Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Mitch McConnell Blinked FirstFollow

#1 Jul 12 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
Via Politico:

Politico wrote:
Desperate to get out of the political box they helped to create, Senate Republicans are actively pursuing a new plan under which the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority would be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.


Heritage Foundation is sort of annoyed.

But Grover Norquist is happy!

Oh come on ZAM, let me edit my typo already.

Edited, Jul 12th 2011 8:05pm by catwho
#2 Jul 12 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Now they should just lower taxes and really drive that heel into the economy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 12 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Mitch McConnell can blink all he likes, he's the minority leader of the Senate. When John Boehner blinks, we'll have to have a chat.
#4 Jul 12 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
When John Boehner blinks, we'll know Eric Cantor & Paul Ryan told him to.

Indeed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jul 12 2011 at 10:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
When John Boehner blinks, we'll know Eric Cantor & Paul Ryan told him to.

Indeed.

Fair point. He's not exactly as in charge as his title might suggest. Still, Mitch McConnell is hardly in a position to actually compromise, as the Senate minority can't dictate anything.
#6REDACTED, Posted: Jul 13 2011 at 7:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Really?
#7 Jul 13 2011 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's not saying he wants to work with Obama, he's saying he wants to give up his role in passing a debt agreement by giving it all to Obama and washing his hands of it. His hope being that the GOP will score more points by "pinning" it on Obama than they will by causing a financial collapse by their refusal to pass a debt ceiling raise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8REDACTED, Posted: Jul 13 2011 at 7:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#9 Jul 13 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah. "Duh". Pretty sad that someone still needed to explain it to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Jul 13 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
What bothers me about the whole "no higher taxes" thing that the Republicans keep chanting is that they're only telling a skewed half of the story, and stupid people (like varus) fall for it.

You've got some moron out there, and he hears McConnell ranting that Obama wants to "raise taxes" and insisting that the Republicans won't let him. So the moron says, "Why, Obama wants to take more of my $1,500 a year in taxes?! Hell no! The Republicans are looking out for me!"

Smiley: facepalm

And then you have people like gbaji who want us to believe that companies won't create more jobs if we tax the ultra-rich more on their personal taxes. Smiley: oyvey
#11REDACTED, Posted: Jul 13 2011 at 8:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#12 Jul 13 2011 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
fact
You use that word a lot, yet have no idea what it means.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Jul 13 2011 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He's not saying he wants to work with Obama, he's saying he wants to give up his role in passing a debt agreement by giving it all to Obama and washing his hands of it. His hope being that the GOP will score more points by "pinning" it on Obama than they will by causing a financial collapse by their refusal to pass a debt ceiling raise.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that even if there's no debt ceiling increase passed by the deadline (InTrade is surprisingly low on this happening before Aug 1), Geithner can still do some budget voodoo to prevent a technical default on US debt without halting Social Security checks to grandma, or similar such stuff.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#14 Jul 13 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
He's not saying he wants to work with Obama, he's saying he wants to give up his role in passing a debt agreement by giving it all to Obama and washing his hands of it. His hope being that the GOP will score more points by "pinning" it on Obama than they will by causing a financial collapse by their refusal to pass a debt ceiling raise.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that even if there's no debt ceiling increase passed by the deadline (InTrade is surprisingly low on this happening before Aug 1), Geithner can still do some budget voodoo to prevent a technical default on US debt without halting Social Security checks to grandma, or similar such stuff.

I thought the story was that that's what he's been doing the last 6 weeks already.
#15 Jul 13 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That would still thrash the bond ratings and have a likely significant impact in the markets. It's like calling your credit card company and saying "Good news, I figured out if I skip paying the gas bill and try to float some checks for the electric and mortgage, I can still make my minimum payment to you guys. By the way, will you increase my credit limit? I'm making my minimum payments and if you don't, I won't be able to pay next month's bills."

Not exactly the sort of thing that maintains a great deal of faith in your ability to last next month. And the markets will react accordingly.

Edited, Jul 13th 2011 12:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Jul 13 2011 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,566 posts
Ya he just needs to stop paying Vets and other such services to American service personnel.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#17 Jul 13 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That would still thrash the bond ratings and have a likely significant impact in the markets. It's like calling your credit card company and saying "Good news, I figured out if I skip paying the gas bill and try to float some checks for the electric and mortgage, I can still make my minimum payment to you guys. By the way, will you increase my credit limit? I'm making my minimum payments and if you don't, I won't be able to pay next month's bills."

One could argue that the easiest solution to this issue would be to stop charging so much to your credit card, not going up to your boss and demanding a raise. Smiley: wink2
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#18 Jul 13 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
One could argue...

One could argue and counter-argue a lot of things but that's not really relevant to the validity of the Aug 2 date.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19REDACTED, Posted: Jul 13 2011 at 1:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#20 Jul 13 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
No it wouldn't.

Adorable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21REDACTED, Posted: Jul 13 2011 at 1:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#22 Jul 13 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
That's pretty dense, Virus. Even for you.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#23 Jul 13 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
One could argue...

One could argue and counter-argue a lot of things but that's not really relevant to the validity of the Aug 2 date.


So we should have brought this up say a couple years ago before we spent ourselves into such a large debt hole? Oh wait! We did that didn't we? Too bad certain people and the party which represents them refused to listen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Jul 13 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, there's these "liberal economists" (PDF) who think that:
Buncha Know-Nothings Who Never Worked In Business In Their Life wrote:
First, it is critical that the US government not default in any way on its fiscal obligations. A great nation - like a great company - has to be relied upon to pay its debts when they become due. This is a Main Street not Wall Street issue. Treasury securities influence the cost of financing not just for companies but more importantly for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and student debt. A default would risk both disarray in those markets and a host of unintended consequences. The debt ceiling trigger does offer a needed catalyst for serious negotiations on budget discipline but avoiding even a technical default is essential. This is a risk our country must not take.

Sadly, there's only one page of letter in that PDF as the other eighteen pages are being taken up by signatories.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jul 13 2011 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So we should have brought this up say a couple years ago before we spent ourselves into such a large debt hole? Oh wait! We did that didn't we? Too bad certain people and the party which represents them refused to listen.

I know, right? We should have eliminated those oil subsidies and ended those tax cuts long ago! Oh well, at least they'd be willing to do so now, especially if it's coupled with some big entitlement program changes and spending cuts...


...oh, wait. Wow, you must be really disappointed with them Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Jul 13 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The first problem is that many people (mostly liberals and unfortunately some conservatives who repeat the straw man) are equating "not increasing the debt ceiling" with "defaulting on our debt".

Those are not the same thing. Obviously, defaulting on our debt would be bad and we should avoid it at all costs. What's really at stake is how we go about doing that. If we raise the debt ceiling, then we avoid defaulting on our debt by just borrowing more money. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, then we have to avoid defaulting on our debt by cutting spending.


Which is what conservatives want us to do. Hence, why there isn't a whole lot of angst about not raising the debt ceiling on the right and *also* why there's a whole lot of hyperbole about defaulting on debt, and not being able to cut Social Security and Medicare checks coming from the left.

It's all silliness and posturing anyhow. If we don't up the debt ceiling, the most likely result would be that congress would pass an accounting bill to zero out a trillion or so in intergovernmental debt, which would give us breathing room and time to work out how to cut non-critical spending in order to bring out budget into line. The left doesn't want to do this, not because they're afraid for medicare and social security recipients, but because they want to protect spending on things like green energy, and subsidies for electric cars, and public radio, and carbon sequestration boondoggles, and funding for social services organizations like ACORN, and welfare checks for crack addicts, and thousands of other things that they constantly pump federal tax dollars into but that aren't really needed.

They don't want the American people to have to make a choice between social security and electric cars. Because they know what the answer will be and they won't like it. It's as simple as that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 182 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (182)