Will They Reach a Deal?

[The Rabbi]

We're at the 11th hour for a deal. I see the news reports that the different sides want to hammer something out before Asian markets open.
Personally I don't see it. Obama is so set on getting what he wants he will not compromise. And if the House and Senate work out a deal it wouldn't surprise me that he vetoes it.
What will temporary default look like?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We are not at 11th hour. The farce officially ends August 1.

Obama wants a crisis and he wants to bash Republicans for intransigence. Therefore he is not interested in making deal for another week. He has done bait and switch several times over the summer to make sure a deal does not happen too soon.

For him, he needs a crisis to show himself as presidential and in command, to show he is the compassionate one protecting the interests of the average worker against the rapacity of the Republican Huns. This is all theater.

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

 

[percysunshine]

If they have not reached a deal by now, the odds are against one.

Which means that some moron will cave in. The only question is which moron.

 

[Greenbeard]

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

Is Obama the one holding the national (perhaps the world) economy hostage by obstinately refusing to pay the bill for money he already voted to spend? Because I'm pretty sure that's Congress. Well, that's too broad. House Republicans, perhaps.

Frum put it well:

But in the argy-bargy, keep this in mind: the debt problem has become a debt crisis for one reason only: because Republicans put the threat of debt default on the table.

That never needed to happen.

House Republicans could have kept the debt ceiling issue wholly separate from the budget cut issue.

Instead, Republicans put the gun on the table. They raised the menace of deliberate default in a way it has not been raised before.

Then, having issued the threat, they discovered that their own core supporters would not allow the gun to be holstered again.

They issued demands they knew could not be met, for budget cuts much bigger than Republicans ever enacted when they had the power to enact them. They cocked the weapon. And now here we are: the demands are unmet and Republicans find themselves facing a horrible choice between yielding on their exorbitant demands or pushing the United States into financial upheaval.

These fools have opted for a default of choice and all the accompanying consequences to further their own political ambitions. Talk about nihilism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are not at 11th hour. The farce officially ends August 1.

Obama wants a crisis and he wants to bash Republicans for intransigence. Therefore he is not interested in making deal for another week. He has done bait and switch several times over the summer to make sure a deal does not happen too soon.

For him, he needs a crisis to show himself as presidential and in command, to show he is the compassionate one protecting the interests of the average worker against the rapacity of the Republican Huns. This is all theater.

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

Amazing analysis. Thank you for sharing your insight and non partisan, objective conclusion. I must wonder though how much crisis will be enough for President Obama, and maybe in your scholarly approach leading to your conclusion you discovered the answer.

It seems the economic problems he created on the day he took the oath of office would be sufficient for any man (or women) who needed a crisis, "to show himself as presidential and in command".

Or, the crisis in the cost of healthcare he created in Fedruary of 2009, wouldn't that be sufficient for anyone?

Anyway, I look forward to your future posts, analysis and objective non partisan opinions. You, CrusaderFrank, Stepanie serve to enlighten all of us to a reality few of us ever see.

 

[The Rabbi]

We are not at 11th hour. The farce officially ends August 1.

Obama wants a crisis and he wants to bash Republicans for intransigence. Therefore he is not interested in making deal for another week. He has done bait and switch several times over the summer to make sure a deal does not happen too soon.

For him, he needs a crisis to show himself as presidential and in command, to show he is the compassionate one protecting the interests of the average worker against the rapacity of the Republican Huns. This is all theater.

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

Amazing analysis. Thank you for sharing your insight and non partisan, objective conclusion. I must wonder though how much crisis will be enough for President Obama, and maybe in your scholarly approach leading to your conclusion you discovered the answer.

It seems the economic problems he created on the day he took the oath of office would be sufficient for any man (or women) who needed a crisis, "to show himself as presidential and in command".

Or, the crisis in the cost of healthcare he created in Fedruary of 2009, wouldn't that be sufficient for anyone?

Anyway, I look forward to your future posts, analysis and objective non partisan opinions. You, CrusaderFrank, Stepanie serve to enlighten all of us to a reality few of us ever see.

And here I thought you were a partisan gibbering idiot with half a brain. Boy, was I wrong on that one.
Yes, BM's analyis is probably right. Obama will wait until the crisis really gets going before he actually does anything.
Keep reading our posts and keep those pos reps coming!

 

[The Rabbi]

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

Is Obama the one holding the national (perhaps the world) economy hostage by obstinately refusing to pay the bill for money he already voted to spend? Because I'm pretty sure that's Congress. Well, that's too broad. House Republicans, perhaps.

So remind me why he is involved in talks at all?
Oh yeah, not only is he the head of the party but he'll also have to sign any bill passed. That's the reason.
Simp.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are not at 11th hour. The farce officially ends August 1.

Obama wants a crisis and he wants to bash Republicans for intransigence. Therefore he is not interested in making deal for another week. He has done bait and switch several times over the summer to make sure a deal does not happen too soon.

For him, he needs a crisis to show himself as presidential and in command, to show he is the compassionate one protecting the interests of the average worker against the rapacity of the Republican Huns. This is all theater.

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

Amazing analysis. Thank you for sharing your insight and non partisan, objective conclusion. I must wonder though how much crisis will be enough for President Obama, and maybe in your scholarly approach leading to your conclusion you discovered the answer.

It seems the economic problems he created on the day he took the oath of office would be sufficient for any man (or women) who needed a crisis, "to show himself as presidential and in command".

Or, the crisis in the cost of healthcare he created in Fedruary of 2009, wouldn't that be sufficient for anyone?

Anyway, I look forward to your future posts, analysis and objective non partisan opinions. You, CrusaderFrank, Stepanie serve to enlighten all of us to a reality few of us ever see.

And here I thought you were a partisan gibbering idiot with half a brain. Boy, was I wrong on that one.
Yes, BM's analyis is probably right. Obama will wait until the crisis really gets going before he actually does anything.
Keep reading our posts and keep those pos reps coming!

I do read your posts, there is always hope I'll read something of substance and cause me to reevaluate opinions I hold - they never have of course. I'm open to understanding a reasoned argument, do you have any?

 

[Mr.Nick]

No....

At least not one that both sides are satisfied with.

I'd call the democrats bluff and allow them to make their "Armageddon" occur...

I bet if that were to happen though Obama would declare Martial Law and appoint himself dictator indefinitely.

I'd bet anything the sick twisted fuck has already threatened that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Amazing analysis. Thank you for sharing your insight and non partisan, objective conclusion. I must wonder though how much crisis will be enough for President Obama, and maybe in your scholarly approach leading to your conclusion you discovered the answer.

It seems the economic problems he created on the day he took the oath of office would be sufficient for any man (or women) who needed a crisis, "to show himself as presidential and in command".

Or, the crisis in the cost of healthcare he created in Fedruary of 2009, wouldn't that be sufficient for anyone?

Anyway, I look forward to your future posts, analysis and objective non partisan opinions. You, CrusaderFrank, Stepanie serve to enlighten all of us to a reality few of us ever see.

And here I thought you were a partisan gibbering idiot with half a brain. Boy, was I wrong on that one.
Yes, BM's analyis is probably right. Obama will wait until the crisis really gets going before he actually does anything.
Keep reading our posts and keep those pos reps coming!

I do read your posts, there is always hope I'll read something of substance and cause me to reevaluate opinions I hold - they never have of course. I'm open to understanding a reasoned argument, do you have any?

Given your absolute certainty that there is a class of permanently wealthy people whose sole goal is screwing the poor and they are the power behind the throne of the GOP, I doubt anything I say will make much sense to you.

 

[Truthmatters]

We are not at 11th hour. The farce officially ends August 1.

Obama wants a crisis and he wants to bash Republicans for intransigence. Therefore he is not interested in making deal for another week. He has done bait and switch several times over the summer to make sure a deal does not happen too soon.

For him, he needs a crisis to show himself as presidential and in command, to show he is the compassionate one protecting the interests of the average worker against the rapacity of the Republican Huns. This is all theater.

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

What were the concessions the republicans made towards democratic side?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They'll reach some type of short term crud that will be beneficial to none of us. In a year our problems will come back exponentially. Obama. Leading......that's an oxymoron.

 

[kyzr]

The Sunday talking heads all said a deal had to be made. Its all hype. Remember in 1990s when the government shut-down and no SS checks went out? The US credit rating was unaffected as soon as the crisis was over.

We have several weeks to hammer out a deal. My metric is when do SS & Medicare go insolvent. Right now Medicare ends 2017. Watch what happens to Medicare in any "Big Deal".

 

[Mad Scientist]

And when it comes right down to it, he is a bit of a nihilist. The world can go smash just as long as he gets his.

Is Obama the one holding the national (perhaps the world) economy hostage by obstinately refusing to pay the bill for money he already voted to spend? Because I'm pretty sure that's Congress. Well, that's too broad. House Republicans, perhaps.

So remind me why he is involved in talks at all?
Oh yeah, not only is he the head of the party but he'll also have to sign any bill passed. That's the reason.
Simp.

Obama is apparently not involved in any of the talks:
Congress ditches Obama on debt talks - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com
I think both sides realize Obama is just "getting in the way" and he'll sign whatever arrives on his desk anyway.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think they'll reach a deal and Obama will have to sign it. I think it'll be a 2-part plan, with an immediate raising to the debt ceiling and associated spending cuts, some immediate and some later. This 1st part gets us down the road maybe 3 or 4 months, and would force a 2nd vote later.

The 2nd part is more long term that'll take us past the Nov 2012 election, that may have a further increase in the debt ceiling and encompasses more spending cuts and some revenue increases from changes in the tax code.

Not sure at all that Boehner can get it passed in the House, he may need some dem support. Which I expect he'll get from moderate dems in red states or districts. I think Obama and the Senate will not stop it, nobody wants to be the reason we default.

 

[kyzr]

I think they'll reach a deal and Obama will have to sign it. I think it'll be a 2-part plan, with an immediate raising to the debt ceiling and associated spending cuts, some immediate and some later. This 1st part gets us down the road maybe 3 or 4 months, and would force a 2nd vote later.

The 2nd part is more long term that'll take us past the Nov 2012 election, that may have a further increase in the debt ceiling and encompasses more spending cuts and some revenue increases from changes in the tax code.

Not sure at all that Boehner can get it passed in the House, he may need some dem support. Which I expect he'll get from moderate dems in red states or districts. I think Obama and the Senate will not stop it, nobody wants to be the reason we default.

"Default" is a scare tactic. Read this about the 1995 & 1996 government shutdowns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

In 1996 the government was shutdown for 3-weeks!! Nothing bad happened. It will be a worse outcome if the uncontrolled spending continues, with Medicare being insolvent in 2017. This isn't wayyyy off in the future, its imminent. Entitlements need to be reformed NOW.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think they'll reach a deal and Obama will have to sign it. I think it'll be a 2-part plan, with an immediate raising to the debt ceiling and associated spending cuts, some immediate and some later. This 1st part gets us down the road maybe 3 or 4 months, and would force a 2nd vote later.

The 2nd part is more long term that'll take us past the Nov 2012 election, that may have a further increase in the debt ceiling and encompasses more spending cuts and some revenue increases from changes in the tax code.

Not sure at all that Boehner can get it passed in the House, he may need some dem support. Which I expect he'll get from moderate dems in red states or districts. I think Obama and the Senate will not stop it, nobody wants to be the reason we default.

The real issue is not default. We'll come through that fine. There will not be a meltdown like everyone predicts. No, the real issue is a debt downgrade. If the cuts are not real and substantial, the ratings agencies will cut our debt rating for the first time since, I dunno, pre-WWI?
If they resort to gimmicks like "cuts" in Medicare that will be voted back in quietly down the road then we will have failed.
Obama's big issue is burying this turd until after the election. That's really all he's concerned with.

 

[Wiseacre]

Nag, nag, nag. Okay, we're not going to default on our debts, we will pay what we owe. But we are going to miss making payments for some obligations that must be made. Are we going to shut down most of the federal agencies that we need to operate. Are we obligated, if not by law then by necessity, to keep the FBI, CIA, Justice, Agriculture, and all the other departments that need to function? I think so, if you don't like the term default for that, make up your own word.

And BTW, don't think there won't be a significant impact on our economy and the stock markets both here and abroad if we don't have an agreement in place.

 

[The Rabbi]

If this results in shutting down the Dept of Agriculture the whole business will have been worth it.

 

[Wiseacre]

If this results in shutting down the Dept of Agriculture the whole business will have been worth it.

Some of it, maybe most of it, maybe. You don't want to inspect food and other agricultural products? What about the FBI, CIA, HHS, Justice, Treasury, IRS, INS, and all those other depts that employ people and perform needed functions? How many more people in gov't will be out of work if the debt ceiling is not raised? That can't be good for the economy.