Can somebody please explain Jon Kyl's logic?

[King]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/24/ftn/main20082678.shtml?tag=stack

[Lief 🗽]

How does one explain that which does not exist?

[Torie]

He rightly thinks that Obama's main concern is not having to go through this again before the election for political reasons. There is no basis for suggesting that having a round two before the election, after a round one that moves the ball forward, is somehow a terrible thing for the economy. That's ludicrous. It's simple really. Obama is going to have to suck it up, and live with a round two before the election, or agree to the original deal with Boehner, and deal with the anger of his base. He is not going to refuse to sign something that hits his desk with a round two. He's bluffing. The Pubbies are following the Krauthammer strategy to a tee now. They finally figured it out.

[Beet]

But isn't it hypocritical that Krauthammer ends his article with a call for Republicans to put winning the 2012 election above all else? I agree that if, the House Republicans want to pass a short-term, five month extension, Obama should sign it, but then I think both sides should use that extra five months to come up with a long term deal that gets spending under control and raises some revenues to put the long term budget on better track. I fundamentally disagree with Krauthammer's paradigm that good policy now should be viewed as "bailing out" the President. Yes, he owns the economy, and yes, he would benefit politically from a sweeping deal, but I don't think he's unable to be a partner is a large and positive long term deficit reduction solution. If the Republicans won't partner with him, then it's off to another election.

[opebo]

...There is no basis for suggesting that having a round two before the election, after a round one that moves the ball forward, is somehow a terrible thing for the economy. That's ludicrous.

'Ludicrous'?  You think the knowledge that the political leaders of the nation could willfully refuse to pay the nation's debts for petty and unimportant reasons has no negative effect upon the markets and the economy?

[Torie]

The latest buzz is that Reid is at the White House trying to sell Obama on a 2.5 trillion cut with no revenue increases to avoid having a second debt limit vote before the election. We now know the way to own Harry, and it's a beautiful thing.    Harry just doesn't want his vulnerable senators up in 2012 to face this little political problem. It simply terrifies him.  As I said, it's all about the 2012 election. Who knew? 

So Boehner is doing his thing, and Harry his, and it is all worse for the Dems than the deal that maybe Obama could have had until he decided he didn't want it. Or so it would appear.

[The Mikado]

The latest buzz is that Reid is at the White House trying to sell Obama on a 2.5 trillion cut with no revenue increases to avoid having a second debt limit vote before the election. We now know the way to own Harry, and it's a beautiful thing.    Harry just doesn't want his vulnerable senators up in 2012 to face this little political problem. It simply terrifies him.  As I said, it's all about the 2012 election. Who knew? 

So Boehner is doing his thing, and Harry his, and it is all worse for the Dems than the deal that maybe Obama could have had until he decided he didn't want it. Or so it would appear.

So Harry Reid is to the right of Mitch McConnell on this?

[Torie]

...There is no basis for suggesting that having a round two before the election, after a round one that moves the ball forward, is somehow a terrible thing for the economy. That's ludicrous.

'Ludicrous'?  You think the knowledge that the political leaders of the nation could willfully refuse to pay the nation's debts for petty and unimportant reasons has no negative effect upon the markets and the economy?

You haven't been paying attention opebo. The debt interest has to be paid first by law, and will be. Default on the debt was never in the cards.  That is just Dem hype. Having said that, slashing 30% in spending overnight, means much of government will close down. But there will be no default.  Got it?

[Beet]

I don't think raising the debt limit in February next year will be as toxic as conventional wisdom would have it. From this debate, a lot of people have realized that it's just a technical vote, and it's necessary to fund the budget already passed. People are getting a better understanding of what it actually is, which is why support for raising the debt limit has been skyrocketing. Right now it's getting wall to wall coverage. If there's a government shutdown over this, then people will become even more aware. So it might not be as politically toxic as you seem to think Reid believes.

[Torie]

The latest buzz is that Reid is at the White House trying to sell Obama on a 2.5 trillion cut with no revenue increases to avoid having a second debt limit vote before the election. We now know the way to own Harry, and it's a beautiful thing.    Harry just doesn't want his vulnerable senators up in 2012 to face this little political problem. It simply terrifies him.  As I said, it's all about the 2012 election. Who knew? 

So Boehner is doing his thing, and Harry his, and it is all worse for the Dems than the deal that maybe Obama could have had until he decided he didn't want it. Or so it would appear.

So Harry Reid is to the right of Mitch McConnell on this?

Reid loved the McConnell deal, but the McConnell deal is dead. Well actually it was stillborn, and was never alive, but in any event, it's not alive now.

What the Dems pretend not to understand, is that the Pubbies will never vote for revenue raisers, except in the context of tax reform, where the tax code is revamped more to the Pubbies' liking, and more pro growth. But it may be sinking in now.

[Beet]

I don't think that Dems should ever concede that Reps will 'never' vote for revenue raisers. First of all, I don't think it's true. If there were a Republican in the White House, for one, who wanted some sort of tax hike I believe it would pass. But besides that, we should always make the case for what we believe to be the right policy and hopefully the popular policy and if the Republicans want to say 'No' ten thousand times, make them say it.

[Torie]

I don't think that Dems should ever concede that Reps will 'never' vote for revenue raisers. First of all, I don't think it's true. If there were a Republican in the White House, for one, who wanted some sort of tax hike I believe it would pass. But besides that, we should always make the case for what we believe to be the right policy and hopefully the popular policy and if the Republicans want to say 'No' ten thousand times, make them say it.

... except in the context of tax reform.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Jon Kyl, the guy who got savaged by Jon Stewart for presenting as facts numbers that he pulled out of his ass, accuses Obama of thinking the election and not the good of his country.

Next in our show: Roman Polanski's statement condemning the sexual behavior of Anthony Weiner and David Wu.

[Torie]

Here is a twitter thingy (what is twitter by the way?), that is kind of fun as to who is moving what pawn where when in the ongoing soap opera. Reid wants 2.5 trillion in cuts, but is it real, or more phoniness to get past the election? Boehner declares war, and gives the we must hang together, or hang separately speech, and implies that the game is that something will be offered which Obama must take or shut down 30% of the government. I guess the rhetoric will get more heated before it gets less so. The cable shows tomorrow should be red hot, with a lot of mud thrown around. Where's Olbermann when we need him?  

[The Mikado]

(what is twitter by the way?)

Is this a serious question?

If so, Twitter is a service that allows you to post messages of 148 characters or less, with which you can start conversations and interact with people, share links (usually using a small url with bit.ly) etc.  It's great for PR and publicity, as well as spreading bare-bones headline news ("bin Laden dead" was all over Twitter a good 3 or 4 hours before the news services started reporting it because some guy on CNN told a friend of his who tweeted it hours before the network's fact checkers were able to confirm the rumor.)

[Beet]

Wait-- you linked to twitter but don't know what it is?

So the GOP is going all out blackmail, that's it, and they want to come back in six months and blackmail Obama even more into huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare, no doubt. Really hardball stuff, when in fact the two sides could have easily reached an agreement. If the US doesn't default, and what's at stake here is another government shutdown, I could actually see Obama putting out the veto. But most likely it'll be punted to next spring.

[Torie]

(what is twitter by the way?)

Is this a serious question?

If so, Twitter is a service that allows you to post messages of 148 characters or less, with which you can start conversations and interact with people, share links (usually using a small url with bit.ly) etc.  It's great for PR and publicity, as well as spreading bare-bones headline news ("bin Laden dead" was all over Twitter a good 3 or 4 hours before the news services started reporting it because some guy on CNN told a friend of his who tweeted it hours before the network's fact checkers were able to confirm the rumor.)

Thanks. How does one "twitter?"  Yes, it was a serious question. If I don't admit my ignorance, how will I learn?  It is not a sin in my book to admit your ignorance. I consider it a virtue.  

[Torie]

Wait-- you linked to twitter but don't know what it is?

So the GOP is going all out blackmail, that's it, and they want to come back in six months and blackmail Obama even more into huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare, no doubt. Really hardball stuff, when in fact the two sides could have easily reached an agreement. If the US doesn't default, and what's at stake here is another government shutdown, I could actually see Obama putting out the veto. But most likely it'll be punted to next spring.

You might have potential Beet as a Dem talking head. Just kidding, but really, both parties are playing hardball. A lot is at stake.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wait-- you linked to twitter but don't know what it is?

So the GOP is going all out blackmail, that's it, and they want to come back in six months and blackmail Obama even more into huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare, no doubt. Really hardball stuff, when in fact the two sides could have easily reached an agreement. If the US doesn't default, and what's at stake here is another government shutdown, I could actually see Obama putting out the veto. But most likely it'll be punted to next spring.

You might have potential Beet as a Dem talking head. Just kidding, but really, both parties are playing hardball. A lot is at stake.

Not even your own guys believe that anymore Torie.

http://www.frumforum.com/stumbling-toward-disaster

There’s blame for all in the debt talk breakdown.

The president walked away from Simpson-Bowles, declined to present plans to reach long-term budget balance, etc. etc. etc.

But in the argy-bargy, keep this in mind: the debt problem has become a debt crisis for one reason only: because Republicans put the threat of debt default on the table.

That never needed to happen.

House Republicans could have kept the debt ceiling issue wholly separate from the budget cut issue.

Instead, Republicans put the gun on the table. They raised the menace of deliberate default in a way it has not been raised before.

Then, having issued the threat, they discovered that their own core supporters would not allow the gun to be holstered again.

They issued demands they knew could not be met, for budget cuts much bigger than Republicans ever enacted when they had the power to enact them. They cocked the weapon. And now here we are: the demands are unmet and Republicans find themselves facing a horrible choice between yielding on their exorbitant demands or pushing the United States into financial upheaval.

[Joe Republic]

(what is twitter by the way?)

It's genuinely best to stay well away from Twatter by any means necessary, Torie.  It's already taken society into a terrifying new direction.

Or, to translate the above into Twat-speak:

it bst 2 stay away frm Twtr period - it bad fr soc. #JustinBeiber

[Torie]

Yes, px, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed!  Not that anyone notices, but I try hard to respect the English language, and all of its rules, and consider such truncations execrable.  Which means probably that I am becoming increasingly irrelevant. Which is OK. I have my little diversions which I enjoy.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

Please don't be disingenuous Torie. A government shutdown won't cause global financial turmoil, so calling it a matter of optics is glossing over of epic proportions.

[Torie]

Yes, I am confused why the debt limit was deemed a better Pubbie vehicle for laying down the gauntlet than the budget process. I am sure that there was a reason, but I am not sure what it is. In any event, it had to be one or the other. So in the end, it doesn't make much difference. Either way, absent a deal, there would be a partial government shutdown. So than it came down to what would have the better political optics.

Please don't be disingenuous Torie. A government shutdown won't cause global financial turmoil, so calling it a matter of optics is glossing over of epic proportions.

I don't think a partial government shutdown would do that, and it would not last long in any event. The House in the end has the whip hand. It has the power of the purse. Granted, it might be bad politics circa Newt v Clinton, and thus all the maneuvering by both sides as the Pubbies try to avoid a redux of that.

In this instance, the Dems will be folding is my prediction, with a fig leaf or two to camouflage it a bit. We shall see.

We have elections for a reason. If you don't like divided government, than work to change it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

We have elections for a reason. If you don't like divided government, than work to change it.

Divided government works when both parties actually want to govern. Republicans stopped caring about governing about 10 years ago.