Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: McConnell: "I am a gigantic pussy" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078766-503544.html

Quote:

"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.
...
"The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn't default on its obligations," he said.
...
"And I think it's time for him to lead by putting his plan on the table," he continued. "Something that the Congress can pass."

Republicans have walked away from negotiations led by Mr. Obama to reach a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal over ten years, saying a smaller deal -- for perhaps $2 trillion -- is more feasible.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm a little confused by all the rhetoric and finger pointing in that article. Is the GOP giving up and letting the President have his way with no compromise? Is this about the while deficit deal or just the ceiling issue? Are they just saying "It's not our fault what the President does"? I feel like I'm missing something. Did they decide on anything?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I suspect that pussy may mean diffent things to differnt people, but as he is a democrat maybe not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
I'm a little confused by all the rhetoric and finger pointing in that article. Is the GOP giving up and letting the President have his way with no compromise? Is this about the while deficit deal or just the ceiling issue? Are they just saying "It's not our fault what the President does"? I feel like I'm missing something. Did they decide on anything?


Reading between the lines it reads like stonewalling to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this is a tactical maneuver by Republicans that reflects the awkward spot they're in. They took a very aggressive approach to the negotiations, adopting a "commitment" strategy by making very public statements that they would not accept any tax increases as part of a deficit reduction plan. That approach paid some dividends -- Democrats offered a package that had far more in spending cuts than tax hikes -- but Republicans have never forgotten what happened to Bush the Elder after he reneged on his "read my lips" pledge.

Ultimately Obama and the Democrats drew their own line in the sand. Moreover, Obama took the initiative by proposing a $4 trillion approach and arguing that both sides should make political sacrifices in order to accomplish substantial deficit reduction.

Boehner likely wanted to accept that deal -- it accomplishes a lot of his priorities, puts him in an historic position and gives him a very sound basis to claim he "won" the negotiation (given the spending-to-tax ratio), but his caucus balked. They want the cake, to eat it, to blow out the candles and for the Democrats to sing them, "Happy birthday." (And, if the singing is televised, they want the Democrats to cover the royalty fees...but not with new taxes.)

So the Republicans can't/won't take the deal...which leaves them in a horrible position. Independent voters aren't so bad at math that they can't see that Obama's proposal had more of what Republicans want than Democrats. Choosing "no deal" over an offer that's perceived as reasonable typically results in being blamed for the consequences of not having a deal.

And those consequences would be significant. My hunch (as David pointed out over on my negotiations blog) is that Obama would direct that incoming revenue prioritize debt service to avoid an actual default, but social security checks would be delayed, government workers would be furloughed, programs would shut down, etc.

So what can the Republicans do? It sounds like they're trying to take their ball and go home. They want Obama to carry the blame for the failed negotiations and their gambit is to demand that he put his proposal in public view where it will draw attacks from all sides.

That's a pretty reasonable gambit because (without knowing any details) it's been pretty well-signaled that this package will have things in it that everyone will dislike. Some programs are cut, some taxes are going up, etc. If the leadership of both parties pushes for it then it might pass because each side gives the other political cover and because there isn't enough time to change it. (Hence Obama's quoting of Bob Dole saying that if everyone gets into the boat it doesn't sink.) Plans like that fare much less well when they are laid out for everyone to pick away at them.

So now the Republicans are trying to push the President either to put his plan in public view or (if he doesn't) to spin the failed negotiations as Obama never really had a viable plan so it's his fault we don't have a deal.

14 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Chad, I don't think Republicans should trust the promises being made by Democrats for future spending cuts to increase current taxes. They've been burned by that in the past.


I think neither party should trust the promises made by the other, as both have shown themselves untrustworthy. If that was the problem, however, Republicans could easily negotiate safeguards.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
I personally like Ron Paul's idea of just cancelling the debt owed to the Federal Reserve since they just printed the money out of nothing. Once that's done, we can borrow money from people who actually did something to earn it.


You mean like bankers?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bah
The Republican party new slogan: "The no solution approach to problem solving"

As Chad pointed out, independent voters (myself included) can easily see this was a great deal for republicans. If they can't take it, then I really have no use for people more concerned with their pride than results.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:

And those consequences would be significant. My hunch (as David pointed out over on my negotiations blog) is that Obama would direct that incoming revenue prioritize debt service to avoid an actual default, but social security checks would be delayed, government workers would be furloughed, programs would shut down, etc.

Most importantly: Am I going to get paid?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarredscott78 wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:

And those consequences would be significant. My hunch (as David pointed out over on my negotiations blog) is that Obama would direct that incoming revenue prioritize debt service to avoid an actual default, but social security checks would be delayed, government workers would be furloughed, programs would shut down, etc.

Most importantly: Am I going to get paid?


Some day.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I'm annoyed at the posturing, because at a fundamental level, the Republicans got exactly what they wanted: huge spending cuts that address entitlement programs and shrink the size of the federal government. Sure, there are tax increases, in the form of cutting tax breaks, but they aren't aimed at their constituents. I can't see how there's any political fallout for the increase in revenue from their side. Most importantly, they get to do something huge and historic. I am way more excited at the prospect of this getting passed than I was at the health care turd sandwich. It sets the groundwork for putting us on a sound economic footing, and allows them to undo the huge fucking mess they've allowed to happen over the past 30+ years.

Here's why they're balking: fear

Boehner probably wants this to happen, but he's scared of Cantor and his army of zombies. McConnell and several others are terrified that this would end up being spun as a victory for Obama in the mainstream media (and he's probably right). They're all concerned about contributions from big business (the constituents they actually represent).

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats would be doing the same thing about entitlement programs if the numbers were reversed, for many of the same reasons. But this isn't their moment, it is McConnell's and Boehner's. Cantor gets to dance around making faces, and all of the Republican candidates get to play armchair president, but it really comes down to the leadership in the two chambers of Congress. And they're pussing out.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is McConnell plan if there isn't a formal bipartison agreement in time. I cannot imagine anyone agreeing to this.....

Quote:
McConnell's proposal would require Obama to request three increases in the debt limit, in installments through next summer, in order to get past the November 2012 election.

Each time, it would be subject to a congressional vote of disapproval. That likely would happen, mostly with Republican votes, forcing Obama to veto it. Congress then would fail to override his veto if one-third of the members of either house -- Democrats, presumably -- voted to uphold it.

Obama also would be required to submit a list of proposed spending cuts at least equal to the amount of the debt limit increase -- a reference to House Speaker John Boehner's insistence on a dollar-for-dollar ratio. But the list would be just that -- it would not produce legislation reducing the deficit.

The result: No default, but no deficit reduction -- and a political hot potato for Democrats.


Messing with the debt ceiling is like deciding to taste questionable milk. Everytime, it is a guess whether the milk is spoiled or not. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, but everytime it is we always think "shit, I wish I wouldn't have taken a big swig of that curdled milk". Now, I have come not to risk the taste test because I hate it when I am wrong.

My use for the GOP is getting ready to go into negative territory --- political gamesmanship has no place on an issue like this.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was flabbergasted by the "we want to balance the budget" combined with "if you close loopholes you MUST raise lower taxes elsewhere".

I seriously said out loud... "What the HELL?"

To me (and I vote for three parties (R, D, L) in just about every election), this was a suicidal statement that the republicans didn't want a deal or they thought Obama was going to cave to every demand with no negotiation or compromise at all. They seemed completely unrealistic to me at that point. They didn't want a solution- they wanted a confrontation and armageddon.

Perhaps they wanted to seem wild eyed and crazy and they just got caught up in their own act.

(edit to fix my reversed word).
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My main point about the leadership being scared of elements of their own party has me wondering: is there a historic precedent to this? Meaning, an example of a House or Senate leader taking a stand that is unpopular with his sitting colleagues, followed by them throwing him under the bus.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Obama did not call their bluff, he raised. GOP dipshits folded.

Go GOP! Way to represent! You bunch of fucking assholes!

lol
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

slowcorner wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078766-503544.html
Quote:

"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.
...
"The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn't default on its obligations," he said.
...
"And I think it's time for him to lead by putting his plan on the table," he continued. "Something that the Congress can pass."

Republicans have walked away from negotiations led by Mr. Obama to reach a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal over ten years, saying a smaller deal -- for perhaps $2 trillion -- is more feasible.








"Sufferin' succotash!"








"I did! I DID! I did taw a puddy tat!"











"Bad ole puddy tat!!!"


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
My main point about the leadership being scared of elements of their own party has me wondering: is there a historic precedent to this? Meaning, an example of a House or Senate leader taking a stand that is unpopular with his sitting colleagues, followed by them throwing him under the bus.


It is rare but not unheard of. When Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas opposed the Lecompton constitution for being the farce that it was, he was publicly called out by James Buchanan. Douglas' appeal in the party declined. He lost his position as chairman of the Senate committee on territories. At the 1861 Democratic Presidential Convention he was nominated for president, but the Southern radicals staged a walk out. The party split and Lincoln won the election without carrying a single Southern state (I think that alone was a first).

We'll see if it goes that far, but we are in a crisis and anything is possible.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.