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

Compromise is weakness to the GOP. Compromise is even sold as democrats getting their way.

Quote:

Compromise is weakness to the GOP. Compromise is even sold as democrats getting their way.

It looks to me like the REBUBS dont have to compromise because the DEMS always fold at the end of the day. Look no further than to the spineless asshole in chief for evidence of this.

Your spin is desperate.

The press has been filled with reports all day about an agreement. There’s no agreement until we’ve talked to you. There is a framework in place that would cut spending by a larger amount than we raise the debt limit, and cap future spending to limit the growth of government. It would do so without any job-killing tax hikes. And it would also guarantee the American people the vote they have been denied in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment, while creating, I think, some new incentives for past opponents of a BBA to support it.

My hope would be to file it and have it on the floor as soon as possible. I realize that’s not ideal, and I apologize for it. But after I go through it, you’ll realize it’s pretty much the framework we’ve been operating in.

Since Day One of this Congress, we’ve gone toe-to-toe with the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate on behalf of our people we were sent here to represent.

Remember how this all started: the White House demanded a “clean” debt limit hike with no spending cuts and reforms attached. We stuck together, and frankly made them give up on that.

Then they shifted to demanding a “balanced” approach – equal parts spending cuts and tax hikes. With this framework, they’ve given up on that, too.

I’m gonna tell you, this has been a long battle – we’ve fought valiantly – and frankly we’ve done it by listening to the American people. And as a result, our framework is now on the table that will end this crisis in a manner that meets our principles of smaller government.

Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world. But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.

There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May – when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it – every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted.

hawk, If you buy a house with a mortgage, and sign a contract to pay so much for it, and renege on the payments, because you then say "I refuse to pay it, because it costs too much!" What kind of rationale do you use to justify not paying it?

I said Republican congress persons poll the worst. I never said "significantly." You're making more **** up to try and dig yourself out. The poll does support exactly what I said: GOP polls the worst

You remain boringly predictable, hawk.

Quote:

I said Republican congress persons poll the worst. I never said "significantly." You're making more **** up to try and dig yourself out. The poll does support exactly what I said: GOP polls the worst

It was implied by you pointing it out and claiming the difference. Had you been reporting on the poll with no spin you would have said something to the effect of " there is almost no difference in how Democrats and Republicans in Congress are viewed, they both have abysmal job approval ratings of around 30%"

That's how most democratic republics work. Are you denying our Constitutional framework on how our government should work?

Obama, after all, could have accepted earlier GOP plans that included additional tax revenue — including one that he was negotiating with Boehner. The speaker, who seemed willing to allow $800 billion in additional revenue, walked out of the talks when Obama asked for more.

Now, according to Democratic critics, the poor and the middle class are at greater risk from cuts.

One senior Senate Democratic aide said that averting a default was a victory of sorts for Obama, “but when you look at the emerging details, spending cuts and triggers with no revenue, the president got rolled.”

And that gets to the truth of this deal, and perhaps of Washington in this age: it’s all about lowest-common denominator lawmaking. There are no taxes. No entitlement cuts. No stimulus. No infrastructure. Less in actual, specific deficit reduction than there was in the Simpson-Bowles, Ryan, or Obama plans, and even than there was in the Biden/Cantor or Obama/Boehner talks. The two sides didn’t concede more in order to get more. They conceded almost nothing in order to get a trigger and a process, not to mention avoid a financial catastrophe.

There’s reason to be skeptical that a trigger and a process will do much to change these basic dynamics. We’ve now attempted to get a deficit-reducing grand bargain by yoking it to both a near-shutdown and a near-default, not to mention a series of negotiations, commissions, and senatorial gangs. None of it has been enough. And that’s because bipartisan commissions and terrible consequences have not been enough to convince Republicans to agree to revenues, and revenues are fundamental to large deficit-reduction compromise.

Perhaps this deal signals the end of the need to actually reach an agreement, however. If the Joint Committee fails, the trigger begins cutting spending. If negotiations over taxes fail, the Bush tax cuts expire and revenues rise by $3.6 trillion. Neither scenario is anyone’s first choice on policy grounds. But you can get to both scenarios without Republicans explicitly conceding to higher taxes or Democrats explicitly conceding to entitlement cuts in the absence of higher taxes. Politically, that’s the lowest-common denominator, and that might mean it’s also the only deal the two parties can actually make. But that’s because it’s the only deal that doesn’t require, well, making a deal

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.