E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd:
Could a deal on the debt ceiling be both within reach and far away? When it comes to the ways of Washington, it’s always possible to see two outcomes at the same time. Just look at the legislative scheme Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell came up with Tuesday, which would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling by some $2.4 trillion in three installments through 2012 and require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval to stop it – an attempt to both appease the markets and put the burden of raising the debt limit solely on the president’s shoulders.
So where are we? As Vin Scully used to say on the Saturday baseball “Game of the Week” on NBC, “pull up a chair” and spend a few minutes digesting what I think I know after conversations with folks on all sides of the talks.
The president and Speaker John Boehner are rhetorically close, but remain far away on the details. My colleague Luke Russert used an apt analogy with me when it comes to these talks: it’s like the Israelis and the Palestinians. I’d argue it’s like the Israelis and the Palestinians about 10 years ago. What do I mean? Then, the leaders of the two factions, Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat, truly wanted a deal, but their rank-and-file (while claiming publicly that they agreed) didn’t truly trust the other side to follow through with the promises the leaders were making to each other.
To boil this debt ceiling impasse down to the core issue: Neither the president nor the House Republican leadership is truly ready to put agreement down on paper. For the president, the hesitancy is about giving a promise of real entitlement reform. For Republicans it's reistance to make a pledge that part of tax reform could mean the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans (the Republicans).
In fact, what upsets many Republicans is that the president isn’t ready to make a firm commitment on paper (even behind closed doors) that he would agree and push for, say, means testing for Medicare or slowly raising the age on Social Security unless he gets a firm promise on those Bush tax cuts (it’s how the White House thinks they might be able to sell this to some Democrats). And the House Republicans, Boehner in particular, aren’t going to make that promise on taxes unless somehow the president gives the GOP conference (which has been battered over the Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare plan” caucus) some real political cover on entitlements.
In a session with a small group of reporters, Speaker Boehner compared the president’s entitlement reform offers on Social Security and Medicare to JELL-O; there are days when it seems like it's been in the freezer and looks solid, and there are times -- like now -- where it’s a tad liquidy and hard to, well, pin down.
The White House feels plenty burned on taxes so they’d argue that’s why they are being cagey with their best negotiating card.
The leaders of both parties are frantically trying to figure out how to come up with anything that can get through the House when it comes to the debt ceiling. Right now, they don’t have a path. And while many of the new rank-and-filers are like Illinois freshmen Republican Joe Walsh and don’t believe there’s actual serious consequences to not raising the debt ceiling, Speaker Boehner does understand it. As he said today when asked how he thinks the markets will react if there’s no deal by August 2: “Nobody wants to go there, because nobody knows what’s going to happen. It’s a crapshoot.”
So what could a deal look like? While Boehner and Obama are, essentially, the lone voices in the room still advocating for the “grand bargain” (both believe it’ll be easier to pass, and they may have a point), the rest of the group meeting daily with the president is busy coming up with a lot of contingency plans.
- There’s the somewhat maligned but viable McConnell “Hail Mary punt” which would only deny the president’s request for a debt ceiling raise if veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress disapprove of the request.
- There are the remnants of the cuts the members of the so-called Biden group came up with (House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is among the advocates of this route).
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing the idea of creating a binding Congressional commission to handle either tax reform, Social Security reform, or both (modeled a little after the Social Security reform commission of the ‘80s and a little bit from the military base closing commission in the early ‘90s). The commission recommendations would not be subject to any alterations by either Congressional chamber and instead would only be subject to an up or down vote.
One Democratic leadership insider sees pieces of all of these contingency plans making up a deal that could be small at first but could turn into the “grand bargain.” For instance, the end game could look something like this.
- Some significant group of cuts from the Biden group (think $700-800 billion) in order to get a 6-month raise in the ceiling.
- Also included would be the binding Reid commissions (or maybe two seperate binding commissions) made up only of members of Congress to tackle tax reform and entitlement reform. They’d have, say, three months to get tax reform done and six months to get the entitlement reform done. Whatever they agreed to, would be subject to the up or down vote and if tax reform got enacted then it would be linked to another large chunk of cuts (the rest of the Biden agreed to cuts and then some).
- As a failsafe, the McConnell “disapproval” concept on the debt ceiling would also be part of the deal for the next three debt ceiling increases asked for by the president in order to avoid this problem until the summer or even fall of 2013 if both tax reform and entitlement reform failed.
To be clear, the above plan is not being considered right now. It’s more of an example of how convoluted the eventual roadmap to a deal is going to be. It’s the “trust-but-verify-a-million-times” approach, to borrow a Reagan phrase from the Cold War. Obama and Boehner do trust each other, and while the path forward right now is unclear, one Republican familiar with the talks said of the president and the GOP: “We’re in a spot where we need to be. It’s not a bad place for us to be.” What does he mean? An uncomfortable spot for both parties. The president painted the GOP into a corner, hence the McConnell plan, but it was a short term political process victory, not one that you can brag about to the American people.
The president desperately wants the big deal. How much so? When Boehner informed the president last Saturday night that he had to publicly pull out of the “grand bargain” talks, the conversation took more than 30 minutes to wrap up. While neither side has given reporters the details of that conversation, draw your own conclusions as to why a call like that, initiated by Boehner to essentially “break up” from the grand bargain talks, took more than 30 minutes to conclude. The president needs a real deal as much if not more than congressional Republicans.
Leave a Comment:
Lawrence O'Donnell loved McConnell's proposal last night.
You guys don't love it anymore?
MB,Ronnie Reagon raised taxes 11 times!
You guys don't love it anymore?
Rick -
Presidents can't raise taxes. If they could don't you think Obama would have already? He might have signed off, but the raise comes from congress.
I do. I'm sure the President can come up with some budget cuts that would make the Republicans howl. It also exposes the Republicans for the frauds that they are when they say that they care about deficits when they walk away from the table with $4 trillion in deficits cuts being offered.
I saw O'Donnell last night and am puzzled at his end game. I suspect he really hates it and is playing a game of reverse psychology. But he has to know no one watches his show, and certainly not anyone important to the deal, so I suspect it is him picking the most unlikely outcome hoping that if is does play out he is Mr. "Big-Brain."
But the nightly comedy shows aside, this is all just negotiating. THere will be a deal. It will suck. Everyone will hate it.
And worse yet, the economy will continue to back slid, with no end in sight. GDP revised down, real estate going lower, unemployment going higher.
And now the Fed is playing around with QE3. Desperation like I have never witnessed. Or as I read somewhere else - the American people finally getting to live Carter's second term.
Except I long for malaise. It would be a welcomed respite from this, which is active disintegration.
So mixed - I actually had to work all day, but was wondering if our pal David Walker tried to get medi-evil on any Jewish Republicans' asses today?
Poor Dave. So agitiated. So misguided.
Didn't see Lawrence, but I never loved the ideal.
I saw it as the weaseling way for the Republicans not to do the work they were paid to do. The benefit, now they can blame President Obama for whatever he does or doesn't do.
Rick,Ky Due to the need of our country Saint Ronnie would raise taxes today, but you won't hear one conservative admit it.
Just let the date come and go without raising the debt ceiling. It's very simple. Force the government into dealing with the crisis they created in the first place. If they don't figure it out, replace all of them. These people are the most irresponsible bunch of lackys I've ever encountered. If the republicans cave on taxes, they are toast.
The point is President Obama offered a 4 trillion Big Deal, finding 3 trillion in cuts (very painful including savings from trust funds) IF the GOP/TP would agree to 1 trillion in revenue – revenue starting by closing loopholes (tax evasion) and ending subsidies (taxpayer spending). But Boehner could not get the House on board, so McConnell had to offer "Plan B."
Understand this is because Republicans have taken unconstitutional oaths to lobbyists, and the treasonous Tea Party (though a fringe minority) has imposed a purity test so extreme as to cause our country to default. Yes, the GOP/TP supporters actually want to default, to ruin our nation's credit, to destroy the GDP in only one month's time, to damage people's retirement funds, to plummet back into a deep recession – This is what they want. Look at this poll, look at it! http://www.gallup.com/poll/146969/americans-favor-budget-compromise-shutdown.aspx
As long as Republicans in congress continue to tout Paul Ryan's plan as their budget proposal and platform, a plan that requires the debt ceiling to be raised, a plan that would add 6 trillion in debt, a plan that would privatize Medicare, the GOP/TP will NOT prevail. As long as Republican governors run fake Democrats in an unnecessary primary at the tax payer's expense in Wisconsin (Scott Walker & Co.), or write fake letters to editors in Florida (Rick Scott, AKA Lord Voldermort), or cook the books to balance the budget in Minnesota (Pawlenty) or Texas (Perry), they will NOT prevail.
We are watching the elections in New York, California, and Wisconsin. We are watching the Murdoch Empire's illegal activities and lack of journalistic standards with each passing day. We are watching GOP/TP presidential candidates exposed, and supporters scrambling to re-write Wikipedia. What we are watching is a meltdown—of the Republican Party.
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out... The republicans forcing Obama's hand... and he knows if they settle on any sort of tax increase, they are toast. This is a battle for the next election and right now the American people are the only losers, no matter what side wins this battle.
For those vying to say their side is better, it's you who are the real losers. Since you are among the rabble, as I am too, we lose collectively. Our government is out of control and it's about time the American people wake up to it. Liberals, conservatives... wake up! See this for what it is... a power play on BOTH sides and they aren't considering the people at all. All they are interested in is winning the next election.
Funny part is - what's the value of having a great credit rating if there is no more credit?
I was discussing this with someone recently. I have excellent credit. Ms. Spanky is positively anal about paying bills in advance so there will never be an issue. Fine, but so what. Credit has dried up and what is around is super hard to get.
That's why we all pay our bills on time - to maintain good credit. But once the credit is gone/not available what is the point?
So with the Feds - great they just have to raise the ceiling or the Full Faith and Credit goes, but so what, who's going to loan money to us anyway. And what happens once Greece, Spain and Italy fall? Germany is strong, but it cannot lift all of Europe on its own, and China is hitting the skids.
Fun stuff right? Kids, let this be a lesson. Stay away from credit cards.
TP - for all your bantering how bad the republicans are in this... you still fail to recognize the democrats do the exact same thing. I don't know if you are bllind to it, or just obtuse. It's hard to figure out how a person can be so party loyal that they don't recognize the symptoms of the disease effect BOTH sides.
Right now, it's the American people against the morons in Washington. The collective disappointment will be echoed on both sides of the asile when they finally do make their agreement. The losers will be US! Not them!
True Patriot - interesting take, but see they taught my in all those tax classes and continuing education classes that those "loopholes" are really called deductions.
Deductions are a means by which the IRC allows the taxpayer to retain a greater percentage of its income. Why I bet you take advantage of several "loopholes" right TP? Of course you do.
So are you the Goose or the Gander?
But yeah, treason and all that. Good one.
Brianb, there you go again using the "two wrongs make a right" fallacious argumentation. And Spanky, the kid who lives at home while taking tax classes but failed to learn that credits and subsidies are tax expenditures no matter how you try to spin it -- No I don't take take advantage of loopholes because I've always been W2 and subjected to third-party reporting, and I'm single with no children. I've always paid taxes, even when earning minimum wage during college.
Answer this one question, if everyone can enjoy lower tax rates by ending write-off cheating and hand-outs to special interests, would you support it? if not, please explain why not. Otherwise, enough with your nonsense.
Ah, but TP you most assuredly do take advantage of deductions and exemptions no doubt. Dude, all you need to do is actually read that 1040 form [I presume you are not using the EZ form].
It would appear that you simply do not understand the tax code. Not a surprise really, except you want to act like you actually have some knowledge. Have you ever even read the IRC?
Seriously.
You use words like "write-off cheating." These words do not mean what you think they do. You sound very ignorant when you do this. I can see you are not stupid, so go do some research into the terminology then come on back. Also it might help if you didn't try so hard - your terminology is way off.
Me and Ira would love to chat with you. But I did like the personal jab about living at home. Let's see after graduating college with a degree in Accouting I worked for 2 years in the tax department of a Big Six public accounting firm. After quickly learning there was no real money in putting numbers in little boxes I went to law school.
So yeah, you got me bro - just a dumb kid living at home. Man I wish I could live at home. That would be awesome. :)
Ronald Reagan agreed to raise taxes because the democrats promised to cut spending, a cut we never saw. Just think, we may not be in this mess had the dems kept their promise.
So a conservative is stating that it is not Obama but congress that is suposed to cut the spending, perhaps you can get that through to your representatives and this crisis can be solved. I know you may feel like anything proposed will be obstructed, but that is no different than every other congress and it is up to each individual member to find the middle ground and get the job done.
As long as you know that works both ways. Btw, I don't blame Obama for getting us into this spot but I really don't like the way he is handling it.
Spanky -- One of the problems that caused the housing bust was lending practices such as the No Documentation Loan. The reason for the "No-Doc" was to allow people who show zero income on their taxes, but who in reality had wealth be able to qualify for loans.
Stop trying to punk us, stop trying to patronize me, and stop trying to avoid the ONE question I asked you: If everyone could enjoy lower tax rates by increasing the tax base as Reagan did by ending loopholes (e.g., lying about write offs to show zero income) and hand-outs to special interests (e.g., ethanol subsidies), would you support it? If not, please explain why not. Otherwise, enough with your nonsense.
Back that up Rick. During Reagan the Democrats proposed an increase in the tax BASE just as they've been doing now. After realizing he needed to pay for Star Wars deficit spending and couldn't balance the budget with spending cuts alone, Reagan took the Democrats idea and submitted it as his own legislation -- To increase the tax BASE by ending loopholes and give-aways to special interests. And the Republican Party was pissed at him for it. But in those days there were still some Republicans who put country first.
Look it up for yourself. I have supplied links to information backing up my claims yet you have consistently ignored them.
"In fact, what upsets many Republicans is that the president isn’t ready to make a firm commitment on paper (even behind closed doors) that he would agree and push for, say, means testing for Medicare or slowly raising the age on Social Security unless he gets a firm promise on those Bush tax cuts (it’s how the White House thinks they might be able to sell this to some Democrats). And the House Republicans, Boehner in particular, aren’t going to make that promise on taxes unless somehow the president gives the GOP conference (which has been battered over the Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare plan” caucus) some real political cover on entitlements."
And there is the REAL problem. The Republicans don't trust Obama's vague promises, because he has consistently said later "That's not what I said". Vague rhetoric just doesn't cut it any more.
I just checked the amount of spending by the Democrats for 2009 - 2011 and compared it with Bush's Budget proposal for those same 3 years, and Democrats have increased actual spending by about $1.4 Trillion above that proposed by Bush.
No wonder we have a debt crisis.
Mr. President, tear down that "Wall of Republican" obstructionists!
Tell Eric Cantor to change his first name to Eddie and, take his act to off, off, Broadway!
Please stop the blame-fest.
$2.2 trillion in revenue
$3.7 trillion in spending,
If you think you can exact $1.5 trillion in taxes from the "wealthy" and the "Evil Corporations" you are wrong. You can raise all the taxes you want on Corporations and they will pass it on to the consumer - for the less than astute in the chat room - this means you lower, middle, upper and uber-upper classes will pay those tax increases. It is absurd to think otherwise.
If you think you can cut $1.5 trillion in taxes from the current spend and keep all of the spending "promises" that currently exist, then you are simply wrong.
If you think we can continue to raise the debt ceiling and not do something you are simply wrong.
So let's blame the Republicans and let's blame the Democrats and lets blame Mother Theresa and let's blame ourselves and let's blame me. You feel better? OK, now lets roll up our sleeves and do something about it.
For those who think the Republicans are ridiculous in their "no tax increases" stance, show me the precedence where the Democrats have ever demonstrated they will use the increased tax revenue to pay down the debt or offset additional debt? They have not done that and neither have Republicans. There are no guarantees.
Simply stated what stops Obama from spending more than the $3.7 trillion in the future? Answer that question and you will have your compromise.
Rick -- I said "back that up" not look it up.
A Messenger - Please spare us the Rapture heresy.
Rational AmeriCAN -- You provide statistics (accuracy of which I'm ignoring) that shows far less revenue coming in than spending going out. It should be obvious that revenue needs to be increased as well to meet spending cuts some where in between. In other words, the argument that tax hikes alone can't reduce the debt likewise would apply to the argument that spending cuts alone can't reduce the debt.
I don't know anyone claiming "revenue only" as the solution--just people with poor math skills claiming "spending cuts only" in which case we could cut taxes to zero, right? Come on, you know very well that revenue is needed in the equation.
True Patriot,
How is your reading comprehension? D- for your effort.
Now to address your ignorance. The accuracy of which you are ignoring, what does that mean? These are Obama's numbers, these are the numbers that are spouted by both sides of the argument. What is your point?
The point of my post is simply what guarantees do the Republicans have that the budget will be balanced to $3.7 trillion annually when looming on the horizon is Obamacare that will blow that budget to smithereens? Tell me that soupah jenious.
You are pathetic.
Can order emerge?
Sure ... I'll have a thin-crust Margherita pizza with a side salad.
And thanks, First Read.
margherita pizza? Don't know what that is, but if you are having it then I will as well.
A lovely Merlot would go good with that! lol
I'm going with a rosemary garlic rib-eye myself & some fresh asparagus with hollandaise sauce...
I'm curious if there were anymore fireworks between the President & Brutus errr.... I mean Cantor.
Just fresh tomato sauce, garlic, basil, and cheese, kirby. Like spaghetti pomodoro, but with a crust. You're welcome to share mine.
Merlot would, indeed, be perfect with that Feisty. I could do the rib-eye, as well.
Shakespeare said something like that.
I'm glad Chuck Todd understands this, cause I sure don't. Will have to read this post a few more times to get it through my noggin. In the meantime I'm going to my fall back position: President Obama is the smartest person in the room, let's just do what he wants us to do. ( P.S. Isn't a Democratic President taking on entitlements a little like Nixon opening diplomatic ties to China? Only Nixon could get away with it politically, because of his anti-communist bonifides.)
Oh Anna Molly -
Can you deliver it to me? I would pay a hefty gratuity, I assure you. And Boise is lovely this time of year. You can keep the merlot, but I would like some of the rib eye, medium rare please.
I have a hungry look, but, alas, the lean days are over.
This whole thing with the debt ceiling is interesting to us politicals, but I don't know how it is playing in Peoria.
By the way, any fall out from Minnestota up your way?
Delivery is free when the gratuity is high enough, kirby. ;-)
Oddly, I've been through Boise in July and it was 100 degrees, but the drive is lovely. We'll skip the merlot, if you like, but we appear to agree on the steak.
Oddly enough, except for Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, this board, and one other where I blog, I never hear anyone talk about the debt ceiling. I can't speak for Peoria, but in this neck of the woods, we're worried more about our magic over-reaching governor and his amazing expanding agenda of desolation.
People keep asking me about Minnesota, and so far, I haven't felt any fall-out my way. Closer to the border, I'm sure it's a bigger deal.
As for lean, the guilt is what the salad is for. Don't feel compelled to eat it. ;-)
Well, it does get a bit warm here, but low humidity as we are high desert.
You name the gratuity and I will pay it, even if I have to borrow the money from Feisty. And asparagus grows wild in spots around here.
Here we are concerned with our education funding. But I believe in the states figuring out their own funding issues instead of the feds. Even though you disagree with your governor you have the ability to deal with him on a local level as opposed to the feds that simply tell you what to do and how to do it.
I don't accept that Obama is the smartest person in the room. And I won't just do what he wants us to do. He is president of the country - he is not dictator and the Congress doesn't work for him.
....
Come on, is anyone naive enough to believe this was Mitch's idea? This is the order that came down from Wall Street. This is what will happen.
Instead of the buck stops here the Republicans are passing the buck.
There goal from the beginning is to blame President Obama for anything and everthing. They are acting now like the wars, the debt all started the day Obama became president. Look at his wild spending trying to keep up paying for all the stuff we started.
If President Obama has two choices and only two choices whichever one he picks is the one they are against.
Certainly you are not saying Obama wouldt be out there spending away had not his party gotten "shellacked" last November, are you American First?
I sure don't recall him campaigning on cutting entitlements, deficits or debts, do you?
So why hasn't he done something about those wars? Oh wait he has - he has increased the existing ones and started up a whole new one.
Are you cool with the Feds spending 25% of the GDP when it only takes in 18%? Say what percentage did Bush spend at on average during his term.
Yeah, it's all about passing the buck. How exactly do you pass the buck to the guy in charge? Isn't it his buck to begin with? You know the whole "captain of the ship" thing-y?
Aww never mind American First, just two choices I know.
Spanky -
Sorry you missed it today, but Ira Lapin is actually right 54% of the time to your 40%. But we also decided that you may actually be Ira or Groucho or me or Mixed Bag so when you add all the precentages together you are right 132% of the time. You just don't quite know who you are.
40%? Sweet!
Sadly for all, I am merely Spanky. But hey, that there is some real good company. Two of my personal favorites here. Ira is great, always insightful and detailed explanations. I have neither the patience or the will to be that detailed.
And Mixed is one smart SOB. Too bad his wit is so often lost on the Jodys/Amy/Feistys of the world.
But I assure you I know exactly who I am. But then again someone said yesterday that Feisty the old gal is right 98% of the time. So that has to be our reference point/baseline. Yikes.
Spanky,
Something you wrote earlier about credit woke me up.
Seems that the only entity borrowing now-a days is the Federal Gov't.
We're not seeing borrowing by companies, who, under ordinary circumstances, would seize upon a 2% interest rate to build new facilities, buy equipment, etc. That's what gave the economy the boost it enjoyed under Clinton. Low interest rates giving rise to expansion.
So why not now? Answer...no demand.
Factories are lying dormant or production is down to where lay-off rather than expansion is necessary.
It's the problem the Japanese had in the 90's....no demand, about a 2% growth....stagnation.
One other point....
The President had the GOP by the short hairs on the Medicare issue. After the Ryan budget was produced, the American public was firmly against changes to Medicare. Obama gave that away. He ontrolled the narrative, he could have negotiated from a point of strength and then just gave it away.
Part of leadership is being able to market your ideas, sell them to the people so that they understand what you are saying and then close.
Obama does not have that ability.
I don't think Spanky is Groucho because one of the most unintentionally funny posts I ever read was the one where Groucho was all pissed off that Spanky stirred the pot up real good which got Groucho all worked up to the point where he was posting peoples private conversations over and over and referring to things as if they were covert military operations then said Spanky "ran out the back door on him", those may not be his exact words but they are very close. That was funny, and if Spanky is Groucho then Spanky should be a double agent for the CIA. BTW Spanky I did reply to your post (Sisters of Saint Joseph) yesterday evening but maybe you left for the day, that thread is archived now, but I will check that later to see if you care to reply to my reply, I have calmed down a bit.
Hey Ira - you are a legit tax attorney. I am not, but do sometimes play on on tv.
Please drop some wisdom on my boy True Pat. He needs some help in the terminology department.
Forrest it is flattering to be confused with Ira. he's smarter than I am. Plus me, not a jew.
I stop at 5:00 so missed your post. Oh and hey. looky there. 5:00
night all. But hey since I am Ira do I get his paycheck? Them NY tax lawyers make bank.
Forrest -
Spanky is a double agent for the CIA. He plays Ira against himself. It is a little convoluted, but it works.
Kirby..
Dang, Between you and Yellowdog-Mark D, I'll have no cover what so ever.
So sad when people stress out about who and what you are rather than the substance of your posts.
Have a great evening and don't forget those dogs need to be walked tonight.
Don't conservatives ever wonder about the surplus after Clinton's term, and how it might have been used at least as payment toward the IOU to Social Security? And 9-11 and the Afghanistan war was at the beginning of the Bush/Cheney administration, followed shortly thereafter with the invasion of Iraq.
These are reasons why even Republicans in congress didn't support the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and additional breaks for the rich in 2003 -- both were passed with reconciliation because the votes weren't there. We had a sh!tload of new bills to pay. Why do conservative think the tax cuts were a good idea then?
Now there are some wealthy conservatives who say they would support an increase in revenues by asking more of the rich if those revenues were applied to reducing the debt. Is this something the Tea-vangelicals would support?
They are simply passing the buck back to Obama who passed it back to them. Both Obama and Boehner have shown a willingness to compromise. The problem seems to be coming from the rank and file of both parties.
AM - With ranch dressing please.
One of the few times I actually agree with Harry. This would give political cover to the cowards on both sides and would maybe do some good.
I didn't think the republicans wanted to work with the President, I remember something about that ... now what was it??? oh that's right "the party of no" and "obstructionist", holding the country back, blah blah blah
Now comes a repubilcan proposal or dare I say the "c" word... compromise proposal that gives "this" President special powers no other President has ever had and you walk away from it??? Even Harry Reid likes it!!
I think the real problem is the President and the democrats don't want to be tied down by spending cuts and have to live on a budget. Instead they use the tested old play of "the repubilcans want to take away your SS and push you over the cliff".
Oh and if Obama was the only "adult" in the room over the last two plus years let me tell ya we are in deep dodo!!
STOP SPENDING... it's that simple!!
Heaven forbid the repubs take responsibility, even though as the party in control of the House, it is supposed to be theirs. But if they want to pawn off their responsibility, I say go for. Not many folks have faith in them anyway. Its not like responsibility is their forte.
Only simple-minded people think it's that simple (just stop spending), and that's the problem. Really, if we take this lack of logic to it's fullest, let's vote for zero tax revenue and see how that goes.
Has it not occurred to conservatives that if the debt ceiling can be raised via a clean vote (as it should), then the Dems can propose spending cuts, some cuts the Republicans won't like, but if Republicans play their usual obstructionist Party-of-No game and vote against the cuts, they will be between a rock and a hard place that's even worse than where they are now?
Let's hope the Dems can move forward with balancing the budget in some way.
no duh they will sink the country as opposed to closing loopholes or anything else that would cost the rich a penny... what obama big 4 trillion in cuts because they want to get serious about the deficeit...oh unless that means the rich can't claim yacht's as second homes or exxon mobile gets 4 billion a year to use to make commerical telling us how wonderful fossil fuels are.... he called their buff theyre not interest in the deficit...
True let's see if I can make this "simple" enough for you
2 1/2 trillion dollars of revenue and we can't live within our means. WTF is the matter with you, did you take a trip and not come back?? Pretty soon you will see the results of the "adults" when the credit rating goes to junk status, your 401k is worthless and the house you live in, well you know all about that don't you Ace!!Not to mention it will take a wheel barrow full of dollars to buy a loaf of bread!! Look at Greece you idiot and now Italy, Spain, etc and you will see what all the "smart" people came up with... Only a mental midget like yourself could not see the forest because of the trees!!
If you don't STOP spending then we all will have nothing!! Maybe that's too "simple" for some of you "smart"people to understand... simple minded indeed, you in the mirror when you say that Ace!!
Spending, yes where are we spending all that money. To stop spending as you suggest Maxx, we would have to totally get out of the wars the Republicans were so eager for.
If you were really as smart as you would have us believe, you would be hollering to get out of the wars and end us being the police of the world to bring down our debt.
Maybe some of us would actually think you care about the debt if you had said something when the Republicans were spending like drunken teenagers and starting wars and then giving tax breaks to the rich. Maybe I might believe you cared about the debt if you were suggesting we should raise taxes on the rich and end loopholes for the rich.
Nope, all we got were your talking points and fauxrage.
So the Republican definition of compromise is to pass legislation that forces someone else to do their job?
Boehner says "Dealing with Whitehouse is like dealing with Jello". Well maybe he should mix some Jack Daniels with it and his crow will taste better.
No suprise the Weeper of the House is VERY familiar with jello-shots Tom! ;o)
Boehenr just needs to swallow a little harder, there's still a little birdie foot hanging out of his mouth...
Interesting point Tom.
So how do you deal with someone who admits that they are a "blank slate?" You know the the type that says raising the ceiling is wrong, only to later say it is the right thing to do.
Looking at his positions as recent as six months ago he has "evolved" a bunch, right?
So Tom: 1. how would you deal with that, and 2. how would you characterize it?
I would eat Crow and serve spiked Tea with it. But that's just me.
I'm curious to know? Where is bamas plan? Where is Pelosi's plan? Where is Reid's plan?
Obama's budget defeated 97-0 by the senate. No budget passed in the senate for over 800 days now.
5 trillion in deficit spending in 3 years. Giving the admin. 2 trillion dollars more and this administration will be responsible for 7 trillion or 40% of the total debt in one term.....
What part of "Pesident Obama is desperate to pass the Grand Bargain" do you not understand, trico77?
The President, per his role as the executive, allowed Congress to work out the spending cuts. There have been meetings, ad infinitum, chaired by Vice President Biden to figure out how to cut 4 trillion, and which revenues could be safely raised to pay down the defict. Now the President is itching to lower the deficit by historic levels, and the Republicans are balking for purely ideological reasons. What I don't understand is, why aren't the so called fiscal conservatives, for whom the federal deficit is an obession, not angry with House Republicans for losing this opportunity to make a big dent in our debt?
Amy, quit sounding the lefties talking points. Tell us where Obama, Biden Reid and Pelosi are willing to cut, what agencies will lose money and what agencies will be abolished, Obama tries and says he is willing to meet half way is blame BS, he could save billions by asking congress to defund or repeal his health care law, especially since the SCOTUS will likely to say it's unconstitutional anyway. Obama requested 9 billion more for defense than the house approved and that was higher than last year. BTW Amy are you willing to give up for mortgage deduction (if you have one) or give up your child deduction, if you get any, and are you willing to not declare any charitable contributions you make, if you make any.
sfcrt
Apparently, you don't realize the President's Healthcare Reform Bill reduces the federal deficit by $130 billion dollars over the next ten years. Repealing it would wipe out those savings.
What a joke you think its unconstitutional to require people to have health insurance or pay a fine - when doctors and hospitals are compelled to treat people who can't or won't pay them.
Did you know Cantor and Boehner voted to keep funding an alternative engine the Airforce emphatically didn't need or want, just to keep the $465 million dollars it cost flowing into their districts? Somehow, cuts are only draconian when they target Republican pork projects.
The Democrats have agreed to 4 trillion in cuts, including cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but the Republicans are willing to walk away from the deal, just to preserve tax loopholes for people who don't need the extra savings. My Tea Party ancestors paid their taxes, it was taxation without representation they objected to. If you want to evade taxes, move to Greece, I hear it was a national pastime there.
Jay Bookman writes: "David Brooks used to be a conservative columnist in much the same way that Ronald Reagan used to be a conservative president.
Brooks hasn't changed his viewpoint much since the days when he wrote editorials for the Washington Times and served as an editor at the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard. But just as Reagan, a president who signed several major tax increases and supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, would be rejected as too liberal by today's conservatives, Brooks in recent years has been defined out of the conservative movement by those who once considered him a colleague and ally.
His column in today's New York Times, in which he outlines his view of the modern Republican Party, makes that breach official and final. He writes:
There's a lot of conservatives like Brooks who are no longer considered conservative, because the GOP/TP has moved so far to the right.
The Senate voted on a "Sense of the Senate on Shared Sacrifice" bill that says taxpayers earning $1 million or more each year should "make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit-reduction effort." You can guess how the votes went on that one. Look for David Brooks' comments on this, which he calls "suicide." The GOP/TP are self imploding, and their supporters don't have a clue about it.
How often can we be fooled by bargaining for definite immediate tax increases, in exhange for future phantom suggested alleged possible "cuts"?
Hold on though....now we are talking about another future "Commission" for future possible suggested phantom reforms of entitlements?
The 'raison d'etre' of Democrats is higher taxes and smothering oppressive Nanny State government. No 'cuts' will get done unless they are thrown out in 2012.
Hey Chuck--
It was Ehud Barack and Yassir Arafat who came close to a deal brokered by President Clinton. As you may recall, the deal was struck, the details worked out and, and...Arafat walked away from peace. Look how terrible the results have been the past eleven years.
Well, the GOP is looking a lot like Arafat. The GOP demands more cuts than the Biden commission came up with--Eric Cantor walks away from negotiations--and President Obama meets their demand in exchange for tax increases on the wealthy. But the rabid Tea Party base, like the Hamas faction of the Palestinians, doesn't want peace. Boehner trashes the grand bargain, and, to complete the analogy, the terrible economic consequences of a government default will last for years to come.
But please...do not give Luke Russert props on a dreadfully obvious (and surface level) comparison. We all know he was hired at NBC because of his father, not for any specific talent he had.
All you liberals that keep calling for tax increases and closing tax loop holes always mention the big bad oil companies. I haven't seen any of you mention GE (A big supporter of Obama's) or any of the Ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, fishing subsidies etc., and let's go even further and rewrite the tax code and stop mortgage deductions, child care deductions, dependent deductions (the government never told anyone to have the children so why the difference between a family with o children and a family with 1 or more,),charitable contributions (since if you think the charitable is great, you will still donate). Personally I am all for rewriting the tax code and taking away all the so called "loop holes, for both corporations, businesses, and individuals. Even with all those "loop holes" closed and subsidies stopped immediately, it still won't solve the problem.
The democrats keep saying they are willing to cut spending, but only after the republicans agree to raise revenue (taxes) Remember when the democrats told the first President Bush that they would cut spending if he raised taxes, never happened. Let the democrats agree to cuts first and put in writing so the American people can see just what is on the chopping block. But the democrats won't specify what programs they are willing to cut, so let's make it easy for them: Cut every agency, government program, by 10 to 20 per cent, let's have everyone tighten their belts, withhold pay raises for all federal employees including military personnel (I remember during Carter the military had to forgo a pay increase, I know I was in the military then.) The military retirees (like myself) and people on Social Security (like myself) haven't had a pay increase (COLA) for the past 2 yrs. Let's see the WH, members of congress and their staffs take a 20 per cent cut. (Maybe the WH can get rid of a couple of cooks and maids) and congress cut their staffs by 10 per cent.
Also let's lock up members of congress, no recesses, vacations, or travel outside of Washington D.C. until they act on the recommendations of the Mar 2011 GAO Report, which details billions of dollars wasted on duplicate and overlapping programs. (Why do we have 47 separate job training programs, 82 teacher quality programs and 56 financial literacy programs., just a few examples cited in the GAO Report).
I for one was very offended to hear President Obama say that the American people aren't smart enough to understand things like the debt ceiling and should leave it to profession politicians. That is a slap in everyone's face, both left and right.
Sfcret...... do you have a link where the President actually said the American people are stupid?
Here for you edification is what exactly was said by David Plouffe, senior political advisor to the President: "
obama put 4 trillion on the table no tax rate increases only the loopholes that yes that benefit ge subsides....that's the republicans that are protecting big oil and in the healthcare debate health insurance company in in the senior drug thingee during bush a give away to the big pharma. obama said ok you want fix it here 83 percent tax cuts 17 loopholes no new taxes just getting rid of handouts to the rich the corp jet yacht's etc etc...so how am i to believe the party of penalty was sincere about fix this monstor problem that they helped create by only wanting 2 trillion....that just bull you know what...obama call there buff they don't want to fix it they just want to destroy the goverment and hopefully lessen regulation... to let corporations run wild
Gingerbread Mamma, You want a link, if you goggle it "Obama's statement about professional politicians there are several links, you can read them all. I was not talking about plouffe but Obama himself. Get a life and get out more. If you can't find it, maybe you shouldn't be on the computer.
Marc, Where are the cuts that the democrats are willing to cut, they refuse to say, they only want tax increases first then so called cuts in spending. Tell the President and the democrats in congress to put up or shut up.
dude your an accomplice for fleecing the nation tell me that subsides for exxon mobile or the other five oil companies is something we can afford and tell me if we cut it that they'll go out of businsess...g.e. 3.2 billion in rebates subsides if you believe in the truely free market which is your argument for no regulation than getting rid of them should be no problem remember those republicans that you so admire believe that so why shouldn't they agree to ending the handout from the federal government answer me that einsteen......
hippo critter
you never have an answer ever...because you know you're wrong the world isn't flat, evolution,,,no weapons of mass destruction,,,tax cuts to the rich don't stimulate the economy .....but i do believe oj did it...
do they take your repubilicans to the poll because after reading your posts i'm surprised you're smart enought to get there...i mean tell me sfcret how ryan's plan makes any sense when it depends on the private sector for profit mind you to start taking on 65 year olds' duh that's happening at about 10,000 a month.....ryan's dreaming on that and it's the key to making his plan work which it doesn't...if you can't be honest on that don't bother posting anything.....because youre not being honest....
You can not solve the deficit with spending cuts alone, the deficit is money already spent, how is cutting what we will spend next year, going to pay for what we already owe. Spending cuts (huge cuts) can help balance the budget and even provide a modest surplus (like Clinton handed Bush but he gave that away instead of paying down the deficit, he said the surplus proved we were collecting to much taxes) but this huge deficit can not be paid off with cuts alone unless you think we can cut something like 14 trillion. The math just does not work. Spending cuts are most certainly needed but if you really want to get rid of the deficits more money needs to be collected. Lets say we cut until we have a balanced budget, then you still have the deficit, because it is money already spent. Clinton had a balanced budget and a surplus but he still had a deficit he inherited from previous administrations. Now tell me sfcret what were the tax rates when Clinton had a surplus because he is probably the only president you can remember that ever had a surplus. Even if we went back to spending levels of the Clinton administration, we would also have to go back to those tax rates and employment levels just to provide a modest surplus, right. Yes that is right. Now if we did that it would still take decades to pay down the debt. Obama wins this one big time, republicans said they want 2 trillion in cuts he says I will cut 4 trillion but we will still need more revenue (which is the truth) and republicans walked away from an honest attempt to begin to solve this deficit problem. That is a fact. The president was willing to take political heat by seriously cutting spending the republicans were not willing to take political heat by raising revenue. That is a fact.
Marc, the only idiot on here is you, you just post and post and say nothing nor answer any questions. For starters where did I say I was for Ryan's plan or even mention Ryan's plan. I do think Medicare cannot survive as it is. BTW if Ryan's plan was passed it would not effect any one currently over 55 yrs of age.
Your post 12.5 and 12.6 don't even make sense and brings nothing to the discussion except that you are misinformed and get your talking points from MSNBC.
As for your post at 12.4, I never said I was against taking the 4 billion from the subsidies of the oil companies, I am for taking the subsidies from all corporations, businesses, farming and anywhere else they might be. It's you liberals that always mention the big bad oil companies. I don't believe the government should be funding a lot of things and that many programs can and should be eliminated.
Now why don't you, since you act like you know so much, tell me where is the Obama administration willing to cut 3 trillion from, name each program that they are willing to get rid of or reduce? What about the GAO Report I mentioned in post 12, and other points I made? You are the one that is not honest because you have not lived that long, or you depend on government handouts, or you only believe what the left wing points say. Get an independent mind and think for yourself.
Forrest Gump, No where did I say we can pay down the deficit with cuts only. I said let's see what the democrats are willing to cut and put it in writing and then we can talk about more revenue. I remember when the democrats promised Bush 1, that if he raised taxes they would cut spending, which they never did, they just spent more. Remember Clinton had a republican congress that forced him to balance the budget. Further if you are old enough to remember Clinton cut deeply into the defense budget, (Peace dividend). There were not two wars (now 3 with Libya) and nothing like 9/11 or Katrina occurred during his term. Further he had one of the biggest tax increases in history.
Where are the democrats willing to cut and by how much? Just a simply answer will suffice ? BTW I can go all the way back to Truman, how about you.
Sfcret......I can look up links, I'm just wondering if you can. You just spout opinions put out by rightwing organizations and propaganda machines. For you to be taken seriously, you need to back it up with proper sources.
I can't go back as far as Truman, but you are asking for the impossible the president can not put in writing what he will cut, republicans control the house so he would be lying if he did, the budget is congresses responsibility not his they would have a say if not outright dictate what gets cut, he does not have that power. The best he could do is list what he would propose to cut and then congress would do what congress does they would amend the hell out of that list to try and eliminate any cuts that might jeopardize votes from their districts. He is the commander in chief so he might be able to cut the military at will, but I am not sure about that. You tell me sarge can he cut 4 trillion from the military without congress being involved. If you just want to know what I would personally cut, I would end all three wars tomorrow and close virtually every military base on foreign soil. I would end all subsidies to profitable companies, and cancel the tax free status of any church that engages in political activities.
I have mentioned GE. I have also mentioned Citigroup, Johnson & Johnson, and HP to name a few -- All paying 15% or less in corporate taxes--even as low as 7.6%--though all are profitable. And all have cut jobs, some in the thousands. It's obvious low taxes do NOT = more jobs.
And of course it is stupid to think we only have a "spending problem." If that was true we could reduce tax revenue to zero, and we'd be fine, right? Come on, think this through, even if it makes your hair hurt, think! Conservatives lost the Rule of Reason long ago, with similar arguments like "If you don't support the [Iraq] war, you don't support the troops."
Albert Einstein Quotes - Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
Forrest, when I say the President, I assume he is speaking for the democrats in congress and he can get them to agree with him. I understand it is congresses responsibility to produce a budget, after the President submits his at the beginning of the year. There has to be a written commitment as to where and what the democrats will propose to cut. Also the Republicans should agree as to what subsidies and tax loop holes they will accept. As CinC he can't cut military spending but on recommend cuts. Personally I believe we can cut 20% from defense and not hurt readiness. Both sides could easily agree to cut the entire government spending by 10 to 20 per cent, and worry about the specific programs after the agreement. At the same time agree on raising some revenue through closing loop holes and taking away subsidies from all corporations, farms, and businesses.
I would also like to see the talks on television live, forget the pundits, I can think for myself.
Forest, I wanted to vote for you twice. Great post.
obama probably is thinking american's are stupid when the tea partiers raise hell about taxes but don't cut my medicare or social security or the defense department...basically says to me we're only interested in ourselves and not really interested in fixing the problem ...since that's 2/3 of our budget
There seems no doubt that our representatives are playing too much politics and not enough responsible, bipartisan work ... and that is totally ridiculous. There are those who stand out in their efforts to get attention, excite the public and get credit from their supporters, all without responsibly doing the work at hand (Cantor, McConnell, Boehner, Bachmann as being most obvious). And while both sides are politically posturing it also seems obvious that there has been far more giving on the President's part and far more stubborn bullheadedness on the Republican's part - one obvious example being their obnoxious and irresponsible protection of Bush Tax Cuts for the very wealthy which have proven to do nothing for the economy and were excessive compared to everyone else to begin with. It is time the public really sees things as they are, even recognizing an irresponsible reality that may be against their own bias
Yes. Those in Congress are blatantly telling us that their own re-election chances are more important than the good of the country. To me, this means that damn few of them deserve to be re-elected. The voters need to see this, recognize it, and throw them out. What we need in Congress are not career politians, but men and women of good will who will serve our country rather than themselves. Do we need to wait for the whole country to fall apart before we figure out this simple and obvious truth?
sfcret
I hate the phrase "you sound like a typical_____" but, man, you sound like a typical Republican. You have your healthcare and retirement paid for, because you are a vet, but you can't stand the idea of someone else, who may be less deserving, in your mind, less deserving than wonderful you, getting a bit of security. Just because you don't have little kids, you couldn't care less about teacher training. Why, you're not a woman, so it's fine by you to cut Planned Parenthood.
The irony is, such narrow minded thinking is not what made this country great in the first place. We were founded by idealists and "joiners," as Alxec de Touqville, observed. Early Americans were inveterate community-organizers, busily forming leagues, associations, and charities for everything from improving education to promoting graham crackers. If you want to live in a country without government programs, I think you should visit some countries who don't spend money on improving things. Not sure where you will find them, but I think it's called the Third World.
no don't tell them to visit other countries i have to go to them now to get away from the 30 percent of american's that are just breathing our air and wasting our time....but if you're one of the hard core american love it or leave it types why don't you leave i'll help you pack....
i meant those hard core conservatives amy...
no problem Marc :)
hey bob i didn't wear a helmet one time and haven't been the same since....imagine the world in republican hands no regulation no ability to take them to court(no erin brockovic) you'ld being driving your pinto to love canel.....no medicare the ryan plan and no insurance company willing to take you on because you're old...working till you're old but getting fire for being old see kmart anti age sop....corporate american probably like the robber barron era....monopolies...price fixing... dickens tale of two cities or tale of two classes the rich and everyone else....bob you're not invited to the rich people city you're just like me but two dumb to know it....because if every american that's not included in the new world order the richest 2 percent would raise their voice right now....america would be on the right track you my friend are the problem not the goverment...
amy i think that's what repub want they truely would like to see america like east berlin before the fall...they want everyone to be as unhappy as they are... because i hate to say it matter of fact i don't hate saying it most repubilcans are mean nasty and hateful. they hate it how it is and hate thinking that someone will change it...it's like they live in the twilight zone...i'm old huh
if taxes have to be raised they should be raised across the board. that way the average brainwashed liberal will know what their overspending really costs just in case we have to go through this again...
Liberal spending?, every republican president starting with Reagan increased the deficit, the only president you can remember that had a balanced budget and a surplus was "Slick Willie" maybe that was what so slick about him. He handed Bush a surplus and Bush said the surplus proved taxes were too high and gave it away instead of using it to pay down the debt. The republicans said they want two trillion in cuts and the president said I will cut 4 trillion but we still need to increase revenue and they walked. Save your brainwashed liberals BS the president was willing to take political heat for cuts, the republicans were not willing to take political heat for taxes. The republican congress let you down, not brainwashed liberals.
"Tax and Spend" is the GOP.
Alan Greenspan said he supported tax cuts when there was a surplus, but not when there is debt. How about believing in saving for a rainy day? Because it came really soon, starting with 9-11 and going into Afghanistan, then Katrina -- hits to the economy aside from the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the most stupid concept is "starve the beast," which as we are seeing results in 4-day school weeks.
Liberal spending?
I am a proud liberal and I was against the Iraq war from the day Bush and Cheney started claiming Iraq had to do with 9/11. I watched the weapon inspectors and he would give a 15 minute speech and say all positive things about the inspection and one negative (such as someplace we had not gotten in to inspect) on faux that evening the entire talking point was that one negative statement and nothing else the inspector said in the other 15 minutes.
Bush then ran out on Afganistan and started a war of choice which I am sure you cheered on.
But now, it is liberal spending.
use your brains use your brains dude if you're a repubican't even the bush adminstration said those rebate checks only help if targeted to the middle class and lower income people...because they put it back into the part of the economy that needs infused......duh duh .....tax cuts for rich merely make rich people richer they don't trickle down that was a lie and even president bush one and two said it....remember bush reagan debate voodo economics that what mr. bush called them
greenspan,,, paulson and the guy inbetween said to congress that tax cuts to the rich don't create jobs and that they are not revenue nuetral .....quit your job einsteen and see what that does for your budget, all it does is lessen the revenue for the country at a time recession that we need more goverment spending see the depression.... remember the repubilcans aren't trying to balance the budget their try to deconstruct the goverment....
Maybe this plan should be considered? It would kick the can without passing the buck like mitch is suggesting.
mitch mcconnel should be brought up on charges by the ethics commiite for violating his oath of office he said his first priority was to see that obama is defeated...i'm sorry isn't he suppose to be and senator....kick his ass out and anyone that take their no tax pledge to grover norquist over that of their oath of office....
This is what repubs have been screaming about, But when push comes to shove they cry and act like babies.
President Obama is willing to give,but not the party of NO, Its our way or the highway, thats beening a real american is'nt it. Their goofy ideas are killing this country. Protecting the richest among us, crooks like Murdock & the koch brothers, big oil & corporations. Wake up folks and get rid of these two faced liars & fear baiters.Congress where are the jobs you were put into office to get for americans,yep just another lie to get what you wanted,tell em what they want to hear.
u republicans don't want to fund abortions you got that i don't want my tax dollars to go to anyone that follows an oath superceding that of their office...
i believe we are living at the crossroads of history politically speaking....thur all the curtain the repubilcans has been drawn back to reveal who they our....alll the misdirection the welfare queens the blacks the immigration, national defense and their strong record as fiscal conservatives oh god give me a minute my calculation is that repubicans presidents have by far have led to 3/4 of the current national debt....thank god their fiscal conservatives or imagine how much they would have spent....this is truely a battle for the hearts and minds of america...rich v poor labor v management....this is the battle for your future....