Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?

[BigSkyBob]

I don't believe the Republicans have anything close to a 'meritorious' case. Health care insurance is one of the most complex industries in the whole economy, and it passes the interstate test with flying colors if any form of commerce does. And forcing someone to buy something on the private market is actually a lot less intrusive than forcing someone to buy something from the government, which is what programs like Medicare and Medicaid do. If the former is unconstitutional, the latter should be unconstitutional even more so.

Then you should have no worries!    Why all the angst?

Moving right along, Medicare and Medicaid are government largess, funded with taxes. And you need not toke. The test is not the quantum of government "intrusion," and never has been, when it comes to the Constitution and SCOTUS. That is a public square issue.

Actually, the case is all about government "intrusion," in theory, although in practice it is quite often about politics too.

In theory, the case is about whether the doctrine of limited, enumerated powers has any real  meaning, or is an defacto fiction.

[Beet]

OK. Obama must not carry through with his veto threat. It's time for him to cave. This is a Judgment of Solomon moment.

[Bull Moose Base]

OK. Obama must not carry through with his veto threat. It's time for him to cave. This is a Judgment of Solomon moment.

When will it end though?  Reagan caved to radical Islamic guerillas and 20 years later we had 9/11.  If Obama rewards economic terrorism, it'll encourage it as a tactic and American democracy will be permanently damaged.  14th, like Clinton said.  Let the GOP sue to destroy the economy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK. Obama must not carry through with his veto threat. It's time for him to cave. This is a Judgment of Solomon moment.

When will it end though?  Reagan caved to radical Islamic guerillas and 20 years later we had 9/11.  If Obama rewards economic terrorism, it'll encourage it as a tactic and American democracy will be permanently damaged.  14th, like Clinton said.  Let the GOP sue to destroy the economy.

Obama should just declare that the 14th amendment lets him raise the debt ceiling.  Let the Supreme Court decide whether to make the country default.

[Gustaf]

Torie, I don't know how I'd answer the question about Obama's courage, per se.  I do think he is in a tough spot electorally next year; if he makes the Dem base happy and alienates independents, he is toast, but if he draws back independents by pissing off the Dem base, he risks death there too.  He is in a tougher spot with the constituencies that won him the presidency than the Republicans are with the constituency that won them back the House.  But, after a while, one just has to choose, because at this point, there is no fail-safe deal for him.  I think if I were to fault Obama for anything, it would be less lack of courage than lack of vision; the guy doesn't have his own plan, and so he tries to be a broker and gets caught too easily between the many fronts at odds on the Hill. 

By the way, I've played bridge a few times, but haven't built up any skill at it yet.  Best for me to stick to the chessboard.  But, you know, even on a chessboard, one needs both vision and courage!

I'd like to improve my bridge game - I've played a lot of whist, but bridge only a couple of times.

[memphis]

OK. Obama must not carry through with his veto threat. It's time for him to cave. This is a Judgment of Solomon moment.

Absolutely not. The reason the GOP is so bold is because they know the Dems almost always cave when the heat's on. Screw them. Let them cave for once.

[Marston]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

[Bull Moose Base]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

Reports are it's 2.5 trillion from Reid.  The odd thing about this story is that reports last week that Obama was about to do a deal with Boehner for no revenue spurred Reid to protest against a revenue-free plan.  I apologize in advance for being a hack.  I've considered not being one, but the Republicans suck so I have no choice.  Welcome.

[Marston]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

Reports are it's 2.5 trillion from Reid.  The odd thing about this story is that reports last week that Obama was about to do a deal with Boehner for no revenue spurred Reid to protest against a revenue-free plan.  I apologize in advance for being a hack.  I've considered not being one, but the Republicans suck so I have no choice.  Welcome.

You're right. It is $2.5 trillion. I apologize. Well that makes it even harder to see how they get there without including entitlements. Even the plan to grow discretionary spending at one-half of inflation doesn't get us 'that' far.

 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

Reports are it's 2.5 trillion from Reid.  The odd thing about this story is that reports last week that Obama was about to do a deal with Boehner for no revenue spurred Reid to protest against a revenue-free plan.  I apologize in advance for being a hack.  I've considered not being one, but the Republicans suck so I have no choice.  Welcome.

From David Dayen's twitter.

I guarantee Reid will use $1T gimmick savings from "ending wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, add $1.2T discretionary cuts, interest savings

[anvi]

Marston,

Welcome to the forum!

Obama had better not take Reid's "deal."  The last offer Boehner had on the table is a lot better than Reid's cop-out and ultimately self-destructive gimmick.

[Marston]

Marston,

Welcome to the forum!

Obama had better not take Reid's "deal."  The last offer Boehner had on the table is a lot better than Reid's cop-out and ultimately self-destructive gimmick.

I would have to agree with you on that point. Frankly, I don't even know if that plan could pass the House. They seem hell-bent against any deal or plan even remotely associated with the Democrats and/or Obama.

Right now, I'm rooting for the old McConnell plan of shifting the debt-raising burden onto Obama. It'll get us past 2012 and I really don't believe it would be that politically damaging to Obama. Maybe it'll make a come-back in the last minute. 

This whole debt-ceiling + deficit reduction debate is manufactured crap, quite honestly. We need to be focusing on job creation, not this.

[anvi]

Well, the last statement I heard from Boehner was that his last offer was still on the table.  If all that's left is Reid's $2.5 trillion deal and Boehner's last offer, the latter is better. 

I'm not sure whether I'm remembering this correctly, but when McConnell put forward his offer of handing over raising the debt ceiling powers to the president, Reid added on to that $1.5 trillion of spending cuts and government commissions to decide on a later package of revenue raisers and further cuts?  And, when that was put forward, the House rejected it.  I think that's what Joementum reminded me of the other day, should be on page 3 of this thread.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Is the "half-trillion" deal still possible? It's the best option on the table for Obama, I'd say. Too bad Plouffe and company must be advising him to rule it out because of electoral reasons. The main risk in taking the McConnell plan is that the economic damage and anger at the entitlement cuts that would come with the incremental budget cuts would be mostly focused on Obama. After all, his administration would be the one proposing them. That plan is just a no-go for Obama. If I wasn't so scared of a Romney presidency, I'd support it because policy-wise it would lead to the best outcomes. It would also make Obama an almost guaranteed one term president.

[anvi]

Obama will have to swallow spending cuts on and some restructuring of entitlements anyway; he will be in hot water with his base for accepting those, and he has, according to his public statements, expressed willingness to take that hit.  The reason the Boehner deal is better than the Reid one for Obama is that the former has revenue enhancements, the latter doesn't.  If Obama takes the Boehner deal, he can at least say he got them, which will at least play some with the Dems and even independents, who favor by around 60%, some revenue enhancements.  If he takes Reid, he gets no revenue enhancements just in trade for not being hit with the debt-ceiling threat again; there's not nearly as much upside, nobody will give him much credit for that.

[Bull Moose Base]

What if Dems unite around: this new Reid plan + announce intention to expire Bush tax cuts for the top 2% (unless GOP can agree to a tax reform plan that generates more revenue in a fair way) + we'll tackle entitlements in the 113th which will hopefully be less insane?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Obama will have to swallow spending cuts on and some restructuring of entitlements anyway; he will be in hot water with his base for accepting those, and he has, according to his public statements, expressed willingness to take that hit.  The reason the Boehner deal is better than the Reid one for Obama is that the former has revenue enhancements, the latter doesn't.  If Obama takes the Boehner deal, he can at least say he got them, which will at least play some with the Dems and even independents, who favor by around 60%, some revenue enhancements.  If he takes Reid, he gets no revenue enhancements just in trade for not being hit with the debt-ceiling threat again; there's not nearly as much upside, nobody will give him much credit for that.

Do you think there's any meat to the Obama administration's argument that a short debt ceiling extension would cause economic instability and bond problems? To me those claims sound strike me as an half-assed explanation to avoid the electoral problems a Boehner deal might entail. I don't think the President has any other option but to take the deal, Boehner's rhetoric is pretty strong and would win popular support if Obama doesn't take it and we get close to the deadline.

[Marston]

Well, the last statement I heard from Boehner was that his last offer was still on the table.  If all that's left is Reid's $2.5 trillion deal and Boehner's last offer, the latter is better. 

I'm not sure whether I'm remembering this correctly, but when McConnell put forward his offer of handing over raising the debt ceiling powers to the president, Reid added on to that $1.5 trillion of spending cuts and government commissions to decide on a later package of revenue raisers and further cuts?  And, when that was put forward, the House rejected it.  I think that's what Joementum reminded me of the other day, should be on page 3 of this thread.

Thanks for the info.

The Tea Party has already won in the sense that they shifted D.C.'s focus onto deficit reduction. Quite dispiriting for a Keynesian like myself.

Reid's $1.2 trillion figure is still quite a lot for discretionary spending. It has to include defense. How could it not?

I'm not sure I'd take Boehner's offer without knowing all the specifics, first. I know the general framework came out after Boehner walked out but the devil is in the details. Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would be quite difficult to stomach for a single-payer advocate like myself. I'm also not totally bought into this chained-CPI for SS COLA's. Just keeping the cuts to discretionary spending as it is in Reid's plan would at least guarantee entitlements are saved from the Tea Party's and Obama's hatchet for the next couple years.  

[anvi]

Do you think there's any meat to the Obama administration's argument that a short debt ceiling extension would cause economic instability and bond problems? To me those claims sound strike me as an half-assed explanation to avoid the electoral problems a Boehner deal might entail. I don't think the President has any other option but to take the deal, Boehner's rhetoric is pretty strong and would win popular support if Obama doesn't take it and we get close to the deadline.

Well, as mentioned, in my view, the Boehner deal is actually better for Obama electorally; it allows him to claim he got something that was important not only to his own constituency, but to a majority of self-identified independents too.  I don't think the Boehner deal is a short-term deal either; it lays out ten-year budget targets.  

I do think there is truth to the charge that not wanting to accept a short-term deal reflects Obama's hope that he won't have to have the debt ceiling leveraged against him before election time.  But the initial McConnell solution, allowing Obama to raise the ceiling three times before the '12 election time, had political intentions as well; it was a fail-safe on the debt-ceiling and at the same time would allow the GOP to pot-shot Obama every time he raised the ceiling until November of '12.  So, the fact that Obama had political worries about that scenario, since it had a political aim to begin with, is at least understandable.  Anyway, given what seems to be on the table at the moment, Boehner's offer is better than Reid's, both in terms of policy and even electorally for Obama.

[anvi]

Reid's $1.2 trillion figure is still quite a lot for discretionary spending. It has to include defense. How could it not?

I'm not sure I'd take Boehner's offer without knowing all the specifics, first. I know the general framework came out after Boehner walked out but the devil is in the details. Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would be quite difficult to stomach for a single-payer advocate like myself. I'm also not totally bought into this chained-CPI for SS COLA's. Just keeping the cuts to discretionary spending as it is in Reid's plan would at least guarantee entitlements are saved from the Tea Party's and Obama's hatchet for the next couple years.  

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.  I think the discretionary cuts proposed by Reid would have to include defense, sure.  Going down the road, though, without revenue enhancements, entitlements may be in even bigger danger a few years down the road than they would be with those, admittedly very tough, adjustments.  I think means testing would work better for SS adjustments.  But, in any case, none of us know enough of the details. 

[Bull Moose Base]

Do you think there's any meat to the Obama administration's argument that a short debt ceiling extension would cause economic instability and bond problems? To me those claims sound strike me as an half-assed explanation to avoid the electoral problems a Boehner deal might entail. I don't think the President has any other option but to take the deal, Boehner's rhetoric is pretty strong and would win popular support if Obama doesn't take it and we get close to the deadline.

Well, as mentioned, in my view, the Boehner deal is actually better for Obama electorally; it allows him to claim he got something that was important not only to his own constituency, but to a majority of self-identified independents too.  I don't think the Boehner deal is a short-term deal either; it lays out ten-year budget targets.  

I do think there is truth to the charge that not wanting to accept a short-term deal reflects Obama's hope that he won't have to have the debt ceiling leveraged against him before election time.  But the initial McConnell solution, allowing Obama to raise the ceiling three times before the '12 election time, had political intentions as well; it was a fail-safe on the debt-ceiling and at the same time would allow the GOP to pot-shot Obama every time he raised the ceiling until November of '12.  So, the fact that Obama had political worries about that scenario, since it had a political aim to begin with, is at least understandable.  Anyway, given what seems to be on the table at the moment, Boehner's offer is better than Reid's, both in terms of policy and even electorally for Obama.

The problem with the short-term solution is that it sets a precedent for toll-booth spending cuts so the GOP can effect austerity as brutal as Cut, Cap, Balance piecemeal.  I do also think it's a plausible argument that Moody's and S&P will downgrade anyway because of the probability of a repeat.  Now, that the GOP took the entire economy hostage and made real the prospect for default, S&P has changed their tune from months ago and now demands political prescriptions.  They say they will downgrade our rating anyway without a $4 trillion debt cut.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92552/obama-wanted-deal-payroll-holiday-unemployment-ratings-downgrade

That article also cites sources that Obama was going for jobs stimulus in his deal with Boehner, by the way.  I think Obama thought jobs stimulus and doing what he could to avoid the downgrade the GOP is driving towards would help his re-election more than the specifics of a deal which would piss off not only his base.  I don't know how he responds to the GOP go-it-alone strategy now.  I think he needs to outline spending cuts, threaten the expiration of Bush tax cuts for rich and hopefully give the GOP vicious criticism for creating this crisis, as well as a large part of our debt in the first place.

[Marston]

Reid just put out the following statement:

“Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans’ continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support. A short-term extension would not provide the certainty the markets are looking for, and risks many of the same dire economic consequences that would be triggered by default itself. Speaker Boehner’s plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President.

“In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans’ two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines.”

-----

Yeah, so nothing new except that the Democrats are holding strong on the anti-short-term extension.

And it does look like Reid's plan has Obama's and Pelosi's blessing, though. At least that's my interpretation of "we". So it seems the Dems have already caved on revenues. Depressing.

Oh, and it looks like they increased their cuts from $2.5 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

[Bull Moose Base]

Here is the revenue-free plan Pelosi outlined last week that TPM speculates this resembles.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

Here is the revenue-free plan Pelosi outlined last week that TPM speculates this resembles.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cuts" from ending wars that hopefully will end, but maybe not. Whatever.  We have a long ways to go yet methinks.

[Bull Moose Base]

Here is the revenue-free plan Pelosi outlined last week that TPM speculates this resembles.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-outlines-revenue-free-path-forward-on-debt-limit-fight.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cuts" from ending wars that hopefully will end, but maybe not. Whatever.  We have a long ways to go yet methinks.

We'll have to end them to avoid hitting the ceiling and crashing into the 30s.  Terrorists finally scare the US into withdrawing from the Islamic world.  (Except not Islamic terrorists.)