Originally posted by whodeyI think the GOP's getting set up to have to choose between tax increases and gutting defense spending in round two of this deal. That's no big victory.
Well lets see. From my understanding they will cut about $7 billion in the first year, but when you consider they deficit spend about $4 billion per day that is only two days of savings.
They just raised the debt ceiling $2.5 trillion with no immediate of substantial cuts. You call this a win for the GOP? I call it time for a new party.
Originally posted by SleepyguyWhat other choice is there if you really want to cut the deficit by any substantial amount? There just isn't enough non-discretionary non-military spending to make much of a difference and Social Security and Medicare cuts are political suicide.
I think the GOP's getting set up to have to choose between tax increases and gutting defense spending on round two of this deal. That's no big victory.
Originally posted by SleepyguyI've given up on the GOP. They have been and still are a large part of the problem in more ways than one.
I think the GOP's getting set up to have to choose between tax increases and gutting defense spending in round two of this deal. That's no big victory.
So expect to see gains for the Dems next election. Maybe one day the American people will wake up, but I'm guessing no.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
There are some progressives claiming victory. Not many, but this one from TPM is among them.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAgreed and when they learn to spend the revenue more wisely I'll be in favor of modest tax increases if needed. Until then it is clear to me that I spend my money more wisely than they do and therefore it is better off in my hands.
The US government doesn't spend that much compared to other rich Western nations. The problem is they spend their revenues poorly and they collect too little revenue.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
Originally posted by UllrSuch as three wars? I agree that it's not wise spending.
Agreed and when they learn to spend the revenue more wisely I'll be in favor of modest tax increases if needed. Until then it is clear to me that I spend my money more wisely than they do and therefore it is better off in my hands.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
So apparently Democrats have been chewing Biden out all afternoon, and when asked if the there are enough votes in the House, Nancy Pelosi responded, "You'll have to ask the Speaker." Apparently she's not doing anything to whip Democrats into a vote. That could be a problem with conservatives whining about having to cut their pet spending allocations, particularly in the military industry where many of their constituents are employed - the shoe being on the other foot for once.
This isn't a done deal.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
All 74 members of the Progressive Caucus will vote "no."
Steney Hoyer says he can only guarantee 66 Democratic votes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001805/-Pelosi-Not-Whipping-Votes;-Update:-All-74-in-Prog-Caucus-Will-Vote-No!-?via=siderec
Obama may have ignored his base one too many times.
It's up to Boehner now to whip TP folk into shape.
Originally posted by KunsooSo is it your position that its okay for the progressive party to sink the economy over principles but not the tea party?
All 74 members of the Progressive Caucus will vote "no."
Steney Hoyer says he can only guarantee 66 Democratic votes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001805/-Pelosi-Not-Whipping-Votes;-Update:-All-74-in-Prog-Caucus-Will-Vote-No!-?via=siderec
Obama may have ignored his base one too many times.
It's up to Boehner now to whip TP folk into shape.
Originally posted by dryhumpThe progressives say Obama should use the 14th Amendment option as outlined in the other thread.
So is it your position that its okay for the progressive party to sink the economy over principles but not the tea party?
With any luck, enough TPers and progressives will vote against the damn thing to kill it though I doubt that will happen. Banker and economic elite arguments almost always win in Washington at least for the last 30 years.
Originally posted by SleepyguyWho says its "unconstitutional"? Last I checked, the 14th Amendment, Section 4 hasn't been repealed.
Not only that, but no1 prefers the president engage in unconstitutional behavior in order to escape the results of the last election.
Congress has made appropriations but refused to fund them IF they don't raise the debt ceiling. That's AFTER the last election. Given these contradictory commands, there is a perfectly reasonable constitutional argument for executive action to protect the integrity of the public debt. See the first post here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=140968&page=1
EDIT: To refresh your memory:
Eventually paying only interest and vested obligations will prove unsustainable -- first because tax revenues will decrease as the economy sours, and second, because holders of government debt will conclude that a government that cannot act in a crisis is not trustworthy.
If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again. His predicament is caused by the combination of statutes that authorize and limit what he can do: He must pay appropriated monies, but he may not print new currency and he may not float new debt. If this combination of contradictory commands would cause him to violate Section 4, then he has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances.
This would be like a statute that ordered the president to hire 50 new employees provided that none of them is a woman. The second requirement violates the Constitution, so the president can hire the 50 employees and ignore the discriminatory provision.
Here the president would argue that existing appropriations plus the debt ceiling create an unconstitutional combination of commands. Therefore he chooses to obey the appropriations bill -- which was passed later in time anyway -- and ignores the debt ceiling. He orders the secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt sufficient to pay the government's bills as they come due.
(Emphasis supplied)
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, I've already written my senators to tell them to vote against this bill and force Obama to actually use the power at this disposal to avoid being held hostage by the Tea Party caucus. Jesus, what does it take for a Democrat to grow a spine?
Who says its "unconstitutional"? Last I checked, the 14th Amendment, Section 4 hasn't been repealed.
Congress has made appropriations but refused to fund them IF they don't raise the debt ceiling. That's AFTER the last election. Given these contradictory commands, there is a perfectly reasonable constitutional argument for executive act ...[text shortened]... the first post here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=140968&page=1