26
   

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

 
 
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:35 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

But - of course not risking your health...


You know? This just points to how clueless folks are about the anxiety this WHOLLY MANUFACTURED crisis has created. I almost never watch cspan but I did on Friday and I was shocked of how worried sick people are about their future if interest rates go up, or (if elderly) their SS/medicare benefits get reduced.

I don't like that we've got a society that's as dependent on gov't support as it is either, but to artificially create a crisis without thinking about the impact that this is having on the physical, financial, and emotional well-being of the citizenry is appalling.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:37 am
@High Seas,
Ah.. so you are advising them that not paying SS recipients and military personnel will have no real world consequences.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:40 am
@JPB,
What is more shocking is that many Americans believe what the tea partiers are doing is the right thing to do; holding our government hostage.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:41 am
@JPB,
Quote:
I almost never watch cspan but I did on Friday and I was shocked of how worried sick people are about their future if interest rates go up, or (if elderly) their SS/medicare benefits get reduced.

Do you think that people shouldn't be realistically concerned about such things?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:42 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

High Seas wrote:

But - of course not risking your health...


You know? This just points to how clueless folks are about the anxiety this WHOLLY MANUFACTURED crisis has created. I almost never watch cspan but I did on Friday and I was shocked of how worried sick people are about their future if interest rates go up, or (if elderly) their SS/medicare benefits get reduced.

I don't like that we've got a society that's as dependent on gov't support as it is either, but to artificially create a crisis without thinking about the impact that this is having on the physical, financial, and emotional well-being of the citizenry is appalling.

I couldn't agree with you more - the only purpose of this "entirely manufactured crisis" is to postpone the next debt ceiling vote beyond 2012. Scaring debtholders, people on Social Security (funded through 2019) and military pensions is beneath contempt. An Obamacharade!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:49 am
@firefly,
Unfortunately, it's not only US seniors and military that are worried; the economy of the world is at stake here, and stock markets around the world have already lost trillions of their investments. They also know that the cost of purchasing anything in the future is going to increase including interest on buying cars and homes. That's an added cost that could have supported higher taxes to benefit everyone.

If you ever worried about inflation in the past, it's almost guaranteed for our future with this debacle.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:51 am
@firefly,
I think it's out of our hands beyond letting our representatives know how we want them to vote, which is precisely what the President suggested we do.

It will be what it will be. Between now and then we can keep the pressure on those who cast votes. We'll know more come Wednesday. I think the leadership is doing everything they can to paint a "we'll get this done" message to keep the markets from tanking. There are also many, many behind the scenes discussions taking place at all levels.

I hope that everyone calling in to cspan also called those elected to represent them to do just that.

I won't say that they shouldn't worry. I'm saying I've chosen not to worry because my worrying won't change anything between now and Tuesday. I'll worry on Wednesday if I need to but in the meantime my representatives know exactly how I feel about this situation and that it will very likely impact my vote next year if they allow the credit rating to drop or they allow us to be taken hostage again before the next election.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:53 am
@JPB,
Good advise; especially the part about "it's beyond our control, and worrying about it is a waste of energy - and bad for our health."

que sera sera...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 10:58 am
@High Seas,
Last time I checked it wasn't Obama that wanted to put all those conditions on raising the debt ceiling.

You are arguing that the person that didn't take the matches away from the arsonist is responsible for the fire.
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:06 am
@High Seas,
It will come as no surprise to you that we disagree on where the contempt should lie. I'm getting the feeling that the TPers are seeing that this is there one chance to get the thing they want the most - a BBA - and will do anything to see that happen. To go through this again before the people have a chance to vote on how they feel about these tactics is a disservice to the voters. I'm quasi-neutral on the need for a BBA to accomplish what nearly everyone knows we need to accomplish. The TPers in the House will all be up for reelection in 2012. Let the voters decide.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:10 am
@parados,
Quote:
You are arguing that the person that didn't take the matches away from the arsonist is responsible for the fire.

I think High Seas is also arguing that there is no real fire--all that smoke that's getting into everyone's eyes and making it hard to breath is coming from smoke canisters the Democrats and Obama are shooting off. Until the house burns down, folks like that can't face reality--and then it's too late.

And, I would argue that the person who didn't take the matches away from the arsonist does share responsibility for the fire. You don't stand around and just watch arsonists play with matches. The Democrats and Obama have to bear some responsibilty for letting it get to this point--as should the more moderate Republicans.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
And, if enough of them believe it then they'll reelect the tea partyiers and even increase their numbers. The debt ceiling increase needs to be extended to pay the bills that we're already obligated to pay until such time as the voters get a change to weigh in with their votes. The freshman class was elected by voters at the polls. If they're so confident of their position then they'll be successful next time too.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:56 am
@firefly,
Spot on!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:57 am
@JPB,
True; that's what I've been saying all along; we must take responsibility for voting the tea partiers into our government. The Taliban didn't.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 11:59 am
There was an actual debate between Durbin and McCain on the floor.

Cloture vote fails 50-49 after a no vote by Reid on his own bill which allows him to keep it open for amendment. In the meantime the House has adjourned and will reconvene on Monday.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 12:08 pm
@firefly,
I would agree that this is a "manufactured crisis." There is no reason that we should be on the brink of whatever we are on the the brink of.
It is silly. Plain and simple silly.
Congress and the President will muddle through.
I believe that the next election for President (Nov, 2011) is not the big one. Rather, it is the Republican primaries for congressional seats next spring and summer. Internecine warfare for the GOP.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 12:14 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, Excellent word use.
Quote:
in·ter·ne·cine
adj
\ˌin-tər-ˈne-ˌsēn, -ˈnē-sən, -ˈnē-ˌsīn, -nə-ˈsēn; in-ˈtər-nə-ˌsēn\
Definition of INTERNECINE
1
: marked by slaughter : deadly; especially : mutually destructive
2
: of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group <bitter internecine feuds>
See internecine defined for English-language learners »
See internecine defined for kids »
Examples of INTERNECINE

a political party that has suffered because of bitter internecine rivalries
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 12:21 pm
Quote:
In the House, a likely struggle for 218 votes
By Mike Lillis - 07/31/11 01:59 PM ET

House leaders in both parties have their work cut out if they hope to pass a debt-ceiling package being finalized by the White House and Senate Republicans.

Although the details of the near-agreement are still emerging, early reports indicate it includes contentious provisions sure to alienate both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.

If both the left and right flanks of the lower chamber unite in opposition, it would fall to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to forge a more centrist, bipartisan coalition to get the bill across the finish line – just as they did to cobble together support for the unpopular Wall Street bailout in 2008.

It won't be easy.

Boehner, for instance, will have to convince his troops to swallow a deficit-reduction strategy without direct ties to a balanced budget amendment – a non-starter with many conservative members. Last week, Boehner tried to push such a bill through the lower chamber, but, despite a commanding majority, GOP leaders couldn't marshal Republican support to pass the bill.

Even with the addition of the constitutional amendment, the bill squeaked by with just two votes to spare. Twenty-two Republicans' opposed their leadership's bill.

"I need to see the bill mandate a Balanced Budget Amendment immediately," Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said, explaining his "no" vote.

Democratic leaders face the threat of a similar insurrection. Although they were surprisingly successful rallying their caucus behind a debt-limit bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.), many liberal members have warned that their support was merely political, and is no indication of how they would vote next time around.

The liberals had hammered the Reid plan for its steep cuts in domestic spending and the absence of new revenues – provisions that reportedly remain in the deal being finalized by President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

"The Reid plan is the outer depths of hell, but still hell," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. "I voted for it to strengthen Reid’s hand so it doesn’t get worse, but it doesn’t mean I’ll vote for it in the end."

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D) also held her nose to support the Reid bill. But the California liberal also warned that she would oppose any plan that moves further to the right.

"I cannot vote for anything worse,” she said.

Nadler told MSNBC Saturday that 80 percent of House Democrats feel the same way.

McConnell on Sunday indicated the he and the White House are "very close" to sealing a deal to slash deficit spending by up to $3 trillion over 10 years and raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit.

To sweeten the deal for Republicans, Obama has reportedly offered to exclude specific tax-revenue hikes, at least in the near-term. To entice Democrats, McConnell is eying a provision allowing Obama to hike the debt-ceiling through 2012 in order to preclude another debate on the thorny issue before next year's elections. The Hill
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 12:45 pm
@JPB,
The hill is higher now; it doesn't look possible that either side is willing to compromise. DOA.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2011 12:46 pm
From RedState

Quote:
This week, whether you listened to Rush, Sean, Mark, or even me filling in for Boortz, we’ve been telling you so. This whole farce in Washington is a way to get more tax revenue from you and despite public pronouncements from the Republicans that they were holding the line on tax revenue they were either (A) complicit behind the scenes or (B) going to get played.

We were right.

What we know about the pending deal is that the Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to a Deficit Commission. Despite the media spin — and the spin of some Republican sycophants — the deficit commission, which will be a super committee of the Congress, will have the power to come up with new tax revenue.

And if the Congress rejects the Commission’s demands for new tax revenue, there will be a trigger that cuts both medicare funding and defense funding.

Except, the defense funding cuts will be much more massive than the medicare cuts. And the GOP, in addition to seeing defense cut, would be hacking off seniors right before an election.

In other words, Republican Leaders are asking their members to accept tax increases or massive defense cuts and senior anger right before the election. Oh, and the medicare cuts technically wouldn’t come from beneficiaries, but from providers. Those same providers who’ll just stop taking medicare patients.

It’s not that the GOP got played so much as GOP leaders were collaborating on this. Boehner wanted a grand bargain and now he’s going to get it along with tax increases.

But hey! At least we’ll get a vote on a balanced budget amendment — one without a requirement for a super majority to raise taxes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.35 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:06:27