John Boehner is a child and he's taking his ball home

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obama would have already lost reelection if not for Boner, McConnell and the rest of the Republican gang.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This is just another example of True Obama: everything is political. The country, allegedly, faces this dire threat losings its credit rating on one hand, and longtime insolvency on the other. Instead of acting to find a solution for the good of the country, he is embarked on a purely political course of attempting to force Congressional Republicans to play the role of GWHB reneging on his "No new taxes!" pledge.

The audacity of Obama becomes clear with his insistence that he would veto any small, short-term debt ceiling increase. Obama claims that he doesn't want to back in the same place eight months from now. Well, is this about the good of the country, or Obama? If it takes eight months to hash this out then Obama ought to be willing to spend that time for the good of the country.

His claiming that he would deliberately send this nation into default just to dictate the length of time until the debt ceiling needs to be raised again is his attempt to seize the role of a petulant child in the debate. By acting like a spoiled brat, Obama is hoping to force with the grownups in Washington to adjust his threat of throwing a temper tantrum.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Speaker Boehner and his cacus have done their job, they passed their plan.  The Senate killed it.  The onus is now on the Democratic Senate (and to a lesser extent, the President) to create a viable alternative.  Instead, Reid and Obama and resorted to name calling and class warfare.  Shame...

Even though, I do hope somethings comes out of the "11 o'clock meetings" tomorrow...

Why the hell is the onus only on the Democrats to create a viable alternative? The Republicans haven't presented anything viable either.

Because nobody expects anything serious from Republicans, especially the current crop of tea party fools.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yep, it's all Obama's fault.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/white-house-we-thought-we-were-down-to-the-details.php?ref=fpblg

President Obama and White House officials earnestly believed they were closing in on a deficit-reduction deal with only three remaining sticking points until Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) pulled the rug out from under them and walked away from the negotiating table late Friday afternoon, White House officials said Friday night.

As of Thursday, Obama and Boehner had been working on a grand bargain that would produce roughly $3 trillion in savings over 10 years, the officials confirmed. But talks broke down along three major differences: the two sides were $400 billion apart on taxes, Obama rejected a last minute demand from the GOP that the deal include a repeal of the individual mandate in healthcare reform, and the two sides were still haggling over a difference of $40 billion in cuts to Medicaid, according to the White House.

Obama and Boehner had a lengthy discussion Thursday afternoon, and Obama called him back Thursday night. But the Speaker waited until 4 p.m. Friday to return the phone call with the disappointing news that he was once again walking away from the talks.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's a bit long but very enlightening.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92539/obama-boehner-debt-ceiling-press-conference-concessions-revenue

Nobody disputes that, except for the revenue part, the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else. And it was a deal that, like Obama’s previous offers, was strikingly tilted towards Republican priorities. Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official, were the following:

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny.

...

The main difference, as both sides acknowledge, was over the size of the new revenue. They’d basically settled the basic principles of how to get the money: By closing loopholes, broadening the base, and lowering rates overall. Boehner had offered $800 billion, or roughly the equivalent of letting the upper income tax cuts expire. Obama had counter-offered $1.2 trillion. But even the $1.2 trillion Obama was seeking – and remember, this was a proposal over which the White House says it expected to keep negotiating – was still far less than the revenue either the Bowles-Simpson chairmen or the Senate’s Gang of Six, two bipartisan groups, had recommended.

Or, to put it more simply, both proposals were far more tilted towards the Republican position, of seeking to balance the budget primarily if not wholly through spending cuts. When this debate started, liberals like me were advocating a balance of spending reductions to new revenue of roughly one-to-one, which is what the Bipartisan Policy Center’s report by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin had recommended. But the president had been offering, right up through the end of these negotiations, plans that had ratios of roughly three-to-one or maybe worse.

The other key difference in the plans was over the specifics of that failsafe trigger: Boehner had asked it include repeal of two controversial elements of the Affordable Care Act, the requirement that everybody get insurance and the creation of the new board for adjusting Medicare payments. White House negotiators said they were taken aback, as it had never come up (at least at the staff level) before Thursday. They didn’t include that in their counter-proposal but, they said, they were willing to discuss other mechanisms.

Overall, the contents of this deal aren’t radically different from the one Obama and Boehner were discussing two weeks ago, the one that had conservatives like David Brooks understandably thrilled and liberals like Paul Krugman just as understandably aghast (In a sense, it was "starving the beast" in the way conservatives have long imagined.) Now Republicans have walked away from that deal, twice. And keep in mind that even if Boehner had presented this deal, there's a very good chance he couldn't round up enough Republican votes to pass it.

It’s a striking contrast to the behavior of the Democrats, as Obama pointed out:
And I think that one of the questions that the Republican Party is going to have to ask itself is can they say yes to anything? Can they say yes to anything? I mean, keep in mind it’s the Republican Party that has said that the single most important thing facing our country is deficits and debts. We’ve now put forward a package that would significantly cut deficits and debt. It would be the biggest debt reduction package that we’ve seen in a very long time. ...

    And to their credit, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Democratic leadership, they sure did not like the plan that we are proposing to Boehner, but they were at least willing to engage in a conversation because they understood how important it is for us to actually solve this problem. And so far I have not seen the capacity of the House Republicans in particular to make those tough decisions.

It was a bit later he described himself as a “Democratic president,” as part of an aside to reporters:
I mean, I’ve gone out of my way to say that both parties have to make compromises. I think this whole episode has indicated the degree to which at least a Democratic President has been willing to make some tough compromises. So when you guys go out there and write your stories, this is not a situation where somehow this was the usual food fight between Democrats and Republicans. A lot of Democrats stepped up in ways that were not advantageous politically. So we’ve shown ourselves willing to do the tough stuff on an issue that Republicans ran on.

[Landslide Lyndon]

A clear majority of the deficit reduction panel agreed upon a plan, including Crapo and Coburn.  The minority that would not sign off were the most ideologically extreme of both parties - yes both parties. I might add that it is the House in particular that has the power of the purse.  And the House will not fund the size and scope of government that most Democrats want. So it's a standoff.  That is why it would be wise to enact the cuts that a majority in Congress agree are sensible. Unless of course most Dems oppose any cuts absent getting more revenues - except of course for defense - and would prefer the status quo to that option. I would like to think that is not the case.

It can be tested by the debt ceiling being raised to the point where all but what the Dems said they would cut right now.  Then the Dems can decide whether to live with that until the election, or until a tax reform bill is passed, or in lieu thereof, manage an immediate 30% cut in revenues. I cannot imagine that they would prefer the latter. We shall see if the Pubbies go the route that I suggest.

Have you read the article I posted?
Obama could embrace the Ryan budget for all we know and the Republicans would suddenly present new demands. These people aren't interested in finding a solution, they are interested only in scoring points and providing Rush Limbaugh with an audience.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, I read it.  I don't agree with its spin.  It dodges the fact that Obama suddenly demanded 400 billion more in revenue, which is something that would have caused the Pubbies in the House given the "optics" to just say no. Obama is just a trapped by his base and Boehner is with his, and has acted like it. That is the way I see it anyway.  So we need to ratchet up the crisis a bit, and see if the parties can do what they both agree needs to be done (yes, as part of bigger plans as to which there is no agreement, but nevertheless agree is sensible standing on its own), and leave the balance for another shoot out in the public square, as it were.  

In the end if voters keep electing enough Pubbies to the House that just won't fund the kind of Leviathan that the Dems want, then it just won't be. That is the way our government is supposed to work. So the Dems need to take back the House, or scale their dreams back - way back.

Sorry Torie, but you sound like Bob. Obama made concessions unheard of for a Democrat and he managed once again to soothe his caucuses. It's Bhoener who failed to do the same.
Like the article says, when Brooks and Frum are thrilled and Krugman aghast, you can't say with a straight face that it was an unsatisfying deal for Republicans.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, I read it.  I don't agree with its spin.  

Then px will discard whatever you said after this sentence.  You must agree with every article he posts, period.

Uhhh...
Isn't that the whole point of posting articles? I mean, how many articles with which you disagree have you posted Grumps?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, I read it.  I don't agree with its spin.  

Then px will discard whatever you said after this sentence.  You must agree with every article he posts, period.

Uhhh...
Isn't that the whole point of posting articles? I mean, how many articles with which you disagree have you posted Grumps?

I don't post stupid ones daily, asshole

I don't think Cohn's article was stupid. Even if you disagree with his analysis, it was very informative.