alexey Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Boehner seems to be making some stupid moves here. Boehner is in a tough spot. He has to make the GOP House appear both unified AND sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Boehner has been bullied and pushed around by the fringe members of his own caucus so much that he probably has PTSD by now. I would almost feel bad for him if he didn't seem like such a complete douche every time hear him speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm wondering why the Democrats don't call the GOP's bluff, meet and hammer out a year long agreement. Sure they'd give up the big political victory of the Republicans increasing taxes but they'd have much better leverage in negotiations right now than they will if the 2 month extension goes into effect. The Dems should call the GOP's bluff and say "o.k. we'll meet with your comittee and hammer out a 1 year agreement in 10 days since you won't vote on a 2 month extension" The GOP will have no choice but to come out with a 1 year extension and Dems will have a very strong position determining how it's paid for. How would it look if the GOP refuses to vote on a 2 month extension, the Dems agree to meet with their committee and a 1 year extension doesn't come about? The Dems could go in and negotiate now and get a 1 year extension almost entirely on their terms. The Dems will lose some political advantage because the GOP will be able to say we stood of for tax cuts by insisting on a 1 year plan but that 1 year plan will be everything the Dems could hope for. I say call their bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 b/c it's a duopoly and it's all for show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 because the Senate already put together something that passed like 89-10. You aren't going to hammer out a better deal that would get more support on that side.....and on the House side they didn't allow and up or down vote. That is calling any bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 because the Senate already put together something that passed like 89-10. You aren't going to hammer out a better deal that would get more support on that side.....and on the House side they didn't allow and up or down vote. That is calling any bluff. I'm not so sure. The Republicans would look much worse than they do now if the Dems met with them and no agreement was reached. Basically they'd have to come up with an agreement in 10 days and since they were the one's holding up the extension they'd be in the hot seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The Republicans are already in a circular firing squad formation; the Democrats don't really need to call any more bluffs. Zuck, that isn't how it would play out. The House Republicans (or, rather, the fringe group that is leading Boehner around by a dog collar) don't have much interest in negotiating on the bill; they don't like that all of the extras they threw into the bill they sent to the Senate got canned. The negotiations would go like this: Republicans say they want their stuff put back in. Democrats say "No, you know there is huge bipartisan support behind the bill that just passed where we took that stuff out". Then they would just go back and forth without actually getting anywhere. Then at the end of 10 days, nothing is accomplished. The Republicans come out and say "Hey, look, we tried to negotiate with the Democrats but they just don't want to work with us and do what is best for the American people". Essentially it is an opportunity for them to either 1) get a bunch of unrelated goodies they want thrown into the bill or 2) let the tax increase and have a chance to paint it as the fault of the Democrats. If you were in a boxing match and your opponent suddenly turned around and started banging his head against the corner post to the point where he was likely to just knock himself out, would you step out of the ring and watch in puzzlement or would you go back in, turn him around, put his fists back up for him, and then point him towards your face again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I'm not so sure. The Republicans would look much worse than they do now if the Dems met with them and no agreement was reached. Basically they'd have to come up with an agreement in 10 days and since they were the one's holding up the extension they'd be in the hot seat. First Thoughts: Three reasons the House GOP won't win this fight By NBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower *** Three reasons why the House GOP won’t win this fight: Ten days before the payroll tax-cut is set to expire, Washington is now locked in a political stalemate. House Republicans are demanding that the Senate come back from its holiday break to participate in a conference committee, while Democrats are arguing that the House GOP simply pass the already-approved Senate legislation to extend the tax cut for another two months before hammering out a longer-term agreement. But there are three reasons why the House GOP probably won’t win this fight, PR-wise, especially if the tax cut expires. Reason #1: House Republicans allowed the Senate to break for the Christmas holiday without explicit orders it would need to come back. In fact, Politico notes that the silence from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is deafening. Reason #2: The Senate passed its legislation by a bipartisan 89-10 vote, raising the question whether a conference committee could produce a deal that could get 60-plus Senate votes. Reason #3: The House GOP didn’t allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, suggesting that it could have passed if they did. Those three reasons will be hard for the House GOP to explain away if the tax cut expires after Dec. 31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The Republicans are already in a circular firing squad formation; the Democrats don't really need to call any more bluffs.Zuck, that isn't how it would play out. The House Republicans (or, rather, the fringe group that is leading Boehner around by a dog collar) don't have much interest in negotiating on the bill; they don't like that all of the extras they threw into the bill they sent to the Senate got canned. The negotiations would go like this: Republicans say they want their stuff put back in. Democrats say "No, you know there is huge bipartisan support behind the bill that just passed where we took that stuff out". Then they would just go back and forth without actually getting anywhere. Then at the end of 10 days, nothing is accomplished. The Republicans come out and say "Hey, look, we tried to negotiate with the Democrats but they just don't want to work with us and do what is best for the American people". Essentially it is an opportunity for them to either 1) get a bunch of unrelated goodies they want thrown into the bill or 2) let the tax increase and have a chance to paint it as the fault of the Democrats. If you were in a boxing match and your opponent suddenly turned around and started banging his head against the corner post to the point where he was likely to just knock himself out, would you step out of the ring and watch in puzzlement or would you go back in, turn him around, put his fists back up for him, and then point him towards your face again? Perhaps it would pan out like you say but I think a very possible scenario would be that the GOP would get blamed if the Dems met in the committee and a deal wasn't reached. Especially since the 2 month deal will still be on the table. I don't know, I suppose it would be throwing in a wild card and perhaps the GOP would be able to find some angle to flip the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 The vid. The GOP might as well hand the election over to Dems. Ah, got it. The House voted to adjourn. They did adjourn. And after they adjourned, somebody grabbed a microphone and started making a speech. Yep, they cut off the cameras because of his speech. ---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 03:59 PM ---------- I'm wondering why the Democrats don't call the GOP's bluff, meet and hammer out a year long agreement. Sure they'd give up the big political victory of the Republicans increasing taxes but they'd have much better leverage in negotiations right now than they will if the 2 month extension goes into effect. I'm just an amateur spectator. Way, way, WAY up in the cheap seats. But I think the Dems have their own unity problems. They want to establish the principle that tax cuts need to be paid for. But right now, they can't come up with a way to pay for this tax cut, that 51 Dems will vote for. (Another possibility is that there's some "poison pill" that the R's want to put in the bill, and a couple of D's are willing to go in with them. In short, the D's are incapable of bringing a "clean" bill up for a vote.) Either explanation boils down to "a majority of Dems want to get this bill to the floor, but it's not unanimous." They could probably pass the thing without paying for it. But they don't want to give up on the political position. (Because they're looking forward to the "tax cuts must be paid for" line, when the Bush tax cuts come up again for another "temporary" renewal.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Ah, got it. The House voted to adjourn. They did adjourn. And after they adjourned, somebody grabbed a microphone and started making a speech. Yep, they cut off the cameras because of his speech. You got it but Joe Six pack out there that just see's vid caps like this will be outraged. Perception is reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You got it but Joe Six pack out there that just see's vid caps like this will be outraged. Perception is reality. When the hell are we going to wake up and implement term limits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Fergusun: I posted the link that had the bush guy in the title: I obviously knew, but at the bottom of the article the REAL expert did say it was going to hurt and it wasn't brought up till the last second. I don't do partisan talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 More sooner than later this political gamesmanship is going to stop and real spending cuts are going to have to happen The real question is when will the Democrats in the Senate back a plan to create an environment that is friendly to business here in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 When the hell are we going to wake up and implement term limits... When Joe sixpack wakes up. TP strikes again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 When Joe sixpack wakes up.TP strikes again I don't know what this means and haven't read the last bunch of posts but I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 No nothing is "paid" for when your government is running year after year at a deficit and needing to borrow funds to operate. Fair enough. But the best way to reduce the deficit is through jobs and economic growth. Putting money into the pockets of consumers helps do this. ---------- Post added December-21st-2011 at 06:19 PM ---------- But I don't think you can dispute that shortening unemployment benefits would reduce spending, and therefore, the deficit. In short, the GOP bill did, at least "pay for it" partially. (I don't know how much of an impact shortening unemployment would make. Heck, it might be big enough to "pay for" the entire extension.) I don't think anybody said the GOP bill didn't have any pay fors in it. It's just that all their pay fors hurt the middle class or the poor. And no, cutting the weeks of unemployment would not pay for the entire bill, just part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The Republicans are already in a circular firing squad formation; the Democrats don't really need to call any more bluffs. Yep you are "spot on" IMO. The R's had a shot at displacing Obama, but they self-destructed on that. Now I think they are in serious jeopardy of loosing the house in this upcoming election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yep you are "spot on" IMO. The R's had a shot at displacing Obama, but they self-destructed on that. Now I think they are in serious jeopardy of loosing the house in this upcoming election. Uh, if I'm not mistaken, this time, four years ago, it was guaranteed that Hillary would be the next President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Uh, if I'm not mistaken, this time, four years ago, it was guaranteed that Hillary would be the next President. Not by me... Going back through my lifetime the most charismatic candidate ALWAYS wins the general election for president. In this year's fold (like or hate him or his politics) Obama again fits that mold. Newt is toxic to many, Romney seems like a flip/flopping stiff. Cain had the charisma to win but - no for reasons we all know is finished. Paul who I will likely vote for in the primary is considered at Kook/Geek by most, Default win = Obama. Best we can likely hope for is R's to control at least part of Congress as gridlock is better then those ***holes agreeing to put us further in debt (then the gridlock does). And we all know the only time EITHER party seems to even pander to being fiscally conservative is when there is a different party in the Exec branch then the House or Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Best we can likely hope for is R's to control at least part of Congress as gridlock is better then those ***holes agreeing to put us further in debt (then the gridlock does). Cheer up. We've all seen that the Republicans can give us gridlock, even when they're the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Not by me... Going back through my lifetime the most charismatic candidate ALWAYS wins the general election for president. In this year's fold (like or hate him or his politics) Obama again fits that mold. Newt is toxic to many, Romney seems like a flip/flopping stiff. Cain had the charisma to win but - no for reasons we all know is finished. Paul who I will likely vote for in the primary is considered at Kook/Geek by most, Default win = Obama.Best we can likely hope for is R's to control at least part of Congress as gridlock is better then those ***holes agreeing to put us further in debt (then the gridlock does). And we all know the only time EITHER party seems to even pander to being fiscally conservative is when there is a different party in the Exec branch then the House or Senate. I really do believe that this election is unlike any we've seen over the past 50 years. Most of the old rules are vulnerable to being disproven, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Cheer up. We've all seen that the Republicans can give us gridlock, even when they're the minority. Not enough gridlock for me : ) I really do believe that this election is unlike any we've seen over the past 50 years. Most of the old rules are vulnerable to being disproven, IMO. Who really inspires leadership confidence out the the group? Can't really think of one to unite the country.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Not enough gridlock for me : )Who really inspires leadership confidence out the the group? Can't really think of one to unite the country.... I had hopes of Obama being a good leader. And I think he is. I'm beginning to conclude that a lot of people don't want the country united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Linked in the MSNBC blurb quoted by Buford http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70728.html "McConnell's silence speaks volumes." I honestly believe that if there was a vote in the House on the extension it would pass with most of the Dems and enough Republicans to put it over the top. So is this really Boehner caving to the Tea Party? I can see that the House Republicans would want to be done with this issue, and some want to take a principled stand, but their timing is terrible. Is (House) party unity worth the PR loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.