Can someone explain why Obama is not accepting a "clean" debt-ceiling vote?

[Armstead]

This is a serious question, not just a rhetorical one. I am curious and open to the case for this, despite my perplexed suspicion.

To his credit, (and the GOP's discredit) President Obama succeeded in getting the Republicans to walk back from their threats of blocking approval of the debt ceiling raise. They knew they had overreached, and have since been looking for a way to just get the damn thing done, while saving face.

That, from what I hear is what he really wanted -- to seperate the pressure cooker of the debt-ceiling from the longer-range debates over taxing and spending and budgeting in the years ahead.

SO why, I now wonder, why is he still pressing for a "grand bargain" in which he still is pushing to tie them together? Why does he still seem to be demanding big cuts as part of the debt ceiling agreement?

It seems like he is being unwilling to take "yes" for an answer.

So can someone tell me what I am missing here? (I promise I'll behave myself in any response I might give to serious answers.)

[former9thward]

1. The House already took a vote on a clean debt vote.

It was defeated 318-97. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/house-rejects-clean-vote-to-raise-debt-ceiling.html

[Armstead]

22. That was May,this is now

A lot of water under the bridge.

My question is that the GOP has all but admittedcthat the debt ceiling has to be raised. Why do we still have to play by their rules, in terms of putting government in a straightjacket?

[former9thward]

24. No one has to play by their rules.

Obama can say he wants a clean vote and if he doesn't get it deal with whatever the consequences are.

[Armstead]

25. That is the crux of my question. Why not do that now?

[bornskeptic]

34. Boehner and McConnell are not "the GOP"

A clean debt ceiling vote would require more than 20 Republican votes in the House. If you think 20 House Republicans would vote to raise the debt ceiling without somehow being rewarded, you're seriously out of touch with what's going on. Even if that were possible, Obama indicating he might support it would be the kiss of death for that possibility.

[Larkspur]

2. Because he's surrounded himself with the vampire squid people from Wall Street

and old DLC hacks, not called Third Way Dems, who want Obama to cut benefits for working Americans to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Obama still wants to make cuts even if he only gets pennies in tax revenue increases from the Rethugicans.

[KittyWampus]

19. Too bad you were in such a rush to post. The facts are in post #2.

[Hawkowl]

28. True!

Obama is buying into the "austerity" argument that the IMF peddles to nations all over the world when their balance sheets get out of whack. It is always a recipe for economic disaster! Punishing the populace and rewarding the handful of families that have raped and pillage a nation's economy.

Yes, THAT appears to be Obama's philosophy. The Goldman Sachs vampire squid, let them eat shit, philosophy. But think how bad it would be with President Palin!

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I think it's because the ante was raised.

Originally he wanted a clean up-or-down vote.

But the Republicans/Teabaggers wouldn't have any of that. They wanted cuts.

So Obama offered them cuts but he wanted a bargain, an exchange. My cuts for your raise in taxes.

Sort of calling their bluff.

What Obama should have done was "No revenue from taxes, then no cuts. Deal off."

But the cuts are still on the table as an inducement to have the Republicans (not the Teabaggers) return to negotiate.

But they're not coming back.

Like I said, Obama should say take-it-or-leave-it and return to the clean up-or-down vote.

[Armstead]

10. That's kinda what I've been wondering

It is clear the most non-crazy Republicans want to put this behind them...They'll still be doing their usual strident whining and attacking. But at least if they go along with just raising the ceiling, that pressure will be behibd everyone.

[AtomicKitten]

4. A "clean" vote was taken and it failed the House 318-97.

http://www.businessinsider.com/clean-debt-ceiling-vote-just-fails-2011-5

[Armstead]

8. Thst was in May ....When the GOP were more unified and determined to rattle sabers.

Basically, the negotiations since them have been attempts to walk back from that cliff.

[AtomicKitten]

12. Yes when he accepted a "clean debt-ceiling vote" dispelling the premise of your leading question.

:shrug:

[Armstead]

20. I am asking about now, not then

Obama basicall "won" that battle, but he continues to push for spending cuts.

[ProSense]

5. What's the "'clean' debt-ceiling vote"?

McConnell's plan? His plan sucks.

[Armstead]

9. It does suck ....But it's basically a huge retreat

[karynnj]

27. It is a retreat - but the fact that ANY of the three votes

can turn into something like the current crisis - if the Republicans choose - does make it less appealing. It may be that Obama sees that the Republicans are losing and is pushing for a longer term extension.

That might be because of what I have been unable to figure out since the House changed hands. It seems the Republicans have required "bribes" to do every little routine step needed for the country to function. I suspect that this may be a WH gamble to push the issue to show them they can't do that. The fact is listening to the Republicans, it seemed clear that they thought that they could get everything on their wist list - just because they control the House and are willing to hold their breath until they turn blue.

[themaguffin]

29. no a clean vote would be a clean vote, not mcconnell's plan

[Maccagirl]

6. As someone who doesn't know the in's and out's

of this terrible mess, I think it's because the R's will continually hold Obama (and us) hostage if it's a "clean" vote and nothing about gets done about the debt. I propbably shouldn't have responded since it's only a feeling.

[Armstead]

11. You are largely correct.

HOwever, they also know that if they kilk tge hostage, they will also be committing political suicide.

So it's better for all concerned IMO to at least be battling over the longer range without this hanging over heads.

[lefairhill06]

7. Obama and "clean" debt-ceiling vote

While it is true that the President wanted a "clean" debt-ceiling vote, he always understood that deficit-reduction talks would be on the horizon this year -- now Congress has spent this much time on that end, come to no consensus, and as soon as the President signs the debt-ceiling limit, the GOP will pick up the mantra of big-spending, blah, blah, blah (for another six months to a year) as a way of stalling any revenue enhancement ideas, job-programs, and so forth. With so much out on the table following the last seven months, for the President to be able to point to any deficit-reductions would have allowed the Administration to try to focus on some of the other issues languishing in the Congress.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Because the House won't pass 1

[FrenchieCat]

14. Because one hasn't passed that he could accept.

Where have you been? :shrug:

[Armstead]

23. Nothing has been voted on lately...

There has been a lot of water under the bridge.

The Gop badically realized they can't blackmail the country and are now trying to save face.

That considerably lessens Obama's need to do the Republican thing and slash the government. So why doesn't he go wirh the strength he has?

[LaydeeBug]

15. Because the Republicans refuse to get him one? nt

[vaberella]

16. The House won't pass it. But aside from that---it's not clean and it's temporary.

If you were paying attention to Obama's message he's clearly stated time and time and time again that he won't accept any just quick fix. There was something by Lawrence on this---something about the vote that would come to the house in September if he took this deal, which would be problematic. Huh...I have to watch the program again.

[Chan790]

17. My question now is...

Is not kicking the can down the road past 2012 a mistake since it's likely going to be a rout of Republican defeat, based both on it being a Presidential election year and the general tide against the GOP being a tsunami?

"Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?" started as a question and has become a roar; even staunch ideological conservatives* I know, people who are very much still conservatives, are disgusted with the GOP and in the Obama boat for 2012 unless something really changes. 2010 was about jobs and the GOP ignored their singular-issue mandate because it was an issue they didn't care about; now their base is at war with them and divided...and the moderate majority can't wait to toss them right back out again.

*-to be clear, these are true-blue Goldwater/Reagan conservatives. People who looked at Bush as a useful idiot at best. Economic conservatives, not social conservatives.

[SkyDaddy7]

41. Do you really think 2012 will be a...

"rout of Republican defeat"? I sure hope you are correct but I don't get that feeling at all...Maybe it is because all I see on DU is how most or at least the loudest want Obama to lose & the fact I live in Georgia & most down here literally hate Obama.

I sure hope you are correct but I don't think it is going to be a cake walk as you say.

[Lil Missy]

18. He would accept a clean vote. The Repulican House voted it down.

[Armstead]

21. In May. I am talking about now, after the GOP basically caved

[vaberella]

33. The GOP didn't cave. The republican oldies caved. The Tea Partiers did not.

And the Tea Partiers are more in number than the established Repubs...which means---it won't pass and they said as much. And the Senate can't make this decision on his own.

[Armstead]

37. If the teabaggers are determined to sink the ship, no offer will work

So, in my opinion, the best Obama could do is rally the adults to block the baggers temper tantrum with a clean raising. Can argue the rest sepertly.

IF the teabaggers have the power to block it, then there is nothing Obama can do to prevent their act of collective economic suicide. But I don't think the baggers really do hold all the cards.

[karynnj]

26. Like you, I have been trying to understand that

I think it is possible that the Republicans haven't really offered a relatively long term "clean bill". I suspect they have only offered short term raises that just create a situation where this same crisis potentially repeats. One concern mentioned with that is that it is unsettling for businesses etc to have that much uncertainty - in what to them is still the near future.

[Palmer Eldritch]

30. He will get the clean bill. But if he lets up on pressing for the Big Deal,

the Repukes may renig on the backup plan and return to their original position.

[chill_wind]

31. Some thoughts from a couple days ago

at Americablog

http://www.americablog.com/2011/07/multiple-commenters-wh-really-wants.html

[sabbat hunter]

32. if you want the budget balanced

there will need to be cuts and tax hikes. There is no way around that. And look, if the people in Washington played this game
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

they can see how easy it really is to balance the budget as well.

and if you notice the cuts I propose do not hurt those least able to handle them.

[Armstead]

38. Alas, my Ipad can't read that page. I'll check it later.

But in general, I am not opposed to reasonable cuts. I am concerned though, about the waybthey are being negotiated and the environmentvin which they would be imposed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. When exactly did he refuse to accept a "clean" debt-ceiling vote?

[bvar22]

36. Why didn't he put the Public Option back in the HealthCare Bill....

...when they finally decided to pass it through Reconciliation?

I suspect the answer to one is the answer to the other.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[bornskeptic]

39. You're right that the reason he doesn't do both is the same:

namely that neither option was available to him. If Boehner would agree to vote for a clean debt ceiling increase, which is dubious, he would probably be the only one to do so. At the most 5 or 6 would go along. The nonsensical idea that a new agency employing tens of thousands of people could be passed through reconciliation shows complete ignorance of how reconciliation works.

[bvar22]

42. Oh?

But the bill they DID pass through Reconciliation did indeed contain a completely NEW Agency, called The Exchange. The Public Option was just a "Tiny Sliver" (Obama's words) of The Exchange which BY LAW must be "Budget Neutral" (Obama's words, and supported by the CBO).

We will never know whether it would have passed through Reconciliation,
because they failed to try.
I would rather Try & fail,
then surrender without fighting.

The REAL point I was making, is that for a solid year, Obama and the Democratic
Leadership made concession after concession to the Right in an attempt (stupid, but a good cover story for the uninformed) to "gain Bi-partisan Support.
When this FAILED, as most here knew it would, the Dem Leadership opted to use Reconciliation, but instead of revising the bill to make it more palatable,
they submitted the Extreme Right version that they had tried to romance the republicans with.
They did NOT have to do that.

There is now a bomb ticking that is set to go off in 2014.
The Democratic Party leadership passed a Republican Bill without forcing the Republicans to take ANY responsibility.
In 2014, when MILLIONS (40 - 70 MILLION) of struggling Americans are forced to write a check to a BIG Insurance Corporation for junk insurance they can't afford to use (High Co-Pay/High deductible) they are going to be very angry.
They WILL blame the Democrats,
and rightly so.
ALL the Republicans have to do now is sit back and say,
"YEP! We opposed it."

When the Democratic Leadership finally decided to use Reconciliation, they COULD and SHOULD have revised
the bill to make it more palatable for Working Class Americans.


So, I will pass this back to you
for your Oh so Intelligent & Insightful comments.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Show me a link where the Republicans offered a clean bill, not a clean temporary extension

Because all I've read is that they offered a month-long extension on the debt ceiling.