they want to make the resulting plan filled with their forced compromises so that the bill is ineffective and ultimately is deemed a failure.

This is just politics, and while there is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats are playing dirty, the Republicans are just being disgusting over this and once again putting politics and destroying Obama over anything else.

[imitchellg5]

Let's be completely honest here. This is politics at its complete worst.

[hyteckit]

Know why Christians have a divorce rate that is 300% higher than Atheists?

Christians conservatives don't compromise. Compromise means compromising on their 'conservative values'.

True Christians don't compromise.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Let's be completely honest here. This is politics at its complete worst.

No doubt, and there are going to be plenty of people that are pretty pissed if these stupid games start impacting our investments and stuff in tangible ways.

It's laughable that the Republicans are losing their grease because apparently the cuts aren't deep enough, yet what they come up with represents less in cuts than what the Democrats have come up with.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Know why Christians have a divorce rate that is 300% higher than Atheists?

Christians conservatives don't compromise. Compromise means compromising on their 'conservative values'.

True Christians don't compromise.

I don't know if I see that connection, but it sure is hard to wrap my head around the idea that the Republicans are more willing to compromise over anything ever in at least the last decade or so. In what universe is this so, really?

[Andy8]

Apple's $76B in cash reserves surpasses US government operating balance

New figures from the U.S. Treasury Department indicate that the government has a total operating cash balance of $73.768 billion, less than Apple's own war chest of $75.876 billion.

As noted by Matt Hartley of the Financial Post, the news comes even as Republican and Democrat lawmakers debate over the federal budget and debt ceiling. The government's $73 billion number actually represents the "financial headroom" that lawmakers have before reaching an arbitrary debt ceiling, according to the report.

Apple reported having nearly $76 billion in cash on hand as of June 25, 2011. That's an impressive increase of $10 billion from the previous quarter, when the Cupertino, Calif., company had $65.8 billion in cash reserves.

Apple's war chest has grown quickly since 2005, when it had just $9 billion in reserves. As of the end of 2010, Apple's $60 billion stockpile gave it more cash than any other non-financial company in the U.S.

Shares of Apple closed above $400 for the first time earlier this week, before settling down some, eventually closing at $391.82 on Thursday. The company's market capitalization stands at $363.25 billion, behind only Exxon Mobil, which boasts a market cap of $403.93 billion.

As Apple's cash reserves have soared, several analysts and investors have called for a dividend that would redistribute some of the company's profits to shareholders.

However, Apple CEO Steve Jobs has said that the company's cash hoard is being saved for big moves. "We don't let the cash burn a hole in the pocket or make stupid acquisitions," he said last year. "We'd like to continue to keep our powder dry because we think there are one or more strategic opportunities in the future."

Patent acquisition may be one such strategic opportunity for Apple. The company recently paid $2.6 billion to outbid rival Google, which had $39.1 billion in cash reserves at the end of June, for a collection of more than 6,000 patents from Canadian telecom equipment maker Nortel. Apple teamed up with a consortium that included Microsoft, Research in Motion and Sony, pooling the group's resources in order to place the $4.5 billion winning bid.

Apple is also said to be weighing a bid for Interdigital, a company with a portfolio of 8,800 patents. InterDigital CEO William Merritt claims his company's patents are "deeper and stronger" than Nortel's collection.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know if I see that connection, but it sure is hard to wrap my head around the idea that the Republicans are more willing to compromise over anything ever in at least the last decade or so. In what universe is this so, really?

Sure there is a connection. Marriages don't work unless the couple knows how to compromise. Christian conservatives don't like to compromise. Thus so much failed marriages among Christians.

Republicans right now have a 'no compromise' vow and a 'no tax increase' vow.

That's why McCain went off on the Tea Party just this week.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sure there is a connection. Marriages don't work unless the couple knows how to compromise. Christian conservatives don't like to compromise. Thus so much failed marriages among Christians.

Republicans right now have a 'no compromise' vow and a 'no tax increase' vow.

That's why McCain went off on the Tea Party just this week.

I guess I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that it is that simple. For starters, there are so many levels of staunchness in being both conservative and a christian, and far more moderate anythings than there are staunch anythings.

[hyteckit]

Republicans unable to compromise. Boehner's bill fails to pass.

Republican rebels force new delay in debt crisis - Yahoo! News

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Republicans unable to compromise. Boehner's bill fails to pass.

Republican rebels force new delay in debt crisis - Yahoo! News

Prediction: there will be a last minute deal with minimal time for anyone to review in detail and much slipped in under the radar.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Prediction: there will be a last minute deal with minimal time for anyone to review in detail and much slipped in under the radar.

A last-minute deal isn't a bad prospect here: the concept has been talked to death over the last few months, and as long as new legislation does not introduce any new ideas, it's entirely possible to make a bill out of ideas everyone understands.

I predict that Reid has already talked with Senate Republicans to figure out what he needs to do to avoid a fillibuster. If, in fact, Boehner's bill is dead, I predict Reid will introduce his and get it through the Senate quickly. Then it will either pass or die in the House. To pass it, Boehner and Pelosi will have to work together. Andif it dies, then Boehner will be holding the hot potato when the economy implodes. Which, unfortunately, makes 2012 Presidential politics more important than the economy.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Prediction: there will be a last minute deal with minimal time for anyone to review in detail and much slipped in under the radar.

Or Republicans will take another gamble and force Pres. Obama to use the 14th amendment. Then they can accuse Pres. Obama of being a dictator.

[OAW]

^^^^

Unfortunately the President has essentially taken that option off the table. A mistake IMO. Perhaps the White House thinks the better approach is to make the vendors that live in districts represented by these Tea Party wingnuts in the House get their government contracts paid dead last. Maybe if they get some direct pressure from some of their wealthy constituents that might bring them back to reality.

OAW

[besson3c]

I wonder if Republicans realize that spending cuts and low taxes are sort of at odds with each other? I mean, you can have both, but it's much harder, I guess.

I just can't get over the idea that despite all of the republican rhetoric about democrats spending their asses off, Boehner's cuts were 1Trill in 10 years while Obama's were 4Trill. I guess he loves tax cuts more than spending cuts?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just can't get over the idea that despite all of the republican rhetoric about democrats spending their asses off, Boehner's cuts were 1Trill in 10 years while Obama's were 4Trill. I guess he loves tax cuts more than spending cuts?

You DO understand that the Obama proposal was pure gimmicks and budget tricks, no real spending cuts.

NOT spending money that was never in the Budget was counted as a cut. What a load of bullshit.

It's disconcerting to see that people *don't* see through the Obama / Reid smoke&mirrors.

-t

[besson3c]

Source?

[turtle777]

Reid plan:

And The Kickers In Reid's Proposed "Deficit Cutting" Plan Are... | ZeroHedge

The $4T from Obama were never formulated in a plan; they were merely a wishful thinking of Obama a few weeks back.

-t

[besson3c]

Thanks, I'll give that a read later. Curious if gimmicky accounting tricks make up the massive 3T difference. It is after all much easier to save money when you make more.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Thanks, I'll give that a read later. Curious if gimmicky accounting tricks make up the massive 3T difference. It is after all much easier to save money when you make more.

Turtle is posting from the same dumb source again.

Savings from ending wars, bringing troops home, and limiting our involvement in other countries does not count somehow.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Savings from ending wars...

Starting with Libya?

bringing troops home

Among the many benefits of having them home is a vote that's easier to count. We can ensure the ones who come home after them won't be coming home to 10% unemployment.

limiting our involvement in other countries does not count somehow.

I'm with you in distaste for the fact that this is not a big part of the equation on either side of the aisle.

[turtle777]

Latest Obama/Reid cuts:

Not declaring war on China: $1.8T saved
Not sending a man to saturn: $1.3T saved
Not bailing out Hungarian banks: $0.4T saved
Not building a bridge to Hawaii: $2.5T saved

There. Easy.

-t