Are republicans willing to let the economy fail to win an election?

The compromise for a short term deal was offered by the Dems when they took revenues off the table. To act like they should compromise more to avoid default when the GOP isn't being asked to compromise at all is ridiculous.

I understand about taking a look at the long term, but if the GOP knows that the Dems will never take a stand their position will never change regarding the long term. Until someone makes a stand nothing will change. Taking that stand may hurt a bit, but at least you are presenting a clear choice and it's easier to point fingers at who caused the hurt so that it can avoided later with that clear choice presented to the voters. Now it's all muddled, and the Dems have given everything away so that the choice is murky to invisible.

 

In honor of basso's thread necromancy in response, I would just like to second this post to reaffirm my allegiance to the backslapping cadre.

 

Here's the fundamental issue. "Hurt a bit" is a misnomer here. You're talking a 2nd worldwide recession, which means millions of jobs lost and increased borrowing costs for the US going forward. The main reason that the $14T debt is not a big deal is that the US can borrow at ridiculously low rates right now. A 1% increase in that rate is an automatic annual increase of $140B to the deficit. The US has never defaulted before - that's a reason for our AAA rating. Once we default, that will never be the case again - there will always be that possibility repeating itself built into bond rates going forward. And that is assuming that, after default, you get the debt ceiling raised in a few weeks - which probably means compromising anyway. So all you do is get the same deal a few weeks later with permanent damage done to the economy.

So the question is - if you assume that the GOP is insane and is happy to let that happen - are you willing to accept that price in exchange for Dems being able to present a clear option in an election 18 months away? And keep in mind that whatever message you try to argue that the GOP is responsible, history shows that President is blamed or credited for economies - right or wrong.

 

I disagree that you would only get the same deal in a few weeks. I think once it hits and certain checks to people with disabilities or govt. contractors can't go out and people stop getting paid, there would be enough pressure on the GOP to get a better deal.

At this point it may take some serious hurt to get people's attention and make them take notice. We've had two wars, huge debts, and horrible economic collapse, and still we have people looking out for the interest of uber wealthy and huge corporations at the expense of our nation and everyone else. If all of that didn't get people's attention and make them realize we need to change what we are doing, then perhaps the crash caused by the debt ceiling would.

I would like the debt ceiling to be lifted. I would like all the talk of spending cuts, and revenues to not even be associated. It would have been nice to have a bill that was a single line raising the debt ceiling. Then all the arguments about the budget deficit wouldn't be tied to that. That might make the stakes for getting things done less severe.

But the idea that being crazy like the GOP is on this gets you what you want is not a good precedent to set. Somebody needs to stand up to them, and let them suffer the consequences if they don't budge.

 

There will be more pressure on Dems too, meaning both parties are still in the same boat. You have to remember - most people aren't like us. They don't pay attention to the details of negotiations and who's giving up what. If no deal is done, Obama will be blamed - no matter the merits of the argument.

This is where I disagree. Dems have their faults - but one of their best virtues is that they don't sacrifice people's lives in exchange for political points. That's a bridge too far, and I'm glad for that.

I also don't believe the GOP will be the one to suffer the consequences. I think default is a net winning hand for them.

 

On the first point, I think the polls have already shown that people believe the GOP is more at fault. At least that was the case when the Dems were holding on to the balanced approach. That would be more true if there was a clear cut difference where one side was willing to put cuts to entitlements on the table in exchange of revenue adjustment, and I think if the Dems sold it like that, people would blame one side more than the other.

I agree with you to an extent about governing and not political points. Though I don't think it's political points that I'm talking about at all. But which political side has the right ideas and how much may be necessary to put those ideas into practice.

Yes, focusing on governing is important, but there has to be point where you make a stand. You don't let crazy irresponsible ideas win over and over again because things have to keep going. Somebody needs to say enough is enough. It's not that one should never compromise, but there has to come a time when the line is drawn.

 

You're Don Quixote tilting at a Major windmill, FB.

 

I agree - but that's what elections are for. In the last election, people voted in overwhelmingly conservative people because that party took a stand. The goal of the next 2 years is then to govern best you can, and then you make your case to the American people in the next election. You don't knowingly cause a global recession to show people how bad the other side is. The GOP would do that, which is what makes them such a ridiculous party right now.

For taxes, the current cuts are scheduled to expire December 2012 - right after the election. That will be a key issue in the Presidential election, and whichever side wins that election will clearly have popular support behind them going into that debate. That makes it a perfect time to take the principled stand.

 

well at least you do have a time when you believe a stand should be made.

I think people may have political fatigue after the election at that point, and people would be less likely to pay attention to the details than now. I think for the stand to have the maximum impact with the voters now is when it should happen, but I understand that we disagree with that, and I'm fine with it now that I'm reassured there is some point where you draw the line.

 

FWIW, I believe cutting defense is a big issue as well. Dems appear to have simply replaced tax increases (which they can fight next year effectively) with defense cuts in their trigger for now.

So if that stays in the final deal, then if they can't agree on the $2 trillion or so in savings by Thanksgiving, defense and Medicare payments to providers will be cut. The $2 trillion will be determined by 12 people - 6 from each party, 6 from each chamber. So if Dems want, they can also take a stand on tax hikes there. For one, they are guaranteed an up-and-down vote, so they don't have to worry about filibuster in the Senate. Second, if they can't agree with Republicans, cuts in defense and the Democratic solution to reducing Medicare spending (as opposed to cutting benefits) isn't a bad backup plan.

 

I so wish that were true, but the polls show pretty definitively that the American people, who do not have time or inclination to follow this closely, are blaming everyone and have been for quite some time -- they view the problem as a matter of both sides refusing to compromise. Insanity. Obama is at an all-time low in polls and his approval on this issue is very low. By refusing to in any way publicly place blame where it belongs, by choosing instead to be cordial and generous to those who want nothing more than to destroy him (economic collapse be damned), he has largely brought this on himself.

But the American people do not understand the distinction between the two parties, they do not understand that Obama has made outrageous concessions from the very beginning, they even believe the crap Rubio and so many others have said recently about Obama making no proposals of substance.

I tend to think you're right on just about everything, but here I think you're wrong to give the American people that sort of credit. Even RocketsJudoka, an informed and otherwise reasonable guy, wants to place some blame at the Democrats' feet for acting politically instead of in the best interest of the country. Not all, mind you, but still some. And he won't even say why he thinks that, only that he does. Proof positive in my mind that the world is upside down.

If the fourth estate would do their damn jobs, maybe the American people would know who to blame as you suggested, but they aren't and they haven't been since 9/11 at least.

 

Barely. And that is outrageous. Obama is barely less to blame according to polls, but amazingly Congressional Democrats are more to blame in their eyes than Congressional Republicans.

 

Here is what I wish the president had said (and had done) when he spoke to the American people in prime-time:

We are extraordinarily willing to compromise and have done so by offering deep cuts to programs that the American people rely upon. We have done so because the GOP has held the economy hostage in these negotiations and have insisted on these deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We all know the American people do not want that and I don't want that. I don't believe anyone wants that other than a small but potent faction of the House of Representatives. I have suggested a course that the American people have said again and again that they want: a balanced approach to solving the debt crisis, one that includes painful cuts but that also includes some revenues. Though these revenues would come only at a small cost to the ones who can afford it most, the richest of Americans, the GOP has stood steadfastly against any revenues. They have insisted that the middle class, the unemployed and the working poor sacrifice profoundly while the wealthiest among us sacrifices nothing at all. The American people will not stand for this and I will not stand for this. I offered a plan with 4 trillion in cuts accompanied by only 1.2 trillion in revenues and Republicans walked away from the table. According to this plan, the debt problem would have been more meaningfully addressed and they would have gotten nearly 80% of what they wanted and less than 20% of what you have expressed that you want. They do not want a balanced approach as you do; they want to protect the rich at the expense of everyone else. That is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me. I have been willing to meet them well past the middle, offering nearly four times as much in cuts than we would see in revenues. This is the balanced approach you have said you want and the one that I will say here we need. The economy, the futures of all Americans, cannot be held hostage by a small radical sect. I remain hopeful that we can reach compromise, but in the case that we cannot, I will be forced to act unilaterally to save the economy from total collapse. Please encourage your congressman to support a balanced solution, one that includes cuts and revenues, to this critical problem.

 

You are leaving out the x-factor: that Obama is negotiating with lunatics. They have demonstrated, quite clearly, that they do not care about the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, the sick, veterans that have completed their valiant service to the nation (so many of whom are the homeless we all pass every day, muttering to themselves or screaming at imagined enemies - they have been forsaken and forgotten) or any other American in any position of need. They will sell them all out for the rich. This is a matter of deep ideological belief for them. This goes to who they are at their cores and they have made promises in support of such to the constituents that elected them. No amount of pressure from the American people would result in a better deal, one of the sort that Americans want, because these people are willing to die (politically) for their beliefs.

Now there is one way that a better deal could be reached, one more in line with popular opinion, and it could be reached fairly easily if Boehner was willing to face the truth about his political situation. He will not retain the speakership for a substantive amount of time regardless. He should team up with Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid and Obama and go after a deal with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, one for which Boehner would not need those intransigent, insane, tea party caucus votes, because he would have more than enough support from Democrats to cover their loss.

Boehner and McConnell have been willing to consider revenues and Boehner was ready to take the 'grand bargain' before Eric Cantor told him no. Boehner needs to tell Cantor and the tea party caucus that he is the boss of the House and he alone has the authority to negotiate on matters of this kind of import on behalf of his caucus. He could be bipartisan, as both he and McConnell would privately like to be, in addressing the issue and, ironically, he'd wind up getting a deal that gives the Republicans much more of what they want and at little cost. Of course, to do that, he would need to tell Cantor to **** off. And he doesn't seem willing to do that. Boehner remains Speaker in name, but it is Cantor that is now in charge.

 

Here are the details of the debt deal:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...l----heres-what-hes-signed-off-on.php?ref=fpa

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has signed off on a deal to raise the debt limit pending the approval of his caucus -- and of course if can win the backing of Senate GOP leaders and then a majority of the House.

His spokesman confirms that Reid will present the deal to his caucus shortly, with the hope of holding a vote on it Sunday night, giving House leaders some running room to pass the plan before the nation's borrowing authority expires late Tuesday.

The deal works like this:

It guarantees the debt limit will be hiked by $2.4 trillion. Immediately upon enactment of the plan, the Treasury will be granted $400 billion of new borrowing authority, after which President Obama will be allowed to extend the debt limit by $500 billion, subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That initial $900 billion will be paired with $900 billion of discretionary spending cuts, first identified in a weeks-old bipartisan working group led by Vice President Joe Biden, which will be spread out over 10 years.

Obama will later be able to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, again subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That will be paired with the formation of a Congressional committee tasked with reducing deficits by a minimum of $1.2 trillion. That reduction can come from spending cuts, tax increases or a mixture thereof.

If the committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.5 trillion. The domestic cuts come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans as well.

If the committee finds $1.5 trillion or more in savings, the enforcement mechanism would not be triggered. That's because Republicans are insisting on a dollar-for-dollar match between deficit reduction and new borrowing authority, and $900 billion plus $1.5 trillion add up to $2.4 trillion.

However, if the committee finds somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion in savings, the balance will be made up by the corresponding percentage of the enforcement mechanism's cuts, still in a one-to-one ratio.

Democrats say they're confident that the enforcement mechanism is robust enough to convince Democrats and Republicans to deal fairly on the committee -- to come up with a somewhat balanced package of entitlement reforms and tax increases. However, the White House assures them that if the committee fails to produce "tax reform" he will veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of next year.

Unclear, though, is what happens if the committee does agree on tax reform, but in a way that produces insubstantial revenue. If such a plan passes Congress, Obama would be hard pressed to veto it, even if it took the expiration of the Bush tax cuts out of the equation.

At last hearing, Republicans were unhappy with the notion that the enforcement mechanism would contain a one-to-one match of domestic and defense spending cuts -- they want spending cuts to be lowered. That may be the final sticking point in this entire debt ceiling saga.

 

Judoka: This is exactly what I'm asking for from you -- one example of a single Democrat holding a national office that has favored politics over a solution, or made a statement in support of same, as FB suggests they should. The evidence of the other side doing so is, as you know, rampant.

If you can cite one example showing Dem's are willing to compromise the nation or its economy for political reasons, you win and I lose.

If you cannot provide even one example, you really need to stop saying both sides do it.

 

i can give you three: Obama, Reid, Pelosi.

 

This is absolutely true. And by allowing it, Obama is officially "negotiating with terrorists."

 

I don't like this. At all. But I can live with it. Except for the following chunk of Major's helpful update quoted here:

This is not just a possibility, it is a probability, given what we know about the current GOP. Obama needs to stand firm on the timely expiration of the Bush tax cuts no matter what, and he has to promise a veto of anything that threatens the fulfillment of that promise he made during his campaign, one that the American people clearly want. If he does this I predict will get more than enough D votes to offset the R no's. And everyone wins. The tea party gets to stand firm and fulfill their campaign promises, Obama gets to fulfill his, Democrats get a tiny bit of what they want and the American people get some of what they want. If Obama stands firm on this one issue, and I mean now, I will support this plan.

I cannot in good conscience though fail to point out the disparity in trading domestic cuts (especially to entitlements) for ones in defense. Ten years ago, sure. But now many Republicans, including the crazy tea party caucus, are calling for cuts in defense already. The trigger should instead offset automatic domestic cuts with automatic and equal tax revenues. Both sides can agree to defense cuts in this bill or another.

 

To be fair - I think this is sort of a bizarre situation. The tax reform being talked about is presumably something akin to the Gang of Six proposals - which means lowering rates and cutting out deductions and loopholes. If something like that passes, the Bush tax cuts are irrelevant because we're basically replacing the tax code. So I think what the article is referencing there is that there would be no Bush tax cut extensions to veto at that point.