Perhaps a way for the more moderate and pragmatic Republicans to do an end-around the more intransigent ideologues in the party. But, does President Obama want that dish that's being served up? If he bites, the Republicans can point to him and his raising of the debt-ceiling as more evidence of his "big spending ways."

regarding the debt ceiling, which may in effect separate what you're talking about, from it. So, do you want to start your own thread about President Obama?

-- Modified on 7/12/2011 2:01:18 PM

Has Obama informed us of what budget cuts he is willing to make? Has he laid out the tax increases other than generalities ?  He added over 4 trillion in debt but now he is the centrist rising above politics because he says he is..

debt with bush.

the executive branch is lead by, and filled with radicals. they can only be counterbalanced by hard core conservatives.

mealy mouthed moderates get us "go along to get along" which means simply going to the FED and printing more money so everyone in power gets to appease their constituents claims to the nanny state and everyone but the moneytraders and entrenched interests get screwed.

these bills and obligations are THIS generations responsibility.

no more debt, no more printing money.

Just because the Republicans in the House of Representatives are using a strategy to reduce government spending to the limits they deem appropriate, by attaching that to the approval of raising the debt limit, perhaps the first time in our history by the way, does not mean they both are forever cemented together. P.S. It's been a good strategy in some ways because it has made the Democrats be much more serious in finding cuts and savings in the budget than they have been previously. But, many of the Republicans in the Senate are quite concerned that there will be a failure to raise the debt ceiling because the House Republicans demand to have everything their way. By McConnell proposing to give the executive branch of government the power to raise the debt ceiling, the consequence is indeed to separate the two once again, as they have been for the most part throughout our history. How is that so hard for you to understand?

Clearly, McConnell is punting, but why? My guess is, two reasons.  First, the polls are telling him Americans are not with the Republicans on this.  They want the size of government trimmed but they think the rich can pay more and will blame the Reps. if the gov't. defaults.  And they are afraid for their Social Security checks.  Second, McConnell thinks this is a way to blame Obama for the size of gov't. and the debt, and will work well for the Reps. in 2012.  He could be right,  but we'll see.  What will Obama and the Dems do if this happens?  Should be interesting.  If I were them I'd go ahead and propose a deficit-cutting plan of their own and make the Reps. shoot it down.  Then they'll argue they wanted to cut the size of gov't. and the Reps wouldn't let them.  In other words, more political posturing from both sides.

This was the point of my post above that bothred mattradd.  We don't know what the democrats deficit plan is.  We don't know what they are wiling to cut and what the structure of the tax increase will be.  We don't know what McConnell is "punting".  I believe that Obama really doesn't know either.  Don't tell me it's balanced- Show me!! The void in leadership is disturbing.

This shows the cultural difference between the House and Senate. The House views this as  genuine opportunity to make some change in DC and they are willing to take it to the limit to force Obama's hand and they are willing to chance losing plitically over this issue.

The Senate sees resistance and says"screw it".  It is literally a "punt" because any limit increase Obama makes on his own would last until nxt year and then we start it all over again right before the election.  And it would also mean an increase without looking at spending cuts or tax increases.  In other words, more of the same fiscal policy that leads to ridiculous debt.  

But Mcconnell is "moderate and centrist"  which means nothing changes.