Obama Says Debt Talks ‘Constructive,’ but Big Gaps Remain

[MineralMan]

The New York Times has this story, following today's discussions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/politics/08fiscal.html

"By CARL HULSE and MARK LANDLER
Published: July 7, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Thursday that budget negotiations at the White House had been “very constructive,” though the two sides “were still far apart on a wide range of issues.

He said that the talks would continue into the weekend, and that Congressional leaders would meet with him again on Sunday.

At the weekend session, the president said, he hoped that Democrats and Republicans would “at least know where each other’s bottom lines are,” allowing them to enter critical bargaining over a multitrillion-dollar package that would reduce the deficit and spare the federal government from defaulting on its debts."

More at link...

--------------------------------

I have no comments on the story. I'm posting it because it's the latest information. Details about what was discussed or agreed to are not in the article.

[msongs]

1. assumes certain prominent politicians actually have a bottom line they will not toss away nt

[gateley]

10. I WOULD have said well the Republicans won't budge on taxes,

but it was reported that Boehner may be amenable to SOME negotiation. I don't think even the players know what the end result will be.

[gateley]

2. Thanks for this -- Really not much different, but tempus fugit so

it's good to know what progress we're making (or not).

[MineralMan]

3. Not much detail in the story. It appears that everyone's keeping

the details close to their vests for now. No sign of all the stuff that was mentioned in the Washington Post article, really. We'll still have to wait to see what actually is being planned, I guess.

[gateley]

4. Ultimately that's all we can do. It's just hard to keep the mind

from jumping ahead and imagining potential outcomes.

Pelosi will be speaking shortly (she was at the shindig today) and someone posted that she'll actually be going back to the WH tomorrow. Probably for a plea/browbeating from Obama. :7

[MineralMan]

6. I just can't do the worst case scenario thing. I prefer to wait

to see what transpires. I've sent out my emails on the subject to anyone I have the potential of influencing. Beyond that, it's a waiting game. I have to leave the speculation to others. I just don't find it productive.

[gateley]

8. Agree - and I try not to get sucked in, but then I start explaining

my views (like anybody cares) then end up getting upset! :banghead:

But honestly, I've worked myself into a frenzy before when the perceived betrayal never occurred.

[MineralMan]

9. That's why I'm not participating in any of the discussions that

are dealing with speculative stuff. Until solid factual information is available on what is actually being decided, I'm going to just hold off in public discussions. I have, of course, emailed everyone I can with my opinion about what should be done. I just don't find the speculation at all productive. It's all just sound and fury. Facts are what we need right now, and they're not available. This is the best story I could find that reports on today's meeting.

[KittyWampus]

5. Well, some White House official kicked up a hornet's nest. Idiots.

[MineralMan]

7. Yeah. And who knows who an "unnamed source" is in the

first place. It's how the media writes about worst case scenarios when they want to stir up interest. Sells products, I guess. This story seems fairly well balanced, and doesn't seem to be reporting facts not in evidence. I like that. Of course, nobody's interested in such things, it seems.