... so is the whole "raising the debt ceiling" thing coming back? I heard something to that effect. What's going on?
Beethoven's 5th
Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2012, 03:48:25 PM
... so is the whole "raising the debt ceiling" thing coming back? I heard something to that effect. What's going on?
GOP doesn't want to:
1. increase taxes on the wealthy;
2. cut defense spending;
3. see a secular socialist black man succeed in Der Weiss Haus.
In short, business as usual.
What's the magnitude of this?
Posturing before the election, and that's that? Who postures best?
Or is it more significant?
I don't know, but this time I'm going short instead of betting the resolution to it will calm the market. :P
Not making that mistake again.
Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2012, 03:56:01 PM
What's the magnitude of this?
Posturing before the election, and that's that? Who postures best?
Or is it more significant?
It will play right into the GOP's hands for the fall: your average voter doesn't vote on intangible issues like the deficit that don't affect them every day, but they do vote on the perception of government gridlock, and that means blaming the President. Because that's easy.
Mind you, all I heard from Thurston Romney the 3rd today at his rally in St. Petersburg with the snow birds about the deficit is that he wants to cut taxes, increase defense spending, and not touch Medicaid/Medicare.
The fact that he doesn't offer the number or have a plan for that, other than endorsing the Ryan Budget proposal, well, that won't matter to the voters.
Like I said in the other thread: Mittens, 5-4, baby. Buh bye, middle class.
I don't think it will be as dramatic as last year. The GOP will agree raise the debt ceiling in exchange for vague promises to "cut" spending somewhere, and the can will be kicked down the road past early November.
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
I don't think it will be as dramatic as last year. The GOP will agree raise the debt ceiling in exchange for vague promises to "cut" spending somewhere, and the can will be kicked down the road past early November.
No, they won't; Boehner already said as much today.
There will be another debt crisis this summer, just in time to affect the election. As long as the House Teabaggers stand fast and agree to nothing, they'll shut down the government, affect the economic health of the US, the markets, the bond ratings, and therefore the President. That's all they want to accomplish, and it will funnel the votes they need their way. The way they see it, they just have one more summer to hold out as the Protest Party, and the nigger goes.
I'm sure that our fearless leaders of both parties, with the President's help, will of course get this all sorted out peaceably, amicably and without rancor.
Maybe the US can turn into some kind of cyberpunk/Shadowrun adventure after Romney wins. The Republican 'slash government revenues and increase expenditures' platform is even less credible than the Democratic 'close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and keep saying that there's nothing wrong' plan.
I'm sure it will be tons of fun and packed with edge-of-your-seat drama.
Quote from: Neil on May 16, 2012, 07:17:44 PM
Maybe the US can turn into some kind of cyberpunk/Shadowrun adventure after Romney wins. The Republican 'slash government revenues and increase expenditures' platform is even less credible than the Democratic 'close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears and keep saying that there's nothing wrong' plan.
LOL can I be an: ork decker!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2012, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 16, 2012, 03:56:01 PM
What's the magnitude of this?
Posturing before the election, and that's that? Who postures best?
Or is it more significant?
It will play right into the GOP's hands for the fall: your average voter doesn't vote on intangible issues like the deficit that don't affect them every day, but they do vote on the perception of government gridlock, and that means blaming the President. Because that's easy.
They didn't blame Clinton for gridlock.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 17, 2012, 12:57:47 AM
They didn't blame Clinton for gridlock.
That's because Newt and the boys underestimated how much Clinton was adored by so much of the public.
Half this nation hates Obama.
Doesn't Congress have much lower approval rating than Obama? The people seem to know who is to blame.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2012, 06:15:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
I don't think it will be as dramatic as last year. The GOP will agree raise the debt ceiling in exchange for vague promises to "cut" spending somewhere, and the can will be kicked down the road past early November.
No, they won't; Boehner already said as much today.
There will be another debt crisis this summer, just in time to affect the election. As long as the House Teabaggers stand fast and agree to nothing, they'll shut down the government, affect the economic health of the US, the markets, the bond ratings, and therefore the President. That's all they want to accomplish, and it will funnel the votes they need their way. The way they see it, they just have one more summer to hold out as the Protest Party, and the nigger goes.
That certainly seems likely.
Thing is, the US economy appears to be improving, slightly. The numbers coming out from there shows that, at least.
That's not flying with the "obama fookered the economy up" message. However, if they manage to disable the federal government right in parallel with Europe imploding, well, that message would certainly look more true than it does now.
Interesting details on the 2011 debt crisis, leaked from Bob Woodward's new book.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UEjTJbKPVnF
I particularly found this part interesting-- explains how Obama raked Ryan over the coals in that big speech last year without knowing Ryan was present.
QuoteOne important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation's long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.
The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as "changing the basic social compact in America." Ryan left the speech "genuinely ripped," Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in "game-on demagoguery" rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.
"I can't believe you poisoned the well like that," Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.
The president told Woodward that he wasn't aware that Ryan was in the audience, and he called inviting him there "a mistake."
If he had known, Obama told Woodard, "I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him... We made a mistake."
The Ryan Budget deserved to be shit upon. With great vigor and aplomb. Fuck that noise.
However, I am disappointed that my President felt obligated to apologize.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 12:02:56 PM
The Ryan Budget deserved to be shit upon. With great vigor and aplomb. Fuck that noise.
However, I am disappointed that my President felt obligated to apologize.
:rolleyes: You don't invite someone to a speech and then personally rip him. Such things tend to work against you in the long run.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:07:30 PM
:rolleyes: You don't invite someone to a speech and then personally rip him. Such things tend to work against you in the long run.
I've got no problem with the POTUS ripping apart that piece of batshit insanity called a budget. If the author was present and felt "ripped", then boo fucking hoo for him. You're going to go crazy with a budget plan, develop a thicker skin.
COME CORRECT OR DONT COME AT ALL.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:07:30 PM
:rolleyes: You don't invite someone to a speech and then personally rip him. Such things tend to work against you in the long run.
I've got no problem with the POTUS ripping apart that piece of batshit insanity called a budget. If the author was present and felt "ripped", then boo fucking hoo for him. You're going to go crazy with a budget plan, develop a thicker skin.
COME CORRECT OR DONT COME AT ALL.
Yeah, well the result was that Obama found himself shut out of the negotiations. WHOOPS.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:17:16 PM
Yeah, well the result was that Obama found himself shut out of the negotiations. WHOOPS.
The Ryan Budget proposal wasn't designed to be a starting point for "negotiations", nor were any of the new House Republicans arriving in Washington in the mood for "negotiations", and you damned well know that.
So don't play so fucking stupid.
I expect less drama than last time. Wild guess: an increase in the limit that leaves a short window until the next time the limit is reached.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:17:16 PM
Yeah, well the result was that Obama found himself shut out of the negotiations. WHOOPS.
The Ryan Budget proposal wasn't designed to be a starting point for "negotiations", nor were any of the new House Republicans arriving in Washington in the mood for "negotiations", and you damned well know that.
So don't play so fucking stupid.
Good on them for it. It got tiring having Republicans spending like Democrats. At any rate, there were negotiations and the debt ceiling got lifted.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:07:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 12:02:56 PM
The Ryan Budget deserved to be shit upon. With great vigor and aplomb. Fuck that noise.
However, I am disappointed that my President felt obligated to apologize.
:rolleyes: You don't invite someone to a speech and then personally rip him. Such things tend to work against you in the long run.
I thought you guys were the "Tough guy" party. Straight talk and the like.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:33:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2012, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 12:17:16 PM
Yeah, well the result was that Obama found himself shut out of the negotiations. WHOOPS.
The Ryan Budget proposal wasn't designed to be a starting point for "negotiations", nor were any of the new House Republicans arriving in Washington in the mood for "negotiations", and you damned well know that.
So don't play so fucking stupid.
Good on them for it. It got tiring having Republicans spending like Democrats. At any rate, there were negotiations and the debt ceiling got lifted.
You talk like overspending isn't the default mode for the Republican party.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 12:47:35 PM
I thought you guys were the "Tough guy" party. Straight talk and the like.
Not when feelings get hurt. The national debt might be important, but it isn't that important.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 12:48:11 PMYou talk like overspending isn't the default mode for the Republican party.
Isn't the record of Republican presidents one of huge increases in the deficit? Why would it be different this time?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 12:47:35 PM
I thought you guys were the "Tough guy" party. Straight talk and the like.
The only differences between the parties are in regards to policy; personalities run the gamut on both sides. And it's not like Democratic politicians are out there saying, "We're going to sugarcoat things because you all can't handle the truth."
Quote from: Jacob on September 06, 2012, 12:52:02 PM
Isn't the record of Republican presidents one of huge increases in the deficit? Why would it be different this time?
Bush II ran deficits on the order 3-5% of GDP I believe. Last year must be an exception with TARP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2012, 02:44:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 06, 2012, 12:52:02 PM
Isn't the record of Republican presidents one of huge increases in the deficit? Why would it be different this time?
Bush II ran deficits on the order 3-5% of GDP I believe. Last year must be an exception with TARP.
And I wasn't talking about Republican presidents anyway.
Still would have been running massive deficits under the Ryan plan anyway. It's wimpy.
Quote from: derspiess on September 06, 2012, 04:05:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2012, 02:44:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 06, 2012, 12:52:02 PM
Isn't the record of Republican presidents one of huge increases in the deficit? Why would it be different this time?
Bush II ran deficits on the order 3-5% of GDP I believe. Last year must be an exception with TARP.
And I wasn't talking about Republican presidents anyway.
Who were you talking about when you said Republicans. The Iraqi Republican guard?