CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 26, 2011 12:46 AM UTC
36 Comments
Not like Greece. Not like Ireland or Argentina or hot money runs in SE Asia a while back. Not like LTCM or the Russian default a bit before that.
More like …
You say it doesn’t bode well for R’s.
The President — who I have strongly supported — has adopted the Republican view that deficits must be dealt with right now, even though we have 9% unemployment. That’s bad economics.
The President has accepted the Republican notion that there must be a dollar-for-dollar cut in spending for every dollar increase in the debt ceiling. No President has ever done that and no Congress has ever held the country hostage to that notion.
It’s true that the President has the bully pulpit and that he is a very effective communicator. But what exactly is he communicating and what effect will it have on the millions of families suffering from unemployment that will not be helped by slashing spending?
Instead, how about communicating the fact that Republicans are peddling complete myths — myths such as Obama created the deficit, tax rates are historically high, the stimulus killed jobs, and public unions caused our fiscal problems.
It’s a bully pulpit, indeed. And you might only get it for four years. I’d like to see it used for more than giving in to unreasonable demands, accepting the other side’s premises, and punting on first down.
Now instead of putting 10 million unemployed at risk, he is putting the entire planet economic well being at risk.
It appears that the minority party is calling the shots and all he can do is be humiliated at the constant rejection and abuse being heaped on him. Oh if he had only allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire, we would be having a different conversation. He appeased them then and he’s going to have to appease them now. I don’t see how that translates into great leadership.
Is trying to find a way to protect Social Security and Medicare. Everything is crazy, but I support that.
Beyond that, I’m waiting to hear from the Prez. What I want to hear is that Social Security and Medicare are off the table and we’re working from Harry Reid’s bill now. And the only thing we’re gonna do is pile on revenue!
C’mon, Barry, channel your inner Franklin Delano. They’re full of shit. You can do this.
Boehner appears to have lost control of his caucus in the House, as far as I can tell.
Republicans won’t even talk through Reid’s proposal, which is picked and chosen 100% from previous Republican plans.
Republicans won’t even accept real cuts to SSI, Medicare and Medicaid benefits in exchange for the closing of a bunch of tax loopholes.
In short, they want it all, and a magical pony to boot.
This is, by far, the most immature majority we have elected in recent history to any portion of the Federal government.
Then logically you should keep doing it. The House Republicans are acting in a very logical manner – because Obama has consistently rolled over for them.
Both speeches appear to have been written before today.
The President talked about revenue increases even though he endorsed Reid’s plan today, which included no tax increases.
Boehner talked about more significant cuts, though his plan announced today cuts less than today’s plan from Reid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
The loser, of course, is the American people. The president says what the rank and file want him to say, but neither side has any intention of raising revenue, as you noted.
Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I feel deceived by my president and by Democratic members of Congress (with the exception of members of the Progressive Caucus).
Once the deal is actually penned, and after our debt is downgraded, the public will see Washington for what it is: beholden to big moneyed special interests. Perhaps even rank and file teapartiers will see the light.
I suspect rank and file Democrats will be so incensed that we could see lots of primary challengers in 2012. I would hope Obama will do the honorable thing and announce that he will not seek reelection in 2012, thus giving real Democrats the opportunity to run for the White House in 2012.
I agree with a previous post that Congressional Democrats had an opportunity early on to do the responsible thing and let the Bush tax cuts expire accross the board.
“If yer fur it, then we’s agin’ it!”
There will be a lot of turnover of seats in 2012. I just hope more of theirs than ours.
This madness must end because having the Tea Party hold the nation, and now the world, hostage is untenable.
The Republican are dying to know what will happen if they allow the country to default on its current debts. Not future debts, mind you, but current ones. And they may be dumb enough to allow default to occur in order to further their agenda to a put the country in such turmoil that Obama will not win reelection. Think about it. They created this massive overrun of debt under the Bush administration through bad economics, corporate and Wall Street deregulation and 2 unnecessary wars all to make it “necessary” to do away with social security, Medicare and Medicaid and public workers. They did this deliberately, running up the debt so that when they regained control of the House and Senate they could do away with social programs that help the poor and middle classes. “Too expensive” they say. “Now we have to cut Medicare and all the other social programs” they say. Not to mention the need to roll back clean air and water initiatives. (What, don’t Republicans need clean air to breathe, too? )
A stimulus package for the middle class would go a long way to putting Americans back to work on things that need to be worked on in this country , such as infrastructure, roads, schools, and parks. These are essential components to our country’s survival (as is the middle class) and these projects are long overdue for spending capital. Call it part of the Defense budget; after all, the interstate highways were built as the result of the Defense department’s goal to be able to defend the country in every state. But get it funded. Put America back to work. And raise taxes on the corporations and wealthiest Americans who have long held that it is not their responsibity to pay their fair share.
Obama had the opportunity with his stimulus (jobs) bill to do just what you are suggesting. But he didn’t do it.
I’m sorry, but this guy needs to announce he’s not running in 2012 to give other Democrats a chance to do a better job.
Want to see the economy take off? Have him do just that.
All those Bush tax cuts have already rocketed our economy to prosperity, right?
…it’s the spending.
After all the deficit spending on top of the tax cuts of the Bush administration? (I know you saw the comparison graph yesterday.)
So, I guess, you’re argument is that Obama fucked the country by spending a few nickels after Bush & Co. emptied the entire cookie jar?
I’m never going to regard tax breaks as an expenditure. The government did not earn that money.
Obama blew it by creating an unholy mess of a “stimulus” package, and jamming his horrible ACA down the throats of a majority of the public who doesn’t want it.
Since when does he give a crap about the deficit? If the R’s hadn’t taken the House we wouldn’t have heard a single word about deficit reduction.
one-third the tax cuts you don’t count as an expenditure (except like now, when you do). The ACA you incessantly rail against hasn’t begun.
On pure deficit spending alone Bush was the country’s all time biggest winner, but you know that too.
And you’re right, the only time we ever hear about a deficit is when Republicans want to use it to weigh down and obstruct any accomplishments by a Democratic President. Because, when a Republican is President, the word “deficit” never crosses the lips of anyone in your party except in the sentence “deficits don’t matter.”
I don’t count tax cuts in the stimulus. I count the paybacks to public unions, and the 9.2% (actual probably 17%?) unemployment after it’s been spent.
Why does the ACA take ten years to pay for 6 years of services? Why don’t most of the main features of the bill kick in until 2014?
if those tax cuts had produced the PROMISED effect of more generated revenues (isn’t that a LAW of supply-side economics?), we’d certainly be able to afford some more spending and still reduce the debt. What went wrong, gravity somehow failed us the last decade?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
I was hell bent on calling for accross-the-board expiration of the Bush tax cuts to jack up revenue. But Larry Summers thinks otherwise:
” It is fortunate that the President was able last fall to lead an effort to pair extended tax cuts with payroll tax reductions – without that stimulus we might be looking at a double dip today.”
He’s a lot smarter than I am.
as arguing that the Bush tax cuts shouldn’t have been expired. Rather that it was somewhat sensible for the President to get some concessions (payroll tax reductions) as an offset for extending those cuts. But this was not the optimal, nor likely even the best possible, option achievable at that time.
For me, this is the money quote (pun intended):
I’m still of the opinion that we would be in much better shape, and certainly wouldn’t be having the debt-limit standoff today, if the President had stuck to his guns and let those Bush
tax cutsdeficit generators expire as scheduled, number one. And then, number two, come back with his own program of fiscally responsible, stimulative and focused tax cuts aimed at the spending (middle- and lower-) classes. In doing so, in effect, daring the Republicans to oppose him on a tax-cut package.My advice, stay with your first instinct . . .
Screw him and the Orange Horse he rode in on.
Let the House vote go forward and see what the final numbers are. The Orange Man is no longer in control of the Republican’t Party, (fine by me) but no one else is either.(which is scary.)
Teabaggers can have their “destroy it to save it” vote. I’m waiting to see how many of the tiny amount of moderate Repubs cross the Rubicon and how many come to their senses.
Harry Reid puts his Senate plan on the floor on Thursday – after the markets have had a chance to start glowing red and soften up a bit. Think it’ll be a pretty big majority yes, with Sen Rand getting some filibuster time in before he realizes it’s smarter to shut up.
For those of your with some free cash in your 401(K)s, I’d look at these tomorrow morning:
SGGDX, TGLDX, IGDAX, OPGSX, ININVX
Republicans brought us the Great Depression (Hoover), the Great Recession (GW Bush), and now clamor to bring us the Great Default (Bachmann, et al).
Tell me again why anyone would entrust their future to the party of economic simpletons?
Unless the GOP manages to pass a law that you have to be employed in order to vote, they are about to create another few million votes against their crackpot agenda.
First, it proposes an additional $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts, which begs the question ‘how much non-defense discretionary spending will be left?’
Second, it cites savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I thought we already withdrew from Iraq and are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. Shouldn’t those savings already be accounted for in budget projections? Where will this $1 trillion come from?
I thought the President drew a line in the sand at revenue increases. He’s made it clear he doesn’t want a ‘cuts only’ deal, but that’s exactly what Reid is proposing. Sen. Democrats have once again shown that they are weak. President Obama needs to hold strong. The GOP knows they will be blamed for a default which means THEY will feel the pressure to cave on revenue increases. Democrats have the leverage, I just hope they use it.
They’ll get a cuts-only plan passed and force the President to veto it. Then the President will be blamed.
That’s the strategy, and all of their tactics thus far support it.
While I don’t hold Reid in particularly high esteem, I don’t think he’ll let anything through the Senate that the President would veto.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Maybe we’re talking the semantics of “Reid letting anything through” here, I don’t know.
If Reid’s bill is amended, then he’ll veto it.
That’s what the voices in my head tell me, anyway.
President Obama must veto any ‘cuts-only’ bill, considering he’s made that one of his most prominent talking points. He’ll look weak if he doesn’t. A veto at this point would be a very risky move, but I’m not so sure he’ll get blamed if it leads to a default. He’s done well at portraying House Republicans as juvenile brats who throw fits when they don’t get what they want. And the public has bought it.
Reid’s plan certainly complicates things because it isolates the President as the only one pushing for revenue increases. I personally think Reid may have just screwed this up for the President.
I suspect a division between the President and Harry Reid. Notice how Reid is focusing on protecting Social Security and Medicare and is less concerned about revenue, whereas the President has been open to minor cuts to Social Security and Medicare and is pushing hard for revenue increases.
What a mess this has become
I don’t think there’s anything out there that will pass both houses of Congress. The pissy little tea party brats in the House won’t agree to anything that could conceivably pass the Senate.
To me, the President’s speech sounded like justification for invoking the 14th Amendment:
Whereas Congress has appropriated more spending than revenue, and
Whereas Congress has failed to pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling, and
Whereas the repercussions of default are potentially catastrophic,
Resolved: Under powers granted under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, I hereby order the Treasury to issue bonds to pay Federal financial obligations.
But he’d be pretty stupid to telegraph it.
he’s presenting his case in the court of public opinion . . .
On this issue, I guess that in many respects, he’s also the judge. I hope the two of them somehow get on the same page.