Waldo Jaquith

The President, who has yet to sign a budget during his administration (during most of which he enjoyed Democrat majorities in both houses), could end this debt ceiling fiasco any time he wants. All he has to do is agree to cut federal spending.

Apparently he’d rather send bond markets into a tailspin.

Posted by I. Publius on 24 July 2011 @ 4pm

All he has to do is agree to cut federal spending.

Would that this were true. As every last scrap of coverage has made clear, though, everybody agrees on the need to cut spending. The hangup is over whether any taxes should be increased at all, to any degree. The far-right wing of the congress refuses to do so, and the president insists on it.

The disagreement has nothing to do with cutting spending, and everything to do with raising revenue.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 July 2011 @ 10pm

Unfortunately, President Obama can’t “cut ” what Mr. Bush (with Republican approval) has already spent. After running two wars, a medicare drug benefit, and an income tax giveaway off-budget Republicans need to pay their (our) bills.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 25 July 2011 @ 11am

I. Publius , who has yet to agree with a single commenter on this blog, could end his ornery partisan battle any time he wants. All he has to do is agree with anything that could be conceivably categorized as liberal.

Apparently he’d rather send conversations into nitpicking wars.

Posted by Tim McCormack on 25 July 2011 @ 1pm

Tim, you should read more, and assume less. I have agreed with Mr. Jaquith on many occasions. But you already knew that.

Posted by I. Publius on 25 July 2011 @ 10pm

This current debate is actually connected to Obamacare a lot more than you think. If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid hadn’t given the Republicans a big “F U” on the entire Obamacare deal, and rammed it through like they did, Boehner & co. would probably be a lot more willing to compromise now.

Instead, what Obama’s wanting to do is have Republicans increase the debt ceiling due to a lot of spending for which they weren’t given the same compromise and input during Obama’s first 2 years. Now it’s coming around and biting Obama in the ass. And sometimes, payback is a bitch. You reap what you sow, Barry-O.

Posted by I. Publius on 26 July 2011 @ 7am

I kind of doubt Boehner & Co. would be a lot more willing to compromise. Well, Boehner, maybe, but certainly not a lot of the new GOP House members.

Posted by Michael on 26 July 2011 @ 10am

I. Publius,

Certainly the same argument could be made that the Affordable Care Act was payback for the GOP’s 2000-2006, during which basically no liberal input was taken.

But honestly, if this were just the usual partisan bickering about what laws get passed, that’d be one thing, but they’re essentially holding the nation hostage by threatening to destroy the economy should they not get their way, and I believe that’s a terrible way to govern

AFAIK, what they’re doing is legal and constitutional, but that doesn’t mean it’s not shameful.

Posted by Ben C. on 26 July 2011 @ 7pm

“but they’re essentially holding the nation hostage by threatening to destroy the economy should they not get their way,”

Reid and Obama? Yeah, I agree. ;-)

Posted by I. Publius on 28 July 2011 @ 6am

I. Publius,

I’ll take your ignoring of my main point to mean that you concede you were being disingenuous about how this is all justified pay-back for the ACA.

Posted by Ben C. on 28 July 2011 @ 8am