My God, you are an idiot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Or alternatively, you put the issue squarely in front of the voters. Assuming the climate doesn't change in the next 12 months, Obama does not want to have to defend another debt ceiling increase while he is trying to get elected.*

*the same Obama that voted against the debt ceiling increase as a senator.

Republicans didn't want multiple votes either:

When it comes the Republicans’ debt-ceiling crisis, President Obama has been eager, arguably too eager, to compromise with GOP leaders. The White House has, however, been entirely consistent on one key request: whatever the final deal looks like, it has to raise the debt ceiling through the end of next year. Everything else is on the table.

The latest plan from House Republicans, however, ignores this one demand. House Speaker John Boehner wants one debt-ceiling vote this week, and then wants the country to go through all of this again early next year. President Obama, not surprisingly, has said this just won’t do.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is outraged.

What’s interesting about this is that Cantor has long believed the exact opposite. Judd Legum noted that as recently as last month, the oft-confused Majority Leader insisted there should be just one vote on the debt ceiling in this Congress. He dismissed those who argued otherwise as misguided.

To review, when Cantor wants one vote, it’s sensible. When Obama wants the exact the same thing, it’s “political and indefensible.”

Indeed, as it turns out, it’s not just Cantor. The lynchpin of Boehner’s new plan — one vote now, one vote early next year — is an idea several GOP leaders in both chambers have already said they oppose, at least until Boehner switched gears. Did all of these Republicans take an “indefensible” position, or does this only apply to Democrats?

This is pretty straightforward. Forcing two votes is bad for the economy, it’s bad for Congress as an institution, it’s bad for lawmakers, and it’s even bad for public sanity. Worse, it’s totally unnecessary.

So, here’s the question for Republicans: why was forcing the country to go through this twice an awful idea in June, but a great idea that Obama has to accept in July?

links in the original

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Honest question: what are you talking about?

From the articles I read over the weekend, Obama kept re-trading agreed upon deal points, which caused Boehner to walk from the process. Then he Reid, McConnel and Pelosi continued on at the capital, trying to hash out a deal.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Or the Rs refusing everything else because they don't want to hand Obama something he can tout as a victory and instead hope they can reverse public perception if they get a do over.

See my prior post. It is being reported that Reid took the deal to Obama and Obama vetoed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Honest question: what are you talking about?

He's repeating what Boehner said Friday about Obama moving the goalposts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

From the articles I read over the weekend, Obama kept re-trading agreed upon deal points, which caused Boehner to walk from the process. Then he Reid, McConnel and Pelosi continued on at the capital, trying to hash out a deal.

Do you even try to think just a little bit about these things before you type them?

We'll never get the full story of what happened behind closed doors, but at this point Obama has publicly given an enormous number of points, and Boehner has publicly given.... absolutely squat. I don't see what the little child is so petulant about.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

See my prior post. It is being reported that Reid took the deal to Obama and Obama vetoed.

I'm not sure what you think that shows. Yes, Obama doesn't want to go through this bullshit dance again in a few months. To my recollection, no R did until last week, when they apparently started to believe that Obama wasn't going to cave any more than he already has. Or maybe when it sunk in that they were losing the PR game mightily.

Following Ty's links, here's Cantor on June 21: "“I don’t see how multiple votes on a debt ceiling increase can help get us to where we want to go," and "Putting off tough decisions is not what people want in this town" and "if we can’t make the tough decisions now, why … would [we] be making those tough decisions later."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

See my prior post. It is being reported that Reid took the deal to Obama and Obama vetoed.

You should see what Reid's office says about this. (N.B. -- that's the Twitter page of Reid's communications director. Interesting wallpaper, given that.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He's repeating what Boehner said Friday about Obama moving the goalposts.

I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that anyone could hear that from Mr. Mobile Goalpost and not laugh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do you even try to think just a little bit about these things before you type them?

We'll never get the full story of what happened behind closed doors, but at this point Obama has publicly given an enormous number of points, and Boehner has publicly given.... absolutely squat. I don't see what the little child is so petulant about.

He's not a child and he's not petulant. He has very little ability to deliver votes, and the more he says specifically, the worse it gets for him. So he has to say that it's all on Obama.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You should see what Reid's office says about this. (N.B. -- that's the Twitter page of Reid's communications director. Interesting wallpaper, given that.)

Club only reads stuff on NRO and the Heritage foundation, and watches Fox. That page has not been endoresed by any of them.

Really, isn't it obvious by now by Boehner has no credibility in negotiations? When I deal with an ass like that, I believe the only way to close is to tell them all offers from here on go backwards. The more he screams, the more comes off the table.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He's not a child and he's not petulant. He has very little ability to deliver votes, and the more he says specifically, the worse it gets for him. So he has to say that it's all on Obama.

Hmmmm. I believe there are more adult ways for him to handle that screaming about it being someone else's fault.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He's not a child and he's not petulant. He has very little ability to deliver votes, and the more he says specifically, the worse it gets for him. So he has to say that it's all on Obama.

funny. I'm on a conference call in an hour to sort out a situation where a CEO and I settled a case under certain terms in a conference with a Judge. It was a good deal for my guy.

Then a rouge Board of Director refused to sign off on the actual language pointing to some nonsense argument.

It does seem Boehner is in the same boat, and really would have trouble committing to much.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

funny. I'm on a conference call in an hour to sort out a situation where a CEO and I settled a case under certain terms in a conference with a Judge. It was a good deal for my guy.

Then a rouge Board of Director refused to sign off on the actual language pointing to some nonsense argument.

It does seem Boehner is in the same boat, and really would have trouble committing to much.

Seems to me that everything he says right now is tailored to make House Republicans think he's doing a good job, so that when he finally needs to sell them on a deal, he has a better chance. Once there's a deal, he'll be the guy that got the deal done -- for better or worse -- but if he reaches a deal with the White House and then can't sell it to the House Republicans, isn't he done?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure what you think that shows. Yes, Obama doesn't want to go through this bullshit dance again in a few months. To my recollection, no R did until last week, when they apparently started to believe that Obama wasn't going to cave any more than he already has. Or maybe when it sunk in that they were losing the PR game mightily.

Following Ty's links, here's Cantor on June 21: "“I don’t see how multiple votes on a debt ceiling increase can help get us to where we want to go," and "Putting off tough decisions is not what people want in this town" and "if we can’t make the tough decisions now, why … would [we] be making those tough decisions later."

June 21st was eons ago in this negotiation. At the time, they wanted a grand plan. There is now not sufficient time for that, so the 2-step process, which both parties seem to tacitly support, is the road to break the impasse. Please keep up.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seems to me that everything he says right now is tailored to make House Republicans think he's doing a good job, so that when he finally needs to sell them on a deal, he has a better chance. Once there's a deal, he'll be the guy that got the deal done -- for better or worse -- but if he reaches a deal with the White House and then can't sell it to the House Republicans, isn't he done?

It is true that if he gets a reasonable deal through all will be (begrudgingly perhaps) forgotten quickly.

And, of course, if the car hits the wall, do we really care about which dead guy is to blame?