Man Of Orange Concedes

[guido911]

Boehner unloading on dems lack of a plan to address debt crisis.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/an-angry-john-boehner-yells-on-house-floor-put-something-on-the-table/

[nathanm]

Boehner unloading on dems lack of a plan to address debt crisis.

Now that the House has passed something, I think Reid is going to force the issue with his own plan. Not a great plan, but at least not crazy.

[guido911]

Now that the House has passed something, I think Reid is going to force the issue with his own plan. Not a great plan, but at least not crazy.

Passed something? The House has now passed two bills addressing the debt ceiling. What has the Senate passed? And yes, I know, the repub plan is obviously crazy since it came from the repubs.

[nathanm]

Passed something? The House has now passed two bills addressing the debt ceiling. What has the Senate passed? And yes, I know, the repub plan is obviously crazy since it came from the repubs.

It's crazy because there is literally zero chance of a bill with the BBA requirement tacked on passing the Senate.

[Ed W]

Boehner unloading on dems lack of a plan to address debt crisis.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/an-angry-john-boehner-yells-on-house-floor-put-something-on-the-table/

Guido, the House has the sole authority to devise a budget, as all of us are aware. The Republicans control the House, so they control the budget process. The Democrats are under no obligation to come up with a competing plan, just as the Republicans did not have to put forward a plan when the Democratic party had the majority.

They broke it.  They own it.

I almost feel sorry for Boehner. His party controls the House, and while he's the Speaker, he's clearly unable to control his party.  Despite my own deep antipathy toward the Republican party, I don't think this serves our country when one side is unable or unwilling to compromise.

[guido911]

It's crazy because there is literally zero chance of a bill with the BBA requirement tacked on passing the Senate.

So what if it fails in the Senate? The House should toss aside their principles and beliefs because the Senate disagrees with them? And what if Reid does manage to get something through the Senate that has "literally zero chance" of passing in the House, will his bill be "crazy" then?

[guido911]

Guido, the House has the sole authority to devise a budget, as all of us are aware. The Republicans control the House, so they control the budget process. The Democrats are under no obligation to come up with a competing plan, just as the Republicans did not have to put forward a plan when the Democratic party had the majority.

They broke it.  They own it.

I almost feel sorry for Boehner. His party controls the House, and while he's the Speaker, he's clearly unable to control his party.  Despite my own deep antipathy toward the Republican party, I don't think this serves our country when one side is unable or unwilling to compromise.

What are you talking about? Presidents have repeatedly presented budgets for Congress to consider. Remember Obama's budget he submitted back in February that went down in flames in the Senate 97-0? Certainly you have heard of the "Bush tax cuts". Did Bush cut taxes? No. Congress did. Perhaps you are confusing the House's power of the purse with the day to day machinations of budgeting.

As an aside, what is going on right now is not a budget debate, but rather whether the debt ceiling should be raised. The idea that the democrats don't have to present a plan, and instead can just lob insults/attacks at the only party doing anything to address the debt problem, is just wrong.

On compromise, the House has now passed two debt ceiling bills that would raise the debt ceiling. How are the dems doing with their compromising?

[Ed W]

...and Harry Reid offered to meet the dollar amount that the Republican want - $1.3 trillion, if I remember right - by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Boehner turned it down, preferring to address the real goal of all these machinations - social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and presumably, the New Deal.

[guido911]

...and Harry Reid offered to meet the dollar amount that the Republican want - $1.3 trillion, if I remember right - by ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Boehner turned it down, preferring to address the real goal of all these machinations - social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and presumably, the New Deal.

Take a look at the Paul Ryan video I posted in the debt thread. He takes on the accounting tricks such as ending wars resulting in spending cuts. I also don't think its fair tagging Boehner as someone with disdain towards the needy simply because he wants to do something about runaway entitlement programs. As for Reid's alleged agreement to accept Boehner's spending cuts, I understand there was something to that, but also that Obama pulled the plug on it.

[nathanm]

So what if it fails in the Senate? The House should toss aside their principles and beliefs because the Senate disagrees with them? And what if Reid does manage to get something through the Senate that has "literally zero chance" of passing in the House, will his bill be "crazy" then?

Well, if your goal is to keep the federal government from defaulting, yeah, you have to pass something that will pass the other house. If you don't actually care about that goal and are just grandstanding, it doesn't matter what you pass as long as you pass something. There are Republicans in the Senate who have said no to the balanced budget amendment part, so it would be almost impossible to get enough votes, even if you could peel off a few Democrats. (presuming it even makes it to the floor)

Reid's plan has a half-decent chance in the House, if it can get through the Senate in time. Boehner was only a few votes short of getting his bill through without the BBA attached. Reid's plan is (supposedly) dollar-for-dollar cuts to debt limit increase and no revenue increases. I suspect some Republicans would bite, if the alternative was default.

Last I checked, we're still in a war. Call it an accounting trick if you like, but we're spending money now that won't be spent in the future. That's a reduction in spending.

[guido911]

Last I checked, we're still in a war. Call it an accounting trick if you like, but we're spending money now that won't be spent in the future. That's a reduction in spending.

Did you look at the Ryan video? It covers this issue. As for the rest of your post, I don't share the opinion that we have to pass something. If it sucks, don't vote for it.

[nathanm]

Did you look at the Ryan video? It covers this issue. As for the rest of your post, I don't share the opinion that we have to pass something. If it sucks, don't vote for it.

As long as you realize that you're effectively advocating default and a credit downgrade. Who shall we not pay when Treasury can't borrow any more money? You choose..let me know what you come up with:

http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/

[guido911]

Here's a link to the Ryan video for anyone's convenience.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-paul-ryans-response-to-defense-cuts-lets-pass-a-bill-to-cover-the-moon-with-yogurt/

[guido911]

As long as you realize that you're effectively advocating default and a credit downgrade. Who shall we not pay when Treasury can't borrow any more money? You choose..let me know what you come up with:

http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/

How about some from every category, starting with "other spending". I have already posted that everything must be on the table, to the extent that our soldier's and the public's safety are not jeopardized.

Since we are at the "brink", let's just let Aug. 2 come and go and see what really happens. Perhaps, a la Obama, taking off the bandaid or eating our peas is stopping the insanity of living far beyond our means.

[Red Arrow]

(well, if you count an extra $100 billion a year in interest as merely inconvenient, but that may happen regardless)

$100 billion is only 10% of $1 Trillion and we are talking of multiple $ Trillions so it may be possible to make a case for "merely inconvenient".