Notes on the delayed Boehner Plan vote
[Posted by Karl]
House Speaker John Boehner could not secure the votes needed to pass his latest bill to lift the debt ceiling in return for spending cuts. As I write this US markets have not opened, but the impact will probably not be good, especially considering that Friday’s GDP report will likely be bad news. Dave Weigel makes two important points, one inadvertently:
Republicans will be absorbing the blame for whatever happens in the markets tomorrow — they’ve been emboldened by what they saw as mild corrections on Monday and the rest of the week. The fact that they’ll take this blame is a real victory for Democrats. Five conservative Blue Dogs had voted for Cut, Cap, and Balance, but it was clear today that Democrats were denying any votes for the Boehner Plan. Nancy Pelosi was pitching a perfect game, with the help (this is from NBC’s Luke Russert) of Heath Shuler, a conservative who was whipping his colleagues. The Democrats are partly responsible for the impasse tonight, but they will escape most blame as Republicans look for tweaks — for the second time! — to make the bill acceptable to their members.
John Boehner’s team had succeeded over several days in turning a number of critics and Tea Party Republicans into compromisers. They just didn’t do enough of it. In the very short term, Boehner lost.
First, whatever the media hype, this is potentially a blip for Boehner. Second, unrepentant ex-JournoLister that he is, Weigel highlights, but cannot bring himself to condemn, his fellow travelers in JournoLism for their predictable failure to fairly report the rabid partisanship of the Democrats here, particularly the so-called Blue Dogs.
Regarding the Democrats’ partisanship, even prog blogger Nate Silver questions a strategy that embarrasses a Speaker whose help the Democrats in the White House and Senate ultimately need. Jennifer Rubin notes other ways in which the cutesy Dems may end up regretting today’s tactics:
There are a couple of benefits to drawing this out (although I have no indication whatsover from conversations with half a dozen House Republican offices this evening that the delay is attributable to anything other than difficulty in rounding up the votes). First, Boehner will certainly have a strong argument that nothing OTHER than this bill can get through the House before August 2. And second, as time slips away, there is less and less time for the Senate to come up with an alternative that can pass both houses by August 2.
Indeed, Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid has not filed cloture on his debt ceiling bill, so any delay or failure to pass a bill in the House will put the Senate in a bind. However, this is not how the establishment or its media is thinking about either of those points. Rather, outlets like MSNBC and the WaPo are pushing the Nancy Pelosi/DNC narrative that the GOP was winning, but has overplayed its hand, such that Boehner must join with Dems in some alternative plan. The danger is that if markets tank and a handful of GOP Congressmen continue to hold the line, Boehner may buy into that narrative. But if I had to guess, some face-saving minor concessions will be found to switch a few more GOP votes into the “yes” column on Friday.
Update: Yes, the Q2 GDP report was bad… and the Q1 revision was worse.
–Karl
I don’t know which I find more disheartening and disgusting, the craven and venal actions by so many of our leaders in both parties who hold our security and future in there dishonorable hands or the blind partisan hatred I read from liberals who still worship the Democratic leaders and swallow whatever is fed to them by the mouthpiece media. It makes me think we have slid too far down the slope to recover and all we can hope for in the end is to buy a little more time.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:55 amI don’t have the greatest memories of the fifties but it is sad to think that young people today will never know or even understand the amount of individual liberty and freedom most Americans had then. They are so used to the constant and widespread intrusion of government into every aspect of their lives that they could not imagine what it was like then, the reversal of role that most Americans felt about their relationship with the government compared with today.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 7/29/2011 @ 2:05 amSo id this passes and we still default will it still be the TP’s fault.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:45 amooops shoulda been a ?.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:45 amBoehner was trying to sell us a ‘pig in a poke’ and he got burned, the memory of the last grand bargain rankles, The truth is, though, Reid prevents anything of significance from being done, like the
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:21 amwraith from Poltergeist 2, or Randall Flagg from
the Stand, he just brings decay and collapse.
Funny how the Dems plan appears to be leading by having bo plan, and opposing everything that passes or does not pass the House.
CC&B has passed, and Barcky + the Senate Dems are too cowardly to even vote on it, despite overwhelming public support.
JD (822109) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:38 amDefault isn’t the issue, spending is. Ignore the idiot caterwauling of Washington spending addicts. The prospect of impending withdrawals has them anticipating the Apocalypse, rending their clothing, rejecting previous beliefs, and bowing down to worship strange idols.
The US isn’t about to default on it’s obligations, and even if our two-faced so-called “representatives” conspire to bring us to that precipice wouldn’t we be better off defaulting on 14.3 Trillion rather 16.8 Trillion?
What we’re hearing from the turncoat GOP now is exactly what we heard when TARP was on the table, it’s also the same old song and dance they presented when we had to hold our noses and pass Stimulus or the world as we know it would come to and end. Same old, same old.
Bottom line: GOP leaders are cowards who will betray their constituents, renege on their promises, and stab voters in the back rather than stand up and fight for the principles they pretend to hold.
ropelight (a08880) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:42 amJust curious: If the Senate can just ignore a law requiring a budget, why can’t the executive just ignore a law setting a debt ceiling? Are there no penalties for the former but none for the latter?
Diffus (49d9ca) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:52 amFormer domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Bruce Bartlett said it was a myth that tax cuts are the key to prosperity, noting that Reagan raised the capital gains rate. He was also skeptical that Congress would be able to solve the current budget crisis.
“I think at this point, there’s nothing that can pass the House of Representatives. I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards, who are desperately afraid of the tea party people.”
GALLUP POLL
July 28, 2011
Obama Rates Higher Than Boehner, Reid on Debt Situation
PRINCETON, NJ — Americans are more likely to approve of the way President Obama is handling the negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling than they are to approve of the handling of the situation by Speaker of the House John Boehner or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Obama has a 41% approval on the debt negotiations – 10 points higher than Republican Boehner who rates at 31% approval
Jim (48dff4) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:53 amMorning Yelverton, ‘this is like the sheepdog greeting the coyote,’ the ’86 tax reform, which
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:00 amexacerbated the S&L crisis, by among other things, closing the loophole on deducted interest on real
estate, is exactly the wrong model to follow.
That was Hooten again. Gone.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:07 amHard to tell them apart, as well as the Journolisters who actually are aspiring to be
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:10 amstupider than the trolls.
Jim,
I kinda stopped caring about Bartlett around the same time he stopped mentioning that Reagan cut net taxes by about twice as much as he raised them.
As for Obama rating higher than Congress, it’s nearly always true that the POTUS will rank higher than Congress or its leaders on any given issue. There were a few months where Congress rated higher than Bush on Iraq, but it reverted back in 2007.
Karl (37b303) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:10 amTo accuse Republicans in Congress of being cowards and of betraying their constituents is irrational hysteria.
Get a grip, and get real.
Until Republicans can get a veto proof majority in the Senate, Obama holds Republicans by their balls. Blame the Democrats, not the Republicans, and recognize, also, that sanctimoneous Tea Partiers are gumming up the works to some degree, too.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:12 amKarl, “Jim” is imdw.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:13 amBoehner really needs to find those votes first thing this morning after a nutritious breakfast
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:15 amHow about if the 85 new R house members just sit on their hands. The dems are saying how this is such a serious, serious problem, the world will end, but, then they don’t seem to be interested in putting anything out there. If the new R’s refuse to pass any increase it could force the d’s to do something that those 85 will find acceptable.
Compromise to the d’s is always “do it my way.”
Personally, I don’t believe the debt ceiling should be raised without cutting actual spending. I want to see a budget with a lower level of spending than the current budget. If not, then it is just another smoke and mirrors crapola.
Jim (844377) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:21 amObama’s rating won’t be too great after word about the GDP print, and revisions to prior prints, is disseminated. Obeyme would be lucky if the debt ceiling kabuki bigfoots that story…
Q4 2010 revised down from 3.1% to 2.3%. Q1 2011 revised waaaaaay down from 1.9% to 0.4%. Q2 prints at 1.3%, but, well, you know it’ll be drastically reduced in the coming weeks.
Kinda shoots a hole, pre-emptively, in the lefty meme that the Rethugs! killed the economy by being stubborn about the debt ceiling; when it has already been limping along at a terrible rate for 6 to 9 months now…
But my quetion is, in light of the complete, utter, and abject failure of “Obamanomics”, can we finally start referring to it as “Obama’s failed economic policies” already?
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:23 amThis frenzy of trolls and sock puppetry does not show confidence amongst the leftists. This is not how a party that was serious or leading would act.
JD (822109) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:25 amThis is a different Jim. 🙂
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:26 amObama, told Charlie Gibson, that he would raise
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:32 amcapital gains taxes, even if lowering them, raised
more revenue, he opposed the surge, because if it succeeded it would send the wrong signal to the administration. Denial is a river,. . .
#19 – Huh???
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:36 amNot you, the Thracian, Jim, the other monkey poo throwers
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:42 amAt least two of our serial sockpuppeters have been extremely busy lately. JD pays close attention to how I’ve been dealing with them. Many of the more outrageous comments you might see are really just rhetorical grenades thrown to disrupt a thread, usually by imdw, Chris Hooten, or one of several others who are obsessed with shutting down conservative conversations.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:43 am#24 – Oh. Hmmmmm, okay. 🙂
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:51 am#24 – What does “imdw” mean?
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:57 am#14, standing up and fighting back is hardly the definition of “sanctimonious,” no matter how you spell it. Rather, rolling over and sucking up to Democrat tyrants is the definitive act of a sanctimonious congressional RINO.
The TEA Party is a party of principle not pretense, or expediency. If you haven’t grasped that yet, you’re likely to find the next election rather confusing.
ropelight (a08880) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:57 amThat’s the handle of a particularly dishonest sockpuppeter who uses an anonymizer. I don’t know what the letters stand for, but it’s been suggested it’s short for “I’m a dimwit”. I wouldn’t argue the point. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:01 amWTF hooten!
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:15 amput to the lash months ago
it rather slim, jim
#27 – Really?
If Tea Partiers hadn’t interfered, Republicans would have regained control of the Senate in 2010.
I don’t have the phobia about Rinos that you do. They vote with Republicans most of the time, unlike the Democrats who defeated Tea Party candidates, and who NEVER vote with Republicans.
The moderate Republicans whom you call Rinos have principles, too. Tea Partiers don’t have a monopoly on principles. They just think that they do.
Get real. They have become the Democrats’ best asset. Don’t you think that the Democrats’ shills in the MSM already realize that?
They have succeeded in splitting the Republican Party. The DNC leadership must love Tea Partiers.
Tea Partiers are not team players. They are loose cannon. And they are nothing new. They took the form of Ross Perot supporters, getting Bill Clinton elected, just as they will most surely get Obama reelected, too. Mark my words on that.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:25 amthis week the tea party looks douchey and self-promoting but this is Boehner’s failure
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:30 amWithout the Tea Party, the Dems would have the House and a super-majority in the Senate. If the GOP continues to treat them like step-children, telling them to “get their asses in line”, they might very well let President Obama win a second term.
I’m not a team player when both teams aren’t worth joining. The Dems may be a crap sandwich, but the Repubs are just a crap sandwich with ketchup… and I’m not interested in crap sandwiches. We get the government we deserve, demand better.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:38 amBoner gets teabagged, hilarity ensues.
Pass a clean debt limit bill and take your licks in the suicide primaries, you know it makes sense.
spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:46 amAfter sparty gets done admitting its multiple names it commented under, maybe it could point out where we could read thr President’s plan, or show us where Hairy Reed has passed a bill.
william yelverton (306f5d) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:49 amspartacvs,
Good to see you back. Have you remitted your assets to the IRS yet? I’m concerned that you might be considered selfish and/or unenlightened. Wouldn’t want that, would we? Don’t you care about your less-capable brethren? It’s only fair.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:49 am#27, how disingenuous can you be? To say the TEA Party “interfered” is exactly the smug high-handed and presumptuous attitude which earned Republicans minority status in Congress since before FDR.
To deny the Constitutional right of American citizens to organize themselves and to participate in the political life of our nation at any and all levels is obviously repugnant to the fundamental social construct of American self-governance.
Leaving the establishment GOP to run matters without “interference” results in candidates like Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords and Dede Scozzafava. If the GOP can’t make room under the big tent for the TEA Party and their prickly principles then the Stupid Party can buy an extra set of knee pads, they’re going to need them.
ropelight (a08880) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:49 amPass a clean debt limit bill and take your licks in the suicide primaries, you know it makes sense.
Idiot. Obama already threatened to veto that. Your ignorance knows no boundaries.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:50 amMake that #30.
ropelight (a08880) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:50 amSpartacus came armed with nothing but his talking points, his love of nutsacks in his mouth, and his wit. Basically, he is unarmed.
JD (d56362) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:57 amRINO is
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:58 amdemocRATlite® and is big
part of The Problem
SPQR – dust off one of the half dozen one page debt limit increase bills passed during the Bush presidency and change the number to a bigger number. He’ll sign it, guaranteed.
spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:00 amIn fairness to spartacvs, a threat from President Obama is hardly to be taken seriously. Spartacvs clearly recognizes this, notwithstanding his foolish prediction of the results. I continue to be concerned for his reputation however. He’s beginning to appear selfish and unenlightened to many. There is talk. Just whispers for now, but I fear it could gain momentum.
Come on spartacvs, it’s only fair. The decision has been made, debate is over. Prove me wrong and show your work. Don’t be selfish. We’re counting on you to uphold your principles.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:00 amspurtacvs… it
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:01 amokay not to write ev’ry
thought run thru melon
#32 – People like Arizona’s old Mr. Magoo and Maine’s ditzy twins can be exasperating at times. But usually, moderate and conservative Republicans work pretty well together.
In fact, a conspicuous irony of your position on these issues is that it is the Tea Partiers and not the so called Rinos who are splitting the Republican Party.
But you are certainly entitled to your opinions. Personally, overall, I don’t have a problem with the Republicans in Congress. Ain’t America grand?
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:01 amIt’s not irony. I don’t argue that the Tea Party isn’t splitting the Republican Party. I’m saying that if the establishment GOP insists on being Dem-lite, conservatives will split. The Tea Party is the beginning of the end for a Republican Party that refuses conservatives… one way or the other. They’ll get back to conservative principles or enable the Dems to continue winning elections, but the Tea Party ideals are here to stay.
Crap sandwich is off the menu.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:10 amTo be clear, the Republican Party as currently constituted will no longer get the blind support of many conservatives. The base has had enough, and the elites better realize it.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:13 am#36 – I’m never “disingenuous”. I deal in facts, not bullsh*t.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:14 amI think Stash is right, true conservatives should split off and form their own party where only true conservatives and only true conservative principles are allowed. Then just sit back and watch the voters flock to reward them at the polls.
spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:21 amspartacvs,
I’m beginning to wonder if you intend to be selfish and not provide for your less-capable neighbors. Can you be so callous? I don’t think so. It’s your duty to humanity and we’ve seen how important that is to you.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:24 amStashiu
I dont totally accept the premise that the Tea Party is the sole issue dividing conservatives – we have been divided for decades – just never did one “side” of the republican party have such exposure and some rudimentary organization.
there were the country club republicans of which our current speaker – who I felt should never have been accepted at all as a republican and should have been forced to caucus as a democrat – why he’s speaker I have no clue
Sparticvs – actually tea Party people are more moderate than Republicans – its the lazy moderates who cannot afford anymore to split their allegences that have flocked to the original tea party activists in 2007/8 who were just disenfranchised republicans who got lots of press for blaming Bush – these 2007/8 Bush blamers were pretty much sidelined by the flood of fiscally concerned moderates who now want fiscal conservatism but are themselves (various Tea Party groups) divided on green energy and social issues
Anyone running on a “screw the budget I’ll cut it” platform is going to win next year regardless of personal past flaws – we think this congress is divided – wait until next year
hands down
EricPWJohnson (719277) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:37 am#45 – Just as Republicans are not monolithic, Conservatives within the Republican Party are not monothic either. It kind of boils down to who has a more rigid and more flexible concept of morality. But that’s a Pandora’s Box that I’m not going to open here today.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:39 amOops, that was supposed to be the word, monolithic. Sorry ’bout that.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:40 amBecause the executive has no authority to borrow money except that authority which Congress gives it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:45 am#53 – Your comment reminded me; a commentator on MSNBC actually suggested last night that, by executive order, Obama could usurp that authority for himself if he doesn’t get his own way with Congress.
Scary, huh?
MSNBC’s Schultz, Maddow and O’Donnell have become nuttier than squirrel t*rds. They almost make the Mad Hatter in the White House look like he is sane.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:00 amAdd Chris Matthews’ name to that list of loonies.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:07 amSpartacvs tells me it is “guaranteed” that Obama will sign a bill that only a week ago Obama said he would veto.
I guess that tells me Obama’s reputation even among the ass lickers like Spartacvs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:15 amBoehner and Scuzzydumbass should have been dems.
BTW Spartacvs still getting teabagged by Barack and Michelle?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:26 amAnd you know, I think that that tells us a lot about the failure of leadership from the White House.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:27 amIs it racist to suggest the First Wookiee is capable of teabagging a troll? Inquiring minds and all that sort of thing.
ropelight (a08880) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:34 amSpart,
Why would Obama sign a Bush era debt bill with new numbers? He said he would not when he was a US senator?
BfC (e452d5) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:37 amMegan points out that part of the reason Boehner is having trouble rounding up votes is that the GOP in the House are not as corrupt as the Democrats were.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:41 am#50 – Boehner, a country club Republican? Not hardly.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:41 amThe first Ewok is capable of teabagging anyone including Evan Bayh.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:07 amHold on. EricPWJohnson is back? What’s with that? I thought he was put in moderation until he behaved better. Hopefully, he has apologized.
Oh well. Still more trollishness in here would be hardly noticeable.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:10 amOh, and Stashiu3? About this sparticvs person? You know the drill: on and on and on about people needing to pay more…except for himself. Because all he needs to do is write a check to the Treasury, right? And if he feels we need to give more, and he isn’t doing so personally, that would make him…
What’s the word?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:12 amWell, you’re right legally, morally, etc. Really you’re right in every way that matters to an honorable person.
But you’re wrong, I fear. The MSM and your political establishment will both encourage and stand aside when Obama goes farther than he ‘can’. Such is a short term solution to our long term problems, and though it will make our long term problems worse, I don’t think most of these people really care.
I imagine a menu of options for creating the power to borrow more are already being debated.
Svvvvvvvvs (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:18 amSpartacvs likes being teabagged by the First Ewok and the Barackhadist.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:19 amI’ve been going with “selfish”, but I’m sure that’s not the case. He’s going to turn over those assets immediately because he’s so enlightened and good.
Patterico and I haven’t spoken about EPWJ since the DRJ thing. EPWJ was later placed in moderation by Patterico for something else and then Patterico took him out of moderation. EPWJ did email me and apologize without qualification for some comments he had made about me. I don’t see a need to address him directly, but unless he goes back to impugning DRJ, we’re good for now.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:25 amSpartacvs is busy getting teabagged by the Obamas
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:28 amWhy does it matter if the markets tank?
Such an idea that it matters if the market tanks necessarily assumes that markets tank if a bad fiscal or economic policy is announced, and that markets shoot up if good fiscal or economic policies are announced. And yet the market shot up the day after President Nixon announced the first peacetime wage and price controls.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:28 amJust like the left and statests that took over the democratic party, and almost took over the management of the Washington republican party, the tea party is taking over the republican.
May not be pretty, but will be best for the country, if the keep to principles.
BfC (e452d5) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:31 amYep.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:33 amDear Stashiu3:
That’s good to know. Because unless I am misremembering, he has been asked to apologize several times to various people, and has never been straightforward about it. This is good to see.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:37 amNo, it’s not scary. Any debt he incurs without Congress’s authority is not a debt of the United States, and the taxpayers have no obligation ever to pay it. If he can find some chump willing to lend on that basis, and accept the risk that the next president will repudiate the debt, then it’s free money for us! What’s so scary about that?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/29/2011 @ 12:37 pmIt’s scary that our president would so dishonor the office, or that the US Government in any way would steal from people (by promising to pay back money it wouldn’t pay back).
I think such behavior could cause tremendous financial problems, and many moderates would want to pay the debts, even if it’s not legal.
The taxpayers would be screwed, but that’s the point. THEY ARE PLAYING WITH HOUSE MONEY. They don’t care as much as they ought to, or we’ve never be in this position in the first place.
No, a constitutional crisis is more serious than you’re making it out to be. If Obama does this, he should be impeached.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 12:50 pmHere’s some good news for sparty….
Where did all that support from the Indies go?
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:01 pmhttp://dailycaller.com/2011/07/28/obama-breaks-50-percent-disapproval-barrier/
Why does it matter if the markets tank?
Yes, everything is looking rosy, they have nothing to worry about; except for the downgrading of the 1-Q growth number from 1.9 to 0.4, and a 2-Q number of 1.3%, and the possible downgrading of U.S. debt to less than AAA…
What is there to worry about?
Market at 12133.7 (-106.41)!
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:06 pmPssst! Want to know a secret? The TEA Party is the Independents.
ropelight (a08880) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:07 pmYep, AD. Obama’s disapproval to approval gap is in double digits. He has to convince a majority of Americans who already think he sucks as president to hate the challenger, who will probably be a proven and successful governor.
He’s governing like he expected to run against Romney or Palin and be able to put into doubt their abilities with low info voters. Can’t do that if the nominee has a decade experience and succeeded.
Presumptuous on my part. All I know for sure is that America greatly disapproves of Obama. He’s 23% lower than Bush 43 at this point. He’s much more like Bush 43 at the end of his second term, after Bush spent all his political capital saving Iraq.
Obama has spent all his political capital trying to politicize everything. I don’t think he thought his master plan through.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:08 pmI’m still laying money that he pulls a Truman, or LBJ, and withdraws, and takes all the campaign cash with him.
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:13 pmObama blinks….
…”If we need to put in place some kind of enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these reforms, I’ll support that too if it’s done in a smart and balanced way.”…
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:18 pmH/T- James Tatanto, BOTW/WSJ-Online
Bold theory, AD. I’ll give you 3:1 odds on that. You ten bucks me thirty. Loser pays to Project Valour.
Imagine an Obama with a billion dollars in campaign cash he can contribute to causes and candidates that… bribe him. I don’t think so, but it’s a great end to this tale.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:19 pmWell, he would have to pay taxes on anything he converts to personal use.
BTW, how much money would the Congress “save” if they left the FAA in limbo for the rest of the year? And why not next year too?
Project Valour?
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:22 pmWhy not!
Great, it’s a wager then.
And I would be so happy if this happened that I’m just going to sweeten it a little. 10:1 odds. I’ll owe 100, then.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:33 pmAren’t you glad you live in TX and are just rolling around in extra funds, while I am a prisoner of conscience here in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia?
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:35 pmI admit, I do love it here.
I actually really like California’s geography more than anywhere else I’ve ever been except Pusan.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:39 pmI have fond (Heh!) memories of TX also…
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:43 pmstanding on the flight line at Goodbuddy at dawn, watching the Sun peek up over the horizon, and doing a 360 and thinking:
Nowhere in the World, can you look so far, and see so much, of Nothing!
Darling, that boat has long sailed!
Think of it as a “junk bond”. Or as a stupidity tax. The lender is taking the risk, knowing very well that he will not be paid unless Obama is reelected, and perhaps not even then.
Probably, or at least censured. But so long as he doesn’t spend money not appropriated by Congress I wouldn’t call it a crisis, or scary. Just an ordinary case of a president exceeding his powers, like the bombing of Libya.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:48 pmYou would think Jen would stay away from Twitter for a while (Daily Caller)
At 10:55 a.m. the Times’s Jennifer Preston suggested that administration flacks should create a hashtag for tweeting Democrats to jointly target Republicans who are now trying to pass their own debt ceiling plan.
Preston tweeted her own suggestion to a White House flack, saying “@macon44 Hi there. I heard the President ask the people to tweet re: debt ceiling. Are you guys using specific hashtag?”
A minute later, she tweeted a followup to White House flack Jesse Lee, saying, “Hi Jesse, what’s the hashtag that you guys are urging people to use in their tweets to Congress re: debtceiling.” Lee is the White House’s s director of progressive media & online response. (RELATED: New WH talking point: Boehner is the Grinch, and he’ll steal your Christmas)
At 11.04, the White House’s press shop announced a new hashtag for Democrats to use when targeting GOP members of Congress. The message read: “@NYT_JenPreston People responding to POTUS shld use #compromise. As he said, it is ‘time for #compromise on behalf of the American people.’”
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:49 pmThat’s very possible, once he sees that Clinton is about to do to him what Kennedy nearly did to Carter. Since as far as we know Clinton has never killed anyone, I see no reason she wouldn’t succeed where Kennedy failed. So Obama would be well-advised to to an LBJ/Truman. (Remember that they didn’t pull out until they bombed in the first primary.)
I stand by my prediction from mid-November 2008: In the 2012 election there will be no white men on either major-party ticket.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:52 pmtouche’
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:53 pmThink of it as a “junk bond”. Or as a stupidity tax. The lender is taking the risk, knowing very well that he will not be paid unless Obama is reelected, and perhaps not even then.
However, the Fed could buy them. What happens if the Fed doesn’t get paid I’m not sure. Maybe nothing. It’s funny money anyways.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 7/29/2011 @ 1:58 pmIt could, but would it? Remember, while three out of five sitting governors were appointed by Obama, they don’t take orders from him, and they may balk at such a move.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/29/2011 @ 2:12 pmThat’s just it, though. He wouldn’t pull such a move unless he lined up the fed. Ultimately, Milhouse, even if you’re right legally, that would lead to a loss of the value of your cash. The taxpayer is easy to screw these days.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 2:15 pmComment by Stashiu3 — 7/29/2011 @ 6:13 am
Good to know, though I don’t mind addressing points for more open-minded readers.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (f07e38) — 7/29/2011 @ 2:20 pmNoted left wing radical Bruce Bartlett:
Is he referring to the baggers or non-baggers?
We report, you decide.
Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:26 pmHe is talking about people like you that like nuts in their moufs.
Still too cowardly to admit to the variety of names you have used?
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:35 pmNow the House has passed 2 compromise bills, with no Dem support, and promises of those bills going nowhere in the Senate, or veto by the idiot in chief. Why are Dems such obstructionists, trying to prolong this so their MFM friends can blame this on Republicans. You are transparent in your hackery.
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:39 pmWhat did they compromise on JD?
Spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:46 pmThe Democrats are lying to the American public.
The reality is that our Federal budget fails because Congress assumes that everything must increase by a ridiculous rate each year and calls that increase “baseline”. Then when you try to stop that increase, you are accused of “cutting”. Its nonsense. We’d cut future deficits by almost a third if we just called a zero increase each year “baseline” instead of 5%.
Today, I’d tell every department of the Federal government that they would have to make do with 96% of FY 2010 funds. Ooops, can’t do that because there never was a FY2010 budget because Democrats refused to pass one. They were too scared of what the voters would think if the voters actually saw the huge mess that Democrats were creating.
Well, then make it 100% of the FY 2009 budget minus the faux stimulus. That is it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:49 pmthey compromised by raising the debt ceiling
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:56 pmThe reality is that Boehner’s plan makes very few real cuts and yet the Democrats demonize it and demagogue it.
Because they are not serious about the financial health of our country at all. It is all about posturing for Obama’s reelection. Because the fact that Black male unemployment is at a half century high is unimportant compared to whether or not Obama is unemployed in 2013. The destruction of the hopes of the urban underclass to have a decent job is unimportant to the Democrats as long as Obama’s Wall Street cronies stay in charge of our nation’s finances and continue to drive it into the ground.
The destruction of the hopes of America’s middle class are second to the hopes of Obama’s cronies to suck more trillions out of the Federal budget for fat cat union bosses.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:00 pmI still don’t get what the teadoodles accomplished with their tantrum exactly
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:12 pmThey got a bill with $917 billion in “cuts”, even if they’re off the “baseline” rather than the previous year’s spending. And they got some sort of link to a balanced budget amendment, though I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work. That’s not great but it’s a lot better than what was on offer a week ago.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:44 pmthey already had the cuts didn’t they? All they got was the bba thing, which is neat but everyone knows there’s no danger of this leading to an actual bba it’s just a vote-buying fig leaf
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:48 pm“Comment by Franklin Delano Roosevelt”
Geez, Pat. You let that guy post here?
That’s carrying tolerance much too far.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/29/2011 @ 4:50 pmHah. Bumble takes Jen Preston’s advice–loses 40,000 irritated twitter followers in one day.
http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2011/07/29/2011-07-29_bams_spam_president_barack_obama_takes_debt_battle_to_twitter_loses_more_than_20.html
elissa (c7ab71) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:52 pmLike I said back at 89) maybe she should stay off twitter for a while,
ian cormac (81c5c2) — 7/29/2011 @ 5:58 pmjust saw Three Stooges
ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:12 pmchuckie and harry dick lie
often without shame
It is time for some Article V Convention votes again. Last time the “Balanced Budget” Convention got 32 of the needed 34 states, until Congress passed the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Act (which the courts later overturned).
Kevin M (298030) — 7/29/2011 @ 6:23 pmNo Milhouse. They got jack. Their partisan vanity bill stands no chance of passing the Senate, let alone reaching the Presidents desk.
spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:39 pmgrandma got a vivid demonstration that the social security Harry and Nancy said had surpluses as far as the eye can see is actually less solvent than a fistful of cat food coupons
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:00 pmlet’s see… over 800 days without a budget proposal from teh DemocRATs in Congress… close to 50% of American taxpayers pay no federal income tax… nearly 50% of adults in the nation get from almost all to all of their income from The State and we can count on Petulant Obama, Harry Reid and Nanski McBotox to champion and promote class warfare against productive members of society to ensure continuation of same.
Very sad state of affairs in America…
ColonelHaiku (6fca10) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:15 pmSenate tables the Boner bill 59-41. Senators Graham, Demint Hatch, Lee, Paul & Vitter joining with the Democrats.
spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:16 pmYet, it lives.
Sparty, everyone knows the game. Cheerleading the demise of the nation helps no one except you and the rest of your silly ilk that have no concept of what you advocate.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:18 pmNot productive enough Colonel, their tax remittances are way under par for the kind of modern sophisticated society I want to live in.
spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:20 pmWell, there’s a surprise.
Hmm.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:20 pmIn other words, the democrats rejected a deal with moderate cuts and increasing the debt ceiling.
Thank you Spartacus for admitting that it’s teh democrats who refused to raise the debt ceiling because they couldn’t take some minor cuts.
Thank you so much.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:22 pmI’m more than happy to cheer lead the demise of the teabagger nation, every day of the week and 2ce on Sundays.
spartacvs (4e498d) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:24 pmUpdate: Yes, the Q2 GDP report was bad… and the Q1 revision was worse.
Sure was nice of them to lie about it the first time so the markets didn’t tank. Gotta keep those HFTs churning.
Take away the 12% deficit spending, and real GDP has been in the toilet for a long damn time.
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:25 pmI think sophistication to spartacvs means living in endless lines to receive what little goods the government has to offer on any particular day.
But, it can do with style!
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:26 pmWell, we’ll see what tune sparty is singing when the 47% don’t receive their dole.
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:27 pmI’m more than happy to cheer lead the demise of the teabagger nation, every day of the week and 2ce on Sundays.
Do your hookups on Grindr really care if you wear the cheerleader outfit or not?
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:28 pmIn other words, the democrats rejected a deal with moderate cuts and increasing the debt ceiling.
It didn’t even have “moderate cuts.” Spending does not go down in any year of the Boehner bill.
http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=191032
Think about that for a second–the Democrats actually rejected a bill that would have held off the “financial day of reckoning” for a few months that they’ve been caterwauling about, and did not decrease spending in ANY YEAR listed in the Boehner bill. Not because it spent beyond the nation’s means, but because it didn’t spend enough (which is why they also got so lathered up about Medicare Part D, if you recall).
Boehner’s next move should be to repeal the debt ceiling altogether–it’s not like either party has taken it seriously the last 50+ years, anyway.
Another Chris (c983db) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:33 pmBoehner’s next move should be to repeal the debt ceiling altogether–it’s not like either party has taken it seriously the last 50+ years, anyway.
Comment by Another Chris — 7/29/2011 @ 8:33 pm
Yes, and then the House should set every (a separate bill for every Dept/Agency/Office/Institute/etc) appropriation bill for 2012 at 90% of 2009
(since there is no budget for 2010 or 2011) levels (less stimulus).
Let’s see how much of the Govt the WH is willing to shut down.
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:58 pmWhat do you mean? Just authorise the president to borrow as much as he likes? I don’t think that can be constitutional. Only Congress has the power to borrow money, and it can’t delegate that power to the president.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/31/2011 @ 9:50 am