Skip to main content

View Diary: Gingrich says Republicans will 'cave' on their 'dead loser' debt limit bluff (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What Gingrich and Gregg are missing is... (5+ / 0-)

    GOP and WH and Dems in cahoots.  If it is or isn't a legit hostage, it is if WH pretends it's one and thus HAS to negotiate over it.  

    Because otherwise Pelosi could put a clean raise to a discharge petition in the House, have all Dems sign it and then need 17 Republicans to break ranks - do you really not think 17 Republicans would sign on rather than go along with teabaggers in their goal to crash the economy?

    It's only leverage because Pres Obama and Dems - AND THE MSM - allow it to be and pretend it is.  

    President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:22:48 AM PST

    •  If that were really the case (15+ / 0-)

      why on earth would the President be saying repeatedly now that he's not going to negotiate over the debt ceiling this time?

      If it really was as you claim, it would make no sense whatever for him to say this, only to reneg on it.

      •  Not at all. He's can say whatever he wants now... (4+ / 0-)

        and then be forced to cave for the good of the country by the crazay Republicans.  

        Why did he negotiate over it the first time?  What he's saying now and you're believing - what changed?  

        President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:54:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But what would be the point of making a promise (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook, Aquarius40

          that you knew you were going to break? None that I can think of. There's no upside to that.

          He learned from the first debt ceiling negotiation, obviously. And he did not promise before that that he would refuse to negotiate over it. Now, he has. That's different.

          The other difference, of course, is that he has now just been re-elected president and he has the winds of public opinion blowing very much in his favor this time. Everything is changed.

        •  What's changed is maybe he's learning (0+ / 0-)

          Putting Biden in charge of the Senate negotiations was a smart move -- Biden is a much more astute negotiator, and perhaps Obama has figured this out. Or perhaps he's sick and tired of having Boehner make promises to him and then break them -- eventually you wise up and stop the nonsense.

          It's the old AA slogan -- "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Maybe the President has figured that out and is trying a different tack, different advisors, something.

          At least I hope so.

      •  Except for the fact that.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        defluxion10, slinkerwink

        he's done this routine before....

    •  There are not 17 republicans who would sign on. (0+ / 0-)

      Hell, all Democrats probably won't even sign on. Only one of the gopers who voted against Boehner yesterday (Justin Amash(R-MI)) did so because he said he wants republicans to compromise and work with Democrats for the good of the country. Maybe we get his signature....I'd bet we won't though. The rest of them (especially the defectors from yesterday) will move in lockstep with their party, consequences be damned.

      •  The majority of the GOP house are not crazy. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fury, SilentBrook, slinkerwink

        60% were elected to the House before 2010 meaning they're certainly not teabaggers - they're corporatist water carriers and MIC war pigs.  Big Business and the MIC like government spending and would be among the biggest hurt by any debt default.  

        President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:50:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed. But then it turns to who are they more (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus

          afraid of--their funders or their lunatic base. Signing the petition for a clean debt limit hike is the surest way for any goper to guarantee a primary to potentially put them in the unemployment line. I think it'll be close, but in the end they'll be more afraid of the primary than their funders, they'll hold the line with their party and not sign on.

        •  That's not accurate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wewantthetruth, Odysseus

          There's no reason to pretend that the Tea Party represented some new current in the GOP.  They're just the far right of the GOP, who hate taxes and government spending (and are pretty lock-step on social issues, as well).

          The far right of the GOP started calling the tune of Congressional Republicans long before 2010.  

      •  Nonsense (7+ / 0-)

        There is not a single Dem who would support defaulting on the debt. Not one. And there are easily more than 17 Repubs who'd vote with them on it.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:55:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting. When the House brought a clean debt (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sneakers563, Radical Moderate, Cedwyn

          ceiling bill to the floor for a vote in May 2011, it failed. Big time. 318-97.

          In the vote, 236 Republicans and [82] Democrats opposed the debt ceiling increase, while 97 Democrats voted in favor of raising the limit without conditions. Seven Democrats voted “present.”
          Six didn't vote at all. http://clerk.house.gov/...

          http://p.washingtontimes.com/...

          So, you were saying?

          •  And this caused us to default on the debt how? (4+ / 0-)

            Pols do this all the time, angling for amendments they want, but having no intention to not vote for the final bill. Are you telling me that if, after a series of preliminary bills and amendments, a final vote is put before the house that, if it fails, will lead to the US defaulting on its debt, there will be even ONE Dem who will vote against it, knowing that it would doom them politically (not to mention being the most irresponsible thing they've ever done in congress)?

            Which Dem? Name just one who is on record as wanting or being ok with us defaulting on our debt? Just ONE.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:57:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What are you even talking about? What I said was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cambridgemac

              that there are not 17 House GOP members who would sign the "clean raise" discharge petition that Jacoby Jonze envisions--that not even all Democrats would sign it. How do I know? Republicans and plenty of Democrats have a demonstrated recent history of not voting for the very bill that the envisioned discharge petition is supposed to bring to the floor for a vote. There were no amendments. There were no preliminary bills. It was a straight forward bill to raise the debt ceiling and 82 Democrats and all republicans voted Nay. What has changed now to make them (Rs & Ds) vote differently on a clean raise?

              And, by the way, at the time they voted Nay on 5/31/11, we had supposedly already hit the debt limit on 5/16/11. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

              You want a list of the names of the 82 Democrats who voted against a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling? Here http://clerk.house.gov/....

              •  I am talking about how the process works (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40

                The clean bill was an initial bill, not the final bill. They do this every time to get a sense of what the baseline is before tossing in all sorts of amendments. That this or that person voted against a preliminary bill doesn't mean that they won't or didn't vote for the final bill. That's how legislation is made. How the vote went on a preliminary bill is meaningless. It's who votes for the final bill. And I guarantee you that no Dem (ok, maybe a few jerks like Cooper) will vote against any final bill to avert defaulting on the debt if it doesn't include major cuts to entitlements AND their votes are needed, which is all but certain given that most Repubs will vote against it. Now, a bill that includes major cuts to entitlements, that I can see lots of Dems voting against, and rightfully so. But I doubt that such a bill will be the final bill.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:33:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gotcha. But what I thought Jacoby was talking (0+ / 0-)

                  about that I responded to was bringing up a discharge petition to bring a clean bill to the floor for a vote and we'd get at least 17 republicans to vote for it. My point was that I don't think we would. Whether he meant for the petition to be for the final bill or not, I don't know. But even if it were, I don't believe we'd get any republicans and certainly not all Democrats to vote for a clean bill as the final one...hey, maybe that's the plan of action! Woah, that would be deep and would certainly make a bunch of people nervous. Democrats holding on til the end?? Hmmm.

                  •  I have to disagree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SilentBrook

                    Most likely Boehner will bring a bill to the floor that has enough support to pass rather than risk the humiliation of an end run via discharge. But I believe that if it came to it, the votes for it are there. There are still just enough non-crazy Repubs to make it happen. Perhaps this silly delay on the Sandy relief bill vote was a setup for that, to give NE Repubs a plausible excuse to "betray" Boehner. Don't discount the role of kabuki in this.

                    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                    by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:09:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Not to bust on your documentation... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwjjd

            ... but please don't ask me to click through to the Moonie Times.  That rag give me hives.  ;-)

            •  Oh, I understand. I had to shower after reading it (0+ / 0-)

              but it was the first one I could find that had Steny Hoyer's weak, self-preserving excuse for why he was for the clean bill even though he voted against it.

          •  I just took a look (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwjjd, SilentBrook

            at the Wiki page for the  Budget Control Act of 2011 that raised the debt ceiling. Here's the final vote in the house:

            The House passed the Budget Control Act[1] on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.
            So you're right, there's a precedent for this. But note the GOP breakdown, 174 for and 66 against. I don't expect there to be anywhere near this many for any debt ceiling bill that doesn't include major cuts to entitlements. Unless Obama caves, they're going to need lots of Dems, nearly all of them most likely. Pelosi will likely try to get unanimity to support Obama, and she'll likely get it.

            Ok, that asshole Jim Cooper and maybe a couple of other deficit scolds might vote against it. You got me there.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:08:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How do we game this out? We shouldn't negotiate (0+ / 0-)

              over the debt ceiling at all. But we have weak Democrats, like Steny Hoyer, who are afraid to vote for a clean hike because the vote will be used against them in the next election. Maybe, not likely, the WH takes some action on their own so Dems don't have to vote on the debt ceiling. Regardless, I don't want Democrats voting for any bill that cuts SS, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits in any way...to hell with what the President or VP may eventually negotiate. So, absent the WH doing something on its own what are we left with? Some straight bull!

              Anyway, thanks. It's been great going back re-reading the foolishness of 2011. :-(

              •  I say enough of this love affair (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cambridgemac, slinkerwink

                that centrist Dems like Hoyer & Obama have been having with centrist voters over fiscal issues, since they represent relatively few true swing votes as most of them vote GOP no matter what, and passing conservative bills to cater to them not only doesn't work and isn't necessary politically, but results in awful policies and loses them much more support on the left than they gain in the center, 2010 being a classic and tragic example.

                Triangulation has been a colossal failure and we need to abandon it. To hell with those illusory centrist voters. They're not worth the bother. Dems win or lose depending on how progressive they are.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:48:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Yes there is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wewantthetruth, SilentBrook

        80+ of them "broke ranks" and voted to raise taxes on people making over $400,000. I'm sure a significant number of them did so specifically because the money people told them it would be a bad idea not to.

        And defaulting on the debt would be an even worse idea.

        Obama and the Dems should definitely adopt a "we aren't going to talk about it" stance on the debt limit. They should just operate with the assumption that the debt limit will be raised.

        Why? Because it will.

        •  No doubt it'll eventually be raised, but let's be (0+ / 0-)

          clear--the House GOP (and plenty of Democrats too!) will take us to the brink and not one will sign the discharge petition. In fact, I'm betting Boehner will bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor and it will suffer the same fate that it did in 2011, strong defeat...

          ....despite the fact that some of the GOP’s strongest allies in the business community and on Wall Street are pushing for a swift resolution to the fight.
          http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

          All republicans will vote against it and an equally high number of the 82 Democrats that voted against it last time will do so again. http://clerk.house.gov/... But see, all Democrats really supported it though:

          House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer said the House “ought to vote for this,” though he said he was voting against it because it would give ammunition to Republicans in next year’s election.

          “This is not an honest debate. This is not an honest proposal,” Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said. “If we vote for it, ho-ho, guess what? You’re for raising the debt limit without any fiscal discipline.”

          http://p.washingtontimes.com/...

          This time it'll be different though! Right.

    •  I don't know if I agree with such kabuki (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wewantthetruth, SilentBrook

      But I do agree that there's no way we're defaulting, given that there are certainly enough Repubs to vote with Dems to raise it, whether or not Boehner brings it to the floor, and since Boehner knows this, he will bring it, to avoid being embarrassed AND tagged with being so irresponsible. He wants a cushy job post-congress and he has to play ball to assure that.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:54:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! (0+ / 0-)

      eom

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 08:46:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site