He should have invoked the 14th Amendment and effectively raised the ceiling without them. Then he should declare straight out that the next budget bill he signs will eliminate the Bush tax cuts, increase the top marginal rate to at least where it was under Clinton, and that’s end of it. If it was me, I’d also go into Mitch McConnel’s office with a baseball bat, fuck shit up and explain how things are going to be, but Obama doesn’t have that kind of thing in him (not like LBJ or Bubba did).
Just remember that even though there is frustration about compromise, the next time this issue comes up, if there is a Republican in the White House, the issues discussed will be quite different. It won’t be a debate over raising taxes on the wealthy, it will be a debate about whether to privatize Medicare. It won’t be a debate about cutting defense spending, it will be a debate how how much to reduce Social Security benefits. It won’t be a debate over tax breaks for corporate jets, it will be about eliminating the Department of Education.
Think about that when you think that liberals and moderates have been betrayed by the current government.
I humbly suggest you read my OP again. This time, with specific note of the second to last paragraph. Then I more humbly suggest you print the entire OP out, and shove it right up your urethra.
“President refuses to negotiate, threatens country with ‘economic disaster’”
Here’s my take on it: its impossible to reason with crazy
The Republicans are in crazy mode and the Tea Baggers are pushing all the buttons. While normal, typical, everyday logic like “the debt ceiling has been raised every year” or “the country’s going to default if you don’t compromise” will work with sane people, these guys don’t see it that way. They’re not having the same debate as the rest of us, the sane normals. Whereas the starting point should be that raising the debt ceiling is a must and we all work to get that accomplished, the Republicans now reject that premise. They don’t think that the ceiling needed to be raised, so for us normal people to assume that has to be done is seen as a weakness or concession on their part. They are wrong, sure, but they don’t listen to reason. Obama got the most he could have gotten given the opposition he faced
Think about it this way. Its like the Tea Baggers are holding a hostage that they plan on shooting. They’re not doing it to try and get away, or for concessions. They want to shoot the hostage. So normal threats like “you’re going to get a harsher punishment if you shoot him” won’t work on them. Instead, they threaten and threaten you some more, until you essentially bribe them into not shooting the hostage. You give him a helicopter and $100000 and tell him he can drop off the hostage once he escapes and you let him go, knowing the only way to save the hostage is if you give the Tea Baggers everything they want
Sure its sucks to watch them win, it may even encourage them to act more like assholes in the future, but if you want to save the hostage, prevent a default, you have to do what they want.
The only way we can stop it is if we hold our contempt for the compromise, which is essentially a bribe, and overwhelm 2012 with Democrats. The fact that so many people bought in to the Fox News lies and either switched votes or stayed home is part of the problem
I think that was McConnell, not Boehner, though I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner said it too
This is not a snarky question, it’s serious. What gives Obama, or any President, the right to ignore the elected representatives of the people?
We would have spent the next year discussing the impeachment of Obama. The worst of it being that they would have a point. A reasonable case could have been made, given the ambiguity of the 14th Amendment, that the President overstepped the bounds of his office. The Forces of Darkness did pretty well when it was only a blow job, imagine how much hay they could make if there was some element of rationality behind it?
But anyway, thats behind us now, and now the Republicans can put their full attention to their real agenda, which is, of course, jobs! Here come the jobs! Oodles of jobs, tons of jobs, so many jobs that unemployment extensions are totally unneeded, because anyone who doesn’t get one is a slacker parasite sucking on the government teat!
Yessiree, Bob, jobs, jobs, jobs! Here they come!
Lot of tough guys in this thread.
Obama got the best deal he could, considering that he was dealing with lunatics. Actual lunatics. You can’t win a game of chicken against a car with no brakes and no steering wheel.
It’s infuriating. Obama presented himself in 2008 as a measured pragmatist, and he’s turning out to be a measured pragmatist. So, the response of his supporters is to pout and hold their breath instead of going to the polls in 2012. Because that approach worked so well in 2010.
I thought we were supposed to be the adults.
I don’t understand what you’re asking? The President has powers delegated to him, and the Congress has its own powers. Neither side is Constitutionally obligated to submit to the other. What do you mean by “ignore?”
If you really want to play that game, though, I’d remind you that Obama got more votes than anybody in Congress and ask you what gives Congresspeople elected only by their own districts (not even by their entire states) the moral authority to obstruct the President who was elected by everybody?
Good luck with your Democratic Congress and Palin/Bachman in the White House. How’s that going to work out for you?
You’ll get a president who refuses to compromise then, all right. Won’t that make you happy!
He got my vote then and he will get it next time; I hope and pray that the Republicans and Tea Partyers score zero each. Unlikely I know but I will NEVER vote Republican or any derivative of.
We’re not going to get a Palin or Bachmann in the White House. The national electorate is not yet that stupid and crazed. Somebody like a Romney or a T-Paw maybe, but let’s remember that these teabaggers currently hijacking the House were not voted in by a nationwide, or even by statewide elections, but only within their own limited, partisan districts. They can’t win at a national level, and there will be a national backlash against them sooner or later.
Hooray! Your team may get ahead! Goody gumdrops for your team! Or maybe the other team will win! So sad for your team!
In the mean time the rest of us will keep getting screwed by the people on both teams that think like this. Sweet! Thanks for being part of the problem!
What happens if we get a Romney or a Pawlenty in the White House? Do you really think they’ll stand up to the Tea Party?
No, they’ll support more tax cuts for the rich which will make the deficit worse. They’ll cut social spending more. They’ll appoint Mike Luttig to the Supreme Court. And maybe start yet another war.
Anyone who thinks a do-nothing Democrat administration is bad needs to remember what Bush showed us - a do-something Republican administration can be a lot worse.
That’s 'cause you’re a big stupid face and your head is made of dog poop.
I was under the impression that Congress is the legislative branch, which decides what needs to be done, and the President is the executive branch, which does it. The people elected the legislature, and in the previous election many members stood and won on a platform of reducing the deficit by reducing spending. So, on the surface it looks like Obama is going against what the people have voted for.
Even if this is not the case, and I’m well aware that it is not as simple as I’ve put it, the general question remains - what gives the President, any president, the right to tell Congress what laws it should or shouldn’t pass. I’m aware of the veto power he has, but my understanding is that comes after a law has been passed, not before.
No, the President’s signature is the very thing that causes a law to pass. It’s not a law until the President signs it. Congress submits bills to the Prez, and the Prez decides whether or not to sign them into law. If the Prez decides to veto it, the Congress can still override that veto and pass it anyway, but they need a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a Presidential veto and it very rarely happens (it certainly could not happen with this Congress because the democrats still control the senate).
So no, Congress does unilaterally pass laws. They submit bills to the President. The President decides if they will become laws.
Several times, Obama said the bill had to include revenue. Then it didn’t. He never mentioned it after the cave in. Then he agreed to that stupid panel that Repubs will stuff with no taxes at any cost republicans . Unless Obama caves again, the panel will fail and the automatic cuts will come in. It is lose, lose ,lose.
Fair enough. The reason I’m asking these questions is that I’m not from the US, and trying to understand what’s happening here.
Is the veto power a commonly used thing, or is it generally considered a formality? It seems that, especially in a purely bipartisan system, a regularly used veto would lead to deadlock more often than not.
It’s pretty rare for a bill to pass if it is known in advance that the President will veto it. There’s not much point in going to that work, unless you’ve got the votes to override the veto. And if the veto is going to be overridden, there’s not much point to the veto in the first place.
And so we have a situation where in normal times the existence of the power means the power does not need to be formally exercized. The only reason to send a bill to face the veto is if congress thinks the bill is popular and wants to force the president to veto popular legislation so they can use it as a campaign issue.
But note that in the American system, congress is not elected nationally, but district by district. And so you can have the spectacle of the house defying the party leadership, which would be impossible in most parliaments because it would mean no confidence and force a new election.