Try reading First Thoughts and you'll find the story on Wu.

Ah. Next strategy -- Divide and conquer.

Coincidence that you didn't get that story from Reid or Pelosi?

I think not.

And I guess it's not true, to boot.

Sigh. Why don't they just do this on C-SPAN so we could all watch and see what REALLY goes on?

And by the way, I just read CNN's cheat sheet on Reid's plan, and it worries me. It pushes the problem down the road only until 2012, at which time no one will profit from a debt ceiling crisis, so it will pass without further ado at that point. In between, we have nothing but assurances that those cuts will be made. And as I understand Reid's plan, it carries no revenue increases with it.

It's only cuts. If President Obama wasn't enamored with it initially, maybe he was right.

But time's a'wastin' folks.

Anna Molly..

Just checked the AP, CNN and even Fox.

There's been no denial from Pelosi or Reid.

This is closed door business so transparency and truth are both lost.

The GOP obviously wants to keep the 2012 date so it remains a talking point in the election. Moving it to 2013 takes it off the table until after the election.

Clearly, the date is politically motivated.

Chris, I don't believe it's a "farce" I believe it's serious business, which is why Republicans picked this subject to play political games with.

McConnell said: "...its hard to conclude that this request has anything to do with anything other than the president's re-election..." Not for us McConnell, we already know what Republicans want to do, they want an issue they can make a big political deal out of while ALL of you are running for POTUS.

Frankly, I agree with the POTUS to have this vote extend beyond the presidential election, so that we, the American People, don't have to keep on hearing about this same thing month after month!

Jody, are you referring to that pathetic little blurb buried at the bottom of First Thoughts???

NO!!! A man of Wu's stature deserves his own headlined story!!!

WE WANT WU!!!

Then go somewhere else to get your kicks, Chris, maybe Route 66.

So McConnell said the President rejected the bipartisan plan, but the White House is saying our President supported the plan with 2.7 T dollar cuts. It is becoming crystal clear that the GOP/TP is not interested in cuts, they are not interested in compromise, they want to watch the dominos fall. Conservative have not a clue on how to govern.

we keep lying to ourselves. It's time for all to understand that you don't negotiate with the dancers rather, the drum beater. Norquist vs the people is the real deal here and until all sees this there will be no deal. i repeat no deal.

Number one - this is all part of the talking points on McConnell's part since his #1 priority is to see the President defeated next year. Everything from here on out will be the President's fault. And the media will help carry that message. You can count on it.

Number two - John Boehner is not the leader of the Republican Party. He is the Speaker of the House and should act accordingly. Which means responsibility and maturity and statesmanship.

The House is nothing but a fraternity house. A joke. With Cantor at the helm. No one is more hateful than he is.

Nice going Boehner. Nancy Pelosi worked. And she worked hard. Nancy Pelosi got bills passed. Nancy Pelosi stood by working Americans.

You Boehner just go on tv and cry. And lie. And quit. Just like your sidekick Cantor.

Idiot.

So Ira - you getting a load of Reid's "cuts?" Pure crap and fantasy.

Saving from future wars not fought. WTF?

Reid's plan has not cuts and is geared for one objective only - get Obama through the election without another round of this.

Funny thing is, so many libbies here say this is all just made up, or a non-controversy.

Oh and it's all perspective Pius [but then you already knew that] - this is the idiots who amass $4 billion in new debt per day, v our kids and their kids.

Cause eventually realityy will come a knocking. If Obama gets his way - $2.5 Trillion [for two years] then the debt costs just keep going up and up.

But I guess you and Ron are totally cool with that. No consequences of increased debt, right guys?

Clearly, the date is politically motivated.

Ira, I'm with you all the way, and Boehner's plan brings the next vote up in just a few months, keeping the issue alive for purposes of the elections.

But 2012 is also REID'S proposed date. What IS he thinking about, especially where there is no increased revenue in his plan?

Just checked the AP, CNN and even Fox.

There's been no denial from Pelosi or Reid.

After I wrote that, I figured out why. It's because there was no provision for revenue increases in Reid's plan.

At least I hope it was because of that.

And now President Obama is finally grasping the desperateness of the situation.

Pat- saying Pelosi "worked" cause she pushed through Obamacare that is widely not liked [what's it at about 65% disapproval rating these days?] is interesting.

In fact she "worked so well she managed to get the speaker ship taken away.

That is success to you? Interesting.

A few VERY important points:

1) There are those in the Tea Party caucus minority who don't want the debt ceiling raised, period--not with a dollar-to-dollar solution or even more aggressive spending cuts. This is cause for alarm!

These are the ignorant extremists who were not vetted in time to be eliminated like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, etc. -- mostly because they are in the House so don't get as much scrutiny. But these Tea Party representatives are NOT constitutionalists, or Libertarians, or any legitimate faction. They are anarchists, pure and simple, who need to be brought to the attention of the voters in 2012 and thrown out.

2) Republicans who have signed a pledge to lobbyist Grover Norquist are also disconcerting. First, the pledge is NOT to the "taxpayers," certainly not to the majority of Americans, and definitely does not represent me. These oaths to special interests outside the electoral process are unconstitutional.

Add to this Republican fear of Hate Radio shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage--who have even less journalistic standards or credentials than phone-hacking Murdoch outlets like FOX Noise--who are not elected officials but are running the Republican Party. This is another alarm!

2) What these far-right folks want is a one-party state that is a plutocracy, or a Christian theocracy, and possibly a fascist combination of both. We are witnessing much more than a deficit crisis. We are on the threshold of losing democracy, liberties, and freedom at the hands of the far-right GOP/TP as much if not more than any other terrorist threat.

We MUST have a two-party system in which both parties compromise, and in which all Americans have a voice and representation. Any deal MUST be a compromise with a balanced approach of shared sacrifice in order to represent the nation as a whole.

3) The debt ceiling should not, and cannot be used to hold America hostage, not now, not ever again. This alone is despicable anti-American behavior. This alone has further hurt economic recovery. There can be no more uncertainty with incremental ties to the debt ceiling. Triggers of other kinds are the only possibility.

Anyone or faction or Party that ignores the above is treasonous and must be removed from office if not by law than by the voters.

Enough with claims about so-called "job creators" when there is no evidence to support this claim. We have heard the "trickle-down" chicken crap and suffered from voodoo economics long enough! Enough with Duck, Dodge and Dismantle plans like CC&B that are even more draconian than the Paul Ryan plan to end Medicare to give more tax breaks to the rich.

Look at the recall elections, look at the plummeting approval ratings of Republican governors, and look at the rulings against right-wing social engineering legislation. Kick the Tea Party out—It begins now! It ends in 2012

Chris:

WE WANT WU!!!

This is so childish, it should be prefaced with "BOO, HOO, HOO ..."

That's what I like best about it. ;-)

True Patriot:

These oaths to special interests outside the electoral process are unconstitutional.

I hadn't thought about it that way. If not unconstitutional, then maybe just treasonous.

I'd suggest they impeach themselves, but somehow I wouldn't expect it to work out.

Great post, by the way.

Yes, I said FARCE, because that's all that this "debate" is: IT'S A FARCE!!!

Do you honestly think that any of our elected officials in either house of congress really care about "what's best for the country"??? If that was the case, none of this would have happened and we would not be in this situation. All they care about is getting re-elected!!! We are meaningless to them except for our votes!!!

WHERE'S THE STORY ON CONGRESSMAN WU??? -- So typical of a conservative to focus on petty things in a time of crisis--not sure but I think it was a joke? Moving on...

The reason for extending the debt ceiling beyond 2012 is to create CERTAINTY for the markets, and to prevent a downgrade of our credit rating. Republicans have been whining with one of their favorite buzzwords of "uncertainty" for a long time now, and even Boehner knows this and agreed the other day the debt ceiling should not be an issue every few months. Not to mention congress would spend all their time fighting about the debt ceiling instead of working on solutions to create jobs, improve the economy, and balance the budget.

We know we need campaign finance reform. But congress has also become dysfunctional because of record abuse of parliamentary procedures. First Republicans have imposed the filibuster on everything requiring a super majority to pass anything. Then there are blocks and holds, in which ONE individual can prevent progress on nominations.

Then we saw the GOP/TP using the budget to threaten a government shut down, and the president and Dems conceding on tax cuts for the rich in order to extend unemployment. Now we see the GOP/TP using the debt ceiling as a "My Way of the Highway" process. These rules need to be changed, somewhere along the line--it's crazy nonsense.

As posted above, this great nation consists of far more Americans than the Tea Party. If the majority is not represented, or at least all voters get something of what they want in the country as a whole, then we no longer have a democracy.

The way the 14th Amendment was written states in:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

To me, this should mean that any oath "or pledge" to Norquist should be deemed null and void (and probably treasonous).

Anna Molly and Spanky..

Per FR: Sen. Reid's plan also reduces the deficit more than enough to meet the contrived dollar-for-dollar criteria called for by House Republicans, and, most importantly, it removes the cloud of a possible default from our economy through 2012.

Maybe cause I read a lot of ambiguous garbage every day but....what does through 2012 mean to you?

To me it means 2013.

If it does...then why would Obama reject it?

I am totally confused.

Line items for Reids "Plan":

1) Savings from future wars not fought - $1.5 trillion dollars

2) Savings from future hurricanes that don't hit the US - $497 billion dollars

3) Savings from additional funding to Planned Parenthood so there are less darn people to take care of - $700 billion dollars

4) Getting Obama re-elected at any cost - Priceless

Look at the recall elections, look at the plummeting approval ratings of Republican governors, and look at the rulings against right-wing social engineering legislation.

An Addition -- Look at the lagging campaign contributions to Republican presidential candidates.

GOP/TP, the majority is NOT with you.

Tom, Tamarac, FL

You get it. This is the problem facing this nation and funny enough people are blind to this. GOP congress is acting with a gun held to their heads and this makes them unfit to govern. i really don't care about anybody's political stand but no to a congress that have their allegiance first, to the oath or pledge they've signed. Who's interest are they protecting?

SPANKY

Please interpret section 3 of 14th amendment.

Hey True Patriot - I am one of those misguided idiots that does not want the Ceiling raised.

I know it would be absolutely horrible, terrible and we would all just have such a very bad day if it is not raised.

Majority? Whateveh. Tea Party/GOP is in control.

Obama, is leading from behind.

IRA Reid's plan is ridiculous on it's face, designed to get President Pissy Pants through 2012 election.

Politics, pure nasty politics, all while leading from behind.

JoAnnaSmith1 and Spanky..

Haven't had a chance to read the details..until JS1's post.

For real...$2.5 trillion reduction including reductions in financing for future wars and hurricanes.

Hey..just curious...are these line items part of the current budget?

If they are, that would make the proposal truly priceless.

Naa, you go ahead Puis, interpret away.

Republicans looking, for once to protect the taxpayers. More power to them.

Ceiling or not, the issue is the spending, which is why whatever happens Obama is in a bad way.

Presidentin' is hard. But take away the purse strings and it'll be down right nasty business. Nothing to dole out.

By the way it looks like Walker saved a bunch of teacher jobs in Wisc. Great news again, right AM?

That guy on a mini roll right now.

Oh Ira you are so funny.

"Current budget."

Good one.

800 days and counting my man. Them dems, they totally know how this governing thing workds, especially the economics of it all.

Spanky..

ooops...there is no budget...meant current budget proposals.

So where are they getting these numbers from? Must be somewhere if there is a proposal to cut them unless they are pure fantasy.

Again...thoroughly confused.

This involves reading, but it might be worthwhile...

"None of the institutional players hold power securely. The Democratic president, the Democratic Senate, the Republican House — each could get tossed out in the 2012 elections.

As all three reach for a solution, their margin for error has grown very small."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25caucus.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Ira: So where are they getting these numbers from?

Reid and Pelosi used an Ouiji board to figure out their budget, ehh, proposals. Usually they use the Congressional Dart Board, but Weiner took it with him when he left.

We're all a-Twitter...

POTUS to address nation, 9 pm tonight, re stalemate over avoiding default and the best approach to cutting deficits. Watch @ wh.gov/live.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I hear The prez, Speaker, Minority leader et al are gonna play "Texas hold-em" with our money to see which awful plan that nobody likes we get to choose...:)

dangerfield

Perfect summary of the situation. Just perfect.

They should play something more akin to their intellectual abilities. I suggest 'rocks, paper, scissors'. Unless, of course, two of the players signed a 'pledge' to not play with scissors.....

Thanks....Forgive my recycling it in the thread above.

Sen. Reid's plan also reduces the deficit more than enough to meet the contrived dollar-for-dollar criteria called for by House Republicans, and, most importantly, it removes the cloud of a possible default from our economy through 2012.

Maybe cause I read a lot of ambiguous garbage every day but....what does through 2012 mean to you?

I don't know for sure, Ira. My cheat sheet doesn't tell me. But if runs through FISCAL 2012, then it means September 30, 2012.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicydefinitions/g/Fiscal_Year.htm

See what I mean?

And doubt returns accordingly.

Jody! Wow! The Route 66 reference! You are feeling your oats. Go get 'em. Too bad it was probably lost on most. There's just nothing like deflection and diversion. Hey, this is only about the full faith and credit of the United States. No biggie.

I had predicted the debt ceiling would be raised last week. I was truly shocked. Wall Street has to be in the same boat. I don't think they can believe their trusty old G.O.P. isn't raising the ceiling. The Tea Party just isn't playing along.

What's going to happen is stunning. The next election is going to be a shocker. The Tea Party is going to be hammered. Wall Street isn't going to finance arithmetic illiterates. At the same time, the Tea Party is going to fight Republicans who don't pass the purity test. The G.O.P. is going to be wracked by internal fighting. Dems win.

In 2013, if the Dems grow a spine and do what must be done, the budget can get the serious revisions and the overhaul it needs. The tax code must reflect reality and focus on updated priorities. Revenues must be raised. We must remember any deficits must be financed and that adds to the national debt offsetting cuts. This is a mess.

There is nothing more important to this nation than serious education reform and public campaign financing. This isn't a public school playground, this is America we're talking about.

Anna Molly...Spanky....JS1

...and ambiguity returns.....unabated.

Did you know...

Congress established the first national debt limit in 1917 setting up high-risk votes to increase the debt limit ever since. In 1979, Rep. Richard Gephardt proposed setting the debt limit automatically at the level projected by the most recent budget resolution. The rule, still in effect, allows for the debt limit to be raised without the House having to take an unpopular stand-alone vote. The only time the Gephardt rule was waived was in 1995, prompting 2 government shutdowns.

Just some trivia that I read...

The "new Republicans" were voted in 8 months ago in the 2010 midterm election, sworn in 6 months ago, and are a non-negotiating game changer. It is clear that the President's speeches ad nauseum have gained nothing, and he is forced into dictatorship if he is to get his way.

The plan would make a meaningful down payment in addressing our fiscal challenge, and we could continue to work together to build on it with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes additional spending reforms and closing tax loopholes for corporations, millionaires and billionaires.

Ah... WHAT? I feel like I'm being sold a bridge in NYC. I have no need to go to Brooklyn. This perfect plan, oh so beautiful and wonderful.... Since when have the democrats worked on anything with a balanced approach to deficit reduction? The last I looked, they have spent us into oblivion... The time for this was 2 years ago... but they couldn't take time for such contrivances... Health care reform was too important. Budget? What budget?

Does it occur to these Republican "leaders" that having this controversy again in an election year would not be to their advantage? Watching them run around in circles acting like idiots all over again would certainly not induce voter confidence. Can they be so oblivious as to not be aware of how this makes them look? Do they really think they are generating support for themselves?

Spanky, et al, what you want is only what a minority wants. This is not a dictatorship by the minority. And the reality is, just as it was indeed harmful to let Lehman Brothers fail, it WILL be harmful if the debt ceiling is not raised. Those who don't want the debt ceiling raised, period, are not only a small minority, but not operating in a factual world (like the Birthers, the Rapture people, the One World Order people, etc.). Conspiracy theories and religious superstition are not the basis for how our great nation can remain great.

Now, one can argue that the debt ceiling has become historically high, and that the historically high debt is harmful. It is, not only because of paying 40 cents to service the debt, but also the USA's credit rating. Everyone knows we must get our financial house in order. To do that will require spending cuts, but also finding ways for more revenue.

Anyone who thinks "starve the beast" is viable is also simple-minded. The cost for government services will merely be shifted. Look at the 4-day school week and how much burden is now on the parents to provide supplies, or how citizens will now need to pay private contractors for fire department services, etc. Look at municipal tax hikes up to 10% on every day purchases, and for example a tax added for take-out food. I am being very careful not to break any traffic laws to avoid fines! It's just shifting our out-of-pocket costs, not making it go away.

But the most important point is how a democracy works. The Tea Party needs to move to some island and start their own one-party country. Their threat downs to the detriment of all Americans is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

More posturing by both sides.

The Republicans should just keep passing short term bills once each 4 days, and pretty soon Obama will run out of time to veto it.

It appears Obama would prefer a Default, hoping to blame it on the Republicans, than actually compromise. Since there is little chance of an economic recovery before the 2012 elections, I think Obama has calculated that, if he precipitates an economic calamity, he just might be able to blame it on the Republicans and salvage an otherwise hopeless cause (his reelection).

Reid's plan has 1 trillion of his 2.7 trillion based on both wars ending. Interesting how one counts on that since neither side seems to not want to stop them, but add another. That is a gamble, possible, but shakey at best.

CBO says the 3 trillion or the 2.7 trillion cut plan won't do it. Obamas own numbers from one of his press conferences said he put up 1.7 trillion. If they don't get to 4 trillion REAL cuts the debt agencies are going to smoke us.

WE WANT WU!!!

Chris, Cranbury, NJ.

WE WANT WU!!!

==================================================================

No, we really could not care less about WU

You want WU's WHAT?? (and where would you like it??)

McConnell- how can you tell he's full of it clear up to his eyebrows? Look for the 'R' next to his name.

This whole thing is really begging for a cheer.

I suggest WU WHO ...

Don't you mean the Gang of Six plan that President Obama endorsed?

Oh that's right, the GOP in the House is the one who rejected it.

How about the bipartisan debt commission? The one that the House GOP rejected. The one that Ryan said didn't go far enough, so Ryan proposed his own plan that doesn't balance the budget until 4 years later than the bipartisan debt commission.

Debbie..

You need to get your facts straight.

The Gang of Six Plan and the Bowles- Simpson Plan (Debt Commission) relate to the public debt...the $15 trillion.

We're talking about the debt ceiling...not the same.

....and no...the House has not rejected either plans as there has been no debate or vote on either.

Ira Lapin,

Good point, without House support this will go nowhere just like all the other plans.

I would like to know what Boehner and the GOP house thinks about this latest idea (Reid $2.7 T cut). I happen to think it is not the right idea because it doesn't talk about any increased revenues, it only promises cuts.

Somehow I think that even with Reid promising cuts and no increased revenues, the House GOP will still reject it. They will move the goal posts by either asking for more cuts or question the war savings. They will say that the cuts (war savings) should not be part of that $2.7 T number. My opinion is that the GOP would rather have more domestic or social cuts in lieu of defense cuts.

Yellowdog-Mark D..

For now, I really think the best think to do is take the Reid-McConnell plan and kick the can down the road to 2012 and let the voters weigh in on which way they want the country to go.

At least then we should have a mandate from the voters....not polling information.

Maek, here is then problem with the so-called war savings

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

At best, you are talking $170 billion a year- no where close to the $4trillion Obama has added to the debt.

We need real cuts- go department by department, and cut the spending Obama has added. It means carving out $870 billion wasted on the stimulous bill. It means rescinding HCR. Reducing staff and salaries.

S&P are not fooling around- they've said that without $4trillion in cuts in the next three months, we lose our triple A rating.

I understand that from your perspective, it would have been wonderful if Obama's policies had worked, the economy improved, and the debt not exploded.

Unfortunately, Obama failed. I am, truly, sorry- it's my country, too.

None of us wins from Obama's failures.

Nobody knows the specifics of any of the plans except for Cut, Cap, and Balance and perhaps today's "temporary House plan" which I haven't read yet.

That's a big part of the problem, because we have seen that the devil is in the details. Nobody trusts the President's doubletalk anymore so he hides the details and makes smoke to fool us. We're not as stupid as he thinks.

Only the House Republicans put the full story out there. Like 'em or not, give 'em credit for that.

The stimulus bill is over. There is no stimulus bill money included in the current year or future year deficits. The stimulus was a temporary "stimulus" to keep the economy from falling over the cliff. It did that, but now the Repubs are trying for something else to push the economy over. They might just succeed this time.

Tackling the $14 trillion debt is what will create certainty in the markets, not just raising the debt ceiling. That raise in the ceiling will not satisfy the markets for any period of time, other than the immediate. We need to bring down the debt! Put down the kool-aid or beer or whatever you're drinking.

Where do you see "market and business certainty" when we RAISE our national debt by Billions?

Is that the way you run your home? Continue to borrow and spend money that you don't have and then call it "market and business certainty"??????

Is that the way you think this nation should be run? Spending TRILLIONS of dollars we don't have, borrowing TRILLIONS of dollars that we'll be paying back for decades?

It is all Obama's fault. He's had THREE "budgets" of over 1.2 Trillion dollars in deficit spending. He's had a 830 Billion dollar "stimulus" that didn't do anything except go into the pockets of cronies and unions. He and Democrats have put NO budget out in over two years, but just keep on spending.

This is THEIR economy, not someone's that been out of office for over 2 and half years. This is THEIR economy, not the party that has been out of power for OVER 4 years.

This is the economy that people like YOU wanted.

Jody missed then part where Standard and Poor's stated that they had a 50-50 chance of downgrading our AAA rating if we did not REDUCE the debt by $4 trillion in the next three months.

Well, she might have heard it, but then she had doubts about Obama's leadership, and she read a couple of his speeches in her "bible".

Then, she forgot all about it.

It's like this ladies, if the debt ceiling isn't increased, interest rates will increase dramatically which means business costs will increase which means fewer jobs. Those interest rates will also increase for homeowners, auto and all other loans, too, meaning the American people will have less money to spend which slows the economy even more.

The first year of the Obama administration was Bush's budget. In case you haven't noticed, there's been a Great Recession going on--government must spend money to fill the hole in the economy or else it becomes a Depression. Irresponsible financial policy decisions made by the Bush administration with the help of the GOP Congress blew up the budget and the debt. Within one year of taking office, Bush had turned a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. Then he started two unpaid wars which he kept off the budget to hide the true cost.

The debt ceiling is unrelated to budgets. It's money already spent, debt the US is obligated to pay regardless of the spending cuts or revenue increases. While it is important that the US get the debt under control, the best way to do it is through job creation and economic growth. What is really needed now is an infusion of Government dollars into infrastructure, research and development, clean energy, and other areas where Government in cooperation with private business can make a difference.

Wrong again, Jody.

The first year of the Obama administration was NOT governed by Bush's budget- the democratic House never even proposed one, preferring to wait until the outcome of the election.

It was governed by the monstrous, 9000 plus earmark, Omnibus Spending bill of 2009- which OBAMA signed.

Not much truth in your "bible". How do you get through the speech on hia mother's health insurance coverage without cringing in decent shame at the loathsomeness of lying about it for political gain?

Or do you just avoid reading that one?

That's only partly true, no joe. President Bush submitted a fiscal year 2009 budget in March of 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-02-04-voa42-66742372.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html

The spending package for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no big surprises, especially since its key elements had already been reported in detail in recent days. The Pentagon’s proposed budget, for instance, is $515.4 billion, an increase of 7.5 percent over this year, meaning that military spending would be the highest in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. And the White House’s plans for trimmingMedicare and Medicaid have also been previewed.

Whether the president’s vision will become reality is by no means clear, given the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and Mr. Bush’s lame-duck status as the country looks toward the election of the next president in November. Democrats are likely to push for increased spending on social programs, and fewer tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals.

Apparently, this budget, which was for the period beginning in October, 2008, didn't pass, probably because of the financial crisis. In other words, Congress ducked it, as accurately predicted by the NYT in March, 2008 -- but without creating a Constitutional crisis over it. This naturally necessitated that Democrats resubmit a new budget after the elections. In the meantime, the walls came tumbling down, necessitating a much different budget. The new budget is the Omnibus Appropriations Act that you're talking about. And which contained the stimulus.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01105:@@@D&summ2=m&

Jody, Iowa.......It's money already spent, debt the US is obligated to pay regardless of the spending cuts or revenue increases.

How true Jody.

What the opposition, consistently and with purpose, fails to mention is the spending( the money already spent) was AUTHORIZED by CONGRESS! ANY increase in spending should be an automatic raise in the debt ceiling, period.

It's exactly for that reason, Savvy, that the President has a good argument under the 14th Amendment.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

(emphasis added)

I'm all for it, Anna Molly. Go ahead and do it already! Don't talk about, just do it.

The 14th Amendment. Just Do It!

That's just what they want him to do if you buy the conspiracy theory I'm kicking around this week.

He makes a move that raises a significant Constitutional question.

They can't get a joint resolution to sue him, and therefore can't get to the Supreme Court, at least not yet. But they CAN impeach him which will tie him up for the next year before the Senate would ultimately acquit him, or the elections occur, after which the impeachment resolutions might be rendered void. Or if not -- this may be where the Supreme Court comes in -- then the Senate might turn over, and he could be convicted, even if he was re-elected. What they do about Joe Biden is unclear, but if they get that far, they'll think of something.

If any of that doesn't work, they also have the option, following the Shock Doctrine, of precipitating a crisis of mammoth proportions and forcibly taking over -- Seven Days in May style -- using the military as the front.

If you can buy the Shock Doctrine, then you might also be able to see how this could be the ultimate endgame.

They're not just talking about baseball at those ALEC lunches and Koch brothers retreats, you know.

Good golly, Anna Molly, do you read anything but this site?

If Obama pulls a 14th amendment move, he'll get impeached.

Lawrence Tribe will testify against him.

Given his polls, he'll be the first president to get convicted. He might not mind- it will be historic. Unprecedented, even.

You sound as bad as Anabanana. You're not the same poster, are you?

Seriously- I saw that Bill Clinton advised that he, (B.C.), would " go for it". Thing is, I seriously doubt ol'Bill has Obama's best interests at heart.

AnaBanana is much smarter than I am, no joe. So rest assured we're not the same.

I do read a few other things, no joe, such as The Cap Times, on which you called me out this morning. So no worries there.

Lawrence Tribe wrote my Constitutional Law text, so I guess I have to consider his opinion, but I still think there's a good argument in favor of it, and there ARE other constitutional scholars, you know. But that's not my point. My point was only what the Republican plan might be, and why the President wants to avoid invoking it.

What do polls have to do with convictions? The trial would be in the Senate, which is currently democratic. Even if it flips, it's hard to get 2/3 as Republicans found out once before in the recent past. But I guess I'd take my chances on the polls if Obama acts to save our credit rating and Republicans react by impeaching him over it, wasting all kinds of time and trouble over an arcane political argument about which ordinary people care not one jot. And what happens if they win? Do we immediately slip into default?

Now THERE's a popular course of action. Or Shock Doctrine fodder. Think about THAT, no joe.

Why wouldn't Clinton have Obama's best interests at heart? If things get so bad that President Obama would face conviction, NO democratic candidate would have a chance in 2012.

But they won't. Because ultimately, Republicans know the truth about how this will play out.

Any of those scenarios is possible Anna Molly, and you are right, the gop/tp would take the lowest road in the event the president invoked the 14th. However, I do believe he will use it if necessary; that is in the eleventh hour, so to speak, when all else has failed.

Btw, I do buy Ms klein's premise which, along with my deeply entrenched feelings of the gop, has fueled my fear for our country's future as well as my rabid impatience for a solution to this manufactured problem, in particular.

stay with me, AM-

Democrats know that running with Obama at the top of the ticket is a ticket to a new career path.

Obama is pretty unpopular- he's a liar, he's a failure, and he is a disaster as as president.

So, if he hands them the GIFT of voting to get rid of him BEFORE election day, they raw going to jump on it.

So, let him go for it.

no joe go back to your Nazis friends

What do kool-aide drinking Libs like you think when you hear that Medicare is going belly up in 5 years if nothing is done to change it? This is the only chance Repubs have to change the programs that are going broke so they will at least be there in another form in the future. If Obama and the Dems are given more money, they will certainly SPEND it on growing govt. Look at the deficit for this year alone? WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Raise Revenue.

Leona:

Medicare is going belly up in 5 years if nothing is done to change it?

Listen, Leona, Republicans are the ones who stole the money -- to the tune of $2.2 Trillion Dollars raided from the Social Security Trust Fund for two off-the-books wars, unfunded Medicare part D, and tax cuts for the rich.

Al Gore was right, and you're wrong. Social Security would be solvent for at least the next 25 years if Congress acknowledges what it has done openly and puts the money back. This may require raising taxes, which his hardly a new idea because any kind of restitution for theft will necessarily require revenue to carry it out.

As a MORAL imperative -- which Republicans always love to flout -- it is absolutely essential that Congress act to make Social Security totally solvent again, thereby fixing what IT broke. And as Republicans contributed to that breakage just as much, or more than, anyone else, they had better own up to it.

Why don't you WAKE UP and learn something about what you're talking about. We ran up that deficit because of the economic and financial disasters precipitated by George W. Bush and the policies that were put in place during HIS administration. Without stimulus spending, it would very likely have been MUCH worse.

If Republicans get their way now, it will be. Bank on it. On second thought, maybe not.

Oh, go ahead.

....ummmm.......how did it help when Obama quadrupled the deficit spending ?! OH WAIT...........that was BUsh's fault too. HAHA

Leona,

Stop watching Fox News and read. You may wind up learning something about how this all went down. But i guess that would be asking too much of you now wouldn't it.

how did it help when Obama quadrupled the deficit spending ?!

You don't pay attention at all. You just regurgitate what little you know.

Now begone. Believe me, your ignorance has no power here.

"Stop watching Fox News and read"

i DON'T WATCH fOX news ( too busy working and paying taxes) but I do know what the facts are. If you Libs were right about everything , why are Obama's ratings plummeting even among Liberals? They are starting to kick themselves for NOT choosing Hilary. HAHA

Cutting Medicare is not even going to begin to save it. Neither is privatizing it. The problem with Medicare is not being discussed at all. What is killing Medicare is the astronomical runaway increases in health care costs. Unless that issue is addressed, Medicare will never be sustainable. Why does no one ever even mention that?

John - Please give it up already. The only ones appearing to be ridiculous are the Republicans who can't take yes for an answer. Has anyone else noticed that everytime the President comes to Republicans side of the aisle with an agreement on something they want, they change their minds. They used to be the ones for a debt ceiling increase through 2012....it's in their budget plan. Now they're against it. They used to be for spending cuts dollar for dollar with the debt increase. Now they're against it. These people are as transparent as can be in the games they are playing and it's going to blow up in their faces. The President has their backs up against the wall and they will have no where to go. Their true agenda has been revealed.

Quite the opposite, the GOP can't even get the story straight. There was no agreement yet. Let's see first Cantor walks out of negotiations, then Boehner walks out of negotiations. Leaders do not walk out, they stay and keep working to solve it. It made the GOPTP look pathetic, weak and without any real leaders.

John,

Do you mean the haft-wit Tea Baggers?

Half-nut teabagees. That's what I think he meant....

Since ALL you do is repeat the lies that your handlers tell you to Tommy, how would you actually know anything was a lie?

Reid has been lying to this nation for years, and you actually think he's telling the truth now?

Are you that lost in liberalland?

You must be, because you continue to repeat the filth filled name for people that you don't agree with politically instead of putting out ANY intelligent comments of ANY kind.

RIght on, Cheryl!

I wouldn't believe Reid for anything in the world. He could tell all the liberals that the world is flat and they would believe him!

What was that you said CherylLM about repeating the lies your handlers provide you? I've read or heard everyone of your comments at least two dozen times.

BAWK! Cheryl wants a cracker... lol

Tea Baggers do love crackers.

Tea Baggers do love crackers.

Especially those 'white' saltines... ;o)

Cheryl, their idol is a man who lied about his own dying mother. If that does not tell you all you need to know about their morality and common sense, nothing will.

They are not supporters of a politician, they are a religious cult, complete with "bible"- in the form of his speeches. They have their own prayers- "yes we can", "hope for change", and the ever popular WTF.

Considering Obama's chances for reelection, they'd be sad were it not for the fact that their icon is destroying our country.

JK1963:

I wouldn't believe Reid for anything in the world. He could tell all the liberals that the world is flat and they would believe him!

You're confusing us with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Conservatives are the ones who believe the Earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago. Sarah Palin actually does believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Michele Bachmann just quit (after 10 years) her membership in a church that believes the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

Everyone knows that Antonin Scalia is the anti-Christ. After all, I heard Harry Reid say so.

Sheesh.

Honestly? I'm not a big fan of Reid, but after reading a few of your posts, and Cheryl's, I don't believe much of what either of you say, either.

CherlLM - Don't you remember Boehner and McConnell saying nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to?????? I believe the President has been saying that as well to the Republicans. Republicans can't remember from one minute to the next what they've been saying and their words are coming back to bite them in the ass.

So Reid should put it to a vote. It's at that point we'll finally see what the Democrats really stand for.

laurie..Who exactly is putting forth the budgets that are getting voted down in the Senate?

Who exactly is actually putting out spending plans that are getting voted down in the Senate?

Who exactly keeps saying that he'll veto anything that comes across his desk that's passed in the House?

Who exactly has put NO budgets forth if over two years?

Who exactly keeps spending money that we dont' have, with 1.2, 1.3, and 1.3 Trillion dollar deficits?

Who exactly keeps demonizing the other party for coming up with spending plans, while NEVER putting a spending plan out their of their own?

The ones that are getting bit in the ass (just like in 2010) are the Democrats, who are so arrogant and idiotic that they actually think that they can get away with threatening Social Security checks, when that's a completely SEPERATE account than the budget. The Democrats that think "investment" (spending) and "revenues" (new and more taxes) are the answer to the problem that THEY caused.

You claim that Republicans "can't remember".....At least they have something to forget. Democrats just sit on their asses and throw out lies and threats and do NOTHING to remember.

If these Republicans- Tea Baggers weren't so illiterate as far as economics is concerned, they would see that this debit problem is owned by W. Bush and the Republicans.

CherylLM,

when that's a completely SEPERATE account than the budget

Then why the fervor on the right to include SS in any negotiations in the budget debate? Please explain that to me....I thought so.

They have been behind closed doors because the Dems and Obama do NOT want the American people to see "Chicago style" politics at work. Ask Blago what it's like. He knows.

Don't worry Cheryl, it will be Nov. 2012 before you know it. We need a REAL President who wants this country to go forward on the founding principles of hard work and success for future generations. Greece doesn't look good from here. Pelosi and Reid need to retire ( maybe they are just as much part of the problem.)

Yes, they are.

Obama wants a long term "fix" in the next 10 minutes because he knows it cant be done. He thinks this fight over the debt ceiling is good for getting him re-elected. He can call the Republicans crazy etc. The Republicans want a long term "fix" but they know it can only be done with a months long time frame in order to work out the details. That's why Obama will NOT OK that. A plan to actually fix the problem for the long term goes against Obama's plan to bury us in govt. debt.

Leona, you really need to study up. Previous debt ceiling legislation consisted of one paragraph on one page. They can be written in two minutes and passed quickly. The debt ceiling and the deficit/debt are apples and oranges; for that reason, they must be dealt with separately.

Leona,

Explain to me then why the repugnicants haven't been able to work out a deal since MAY????? You are full of sh!t. You have no idea what the President's plan is. You speculate and not very well at that.

NO ONE has any idea of what the President's plan is. THAT is the problem ! haha

How does one "communist" another? Seems like someone is trying to verb a noun/pronoun.

I think it's like 'wanking' a 'mo'.

."Instead of throwing the tea into the harbor we should throw the Dems in instead "

Hey Richard, look at it this way...... Dems have recently gotten into sex scandals and tax evasion problems. So, if we are lucky, they'll throw themselves in the Harbor. ( refer to Wu, Rangel, Waters, Weiner)

Fancy......Obama's party assassinated Lincoln. You might want to think about that before comparing that political party to a STRICT Republican that they killed.

Obama's a good man, but his history of negotiating sucks, he has caved in to republican demands on every major issue up to this point, the republicans see no reason why he shouldn't cave on this, for the good of the country he best not.

Raising the debt ceiling should be a stand alone bill as it has been in the past. It's money already spent. Too bad the GOP didn't think about demanding President Bush cut spending! Oh, that's right--he was a republican and all debt incurred by republicans does not count.

Fancy: that wont work. Obama has birthday party/fundraiser coming up ! He doesnt want to miss that !

Wow...."raping the middle and working class".

Of course don't mention that EVERY new tax is passed on to the middle class. EVERY new regulation is paid for by the middle class. And who demands these new taxes and new regulations? Why Democrats do, and they get them by saying that they are actually "taxing the rich" and "regulating the corporations and banks", ALL of whom pass those costs DIRECTLY on to the "middle and working class" that you say Republicans are "raping".

People like you are fools, because you actually think Democrats "care about you" so very much, by of course raising taxes, spending more and more and more, and of course borrowing Trillions that they can't steal from YOU!

Cheryl name something the Republican Party has done for anyone other than the wealthy elite or corporations in the past 30 years, even proposed or thought about?

"Of course don't mention that EVERY new tax is passed on to the middle class. EVERY new regulation is paid for by the middle class..."

Thanks for pointing that outCherylLM. Maybe it's hight time we find a way to fix that dirty little practice??

w bush

richard blanche

Ignorance: I just read a comment how every time the president comes to the other side (republican side) that they just reject him.

==========================================================================

I believe by all accounts that is exactly what has been happening champ.

The media bends over backwards to make it seem like "both parties are equally bad" but that's not true.

The President wanted a "grand bargain," to put a big dent in the deficit, but rather than give him that "victory" the Republicans have been treating us to a drama of operatic proportions. It's ridiculous: the Democrats had agreed, begrudingly to entitlement cuts and the Republicans rejected this to make a big show of protecting a few, piddly tax loopholes!

Amy

Obama's GRAND BARGIN included a TRILLION DOLLAR TAX HIKE!!! He did that KNOWING that the Republicans would not support such a deal. The Republicans came out with a plan with 800 Billion in REVENUES by closing Tax Loopholes last Thursday or Friday. Obama INITIALLY AGREED,but Harry Reid and some Senate Democrats wanted 400 Billion in TAX HIKES. That's why Boehner walked out of the meeting. Obama and the Democrats changed the agreement.

Try again, Richard...

www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

Gee, Richard. She sounds like one of those 'job-creators' we need more of??

Our current First Lady has 24 staffers while Laura Bush had 18 and Hillary Clinton 19.

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/

Richard,

Nice. Show me the backpedal you learned in conservative camp last summer.

Debbie-525743..

Respectfully,,,the Gang of Six plan relates to a reduction of the $15 trillion public debt and NOT the debt ceiling.

Just Google it..

There has never been a vote on the Debt Commission Plan in Congress. Never.

It never received enough votes in Committee to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Google that also.

I wish I could agree, but considering the many tried and tested tools the Republican Party has to brainwash the electorate I would hate to bet against them, and sadly many Americans are too stupid to know better, just have to hope for the best.

So true that many Americans are stupid. Only 37% of voters voted in 2010. Hopefully, we can get rid of a large number of these Tea Bagger-Republicans in 2012.

eastern time?