1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by printdust, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    could the true believers in the tea party drag it there?

    The left is already pissed off at Obama. He's dived headfirst into that firestorm. So far, the GOP leadership hasn't flicked its middle finger at the far right. Could it be because it ultimately has more to lose than Obama did?
     
  2. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    According to Boehner himself, there are approximately 60 House Republicans who will never vote for a debt limit increase no matter what. That's one-fourth of the caucus in favor of a financial crisis.
    The Republicans had better figure out what to do with the nihilist wing of their party, or I seriously question the ability of our system to survive. Sooner or later, people who refuse to compromise will have force used against them, and they might not turn out to be the stronger side.
     
  3. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Boehner is already a dead letter if he can't get the other 180 Republicans to meet the 195 Democrats in the middle. The alternative is worse.
     
  4. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    What makes you think all of the 195 Democrats will come to the middle?

    If any cuts to Medicare or Social Security are included in whatever agreement is reached, it's going to be very hard for the progressives in Nancy Pelosi's caucus to accept.
     
  5. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    The good ole pork barrel. It always get's it's man.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    They'd have to manage Federal spending based on day to day cash flow. That's not easy.

    On a day like August 15th, a bunch of interest payments need to be made. Not enough revenue will come in on that day to cover it.

    On a month to month basis, you could cut to the bone and basically make debt, Social Security, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, and active duty military pay. There'd be a little bit left.

    But not the same amount of money comes in every day, and a lot of money needs to go out on specific days.

    It'll be a nightmare.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Let's say the Republican leadership agreed to Obama's "Grand Bargain" -- the details of which we still don't know.

    How many votes from the Democrat caucus do you think Nancy Pelosi would have delivered? Do you think the "progressives" in the caucus would vote for entitlements?

    Each side has hard liners.

    And, let's not forget, a certain Senator from Illinois voted against raising the debt limit when GWB was President.
     
  8. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

     
  9. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    How stupid does one have to be to say "Don't call my bluff!"?

    If you don't want them to call it, then don't announce it's a bluff. No wonder they have to hide his college records. What an idiot.
     
  10. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    You think Wall Street will still be doling out cash to the GOP after they crash the market?
    Do you really think the GOP will go against the wishes of Wall Street to keep a promise to its most conservative voters? Wall Street is more likely to donate to the Dems than the tea party folks are to vote for the Democrats.
    In the end, the Tea Party folks will get to save face by voting no on whatever deal is hashed out and the Dems will carry the ball over the finish line.
     
  11. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Not to get into a semantics argument, but "calling someone's bluff" means you are challenging said person to prove he's not bluffing. It won't necessarily mean the challenged person IS bluffing. So when you tell somebody not to "call my bluff," you aren't admitting you're bluffing, you are telling them not to question your sincerity.

    I have no problem with the use of that expression and it's used in that context quite often.

    Let me ask you this: If I tell you a story of a poker game and I tell you an opponent "called my bluff" on a hand, only it turns out I wasn't bluffing and won the hand, did I contradict myself?

    Maybe you meant to say "What an idiom" instead of "What an idiot." ;D
     
  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Enough of them would, sure. Enough of them voted for welfare reform in 1996.

    The difference, of course, is that Democrats don't a committed radio/Fox TV drumbeat holding a gun to their head. If you're a Republican, you honestly run the risk of being on Glenn Beck's "traitor" list the day after the vote.

    If tax cuts merely expire as a part of the deal, it will be like the Russian Army circa 1962 landed on American shores to the people whose purse strings control the radio/TV stooges. That's how bad it is on the airwaves now. <i>A tax cut deal can't be allowed to expire.</i> Chew on that for a second. That's what the argument is over. Tax cuts for some of the richest people in the world.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page