I had refrained from commenting because, to be blunt, I wasn't sure I could stay nice or civil. And I'm still not sure I can, but I can't stay silent with people pretenting the Republican Congress is the only problem. Two things speak volumes to Obama's lack of good faith.
(1) He and his allies have offered no plan. Hell, they haven't passed a god damn budget since FY2009, deliberately punting on in 2010 for fear of electoral damage in the midterms. We nearly faced a shut early this year because this act of cowardice despite having 59 Senate votes and a majority in the house.
Barack talks about "cuts" and even used the number 4 trillion except....other than gutting defense he has offered no specifics and even today explicity refused to provide any. The only thing has said about the tax increaes is target the corporate jet deduction (which he reauthorized in Stimulus, btw), "the rich," and vague references to entitlements, which no one with a shred of intellectual honesty believes he will sign off on. The man who invited Ryan to his speech and then demagouged his plan to his face in a medium where Ryan could not respond and who belongs to a part who has been demgagouing the issue since Ryan promposed his plan at the beginning of the year. That guy agreeing to significant cuts in entitlements, sure.......
Three press conferences, no specifics.
Of course, Obama said the tax increases would begin until 2013....how convenient and the 4 trillion would be divided over ten years while the tax increases will be enacted now, meaning his gets his increases and Republicans have to trust him and future Congress to implement the unpecified cuts. Hmm..... Can't imagine what they aren't biting on that.
Bush I one agreed to something like this in 1990. The cuts never came and the Democrats spend the 1992 election rewarding him by beating him over the head for violating his no new tax pledge.
Insurrection, Codus N...if I offered you 1.4 trillion in spending cuts now (the approximate size of the deificit) in exchange for a tax increase over the next ten years who enactment would depend future Congress's to enact, would you take that without any guarantee you'll get your future tax increases? You can go ahead and tell me you would, but I won't believe you.
But while he hasn't specified where they would cut, he has layed down areas where they can't: ObamaCare, Education, Regulations, "Green Jobs"
In short Obama would get a tax increase now (with Republican cover), an increase in the ceiling now (also with Repubican cover), while agreeing to unspecified cuts almost all of which wille be dependent on future Congress's to adhere to and that may never happen while exempting his sacred cows from those cuts and gutting the area Democrats have never been shy about cutting.
That's a compromise?
And it gets even better. Just today Carney couldn't say what was worse...a short term deal or default. I think default was the apocoloypse guys. Either (1) it's not or (2) his refusal for a short-term deal (what Cantor says Obama threw his hissy fit over) is nakedly partison and what he really wants it to push it past the 2012 election. I'm not the least bit surprised Cantor doesn't think Obama is negotiating in good faith.
QUOTE
We only default if they don't vote. And they won't vote therefore we default. The easiest and best way to solve this problem is to extend the debt ceiling and work on a comprehensive budget, but that can't happen because of the ideologic purity the only way it will work is if the partisans are thrown out, but the election and redistricting has so trenched in everyone it won't happen. So yeah, we're destined to be screwed unless someone plays the arbitrator with balls
Not quiet. Treasury take in enough to service the debt and pay entitlements without additional borrowing. Treasury does not take in enough to do that AND operate all functions of government. We default only if Treasury chooses to. That doesn't mean markets won't still have fits. They probably will, but an actual default isn't guarantee.
Except that we have, in essence, already been there once. FY2011 began on October 1, 2010. The Democrats with huge majorities did not offer a budget let alone pass one. They had to engage in continuing resolutions to keep the government funded. This issue was fought in December 2010 and was one of the things the Republicans used to prevent the pending tax increase. A club the Republicans would not have had, btw, had the Dems with their majorities had the courage to pass a budget when they were supposed to. The issue rose again in early spring and the government nearly shutdown over it. So, the FY2011 budget was essentially passed 7 months after it was due.
FY2012 begins Oct. 1, 2011. So, the comprehensive budget would have to be done relatvely soon. If I'm a Republican law maker, I remember that even far more modest cuts 4 months ago almost cause a government shutdown that the Dems were happy to have, so they would lay it at the Republicans feet like Clinton did in 1995. I'd expect the same results given that the players would be the same.
Also if I'm a Republican, especially in the Senate, I remember that Reid hasn't passed a budget in over two years (over 800 days) and I'm to depened on that to significant reductions in the deficient when the majotiry hasn't offereqa budegt in some time AND the only proposed by the President was panned even by supporers and went down in flames 97-0.
Why expect the result to be any different?
QUOTE
more likely thing if they dont strike a deal is that Obama will use the constitutional authority he has to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally which he can do under the law. And then laugh mockingly at repubs when they try and impeach him for doing what the law allows him to do.
I like how you spout this as if it's indisputable fact when it's far from obvious that this particular reading of the 14th Amendment is valid. Especially the reach that this would allow the President to borrow as a method to prevent that when it does no such thing and in direct contridiction with Article I Section 8 which gives Congress and only Congress the power to borrow. Second, on that debt authorized by law. Given that new debt would have to be created to pay for old and Congress has not authorized new debt AND nothing gives President the power to unilaterally issue new debt, would that new debt, you know, be authorized by law? I.e. Would that new debt be subject to question?
I think Professor Tribe doesa far better job explaning why your tortured intepreation doesn't work.
http://www.nytimes.c...ref=todayspaper
