Debt Talks Just got Real(er)
Options
tru_m.a.c
Members Posts: 9,091 ✭✭✭✭
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/obama-debt-ceiling-meeting_n_897834.html
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a "tough" and "testy" meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between President Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
It was the fifth straight day of talks, but the first in which attendees, speaking on background, were willing to admit that steps were taken backwards. According to multiple sources, disagreements surfaced early, in the middle and at the end of the nearly two-hour talks. At issue was Cantor's repeated push to do a short-term resolution and Obama's insistence that he would not accept one.
"Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people on this," the president said, according to both Cantor and another attendee. "This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing, political positioning, and protecting their base, than in resolving real problems."
Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said that the president "abruptly" walked off after offering his scolding.
"I know why he lost his temper. He's frustrated. We're all frustrated," the Virginia Republican said.
Democratic officials had a different interpretation. "The meeting ended with Cantor being dressed down while sitting in silence," one official said in an email. "[The president] said Cantor could not have it both ways of insisting on dollar-for-dollar and still not being open to revenues."
Lost in the rush to frame the dramatic conclusion of Wednesday meetings was word of the actual substance of the talks. According to several attendees, negotiations stalled from the onset over the same issues that have proved irresolvable. Working off of talks that had been spearheaded by Vice President Joseph Biden, the president said he would be comfortable signing off on northward of $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending and mandatory spending cuts. With additional negotiations, he added, he could move that figure up to $1.7 trillion, and with a willingness to consider revenue increases and tax loophole closures, lawmakers could get to over $2 trillion. His preference, he said, was to continue to push for the biggest package possible, so long as it was balanced.
Cantor, who has taken over the mantel of chief Republican negotiator from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), responded by insisting that revenues were off the table and that without steeper cuts, the votes likely didn't exist to pass anything but a smaller, more temporary package. House Republicans needed the administration to go to a higher number, he added.
The president reportedly responded: "It is easy to get to a higher number when you are not asking anything difficult from yourself."
From there, the friction continued. When the White House pushed for an extension of unemployment insurance as part of the final package, Republicans objected. The White House was forced to explain that it would be offsetting that extension with cuts elsewhere. When the president pushed to lock in savings from cuts to the Department of Defense, Republicans objected again; this time, they were joined by Sen. ? Durbin (D-Ill.), who urged (conversely) for the president to go further in pulling savings out of the Pentagon.
According to a Democratic official, the most contentious debate came when talks turned to discretionary spending, and, specifically, whether to count longterm savings based on current spending baselines or by tying them to inflation. Republicans wanted the former. It was, the official said, a debate over the "measurements of savings as opposed to the savings themselves."
From there, the conversation moved to how to enforce those savings in the long run. Those discussions, which took place between Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and top economic adviser Gene Sperling, were described as cordial compared to the earlier ones. But lawmakers quickly found themselves back on the same sticking point.
Unhappy that negotiators remained at approximately $1.7 trillion in cuts, Cantor pressed again for a shorter deal or for negotiators to find their way to $2.5 trillion. The president, growing more agitated, argued that attendees where simply looking for ways to say no.
"Talk about arbitrary," he said of Cantor's figure, according to a Democratic attendee. "I am totally willing to do the hard stuff to get well above what you need and you won't do it because you can't put one penny of revenue on the table."
"At least Mitch McConnell, to his credit, was willing to work for a solution," the president added, acknowledging the proposal by the Senate Minority Leader to, essentially, give him the authority to lift the debt ceiling without passing commensurate cuts.
"I have reached the point where I say enough," Obama concluded, according to Reuters. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."
Before Obama left the meeting, he gave lawmakers a directive. By Friday, the president said, the people in the room needed to have figured out what path they were going to pursue so that they could start hammering out the details.
Goooood damn. I can't even front, Obama is laying the smacketh down right now. I'm glad that we finally get to see what the conversations actually sound like.
IRL Obama would've been hopped over the table and smacked Cantor up
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a "tough" and "testy" meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between President Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
It was the fifth straight day of talks, but the first in which attendees, speaking on background, were willing to admit that steps were taken backwards. According to multiple sources, disagreements surfaced early, in the middle and at the end of the nearly two-hour talks. At issue was Cantor's repeated push to do a short-term resolution and Obama's insistence that he would not accept one.
"Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to the American people on this," the president said, according to both Cantor and another attendee. "This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing, political positioning, and protecting their base, than in resolving real problems."
Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said that the president "abruptly" walked off after offering his scolding.
"I know why he lost his temper. He's frustrated. We're all frustrated," the Virginia Republican said.
Democratic officials had a different interpretation. "The meeting ended with Cantor being dressed down while sitting in silence," one official said in an email. "[The president] said Cantor could not have it both ways of insisting on dollar-for-dollar and still not being open to revenues."
Lost in the rush to frame the dramatic conclusion of Wednesday meetings was word of the actual substance of the talks. According to several attendees, negotiations stalled from the onset over the same issues that have proved irresolvable. Working off of talks that had been spearheaded by Vice President Joseph Biden, the president said he would be comfortable signing off on northward of $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending and mandatory spending cuts. With additional negotiations, he added, he could move that figure up to $1.7 trillion, and with a willingness to consider revenue increases and tax loophole closures, lawmakers could get to over $2 trillion. His preference, he said, was to continue to push for the biggest package possible, so long as it was balanced.
Cantor, who has taken over the mantel of chief Republican negotiator from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), responded by insisting that revenues were off the table and that without steeper cuts, the votes likely didn't exist to pass anything but a smaller, more temporary package. House Republicans needed the administration to go to a higher number, he added.
The president reportedly responded: "It is easy to get to a higher number when you are not asking anything difficult from yourself."
From there, the friction continued. When the White House pushed for an extension of unemployment insurance as part of the final package, Republicans objected. The White House was forced to explain that it would be offsetting that extension with cuts elsewhere. When the president pushed to lock in savings from cuts to the Department of Defense, Republicans objected again; this time, they were joined by Sen. ? Durbin (D-Ill.), who urged (conversely) for the president to go further in pulling savings out of the Pentagon.
According to a Democratic official, the most contentious debate came when talks turned to discretionary spending, and, specifically, whether to count longterm savings based on current spending baselines or by tying them to inflation. Republicans wanted the former. It was, the official said, a debate over the "measurements of savings as opposed to the savings themselves."
From there, the conversation moved to how to enforce those savings in the long run. Those discussions, which took place between Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and top economic adviser Gene Sperling, were described as cordial compared to the earlier ones. But lawmakers quickly found themselves back on the same sticking point.
Unhappy that negotiators remained at approximately $1.7 trillion in cuts, Cantor pressed again for a shorter deal or for negotiators to find their way to $2.5 trillion. The president, growing more agitated, argued that attendees where simply looking for ways to say no.
"Talk about arbitrary," he said of Cantor's figure, according to a Democratic attendee. "I am totally willing to do the hard stuff to get well above what you need and you won't do it because you can't put one penny of revenue on the table."
"At least Mitch McConnell, to his credit, was willing to work for a solution," the president added, acknowledging the proposal by the Senate Minority Leader to, essentially, give him the authority to lift the debt ceiling without passing commensurate cuts.
"I have reached the point where I say enough," Obama concluded, according to Reuters. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."
Before Obama left the meeting, he gave lawmakers a directive. By Friday, the president said, the people in the room needed to have figured out what path they were going to pursue so that they could start hammering out the details.
Goooood damn. I can't even front, Obama is laying the smacketh down right now. I'm glad that we finally get to see what the conversations actually sound like.
IRL Obama would've been hopped over the table and smacked Cantor up
Comments
-
LOL @ thinking Obama is in any way gully.
I've seen this show before. Especially the part where he says he doesn't care if it costs him the presidency, he's sticking to his guns. Of course, we'll have to wait and see, but in the past, that's what he says when he's about to cave. -
shootemwon wrote: »LOL @ thinking Obama is in any way gully.
I've seen this show before. Especially the part where he says he doesn't care if it costs him the presidency, he's sticking to his guns. Of course, we'll have to wait and see, but in the past, that's what he says when he's about to cave.
Why is compromise caving? Let's be for real here. Life is about compromise because unless you are calling all of the shots which the President doesn't do, then he HAS to compromise. You call it caving...I call it real life. -
this man Obama sad ? it!
-
shootemwon wrote: »LOL @ thinking Obama is in any way gully.
I've seen this show before. Especially the part where he says he doesn't care if it costs him the presidency, he's sticking to his guns. Of course, we'll have to wait and see, but in the past, that's what he says when he's about to cave.
Stop it. No you haven't.
Your definition of caving is skewed and you're not fully understanding what it means to cave in this situation. He caved on the Bush tax cuts in order to get the conservative vote (def didn't work). He can't cave on the budget talks cause that would involve a) the US defaulting or b) a package being passed that has 0 revenue cuts
miss me....with that.....? -
Why is compromise caving? Let's be for real here. Life is about compromise because unless you are calling all of the shots which the President doesn't do, then he HAS to compromise. You call it caving...I call it real life.
Compromising is caving when you're not dealing within the scope of reality/the facts.
He caved on the bank bailout. He caved on Bush Tax cuts.
This isn't a political move anymore. There is no "caving" to look moderate at this point. he already did that when he allowed 3 trillion in spending cuts that the Republicans asked for.
At this point caving would be adopting Cantors budget plans 100%. Thats not caving, thats just straight up being a ? . -
I give Obama his props when it comes to the debt talks, he does seem to be the more reasonable person in this situation.
On the other hand, he's willing to sell us out on Social Security but not willing to end his expensive as ? wars. Obama is better than Republicans at this point but he's losing tons of popularity recently. Mitt Romney beats him in two new polls today. And if America goes into default........ahh ? . -
Obama may be annoying at times, but the Republicans are real ? now. Hell, McConnell basically went on record as saying that he wanted to make moves that would make Obama look bad and so Republicans wouldn't look bad in the upcoming elections. Seriously, what kinda ? do you have to be to basically come out and say that protecting the party is more important than trying to fix problems.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »I give Obama his props when it comes to the debt talks, he does seem to be the more reasonable person in this situation.
On the other hand, he's willing to sell us out on Social Security but not willing to end his expensive as ? wars. Obama is better than Republicans at this point but he's losing tons of popularity recently. Mitt Romney beats him in two new polls today. And if America goes into default........ahh ? .
I won't debate with you about the wars. My motto is, I'm not a serviceman or a government agent, so I can't talk about that which I don't know.
But how is he selling us out on Social Security??? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Seriously, what kinda ? do you have to be to basically come out and say that protecting the party is more important than trying to fix problems.
A politician..... -
This ? is 99% political theater. Chamber of Commerce already told the Reps to do the ? , Obama already agreeed to the cuts GOP wants, so at this point the deal is basically a wrap, obama just trying to get SOMETHING that he can say he won in the negotiations (besides raising the debt ceiling, which Americans are more inclined to oppose anyway). I predict an 11th hour deal in which obama gives away the farm and in exchange wins some petty ? that he can campaign on, sort of like with the bush tax cuts.
-
A politician.....
Exactly, and that's why they deserve all the hate you can give them. -
It's not compromising if the Republicans are always getting the better end of the deal.
That's just it, the Republicans NEVER get the better end of the deal. That's why they are mad and trying to be so hard during these talks. Why do you think Cantor has taken over the negotiations. Because when Bhoener negotiates with Obama, Obama always comes out ahead of the Republicans.
People say Obama "caved" on extending the Bush tax cuts, however no he didn't, he compromised. Republicans wanted them extended permanently, he only had them extended for two years and said no matter what they won't be extended again. That's a compromise, but in exchange what he got was a payroll tax cut that puts more money in people's check (another form of stimulus) and he got extended unemployment benefits for another 18 months when Republicans wanted that off the table all together.
During the government shutdown talks, Republicans wanted to cut 100 million dollars from the budget, then they wanted to cut 60 billion, know how much was cut? 36 billion(approx). And where did the cuts come from? None of the essential programs that Republicans wanted them to come from, they came from places where Obama had already outlined cuts...they came from places that few people care about or even know about. Nothing of significance was cut.
So you people sitting in here acting like you know what "caving" is but the fact remains he always walks away with more than he gives up.
The argument that he caved on the Public Health option is b.s. too because a "public option" wasn't added to something that NO Republican wanted but he still got passed even without a majority in the Senate. That means he had some Republican supporters...which means if anyone has "caved" it's the other side because in order to pass anything in the Senate you need 60 votes...and the Dems only had 59 seats...until last year. Now, they have less...which means there has to be more negotiating. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »This ? is 99% political theater. Chamber of Commerce already told the Reps to do the ? , Obama already agreeed to the cuts GOP wants, so at this point the deal is basically a wrap, obama just trying to get SOMETHING that he can say he won in the negotiations (besides raising the debt ceiling, which Americans are more inclined to oppose anyway). I predict an 11th hour deal in which obama gives away the farm and in exchange wins some petty ? that he can campaign on, sort of like with the bush tax cuts.
You're just typing to see your font on the screen because you're comparing some tax cuts to everything else that was in the bill he "caved" on...do you even know what else was in the bill besides the tax cuts??? -
nah man the GOP is evil dude.they want this ? to linger on so that obama wont get elected again
them devils know what they doing
they want people to vote gop by having people think we're getting deeper in debt.
if you think about it they cant stop obama any other way -
I won't debate with you about the wars. My motto is, I'm not a serviceman or a government agent, so I can't talk about that which I don't know.
But how is he selling us out on Social Security???
I wish more ppl were like that..
Its good he sticking to his guns but if they keep cutting away on the DOD then we wont have a military believe that.. -
People say Obama "caved" on extending the Bush tax cuts, however no he didn't, he compromised. Republicans wanted them extended permanently, he only had them extended for two years and said no matter what they won't be extended again. That's a compromise, but in exchange what he got was a payroll tax cut that puts more money in people's check (another form of stimulus) and he got extended unemployment benefits for another 18 months when Republicans wanted that off the table all together.
The reason left leaning individuals consider it caving is because logically, the bush tax cuts don't make sense. Yes Obama won the payroll tax cuts and unemployment, but in the court of logic, it doesn't make sense to bend for policies that don't work.
They just don't work. Its not like he caved on an issue that logically made sense. He caved on an issue to receive votes, and get something from the other side. We're tired of that. I'm all for compromising, but I like to compromise with intellectuals that can statistically convince me of a compromise.
I don't really care that he got the unemployment benefits. Because to me, there should've never been a debate about extending the unemployment benefits. The fact that you have to compromise to extend folks on unemployment is a travesty in itself. Why does he keep letting republicans and conservatives think they are right? If you compromise with your child over doing hw, the child is going to continue to think that they have something worth fighting over. You gotta squash the debate now, so it never comes back up again. -
You're just typing to see your font on the screen because you're comparing some tax cuts to everything else that was in the bill he "caved" on...do you even know what else was in the bill besides the tax cuts???
Read my post and aks urself seriously dogg, do I seem ignorant to you about this ? ? Of course I know what was in the bill, nothing worth bragging about. -
The reason left leaning individuals consider it caving is because logically, the bush tax cuts don't make sense. Yes Obama won the payroll tax cuts and unemployment, but in the court of logic, it doesn't make sense to bend for policies that don't work.
They just don't work. Its not like he caved on an issue that logically made sense. He caved on an issue to receive votes, and get something from the other side. We're tired of that. I'm all for compromising, but I like to compromise with intellectuals that can statistically convince me of a compromise.
I don't really care that he got the unemployment benefits. Because to me, there should've never been a debate about extending the unemployment benefits. The fact that you have to compromise to extend folks on unemployment is a travesty in itself. Why does he keep letting republicans and conservatives think they are right? If you compromise with your child over doing hw, the child is going to continue to think that they have something worth fighting over. You gotta squash the debate now, so it never comes back up again.
But that's just it, the Republicans aren't his children and this isn't homework. This is people's lives. You answered your own question and you don't realize it. Why does he have to negotiate things that should have been a given with fools, because Republicans are in power. That's just it. The people didn't get out in November and vote the way they should have so because of that, the Republicans were able to take over the House. And because of that, he had to deal. He had to do what he had to do to get the votes because WE THE PEOPLE didn't go out and do our job. We weren't at the polls to get him the people he needed so that he wouldn't have to deal. Too many members of Congress were worried about how they would look in the elections to do their jobs and that put us in the position we're in now.
So you like everyone else can BLAME Obama for "caving" but the reality is if people did what they were supposed to do at the polls we wouldn't have had to worry about him "caving" now would we?
That's the biggest problem with the American people. Everyone talks ? about the political system however the political system is run by us. You can say corporations run it and people with money run it but the average American is too ignorant to the goings on of our Constitution to know how much power they truly have which is why the minority runs the majority and all the majority does is complain about it. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Read my post and aks urself seriously dogg, do I seem ignorant to you about this ? ? Of course I know what was in the bill, nothing worth bragging about.
If that's the case then you would know that what Obama got out of the bill was worth more than an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for two years. Had he let the tax cuts expire, the taxes wouldn't have just gone up on the rich, they would have gone up on EVERYONE and the middle class can't afford to pay more taxes. Rich people can pay accountants to find tax loopholes, the average American would be stuck paying that extra. It's called sacrificing for the greater good. Instead of a tax increase, he got the middle class an extra tax cut. And he sacrificed little in comparison. That's the reality, you can say you know what was in that bill but I'm sorry if you really did you would know that HE came out a winner in those negotiations, the Republicans didn't and their base is ? about it. That's why these debt talks are so difficult because Obama keeps outclassing them in negotiations and they don't want to look like losers again with the Republican primaries coming up soon. -
thatni99ajahmal wrote: »I wish more ppl were like that..
Its good he sticking to his guns but if they keep cutting away on the DOD then we wont have a military believe that..
I have to disagree with this because even the Pentagon has said the department of defense has more money than it needs. They've suggested cuts in their budget BEYOND what any politician has proposed. The military is good on the funding issue, that's why they are so amendment about cuts. -
If that's the case then you would know that what Obama got out of the bill was worth more than an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for two years. Had he let the tax cuts expire, the taxes wouldn't have just gone up on the rich, they would have gone up on EVERYONE and the middle class can't afford to pay more taxes. Rich people can pay accountants to find tax loopholes, the average American would be stuck paying that extra. It's called sacrificing for the greater good. Instead of a tax increase, he got the middle class an extra tax cut. And he sacrificed little in comparison. That's the reality, you can say you know what was in that bill but I'm sorry if you really did you would know that HE came out a winner in those negotiations, the Republicans didn't and their base is ? about it. That's why these debt talks are so difficult because Obama keeps outclassing them in negotiations and they don't want to look like losers again with the Republican primaries coming up soon.
lol at you trying to explain it to me like we didn't' all read about it endlessly and debate it on the forums and at least some of us in real life. I recall the details, and I thought it was a ? compromise then and still do. Not good policy or smart politics from Obama's side, especially when you put it in some context with the rest of his history in office.
I didn't know there were any fervent obamastans left on the IC at this point. -
Why does he have to negotiate things that should have been a given with fools, because Republicans are in power. That's just it. The people didn't get out in November and vote the way they should have so because of that, the Republicans were able to take over the House. And because of that, he had to deal.
Ok, but the reason democrats flopped in November was because of the health care scare that Obama himself created. You can't force through legislation that is more of a problem than a priority.So you like everyone else can BLAME Obama for "caving" but the reality is if people did what they were supposed to do at the polls we wouldn't have had to worry about him "caving" now would we?
Yes and no. There are two issues here. Him caving and him getting the correct message out. As soon as the Tea Party mounted their attacks, the first thing out of Obama's mouth should have been "we cannot solve a budget deficit by cutting spending in a recession." Thats it. That is a proven economic fact.
Then from there, it is up to us the people to tell everybody else who is too stupid to understand that concept, to shut the ? up. Stop entertaining these fools. Stop entertaining these lies. But democrats absolutely suck at conveying a message to their base.That's the biggest problem with the American people. Everyone talks ? about the political system however the political system is run by us. You can say corporations run it and people with money run it but the average American is too ignorant to the goings on of our Constitution to know how much power they truly have which is why the minority runs the majority and all the majority does is complain about it.
Now this I fully agree with you on. Hence why I never argue against gov't vs private or simply republican vs democrat. At the end of the day, the individual person and not the label is what matters. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »lol at you trying to explain it to me like we didn't' all read about it endlessly and debate it on the forums and at least some of us in real life. I recall the details, and I thought it was a ? compromise then and still do. Not good policy or smart politics from Obama's side, especially when you put it in some context with the rest of his history in office.
I didn't know there were any fervent obamastans left on the IC at this point.
Oh, because I disagree with your point of view I'm a stan? Gotcha, you know nothing about me to call me a stan however I've challenged for you to recall what you're calling a ? deal and you haven't pulled anything out of the deal except for the tax cuts you claim should have been left to expire. If that's your main point then we'll just stand on opposite sides on this one. -
Oh, because I disagree with your point of view I'm a stan? Gotcha, you know nothing about me to call me a stan however I've challenged for you to recall what you're calling a ? deal and you haven't pulled anything out of the deal except for the tax cuts you claim should have been left to expire. If that's your main point then we'll just stand on opposite sides on this one.
Actually I believe it was u who said that if I thought it was a ? compromise then I must not know what was in the bill. And yes stanley, we do stand on opposite sides if you think that is a good compromise. -
Oh, because I disagree with your point of view I'm a stan? Gotcha, you know nothing about me to call me a stan however I've challenged for you to recall what you're calling a ? deal and you haven't pulled anything out of the deal except for the tax cuts you claim should have been left to expire. If that's your main point then we'll just stand on opposite sides on this one.Jonas.dini wrote: »Actually I believe it was u who said that if I thought it was a ? compromise then I must not know what was in the bill. And yes stanley, we do stand on opposite sides if you think that is a good compromise.
At this point both of y'all are just debating opinion. Until somebody drops facts,numbers, charts and links, both of y'all are wrong.
