Budget talks: This is getting nasty

52 incumbent Democrat House members lost in '10. 14 open seats switched from Democrat to Republican.

It's these members who ran on a platform of reigning is spending. They're the ones who are refusing to sign on to a deal to extend the debt ceiling without cuts in spending and they are also unwilling to raise taxes.

 

So, either get the deal done without them, or let them take the blame.

I don't know why you're so worked up about them.

They're voting exactly as they promised to vote, in an election that was just held.

 

Really? Freshmen House members now dictate to the GOP leadership?

Eric Cantor's been in since 2000. Boehner since 1990.

And, using the numbers you just provided...

There are 435 seats in the house.

Take away your 66 freshmen Republicans.

There are still 369 votes in play.

Now, if we take away the number of actual freshmen Republicans (it's 85), there are still a cool 350 votes to play with.

218 needed to pass a debt ceiling bill. So any combination of 193 Democrats and the 157 incumbent Republicans gets it done with 132 votes to spare.

So, you know, come up with something better, cause that dog won't hunt.

Are you in some way slow?

Them being idiots is gonna fuck up people's lives. This isn't a hypothetical thing.

And as I just took the time to point out to you, there aren't enough of them to prevent the vote. The House GOP leadership is doing that. Your opinion here is easily invalidated by elementary school arithmetic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or Plato. Just an ability to count.

Keep working, you'll get there.

 

My bad for failing to count the freshman Republicans who took the seats of retiring Republicans. (There may also have been a few Republicans who lost primaries, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.)

So, right, 85 freshman Republicans. They're the hard liners.

Now, if we knew how many votes Nancy Pelosi could deliver, we'd know how many Republican votes we'd need.

Boehner is desperate to do a deal. Cantor isn't against raising the debt ceiling, he's just not going to raise taxes to do it.

So, if it's so critical -- and I agree it is -- throw them a bone, and cut spending just a little. Leave taxes where they are and you'll get at least 25 votes. That's all you'd need if Nancy could bring her entire caucus on board.

But, the moment you cut spending, you lose Democrat votes.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has approximately 77 (voting) members in the House. They're the Dem equivalent of the Republican "Tea Party" members.

Will Jerry Nadler, José Serrano, Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, or Maxine Waters vote for any deal that includes spending/entitlement cuts?

You know, the '06 Senate vote -- the one where President Obama voted no -- only passed 52-48. 48% of the Senate voted against the final measure -- one that wasn't even controversial.

That's a much higher percentage than the 85 House Republican Freshman.

Find a way to get it done without them. They're not voting for it unless they get their way. They will drive the car off the cliff.

So, get some Dems to vote for just a little bit of spending cuts -- otherwise, it's gonna fuck up people's lives.

Tell Nancy, Jerry, Jose, Charlie, Sheila, and Maxine to get on board. It's important.

 

The American people are loudly, clearly and unmistakeably saying they prefer a solution that involves higher taxes on the rich. Maybe that should count for something.

Also: They are cutting spending -- some would say by a little, some would say by a moderate amount, some would say by a lot.

 

Was just reading this on time.com and it seemed topical:

 

The American people wouldn't have given the debt ceiling a moment's thought if the Republicans had not made an issue of it.

They're weren't looking for a solution.

The fact that some are willing rob from Peter to pay Paul, shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course they're willing to let some other people pay higher taxes if it will get people to stop talking about the debt ceiling.

That's as unsurprising as when you tell me people liked cash for clunkers.

Yes, people like free money. They also like when other people pay their bills.

Why don't you take a poll and ask how many people would like $1,000 checks mailed to them? I'd bet it would poll high.

The House freshman got rolled in the budget debate. They're not going to get rolled again. So, we can either suffer the consequences, or the Dems can actually agree to cut spending.

 

They ran on a platform of stopping the mooslim neegro kenyan By Any Means Necessary.

 

Don't be so sure about that last point.

When it comes time to cast votes, it often comes down to how the economy is doing. If the economy is doing well (as it was for Bush II in 2004 and Clinton in 1996) or at least showing clear signs of recovery (as it was for Reagan in 1984), the incumbent President gets re-elected. If the economy is doing poorly (as it was for Bush I in 1992), the incumbent President usually gets voted out. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the economic improvement or meltdown. Often, to be perfectly honest, no one is really to blame.

As James Carville said, "It's The Economy, stupid." And the President is the person in charge.

If an economic calamity ensues because neither side can get a deal done by August 2, and that calamity persists until November 2012, Obama will get blamed no matter what the polls say now. Fairly or unfairly, he's the President, and his party controls the White House and half the Senate.

 

This is the point I was making earlier and was shouted down for.

 

Looks like the Gang of Six is going to give Obama a way out of this quagmire.

That includes Tom Coburn, who is actually one of Obama's closest allies on the other side of the party line. And yet one that has had Bachmann-like venom spewed at him on this site.

 

Dear Congresspeople of both parties. Raise the debt ceiling and then focus on the real issue -- JOB CREATION.

Under Reagan, the entire tax structure was redone for cuts, government spending stayed about the same, and tax loopholes were closed (amounting to the single highest increase in taxes on the rich up to that point in history, despite the tax rate on the rich being nearly half of what it was) and unemployment fell.

If I was a cynic, which I'm not, I'd say that this Republican grandstanding in the House is part of a plot to make the economy tank knowing Obama will get blamed so the GOP can recapture the White House in 2012.

I'm a liberal-to-moderate Democrat and the refusal of the House Republicans to recognize the best way to deficit reduction is to cut spending AND increase revenues boggles the mind.