Financial News

[Jenksismyhero]

I also wanted to explicitly point out how you're arguing contradictory positions here. On one hand you're saying that "we don't know" whether it'll be another protracted fight to extend the debt ceiling in 6-8 months. While this is literally true, I see no reason to assume it'll be any easier, though you seem confident it will be.

 

Obama is being "me first" by insisting that this deal go into 2013 so that we avoid this becoming a political issue for the campaign. This is narcissistic on his part, putting his campaign ahead of the country. He should acquiesce to Boehner's plan and allow this to become a political issue for the 2012 Presidential Campaign.

 

How, exactly, will allowing this to become a campaign issue in what is likely to be the most heated election we've had result in anything but a protracted, partisan fight against raising the debt ceiling next year? You cannot simultaneously claim that it is selfish to want to push this out of 2012 and thus minimizing the 2012 political implications while at the same time claiming that the second debt ceiling raise will be the typical easy vote to not destroy the economy.

 

I'm coming from the perspective that as of Saturday those evil house Republicans (the ones who agreed to nearly a trillion dollars in what amounts to tax increases) had an agreement with the White House for a long term cut, cap and balance plan that Obama wanted. Except that in the last meeting Obama changed his mind and asked for more, hence why the meeting lasted for 30 minutes before Boehner walked out. It's absolute bulls*** for Obama to claim lack of compromise when compromise was had and he just decided to get greedy and ask for more.

 

I found it telling last night that he couldn't explain to the American people why that wasn't enough. He barely even mentioned the fact that at this point, it's way too late and it's 100% his fault and now we're arguing over whether this should be a 6 month increase or longer. After that bulls*** he just played, i'm 100% behind Boehner to f*** Obama and make this a campaign issue that he'll have to deal with.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm coming from the perspective that as of Saturday those evil house Republicans (the ones who agreed to nearly a trillion dollars in what amounts to tax increases) had an agreement with the White House for a long term cut, cap and balance plan that Obama wanted. Except that in the last meeting Obama changed his mind and asked for more, hence why the meeting lasted for 30 minutes before Boehner walked out. It's absolute bulls*** for Obama to claim lack of compromise when compromise was had and he just decided to get greedy and ask for more.

 

I found it telling last night that he couldn't explain to the American people why that wasn't enough. He barely even mentioned the fact that at this point, it's way too late and it's 100% his fault and now we're arguing over whether this should be a 6 month increase or longer. After that bulls*** he just played, i'm 100% behind Boehner to f*** Obama and make this a campaign issue that he'll have to deal with.

 

That's all sorts of wrong. Cut, Cap and Balance is the House GOP's plan, not what Obama or the Democrats want or ever agreed to. The only word we have that Obama "got greedy" after giving Republicans every thing they wanted for weeks is Boehner, so that's not exactly an objective source of information. The White House says they upped the revenue side after the "Gang of Six" plan was introduced, which called for far more revenues. And it's pretty hilarious that this is now somehow 100% Obama's fault; I can't believe you're actually buying that rhetoric after the GOP's been offered incredibly favorable plans for weeks. After Cantor holds talks and walks out as soon as revenues come up and tries to pretend that cuts are agreed to. After Obama offers substantial cuts and changes to medicare, medicaid and social security in addition to large discretionary cuts coupled with minimal revenue* increases. Yeah, this is somehow 100% Obama's fault.

 

Now you're actively favoring making this another poltical fight in a few months after saying several times that there's no reason to believe it would be, so at least that's more honest. Boehner's wanted this to be a political issue next year from the start, and that's why he's pushed short-term increases all along. There's absolutely no reason for them other than to repeat this whole charade again in a few months.

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

There's absolutely no reason for them other than to repeat this whole charade again in a few months.

Harry Reid's current offer/plan which the President has endorsed includes no revenue/tax increases, larger cuts than the last plan that Boehner has on the table, but also includes enough of an increase to push past the 2012 election. Boehner's current offer is for smaller cuts but a small enough increase to make sure this fight gets refought in 2012. They're willing to accept higher spending in order to refight this fight next year.

[Y2HH]

Harry Reid's current offer/plan which the President has endorsed includes no revenue/tax increases, larger cuts than the last plan that Boehner has on the table, but also includes enough of an increase to push past the 2012 election. Boehner's current offer is for smaller cuts but a small enough increase to make sure this fight gets refought in 2012. They're willing to accept higher spending in order to refight this fight next year.

 

In other words, both parties are -- surprise, surprise -- playing politics.

 

The Dems want the increase large enough to carry through the next election cycle.

 

The Reps want the increase small enough so they can re-fight the fight before the next election cycle.

 

And meanwhile...f*** America.

 

While I'm on a f*** saying kick, f*** both parties, Boehner, Reid, Obama and the rest of them.

[BigSqwert]

In other words, both parties are -- surprise, surprise -- playing politics.

 

The Dems want the increase large enough to carry through the next election cycle.

 

The Reps want the increase small enough so they can re-fight the fight before the next election cycle.

 

And meanwhile...f*** America.

 

While I'm on a f*** saying kick, f*** both parties, Boehner, Reid, Obama and the rest of them.

You might enjoy reading this. Ignore the site it's on.

[StrangeSox]

In other words, both parties are -- surprise, surprise -- playing politics.

 

The Dems want the increase large enough to carry through the next election cycle.

 

The Reps want the increase small enough so they can re-fight the fight before the next election cycle.

 

And meanwhile...f*** America.

 

While I'm on a f*** saying kick, f*** both parties, Boehner, Reid, Obama and the rest of them.

 

Increasing the likelihood of having this exact same brinksmanship bulls*** in a few months is bad for America, regardless of who benefits politically.

[Y2HH]

You might enjoy reading this. Ignore the site it's on.

 

I don't mind the source, all I care about is the substance of a writers article. I'll decide if it's fair or not on my own, regardless of where it's written/posted.

 

It's a pretty good article...and this says it all. "The idea that the Republicans are for the billionaires and the Democrats are for the common man is quaint but outdated. It's more accurate to say that the Republicans are for Big Oil while the Democrats are for Big Banks. That has been the case since the modern Democratic Party was re-created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin."

[Y2HH]

Increasing the likelihood of having this exact same brinksmanship bulls*** in a few months is bad for America, regardless of who benefits politically.

 

It is, and we the people lose. But at the same time, the Democrats had no problem granting small debt ceiling raises throughout their reign in the Gee-Dub era. Now it's a problem and we need to extend it for years so we don't have to redo this process a few months down the road.

 

It's typical of both parties...and I'm sick of it.

[Balta1701]

It is, and we the people lose. But at the same time, the Democrats had no problem granting small debt ceiling raises throughout their reign in the Gee-Dub era. Now it's a problem and we need to extend it for years so we don't have to redo this process a few months down the road.

 

It's typical of both parties...and I'm sick of it.

The Democrats didn't attach any additional policy demands to those debt ceiling increases.

[StrangeSox]

It is, and we the people lose. But at the same time, the Democrats had no problem granting small debt ceiling raises throughout their reign in the Gee-Dub era. Now it's a problem and we need to extend it for years so we don't have to redo this process a few months down the road.

 

It's typical of both parties...and I'm sick of it.

 

 

The Democrats didn't attach any additional policy demands to those debt ceiling increases.

 

Right, this was never even an issue before. No one really considered not raising it; it a was protest vote from the opposition party knowing full-well that it would and should pass.

 

It's a bit different now.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's all sorts of wrong. Cut, Cap and Balance is the House GOP's plan, not what Obama or the Democrats want or ever agreed to. The only word we have that Obama "got greedy" after giving Republicans every thing they wanted for weeks is Boehner, so that's not exactly an objective source of information. The White House says they upped the revenue side after the "Gang of Six" plan was introduced, which called for far more revenues. And it's pretty hilarious that this is now somehow 100% Obama's fault; I can't believe you're actually buying that rhetoric after the GOP's been offered incredibly favorable plans for weeks. After Cantor holds talks and walks out as soon as revenues come up and tries to pretend that cuts are agreed to. After Obama offers substantial cuts and changes to medicare, medicaid and social security in addition to large discretionary cuts coupled with minimal revenue* increases. Yeah, this is somehow 100% Obama's fault.

 

Now you're actively favoring making this another poltical fight in a few months after saying several times that there's no reason to believe it would be, so at least that's more honest. Boehner's wanted this to be a political issue next year from the start, and that's why he's pushed short-term increases all along. There's absolutely no reason for them other than to repeat this whole charade again in a few months.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong here: My understanding is that on Friday night or Saturday there was a deal in place that both sides agreed to, said deal included 800 billion in tax increases...a gigantic compromise on the part of house republicans that wanted no part of any revenue increases. The WH then asked for more, so Boehner said no. If that's the case, then the fact that we don't have an agreement today is absolutely Obama's fault since a deal was already in place under the terms that the WH wanted.

[StrangeSox]

Correct me if i'm wrong here: My understanding is that on Friday night or Saturday there was a deal in place that both sides agreed to, said deal included 800 billion in tax increases...a gigantic compromise on the part of house republicans that wanted no part of any revenue increases. The WH then asked for more, so Boehner said no. If that's the case, then the fact that we don't have an agreement today is absolutely Obama's fault since a deal was already in place under the terms that the WH wanted.

 

Incorrect, and Boehner walked out on Friday. Boehner claimed that the weekend before, he and Geithner made a "handshake" deal on $800M in increased revenues. The WH disputes this and says there was never any agreement, only discussion. After the G6 plan came out recommending something like $2T in revenues, the WH upped their request to $1.2T. At that point, Boehner left and refused to even return Obama's phone calls.

 

Boehner also tried claiming that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill was "bipartisan" which is just hilarious.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/polit...;pagewanted=all

 

In a letter to his Republican colleagues on Friday night, Mr. Boehner said, “A deal was never reached, and was never really close.” He added: “In the end, we couldn’t connect. Not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country.”

 

 

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Incorrect, and Boehner walked out on Friday. Boehner claimed that the weekend before, he and Geithner made a "handshake" deal on $800M in increased revenues. The WH disputes this and says there was never any agreement, only discussion. After the G6 plan came out recommending something like $2T in revenues, the WH upped their request to $1.2T. At that point, Boehner left and refused to even return Obama's phone calls.

 

Boehner also tried claiming that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill was "bipartisan" which is just hilarious.

 

So, there's a handshake deal comprising of roughly 4 trillion in cuts/savings, 800 billion of which in the form of increased revenues (that's 800 billion more than the republicans wanted to agree to, but they did anyway). The senate plan comes out and asked for twice that in revenue increases (while also slashing the amount in cuts). Obama doesn't quite ask for that much, but still an additional 400 billion in revenue instead of 400 billion in cuts. And that's not the republicans compromising at all? That's not Obama's fault for clearly over-demanding at the negotiation table?

[StrangeSox]

So, there's a handshake deal comprising of roughly 4 trillion in cuts/savings, 800 billion of which in the form of increased revenues (that's 800 billion more than the republicans wanted to agree to, but they did anyway). The senate plan comes out and asked for twice that in revenue increases (while also slashing the amount in cuts). Obama doesn't quite ask for that much, but still an additional 400 billion in revenue instead of 400 billion in cuts. And that's not the republicans compromising at all? That's not Obama's fault for clearly over-demanding at the negotiation table?

 

“A deal was never reached, and was never really close.”

 

Boehner claims they agreed on a firm $800M in revenue. That's the only source for that claim, and after the absurd claims he and Cantor tried to pull after walking out of the Biden talks, I'm a little skeptical. Yes, coming around to $800M in loophole closures is a "compromise" from their ridiculous "absolutely no new revenues at all!" position, but the whole thing is still heavily in their favor. I'm not sure how Obama asking for 3:1 cuts v revenue, including inferiorating his base by raising Medicare ages, is over-demanding.

 

You've essentially set it up such that anything short of giving Republicans exactly what they ask for and then some (because they keep wanting a better and better deal) is some grand compromise by Boehner. That doesn't really make sense when viewed at the larger picture of absolute refusal for weeks if not months to compromise on anything at all.

[Jenksismyhero]

“A deal was never reached, and was never really close.”

 

Boehner claims they agreed on a firm $800M in revenue. That's the only source for that claim, and after the absurd claims he and Cantor tried to pull after walking out of the Biden talks, I'm a little skeptical. Yes, coming around to $800M in loophole closures is a "compromise" from their ridiculous "absolutely no new revenues at all!" position, but the whole thing is still heavily in their favor. I'm not sure how Obama asking for 3:1 cuts v revenue, including inferiorating his base by raising Medicare ages, is over-demanding.

 

You've essentially set it up such that anything short of giving Republicans exactly what they ask for and then some (because they keep wanting a better and better deal) is some grand compromise by Boehner. That doesn't really make sense when viewed at the larger picture of absolute refusal for weeks if not months to compromise on anything at all.

 

Well, he said she said, the fact is they came up from 0 to 800 billion. That's fine if you think that's ridiculous, but that's still their position, which they clearly moved from. So to claim that they didn't compromise is clearly unfair. They've made concessions. They've compromised. You refuse to accept that. So... I dunno what else to tell you.

[StrangeSox]

Well, he said she said, the fact is they came up from 0 to 800 billion. That's fine if you think that's ridiculous, but that's still their position, which they clearly moved from. So to claim that they didn't compromise is clearly unfair. They've made concessions. They've compromised. You refuse to accept that. So... I dunno what else to tell you.

 

I didn't say they didn't move at all from their initial hardline stance of "no revenues." But they waited until late July to do so. There's no way you can say that the Democrats, who control the Senate and the WH by the way, did not give up significantly more in this deal than the Republicans have ever offered.

 

Your whole outrage and "Boehner should stick it to Obama now!" was based on the incorrect idea that there was some agreement in place and Obama suddenly asked for more. Boehner's own letter belies that when he claims that a deal was never close. Do you still think this is 100% on Obama? Do you really think that Boehner would have agreed to a deal with Obama, handing him a huge political victory, Friday evening if the White House left revenues at $800M?

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I didn't say they didn't move at all from their initial hardline stance of "no revenues." But they waited until late July to do so. There's no way you can say that the Democrats, who control the Senate and the WH by the way, did not give up significantly more in this deal than the Republicans have ever offered.

 

Your whole outrage and "Boehner should stick it to Obama now!" was based on the incorrect idea that there was some agreement in place and Obama suddenly asked for more. Boehner's own letter belies that when he claims that a deal was never close. Do you still think this is 100% on Obama? Do you really think that Boehner would have agreed to a deal with Obama, handing him a huge political victory, Friday evening if the White House left revenues at $800M?

 

Just because you don't have a total deal done, doesn't mean you don't make small agreements during negotiations. If I come to an agreement with someone on part of the issue, i'm gonna be pissed off if a few days later they come back and say, no, that's not enough, I need more.

 

And just because they waited until July means nothing. Welcome to negotiations. They almost always go down to the wire because you want to see when the other side jumps.

 

And "giving up more." What the hell does that mean? One party wants to significantly cut the deficit and balance the budget without raising taxes on the people that hire and invest during a stagnant economy. Call me crazy, but that sounds somewhat reasonable. The other wants to cut as much as it raises. That's two schools of thought that you and I (and they) clearly differ on. There's not a right or wrong here. Perhaps 100% is too much, but the fact is I see more movement from ideological positions from the right than the left here. What exactly have the dems given up that they should be sticking for? Just more revenue?

[StrangeSox]

Perhaps 100% is too much, but the fact is I see more movement from ideological positions from the right than the left here. What exactly have the dems given up that they should be sticking for? Just more revenue?

 

Seriously?

[StrangeSox]

And can you admit you were wrong about there being an actual deal in place and Obama coming to the table demanding more out of nowhere?

 

You've also admitted in that post that the Republicans have exploited the economic disaster that will result if we don't raise the debt ceiling in order to extract sweeping fiscal policy changes instead of just passing a simple bill raising the debt ceiling like every other time before.

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

And can you admit you were wrong about there being an actual deal in place and Obama coming to the table demanding more out of nowhere?

 

You've also admitted in that post that the Republicans have exploited the economic disaster that will result if we don't raise the debt ceiling in order to extract sweeping fiscal policy changes instead of just passing a simple bill raising the debt ceiling like every other time before.

 

Yes, I admit I was wrong. I thought the deal was essentially done before Obama asked for more. Apparently that was not the case.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Thank you. Now I still have to ask if you seriously believe that the Democrats haven't really offered to give up all that much.

[Y2HH]

Thank you. Now I still have to ask if you seriously believe that the Democrats haven't really offered to give up all that much.

 

I offer 1$.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

[StrangeSox]

"I hope we gave a little lesson to the people in Washington because the debt ceiling is a lot easier to fix than this was," - New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, on the NFL lockout deal.

[StrangeSox]

Boehner's plan would lead to bond ratings downgrade

 

 

I forget how to embed

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox