GOP refuses to accept victory in surreal debt ceiling fight

[Flaylo]

Just as with all GOP spin games and politic football they will fail the same way they tried to play the game with Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago. Read your history books Repugs, your plan to make Obama a one term president will fail because you have no real strong candidates to unseat him and second if he's bending over backwards to suit the Repugs and give in mostly to their demands and they still refuse who looks like the stubborn deadlock ones?

That is comedy. I was just reading this morning about the two government shutdowns of that time. We didnt default.

Then Since SS is so protected by the trust funs, why is the president threatening America.

The President is threatening America? Come on numbnuts, come up with something better, that type of shat doesn't scare me.

 

[Flaylo]

The GOP got their wish for no tax increases and they're still balking and for what? Obama and the Dems have clearly moved towards the center on their stance, the Repugs are still out there in far-right field playing foul ball.

Now all you have to do is put up real cuts.

Double talk, one of the main reasons the GOP was deadlocking was because they wanted no tax increases, they got what they wanted there and aren't willing to compromise, but Boehner is asking for compromise, what is he, mentally impaired?

 

[L.K.Eder]

maybe obama needs to include his real birth certificate (the one from kenya) and his college transcripts to sweeten the deal. can obama initiate his own impeachment proceedings?

that would probably work, too.

 

[Full-Auto]

Just as with all GOP spin games and politic football they will fail the same way they tried to play the game with Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago. Read your history books Repugs, your plan to make Obama a one term president will fail because you have no real strong candidates to unseat him and second if he's bending over backwards to suit the Repugs and give in mostly to their demands and they still refuse who looks like the stubborn deadlock ones?

That is comedy. I was just reading this morning about the two government shutdowns of that time. We didnt default.

Then Since SS is so protected by the trust funs, why is the president threatening America.

The President is threatening America? Come on numbnuts, come up with something better, that type of shat doesn't scare me.

There isnt a need. He threatened America by stating he couldnt guarantee the SS checks. WHY NOT? Democrats said the fund is safe. Which time is it that your side is lying?

 

[Flaylo]

That is comedy. I was just reading this morning about the two government shutdowns of that time. We didnt default.

Then Since SS is so protected by the trust funs, why is the president threatening America.

The President is threatening America? Come on numbnuts, come up with something better, that type of shat doesn't scare me.

There isnt a need. He threatened America by stating he couldnt guarantee the SS checks. WHY NOT? Democrats said the fund is safe. Which time is it that your side is lying?

Nobody was scared as everyone knows there's enough money in social security to last for a long time, so there was no threat.

 

[Full-Auto]

The President is threatening America? Come on numbnuts, come up with something better, that type of shat doesn't scare me.

There isnt a need. He threatened America by stating he couldnt guarantee the SS checks. WHY NOT? Democrats said the fund is safe. Which time is it that your side is lying?

Nobody was scared as everyone knows there's enough money in social security to last for a long time, so there was no threat.

Yet the president stated quite clearly he couldnt guarantee they would.

WHY? IF THE MONEY IS THERE.

 

[driveby]

What "offer" do you people keep referring to? Has Obama put a damn thing ON PAPER yet?......

Shut the hell up insane jackass, don't you know how to give a proper response instead of just baiting?

When i want a no value, flame response from a flaming faggot, i'll rattle your cage......

 

[Trajan]

GOP refuses to accept victory in surreal debt ceiling fight - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Moments ago, Harry Reid formally unveiled his latest offer: $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, and no tax increases, coupled with a debt ceiling hike sufficent to give the Treasury authority to pay the U.S.’s obligations through the end of 2012. The plan also establishes a bipartisan committee to come up with future deficit reductions that would certainly put entitlements directly in its crosshairs, and would even guarantee a Congressional vote on its recommendations.

Though this gives Republicans everything they want while dropping any demand for new revenues, the White House just blasted out a statement endorsing Reid’s proposal: “Senator Reid’s plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court.”

Which prompted a good question from David Dayen: What exactly is the difference between the Reid and John Boehner proposals?

Both cut spending by similar amounts over time. Both raise the debt ceiling over time by roughly the same amount. Both virtually guarantee entitlements cuts later. Neither offers new revenues. It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Dem one gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short term deal followed by another one later — something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.

So how can Republicans oppose the Reid plan when it gives them virtually everything they want — it gives them more than twice as much in spending cuts up front than the Boehner plan does — while asking for nothing in the way of revenues in return? There are only three options that immediately come to mind. First: The GOP wants another debt ceiling fight closer to Obama’s reelection. Second: Even though Dems have given up on getting new revenues, a one-shot deal could help the president politically. Third: Republicans, having seen Dems concede multiple times already, see no reason not to drag us even closer to the brink in hopes of extracting still more. Perhaps GOP leaders think getting still more will make it easier to sell the compromise to a caucus that is now populated with a non-trivial number of public officials who are so delusional that they won’t raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances — even if Republicans are given 100 percent of what they want in return.

The GOP have shown tonight with their newest plan that they have no intention of actually cutting the deficit or wanting to raise the debt ceiling. They want to play politics with this country's economy all the way through election day on the chance it will better get them the White House.

There is no reason for any Conservative on this board to support the Boehner plan over the Reid plan unless they want to see the U.S suffer in order to hurt President Obama's chances at reelection.

Sure there is, 1 trillion of harrys plan as in "cuts" is vapor, its 'surge' money for Iraq and Afghan that has been estimated BUT never requested...nor will it be requested as we are drawing down not adding troops or equip. etc....

or as George Will put it;

“Why, one wonders, not ‘save’ $5 trillion by proposing to spend that amount to cover the moon with yogurt and then canceling the proposal?”


Oh and before you go there don't play the Ryan Plan card, when yo get to the actual NUMBERS they assumed NO savings on that front relative to the President’s budget.

Oh hey Junior, I can produce quotes from left orgs that sppt Obama and Reid suing the debt ceiling as a political wedge.....but you knew that...right?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

What "offer" do you people keep referring to? Has Obama put a damn thing ON PAPER yet?......

Shut the hell up insane jackass, don't you know how to give a proper response instead of just baiting?

When i want a no value, flame response from a flaming faggot, i'll rattle your cage......

The only one who sounds like they're in a cage is an Uncle Thomas like you, Project 21 is failing you.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

That is comedy. I was just reading this morning about the two government shutdowns of that time. We didnt default.

Then Since SS is so protected by the trust funs, why is the president threatening America.

The President is threatening America? Come on numbnuts, come up with something better, that type of shat doesn't scare me.

There isnt a need. He threatened America by stating he couldnt guarantee the SS checks. WHY NOT? Democrats said the fund is safe. Which time is it that your side is lying?

No the difference between an actually threat and a statement that provides not guarantee idiot. His statement was baseless in that there is enough in social security to last until 2036 even if nothing goes into it.

 

[whitehall]

GOP refuses to accept victory in surreal debt ceiling fight - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Moments ago, Harry Reid formally unveiled his latest offer: $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, and no tax increases, coupled with a debt ceiling hike sufficent to give the Treasury authority to pay the U.S.’s obligations through the end of 2012. The plan also establishes a bipartisan committee to come up with future deficit reductions that would certainly put entitlements directly in its crosshairs, and would even guarantee a Congressional vote on its recommendations.

Though this gives Republicans everything they want while dropping any demand for new revenues, the White House just blasted out a statement endorsing Reid’s proposal: “Senator Reid’s plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court.”

Which prompted a good question from David Dayen: What exactly is the difference between the Reid and John Boehner proposals?

Both cut spending by similar amounts over time. Both raise the debt ceiling over time by roughly the same amount. Both virtually guarantee entitlements cuts later. Neither offers new revenues. It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Dem one gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short term deal followed by another one later — something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.

So how can Republicans oppose the Reid plan when it gives them virtually everything they want — it gives them more than twice as much in spending cuts up front than the Boehner plan does — while asking for nothing in the way of revenues in return? There are only three options that immediately come to mind. First: The GOP wants another debt ceiling fight closer to Obama’s reelection. Second: Even though Dems have given up on getting new revenues, a one-shot deal could help the president politically. Third: Republicans, having seen Dems concede multiple times already, see no reason not to drag us even closer to the brink in hopes of extracting still more. Perhaps GOP leaders think getting still more will make it easier to sell the compromise to a caucus that is now populated with a non-trivial number of public officials who are so delusional that they won’t raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances — even if Republicans are given 100 percent of what they want in return.

The GOP have shown tonight with their newest plan that they have no intention of actually cutting the deficit or wanting to raise the debt ceiling. They want to play politics with this country's economy all the way through election day on the chance it will better get them the White House.

There is no reason for any Conservative on this board to support the Boehner plan over the Reid plan unless they want to see the U.S suffer in order to hurt President Obama's chances at reelection.

It would seem to be a victory if the GOP was dealing with honorable people. Reid can't be trusted and the former community activist ain't got a clue. You have to ask yourself, would democrats even be talking about the economy if the GOP didn't win the majority in congress last fall? Thank God republicans put some sense into the mess that democrats started more than four years ago when they allowed or caused Fannie Mae to collapse.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

GOP refuses to accept victory in surreal debt ceiling fight - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Moments ago, Harry Reid formally unveiled his latest offer: $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, and no tax increases, coupled with a debt ceiling hike sufficent to give the Treasury authority to pay the U.S.’s obligations through the end of 2012. The plan also establishes a bipartisan committee to come up with future deficit reductions that would certainly put entitlements directly in its crosshairs, and would even guarantee a Congressional vote on its recommendations.

Though this gives Republicans everything they want while dropping any demand for new revenues, the White House just blasted out a statement endorsing Reid’s proposal: “Senator Reid’s plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court.”

Both cut spending by similar amounts over time. Both raise the debt ceiling over time by roughly the same amount. Both virtually guarantee entitlements cuts later. Neither offers new revenues. It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Dem one gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short term deal followed by another one later — something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.

So how can Republicans oppose the Reid plan when it gives them virtually everything they want — it gives them more than twice as much in spending cuts up front than the Boehner plan does — while asking for nothing in the way of revenues in return? There are only three options that immediately come to mind. First: The GOP wants another debt ceiling fight closer to Obama’s reelection. Second: Even though Dems have given up on getting new revenues, a one-shot deal could help the president politically. Third: Republicans, having seen Dems concede multiple times already, see no reason not to drag us even closer to the brink in hopes of extracting still more. Perhaps GOP leaders think getting still more will make it easier to sell the compromise to a caucus that is now populated with a non-trivial number of public officials who are so delusional that they won’t raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances — even if Republicans are given 100 percent of what they want in return.

The GOP have shown tonight with their newest plan that they have no intention of actually cutting the deficit or wanting to raise the debt ceiling. They want to play politics with this country's economy all the way through election day on the chance it will better get them the White House.

There is no reason for any Conservative on this board to support the Boehner plan over the Reid plan unless they want to see the U.S suffer in order to hurt President Obama's chances at reelection.

It would seem to be a victory if the GOP was dealing with honorable people. Reid can't be trusted and the former community activist ain't got a clue. You have to ask yourself, would democrats even be talking about the economy if the GOP didn't win the majority in congress last fall? Thank God republicans put some sense into the mess that democrats started more than four years ago when they allowed or caused Fannie Mae to collapse.

Same old strawman partisan BS don't you ever get tired of the whole Democrats are devils and Republicans are God flap? I know I am and if you're honest you would admit that both are messed up, The Republitards care no more about the economy than the Democrats.

 

[driveby]

Shut the hell up insane jackass, don't you know how to give a proper response instead of just baiting?

When i want a no value, flame response from a flaming faggot, i'll rattle your cage......

The only one who sounds like they're in a cage is an Uncle Thomas like you, Project 21 is failing you.

Oh neat, i got responses from Amos AND Andrew ......

 

[Bass v 2.0]

When i want a no value, flame response from a flaming faggot, i'll rattle your cage......

The only one who sounds like they're in a cage is an Uncle Thomas like you, Project 21 is failing you.

Oh neat, i got responses from Amos AND Andrew ......

Even if that was true Amos and Andy weren't as bad as Uncle Ruckus which is who you're like.

 

[Full-Auto]

The President is threatening America? Come on numbnuts, come up with something better, that type of shat doesn't scare me.

There isnt a need. He threatened America by stating he couldnt guarantee the SS checks. WHY NOT? Democrats said the fund is safe. Which time is it that your side is lying?

No the difference between an actually threat and a statement that provides not guarantee idiot. His statement was baseless in that there is enough in social security to last until 2036 even if nothing goes into it.

OK IDIOT

at best it is fear mongering at the worst is threatening.

OK IDIOT

 

[Bass v 2.0]

There isnt a need. He threatened America by stating he couldnt guarantee the SS checks. WHY NOT? Democrats said the fund is safe. Which time is it that your side is lying?

No the difference between an actually threat and a statement that provides not guarantee idiot. His statement was baseless in that there is enough in social security to last until 2036 even if nothing goes into it.

OK IDIOT

at best it is fear mongering at the worst is threatening.

OK IDIOT

Its not a threat which is what you said it was idiot, learn some dictionary definitions before you speak or is that Republitards are equally as dumb at dictionary definitions as they are with history?

 

[AmericanFirst]

GOP refuses to accept victory in surreal debt ceiling fight - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Moments ago, Harry Reid formally unveiled his latest offer: $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, and no tax increases, coupled with a debt ceiling hike sufficent to give the Treasury authority to pay the U.S.’s obligations through the end of 2012. The plan also establishes a bipartisan committee to come up with future deficit reductions that would certainly put entitlements directly in its crosshairs, and would even guarantee a Congressional vote on its recommendations.

Though this gives Republicans everything they want while dropping any demand for new revenues, the White House just blasted out a statement endorsing Reid’s proposal: “Senator Reid’s plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court.”

Which prompted a good question from David Dayen: What exactly is the difference between the Reid and John Boehner proposals?

Both cut spending by similar amounts over time. Both raise the debt ceiling over time by roughly the same amount. Both virtually guarantee entitlements cuts later. Neither offers new revenues. It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Dem one gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short term deal followed by another one later — something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.

So how can Republicans oppose the Reid plan when it gives them virtually everything they want — it gives them more than twice as much in spending cuts up front than the Boehner plan does — while asking for nothing in the way of revenues in return? There are only three options that immediately come to mind. First: The GOP wants another debt ceiling fight closer to Obama’s reelection. Second: Even though Dems have given up on getting new revenues, a one-shot deal could help the president politically. Third: Republicans, having seen Dems concede multiple times already, see no reason not to drag us even closer to the brink in hopes of extracting still more. Perhaps GOP leaders think getting still more will make it easier to sell the compromise to a caucus that is now populated with a non-trivial number of public officials who are so delusional that they won’t raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances — even if Republicans are given 100 percent of what they want in return.

The GOP have shown tonight with their newest plan that they have no intention of actually cutting the deficit or wanting to raise the debt ceiling. They want to play politics with this country's economy all the way through election day on the chance it will better get them the White House.

There is no reason for any Conservative on this board to support the Boehner plan over the Reid plan unless they want to see the U.S suffer in order to hurt President Obama's chances at reelection.

And obamaturd is saying the same old thing, blame everyone but himself. At least the congress is actually doing its job unlike the idiot in charge and reid. Reids plan would do nothing. Both plans only reduce the amount of spending. Obamaturd talking is nothing but lying!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

GOP refuses to accept victory in surreal debt ceiling fight - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Moments ago, Harry Reid formally unveiled his latest offer: $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, and no tax increases, coupled with a debt ceiling hike sufficent to give the Treasury authority to pay the U.S.’s obligations through the end of 2012. The plan also establishes a bipartisan committee to come up with future deficit reductions that would certainly put entitlements directly in its crosshairs, and would even guarantee a Congressional vote on its recommendations.

Though this gives Republicans everything they want while dropping any demand for new revenues, the White House just blasted out a statement endorsing Reid’s proposal: “Senator Reid’s plan is a reasonable approach that should receive the support of both parties, and we hope the House Republicans will agree to this plan so that America can avoid defaulting on our obligations for the first time in our history. The ball is in their court.”

Both cut spending by similar amounts over time. Both raise the debt ceiling over time by roughly the same amount. Both virtually guarantee entitlements cuts later. Neither offers new revenues. It seems that perhaps the only meaningful difference between the two plans is that the Dem one gets it done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short term deal followed by another one later — something that financial analysts say could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that Republicans themselves once opposed.

So how can Republicans oppose the Reid plan when it gives them virtually everything they want — it gives them more than twice as much in spending cuts up front than the Boehner plan does — while asking for nothing in the way of revenues in return? There are only three options that immediately come to mind. First: The GOP wants another debt ceiling fight closer to Obama’s reelection. Second: Even though Dems have given up on getting new revenues, a one-shot deal could help the president politically. Third: Republicans, having seen Dems concede multiple times already, see no reason not to drag us even closer to the brink in hopes of extracting still more. Perhaps GOP leaders think getting still more will make it easier to sell the compromise to a caucus that is now populated with a non-trivial number of public officials who are so delusional that they won’t raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances — even if Republicans are given 100 percent of what they want in return.

The GOP have shown tonight with their newest plan that they have no intention of actually cutting the deficit or wanting to raise the debt ceiling. They want to play politics with this country's economy all the way through election day on the chance it will better get them the White House.

There is no reason for any Conservative on this board to support the Boehner plan over the Reid plan unless they want to see the U.S suffer in order to hurt President Obama's chances at reelection.

they are desperate... and boehner's hands are tied by the loons in his party.

i don't know why anyone's surprised, though. mitch (turtle face) mcconnell said the primary goal of this congress was to try to make the president a one-termer. they really don't give a flying what kind of damage they do if it gets them there.

And obamaturd doesn't give a....what he does to this country. The congress is doing their job, obamaturd fails!!!

 

[Ali777]

It's called Politics, something that President Obama plays to the hilt. This time around, the GOP are at an advantage; anyone who thinks that President Obama is going to allow the US to lose it's Triple A Bond rating, while under his presidency, is out of their freakin' gourd!

True, but i say Obama doesn't care as long as he can successfully blame it on the Republicans....

It'll go on record as having happened while under his watch. No way he'll ever allow for that to happen. The economic/political ramifications of having the US Bond downgraded are tremendous.

My God, change your fucking avatar. That's disgusting. Seriously.

 

[Full-Auto]

No the difference between an actually threat and a statement that provides not guarantee idiot. His statement was baseless in that there is enough in social security to last until 2036 even if nothing goes into it.

OK IDIOT

at best it is fear mongering at the worst is threatening.

OK IDIOT

Its not a threat which is what you said it was idiot, learn some dictionary definitions before you speak or is that Republitards are equally as dumb at dictionary definitions as they are with history?

Must I hold your hand? Given the fact that democrats have stated time and again that SS is safe in trust it becomes a threat.

Now I can engage you on any level, civil or nasty. Given I have almost thirty years in Construction you will need some more guys.