RSS Feed Menu
There’s blame for all in the debt talk breakdown.
The president walked away from Simpson-Bowles, declined to present plans to reach long-term budget balance, etc. etc. etc.
But in the argy-bargy, keep this in mind: the debt problem has become a debt crisis for one reason only: because Republicans put the threat of debt default on the table.
That never needed to happen.
House Republicans could have kept the debt ceiling issue wholly separate from the budget cut issue.
Instead, Republicans put the gun on the table. They raised the menace of deliberate default in a way it has not been raised before.
Then, having issued the threat, they discovered that their own core supporters would not allow the gun to be holstered again.
They issued demands they knew could not be met, for budget cuts much bigger than Republicans ever enacted when they had the power to enact them. They cocked the weapon. And now here we are: the demands are unmet and Republicans find themselves facing a horrible choice between yielding on their exorbitant demands or pushing the United States into financial upheaval.
BustedBoomer // Jul 22, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Sinan:
I agree re Civil War. I have been reading the NYT (sorry) Disunion series, and the comments are the best part. Here we are again. Prior to the Civil War (and all its alternate names, my favorite being The Late Unpleasantness), Federal taxes were only for Federal stuff: Tariffs = Military etc. During and after that War, the Federal Govt began its ascendance. Now, rather than sectional (North vs South), it is Rural vs Urban, with the Rural illusion that the rural areas support the urban areas, when the reverse is the case.
GOP: I like the ostensible concept, but oh for someone in the GOP to stand up to Bat Guano Crazies.
chicago_guy // Jul 23, 2011 at 12:10 am
The GOP has been painting themselves into a corner for the last 30 years, and unfortunately, there’s no one left TO stand up to the crazies; the crazies is what they’ve got left for political muscle (the money is still corporations and multi-nationals along with the born-rich, but the foot soldiers are the most fervent myth believers of whatever age we’re talking about).
Normally it’d be enjoyable to see how Obama has allowed Boehner enough rope to hang himself, but that show stopped being entertaining when it became clear that John Boehner is so scared of upsetting the Tea Partiers from whence comes his strength that he really is prepared to let the country default on its obligations rather than doing the sensible thing and grabbing a long-term budget deal that is to the right of anything previous Republican Houses could have even imagined.
But if he has to allow his members to see that Obama got anything out of the deal, he knows he can’t make it work. Some leadership skills, Boner.
Sinan // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I have been selling to rural America for the last 8 years exclusively. I have been to their parties, heard them invoke Jesus at business events, heard them tell nigger jokes, call liberals swine and worse and basically had to endure their ignorance in order to conduct my business. In every market I have been in, the radio is filled non-stop with content meant to cast any and all liberals and democrats as treasonous SOBs whose only desire is to siphon off the success of conservatives. I have endured this knowing that the Blue states contribute far more to funding the Red states. I have endured this while working in a totally socialized industry filled with raging conservatives who believe they deserve the socialism but some poor black woman with three kids does not. I am sick to my stomach at the ignorance of these imbeciles. They have decided that no Democratis leader should rule, ever. They will take us all down to make sure this is so. Only one thing that I know invokes this kind of passion in America and it is race. Basically, the two parties are now separated by racism. One lacks it, the other embraces it.
seeker656 // Jul 23, 2011 at 12:23 am
Can you imagine that the Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency, feels the need to call Rush Limbaugh and reassure him that the Republicans are not going to compromise and then the Speaker walks away from critical negotiations so that he doesn’t offend Rush.
How far do the Republicans have to go down this path before the financial community panics and gives them the word? Wall Street will not come out of this disaster unscathed and it will be difficult, not impossible, to spin the ensuing recession (if we are lucky) as an Obama caused event.
Rob_654 // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:46 am
You speak the truth. The Republican Party is de facto run by people who are not elected, do not have to face the consequences of what happens and can always find an “out” if it hits the fan.
baw1064 // Jul 23, 2011 at 12:33 am
For some comic relief (of the dark humor variety), here’s Redstate’s admonition to House Republicans:
“Hold the freaking line. You only need four votes in the Senate to have a majority. You do not need Plan B. You do not need to negotiate.”
I’d say more like running at full tilt toward the cliff.
ATLIndie // Jul 23, 2011 at 2:41 am
I think Obama needs to show the House GOP that he is the Commander-in-chief and start bossing them. The polls definitively show that the people are with Obama on the balanced approach. So, Obama should use the bully pulpit to the max and take this to the people.
I would have Obama tell the GOP that he is invoking the 14th amendment to cancel the debt ceiling, just like Bill Clinton, recommends, and tell the GOP to go take it to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, Obama torches GOP on the town hall circuit.
Canada has wing-nuts just like the Tea partiers; however, the strong Canadian PMs like Chretien and Harper would use the Supreme Court to knock back Quebec separtists and the Governer-general to prorogue parliament when minority parties tried to overturn the 2008 election. In both cases, the people were with the Canadian PM, they just needed a strong PM to exercise the full power of the state. b
BTW, the Canadian majority remembered the 2008 attempted hijacking and severely punished the minority parties in May, 2011 election.
If Obama leads with a firm hand, the people will demolish the the GOPin 2012. He just needs to find his mojo and stop being so nice the House GOP.
think4yourself // Jul 24, 2011 at 12:18 am
@ Atlindie: “I think Obama needs to show the House GOP that he is the Commander-in-chief and start bossing them.”
I disagree. The reason the people are with Obama is that he is allowing the GOP to hang themselves. If he elects to exercise Constitutional authority then it should be at the very last minute possible. If he starts beating them with a stick, the Liberals will love it, but the independents will not.
rbottoms // Jul 23, 2011 at 3:15 am
I’m all for Obama using the no Vaseline option.
rbottoms // Jul 23, 2011 at 3:17 am
Speaking of Right Wing Assholes.
[blockquote]A gunman stalked youths at an island summer camp for young members of the governing party after explosions in Oslo hit government buildings. The police seized a man, Anders Behring Breivik, whom they described as a right-wing extremist connected to the attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?_r=1&hp/blockquote
Wasn’t this the lead story here, back when it looked like Mooslims did it?
arvan // Jul 23, 2011 at 4:41 am
Numerous right-wing sites pulled the story the moment it became clear that the terrorist was a right-wing Muslim-hater. I’m rather disappointed that FF is on that list.
Scores dead, many of them children, and it will be forgotten within a week, because the media pisses their collective pants in fright at the thought of criticizing these fascist thugs. And as usual, anyone who mentions the murderers politics will be accused of politicizing the attack – never mind that it was clearly political in nature.
drdredel // Jul 23, 2011 at 5:50 am
Political nature? I’m sorry, please remind me which political party (here or in Norway) is in favor of shooting random children. Just because something is a horrible tragedy doesn’t mean that it had discernable cause.
The preliminary data suggests this was just a deranged man. Trying to figure out his politics in such a situation is a lot like trying to figure out the politics of volcano.
rbottoms // Jul 23, 2011 at 6:18 am
No one on the Right is ever responsible for a goddam thing. McVeigh, lone wolf, Olympic bomber same thing. I said blood would flow from the NY “Super Mosque” bullshit of Pamela Gellar. Well here’s one of that shreiking harpy’s biggest fans. But let no one on the right stand up to swine like her, oh no.
As tragic as this is the terrorists I am concerned with are the ones holding the world’s economy hostage.
StarSpangledSpanner // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:25 am
There never has been a right wing terrorist and never will be. They are all lone wolf nut cases and have no political persuasions whatsoever.
OTOH Bil Ayres was a commie. The end.
sinz54 // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:37 am
I’m against all forms of terrorism.
Isn’t that the line your Islamist friends use?
And your (half) black hero in the White House is still toast.
abj // Jul 23, 2011 at 2:44 pm
And the Tea Party/American Right has….um, what relevance to the tragedy in Norway, exactly? Were the terrorists taking their cues from subliminal messages Mitch McConnell sent them on CSPAN?
I don’t think you’re well, and the sooner you undergo a psychiatric evaluation, the better.
elizajane // Jul 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
The man was not shooting “children.” He was shooting teenagers who were attending a summer camp run by Norway’s Labor Party, a social-democratic party that supports a solid welfare state through high taxes. Its youth wing is called the “Youth Workers League.” The camp was specifically for these young people who wanted to make a difference in left-wing politics.
This was absolutely a right-wing political act.
StarSpangledSpanner // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:39 am
Sinz54.
You have so much hate to give.
Thank you.
Nanotek // Jul 23, 2011 at 10:43 am
“And your (half) black hero in the White House is still toast.” sinz54
it seems pathetic that you find noteworthy the manner in which his skin reflects electromagnetic radiation from about 390 to 740 nm in wavelength as compared to yours
Obama seems a great man, like Lincoln, disregarding the harpy howls of haters in order to most greatly advance our nation’s union … knowing the strength that adds to us all
I’m glad he’s in the White House, rather than McCain or Palin, and that he’ll be there until 2016 … we’ll need him there obviously
abj // Jul 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Near as I can tell, the only similarity between Obama and Lincoln is that both were elected to Congress from Illinois. And, of course, both were elected president. That’s pretty much where the similarities end.
Bagok // Jul 23, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Both got Southern states talking about secession just by being elected.
Nanotek // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“Near as I can tell…”
thank you for succinctly proving my point
StarSpangledSpanner // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:45 am
From the BBC.
“The man arrested following the attacks in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, describes himself as a “nationalist”, according to the police.
In the purest sense of the word, he is not alone. On this day of grief, Norwegian people have united under their flag, vowing to stand firm against terror.
But the suspect, it seems, is no pure nationalist. Instead, he is said to be a right-wing extremist of the kind that police authorities in the West have feared for some time.”
From AP.
“The man arrested for the attack has been identified as Anders Behring Breivik. Norwegian TV2 reports that Breivik belongs to “right-wing circles” in Oslo. Sources in Norway tell IREHR that Breivik has been known to write posts in right-wing internet forums in Norway, where he has described himself as a “nationalist” and has also written numerous screeds critical of Muslims.
UPDATE 10:01pm – New evidence has surfaced indicating that Breivik appears to be a fan of the Tea Party’s favorite Islamophobe, Pamela Geller. The website Little Green Footballs reports that he’s been posting links to Geller’s website Atlas Shrugged since at least 2009. See here, for example.”
Of course he is still not a Right Wing terrorist, just a misunderstood kitten.
sinz54 // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:46 am
If it’s impossible to get an agreement to deal with this huge debt problem that doesn’t involve tax increases, then I’m for tax increases. Surprise!
Does that shock my conservative friends?
It shouldn’t.
My diagnosis of the problem is this: The GOP can’t reach an agreement with Obama because the GOP can’t seem to get its priorities straight.
Here are some goals a conservative Republican might have:
1. Lower taxes (or at least don’t raise them)
2. Balance the budget and work toward reducing the debt.
3. Stick it to Obama.
Now: Every Republican, every conservative, should be willing to explain which of those is most important to him, and which of those is least important to him. Because we may not be able to get all three.
So go ahead, order them by priority from most important to least important.
And then once we get our priorities straight, we can negotiate better.
One more thing: Any Republican who doesn’t believe that failure of the U.S. Government to meet any of its obligations is a real problem, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
StarSpangledSpanner // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:56 am
Mitch McConnell.
“Our greatest priority is to make Obama a one term President ” Period. Nothing else.
Country be damned.
The GOP’s priority is clear.
balconesfault // Jul 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Sinz lays it out well.
Unfortunately, from his past statements, it does seem like “stick it to Obama” is his preferred outcome here as well.
Rob_654 // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:51 am
It is amazing that folks have yet to understand the need to first prioritize and then, very often, the next set of decisions become much easier.
However, for many Republicans, they have prioritized and the Number One Goal is beating Obama in 2012.
If they have to tear down the country to save it they are more than willing to do that because they believe that Obama is so bad that watching the markets crater, the US debt rating drop, unemployment skyrockets, etc… all of this is “ok” as long as it helps to defect Obama in 2012.
Frumplestiltskin // Jul 23, 2011 at 9:02 am
3. Stick it to Obama.
There it is, classic words of a non patriot. I never once thought “stick it to Bush” for the reason itself. Fight against his policies when I disagreed, absolutely, but to oppose him even when I agreed with him for the most part would have been unpatriotic.
But Sinz is no lover of America. What a sad little pathetic man he must be. Try taking that huge pole out of your ass sometime and you might see that life is not as dark and scary as you imagine.
StarSpangledSpanner // Jul 23, 2011 at 9:06 am
Agreed,
Sinz and other like minded RW tools are Anti American and close to traitors in many ways.
The GOP itself is prepared to work against the interests of the majority of the American people for purely political ends. Disgusting
sinz54 // Jul 23, 2011 at 10:56 am
My challenge wasn’t aimed at you.
It was aimed at Republicans who can’t seem to decide what, if anything, they’re prepared to compromise on.
I very much want Obama defeated in 2012, I want him out of the White House. Just like you wanted Bush out of the White House in 2004. The job of the party out of power is to get power. That’s politics.
But that’s not the issue right now for me.
StarSpangledSpanner // Jul 23, 2011 at 11:02 am
The way you go about gaining power is important. You have a deep hatred of this President. It has been obvious from your writings here over a long period.
That hatred clouds your judgment and you make stupid statements about killing every person in Pakistan and other equally ridiculous ideas.
Perhaps you need a course in anger management as you are often out of control.
Raskolnik // Jul 23, 2011 at 11:12 am
“The job of the party out of power is to get power. That’s politics.”
And here I was thinking that politics was about governance, and that the job of the party out of power was to work with the party in power to advance the national interest. Shows how much I know.
elizajane // Jul 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm
No, politics and governance are two different things but usually they can be accomplished together, in a complementary if not harmonious fashion. The problem with the Republicans is that for some considerable time they have been perfecting politics at the complete expense of governance.
medinnus // Jul 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I also want Obama out of the White House in 2012.
However, the GOP failed in 2008 to give me anything reasonable to vote for, and the best they seem to be able to muster in 2012 is Mitt Romney? I fear that until the Christianist Tea Party fanatics are hounded from the party, I have no political home.
I certainly don’t share the fanatical hatred of Obama that the racist Right retrogrades here seem to share. JimBob, Smeggy the Closet Gay, and others make me ashamed of the Right.
rbottoms // Jul 23, 2011 at 11:32 am
The hell with running my government then, it’s all about power. The Right are just terrorists, in and out of government.
JimBob // Jul 23, 2011 at 1:18 pm
And you’re still dumber than a load of bricks
Nanotek // Jul 23, 2011 at 8:17 pm
and your stunning intellect must seem such a privileged burden
JimBob // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:06 am
Well thanks!!! :>)
jg bennet // Jul 23, 2011 at 1:02 pm
A man in debt is so far a slave.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave
– Leo Tolstoy
The borrower is slave to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)
By 1855, the Republican Party controlled a majority in the House of Representatives. The new Party decided to hold an organizing convention in Pittsburgh in early 1856, leading up to the Philadelphia convention.
As the convention approached, things came to a head — and to blows. On the floor of the Senate Democratic representatives Preston Brooks and Lawrence Keitt (South Carolina) brutally attacked Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner gave a passionate anti-slavery speech which Brooks took offense (he was related to the main antagonist of Sumner’s speech, South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler). Both representatives resigned from Congress with severe indignation over their ouster, but were returned to Congress by South Carolina voters in the next year. Sumner was not able to return to the Congressional halls for four years after the attack. Brooks was heard boasting “Next time I will have to kill him,” as he left the Senate floor after the attack…….
billybroadband // Jul 23, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Our country is not giving the third world a very nice picture of our exceptionalism right now. “Dysfunction” is the word that comes to mind. I haven’t subscribed to any of the standard tenets of the Democratic party for some time now, but the thought that comes to my mind during this kerfuffle is “I’ll never vote for another Republican again…..ever.” The GOP is dead to me now. The Tea Party can have it. I just hope and pray they come to their senses and realize that politics is compromise – but they sure aren’t giving any signs of that intelligence.
Sinan // Jul 23, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I wonder if you could explain why you do not favor a party that has been the sole protector of the poor and middle class for decades, stewards of our environment, champions for liberty and equality and respected the world over as the only party in America that is even closely aligned with the rest of the world. What is it that makes you say no this line up of policies and goals?
think4yourself // Jul 24, 2011 at 12:27 am
@ Sinan: “I wonder if you could explain why you do not favor a party that has been the sole protector of the poor and middle class for decades, stewards of our environment, champions for liberty and equality and respected the world over as the only party in America that is even closely aligned with the rest of the world. What is it that makes you say no this line up of policies and goals?”
Huh? Are you talking about the GOP??? Did I miss the sarcasm button?
Sinan // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:42 pm
If you think the GOP is revered around the world you are sadly mistaken. We are being held hostage by racist ideologues. They disgust me.
Hunter01 // Jul 23, 2011 at 5:40 pm
The consensus here is that Emma is right. (Not a perfect consensus, but pretty darn close.) The GOP is pushing hard for a default in the hope that the economic devastation will be blamed on Obama.
Now the tough question: Assuming default is inevitable, what steps should Obama (or the Fed) take before and after August 2? I see three categories of action: (1) fiscal, (2) legal, and (3) political.
Any ideas?
ram6968 // Jul 24, 2011 at 12:39 am
excuse my wild flight of fantasy,but, we need jobs….but that would take a jobs program (stimulus) which the republicans won’t allow…..but if the republicans “force” obama to invoke the 14th, wouldn’t that cut republicans out of the equation?
Solo4114 // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:19 am
Not exactly. Obama can’t authorize additional spending such as a stimulus. Only Congress can do that, and that much is clear. What’s less clear is who can authorize the payment of money ALREADY spent — that’s what’s up in the air at the moment.
As I understand it, it goes like this under normal circumstances.
1.) Congress passes a budget, votes on expenditures, and approves them. This happens earlier in the year because, until you have your budget, you don’t get funds allocated. This is why, earlier in the year, the GOP took the government hostage and threatened a government shut-down.
2.) The funds are then distributed according to the budget by the Treasury Dept. Congress holds the power of the purse to authorize expenditures, but Congress isn’t actually holding the purse itself. Just the pursestrings. Treasury is the one holding all the money. Separation of powers and all that.
3.) The debt ceiling kicks in. The debt ceiling is a legislatively-created constraint on spending that says “We have approved the U.S. to go into debt only XYZ amount.” The debt ceiling is usually voted on towards mid-year. Bear in mind that the U.S.’s already-approved expenditures are SEPARATE from whatever limit it places on its debt. So, in essence, Congress says on one day “We approve spending this much” but via the debt ceiling, says “Except that we don’t approve going into debt any more than this.” Now, in theory, this should work out just fine. The debt ceiling gets raised commensurate with expenditures, which, themselves are ideally commensurate with revenues. We retain debt, but because we always pay it, we’re actually able to operate the country with perpetual debt instead of surplus (or as soon as surplus is created, we spend more and turn it into debt).
So, where’s all of this come into play with Obama? Basically, the 14th Amendment says that the U.S.’s credit can’t be questioned. Meaning (as some interpret it) that we do NOT default. Ever. One of the things about running perpetual debts, and the reason why nations can get away with it, is that nations pay their bills. Having debt is fine, as long as we know you’re good for it, and especially if we get a little extra on our return. The Brits invented this approach, as I understand it, back around the early 1700s, and it’s been working just fine since then — until you bring knuckle-dragging apocalypse-courting lunatics into the government. This is because the system relies on the implicit understand that, debt or not, the U.S. pays its goddamn bills. Always. Even if that means more debt.
It’s this notion that Obama has, as President, a duty to protect. Under the “14th Amendment option,” the theory is that Obama would instruct the Treasury Dept. — part of the Executive Branch — to tell Congress to take a flying leap and pay our bills anyway, regardless of the limit imposed by the debt ceiling.
In essence, we’d be faced with a Constitutional crisis or at least a serious Constitutional question that would need to be resolved in the courts. By the way, this question ALREADY exists — namely, what do you do re: the U.S.’s sovereign debt when Congress has told people it’ll pay them more than what Congress has said we can have by way of debt, AND when you have this clause in the 14th Amendment? The only reason the courts aren’t handling it right now are that the issue isn’t ripe. We don’t have an ACTUAL controversy because the President hasn’t defied Congress….yet. Hopefully, he won’t have to and some deal will be made, but if it comes down to it, my bet is that’s what will happen.
balconesfault // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:49 am
In essence, we’d be faced with a Constitutional crisis or at least a serious Constitutional question that would need to be resolved in the courts.
As much as the Roberts side of the court hates Obama … they love Corporate America more. And Corporate America will make it very clear that they want Obama to step in here and pay our bills.
ram6968 // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:15 am
my understanding is this will not go to court, the only remedy is impeachment which would put the republicans back where they were with clinton
PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U. S. 330 (1935)
The government’s contention thus raises a question of far greater importance than the particular claim of the plaintiff. On that reasoning, if the terms of the government’s bond as to the standard of payment can be repudiated, it inevitably follows that the obligation as to the amount to be paid may also be repudiated. The contention necessarily imports that the Congress can disregard the obligations of the government at its discretion, and that, when the government borrows money, the credit of the United States is an illusory pledge…
The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.
Solo4114 // Jul 24, 2011 at 12:56 pm
I haven’t read the Perry decision, nor have I done any research on this subject, so I don’t know how far Perry would extend, nor how applicable its facts are to the current situation. Make no mistake, though, this case would likely be taken by the Supreme Court. They would not likely deny cert on this, even if the facts are highly similar on the same points of law.
Impeachment is a possibility, given the makeup of the House and their penchant for grand and pointless gestures, but trial in the Senate would be pointless indeed, since it requires a 2/3 majority to actually remove a President from office. And if the GOP impeached Obama over this, I’m still not entirely sure that the case wouldn’t end up in front of the Supreme Court to determine even whether it is an impeachable offense. You can be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Clinton was impeached for perjury which, in fact, is a crime. Andrew Johnson was impeached for something closer to what Obama would be impeached for, with his violation of the Tenure of Office Act. I think much of this would turn on the specific language of the legislation enacting the debt ceiling concept, and even then, I still think it’d be debatable whether ordering the Treasury to pay our debt would in fact, be a “crime.”
I actually don’t know if impeachment would fly, though. I mean, yeah, the GOP “old guard” has been pretty craven in this scenario, but you’d basically be driving the GOP off a cliff if you went down the impeachment path, especially since it’d be doomed to utter failure in the Senate. Plus, don’t forget, a Senate trial would allow Obama to testify as to the reasons why he did what he did, the validity of his actions, and would basically give him a national platform for a riveted national audience. If you think things look bad for the GOP now — and they do — they would look WAY worse during any Senate impeachment proceedings.
There is no easy way out for the GOP at this point, and the longer they delay the matter, the worse any eventual resolution will be for them. At this point, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the current House GOP is made up of cowards and lunatics. The real question is whether the cowards will flinch.
JonF // Jul 24, 2011 at 6:31 pm
The Supreme Court did eventually find the Tenure of Office Act unconstitutional, but not until well after Johnson’s impeachment trial was over.
ram6968 // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:09 pm
the problem for me is……..there has to be “harm’ or “injury” to bring suit….so who would be “harmed” or “injured” by implementation of the 14th?
sinz54 // Jul 24, 2011 at 8:41 am
The GOP base, as well represented by RedState.com, has now flung down the gauntlet. Effective last evening, they are now rejecting any compromise with Dems whatsoever, and instead are advocating an outright ultimatum: Accept the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan in toto with no modifications, or else the U.S. Government goes into default. They believe that since under Obama the United States is doomed anyway, default can’t be much worse.
http://tinyurl.com/3pxsp62
Even to the point that if Boehner did come up with a compromise plan that could pass the House somehow, their heroes in the Senate like Rand Paul and Kelly Ayotte should filibuster it! (Filibustering would almost certainly run past August 2 and drive the Government to default.)
http://tinyurl.com/3stbub9
They should learn from history: Exchanging ultimatums is usually not a prelude to a solution, but a prelude to all-out war.
That is why Boehner hasn’t returned Obama’s phone calls. He has no compromises to offer when the Tea Party is rejecting all compromises on principle. And without them, he doesn’t have the votes to pass any compromise plan.
TJ Parker // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:36 am
If this is mainstream GOP thought, then the GOP is now a “party” of anarchists, and this becomes a national security issue. Obama must then act unilaterally. Oddly this will also result in the Federal Reserve doing a massive QE3. And just to stick it to the wingnuts, Obama should sell US gold reserves to raise immediate cash.
He has no compromises to offer when the Tea Party is rejecting all compromises on principle. And without them, he doesn’t have the votes to pass any compromise plan.
Yah but there are lots of Democrats in the House.
What’s amazing is that the GOP must now recognize that fundraising for 2012 is going to tank for them – it already has on Wall Street – and they still haven’t blinked. Must be the confidence inspired by their pact with Satan.
Solo4114 // Jul 24, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Which, if accurate, raises a glimmer of hope. Not for the Democratic party, although that’s part of it, but for challenges from the CENTER of the GOP. There ARE centrist candidates out there in GOP-land, but they’ve spent the last two years demonstrating that they are (A) solely focused on politics rather than governing, and/or (B) on the run from Tea Party right-wing challenges.
If the money goes to the centrists, the centrists CAN win. I do not believe that the Tea Party represents “the base” so much as it represents “the MOTIVATED base.” While I’m reluctant to employ the phrase, I do think that — at least within the GOP itself — there is still a “silent majority” that will likely wake up and attempt to recapture the GOP from its more self-destructive members. With sufficient Wall Street and business backing, that is a possibility. It also sets the stage for a realigning of the party. Maybe. Alternatively, the craven will continue to be defeated by the insane.
balconesfault // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:45 am
Exchanging ultimatums is usually not a prelude to a solution, but a prelude to all-out war.
If you believe that the most important principle is defeating Obama … and not improving the lives of Americans … then all-out war is called for.
Wouldn’t you agree, Sinz? You are, after all, one of our windows into that mindset.
Will They Reach a Deal? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum // Jul 24, 2011 at 9:39 am
[...] Because I'm pretty sure that's Congress. Well, that's too broad. House Republicans, perhaps. Frum put it well: Quote: But in the argy-bargy, keep this in mind: the debt problem has become a debt crisis for [...]
JimBob // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:05 am
The blame. Barry Hussein the Chicago Street Hustler Marxist.
TerryF98 // Jul 24, 2011 at 11:05 am
Thanks Smarg for your great comment.
How does such a tiny brain reside in such an immense cranium?
medinnus // Jul 24, 2011 at 4:35 pm
The blame goes to morons who spout gibberish like this. You make me ashamed that you get to be an American by accident of birth.
Bagok // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:39 am
Oh what the heck. The blame. America hating Teahadists.
forkboy1965 // Jul 24, 2011 at 11:34 am
So to sum it up we need only take two words from the article: “cock..” and “GOP”.
I think those sum things up pretty well, don’t you?
Banty // Jul 24, 2011 at 12:32 pm
“But in the argy-bargy, keep this in mind: the debt problem has become a debt crisis for one reason only: because Republicans put the threat of debt default on the table.
That never needed to happen.”
Yep. It comes down to that. Laying out ultimatums and taking hostages, if it ends badly, never successfully gets the blame directed to whomever did not give in. We don’t say to real hostage-takers, if they kill their hostages, “well we know that if the family just came up with the ransom, they’d still be alive”.
The other thing that gets me about this situation is how the Republicans are saying “we aren’t going to default, silly fear-mongering Democrats, we’ll have enough money to pay our bondholders”.
Huh? Many of these same folks jump to defend banks for hiking interest rates on folks whose credit has been damaged in transactions quite unrelated to the loans or credit lines in question. Our bondholders are not our only creditors. We would be failing in other legislatively mandated obligations, and that not only makes the bondholders nervous (they would be first in line this time, but what about next time??), it erodes our status as a nation of laws.
Most of all, before the entire world, we’ve demonstrated that the full faith and credit of the United States is subject to blackmail. There’s a reason why we tell terrorists and criminals that we don’t negotiate over hostages, even at the risk of the death of innocents. It is more important to enforce against the very threat being made, than it is to prevent its being carried out in any given instance.
We may be the place to go now, being as there is at present nowhere else, for bond investment. But once that changes, and it can change FAST (think China), we’re toast. And already, for having been in this situation. Thank you very much, naive and irresponsible Tea Party freshmen!
Bunker555 // Jul 24, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Where is ego-maniac Cantor hiding? He’s the Axxhole who threw the spanner in the efforts to have a satisfactory resolution to the debt ceiling raise proposal. He can’t un-fuck it now, and hopefully Cantor and the Tea Cons will lose a large percent of the Tea Bagger voting bloc.
Bunker555 // Jul 24, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Cantor Opposed Short-Term Debt Ceiling Increase, Now Calls Obama’s Opposition to Short-Term Increase ‘Indefensible’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/24/277590/cantor-opposed-short-term-debt-ceiling-increase-now-calls-obamas-opposition-to-short-term-increase-indefensible/
El Gipper // Jul 25, 2011 at 12:43 am
I’m sorry, but didn’t Senator Obama vote against the debt limit increase while in the Senate?
Where is it written that the debt limit must be automatically increased? I think that it’s brilliant that the Republicans are threatening to choke off 44% of federal expenditures until the Democrats cry “uncle.”
The Democrats are equally to blame in this drama. If they want to pretend that they’re steely-eyed, tough negotiators willing to close down 44% of the government, then they’re just as crazy as the Republicans. The Republicans passed their debt limit increase. Harry Reid is the loon who voted it down. Why doesn’t Frum direct his bile at Senator Reid?
Look, Obama and the Democrats are going to cave just like Governor Dayton had to cave in Minnesota. You see, the party that likes to spend money is always going to be the loser in these negotiations.
When the Republicans take power, the Democrats can never make a credible threat to use the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool because it’s the Democrats that want government to say open for business. Finally, the Republicans, with the spine stiffening support of the Tea Party, has realized this truth.
I love to read the left’s sanctimonious rants about going off a cliff, etc. Conservatives don’t give a f**k about your precious welfare state. Just make sure that interest payments, defense, courts, law enforcement, health and safety, State Department, and other necessary functions go on. Couldn’t care less about HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Labor, Commerce, Education, and all the other left-wing departments that will shut down.
Now if we could just dump Grover Norquist over the side of the ship, we’d be sailing into fair waters.
Raskolnik // Jul 25, 2011 at 3:59 am
You are a ranting delusional idiot with an authoritarian streak
On The Tea Party | Political Sportsmanship // Jul 25, 2011 at 9:02 pm
[...] betrayed by its own leadership. David Frum points out that this is an issue only because the Republicans have chosen to make it one. The problem comes from the Republican refusal to acknowledge there is [...]