Skip to main content

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor speaks at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Illinois, October 28, 2011. REUTERS/John Gress (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)
Eric Cantor holds the GOP's debt limit default threat between his hands
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:
The first step to fixing this problem is to pass a budget that reduces spending. The House has done so, and will again. The Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in almost four years, which is unfair to hardworking taxpayers who expect more from their representatives. That ends this year.

We must pay our bills and responsibly budget for our future. Next week, we will authorize a three month temporary debt limit increase to give the Senate and House time to pass a budget. Furthermore, if the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, Members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.

As I wrote earlier, this short-term thing doesn't really make any sense at all, but take a moment to appreciate just how far Republican demands have fallen.

They started off demanding adherence to the Boehner rule—one dollar of cuts for every dollar of debt limit increase. That would have meant cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Now, they say they'll postpone their debt limit default threat for another three months ... to force the Senate to pass a (non-binding!) budget resolution. And if the Senate doesn't act? Congress won't get paid. Oooh, scary.

But whatever the Senate does, you can bet the debt ceiling will go up. Because it has to.

10:06 AM PT: Fun point by MadRuth: Eric Cantor managed to force himself to say "Democratic Senate" (not "Democrat Senate"). Now that is a concession.

10:14 AM PT:
House says there will be no 'long term' debt-limit deal without Senate passing budget.
@ByronYork via HootSuite
Haha, yeah, okay, whatever guys. Sure.

10:22 AM PT: You know, I'll bet Sean Duffy is really freaking out about the pay threat. Maybe he should retain counsel, because if Cantor does cut Congressional pay, Duffy could file an interesting lawsuit contesting the action,  citing the 27th Amendment.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He must be serious (30+ / 0-)

    he said "the Democratic Senate" instead of "the Democrat Senate".  Now that's a concession.

    If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

    by MadRuth on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:04:25 AM PST

  •  Keep the pressure up (8+ / 0-)

    that's my first thought.
    But my second one is a question for my own education.
    I keep hearing Republicans say the Senate hasn't passed a budget in X years.
    What are they talking about?
    Thanks

    •  A congressional budget, like any other (9+ / 0-)

      budget anywhere, is a plan for how and where to spend money.  It is non-binding, and almost always passed and ignored.  

      What counts are the laws authorizing spending.  The senate has not been able to pass a budget blueprint because the Republicans won't let it.  They do pass spending laws.

      Look at it like a diet.  If you make a New Year's resolution that you're going to eat only salads, then you buy pastries and steaks all year long, how important was that resolution?  The senate hasn't made a resolution for years, but continues to buy groceries.  Sometimes they make good choices; sometimes bad.  But the absence of that initial plan affects nothing at all.

      There is no higher achievement in life than to make a child laugh.

      by Fiddler On A Hot Tin Roof on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:14:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "budget" is a budget outline (6+ / 0-)

      telling the appropriations and revenue committees rough targets for the actual bills.

      It's like an agenda in a meeting, and Cantor is like that twerp who complains that the last X meetings haven't had a proper agenda.

      But, there is a real point that the Senate is so broken with its filibuster rules that it can't even pass an agenda.

      •  The filibuster is not the problem. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Senator Reid refuses to bring up a budget resolution in the Senate.

        •  sigh (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bear83, basket

          The threat of a filibuster makes it pointless to try to bring the budget to the floor.

          Since passing the budget itself is meaningless, there's no point of going through that kabuki.

          •  Did you read the link? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            The reason that Senator Reid, and Senator Schumer, gave has nothing to do with a filibuster threat.  

            •  dude (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bear83, basket, VA gentlewoman

              The budget resolution is theater.

              The reason given in the link was basically "the budget resolution is theater. The real work is in the appropriations committees. We're not going to bother going through the kabuki of the Republicans opposing a meaningless bill."

              •  The Budget Resolution is law. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                Specifically, the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.

                It is supposed to prevent exactly the kind of thing that happened with the fiscal cliff -- a backroom deal negotiated by a few people that is then presented to Congress in a "take it or leave it" scenario.  That Act is supposed to provide that the country can see what its elected officials are doing with respect to spending their tax dollars.  It is supposed to give the country a chance to see what is being voted on BEFORE it becomes law (through the committee hearings, etc.)

                It's how our government is supposed to work.  I don't think that's "theater."  Instead, these backroom deals that where nobody knows exactly what is in them until the come up for a vote -- that's the theater.  And that is a slap in the face to the voters, in my opinion.

                •  what the law does vs. what you think it does (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bear83, ferg, basket

                  If the budget were binding, then the 1974 CBA would have the effect you describe.  But it doesn't have that effect, and it never did.  Because, as people have repeatedly attempted to explain to you, there's no authority behind the budget and no consequence for not following it.

                •  There is an established principle of law (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  basket

                  to the effect that one legislature cannot bind another.  In other words, the 93rd Congress cannot tell the current Congress that it must pass a certain resolution.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:54:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Respectfully, it is the obligation of the Senate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk

            to put forward a budget.  And it is the "right" of the American People to see how they would propose to spend "our money."

            How is it that (for some people) everything seems to come down to tactics and strategy.

            Does no one else care about "good goverance?"

            We have some rights, too.  Especially in light of the fact that Bowles-Simpson which is heavily supported by this Administration and the Dem Leadership (listen to C-Span and Chris Van Hollen, Mark Warner, etc.,  if you don't believe this) and their proposal suggests raising taxes on the working and middle classes.  

            I for one want to know what they have in mind for the higher taxes that I'll likely be paying once they complete the "tax reform overhaul."

            Sorry if this is riddled with typos (on my way out the door, and very pushed for time).

            Mollie

            “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            by musiccitymollie on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:46:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  so pay attention to the appropriation bills (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PSzymeczek, chrismorgan, bear83, basket

              and the tax bills, which are the meaningful bills.

            •  proof is in the pudding (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PSzymeczek, bear83, basket

              Complaining about the pudding is reasonable.

              But complaining that the recipe for the pudding wasn't published in advance is a bit silly.  Especially since any published recipe need not correspond with the one used to make the pudding.

              I don't know what Simpson-Bowles has to do with anything, since there's no legislation pending (that I am aware of) that implements their recommendations.  So even if the Senate did pass a budget, it's unlikely it would contain any reference to middle class tax hikes or cuts to social welfare programs.

        •  That is correct. Personally, as much as I detest (0+ / 0-)

          'the Cantors of the world,' I would love to see the all of Capitol Hill take a haircut if they continue to refuse to do their jobs.

          The Democratic Senators are reluctant to commit to paper the cuts that they back to all the social insurance programs.  

          They would expose themselves, so they refuse to do so, hoping that they "can hold hands, and jump together" by striking a Grand Bargain.

          IOW, they want "cover."  A budget would blow their cover.

          Mollie

          “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:32:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe the country should pressure the Senate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            to bring up a budget resolution in conjunction with the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.

            Something as important as that should not be negotiated by a few people in some back room deal where the final product is presented to the Congress as a last-minute "take it or leave it" thing (like the fiscal cliff deal).  

            The country should demand that the President and the Congress comply with the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, and proceed to consider a budget in regular order -- committee hearings, etc., in an open and transparent process, not in some back-room negotiated continuing resolution.    

            Unfortunately, that process is supposed to begin with the President submitting a budget on the first Monday in February, and he has said he will not meet that deadline.

            •  how would that help? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bear83

              a Senate budget wouldn't prevent the House from refusing to raise the debt ceiling.  And that's what got us Simpson Bowles and the fiscal cliff.

              •  Because the country is entitled to a (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                debate over the serious topics facing this country:  how the Congress plans to spend its tax dollars, whether the Congress plans to spend more to create jobs and how it plans to do that, whether Congress plans to cut spending on entitlement programs, whether Congress plans to raise taxes, and on whom.  

                The Budget Resolution process is supposed to be a vehicle where the country can see the debate on -- and weigh in on -- the priorities of Congress.  

                I detest the process we've gotten to, where a few people negotiate a deal out of sight of everybody.  

                I would like to see the country demand that we go back to a process where everything is passed pursuant to regular order, where we can see where our elected officials stand on these issues, where we can weigh in on those priorities BEFORE the are negotiated away as part of a deal.

                •  Republicans are not interested in serious debate (0+ / 0-)

                  They want to score political points to use in the next election.

                  Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

                  by bear83 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:44:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I really don't care what Republicans want (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    The voters of this country are entitled to hear from their elected officials as to what they intend to do and to have those elected officials state that position by their vote.  

                    I'm fed up with backroom negotiations.  The voters deserve a transparent process where they can hold elected officials accountable.

                  •  bear - for F2009 & 10 the Dem led House (0+ / 0-)

                    didn't pass a budget when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. Why?

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:37:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  My problem with that is that the Can'tors (0+ / 0-)

            and the Issas and the Renaccis, who are all filthy rich, wouldn't notice. The four Democratic congresspersons and the Democratic senator from Ohio are NOT rich and live on their salaries. So what would THEY do? The people it affects the least are the ones throwing around such reckless suggestions.

            And I love the people who suggest that serving in Congress be a part-time low-paid (or even unpaid) job, thereby assuring that Congress would be packed with the Issas and Can'tors of the world and very few people like Sherrod Brown or Marcia Fudge (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus) or Tim "The Good" Ryan of Ohio. Sure, Alan Grayson is rich, but many of the most progressive congresspeople aren't, and the worst of them usually are.

            Jon Husted is a dick.

            by anastasia p on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:57:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You might want to check out this piece from (0+ / 0-)

              The Hill newspaper.

              I didn't relook, but for prior years, 7 out of the top 10 richest lawmakers WERE Democrats.  Barbara Lee (CA) was in the Top 50, and I had no idea that she was a person "of wealth."  Here's a link to the piece.

              These folks are overpaid, for what they do or accomplish.  And what little it is, it's mostly benefits the wealthiest Americans.  Anyone in the private sector with their records, would have been fired by now.

              For the most part, their (members of both parties) votes for war and empire are what have created any so-called "fiscal crises."

              So, no, I wouldn't feel badly at all if they forfeited some pay, until they straighten out the mess that THEY'VE created.  

              But don't worry--it will never happen, anyway.

              Mollie

              “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

              by musiccitymollie on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 12:14:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The last time that Reid (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferg, bear83

          tried to bring a budget resolution to a vote, the Republicans larded it with so many onerous amendments, that no one could, in good conscience, vote for it.

          You can't keep a mighty tree alive (much less expect it to thrive) by only spritzing the fine leaves at its tippy-top. The fate of the whole tree depends on nurturing the grassroots. - Jim Hightower

          by PSzymeczek on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:17:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The country deserves to see that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PSzymeczek

            I should be entitled to know the budget priorities and positions of my Senators on budget issues.  And the best way to do that is with regular order -- and in the case of spending, with requiring Congress to comply with the law it enacted for that very purpose.

    •  The Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      since 2009.

      The 1974 Congressional Budget Act requires the President to submit a budget to Congress on the first Monday in November,  and that Congress act it and pass a Budget Resolution by April 15. See timetable here.  

      Since the Republicans took control of the House, they have passed Budget Resolutions.  This is the "Ryan Budget" that they passed.  

      However, the Senate has not passed a budget in the last several years.  The country has been operating on short term continuing resolutions, the most recent of which expires March 27.

      By the way, the President has said he will not meet his legal deadline of February 4.

      •  so you'd rather (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83

        the Ryan budget?

        •  Nope. I'd rather the Senate Democrats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          propose their alternative so I can see what that is and decide what I think of their priorities, and -- if I am so moved -- let my Senators know what I think about their positions and priorities.  

          Since Budget Resolutions can't be filibustered, I don't see a reason why the Democrats won't put out THEIR budget to counter the Ryan plan.

          Saying "the Ryan budget is bad, I don't support it" tells me nothing about what my Senators will vote for.  I want to hear what my Senators DO support. I think I'm entitled as a voter to that information.  

          •  I am sure you feel entitled (0+ / 0-)

            Before 2009, how many Senate budget proposals did you read?

            •  Of course most people here would learn (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              what was in a Senate Budget Resolution.  

              Most people here educated themselves as to what was in the Ryan Budget when the House passed it.  I did the same, not necessarily by reading the legislation itself, but by reading the detailed analysis of it from sources with various political points of view, including commentary on it here at this site.  

              I would expect to do the same with any Senate Democratic budget resolution.  Whether I do it every years depends on how different the parties' views on spending are. But yes, I did follow that prior to 2009.  Information on the Budget Resolutions are not hard to find -- here for 2008, for example, when Bush was president and the Democrats controlled the Senate. You can even get visual information form the Senate site for presentations.  

              A budget resolution is a statement of priorities and intent.  Most people here wanted to know exactly that when negotiations are done behind closed doors.  Witness all the diaries during 2011 about what the President was, or was not, offering during those negotiations.  The budget resolution process makes the various parties state their priorities and intent out in the open, where the voters can evaluate it.  And, they have to commit themselves to a position by voting.

              I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to request.

    •  It doesn't really matter (0+ / 0-)

      The proposed extension doesn't last long enough to cover the Senate's budget deadline. If Cantor were serious about linking the two, the debt ceiling limit would last until that deadline.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:58:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Eric Cankicker RIDES AGAIN! nt (12+ / 0-)

    Fuck Big Brother...from now on, WE'RE watching.

    by franklyn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:04:44 AM PST

  •  WTF r they up to? (5+ / 0-)

    starting to get confused by their flipping and flopping this way and that

    or maybe its due to needing a shower and caffeine

    I need to read other people's theories to make sense of this

  •  Translation: "We know we have to increase.... (19+ / 0-)

    the debt limit, but we can't get the dumbass teabaggers to see that.  So we have bought ourselves more time by kicking the can down the road for three months and will try and dump this albatross onto the Senate"

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:10:36 AM PST

    •  They never should have brainwashed (0+ / 0-)

      the dumbass teabaggers to begin with. This is all on them. Teabaggers started out vaguely believing that the BLACK!!!! President was going to do BAD THINGS, but they had not defined these things. It was the Republicans who poured content into that emptiness.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:59:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This should instill confidence in the markets... (9+ / 0-)

    NOT. Worst.Congress.Ever.

    Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less. E.J. Dionne

    by blueyescryinintherain on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:10:39 AM PST

    •  Yep, remember when 'certainty' was R magic job (2+ / 0-)

      cure?

      The reality is of course, certainty does not create jobs, but uncertainty such as this Thug stupidity will destroy them - and hurt, perhpas even stall, recovery- but that's been the Thug intent all along.  (Thier Leaders aren't so stupid as to believe the bs about deficits hurting economy they've been peddling since the Bush Depression, no matter how stupid the shock troops are.)

  •  more proof (14+ / 0-)

    that the president doesn't need to make any concessions or false deals. when the pressure is on, the republicans will crumble.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:10:52 AM PST

    •  The strategy that brought us here... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bewareofme, askew, virginislandsguy

      is the one you kept denouncing.

      The Republicans will fold now, in 2013, because of the beatings they took in August 2011 and December 2012.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:27:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so why exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Martha

        were concessions made in 2011 and 2012?

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:30:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To score a political win, to set up today's events (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bewareofme, askew, virginislandsguy

          The political damage the Republicans took during the last two rounds - the damage that made them afraid of another confrontation - came about because Obama made the Republicans look irresponsible, radical, and intransigent.

          Surely, you don't need me to explain this to you again.  Surely, you've heard this theory more than once in the past year and a half.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:56:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  of course (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aunt Martha

            they're afraid because of how much he's given them. sure.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:59:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes! Yes! Yes! (3+ / 0-)

            The President had to do that shit that no one on the left liked back in 2010 and 2011 to set up the Teahadists and the Republicans for this moment right here.

            More of this type of success by the President and Democrats will follow all because of what PBO did (or didn't do, according to some) in his 1st term with regard to bipartianship, "cave" negotiation, etc. It's all about setting them up so he could knock them down with authority; or, if you like, giving them enough of the rope to hang themselves.

            •  I think you're right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bewareofme

              about Obama's strategy. He came into office, I think, as a man who thought he could persuade Republicans with logic and compromise. He learned that that didn't work, so he has gone to playing the long game and looking 6 or 8 moves ahead. Everything he has done in the last 16 months has been calculated, polled, and vetted (I imagine) by a very savvy bunch of advisers who are already planning to re-take the house in '14 and elect another Democrat to the WH in '16. I mean, he got himself (the first black president) re-elected, for Pete's sake, to a second term with pretty impressive numbers... Imagine an intelligent, well-spoken white guy (or better yet, white gal) running on his platform (including Voting Rights, Immigration, etc) in '16... Take racism out of the equation and we will win by historic numbers, given the current demographics. We would lose none of our Latino brothers and sisters, none of our Black voters (unless the R's nominate some weird black guy - not likely). He has determined that getting gun control legislation out of the way right now will make the issue fade away by '14 and disappear by '16. He has also determined that a very big economic turnaround is unlikely in the next 24 months, so the best strategy is to continue to force the Republicans into a corner and make them accept the blame, come '14 while, at the same time, refusing to let them make the economic recovery any slower (which is about all he can do, right now). By '16 the economy will likely be booming and with a Democratic majority, we will be golden. My sense now is that this is going to go down as a presidency that will resonate for centuries - the $50 dollar bill needs a new face on it.

              Republicans want smaller gov't for the same reason crooks want fewer cops. - James Carville

              by wyckoff on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:34:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wyckoff

                with one quibble. I am female, so I would love nothing more than for a woman to be the leader of the free world. My concern is that the woman who attains that lofty position will be maligned by the same numbnuts that are bigoted and racist against the president. Only difference will be that their new (old) line of attack, in contrast, will be heavily sexist and mysogynistic (sp?).

                Still, I remain hopeful that Obama's presidency will negate enough of them that a woman president can take the rest of them down with her (our) work in that position. :)

                Barack Obama has elevated the U.S. once again to a stature in the world that no other person could have. History will definitely be kind when it speaks about him, most of us and the U.S. overall during this time. That fact makes it possible for me to herald myself as an American, and I can't thank him enough for that alone.

        •  to weaken their resolve (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy

          the Republicans in 2013 are a much shakier crew than they were in 2011 (when they were coming off a "wave" political victory).  

          Who knows if they would have risked a default when they were riding high?  But after two years of discussion about how terrible hitting the debt ceiling would be and two years of evidence of their absolute recalcitrance and inability to negotiate in good faith, the public is ready to lay any negative results of their hostage-taking at their feet.

          By giving concessions Obama was able to blunt their momentum and stall their agenda, while at the same time making (and decisively winning) his own case to the American people.

          It's difficult to say whether any of that was necessary.  But considering the state of national politics at that time, Obama's strategy has certainly been effective.

          •  he won reelection (0+ / 0-)

            we have yet to see him push for a growth rather than deficit cutting agenda.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you seem to be confused about who he is (0+ / 0-)

              did you think that 2nd term Obama would be radically different from 1st term Obama?

              Even though it looks like Obama has everything sewn up, all the cards still need to be played.  We still need to get through the debt ceiling, sequestration and other baloney that the House Republicans have set up.

              Once Obama's finished kicking Boehner up and down the block with those things, maybe we'll see him take up a pro-growth agenda.  Or maybe he'll take it into his head to invade a third-world country.  Who knows?  

              But what Obama does with his victory doesn't change the fact that he won.

    •  Pressure from who, though? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      He can't always count on the Koch brothers taking his side as they did this time.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:28:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  what's the matter with these psychopaths (7+ / 0-)

    in the Republican Party? Do they plan to create artificial budget crises every few months on a permanent basis? They are sick, demented human beings.

    My mother-in-law is already frantic about the possibility of not getting her social security due to the unnecessary incompetence already demonstrated by Canter and his Republican co-conspirators. He is scaring the crap out of old people again. Just like they did last time. And now he plans to do it again in three months?

    What is Canter doing...trying to kill off old people from heart attacks as part of his plan to reduce costs? (This kossack wouldn't put it past cold-hearted, compassionless incompetent misrepresentatives like Canter.)

    •  Can'tor is a sociopath (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      He doesn't care about your mother or anyone's mother, probably including his own. He's pure Charles Colson (the Nixon advisor once described as he "evil genius of an evil administration" and who allegedly said he'd trample his grandmother's grave to reelect Nixon). The man has no heart.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:06:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  27th amendment? (6+ / 0-)

    Can someone explain to me how the no-pay provision is constitutional?

    The 27th amendment:
    "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

    •  he'd probably defend it by saying... (2+ / 0-)

      ...the first amendment protected it because it was just on a press release. :P but i guess if they followed through Sean Duffy would be the guy to take it to court.

    •  cantor is saying that if the Senate doesn't pass (0+ / 0-)

      a budget then everyone's checks will mysteriously disappear in the mail

    •  Seriously, this is my question. (0+ / 0-)

      The best they could possibly do is bind the 114th Congress's pay to passing a budget.

      The 113th Congress lacks the ability to change the pay of the 113th Congress.

    •  Oh yeah... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      Forgot about that one. I went with the Article I, Section 6 thing to make it unconstitutional.

      "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States".

      The 27th Amendment makes Cantor's idea doubly unconsitutiional. It's almost like they weren't paying attention when they did that dog and pony show in the House last week, reading aloud the document that they obviously have no interest in.

      As a policy matter, kicking this can down the road is a bad idea, and Obama can use the constitutionality issue as a pretext to issue a veto threat. Win win.....

      The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

      by Korkenzieher on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:06:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here Is Your Argument (0+ / 0-)

      https://bulk.resource.org/...

      Boehner argued both that getting more pay and getting less pay both were injuries to him - he lost.

      But see how the court notes that it will not consider the issue of whether a pay decrease is a 27th Amendment violation....and implies that it may not be.  The argument would be that the amendment was clearly intended to prevent a pay RAISE and that is what everyone understood it to mean when they passed it.  The Amendment was never intended to keep Congress from paying itself LESS.  No one who supported the Amendment feared that sort of legislation.  It is not what the Amendment says, but the whole purpose of the Amendment is to stop pay raises.

      I would agree that Article I, Section 6 implies that members of congress get paid, but a contrary argument would be that if the law sets their compensation at $1, they are stuck with that.  

      So, at this point in time, Cantor would be better off passing a law stating that for the next 5 months Congressional pay is the same as it already is, unless they don't pass a budget, then it is $1.  Now, that possibly gets you down to $1....but then if you want the money to go back UP in the future, you might have a big 27th Amendment claim.  

      Imagine if Cantor's brilliant idea got his salary reduced to $1 for the entire 2013-2014 term!!  At least we would save some money.,

  •  What stops Senate from amending w/1 yr or more (0+ / 0-)

    extension?  (I vote more.)  You don't think the Ds won't?  You think the Rs will filibuster it?

    So what happens if/when that amended debt ceiling hike goes back to the House?  Does Boehner not bring it up fora vote and default, when thier desparately trying to find away off the cliff they made for themselves?  But, if he brings it to a vote only around 20s (dependng on D defections) would need to cross for the amended bill to pass.

    So how does this even 'kick the can' if Senate Ds play it smart?

  •  I think reality is finally sinking in (14+ / 0-)

    The Republicans are so used to getting their way when they tantrum that they are only now realizing how far over the line they are -- the spin isn't working any more, they are deeplyl unpopular, they only held the house by gerrymandering and at the rate they're going they might lose it next cycle anyway, and Obama is going to hang this crisis around their necks like a burning tire.  Boehner has now twice violated the Hastert rule and has probably let the intransigent wing of his party know he'll do it again for something like the debt ceiling.  And Obama doesn't have to personally worry about getting elected again.  You can see the eyes widen as the horror sinks in...

  •  In the Inauguration and State of the Union (17+ / 0-)

    The President should demand that all Budgets and Spending Bills that Congress passes that require borrowing must come attached with an authorization to raise the debt ceiling for the amount the bill will force the government to borrow.

    No more fake hostage crises.  If you authorize deficit spending, you must authorize the borrowing at the same time you authorize the spending.

    •  ^THIS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Korkenzieher

      Very smart.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:28:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't this how we got the "debt ceiling" (0+ / 0-)

      in the first place?  Before the passage of the bill creating the debt ceiling, every time a spending bill was passed, a separate bill authorizing whatever borrowing was necessary had to be passed too.  The process proved to be too cumbersome and time consuming, especially in cases of emergency spending (e.g., wars, disasters).

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:09:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How does this need to be a separate bill? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dharmafarmer

        One line:

        The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue as much debt as is necessary to cover the expenses incurred by this bill above and beyond available revenue.

        Or, better, one separate bill that says that all debts necessary to cover spending authorized by Congress are hereby approved, and the President or his designated subordinate would delivery a report to Congress at (X) time detailing the amount of debt incurred by the authorization of the previous year's appropriations bills.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

        by Phoenix Rising on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:51:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  three months sounds good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, vcmvo2

    that should give the boehner house plenty of time to dick around with a shit-ton more abortion bills and obamacare repeal measures and what not, while continuing their outstanding track record of avoiding relevant governance.

    "i hear you're mad about brubeck ... i like your eyes. i like him too." -donald fagen

    by homo neurotic on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:16:36 AM PST

  •  It's so cute that the Republican House thinks (5+ / 0-)

    they have this power. It's like when a 5 year old "demands" to go to Chuck E Cheese, so when you take him, he feels like he has the power, when you planned to go all along.

    Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

    by Guile Of The Gods on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:17:43 AM PST

  •  I think the GOP does have a strategy... (3+ / 0-)

    I think they are kicking the can down the road, hoping to see if we run into a crisis where we NEED the GOP to act & take hostages. Not sure what event that could be, but I imagine this has got to be the plan.

    Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

    by Guile Of The Gods on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:18:54 AM PST

    •  If they retake the Senate and White House (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Berkshires, Minnesota Deb

      They have dreams (fantasies) of being able to gerrymander even better, and message better, and whatever, so that they pick up seats in both houses in 2014 and then pick up the White House in 2016. Then they can implement all their fantasy legislation, retroactively where possible.

      In the meantime, their military contractor donors, Wall St. donors, oil gas and coal magnate donors, etc. etc. are all happy. Remember that they do not really want to cut the budget; they want to use the alleged deficit crisis to kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, Pell grants, and anything else that helps "undeserving" and "lazy" poor people.

      •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Minnesota Deb

        "... they want to use the alleged deficit crisis to kill Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, Pell grants, and anything else that helps "undeserving" and "lazy" poor people."

        That's exactly why they created the deficit crisis in the first place.

        I'd love to see a list of all the repugnants who voted for the massive debt increases during Duhbya's illigitimate presidency, clearly showing each repugnant's contribution to the debt. Rub their nose in it each and every time one of them has the gall to complain about the debt.

      •  That is PURE fantasy (0+ / 0-)

        If they don't get sane, end the civic war in the party, and marginalize the teabaggers, they will not be able to nominate an electable candidate for 2016. They need to instigate a radical overhaul or it'll be just like last year: rational candidates like Huntsman will never poll over 2% and wackos like Santorum, Perry and Cain will be frontrunners.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:11:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. I commented below you..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DEMonrat ankle biter

      ....and add that what they want to do is get as far away from the election and its boost as possible.

      If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

      by Bensdad on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:34:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dipshit (4+ / 0-)

    Is he counting on having the XXVII Amendment repealed in the next three months?

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:19:11 AM PST

  •  Best idea yet (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, MKinTN, northerntier, blue aardvark, MJB

    I forget where I saw this, but it just makes sense: Every budget bill has to have the debt ceiling permission built in. In other words, there must be a sentence that says: "The expenditures authorized in this budget are to be paid and any excess of expenditures over revenues shall be added to the cumulative Federal debt. Any excess of revenues over expenditures shall be applied to pay down the cumulative Federal debt."

    The insanity is allowing Congress to pass a budget that runs a deficit (as every Congress has), and then allowing them to beat up the President and threaten to shut down the government over the shocking increase in the debt ceiling caused by implementing the budget that they themselves wrote and passed.

  •  How is that a threat? They caved on the ceiling. (6+ / 0-)

    "If the Senate doesn't do what we want, we're going to punch ourselves in the face every three months."

    Oh no.  Not that.  Don't repeatedly make a big show about not doing something, and then have to do it and discredit yourself, every four months!  That would be terrible!

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:20:18 AM PST

  •  senate passing a budget? (0+ / 0-)
    The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget for four years. That is a shameful run that needs to end, this year.
    How is it possible that the Senate has failed to pass a budget? The government hasn't shut down during the past four years, so what's the fuss about? Is he talking about the use of continuing resolutions?
  •  These guys must suck at poker (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MJB, Matt Z, DEMonrat ankle biter

    This is like saying we're going "all in" with a pair of twos.

    They should have just decided to fold at the flop. Now, they are approaching the river card with almost nothing.

    These guys are such a joke.

  •  Reid should put Obama's budget out there and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dillonfence, xsonogall

    use reconciliation to pass it.  Screw the committee process, just throw it up for an up or down vote.

    Send it right back to Cantor.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:21:54 AM PST

    •  The President's budget last year (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brooklynbadboy, LordMike, VClib

      was brought up in the House, where it got zero votes.

      •  That would, however, be a budget resolution (0+ / 0-)

        If the Senate were to pass it, would you be happy then?

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

        by Phoenix Rising on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 12:54:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure would. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          That would be a commitment by Senate Democrats as to their plans and priorities for spending.  That's exactly what I am asking for.  

          But the Senate Democrats would not commit to the President's budget, either.  That budget got no votes in the Senate.

          So, now I know that both Senate Dems and Senate Repubs are against the President's budget.  I presume that Senate Repubs are FOR the Ryan budget, but I think there should be a vote so they have to commit one way or the other.  I don't know what the Senate Dems are for.  That's why I think they should introduce a budget that will get 51 votes -- as a statement of commitment as to their plan for spending for the upcoming year.  

      •  You're selling Republican talking points up and (0+ / 0-)

        down this thread.

        "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

        by leftreborn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:16:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I want you to explain WHY the President's budget (0+ / 0-)

        got zero votes.  If you're going there, it's not enough to drop your assertion like a turd on the living room carpet.   Zero votes is a remarkable result for any bill that comes up for a vote in Congress.  The party leaders and their whips usually canvass their caucus before a vote and a measure that has no support from either party doesn't smell right.

        So coffeetalk, please explain about the President's budget and the lopsided result of the vote.  Would you?  Was there something so objectionable in the budget that no Democrat could vote for it?  Or was there perhaps another reason that might explain this result?  You brought it up so you must know all about it.

        "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

        by leftreborn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:49:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Tyranny! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zenbassoon

      Fascism! Impeachment! Despotism!

      ...snark!

      The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

      by Korkenzieher on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:12:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Separation of powers in the Constitution gives (0+ / 0-)

      authority to appropriate only to the Congress.  For this reason, it has never been customary to put the President's budget up for a vote in Congress.

      "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

      by leftreborn on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:41:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't get this (4+ / 0-)

    I don't understand how this advances the Republican agenda or does anything to help the country.

    Are they really THAT out of ideas?

    We get what we want - or what we fail to refuse. - Muhammad Yunus

    by nightsweat on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:22:10 AM PST

  •  Doctor Evilish (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:22:18 AM PST

  •  I thought Obama negotiated away his leverage... (8+ / 0-)

    in the fiscal cliff deal, and now the Republicans are going to be able to use the debt ceiling to extract concessions.

    I guess not.  Oh well, whatever you do, make sure you don't go back and reconsider your first impression about the January 1st deal.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:22:53 AM PST

    •  The Jan 1 deal allowed us to pocket revenues... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell, FistJab, askew

      start funding Social Security again and all without cuts to entitlement programs.

      Obama is insisting on another round of revenue next time if there are to be cuts and he's going to get it. No matter what the Turtle says, revenues are not off the table now. This time, we get to reform the tax code.

    •  I don't think I've ever seen a frontpager admit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      virginislandsguy

      to being wrong about one of Obama's manuvers. I can't imagine any of them will start now.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:42:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Folks, you don't have the leverage you need (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    to pull your stupid, obstructionist shit. Other Republicans know it. Maybe it's time to back down and let Congress do its job.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:23:54 AM PST

  •  Oh Harry Reid ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VA gentlewoman

    Sic 'em, boy. Put on your boxing gloves and let fly.

    The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years is the filibuster.

    NUKE THE FILIBUSTER. Eric Cantor just threatened default unless you do. You really have no choice.

    End the GOP's ability to filibuster the budget, or Cantor will destroy human civilization.

    Take off and nuke the filibuster from space. It's the only way to be sure.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:24:50 AM PST

    •  Not true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib
      The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years is the filibuster.
      The reason the Senate has not passed a budget resolution is that Senator Reid has not brought one to the floor.  See here.
      •  You've said this a few times (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark, vcmvo2

        This still doesn't address the reality that others have brought up -- being the filibuster and the general meaningless of doing so because of it. I'm not sure why I should be demanding they waste my tax money investing their time into pointless, dead-end exercises.

        •  Because the law requires it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          Specifically, the 1974 Congressional Budget Act requires it.  

          And the country should demand an open and transparent process on the Budget in compliance with that act.  We don't know whether the Republicans would have filibustered a budget resolution that came to the floor of the Senate because we don't know what it would contain. The House passed the Ryan Budget, and if the Senate had brought up the House bill, the Senate Republicans would not have filibustered that.  I don't think the Senate can say, you'll filibuster any Budget Resolution no matter what it says, so we won't even put one out for consideration.

          And if the Democrats in the Senate have a Budget Resolution that can get 51 votes and the Republicans filibuster it, the country deserves to know that.  

          And the country deserves the open and transparent process set out in the 1974 Budget Act, not the negotiation in some back room of a short term continuing resolution.  

      •  You must explain WHY he doesn't bring it up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2

        for a vote ... and demonstrate that those reasons do not include the filibuster.

        I'll check back in a few.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:46:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Y'know, with all this talk about guns... (2+ / 0-)

    it seems like the teabagger obsession with trying to drive the economy off a cliff is losing steam.

    Bit by bit, there are a number of indications that the GOP has lost its will to blow the whole thing up, even if they can't admit it. Its as if they just figured out they can't govern with only one half of the legislature.

  •  Instead Of Steering Hard Right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, VA gentlewoman

    The Republicans have let go of the rudder. That to me is an improvement. It's not a great big, useful, important-on-its-own step but it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my friend from Texas would say.

    The R's have been poking us all in the eye for so long, funded by the Adelson's and Koch's and propped up by an astroturf Tea Party, that progressives hardly know how to express our appreciation. But appreciate it we should.

    The R's will never be the party of choice for 98% here but to get back to a more respectful debate in congress, even if it's not nearly as much entertainment as poking fun at the Todd Akin's and Michele Bachmann's and Donald Trump's of the American political scene, it could be a lot better for the governance of the US.

    Now, R's: grab the rudder and steer your f**king party back within hailing distance of American popular consensus.

    Time is an enormous, long river, and I’m standing in it, just as you’re standing in it. My elders are the tributaries, and everything they thought and every struggle they went through & everything they gave their lives to flows down to me-Utah Phillips

    by TerryDarc on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:27:31 AM PST

  •  the money men warned them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    Don't mess with the Koch brother stock portfolio. Everyone knows the republican leadership isn't going to allow them to tank the worlds economy.
    Sadly some members would love to do it though.

  •  Very simple strategery: (2+ / 0-)

    Get as far from the election as possible. They are losing on messaging and think that if they can push this off, Americans will forget. They could be right.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:31:59 AM PST

  •  Someone More Informed Than Me: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    If fillibuster reform, does that change the likelihood that Senate Democrats put forward an actual budget?

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:33:00 AM PST

  •  Look (0+ / 0-)

    There's a real reason they keep doing this kind of crap. They don't have anything, remember they and state legislators ran on jobs jobs jobs in the previous midterms and didn't do squat about jobs nor the economy. Then they ran again on the same crap lines and don't have a fucking thing as to what to actually do yet they got hired again on our payroll, they're jobs and economic health is a fucking okay so they're not worried, federal and state!

    The pushing down the road means they can delay for a short while then waste time arguing the same fucking crap with the same fucking points and the fucking media loves it as it gives them what they need to fill time, while waiting for the kardashianing types to give them their 'real news' and they'll report and argue using the same fucking scrip no rewrites needed so nothing off the bottom line for the corporate owners, especially the fox types!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:34:10 AM PST

  •  So who's kicking the can now? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Jesus (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hohenzollern

    Finding Fred A Memoir of Discovery @ smashwords.com/iTunes

    by Timothy L Smith on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:38:43 AM PST

  •  When I first read the thread title... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hohenzollern

    I thought it said "for three minutes" - it was only after re-reading it, did I see the "months."  On reflection, however, 3 minutes or months seems about the same.  I hope the Senate and Obama insist on 2 years instead.

    Thanks to President Obama, the Iraq War is Over!

    by Viceroy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:44:34 AM PST

  •  Aren't most of the senate millionaires? What kind (2+ / 0-)

    of threat is withholding their salary for a bit?

    Btw, given GOP professed hatred of China, could that be why they keep trying a variant of the Chinese Water Torture on congress, the president, and the American people on the budget, etc.?

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:46:48 AM PST

  •  Debt limits are not raised in incremements (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    ...of months, they are raised in increments of dollars.  Three months to Cantor could be three weeks in reality.

    It's a pretty transparent bait-and-switch.

    The appropriate answer is to say that Congress sets the debt limit through its appropriations and tax bills.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:51:57 AM PST

    •  the appropriate answer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TarheelDem, VA gentlewoman

      is to continue to hold House Republicans feet to the fire.  Every time the Republicans signal their interest in voluntarily defaulting on our debts, their popularity goes down.

      The debt ceiling isn't going to be a better issue for Cantor in three months.  They're just looking for a way to hide the fact that they are surrendering from their ignorant base.

  •  No pay? (0+ / 0-)

    What a stupid gimmick?  Who believes that Cantor lives paycheck to paycheck?  Wow, what a hardship it would be on the families of congress to have to live only on the dividends from the investment account.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 10:55:14 AM PST

  •  Remember when somebody said this: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, VA gentlewoman
    Clueless 11th dimensional chess again. (2+ / 0-)

    The way to handle this was simple: "I wont negotiate about the budget with a gun to my head." "The money to be spent has already be voted and approved. Congress now needs to pay for it." "Nothing but a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling will get signed at this desk." "We can talk about reducing the deficit separately, but not as a part of debt ceiling."

    by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 11:56:17 AM EDT

    [ Parent ]

    I mean he literally repeated the words verbatim. I could sue for plagarism.
  •  GOP has foled. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    Obama won again big. The guy is magnificent at this sort of stuff.

  •  We have a spending problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leo Flinnwood

    the deficit is way too small and that is keeping aggregate demand down. Until the federal government steps up with a genuine jobs program, the economy will languish. An extra $trillion a year in infrastructure, energy, education, and healthcare system improvements would restore near full employment. That is what brings down deficits, an active and productive economy.

  •  This prolongs the recession (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Berkshires, CoolAqua

    They're always telling us that business won't invest because of uncertainty about regulations. But that's nothing compared to how they've threatened to crash the world economy since the debt limit fiasco a year and a half ago.

  •  ALL of that is fine provided (0+ / 0-)

    that they can get the votes from their crazy caucus. Pelosi and Dems should sit on the sidelines on this one, demand a clean debt ceiling bill for a minimum of 1 year.

    Why should Dems provide the votes to delay another hostage situation?

    I'll bet they will lose at least 30 teabaggers on this vote, if not 100. Pelosi can come back and demand a debt ceiling for a one year extension. Afterwards, demand an accompanying increase of the ceiling with each appropriations bill, dollar for dollar.

    They are fooling themselves if they think they'll have more leverage with the sequester, though painful--i suspect most dems can live with the social cuts-no so much for them with defense. the sequester can be used to nullify any shutdown threat with the new CR

  •  Actually I think this is smart by the GOP here... (0+ / 0-)

    Most folks won't know a budget hasn't been passed in years and will wonder why not.  WH better get out and frame this as more GOP hostage taking and kicking the can down the road and how any budget should be discussed on it's merits, not holding the economy of America and the World hostage for right wing budget social engineering.  

    You don't get to get the budget you want by threatening to blow up the economy because you can't get what you want through regular legislative order.  

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:18:45 AM PST

  •  Double unthinking? (0+ / 0-)

    Wasn't there a huge GOP meme that "economic uncertainty" from Obamacare was preventing the recovery?  Hard to imagine how the default-of-the-month club is providing certainty to businesses but maybe the GOP is entitled to their own "the logic" as they are Rove's "the math".


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:37:29 AM PST

  •  It's OK (0+ / 0-)

    Knowing anything about the constitution isn't required to be a member of the Republican leadership.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:39:30 AM PST

  •  This is an interesting moment in history. (0+ / 0-)

    We're seeing the Republican Party crumble before our very eyes. The civil war between the tea party loons and the conservatives who pretend to be honest and reasonable will not end well for the latter group.

    If the Democrats are wise enough to use all their resources in an effort to gain seats in 2014, a popular presidential candidate will have an opportunity to lead the party to retake the house in 2016, leaving the republicans with a stronghold in the confederate states and very little else.

  •  The President Should Announce A VETO Threat (0+ / 0-)

    This should be vetoed. Enough playing games with the debt ceiling. Enough. No. Extend it one year or better, or tie the rise to the spending bills.

    No. Nothing more. No more games. No more threats. They only harm Americans and the economy.

  •  Thank the lord, hallelujah! (0+ / 0-)

    My God, I did not want to go through that whole embarrassing nonsense again.

    As an agnostic (which, among other things, means I only sing praises to the God I don't believe in under special circumstances), I hope you understand how infuriated I am with the whole notion of the debt ceiling.

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 02:49:02 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site