Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama should veto any 'Gang of 12' plan that doesn't effectively repeal Bush high-income tax cuts (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  veto (12+ / 0-)
    Whatever ends up happening, it's important to recognize that this time around, President Obama has all the leverage he needs to get what he wants. The reason is simple: nothing the Gang of 12 proposes can become law without President Obama's signature. Even if it passes Congress, he can veto it.
    How does that differ from last time around?

    With every goddess a let down, every idol a bring down, it gets you down / but the search for perfection, your own predilection, goes on and on and on. . .

    by cardinal on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:03:18 AM PDT

    •  better case to be made... (6+ / 0-)

      ...that debt limit was a must raise situation, and that he wasn't willing to fail to raise it.

      but the consequences of a trigger, he can live with, and they are easier to fix.

      •  Ain't gonna happen unless he fires all of his (8+ / 0-)

        advisors and somehow embraces Keynesiasm.  He clearly wants these cuts.  He'll cut Medicare just to avoid defense cuts.  We already know that's his preference.

        And his veto threats are no longer taken seriously by anyone.

        Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

        by TAH from SLC on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:24:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's not true. (10+ / 0-)

        It was not a must raise situation. Maybe in the media and maybe the narrative was long ago abdicated to the Tea Party.
        But subsequent events - events that many were aware of concerning the demand for U.S. Treasuries and the irony of S&P's ridiculous play on the downgrade, those events have proven that it was never a "must raise" situation. In fact anyone bothering to observe a pattern could only conclude that there are forces intent on busting the confidence of the U.S. Government no matter what decisions are made. And again this week the pattern held.  Downgrade despite capitulation to the tea party and Grover Norquist. Downgrade despite a "bipartisan" deal.

        Must we have submitted to Hank Paulson's three page ransom note in October of 2008. I, for one among many, are done with the "WE MUST DO ANYTHING!" shock doctrine reflex of the Democrats.  Enough.


        by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:31:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, the debt limit was a must raise situation (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TAH from SLC, splintersawry

        and everyone, Rs included, knew that was the ultimate outcome. The rest was all kabuki--why did POTUS give any ground at all when he knew that the outcome was that the debt ceiling had to be raised--as did all of the players. digby was very well likely completely right all along, as usual.

        There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

        by srkp23 on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:43:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Question. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TAH from SLC

          What were the consequences if the debt limit wasn't raised?

          Careful here.  We could start a whole new thread in another diary comparing the projections of doom and gloom if it wasn't raised and what we are actually witnessing in the real world of the here and now.

          If you're ultimate claim is that confidence in government would've resulted apart from a run on Treasuries (never happens in a flight to security - gold and treasuries) then how do you explain the crisis in government post debt ceiling raise deal.


          by Aeolos on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:52:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  But I think he SHOULD have been (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sue B, splintersawry

        very willing to veto a bill he didn't like, even at the last minute.

        I think he should have made it painfully clear, in a joint session and on prime time TV, that if a debt ceiling bill had x, y, or z, HE WOULD VETO IT.

        And if it had those thing, he should have done just that.

        Of course, I think he should have been doing that all along, and not just now.

        He's trying to be the adult - well, be the adult. When the rowdy kids propose bringing the barbecue grill in the house because it's raining, you don't say it's a bad idea and then LET THEM. You put them and the damn grill out in the rain and lock the doors.

        If he tells Congress what he will and won't accept, and they send him something he's said he WILL NOT accept, he should veto the damn thing, tell them why, and tell them to do it over until they get it right.

        He doesn't have any other weapons. That's all he's got. Of course, they'll hold up any and all of his appointments - which is what they're ALREADY doing, so that's nothing different.

    •  The law of averages: (5+ / 0-)

      It is getting more and more in our favor.

      How does that differ from last time around?

      Eventually he has to fuck up in his own plans and do something right for us. Even if only accidentally or as collateral damage to his intended policy.

      See? I do have hope in something. lol

      ePluribus Media
      Collaboration is contagious!

      by m16eib on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:28:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site