Maybe it’s time to resurrect that “Chill out, I got this” Obama image. He actually stared them down. Amazing stuff.
In other news, it sounds like a lot of the GOP’s problems are Boehner/Cantor infighting.
Grif, my theory is that GOPers are chiefly terrified of primary challenges, not what anyone else thinks. The tea party uprising has scared the shit out of them - Orrin Hatch, of all people, could get a serious challenge.
The problem is the GOP has become so comfortable soliciting the “social issue” crazies they figured why not incorporate the fiscal issue crazies as well. But while you can mollify one by voting for a DOMA or against repealing DADT, the other tends to draw arbitrary lines in the sand based on what the voices in their heads (usually they sound remarkably similar to the voices heard on Fox News) and then holds you to them. I figured once the Tea Party was co-opted by the GOP, it would fall to about the same level of respectability as the Family Research Council or whatever. Instead, the GOP seems to be unable to put the Teabaggers in their place, and instead is chasing its own tail in an effort not to appear to deviate even slightly from the litmus test.
So I was momentarily tuned into CNN tonight at the gym, and David Gergen was on there saying he understood how the conservatives felt like they weren’t being listened to, that the government spending as share of GDP had grown to 25% vs. 20 (before, at some time that I didn’t catch). I fairly wanted to yell at the TV–we’re in a recession, dumbass (OK, it’s an extremely anemic “recovery” following a deep recession)…of course if the GDP shrinks (as it did) the government’s share of the pie is going to grow, even if it stays the same size in absolute terms. DUH.
Ceding the President the ability to raise the debt ceiling is a terrible idea. What happens down the road when we have a Republican president entirely willing to play “starve the beast” Russian Roulette?
Yea, this. More power for the oval office is a bad idea, especially the way GOP presidents like to spend vast money on military and/or start wars (see Bush Jr, Bush Sr, and Reagan’s cold war spending). Congress still has to set the budget though, so I assume this really only gives the president the ability to spend what congress has already authorized?
I saw Boner’s proposal and thought “They have painted themselves into a corner and don’t know how to get out of it.” I’ve criticized Obama, but in this case I admire how he has stared the GOP down and called their bluff. They assumed he would cave, he didn’t, and now the Republicans are faced with the dilemma of either backing down from all of their big talk and bluster, or being seen as the reason for a catastrophic default because they don’t want GE to pay any taxes at all, don’t want the millionaires of the country to go back to pre-Bush tax rates, etc. This proposal is a remarkable and, frankly, transparent and laughable attempt to squirm out of the corner without having to be accountable. They don’t even say spending cuts need to be enacted, just that Obama would have to propose them! LOL!
Obama surprised them. He called their deficit bluff and went all in, doubling it, and telling America both sides were going to have to do some compromising and take some political heat in order to do what needs to be done. The Republicans expected him to fold, and now they are staring at an unplayable hand and just want to flip the table over and say “oops! Well, that’s too bad, cause I totally had you beat, but I guess we’ll never know, see ya, gotta go home.”
Well,
This I think is it. There’s a lot of teabaggers that think you can cut $2 trillion out of the budget over (and like Houngan, I don’t know the time specified) some period of time and no one would notice. The problem is you can’t do that; you will cut something that people won’t like to be cut.
I may be mistaken, but isn’t raising the debt ceiling allowing the government to spend more instead of less? Does the proposal allow the President to reduce the debt ceiling if he/she sees fit to do so?
Presumably if you have the power to raise it, you could also not use said power.
I guess nominally congress could still raise it, but considering how easy it is to muck things up in congress the power would de facto wind up in the Presidents hands, outside of corner cases where the democrats control the Senate and House by sizable margins. These sorts of shenanigans would become standard operating procedure.
The Constitution is pretty clear on “thou shalt not question the public debt”, for obvious reasons of confidence, and frankly that should be that. Any “debt ceiling” should be imposed at the point Congress is enacting law, not when it comes time to pay for what’s already agreed upon.
The GOP tack is childish and dishonest. I would be leery of doing business with any of these bozos who want to play chicken with debt-default, not because I disagree with them ideologically, but because they are proving themselves untrustworthy.
The effect of not using said power would be to stop government expenditures. But if the President really wanted to wreck the economy, he could do this unilaterally anyway. There’s no compulsion to actually spend most of the discretionary money appropriated for him by Congress.
So you’re a Clinton-era Democrat? ;-)
but what part of compromise don’t the Republicans understand.
I think the GOP has backed themselves into a corner with all their “no new taxes!” rhetoric and the ascendent Tea Party’s clout. I agree with Jason that they’re worried about getting hammered in the primaries next year if they vote for any bill which includes revenue increases, no matter how sweet that bill is in every other respect. They’re willing to cut their noses to spite their faces because they’re scared of losing their jobs otherwise.
The debt ceiling makes no sense to me, because as stated up-thread, it’s not about authorizing new spending, it’s about making sure we can pay the bills for the spending which Congress already authorized. For Congress to pass this year’s spending bill, then balk at the notion of raising enough money to pay for it, is completely stupid and irresponsible.
Add the 14th Amendment to the mix and there’s a serious question as to whether the debt ceiling is constitutional in the first place.
I don’t see how the 14th amendment could apply. The text of it is as follows:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
I don’t see how the debt limit would be unconstitutional under that section. I don’t think that section has been much interpreted either. I am not that familiar with this part of the US Constitution though so maybe someone could enlighten me?
Its unconstitutional now because a democratic president needs it raised and a republican house is against it. It was just fine back in 06 when a republican president wanted it raised but some dems, including the current president, voted against raising it because the debt issue was a ‘failure of leadership’.
Amazing how things change, on both sides, when you are in power.
oh great another Brettmcd post moaning about how both parties are equally terrible blah blah blah. Give it a rest already.
Sorry that the truth offends you so, I am sure a post praising how wonderful the dems are and how they never could ever do anything wrong would have been much better received.
This thread is interesting, please don’t clog it up with the usual bullshit. Please.
What is so interesting about it? Its just another thread about how evil conservatives or republicans are, and this time its for doing the exact same thing the current president did 5 years ago, oppose raising the debt ceiling.
Whether it’s constitutional or not wasn’t an issue in '06, since the limit was raised in a timely manner, and there wasn’t any reason to consider its constitutionality.
Also, you’d expect that even if everybody agreed that something should be passed, some number of protest votes would be issued once the threshold of required passing votes is met. I assume that happens with basically every piece of legislation ever. Obama has admitted that that vote was purely politics, but you’re allowed to play politics when there’s nothing at stake.
Whether or not something is constitutional or not doesn’t change depending on when it happens. It either is or is not, if it is unconstitutional now, it most certainly was in 06 as well. I am just sick and tired of what is right and wrong in government being determined not by the facts, but by which party is on a certain side of an issue.
Brett - it’s functionally the same, but dynamically quite different pretty much due to what CLWheeljack said. As for unconstitutionality issues, if it is now (debatable) then it was then but nobody apparently thought to made a stink out of it (or at least not a loud enough one) in '06. You’ll notice that people here aren’t advancing that thought on our own constitutional scholar credentials but rather bring up that experts in the field have raised the legitimate question.
As for your “another conservatives are evil thread” comment, it would be more persuasive if the Republican voting block hadn’t been incredibly stupid on this issue.