Reid postpones vote to “give everyone as much room as possible” for deal; Update: $2.8T in cuts and debt-ceiling boost, no tax hike?

posted at 11:45 pm on July 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The late breaking news from the nation’s capital tonight is that the late-breaking news from the capital early tomorrow morning has been postponed:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced shortly after 10 p.m. Sunday that he would postpone a vote on his bill to raise the debt limit to give negotiators at the White House more time to work.

He said the Senate would vote on his plan at 1:00 p.m. Sunday, instead of 1:00 a.m., as was originally scheduled. …

“I believe we should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work,” he said. “I spoke to the White House, quite a few times this evening, and they’ve asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an agreement if one can be reached.”

The Senate adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Saturday and will reconvene at noon Sunday.

Translastion: The remarks by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell earlier today appear to have been accurate.  CBS’ Mark Knoller had been tweeting earlier that Dan Pfeiffer was poo-pooing the notion that a deal was brewing, but that he has “covered WH long enough to know when pool kept late on Sat night something’s going on.”  And as I predicted earlier tonight, the first stage may be a very short-term debt-limit increase to get time to finalize a deal:

If they get a tentative deal, Pres Obama will agree to short term extension of debt limit to allow time to enact deal.

If Obama told Reid to extend the vote for another 12 hours, then the White House must figure that they’re close to a deal.

Update: Jimmie Bise links to ABC, which reports the tentative parameters of the deal:

  • Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
  • Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
  • Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
  • Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
  • Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
  • If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

So Obama gets all of the increase in one fell swoop, but no tax hikes, apparently, plus a total of $2.8 trillion in reductions for projected spending (none of the plans actually made cuts in spending) in areas guaranteed to hurt both parties.  The vote on the BBA is a win for Boehner, but only in the sense that Republicans get Democrats on the record for opposing it.  It’s a deal we could have reached two weeks ago, but were never going to reach until time ran out.

Update II: Via Jeff Dunetz, National Journal’s Major Garrett also gets a similar story from his sources, but the news is a little better:

  • 2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
  • The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
  • The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
  • If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
  • No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

I expect plenty of hyperventilating at the term “Super Committee,” but it’s basically the kind of ad hoc committee that Congress can authorize at any time.  It sounds a lot like the BRAC process used by Congress to identify military bases for closure.  The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds.  I should note that Jimmie Bise in his post believes that the second round of cuts might be actual cuts; if so, then this is an even bigger win.

Note too that the second round of cuts appears to be guaranteed; if the Super Commission can’t agree on specific and precise reductions, then an across-the-board cut goes into place.

Update III: Jen Rubin hears the same deal from the offices of two “senior” Republicans on the Hill.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Whatever your position is on this “deal” or any other, can we remember that we’re all on the same side here, please?

KSgop on July 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

And yet this episode shows that… we’re not. It turns out some of us are conservatives, and some of us are really apparently closer to liberal than conservative.

This deal isn’t remotely conservative – there’s nothing in it that conservatives want, or what is actually needed to fix the problem. However, this bill is full of things liberals want, though all it lacks from being a perfectly liberal bill is a tax increase. It has continued spending increases (no cuts, just decreases in the amount of increases, blah blah blah).

Note this well, folks. This is what ‘negotiation’ and ‘compromise’ means to liberals – they get 95% of what they want, conservatives get… effectively nothing.

Midas on July 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

So explain to me why we won in 2010 and we’re compromising with the losers?

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Because they won in 2008 and until we get them out, we have to deal with them.

PackerBronco on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

A:So ah…what’s your address out there?
B:Oh, and do you keep dogs? How many and what breed, again I’m just wondering.
Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 12:44 AM

A: If it had an address, it wouldn’t be much of a gulch, now, would it?

B: I tried dogs, but the wolves and mountain lions ate them all. And the last one, running away from the mountain lions fell in the moat, and a shark with a frickin laser beam on his head, got him.

LegendHasIt on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Using gryphon’s logic, anyone who votes for a Democrat must be a supporter of slavery – after all, their party tried to uphold the institution of slavery back in theil1850s. How can we trust them now to keep slavery illegal?

Red Cloud on July 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Your straw men are getting sickening. Hold open your shirt so I can puke in it, moron.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Hmmmm……..so Barry and Harry blinked?

GarandFan on July 31, 2011 at 12:48 AM

It would appear that way. But I would still not bet the farm that Boehner can get that big-ass number past the House.

But look at it this way, President Perry won’t have to deal with a debt fight as soon as he takes office in 2012. :-D

rockmom on July 31, 2011 at 12:53 AM

is as gross an oversimplification as they come. But hey, I’m just a single voter from flyover country, sans spouse and sans children. WTF do I know?/

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

It’s doubtful, reading this,

Hold open your shirt so I can puke in it, moron.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

that you’re even of voting age.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 12:53 AM

And the new freshman congress and a wide awake electorate will be watching and documenting every stinking borrowed penny!

katy on July 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

By the way, who has been monitoring the spending of Porkulous?

neuquenguy on July 31, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Because they won in 2008 and until we get them out, we have to deal with them.

PackerBronco on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

That does not address the very real issue of profligate Republican spending over three election cycles. All I see to suggest that the Republicans have been doing or will do anything beneficial to the cause of freedom is blind stupid faith. As much as I am a man of faith, I place my faith in no man (or woman, for that matter).

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

2. More debt = bad? If that were the prevailing philosophy, we would never have entered World Wars I or II, our nation would have 13 states (we financed our expansion with debt) and we’d never be able to maintain our standard of living through a major crisis. Oversimplification breeds ignorance.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

At this point, I don’t see how more debt isn’t bad. People argued that debt was OK under Bush for the same reasons you did – it helps grow the nation. Now look where we are.

I’d definitely say that more debt, at this point, is a very unhealthy sign.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Your straw men are getting sickening. Hold open your shirt so I can puke in it, moron.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

It’s hardly a strawman, it’s a comparison. You say the GOP can’t be trusted on the issue because of something they did in the past – parties don’t change, right?

And the ad hominems… please, understand that they roll right off my back. You only make yourself look desperate when you use them.

Red Cloud on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years

LOL…uh-huh…

ddrintn on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Using gryphon’s logic, anyone who votes for a Democrat must be a supporter of slavery – after all, their party tried to uphold the institution of slavery back in theil1850s. How can we trust them now to keep slavery illegal?

Red Cloud on July 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I actually think you’re on to something. Anyone that supports the Dems’ platform is supporting a form of slavery.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 12:55 AM

And the new freshman congress and a wide awake electorate will be watching and documenting every stinking borrowed penny!
katy on July 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Watch all you want, the freshman congress is going along with the lifers and our screams of anger go unheard.

Want to know where that $2.8T is going? Straight into the willing hands of people who will consider themselves bought in 2012, disguised as economic stimulus, or job creation or whatever.

And then right before November next year the scare stories will begin about seniors being denied everything including heating oil, just enough mongering to sway an election.

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 12:55 AM

And yet this episode shows that… we’re not. It turns out some of us are conservatives, and some of us are really apparently closer to liberal than conservative.

This deal isn’t remotely conservative – there’s nothing in it that conservatives want, or what is actually needed to fix the problem. However, this bill is full of things liberals want, though all it lacks from being a perfectly liberal bill is a tax increase. It has continued spending increases (no cuts, just decreases in the amount of increases, blah blah blah).

Note this well, folks. This is what ‘negotiation’ and ‘compromise’ means to liberals – they get 95% of what they want, conservatives get… effectively nothing.

Midas on July 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

We’re only on the same side insofar as we want what we think is good for America. Anyone who honestly believes that compromising with Reid and Obama is good for America needs to be shut away in a rubber room until the first Wednesday of November 2012.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:56 AM

That does not address the very real issue of profligate Republican spending over three election cycles.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

I think Milton Friedman said it best when he said that the issue is not electing the “right people” but rather to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. The profligate Republicans were that way because the American people let them be that way.

If you want better results, you need better voters.

PackerBronco on July 31, 2011 at 12:58 AM

At this point, I don’t see how more debt isn’t bad. People argued that debt was OK under Bush for the same reasons you did – it helps grow the nation. Now look where we are.

I’d definitely say that more debt, at this point, is a very unhealthy sign.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

My point is – has always been – that debt at this level is bad, but there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Not when Democrats still control so many levers of power in Washington.

Entitlement reform, the Ryan budget, sending the BBA to the states, these are pipe dreams until we recapture the Senate and the White House, which just became more likely. We don’t get to pick the battlefields. But we do get to pick whether our losses will be minimized and we take as much as we can get.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Red Cloud: Okay, let’s work with this metaphor, and see where it gets us.

We are in a car, and there is a wall an unknown distance ahead of us. The car is the economy, its velocity is the spending per year, and therefore the acceleration is the rate of change of spending per year. The wall is the point at which the economy collapses due to debt.

So the distance from the wall is the amount of debt we can really take on before our economy dies, either from internal or external sources.

Is this good so far?

Note: we do not know the exact location of the wall.

All right, so what is the function of the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is an arbitrary ‘imaginary wall’, if you will, designed to ensure that we do not hit the real wall.

So, the very first thing this bill does is move the imaginary wall further away from us. Whether it moves the imaginary wall beyond the real wall is unknown.

Second, it purports to reduce spending per year. However, the extent of the reduced spending is unknown. So we can somewhat say that the velocity of the car will go down (which, yes, does mean that the acceleration is negative), but we don’t know how much.

So… why support this bill? (Honest question.) Basically, if the analogy holds, the only reason to favor this bill over no increase in the debt ceiling is if you believe both of the following:

1) There’s enough room before the real wall so that a gradual stop will prevent hitting the wall.

And

2) Hitting the imaginary wall will cause loss of control of the car, and it will crash.

Would you agree that this extends the metaphor correctly?

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

I think Milton Friedman said it best when he said that the issue is not electing the “right people” but rather to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. The profligate Republicans were that way because the American people let them be that way.

If you want better results, you need better voters.

PackerBronco on July 31, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Then America is well and truly doomed.

/FuneralDirge

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

neuquenguy on July 31, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Joe Biden silly…

katy on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

LegendHasIt on July 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Thanks for all that information, it will come in handy as I plan my atta….as I plan my atta…ching of a balloon to your birthday present. Yes that’s it.

What’s the address where I should send this present?

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

The deal looks delicious. Republicans in the House can essentially force the adoption of the balanced budget amendment by refusing to accept the deal of the commission. The Dems are loath to see Medicare cut, so the Amendment is off to the states.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years

LOL…uh-huh…

ddrintn on July 31, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Yeah, I missed that part… trying to catch up. LOL indeed.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

So we can be sure that the commission will default on their duties… Yes… It’s a done deal… They will miss their targets….

By the 1.8 Trillion in cuts being moved to Xmax 2011… The voters are going to be completely incense as to why automatic cuts are affecting soldiers & their families & retired Americans in December before an election non the less… Why do u think the NYT is out today saying that default might not be the crisis that has been made out to be now… This cuts would make sense to military families & seniors if they happened as the same time the bill is passed… But by deferring it… Their will be a disconnect… The Dem’s will be off the hook and will have show bills to make sure they are not the ones blamed for it & they will get to run on Republican cuts to soldiers & Grandma for XMax 2011 for no reason since there is no crisis on XMax 2011 after 2.8 Trilion are maxed out… Guess they won’t be any change in 2012

Y314K on July 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

My point is – has always been – that debt at this level is bad, but there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Not when Democrats still control so many levers of power in Washington.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

There might not be a lot the GOP can do to reverse things, but they clearly can block the Dems’ agenda of increasing the debt.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:02 AM

My point is – has always been – that debt at this level is bad, but there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Not when Democrats still control so many levers of power in Washington.

Entitlement reform, the Ryan budget, sending the BBA to the states, these are pipe dreams until we recapture the Senate and the White House, which just became more likely. We don’t get to pick the battlefields. But we do get to pick whether our losses will be minimized and we take as much as we can get.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

I tend to agree with you. I have to wait to see what rally was agreed on in this “alleged” compromise.There’s only so much we can do at this time. We must beat Obama in 2012.Flame me all you want, but that’s my opinion at this time…

sandee on July 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

The deal looks delicious.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Isn’t that what we thought about the 100 billion that ended up to be less than 350 million? I am being mocked for assuming bad faith based on past behavior while those doing the mocking are assuming good faith based on nothing except pretty words. Apparently I stand alone.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 12:55 AM

There were 22 brave hold outs who were under enormous threat. It will take time to find 22 more and 22 more…

We didn’t get into this sewer over night and it will take time to clean the swamp.

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Don’t forget the markets could tank and interest rates could go up..Don’t want to risk that in this economy..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:04 AM

There might not be a lot the GOP can do to reverse things, but they clearly can block the Dems’ agenda of increasing the debt.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:02 AM

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that they have no intention of doing that. They had no intention of doing that. The fix was in from day one: Republicans had always planned to increase the debt ceiling and enable higher spending. The only variable was what they thought they could get in return for it. And that looks less and less promising to me with every press conference I’m bombarded with from any politician on the matter.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:04 AM

People, if the commission fails, then a balanced budget amendment is sent to the states. The passage of a balanced budget amendment with a fixed GDP percentage from 18 to 20 percent and restrictions on tax increases is the holy grail of conservatism.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

The deal looks delicious. Republicans in the House can essentially force the adoption of the balanced budget amendment by refusing to accept the deal of the commission. The Dems are loath to see Medicare cut, so the Amendment is off to the states.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Hahahaha! Wow is that naive. No, the Dems won’t pass the BBA, they’ll let the cuts happen and blame it on the Republicans. Expect commercials of Reps shooting granny in the face with a shotgun running up to election 2012.

Pattosensei on July 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Watch all you want, the freshman congress is going along with the lifers and our screams of anger go unheard.

Want to know where that $2.8T is going? Straight into the willing hands of people who will consider themselves bought in 2012, disguised as economic stimulus, or job creation or whatever.

And then right before November next year the scare stories will begin about seniors being denied everything including heating oil, just enough mongering to sway an election.

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 12:55 AM

No, it’s totally cool.

More spending & debt is awesome this really smart economist named KingGold told me.

tetriskid on July 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

We didn’t get into this sewer over night and it will take time to clean the swamp.

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Time we may not have.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification

While that is great news, and I dearly hope the Super Committee fails miserably, I don’t see how they can guarantee the 2/3 votes needed to send the BBA to the states.

pedestrian on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Also, candidates for state houses can run on a promise to pass the balanced budget amendment. We could use this to sweep more states houses and governors mansions!

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Dire Straits: That’s covered by the second option.

Note, however, that if this debt ceiling increase causes the economy to collapse (and we do not know if it will or not), then either option would have caused an economic collapse, and therefore incentive to back the bill vanishes.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

The biggest reason the R’s spent so much 2000-2007 was because of Democrats nipping at their heels. Plus, a belief that the Dems were an election away from irrelevance. There was a belief back then that heading the Democrats’ talking points off at the pass with items like Medicare Part D could stave them off for another election until their donors abandoned them.

A win in 2012 would not only be a gain for the Republicans and Tea Party, it would be due to statist leftism being completely…dare I say it…refudiated. A Republican Class of 2012 with a (hopefully) Republican President will have a lot more popular support for ending wasteful giveaways and making the necessary cuts. In 2013, Democrats won’t be able to demagogue their way back into power as easily, and may be involved in a crackup of their own.

So I understand folks wanting to get off the beach on the budget battle. I just see no need to rush madly over the dunes when I’m watching our gunships getting close to shore. Anything can happen, the boats can get sunk before they soften up the enemy on the shore for us. But at some point, you have to trust that the admirals know what they are doing, and the cover’s going to be there.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

If you want better results, you need better voters.

PackerBronco on July 31, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Then America is well and truly doomed.

/FuneralDirge

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Want to get really depressed? Read this about the American voter…

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

The Republicans will run non-stop ads blasting the Democrats for killing granny because they cannot stop spending. I can see images of Nancy Pelosi pushing grandma of the cliff and then using tax dollars to buy expensive wine.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

So I understand folks wanting to get off the beach on the budget battle. I just see no need to rush madly over the dunes when I’m watching our gunships getting close to shore. Anything can happen, the boats can get sunk before they soften up the enemy on the shore for us. But at some point, you have to trust that the admirals know what they are doing, and the cover’s going to be there.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Do the words “blind faith” mean anything to you?

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Andy: If the GOP plays partisan politics by ensuring the failure of the commission, the Democrats will let the Medicare and other cuts occur and then blame the Republicans. And they’ll have at least something of a point.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

The operative word there is “time”, and we’ve run out of it.

PBHO is going to spend those trillions on payouts and crapola so fast it will make sounds waves look slow in comparison, and when it’s gone it’s gone. Forever and ever, Amen.

Almost 3 trillion extra dollars added to the debit sheet without a damn thing to show for it except Trumka driving a new Cadillac and Michelle Obama drizzling her nightly lobster tail feast with liquid gold.

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Want to get really depressed? Read this about the American voter…

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

I am an American voter. I didn’t vote for him (protests here tonight to the contrary).

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Apparently I stand alone.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

No you don’t.

Midas on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

There might not be a lot the GOP can do to reverse things, but they clearly can block the Dems’ agenda of increasing the debt.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:02 AM

If you’re talking about not raising, or lowering, the debt ceiling, you’re wrong. We cannot do this and survive as a party or movement. We’re talking untenable cuts to safety net programs, a halt to domestic spending, dangerous support cutoffs for our military, and a downgrade nonetheless.

The media would also blow an artery, and would not hesitate to tie this around our necks and throw us in the river. And the American people, suddenly not getting their checks, will believe them.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

We have never not raised the debt limit..Reagan did it 15 + times..So no one wants to be the first and then find out what happens..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Sekhmet: Wait, so the 2010 elections didn’t show popular support for reform?

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Time we may not have.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Probably not. But it only takes 20% of the population who are highly charge, to force the ship to turn.

Just not sure we’re highly charged enough. It’s like swimming in molasses.

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:10 AM

My point is – has always been – that debt at this level is bad, but there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Not when Democrats still control so many levers of power in Washington.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

So on August 2nd 2011 in Washington, DC vote like a Democrat… Since they control so many levers of power…

Y314K on July 31, 2011 at 1:10 AM

So I understand folks wanting to get off the beach on the budget battle. I just see no need to rush madly over the dunes when I’m watching our gunships getting close to shore. Anything can happen, the boats can get sunk before they soften up the enemy on the shore for us. But at some point, you have to trust that the admirals know what they are doing, and the cover’s going to be there.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Excellent point..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Dire Straits: So, in essence, there is no debt ceiling. It’s even more imaginary than I thought. :p

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

All the Republicans have to do is refuse to pass the commissions proposal. Then the proposal dies and the BBA comes up for a vote. If the vote fails, then granny dies. The pressure on Dems will be acute.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Legend and Bishop, thanks for the reality checks. The cold water is going to hit the rest, in time.

Schadenfreude on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

a balloon to your birthday present. Yes that’s it.
What’s the address where I should send this present?
Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

I have neither birthdays, nor addresses, and only spoofed IPs.
You can’t even triangulate me with cell towers.

You seem like a nice guy though. Meet me at Hugh’s Diner outside of Cheyenne three days after the abyss happens and I’ll bring you in.

LegendHasIt on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

uh I think you get my drift. The devil lives at 1600 Penn Ave and somebody put him there. And apparently there were enough of them to do it.

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

LoL..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Probably not. But it only takes 20% of the population who are highly charge, to force the ship to turn.

Just not sure we’re highly charged enough. It’s like swimming in molasses.

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:10 AM

It takes only about 10% of the voting electorate to attempt a third-party putsch and hand Obama another four years. At what point should this become a concern for the GOP? At what point would it? Or will it?

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:12 AM

The only variable was what they thought they could get in return for it.

True and they didn’t get a lot in return

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:13 AM

KingGold: I will note that, at some point, we will hit a debt level that is unsustainable. It is clear to me from RedCloud’s metaphor that I think that debt level is a lot closer to where we are than you or RedCloud think it is.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:13 AM

I’d like all of you repbub-squish cowards to remind me again how the “TEA-Party & True Conservatives f$cked-up”?

Remind me how they were being “unreasonable and unrealistic”.

You cowardly a-holes would have folded immediately after CCB was tabled.

You can thank us later….in the meantime….try and grow some nads.

Tim_CA on July 31, 2011 at 1:13 AM

All the Republicans have to do is refuse to pass the commissions proposal. Then the proposal dies and the BBA comes up for a vote. If the vote fails, then granny dies. The pressure on Dems will be acute.

andy85719 on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

And when the Republicans don’t refuse to pass that proposal, you’ll have egg all over your face along with a lot of other blindly loyal Republican ideologues.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

We have never not raised the debt limit. . . Reagan did it 15 + times

Reagan had a Democratic House all of his 8 years in office.

Emperor Norton on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

But at some point, you have to trust that the admirals know what they are doing

Then you remember that the Admiral last commanded the SS Minnow and the Vice Admiral has the strange name of “Gilligan”.

Start swimming.

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Apparently politics is lost on most folks it seems.

Oh those brave and principal filled 22. Soon to be canonized I’m sure.

Funny thing is…..if Boehner needed to get a few more votes than he did…the holy 22 would have become the great 18 or the mighty 15. Once they got to 218….political took over.

DLEW on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Sekhmet: Wait, so the 2010 elections didn’t show popular support for reform?

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:09 AM

The Dems still control the Senate and the White House. And these Democrats are the hardline ideologues. 2012 is needed to knock them into a minority where they can’t hurt anybody.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

If you’re talking about not raising, or lowering, the debt ceiling, you’re wrong. We cannot do this and survive as a party or movement.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Well, technically, I’m right. The GOP is in the position to deny any sort of increase in debt. That’s what I said, right?

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

gryphon: Regarding third-party issues, I have always said, and I still believe, that before any third party (and this includes the Tea Party) seriously seeks the Presidency, they need to elect legislators to Congress.

If you attack their power base in Congress, they’ll either get the message, or you build up your own power base. Either way, you win.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:16 AM

The Dems still control the Senate and the White House. And these Democrats are the hardline ideologues. 2012 is needed to knock them into a minority where they can’t hurt anybody.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

You mean like we had for six years from 2000 to 2006?

The GOP has betrayed you.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:16 AM

We cannot do this and survive as a party or movement.
KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

What you mean “we,” kimosabe?

Emperor Norton on July 31, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Also want to mke another point..I am all for cutting spending and raising ceiling if I had my way but..I really do not want Obie and his crew having to make shut down decisions..I cringe to think what he would cut..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:17 AM

gryphon: Regarding third-party issues, I have always said, and I still believe, that before any third party (and this includes the Tea Party) seriously seeks the Presidency, they need to elect legislators to Congress.

If you attack their power base in Congress, they’ll either get the message, or you build up your own power base. Either way, you win.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:16 AM

I am strongly inclined to agree. But it may not matter. A fringe putsch a la Ross Perot is all it would take for Obama to skate into a second term with less than 45% of the vote — just like Clinton skated into his first term with 43%.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Sekhmet: I think you missed my point.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

yah, it sucks. I wake up every day with a migraine and have since the morning after the 2008 election. And that night I sat on my couch, began to cry, put my head in my hands and out loud I said, “and so it begins”…

I hate it. It is making me ill everyday. I feel like a caged animal and the spears are jabbing away at me from between the bars. I want my old life back. I want to wake up and think about general bullsh!t and not think about how the hell their planning to round us up. Kill us off. But it’s all we have left and there’s a reason the Gadsden flag says what it says. Let’s at least die trying!

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I really do not want Obie and his crew having to make shut down decisions..I cringe to think what he would cut..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:17 AM

This is exactly what I want. He either pisses off indies and moderates or pisses of his base. Either way, re-election goes bye-bye and we MIGHT actually have a shot at reversing course.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

LegendHasIt on July 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Cheyenne? Hell no, I’m not getting anywhere near a NORAD facility, not with the Chinese looking to knock us out for good with some precision strikes after we collapse.

Nope, if my bunker is overrun then I’m heading for Wisconsin because NO ONE wants to go to Wisconsin.

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:19 AM

I am strongly inclined to agree. But it may not matter. A fringe putsch a la Ross Perot is all it would take for Obama to skate into a second term with less than 45% of the vote — just like Clinton skated into his first term with 43%.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Donald Trump – bleh

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:19 AM

KingGold: I will note that, at some point, we will hit a debt level that is unsustainable. It is clear to me from RedCloud’s metaphor that I think that debt level is a lot closer to where we are than you or RedCloud think it is.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:13 AM

You think I’m not upset that this is all we can get? You think I’m not upset about how much we left on the table in 2010 because we wouldn’t play a long game? And how because of that, our position in these talks became several times weaker than it could have been? We’re powerless to do more than we’re doing, and that’s infuriating to me.

Sure, there are people among us who want to primary every RINO in existence over this thing, thinking that will change anything. We have no leverage over intransigent Democrats. None.

One of the wise things Rush said on his show this week was, “We need to win more elections.” What makes his statement exactly true is adding, “Even if we don’t get exactly what we want in each individual election.”

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Funny thing is…..

if Boehner needed to get a few more votes than he did…the holy 22 would have become the great 18 or the mighty 15.

Once they got to 218….political took over.

DLEW on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

and if yer granny had a d!ck she’d be yer grampa.

Tim_CA on July 31, 2011 at 1:19 AM

This is exactly what I want. He either pisses off indies and moderates or pisses of his base. Either way, re-election goes bye-bye and we MIGHT actually have a shot at reversing course.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Unless and until some fringe nut pulls a Ross Perot. How much longer the Republicans can continue to thumb their noses at the conservative base is anyone’s best guess.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

I knew ABC’s write up was bogus. Jonathon Karl couldn’t get a story straight if it was typed for him. You can bet he left out the BBA language in the first write up as some sort of “If I don’t write it, maybe it won’t really happen.” The hack.

BKeyser on July 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

I will identify myself as one of the “nadless” ones. So my question to all you true keepers of conservative enlightenment and goodness…..what was the alternative? Reintroduce CCB again…? Or just let it all burn. I’m confused.

DLEW on July 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Dire Straits: Considering how ideologically bound all of his previous decisions have been, I think it would be very useful to finally reveal exactly what kind of clothes he wears.

It would hurt, yes, but a temporary pain.

gryphon: The GOP deserves a third candidate run. The American people do not deserve the result (an Obama win), but if the GOP wins, they will not take away the lesson that the American people are serious about the fiscal health of this country.

I see no way to appropriately address the GOP’s failures since November of 2010 that does NOT hand Obama another term in office.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Unless and until some fringe nut pulls a Ross Perot. How much longer the Republicans can continue to thumb their noses at the conservative base is anyone’s best guess.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

*sigh

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:21 AM

I’d like all of you repbub-squish cowards to remind me again how the “TEA-Party & True Conservatives f$cked-up”?
Remind me how they were being “unreasonable and unrealistic”.
You cowardly a-holes would have folded immediately after CCB was tabled.
You can thank us later….in the meantime….try and grow some nads.
Tim_CA

Well since y’alls plan was just to keep passing CCB, I would say there. its not as if Boehner had a problem with a balanced budget amendment. But he’s a realist. Passing the same thing ad naseum was just going to hurt the party in 2012. You cannot fix the problem with only 1/3 of the government but your sure as hell can’t fix anything with 0/3.

Zaggs on July 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I will identify myself as one of the “nadless” ones. So my question to all you true keepers of conservative enlightenment and goodness…..what was the alternative? Reintroduce CCB again…? Or just let it all burn. I’m confused.

DLEW on July 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

My position can be summed up in nine real simple words:

Listen

to

the

voters

who

put

you

in

office.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Well, technically, I’m right. The GOP is in the position to deny any sort of increase in debt. That’s what I said, right?

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Yes, technically. But I am working under the assumption that the Tea Party would not like to be responsible for a nightmare scenario and driven from political relevance for a generation.

Which, by the bye, a third-party presidential run by any conservative would also accomplish.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Do the words “blind faith” mean anything to you?

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

My faith isn’t blind. I see the polls. You’re the one nihilistically certain we are doomed.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:23 AM

You cannot fix the problem with only 1/3 of the government but your sure as hell can’t fix anything with 0/3.

Zaggs on July 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM

And the Republicans kept right on increasing spending with 3/3 of the government for six freaking years. Not one, not two, but THREE election cycles. I dunno about you, but I got spanked after the FIRST time my parents caught me doing something naughty.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Yes, technically. But I am working under the assumption that the Tea Party would not like to be responsible for a nightmare scenario and driven from political relevance for a generation.

Which, by the bye, a third-party presidential run by any conservative would also accomplish.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I noticed you work under many assumptions. Look, I’m fine with a compromise, but I’ll bring up this question. Exactly what is a “winning” compromise for the alleged conservative party? Give me a number. A percentage. Something. Define winning.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:24 AM

We have no leverage over intransigent Democrats. None.

One of the wise things Rush said on his show this week was, “We need to win more elections.” What makes his statement exactly true is adding, “Even if we don’t get exactly what we want in each individual election.”

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:19 AM

King of the cowards……run awaaaaaaay!!

A spineless loser like you quoting Rush??? ROTFLMAO!! – He’d eat your squish-ass alive, nimrod!! (I’m surprised it doesn’t make your lips burn)

Tim_CA on July 31, 2011 at 1:24 AM

KingGold: I’m one of those who either wants to primary every person that does not comport to my definition of conservatism, or simply replace them with a new party.

And, to be specific, you feel that we have no power over intransigent Democrats because the power we do have (refusing to pass legislation) is not electorally feasible. You and I disagree on that point, as you should know.

Rush’s statement cuts both ways, BTW.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:24 AM

My faith isn’t blind. I see the polls. You’re the one nihilistically certain we are doomed.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Nihilism = belief in a conceptual “nothing”

Call it what you want, but nihilistic misses my core beliefs by a country mile. “Pessimistically,” or perhaps “cynically” is a little more appropriate.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Was the end result “letting it all burn” without a debt increase, because if that’s the case we can all get used to the idea of deficits that go way beyond $17 trillion.

Sooner or later it has to stop, and if the pols aren’t going to stop it then something else will.

Bishop on July 31, 2011 at 1:25 AM

What you mean “we,” kimosabe?

Emperor Norton on July 31, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Fiscal conservatives. Rightward Republicans. Tea Party members. Whatever you like.

If you don’t identify yourself as one of those, my apologies. I didn’t mean to group you in.

KingGold on July 31, 2011 at 1:25 AM

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:22 AM

perfectly

said.

Tim_CA on July 31, 2011 at 1:25 AM

My faith isn’t blind. I see the polls. You’re the one nihilistically certain we are doomed.

Sekhmet on July 31, 2011 at 1:23 AM

I really caution you on looking at the polls for your policy. Yeah, they’re something you should keep in mind, but it doesn’t matter what the Repubs do. If they aren’t kissing Obama butt 24/7, you’ll have the likes of DWS waging all out war on the GOP and unless the GOP has the spine to have any sort of convincing come back, your polls are going to show terrifying things.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

This is not 1991-2.
What if things get so bad that a third party changed history and snagged everyone in this country who is or will suffer some kind of painful hit from this administrations policies over the next year and a half? Snagging Dems, poor, rich, independents, blacks, hispanics, gays (that were kicked out of CPAC ;o) and everyone else who is screaming F-ck this! What if? if the pols are correct and huge majorities are calling DC broken…what if?

katy on July 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

I noticed you work under many assumptions. Look, I’m fine with a compromise, but I’ll bring up this question. Exactly what is a “winning” compromise for the alleged conservative party? Give me a number. A percentage. Something. Define winning.

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:24 AM

“Compromise” = working with Democrats to pass something that everyone in DC can live with. And if Obama and Reid can live with it, I can’t. Sorry compromisers.

gryphon202 on July 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

MeatHeadinCA on July 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

I see what you are saying..But a lot of innocent folks would get hurt..I don’t want ot see that happen..:)

Dire Straits on July 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Dire Straits: No one wants to see people get hurt. But at some point that pain is going to happen. We will eventually run out of other people’s money, and the dependent class will riot and run amok.

Scott H on July 31, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5