As per the lib wonk at the WaPo, the GOP has won this battle. (but he implies they may lose the war)
They haven’t won anything yet.
I think Boehner’s complete inability to deliver the House in any sort of compromise could be their undoing. Let’s say Reid and Obama go along with a two-tiered, no-revenue deal. Sounds like the GOP’s wet dream, right? I bet there are still 100 Republicans in the House that won’t vote for it. And plenty of Democrats as well. If that happens (a cuts-only deal fails in the House), then I only see the McConnell fallback as an option (mainly supported by Dems in the House).
The odds of default look higher today than they have at any point. I always believed McConnell and Boehner when they said default wasn’t an option - but I never realized how little control they have over their caucus.
I still can’t believe that a 3-to-1 cuts to revenue increase with a decrease in the marginal income tax rates wasn’t good enough. But there you have it. In the end the Bush tax cuts will just get sunsetted instead.
I did have one other random thought this morning. The GOP is pushing for a two-tiered approach so that they can hammer Obama on this again in 2012 (during election season). But how does that help their candidate? Polls show the public wants a balanced plan, but the current GOP candidates can stay completely quiet on the issue for now. That won’t be the case in 2012, when they’ll have to answer specific questions about exactly what they would do.
In dollars, yes. In what they can buy, no.
The wealthy will always have enough money to pay for normal life things and a decent retirement. All the rest of us will not.
Because Americans have an institutional memory of about six months. Some other distraction will be on the front pages. “Obama wrecked the economy” or “Obama got us into Stumblebumbia”. That’s just the way our American society works…for good or bad.
ETA: Deleted
That’s sort of my point, actually. The debt ceiling business is bad all around. It’s bad for Obama, bad for Boehner, bad for House members, bad for Senators. It’s just a shitty vote - you either have to vote to raise the debt limit, cut benefits, or increase taxes. Why would you want to vote for that crap twice, once within that 6-month window you refer to, when you could just vote for the shit sandwich once now and assume that the voters will have forgotten about it by next year.
The only calculation that makes sense is that they think it’s worse for Obama than it is for them, which I’m not convinced is true - most polls show the public prefer his handling on this than Congress’s. And it has the other downside of getting their presidential nominee involved next time around… just odd politics, IMO.
When national politics starts to resemble a Mel Brooks movie, stock up on ammunition and canned food.
You’d do it for Randolph Scott.
The shit is flying fast and furious! Today, at approx 2pm batshit savings time Boehner unveiled his “bipartisan” proposal, a landscape of smoke, mirrors and fog on the horizon. His bipartisanship best demonstrated by the number of Dems at the photo op, which is to say, zero.
By four pm,
Like two fucking hours!
Well it has taken 235 years but it seems the American style Democracy experiment is failing.
No, there’s still time for Obama to compromise.
Compromise
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
Did I miss the compromise being offered?
Not yet. It’s coming.
Podnuh, it hasn’t done anything but falter for 235 years, some days worse than others. Yet, the hopeful monster stumbles on…
I think Obama is trying to wrap his mind around all the myriad of compromises the House Republicans have offerd…such as…agreeing not to lower taxes on the rich again.
I think, reading the blogs, that Harry Reid came out with another compromise proposal sandwiched between Boehner’s “bipartisan” proposal and the time the Tea Party…no, wait, the Cut, Cap, Balance Coalition…told Boehner to stick it. Dizzying.
Some negotiation:
Tea Party: We want HUGE REDUCTIONS to the deficit NOW!
Obama: How about $4 trillion?
Tea Party: Nononononono! We want a SMALLER deficit reduction package! [runs out the door]
You forgot the next stage:
Reid: OK! $2.5 trillion with no increased revenue.
Tea Party!: No! Smaller still! And in two parts, with a BBA, and a “Super Congress”.
6 months? I think you are being generous. Honestly.
As for who is unwilling to compromise, I would find it interesting if any of the Obamamaniacs here view his unwillingless to accept a short term deal (6 months? 12?) in order to save the economy qualifies as such unwillingness. Obama clearly doesn’t want to have to run against this issue in 2012, which is understandable, but it seems as though one side is willing to avert crisis, and the other isn’t.
Edit to add: has anyone seen the details of Reid’s plan? Word was that his so-called $2.7 T in spending cuts were due to some very optimistic estimates of reduced DOD spending due to winding down the ‘wars’ in Afghanistan and Iraq.