So Boner and the Pukes blinked!!! Could not agree to an BIG Obama proposal (because they don't

[Change Happens]

care about the deficit or anything else, they could not let the President put his name on a BIG PLAN...etc.

So they blinked, they backed down...


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Boehner-to-seek-smaller-2-apf-895081864.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[senseandsensibility]

1. Really?

Just a way to kick this until I read the whole article.:)

[elleng]

18. Yup.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/us/politics/10debt.html?hp

[CTyankee]

23. Ellen, what do you think that last part of the last sentence of the article meant by

"selling federal assets"? It sounds like something Greece is being forced to do...

[elleng]

25. Dunno, Surely a reference to Greece, but don't know what 'assets.'

Bonds? General Motors???? Hoover Dam???? Didn't follow Biden deal closely, but looks like we'll be going back to him, which is FINE w me; love the guy.

:hi:

[CTyankee]

26. Well, I don't like it one damn bit. I want to find out what it means because

it sounds too vague...as if someone doesn't want to say exactly what that is...sorry, I'm getting mighty suspicious in my dotage!

[elleng]

27. Ain't no dotage, yank, but all we've got now is rumor, innuendo, etc.,

so I'm paying very little attention, except that its a good sign that repugs appear to be chasing their tails at the moment.

[CTyankee]

29. Yes, there is that, but I don't like really vague language,

It makes me a bit uncomfortable until I find out what it entails...

[spanone]

2. they have no intention of raising the debt ceiling...imho

they only care about political victories and fuck the people

[Marr]

3. Oh, they'll raise it. Big busines would lose more than anyone, and these

con men (from both parties) are owned by big business. They'd raise the debt ceiling without receiving a single concession, if it came down to it-- and I'm sure Obama and his advisors know that. It's all political cover for pushing cuts that no one outside of Wall Street wants.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. That's what I've always thought. That it was a bluff

We'll see what happens in a couple of weeks.

[Marr]

20. Yep-- just like the bank bailouts. They're holding a gun

to their own heads and saying they'll crash the economy if they don't get their way. But they've got more to lose than anyone, so it's an absurd threat.

[aquart]

4. Well, no.

I would bet their pals at the Chamber of Commerce want that ceiling raised pronto.

[spanone]

28. well, we'll see shortly. boehner can't get his idiots to agree on anything

[KittyWampus]

5. Agreed, they're going over the cliff this time.

[girl gone mad]

6. There's a 0% chance of that.

[pscot]

12. They have no choice

They have to raise it and they will raise it. I don't understand why they're being indulged. There's nothing to talk about.

[KittyWampus]

13. They will raise it AFTER they allow a default.

[Renew Deal]

7. That's exactly correct.

Any plan would have made Obama look good and they didn't want that to happen again.

[Me.]

8. What's The Blink?

[Fuzz]

10. Olbermann predicted this, but it's not a big victory really.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. I am almost convinced that the end game is default.

They'll see to it that Wall Street will get theirs, but a whole lot of people won't. The Rs keep walking away from the table. They want no part of the negotiations. This is not failure, it's strategy.

[gkhouston]

14. +1. It's strategy. They'll keep walking away until a default happens.

They and their buddies will get rich. What happens afterwards is what will make things "interesting".

[KittyWampus]

15. Indeed, it's going to be a long hot Summer.

[toddwv]

16. So was this all the equivalent of going "all-in" in poker?

Seems like this tacks a HUGE sign on the backs of the Republicans that says "Refused to compromise. 100% responsible for any default on debt."

[Kurmudgeon]

19. ""Refused to compromise. 100% responsible for any default on debt." I agree 100%. but...

We'll have right wing media saying the exact opposite at first opportunity.
It'll be almost interesting to see who they try to pin this on.

[toddwv]

30. Definitely.

They will spin their little pin heads off trying to pass the blame even though there is only one "side" that is positively giddy about the idea of defaulting on the debt AND shutting the government down.

It's going to be REALLY hard to blame one-side for a default or even a shutdown when the other side is partying in the streets... I'm sure they'll be happy to try though.

-------------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/TeaParty-DebtLimit-JohnBoehner-RepublicanParty/2011/07/09/id/403013

A significant faction of the tea party movement is prepared to revolt against any GOP deal to raise the debt ceiling – even if it is “revenue neutral” and cuts trillions from federal spending, grass-roots sources tell Newsmax.

For the most part, tea party leaders have coalesced around the “cut, cap, and balance” approach to raising the debt ceiling: Trillions in real spending cuts, a cap on how much federal spending can consume as a percent of GDP, and, ultimately, a balanced budget Tea Party, Debt Limit, John Boehner, Republican Partyamendment that would prevent the federal government from running up future deficits.

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

[Change Happens]

21. Yes!

[EC]

17. I think Wall Street called him on the carpet...

and he can't get the deal now without Dem's votes, so what is the poor man to do?:sarcasm:

[Change Happens]

22. Link?

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Yes, it seems like we dodged that bullet this time

The threaet to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is receeding for the mmoment. Does that mean that we now are forced to accept the deal that Cantor wanted? You know, go with the trillions in spending cuts negotiated with Biden, and, and... And nothing else. No increased revenue proposals were ever agreed to. The only thing waiting ready to be signed in a deal to avoid default by accepting massive spending cuts.

I posted most of the following elsewhere but it also fits here:

We called the wrong Republican bluff. Democrats had offered trillions of dollars in spending cuts and showed willingness to settle on closing a couple of outrageous tax loopholes that even Bohener couldn't defend with real conviction. The spending cuts Democrats were poised to sign off on cut 4 or 5 times much from the deficit than the loophole closings would have contributed.

That was when to call their bluff. Republicans got to slash trillions from government spending in return for sacrificing stuff like tax write offs on private jets and ending tax subsidies for Big Oil, the most profitable corporations in America who get more from the government than they give to it. Try to sell refusing that deal and forcing an economic crisis instead to the American public, and you can see how weak a hand Bohener was holding.

By not simply calling that bluff instead of offering a grand bargain instead here is what the Democrats lost. Number one, as unlikely as you say it may have been that Republicans would ever have taken that deal, stranger things have happened before in politics. Yes it was a long shot, but would you feel comfortable playing Russian Roulette with one bullet in a hundred chamber gun instead of in a standard six shooter. It is reckless to unnecesarily bet your politcal soul no matter how good the odds are in your favor

Number two, Democratrs just blunted the best political argument in their favor heading into the 2012 elections by putting Medicare Medicaid and Social Security on the potential chopping block. The clearest most winning contrast to Republicans that Democrats had was a reputation of being time tested true guardians of those programs who will defend them to their political death. Now that no longer is so clear cut. Now it looks like Democrats could sell them out if the price is right.

Number three. An offer once made never simply vanishes without a trace. It permanently establishes that Democrats were open to making that type of deal with Republicans. You might hsave noticed that the need to raise the debt ceiling has a tendency to come along again every so often. What if Republicans insist that cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits be placed on the table for the next round of talks, and what if Republicans prove slightly more flexible next time? It is harder to refuse to do something that you have shown a willingness to do before.