Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Boehner failed. Now what?
Topic Started: Jul 29 2011, 03:29 AM (336 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
h/t Quirt.

Quote:
 
Anyone who says they know exactly what happens next is lying. One popular theory is that Boehner's failure moves the final bill somewhat to the left. It proves that any compromise will need a large number of Democratic votes, and that means Boehner needs to agree to the sort of bill that can pick up a large number of Democratic votes.

Another possibility is that Boehner pulls back and moves to his right. His speakership is undoubtedly endangered, and it's possible he will choose to shore up his flank rather than raise the debt ceiling. That would be dangerous for the economy, but it is not, given last night's humiliation, unthinkable.

Perhaps the primary wild card is what happens when the market opens today. If Wall Street assesses this as yet another day of Washington nonsense en route to an inevitable deal, then congressional leaders will find they have a bit more time to dawdle and negotiate. If the market decides that Boehner's inability to control his caucus is evidence that things really are different this time, it could drop precipitously. If that happens, the leadership of both parties might dispense with the legislation meant to message and figure out how to pass the legislation meant to lift the debt ceiling. It would be about time.

It's really not that hard to see what the final deal will eventually look like. And in a sense, last night's vote -- or, more to the point, non-vote -- is irrelevant to it. Boehner was aways going to need to assemble a coalition of more moderate Republicans and Democrats to get a deal. Last night's vote was a referendum on Boehner, but it had little to do with reaching an actual deal. So the optimistic spin is that the GOP's failure will move the Republican leadership to embrace the bipartisan strategy they were always going to have to adopt at the end. The pessimistic spin is that they now know pushing a compromise bill through the House could truly harm their careers and will hide from it. But they can only hide for so long. That's the problem with being in the leadership. Eventually, you have to lead.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...gI_blog.html?hpid=z1
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Cue the latest Boehner episode-inspired spoof of Hitler's rant from "The Downfall" with the last line's caption reads:

Harry Ried is now our only hope.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
you think he'd figure out by now that his 'stubborness' is going to cost him big time.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Yes he should. The president should be more willing to compromise, especially since elections have consequences.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
hello? don't you believe the president is excellent in negotiation?
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Sure. So is the Easter Bunny.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Jul 29 2011, 05:07 AM
Yes he should. The president should be more willing to compromise, especially since elections have consequences.
The President has.

In the context of "raising the debt ceiling," the President has gone
from "clean bill to raise the debt ceiling"
to "tying the debt ceiling to deficit reduction cuts and revenue"
to "$3 of spending cuts for every $1 of incremental revenue"
to "$6 of spending cuts for every $1 of incremental revenue"
to the latest Harry Reid proposal "all spening cuts, no new revenue."

If you do not recognize that to be "compromise," you do not know what "compromise" is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
In other words they have no real interest in fiscal responsibility, just in positioning for the 2012 election. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater so that Obama doesn't have to address real spending cuts this term.

You do not know what leadership is. Nor do they.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Jul 29 2011, 06:20 AM
In other words they have no real interest in fiscal responsibility, just in positioning for the 2012 election. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater so that Obama doesn't have to address real spending cuts this term.

You do not know what leadership is. Nor do they.
HELLO!!!

The President's original "grand bargain" with $3 Trillion in cuts (and $1 Trillion in revenue) was addressing real spending cuts.

Harry Reid's latest plan, one endorsed by Obama and Pelosi, contains $2.2 Trillion in cuts as scored by the CBO (compared the Beohner plan's $850 Billion in cuts in cuts as scored by the CBO). That is addressing real spending cut, more so than the Boehner's latest offering.

What's this accusation about "positioning for the 2012 election"? You talking about the GOPers, Tea Partiers, the President, who? Which of their positions you specifically see as "positioning for the 2012 election"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RosemaryTwo
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I have no idea what to expect.

I have to think that it's a complicated rubric behind-the-scenes and the media is only scratching the surface.

I find it all very suspenseful, though.

I enjoy listening to all the viewpoints and debate.
"Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jul 29 2011, 06:32 AM
Mikhailoh
Jul 29 2011, 06:20 AM
In other words they have no real interest in fiscal responsibility, just in positioning for the 2012 election. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater so that Obama doesn't have to address real spending cuts this term.

You do not know what leadership is. Nor do they.
HELLO!!!

The President's original "grand bargain" with $3 Trillion in cuts (and $1 Trillion in revenue) was addressing real spending cuts.

Harry Reid's latest plan, one endorsed by Obama and Pelosi, contains $2.2 Trillion in cuts as scored by the CBO (compared the Beohner plan's $850 Billion in cuts in cuts as scored by the CBO). That is addressing real spending cut, more so than the Boehner's latest offering.

What's this accusation about "positioning for the 2012 election"? You talking about the GOPers, Tea Partiers, the President, who? Which of their positions you specifically see as "positioning for the 2012 election"?
If Reid's bill is so smokin' hot, why has he rebuffed McConnel's call to bring it to the Senate floor?

Twice?

And just to set the record straight, $1T of Reid's cuts come out of military spending. He essentially extrapolates current spending in Afghanistan and Iraq for ten years and cuts it all out of the budget.

That's a no-go in the House.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
apple
Jul 29 2011, 05:09 AM
hello? don't you believe the president is excellent in negotiation?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Axtremus
Jul 29 2011, 06:32 AM
Mikhailoh
Jul 29 2011, 06:20 AM
In other words they have no real interest in fiscal responsibility, just in positioning for the 2012 election. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater so that Obama doesn't have to address real spending cuts this term.

You do not know what leadership is. Nor do they.
HELLO!!!

The President's original "grand bargain" with $3 Trillion in cuts (and $1 Trillion in revenue) was addressing real spending cuts.

Harry Reid's latest plan, one endorsed by Obama and Pelosi, contains $2.2 Trillion in cuts as scored by the CBO (compared the Beohner plan's $850 Billion in cuts in cuts as scored by the CBO). That is addressing real spending cut, more so than the Boehner's latest offering.

What's this accusation about "positioning for the 2012 election"? You talking about the GOPers, Tea Partiers, the President, who? Which of their positions you specifically see as "positioning for the 2012 election"?
My God - you leftwing booger eaters are truly stuck on stupid.

There is NO SPENDING REDUCTIONS IN ANY OF THESE "PLANS". Not even in Boehner's.

Let's use some simple math. Here is a spending cut. Last year you spend a hundred dollars. This year you are going to only spend 80 dollars.

THAT is a spending cut.


This is NOT a spending cut. Last year you spent 100 dollars. Your plan is to increase that by ten dollars a year for the next ten years. Your wife tells you you can't afford that, so you finally agree to only increase your spending by 8 dollars a year for the next ten years, and then you run out claiming you've cut your budget and reduced your spending.


What will happen next? No idea. The democrats are determined to destroy the country. But what SHOULD come next is a flat out revolution, and the entire democrat party be thrown in jail.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jul 29 2011, 07:14 PM
Axtremus
Jul 29 2011, 06:32 AM
Mikhailoh
Jul 29 2011, 06:20 AM
In other words they have no real interest in fiscal responsibility, just in positioning for the 2012 election. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater so that Obama doesn't have to address real spending cuts this term.

You do not know what leadership is. Nor do they.
HELLO!!!

The President's original "grand bargain" with $3 Trillion in cuts (and $1 Trillion in revenue) was addressing real spending cuts.

Harry Reid's latest plan, one endorsed by Obama and Pelosi, contains $2.2 Trillion in cuts as scored by the CBO (compared the Beohner plan's $850 Billion in cuts in cuts as scored by the CBO). That is addressing real spending cut, more so than the Boehner's latest offering.

What's this accusation about "positioning for the 2012 election"? You talking about the GOPers, Tea Partiers, the President, who? Which of their positions you specifically see as "positioning for the 2012 election"?
If Reid's bill is so smokin' hot, why has he rebuffed McConnel's call to bring it to the Senate floor?

Twice?

And just to set the record straight, $1T of Reid's cuts come out of military spending. He essentially extrapolates current spending in Afghanistan and Iraq for ten years and cuts it all out of the budget.

That's a no-go in the House.
That's why I don't quite Reid's claim or Boehner's claim. I quote CBO's scoring, where the same accounting standard is used for both proposals.

Regardless of whether Larry (refer to his post above) recognize any plan as having "spending cut," ...

... bottom line is still the same, Reid's plan spends less than Boehner's plan.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
... bottom line is still the same, Reid's plan spends less than Boehner's plan.



No it doesn't. It uses expenses that would be dropping off the budget anyway, and calls them cuts. Reid isn't cutting a damned thing, and if you actually believe he is, you need help.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply