[kenberg]

luke warm, on 2011-July-29, 05:37, said:

i could be wrong on this, but i thought dems and reps had a bill they wanted obama to vet a few weeks ago... the house and senate agreed on it but obama said no... the reason was, iirc, that it was only a temporary fix and he was worried he'd have to address this issue again prior to the election

Something like this may well be true, I am a little vague on the details.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-July-29, 05:42, said:

The upshot, I believe that there is no chance in hell of this getting settled by Tuesday, or a week from Tuesday either.

Now myself, and I think many here would be with me, I would be very leery of some move to cut out the Congress. Democracy is a mess, especially when people go off on some sort of ideological binge, but we have cast our lot with the democratic process and I think we stand or fall with it.

I'm pretty sure that if no bill to raise the debt ceiling reaches the president's desk by August 2 he will invoke the 14th amendment. Clinton has prepared the ground for this:

Quote

Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.

Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”

Lifting the debt ceiling “is necessary to pay for appropriations already made,” he added, “so you can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.”

This action would not only avert the immediate crisis but (in my opinion) would help Obama politically. If he is presented with a short-term increase, it won't be so simple for him, but perhaps the senate will make sure that does not happen. If Obama does face that, I'd say veto it.

[kenberg]

I suppose that there are constitutional lawyers racking up the hours preparing for this. If no bill at all arrives on his desk, as is pretty likely, I imagine that he has a pretty good legal argument. The thought that this will all come down to a bunch of suits and robes depresses me greatly. Well, Que Sera and all that.

If this gets settled in court, either way, it will haunt us and it will not be the end of the matter.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2011-July-29, 09:52, said:

If this gets settled in court, either way, it will haunt us and it will not be the end of the matter.

Maybe thats the Republican end game...

Force Obama to invoke the 14th ammendment and then another trumped up impeachment?

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-29, 09:56, said:

Maybe thats the Republican end game...

Force Obama to invoke the 14th amendment and then another trumped up impeachment?

Tea party republicans perhaps, but I have a hard time imagining that the old hands in the party would intentionally pick that fight. Of course, I didn't imagine that the old hands would let the debt ceiling crisis get this far either...

I, along with other business people in our district, have been encouraging our (tea party) congressman Benishek to support a bipartisan deal that can make it through the senate and get the president's signature. So far as I can see this has had little or no effect. Hard to figure out anything else to do as a citizen to help fix this.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-July-29, 05:37, said:

i could be wrong on this, but i thought dems and reps had a bill they wanted obama to vet a few weeks ago... the house and senate agreed on it but obama said no... the reason was, iirc, that it was only a temporary fix and he was worried he'd have to address this issue again prior to the election

I would welcome a pointer to said agreement

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-29, 10:41, said:

I would welcome a pointer to said agreement

like i said, i don't know if this is accurate or not, but from here

Quote

President Obama appears to have rejected a bipartisan plan agreed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), according to a Washington Post report on Monday.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-July-29, 11:59, said:

like i said, i don't know if this is accurate or not, but from here

Jennifer Rubin citing anonymous sources...

Hard to image a less reliable source
http://rightweb.irc-.../rubin_jennifer

[kenberg]

The cited story cites a Washington Post opinion column:
http://www.washingto...x8DYI_blog.html

As I get it, a an un-named Republican aide to an un-named Republican was told by an unknown someone that something happened. It's not necessary to read the profile of the writer to be skeptical here. Of course she does say "If this is accurate".

This is not something to spend time on. It's too vague for the issue of accuracy to be relevant. Otoh Obama said today that there is no chance the Boehner plan will become law:
http://www.washingto...src=al_national

That seems to be more reliable and useful information concerning the President's views and actions.

[mike777]

"And it warned that failure to reach an agreement to reduce the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years also could lead to a downgrade because it could show an "inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal consolidation policy." "


http://online.wsj.co...0260199940.html

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-July-29, 13:56, said:

Otoh Obama said today that there is no chance the Boehner plan will become law:
http://www.washingto...src=al_national

That seems to be more reliable and useful information concerning the President's views and actions.

In his remarks today, Obama said again that he'd sign either the Reid or McConnell bill if passed. Seems to me that the first time that Obama said he'd sign the McConnell bill, the house republicans deemed that to be a sign that McConnell's approach was therefore unacceptable.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-29, 13:20, said:

Jennifer Rubin citing anonymous sources...

yes, that's almost never done

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-July-29, 15:36, said:

yes, that's almost never done

Agree completely...
Lots of folks cite anonymous sources.

However, Jennifer Rubin is a special case.
She is a completely unreliable hack at the best of times, good for nothing but recycling AIPAC and Club for Growth talking points.

No one in their right mind would trust her to deliver reliable content under these circumstances.

[kenberg]

If Boehner and Reid actually do have an agreement (no, I don't think they do) I would say that tonight would be a really good time to put it forth and pass it.

[kenberg]

Reflecting a little more, I think I understand the Jennifer Rubin blog.

In the last week or two, many people have really sat up and taken notice of what has happened. They have concluded:

1. Defaulting is not a good idea. We have names, none of them nice, for people who stiff others on what is owed. Those of us who meet our financial obligations are perhaps not completely clear on what happens to those who don't, but we think (and hope) that it doesn't work out well for them.

2. Before issuing a threat, a sensible person thinks through the consequences of carrying out that threat. Trying to get your way on the basis of "If you don't do everything that I say then I am going to do something really crazy that we will all regret" is not cool.


Well, now it's crunch time. There will be some effort to create a picture along the lines of "Good golly, it's not our fault that the country went into default. We were the reasonable ones".

No sale.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2011-July-30, 03:59, said:

Well, now it's crunch time. There will be some effort to create a picture along the lines of "Good golly, it's not our fault that the country went into default. We were the reasonable ones".

No sale.

i don't think such a tactic would be totally unsuccessful, if true (or even if perceived true)... iow, what plan has the prez put forth? what has he done other than threaten to veto? and how is it any different saying "pass what we want or else" or "pass what i want or i veto it?"

[kenberg]

I guess we shall see ow successful it will be. I'm betting not very.

[Winstonm]

Quote

what plan has the prez put forth?

Of his three guest panelist on Bill Maher's show, one was a Republican and another was a Tea Party member who both echoed the same sentiments - where is the President's plan?

To be clear, it is not the job of the President to write bills - that is specifically the duty of Congress. The President acts by giving direction without specificity. The veto threat is again guidance as to what will and what won't be accepted.

To infer that a Presedential veto is even in the same universe as a minority within a majority holding an entire country hostage to its demands simply shows how far removed from reality right-wing thinking has become.

[PassedOut]

Sean Theriault has a piece on how the voters (including those in my own congressional district) got us into the current mess: Congress is doing exactly what it was elected to do

Quote

The problem with our deficit crisis today is that the message the voters sent -- and that the winning candidates heard -- was "never compromise, never surrender." We may need such a mentality on the battlefield, but we cannot have such a mentality in politics. Politics, after all, is the art of compromise.

Our Constitution was a document forged in compromise: compromise among 13 states, each with different preferences and different backgrounds. They forged compromise because they knew the problems they faced were greater than the differences between them.

Regrettably, pragmatic problem solving was not the choice voters made in the Republican primaries or the general election in 2010. And, now, we are all living with it. Elections, indeed, have consequences and we are now bearing the consequences of the decisions made by the electorate in district after district and state after state nine months ago.

I'm not convinced that the message the voters meant to send was "never compromise, never surrender" but the people the voters elected surely had that mindset. And attentive voters should have known that.

In my district, Benishek campaigned as a moderate, even disavowing some of the more extreme statements he had made during the republican primary. Attentive voters should have realized that the moderation was only for campaign purposes.

It should not be a surprise that irresponsible voting produces an irresponsible congress. But that's where we are today.

[kenberg]

As far as the President putting ornot putting forth a plan, and therefore sharing in the blame, consider what happened with the Boehner plan of last week. It was insufficiently uncompromising and had to be re-written.

There are many things that I at least hope I am open minded about. Who deserves the blame/credit for getting us into this position of everything must be done according to the Tea Party instructions or we will take the country into default, this seems to me to be not open to debate. If it is a good idea, it is their good idea. If it is a bad idea, it is their bad idea.

I think that a very large segment of the country is coming to the conclusion that it is a very bad idea.