that has the potential to cause a significantly bad wall street reaction.
it might impress parts of the Republican base, but those same parts are going to be angry even if there's a compromise at the last possible moment.
they probably have until about July 20th to extend the ceiling with minimal consequences. it should have been done already.
Am I missing something. Is it only one side holding up any deal? Can we use the democratic proposed budget as a startpoint. Oh wait there has been no budget passed by the senate in nearly 3 years.
Thats not accurate donsutherland1.
In the beginning, Obama wanted a "clean" debt ceiling hike. As in no spending cuts or tax increases. Clearly that was a nonstarter given the seriousness of the deficits his budgets will create over the next ten years. And it was against the recommendations of his own deficit comittee.
If a smaller deal gets through the house and the senate, then an Obama veto would risk default - the very think the media has been pounding the Reps on for risking.
I think the biggest news here is going sort of unnoticed: Obama favored a debt reduction package bigger than what Boehner wants. Where is the tea party outrage at the guy they just put in charge?
the 2010 elections were about something relatively simple. Stop The Expansion. Stop The Spending.
Have Taxes Increase To Match Higher Spending wasn't it.
good for Boehner.
He wants a bigger deal that would include $1T in additional taxes without any entitlement reform.
There is no deal yet, but the ideas under consideration include reductions in spending on the big three entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That would be a huge concession for Democrats. In return, Republicans would agree to close some big tax loopholes, reducing some deductions and other so-called spending in the tax code as part of a tax reform deal that would also lower corporate tax rates. The net effect of that tax reform plan would be an increase in tax revenue.
As one senior administration official told me, "We need to do something unthinkable on entitlements. They need to do something unthinkable on taxes."
Another White House official acknowledged that Democrats won’t like the proposed reductions in Social Security and Medicare (an understatement), but that the changes would be modest compared to what Republicans have proposed in the Paul Ryan budget plan.
Swizz, you just posted an article from Thursday.
Reports have Obama backing away from entitlement reform last night.
Really? I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?
Oh, I know. I'd love to see a link. And surely it's on a major news outlet. Here's my latest find.
Obama will still seek a $4 trillion debt deal despite GOP opposition, aides say - The Washington Post
I'm not blaming Congressman Boehner. His move reflects the reality of the situation of irreconcilable differences. It's a move that would not have been necessary had the negotiating process been better-designed, namely had the White House set the ground rule that each side open with a position that it felt had realistic prospect of being acceptable to the other. Then, the tax revenue piece, among some others, would have been put aside from the onset and hard bargaining toward a deal would have been underway.
A Republican House aide told me that the White House “started to backpedal on entitlement reforms too.” He explained, “They [the White House] had started to go back on some of the Medicare and Medicaid reforms they had previously said they were ok with.”
Aides to Obama and Boehner had been working on a far-reaching package of spending cuts and new revenue that would have reduced deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years and cleared the way for lifting the $14.3 trillion cap on the government's borrowing capacity.
But Boehner's move dampened hopes of any immediate compromise and raised doubts about the chances that Sunday's talks would start moving the budget debate toward an end-game.
"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes," Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said in a statement. "I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure."
Mr. Sutherland, can anything be done in the face of the unyielding refusal of the republicans to give an inch on the tax front? I know Jerry Brown did the California budget "without" them. If they remain in lock step, can they be circumvented?
For this deal, very little can be expected on the tax side. A provision to eliminate ethanol subsidies might be feasible. But the Americans for Tax Reform pledge is too stringent to provide leeway. Under its formula any closure of loopholes/elimination of deductions, etc. must be completely offset e.g., via lower rates so that the overall expected revenue would not change.
Ultimately, in a longer-term fiscal consolidation strategy, some tax revenue increases will be needed. The real battle over that will probably kick off around the time near the expiration of the 2001/2003 tax reductions.
All of the Tea Party influence is in perception and people give them more credit than they are due.
Do they have something to add to the mix?
Yes but until they are better organized and become a real political party they are no more important than a local PTA.
The tea party is not a distinct political party, for all practical purposes.
It's merely a front manufactured to create the illusion of a separate anti-establishment movement to people who are actually naive enough to fall for it (i. e. disenfranchised Right Wingers). The pols claiming to support tea party causes are just lying; they're merely the same stale, pro-establishment bimbos (i. e. bachman, plain) that have made up the GOP all along.
Anyone who believes the tea party actually stands for economic freedom, small government, debt reduction, etc. is 100% delusional. End of story.
I think the biggest news here is going sort of unnoticed: Obama favored a debt reduction package bigger than what Boehner wants. Where is the tea party outrage at the guy they just put in charge?
Did someone really claim the Tea Party was a distinct political party? Can you name the person who made that statement?
Bachman and "Plain" are "bimbos"?
They're doing alright for bimbos. How you doin'?
So what do you feel they stand for?
The supporters of it evidently think so.
Well if it is that evident then you should have no trouble in pointing out exactly who made the claim.
I'm not White, so I can't prostitute myself to the (racist) Right. However, I thing I could be good masturbation material.
You're a credit to your race!
June 12 Daily News Editorial
Following are then Sen. Barack Obama’s 2006 comments about raising the debt ceiling. Speaking as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama said,
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Now it’s 2011 and President Obama wants the debt ceiling raised above its current level of $14.3 trillion.
Are Americans getting the government they deserve?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?