So will the WH announce a debt limit "agreement" if the Dems decide not to support it?

[WI_DEM]

Let's say, Boehnner and the GOP go along with some modest proposel to shut some loopsholes which saves, say $500 billion over ten years, meanwhile Social Security, Medicare, and Medical Assistance will see trillions in cuts over ten-years. Will this be the deal the White House is looking for and announce that 'both sides made sacrifices' and will Democrats in congress have the balls to tell their president that it's nuts and they won't support it?

[tekisui]

1. Our only hope is in the Senate. Obama and the repuke House

will be dependent on the Senate. Are there enough actual Democrats left in the Senate to stop it? I doubt it.

[damntexdem]

8. Only takes 41.

And this is one where the public is overwhelmingly on our side.

[JVS]

12. Isn't reconciliation an option for budgetary issues?

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. The House still has a role also

There are quite a few extreme right Republicans in the House now whom might flat out refuse to vote for any raising of the debt ceiling, even more if that includes any concessions to the Democrats. Democratic votes will be needed in the House to pass it also.

Obama has a way of elevating one of thes showdowns to a level where he crawls way out on a limb without consulting much with Congressional Democrats, and then telling those Democrats if you don't go along with me you will destroy my Presidnecy and we all with go down in ruins. It's worked so far but resentment over that approach keeps building among many Congressional Democrats. Of course this time he can also throw in upcoming 2012 Presidential elections in his doomsday threat. But this time, in his own words (but not this exact phrase) he is aiming a knife at long revered Democratic sacred cows. Do that type thing in India and you will find yourself in a lot of trouble. What happens with that on Capital Hill is yet to be determined.

[eilen]

11. That is how he screwed the 2010 elections. nt

[DJ13]

2. Of course

The WH is playing to the independents and moderate Republicans, thinking the Democrats wont dare refuse to vote for Obama in 2012.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. It is not an agreement if the Dmeocrats don't support it.

[brooklynite]

4. Why do you assume "trillions in cuts" from SS and Medicare?

Why not assume President Obama eliminates them completely? Just as likely and it makes for a more interesting story....

Seriously, I've heard no authority figure talk about slashing benefits, INCLUDING the US Senator I had a private breakfast with this morning. Change in retirement age? Raise the income cap? Cut administrative expenses? Sure. But if you're going to engage in this type of hyperbolie, why not base it on something more substantial?

[jaysunb]

6. +1000 n/t

[sharp_stick]

7. Because if numbers

even completely fabricated ones like "trillions" make the claim sound more reasonable than just saying elimination. It gives the veneer of realism to a completely made up point.

[TheWraith]

5. Only if the space aliens convince them to include unicorn regulation in the bill.

Hey, as long as we're talking ridiculous bullshit like eliminating Social Security and Medicare, why not go completely crazy?

[TheKentuckian]

10. It is already at 3-4 to 1 cuts to revenue as is.

We are already at "what if" land. The loss of 300 billion in closing loopholes isn't "trade", "fair", or "shared sacrifice" isn't a meaningful difference in scenarios than what the TeaPubliKlans walked away from because they know they can at least get a deal as you outline and more than enough fuckwit Democrats to "share the pain" of the blowback.

As it is, Obama and his undercover Republican friends have already killed the defense of the safety net as a solid political issue for the entire party leaving us only the same weasel words as the opposition.

The party has now fully pivoted to "the adults in the room" as what we stand for because there is little else there. Polls well, doesn't mean squat on election day and means less to the real lives of people.

[gkhouston]

13. We need some "adults in the room" who are real economists, not Wall Street patsies. n/t

[gratuitous]

14. Obama tells us all what a swell guy Boehner is

But when it comes time to put the screws to someone, he seems content to let that be Democrats in the House and the Senate. Obama could make some public statements against Republican intransigence, noting their hypocrisy and past actions. But no, we're told that it wouldn't be a good idea to make the Republicans all mad and stuff by highlighting the chasm between their fiscally responsible words and their irresponsible actions. (And how's that working out for ya?) So, when Obama feels the need to put public pressure on someone, he presents his former colleagues and putative party in the Legislative branch with a fait accompli, confident that the librul media will do the rest.

Working Americans have been getting the very short end of the stick for 30 years, and now that the looting of the Treasury has become apparent and it's time for the thieves to put some of that money back to pay the bills that are coming due, we're told that it's those of us who have tightened our belts since the advent of Reaganomics that we've been living far too extravagantly. A modest proposal to extend the depreciation schedule on private jets from five years to seven years is met with howls from the overclass and quickly withdrawn as too much class warfare. Get ready to fight the cat for scraps, Grandma; Charlie Sheen can't possibly be asked to pay another three cents on the dollar!

[ladjf]

15. I wish that they had the courage to vote no on a bad bill. But, I fear

that they will fold. Big surprise!