Powered by TypePad

« Obama Still Holding Granny Hostage | Main | Cheap Suitcase Watch »

July 31, 2011

Comments

narciso

No, BB, that's what Journolister Judis was suggesting,

Charlie (Colorado)

I can't imagine who else would want it...

Oh, I could imagine an R who strongly believes the debt limit has to be raised saying it, but I think the probability it's a D is very high.

caro

Thanks for that live stream link,glas. Herman Cain is on in about 8 minutes.

Ignatz

--I'm sure you are all wondering what would have happened if 'Let them Fail' had succeeded in preventing TARP.--

Not particularly. I'm with John Taylor and Bill Isaac that the Fed and the FDIC could have quite satisfactorily handled whatever needed doing in winding down any failed banks and that TARP was a wholly unnecessary intrusion into proper market behavior.
A quick lowering of gov spending and taxes coupled with the tools available to the Fed and FDIC would have allowed the markets to quickly and efficiently clear the mess just as they did [minus the FDIC of course] to alleviate the panic of 1921, which rivaled 1929-1932 in the depth of the economic plunge, but which was behind us after 18 months not 10 years.

narciso

Somebody how anyone thinks this is a good idea, that's precisely why It's being considered:


The Obama administration is quietly moving ahead on the groundwork for a possible civilian nuclear trade agreement with Saudi Arabia – an agreement that could prove to be the most controversial of a string of such US deals in recent years.
Skip to next paragraph
Related stories

The US plans to hold what State Department officials are calling “exploratory talks” in Riyadh next week to gauge Saudi objectives behind their interest in a civilian nuclear deal. The US also wants to explore whether the Saudi government would accept restrictions to ensure its nuclear fuel is used purely for civilian purposes, according to congressional sources.

boris
Serious consideration might include (1) DON'T inflict more harm on the economy (2) get spending under control.

Are you trying to argue that raising the debt limit would be more harmful than the effects of putting 2-3 million people out of work suddenly?"

There's a stretch. "Doing more than rubber stamping another increase" just means increase tied to spending control.

SWarren

JimmyK
This seems to be the weak point, assuming "that" refers to sending the BBA to the states, not actual ratification. The likely scenario is that the committee fails and the BBA gets sent to the states, so there are no spending cuts. And ratification takes years while we continue to get bled dry until at least 2013.

This is exactly what I questioned. What power does the committee have?
They can say these are the cuts that must be made but the congress cannot be forced to make those cuts.

So then a BBA must be sent to the states, and again the congress can just not consider or pass a BBA.

To me, it seems a committee can make all the recommendations it wants but has no enforcement power to make the Congress do anything.

Danube of Thought

I have a concern that the GOP hardliners in the house might torpedo this deal.

Ignatz

Saw an interesting tidbit yesterday about those all crying for bipartisanship, you know Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Barry, are all perfectly partisan in their voting record on debt limit increases; they always vote no when a Rep is in power and yes when a Dem is.
McConnell OTOH was nearly perfectly non partisan.

Ben Franklin

"GOP hardliners"

Tea-Party, right?

Charlie (Colorado)

They have been lamenting the spending for some years (even Bush), just not as vociferously.

I think both of you have a point. Even in Bush's last year, with a third of a trillion in TARP, total debt was about 66 percent of GDP; what's more, TARP didn't actually add appreciably to the debt, as most of the Bush TARP funds have been paid down by now. It's the 9 percent per year growth in spending, along with a GDP decrease of about 5 percent, that git us to 90+ pct debt/GDP and thus the crisis.

On the other hand, plenty of people (including me) were pointing out in 2007/2008 that it's the continued increase in spending that was setting up the crisis.

boris

"I have a concern that the GOP hardliners in the house might torpedo this deal."

IIRC Nancy Pelosi still owes us 100 dimrat votes from the 1st TARP.

If this is so damn critical let her deliver them.

Charlie (Colorado)

There's a stretch. "Doing more than rubber stamping another increase" just means increase tied to spending control.

That's why it was phrased in the form of a question -- I wasn't clear on what you were trying to argue.

PD

From Zerohedge:

Bush vs Obama: Facts And Observations

Surely the table you posted cannot be right. Didn't Obama promise "net spending cuts"?

narciso

Well the problem is not just the amount but the character of the spending, for a trillion
dollars, aproximately, we handled the problem
in Afghanistan and Iraq, for that same amount,
we didn't solved the Toxic Assets problem, we
acquired banks, and auto companies, the latter
were poorly managed to be charitable. AS for
the stimulus, no 'shovel ready' jobs to speak of, just a holding action,

boris

"I wasn't clear on what you were trying to argue"

My clumsy wordcraft no doubt. Also seemed like you took my original comment as a response to yours rather than DoT's.

Charlie (Colorado)

Well the problem is not just the amount but the character of the spending,

Narciso, I've got to say, if we're talking about the increase in the debt, the problem probably is the amount.

Ben Franklin

"for a trillion
dollars, aproximately, we handled the problem
in Afghanistan and Iraq"

Well, the can was kicked down the road in Afghanistan, so the war in Iraq could be prosecuted. The $Trillion was primarily Iraq.

I wonder how much interest the Chinese have earned from that borrowed revenue.......?

Danube of Thought

"Tea-Party, right?"

Hard to say, because the Tea Party has no membership rolls. But I assume most of those who would likely oppose the deal are sympathetic to, and supported by, those who call themselves Tea Partiers.

Whoever they are, they have done the nation a huge service to this point. I just hope they don't overreach.

Ben Franklin

Dot;

This whole thing not a kerfluffle in your thinking? Chaco's 2009 debt ceiling increase gives you no comfort?

JM Hanes

Ignatz:

"I may be alone in this but I'm not particularly sorry to see the debt limit extended beyond 2012, only because I'm not sure this is the best way for the Republicans to make the case for fiscal responsibility."

You're not alone. This whole issue has been a double edged sword, which could have cut us up big time, if Boehner had lost the fight for a bill in the House. Obama's current 40% approval is all the political mileage, I can see us getting out of this specific issue, especially if the gang of 22 is going to demand another balanced budget amendment rider -- and then vote against it! It's hard for anybody to miss Obama's partisan calculus, and there's no reason to hand him a they-do-it too defense. Nor do we want spending cuts, entitlement and tax reform to be "held hostage" to a putative default again.

Another debt ceiling fight would suck all the oxygen out of a campaign that should be attacking Obamacare and other federal depredations on the states, the economy and the body politic. We need to be fighting Senate Dems on their records, not giving them a high profile rhetorical podium at which they can stand united and rally the troops. Not to mention an issue which exacerbates divisions between Republican Moderates and Conservatives. That's the Democrats number one talking point as we head into Campaign 2012, not just because they think infighting will dilute Republican effectiveness, but because that's what they want the election to be about.

Laughable though it be, Dems are already trying to cast the tea parties as villains in the Newt Gingrich implosion. They are hoping that rightwing "extremists" will derail the "moderate" Mitt Romney sooner rather than later, and set up the Democrats' dream narrative in the general election: Tea Party radicals have taken over the Republican Party, don't let them destroy America as we (and you Independents!) know it too! Vote for Democrats!

I'm not suggesting that we should treat Mitt with kid gloves, just that another internal blowout 6 months from now will only cement the Dems narrative at the worst possible time -- all for what can only be another unsatisfying "compromise" which could actually hamper further post-election reforms.

narciso

Seems like the choices being set up, are slash Defense, or raise taxes, that's the administration's default positions. In my
faily fishwrap, one of the local columnists
talks about returning the economy to 1965,
the fact he can't tell the difference between
today and 1965, is just one of his category
errors,

Danube of Thought

Not sure I understand either question, Dana. If by "kerfuffle" you mean something minor, the answer is no. And I'm not sure what Chaco's 2009 increase is, nor why I should or should not take comfort from it.

Cecil Turner

Seems like the choices being set up, are slash Defense, or raise taxes, that's the administration's default positions.

We will eventually have to do both . . . and neither will be sufficient unless we first get a handle on entitlements. Which is a real good reason to oust every Democrat from public office, and elect more Tea Partyers.

matt

Steyn has an excellent piece in NRO on the fantasy world our Government has created in its accounting practices. LUN

glasater

Thanks Caro-

Wish I would have picked up on that schedule for yesterday's speeches. Those would have also been interesting to watch.

PD-

I was told as a kid not to try to pick pearls out of merde but sometimes a person just has to check out Zerohedge and the comments therein:)

Danube of Thought

What JMH said.

Captain Hate

Another debt ceiling fight would suck all the oxygen out of a campaign that should be attacking Obamacare and other federal depredations on the states, the economy and the body politic

I agree with this; Obamacare has consistently tracked 60% opposed and has to be the thrust of a campaign. Frankly I'm disappointed that the Repubs just executed one cursory vote to repeal it and, when it fell apart in the Senate, said "Ok we did what we have to". WRONG. You have to keep banging on this at every opportunity to remind the muddle just what a disaster it is and to keep ownership of it front and center.

JM Hanes

Ben Franklin:

"GOP hardliners"
Tea-Party, right?

Hardliners would be more accurate. The 22 nays on the Boehner bill were a mix of Tea Party frosh and previous incumbents.


narciso:

"AS for
 the stimulus, no 'shovel ready' jobs to speak of, just a holding action, pork and $70 Billion slush fund for the Secretary of Education."

Not to put words in your mouth.....

JM Hanes

Belarus:

"While those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, those who live in the past are blind to the future."

I've always thought that Santayana adage was overrated too. Unfortunately, for those who are fond of making analogies, history never repeats itself in precisely the same way.

narciso

This seems like the same deal, that Raines cooked up, in '97 before he went on to do, sterling work for Fannie Mae, cooking the books, until they were nice and tender.

narciso

You know I'm beginning to look askance at any U Chicago grad, employed in Media, not just Brooks:

The problem with the caucus that wants to vote “no” and their supporters is that they have no alternative plan. Or rather, their only alternative plan is the firing squad—which is to say, the debt ceiling is not raised. In which case we are entering uncharted territory that involves not only a threat to the nation’s credit rating but also panic in the worldwide markets and a kind of triage when it comes to federal spending that could have all kinds of frightening consequences we can’t anticipate.

Rick Ballard

"that could have all kinds of frightening consequences we can’t anticipate."

Gosh, that might be almost as bad as relying upon CBO assumptions that are already proven to be false. Not only is the rate of growth forecast for '11 ridiculously high (and becoming more risible by the day), the revenue stream projected to flow from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in '13 is utter fantasy due to the fact that it's based (by rules) on a static analysis.

Congress may have the will to kick the can one more time but there ain't no more road left.

Cecil Turner

Good analogy narciso. Anybody with a grasp of basic arithmetic can tell you the numbers don't add up. But the Dems think they can just kick the can down the road without consequence (no doubt figuring they'll blame the resultant mess on the GOP).

And I think the likelihood of electing a GOP majority that takes no decisive action on necessary reform is a lot higher than the "danger" of Tea Party types causing fragmentation.

SWarren

"I have a concern that the GOP hardliners in the house might torpedo this deal."

That might not be a bad thing. I just have a sinking feeling that spending will never be brought under control with these stopgap measures.
Relying on Congress to make the massive cuts necessary to bring us into balance seems like a pipedream.
I personally like the "Mack Penny Plan". 1% across the board cuts,, 1 penny out of each federal dollar spent for the next six years.

Charlie (Colorado)

This whole thing not a kerfluffle in your thinking? Chaco's 2009 debt ceiling increase gives you no comfort?

That's probably overstating my point: I think the countdown clock is being overdone because everyone likes an exciting crisis, but the debt ceiling increase is needed. I agree with DoT that it we're basically got a one-hitter going here, it would be a dumb time to deliver a game-winning grand slam to the spend-more crowd.

Charlie (Colorado)

Seems like the choices being set up, are slash Defense, or raise taxes, that's the administration's default positions.

Yeah, I'm sure they are, and we'll hear more "kill Granny" in the future. The problem with conclusive wins is there aren't any.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

The 22 nays on the Boehner bill were a mix of Tea Party frosh and previous incumbents.

Less than half, 10 of 22, were tea party freshman members.

Charlie (Colorado)

You're not alone. This whole issue has been a double edged sword, which could have cut us up big time, if Boehner had lost the fight for a bill in the House.

What she said.

I'd add that finding a way to not get the bill through now that plausibly let the "hardliners" be blamed would be just about as bad.

Belarus Bytes

JMH,

"I've always thought that Santayana adage was overrated too. Unfortunately, for those who are fond of making analogies, history never repeats itself in precisely the same way"

Exactly, one should remember the past, draw lessons from it, but never let it control your actions for the future. Sometimes when they say, "This time it's different", it really is.

Ranger

I personally like the "Mack Penny Plan". 1% across the board cuts,, 1 penny out of each federal dollar spent for the next six years.

The only change I would make is that I wouldn't limit it to just 6 years, and I would make it apply to all military federal pay scales as well. The automatic 1% base line reduction should stay in effect until the 2007 spending levels are re-established (which at this rate would take about 24 years).

boris

And I think the likelihood of electing a GOP majority that takes no decisive action on necessary reform is a lot higher than the "danger" of Tea Party types causing fragmentation

Yep. Better to have a gung ho squad you have to hold back than nervous nellies you can't count on.

Also regarding before or after 2012 ... seems to me the advantage of saying "before" is to play on Tea paranoia in the dimorat and RINO ranks. Another bargaining point if you ask me.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Begs for a Caption Contest...

image

boris


As I wrote yesterday ... the dimorats and Obummer are trying to force the GOP to pass a bill that would have been political suicide for dimorats and Obummer back when they had all 3 branches of government.

It is the Tea Party that lets us spin the onus back on them. Make them take the pill damn it. What good is all that Tea Paranoia if we are not willing to exploit it?

SWarren

Amen, Boris!!

JM Hanes

narciso:

"The problem with the caucus that wants to vote “no” and their supporters is that they have no alternative plan. Or rather, their only alternative plan is the firing squad"

I think the tea parties have absolutely changed the political equation; the fact that tax hikes have been a virtual non-starter is evidence enough of that. I do think we should be careful about giving the new Tea Party freshman extravagant amounts of the credit however. Sitting Republicans have proved susceptible to considerable tea party suasion themselves, which set this stage, while the no voters seemed a little too willing to push us all over that cliff into the unknown, IMO. That threat may have worked this time, but I think their ability to move the needle will be much diminished in the design of future legislation when the sword of Damocles is not hanging directly overhead. They've had a heady experience, no doubt, but when it comes to planning, it looks to me like a goodly number of them have yet to learn the difference between tactics and strategy.

boris

"a goodly number of them have yet to learn the difference between tactics and strategy"

More you than them I'd say.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Does Sarah ever take a bad pic?

image

JM Hanes

boris:

And your strategy is?

MayBee

I think you are right. Boehner does not get the deal he got without a graphic demonstration of the reluctance of the Tea Party to go along with it. But I have to tell you, the Boehner position of doing this all again in six months struck me as very bad policy.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't really see it being an option.
The debt limit is becoming a huge argument about cuts and entitlements because the budgets have failed to be realistic for the past 4 years (at least).

Not that it would have happened, but had the Senate voted for Paul Ryan's budget, this debt ceiling argument wouldn't be taking place the way it is.

So it seems to me the problem isn't the raising of the debt ceiling, it's the lack of fiscal sanity. That isn't going to go away just because the debt ceiling finally gets raised.

Something has to be done, for real. That argument still has to happen, and soon.

boris

"And your strategy is?"

Try to make a few valid points that people can understand.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Senate votes against Harry Reid debt bill 50-49

matt

great piece, Clarice....

macphisto

"The Obama administration is quietly moving ahead on the groundwork for a possible civilian nuclear trade agreement with Saudi Arabia"

he wants to sell plutonium...to the people who have all the oil. i want to go home.

Jack is Back!

Anyone watching the FINA Aquatics Worlds from Shanghai? Our kids looked good - men just won the 400 Medley Relay. But its the pictures of Shanghai that should please Friedman - it must remind him of the LA basin in the 60's and 70's. Well that and the rampant corruption within the Transport Ministry (ie. HSR crashes and responses therefore).

Boatbuilder

JMH--the problem with moderate republicans is--why would anybody who accepts the premises they accept vote for them, when they have the Dem candidate saying the same things, only with the benefit of full media support?
It seems to me that the Republicans win when they stand for something--and what the "Tea Party radicals" stand for is exactly what most of the taxpaying public wants--a real commitment to fiscal sanity. If the Republicans don't stand for that--if all they do is mouth platitudes and vote to kick the can down the road anyway--then the uncommited, but unhappy taxpayer isn't going to vote for them.
Any politician who hasn't heard loud and clear that the public wants real controls on federal spending isn't paying attention. We know they are paying attention. A politician who doesn't support real cuts in this political climate--and very few of them do--is more committed to spending than to doing what the voters want. That is what pisses off the voters, and when the Republicans go along, it turns them off as well.
Go Tea Party Radicals! (Is Marco Rubio a Tea Party Radical? Eric Cantor? Paul Ryan? If the choice is those guys or the Romney crowd, count me as a radical).

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Top Syrian Generals Defect – Announce Formation of Free Syrian Army to Fight Assad.

JM Hanes

boris:

"Try to make a few valid points that people can understand."

I must have underestimated your cognitive skills. Perhaps you should just scroll on by.

JM Hanes

Boatbuilder:

"JMH--the problem with moderate republicans is--why would anybody who accepts the premises they accept vote for them, when they have the Dem candidate saying the same things, only with the benefit of full media support?"

Do I sound like a Democrat to you?

boris

"Do I sound like a Democrat to you?"

You seem to grant them more credit for sincerity than I would.

maryrose

A combination of teaparty repubs and moderate repubs is a good thing if only as a contrast to the totally liberal partisan dems. We all hoped for more from Manchin but alas were disappointed again. Lieberman provides us with more support than any dem including Nelson of Nebraska and Pryor of Arkansas. You know those two are not voting the way their constituents want them to in the senate. Murkowski is the exception because she is now technically a dem voted for by dems. At least the Vermont senators are voting the way they have to in order to be re-elected in Vermont.

Danube of Thought

"The debt limit is becoming a huge argument about cuts and entitlements"

Entitlements haven't entered the picture yet. My strategy would be to get the senate and WH in 2012, then do what needs to be done.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Greg Sargent, WaPo:

Anything can happen, but it appears the GOP is on the verge of pulling off a political victory that may be unprecedented in American history. Republicans may succeed in using the threat of a potential outcome that they themselves acknowledged would lead to national catastrophe as leverage to extract enormous concessions from Democrats, without giving up anything of any significance in return.
MayBee

Entitlements haven't entered the picture yet. My strategy would be to get the senate and WH in 2012, then do what needs to be done.

They did enter the argument, they just aren't being addressed this time around.

I'm not sure I'm behind another year of not producing a real budget.

Danube of Thought

How can they be forced to produce one?

2012 is the last best hope for saving the country, and to me it trumps everything.

Jack is Back!

How the hell can you find 3 Trillion in spending cuts without looking at "entitlements"?

But again, spending cuts alone without regulatory and tax reform do nothing to remove uncertainty in the business and consumer community.

Rubio won't be making any new taxpayers out of this smoke and mirrors display of real politic.

matt

Sara, Al Jazeera is reporting that the tanks are rolling into Hama with hundreds dead so far.

I may have non-LUN'ed up my Ummah summary the other night and will re-LUN it.

Things are not looking good. I watched a 25 minute discussion of the Turkish situation on AJTV and they had a retired Turkish general on with a Turkish reporter and an outside analyst.

Turkey is a ball of confusion right now. The Islamists are using both the democratic process and strong arm tactics in order to to Islamicize the constitution. Since they're less corrupt and oppressive than the generals Erdogan's coalition is winning. This is making all of the Euros very happy, of course.

The military as has been its wont were busy conspiring in the name of the secular revolution.

So we now can add Turkey into the mix of this devil's cocktail that is the newly developing Middle East. Lessee....Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon...am I missing anybody?

I think Hillary is going to be found babbling and curled up in the fetal position soon.

MayBee

How can they be forced to produce one?

Presumably, the country needs money to run. We almost had a budget shut down last time the Senate refused to produce a budget. If the House refuses a continuing resolution, someone has to produce something.

All I'm saying is, the arguments about spending are going to happen again. And if the GOP just lets the Dem Senate spend what they will, what will they run on to win 2012?

MayBee

Sorry, I mean we almost had a government shut down. Twice this year Obama has threatened that checks won't go out due to spending arguments.
I don't know how that is to be avoided in either October 2011 or March 2012, when the government needs it's money. Unless the House just lets the Senate spend what it wants.

Buford Gooch

Interesting conversation going on here. Lot's of people whose opinion I respect greatly seem to be saying we need to take a large bite of a turd sandwich in order to get something more appetizing in 2012. Perhaps, but we absolutely need to play chicken right to the edge of the cliff.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Matt: First the Turkish military commanders quit, now Syria. Where is it all going?

Ben Franklin

"Exactly, one should remember the past, draw lessons from it, but never let it control your actions for the future. Sometimes when they say, "This time it's different", it really is."

BB;

I'm gonna need some help in understanding this.

History should teach us, unless times are different?

Or, Control is the demon word. Let us not be handcuffed
into it's lessons.

Help me out.

Danube of Thought

I just think that entitlements have to be adressed in a radical way, and it simply can't be done when the only party interested in doing it controls only the lower chamber of the legislature.

Granny

@Sara, re your photo caption:
"It must have been something I ate"

Ben Franklin

"-the problem with moderate republicans is--why would anybody who accepts the premises they accept vote for them, when they have the Dem candidate saying the same things, only with the benefit of full media support?"

The answer is so obvious it could be called an 'absolute', (as overused and trite the term has become).

The "Muddle" in the puddle of humanity exists in one universe; the Middle (not Middle Earth, Hobbits!).

Both the Left and Right are well-informed within their "bubble".
But the Muddle sees only the middle, by abdication to his participatory duty.

It's the only thing that matters, in the final analysis.

MayBee

I just think that entitlements have to be adressed in a radical way, and it simply can't be done when the only party interested in doing it controls only the lower chamber of the legislature.

They were addressed in the budget bill the House already passed. So while they may not be able to be fixed now, the argument is going to happen when budget negotiations with the Senate come up.
As are additional spending cuts.
As are cries for additional revenue.
So not having the debt ceiling become an issue isn't going to solve the problem of ugly spending/revenue/entitlement arguments prior to 2012.

Now, practically, I agree with you, that entitlements probably can't really be fixed with the way the power is divided in DC right now.
But that isn't going to stop the debate from having to happen. Even if the House decided to pass a different budget without entitlement reform. That is still going to be an argument, and it is going to be a big signal not to take the GOP seriously when they promise reforms.

Pushing these arguments past 2012 simply can't happen.

Belarus Bytes

BF,

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that history can be a guide in that it illustrates what happens if you do X under the conditions of ABC.

My contention is that the next time you want to do X, it is unlikely that the exact same conditions of ABC will exist. This means that you have to make judgments as to the effect the different variables in existence now will have as compared to the original conditions of ABC. So I say learn from history but be prepared to do some independent thinking.

Ben Franklin

"So I say learn from history but be prepared to do some independent thinking."

Thanks, BB. It seems we keep passing each other like ships in the night. My schedule, your schedule. It's amazing to me how many camp out here.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

BF: We have to deal in today. The old way has failed and the problems right now today demand new, or, perhaps the lesson is that we need different solutions.

It was naive of Obama and downright evil of Pelosi and Reid to advance the meme that the government has unlimited resources to fund every feel good project the left has ever conceived. The wealthy aren't wealthy enough to fund such a government and the not so wealthy are completely tapped out, if they even have a job in the first place.

However, with 2 laps to go and my boy Jeff in 2nd and running faster than Menard in first, I'm distracted.

maryrose

DOT:
I agree and after success in 2012 the needed reforms will be put in place. Shell-sHocked dems will want to get on board after their devastating losses in the senate render them virtually powerless.With serious smart politicians like Ryan and Rubio{who made mincemeat out of Kerry} And Rand Paul{I love that Mack Paul 1% deal } the road to success entitlement reform will be set. The fact that Pelosi is unhappy is proof enough for me that repubs have a victory within reach and that some House dems will vote for it if they want to be re-elected in 2012.The added bonus is that Reid and Obama have been marginalized and McConnell looks like the only adult in the room.

Rick Ballard

MayBee,

Have you seen any political benefit derived by the Democrat Party or the President from the tactical moves employed to date? Did they put the skeer in the geezers? Rattle the markets to the point of panic? Make any babies cry from fear of starvation?

I'm not saying there are no wolves but I don't see a particular downside to letting the Democrats gnash their teeth and rend their garments on their journey to the outer darkness. Grinding out another continuing resolution in the Senate will give them a fine opportunity to do so.

Ben Franklin

I'm sorry, Sara. I can't accept that only the Dems are evil and corrupt.

It's a Bi-Partisan issue.....

Belarus Bytes

BF,

I can live with ships passing in the night. What I really hate are when the ships are crashing into each other.

MayBee

I'm not saying there are no wolves but I don't see a particular downside to letting the Democrats gnash their teeth and rend their garments on their journey to the outer darkness. Grinding out another continuing resolution in the Senate will give them a fine opportunity to do so.

I'm not saying there is a downside.
I'm simply trying to say that the idea that we've put off another such argument by passing a debt ceiling that extends past 2012 is false.
The argument is going to happen at budget time. Whether the Senate ultimately creates a budget or begs for another CR, the argument is still going to happen.

Ben Franklin

" when the ships are crashing into each other."

How is that...?

maryrose

Maybee:
It's ok if the argument happens because it the dems fault for not passing a budget. The House passed one which they rejected. It's up to the dems to get Reid's ass in gear to accomplish something in the Senate besides voting down and tabling House legislation. The dems look like the slackers and Obama appears impotent. I can't wait for the debates when Obama has to defend his horrific record. the political ads write themselves and will be brutal. Repubs are the only ones offering solutions. It's the perfect storm for 2012.Obama wanted to stck the bad economy on the repubs but he owns it through and through per Wasserman-Scultz.

Belarus Bytes

BF,

Didn't mean to be cryptic, I enjoy spirited debate and conversation as long as it doesn't degenerate into schoolyard name calling which is what I consider ships crashing into each other.

maryrose

Obama is stuck in stalemated Libya when the real action and massive deaths are in Syria. Once again Obummer has gotten it totally wrong and is in over his head.

MayBee

Maybee:
It's ok if the argument happens because it the dems fault for not passing a budget.

I'm not really arguing whether it's good or bad if the argument happens. I'm just trying to say (obviously not at all clearly), that although Ignatz and JMH seem (to me) to be saying that putting the debt ceiling debate off until 2012 is beneficial to the GOP because it isn't the best way for Republicans to make the case for fiscal sanity.

I'm saying it was only used as a way to argue for fiscal sanity because the budget process has been so corrupted by Democrats refusing to properly pass budgets the last 4 years.

But now, with the debt ceiling argument behind us, the budget process is still ahead of us. And it is basically the same argument.

Gmax

Greg Sargent at the Wa Po is apoplectic. Says the Republicans on the verge of a stunning one sided victory and give up nothing. I would love to be in the same room with him so I could make fun of his red face and bulging eyes... LOL

Boatbuilder

JMH--"Do I sound like a Democrat to you?"

No, you don't. You sound like Bob Dole.

narciso

I've rarely found Sargent to either know the truth, or transmit it, so I take him with a
bucket of salt.

OT, anyone ever deal with Frostwire, and bit torrents

Captain Hate

maryrose, where are you getting your Syria info. Farid Ghadry's website is no longer, probably from the chinless opthalmologist's goons and toadies, so I can't get any info from him unless he's posted anything at PJM recently. Maybe Assad's lack of a chin reminds El JEFe of Steadman Shabbaz; yes I know that doesn't make any sense but neither does anything else Ear Leader does.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

I'm sorry, Sara. I can't accept that only the Dems are evil and corrupt.

It's a Bi-Partisan issue.....

Oh, I agree, there is plenty of fault to spread around, but as I've said before, at this point I don't care whose fault what is, just accept that whatever was done in the past either caused the problem or made it worse and different solutions are needed now.

I cannot stand the game playing by both sides. To agree or not agree on a solution being dependent on how much the other side is gored, is not only childish, it is a disaster.

Frankly, if I were Queen for a Day, I would say, okay, you've all had your chance to save your pet spending projects, now everyone will sacrifice with a 1, 2, 3, XX% of cuts across the government. Everyone gives up something.

When I asked here why we should be for or against the BBA, the main answer was something about how it would hinder the president in case of war. Since I think the government's principal business is and always should be national security and defense, make an exception, and include everything else. I know the dems would balk as they don't want their welfare projects (or in the president's case his love of student loans) taking a back seat to security and defense, but suicide bombs don't ask what party you happen to be registered with or what your political leanings are.

I'm glad the president has been sidelined. A president should lead with at least a semblance of doing what is good for the whole country. As long as he is leading us over a cliff, I'm glad those with a little more fiscal sanity have said, "get out of the way."

We cannot continue with business as usual, no matter which side you are on. Trying to help everyone just means no one gets helped.

Captain Hate

bit torrents as in download stuff?

Danube of Thought

MayBee, I think a likely scenario is that the house GOP passes a Ryan-like budget again, and the Senate does nothing again.

Boatbuilder

BF--Ronald Reagan--radical--moved the muddle a long way--by pointing out the obvious and not letting the opposition set the agenda. If what the muddle hears is Republicans saying that Republicans who want real spending reforms are insane hayseeds, the muddle assumes that the Republicans who want real spending reforms are insane hayseeds.

What happens when we win in 2012 and we elect a bunch of "centrist" Republicans and a "moderate" Republican president? Do we get the type of fiscal restraint we had with GWB and a Republican congress? Whoopie. This is the time to show the public that this is not "business as usual." I have never been a "radical" but I am fed up--and every non liberal I talk to--Dem and Republican--is fed up.

JM Hanes

Boatbuilder:

Bob Dole? Ouch! I just don't see writing off moderates like Boehner as Democrats in principle-free Republican clothing.

"Is Marco Rubio a Tea Party Radical? Eric Cantor? Paul Ryan?"

"Radicals" and "extremists" are Democratic formulations, not mine, but for the purposes of distinguishing the group of naysayers on the Boehner bill from other Tea Party favs in Congress, I'll call them the Intransigents. Cantor and Ryan saw the wisdom in voting for Boehner's bill -- before the BBA was added. If the Intransigents want to bring a BBA bill to the floor once a month till Kingdom come, that's fine with me. I'm just not clear on precisely what adding poison pills to their own party's legislation is supposed to accomplish, when there's no way a BBA is going to get through Congress unless Republicans take the Senate in 2012 in the first place.

Nor have I heard the Intransigents lay out precisely what they envisioned coming to pass if the debt ceiling weren't raised. Did they really picture some sort of frantic bi-partisan attempts to cut spending? Or nothing much at all? Or economic chaos from which a new and shiny tea party city on the hill would somehow emerge? Did they think a government shutdown wouldn't send us into a political or economic tailspin? Or explained the ostensible benefits of the disasters if it did? Have they posited any death by debt ceiling scenario which would help Republicans take the Senate in the aftermath? Is courting whole hosts of unintended consequences really what passes for taking a principled stand on the need for fiscal responsibility? Americans may overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment, but can anyone see them applauding a failed symbolic attempt if it throws government, and the country with it, into chaos?

Maybe they had a plan. Maybe they had a convincing argument that ignoring the debt ceiling wouldn't mean taking the Republican Party down in flames just to make a point. I didn't hear it, and apparently the vast majority of the 60 member Tea Party Caucus in the House didn't either.

matt

speaking of Steadman Shabazz, his minions are back to blackmailing banks into loaning money for mortgages to people who ain't got none. Same as it ever was.....LUN

Pops

How's this for a deal with the tax raises.

WE will raise the taz rates on the 'rich'.

But, if revenue goes up from the 'rich', it all goes to pay existing debt - not new spending.

If the amount of revenue decreases, or if the raised rates cause economic growth to slow, thus reducing revenue - then liberals will accept cuts equal to those reductions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame