DC Soap Opera Update: 17 Republicans To Vote Against Doomed Boehner Plan In The House

Tyler Durden's picture

Below is the latest soap opera update per Bloomberg:

  • House can pass Boehner debt-limit proposal without the support of no more than 23 of chamber’s 240 Republicans; 17 have said they will vote “no,” according to Bloomberg count.
  • US House of Representatives tentatively scheduled to vote on Boehner debt bill between 5.45-6.15 PM EDT
  • Measure needs 217 “yes” votes to pass.
  • No Democrats have said they will support the plan.
  • Vote expected around 6 p.m.
  • House Republicans meeting this morning at 9 a.m.
  • Reid has said measure will not pass Senate and Obama has threatened veto.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
snowball777's picture

Boehner is pulling a Gingrinch; how long until he claims he's "...not willing to preside over people who are cannibals" from the Tea Potty?

 

Fish Gone Bad's picture

The Tea Party will eat Boehner's lunch.  Patriots, bitchez - is right.

For those not familiar with the Tea Party agenda:

1)  Get rid of the Democrats.

2)  Get rid of the Republicans.

3)  Be fiscally responsible.

i-dog's picture

What a coincidence ... 1 and 2 are also on Obomber's agenda!! (He also claims 3, but his lips were moving when he said it).

flattrader's picture

You forgot an agenda item.

 

The most important agenda item.

4) Suck Koch

flattrader's picture

You forgot an agenda item.

 

The most important agenda item.

4) Suck Koch

JimBowie1958's picture

There is no need to bring Barney Frank into this discussion, is there?

flattrader's picture

Wrong sucker.  Wrong Koch.

Koch...as in Bros. Industries.

Never have so many old, fat-assed Americans been on-board with promoting the agenda of Billionaire predators.

FEDbuster's picture

1. Ron Paul

2-17 ??  Anyone have a list of patriots willing to vote "no" to the continuing madness?

 

Hasten the Collapse, OBAMA 2012

koaj's picture

i would bet Walter Jones (NC) and Connie Mack (FL) are no voters

 

same with bachmann but i dont trust her "patriotism"

LauraB's picture

Just found this: Conservative groups making final push to defeat Boehner plan: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/28/conservative-groups-maki...

Here are the 18 firm "No" votes:Representatives Todd Akin of Missouri, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Paul Broun of Georgia, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Graves of Georgia, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Connie Mack of Florida, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina; Ron Paul of Texas, Dennis Ross of Florida, Steve Southerland of Florida and Joe Walsh of Illinois.

Here is who to call to pressure for a "No" vote: Representatives Allen West of Florida, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Bill Johnson of Ohio, Blake Farenthold of Texas, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Mike Pence of Indiana, Austin Scott of Georgia, Bill Flores of Texas, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Joe Barton of Texas, and Kevin Brady of Texas

Clueless Economist's picture

How effing stupid are people???  There ARE NO cuts in any of these plans, only cuts in the rate of growth.

OK Larry Krugman listen up.  If I spend $1,000 a year on clothing and plan on spending $1,300 next year, but I pledge only to spend $1,200, that is NOT a cut of $100. 

That is what these morons in DC are pushing, and to make it worse it is spread out over 10 years, backloaded of course.

But the MSM will report a deal was reached with $2 Trillion in cuts.

ARGHHHHHHHH

snowball777's picture

Yeah, same goes for Paul Krauthammer.

bk1037's picture

I agree with that, Clueless, but there's only so much shit that can go down at one time in the public discourse. That's the sad reality. Look at the poll numbers showing how fed up Americans are as a whole with this, and needless to say, many of these idiots will think the crisis will be largely passed if they reach an agreement on a way forward out of this. Your example points out quite well the status, we have no chance of getting down to the $1,000 level in your example (or perhaps even $900 to allow debt reduction once more) for the long term future. More and more, those on the international front may begin to compel action on this strategy, not just improvement but long term trajectory to actually reduce debt not just slow the rate of increase. How come we all can see that, yet common sense leaves the building when these people go to Washington? I hate saying this, but perhaps we need something forced on us to manage the debt better because we seem to be unable now to do it on our own. Sad.

John McCloy's picture

They should just call it what it is and that is "slowing the rate of spending" and not a cut. 

dxj's picture

The only cuts this Congress can realistically enact are the cuts for this Congress. There is no way they can credibly claim to have the power to make cuts for future Congresses. My friend Pluto will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

T-roll's picture

To answer your question, the sheeple are very effing stupid.  I was just telling my wife how ridiculously small the cuts are if you spread them out over 10 years.  Hell, even if we cut 1 trillion from the current budget we would still be running a deficit.  The fact of the matter is that the government will not make any cuts until ABSOLUTELY necessary.  That will come when Medicare, SS, Medicaid, defense spending and the interest on all of this debt consume so much of our budget that they will be forced to cut virtually all discretionary spending.  Gov't is never proactive...always reactive.

SheepDog-One's picture

Right. everyone knows the answer is just go along and print ever more money, heaven forbid the bankruptcy is actually ever addressed and some multi billionaires actually have to take a haircut, OH NOES cant have that! Saying this is all BS is 'irresponsible' because we all know not raising the debt ceiling to infinity in a depression will cause 'catastrophic results' and we cant deal with that. Far better to have complete total collapse later, just not now.

snowball777's picture

- raise the ceiling (2T)

- make substantial cuts (e.g. SS inflation adjustment and means-testing...$4T over 10 years)

- raise revenues (e.g. eliminate loopholes and make hedge compensation income like any other)

You know you're on the right track in politics when everyone has something to complain about.

Founders Keeper's picture

[Far better to have complete total collapse later, just not now.]---SheepDog-One

IMO

  • Raising the debt ceiling = total collapse
  • NOT raising the debt ceiling = total collapse

Better to put it off until later? Since when did being honest "later" become the greater virtue?

SheepDog, what's going on? You don't seem yourself lately.

 

slaughterer's picture

Yup, exactly.

Boehner = Gingrich

Obama = Clinton

Can't wait to see the political cartoon of Boehner in diapers crying on the cover of the popular press on Monday.    On second thought, maybe not.

nah's picture

they cant travel

.

900 billion dollars into the future

I am a Man I am Forty's picture

the best thing that could possibly happen is nothing passes, they don't raise the debt ceiling, and they have to start prioritizing payments, now that would be something to watch

snowball777's picture

Better get the EMS lined up for when the octogenarian gangs start to roll (some quite literally) on Washington for "my check" (if you've ever heard a retiree talk about their "check" as if the entire damn country works solely to support their prescription drug habit and condo lifestyle, you know from whence I speak).

 

WonderDawg's picture

Not to be a bitch, but many of those retirees paid into SS for 40 years or so. I'd want my check, too. Hard to be pissed at someone who is pissed because the .gov stole their money.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

.gov has stolen a lot of people's money.  When 40 cents of every dollar spent, is borrowed, who pays for that?

WonderDawg's picture

I'm not sure I understand your point. The people who lent money to the .gov pay for it. I know you're trying to make a point, but I don't see how it pertains to my point, which is if the .gov takes my money and promises to pay it back, I'll be understandably pissed if they don't pay me back.

Timmay's picture

It's called INFLATION, that's where the Gov takes everyone's money (denominated in Fiat of course).

snowball777's picture

I've paid my car insurance for 20 years and never received a check. If they'd paid in what they're taking out, they'd have reason to complain. Until then, means-testing.

dxj's picture

The people who paid into the Madoff Ponzi scheme want their check too. It doesn't change the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme and that the "trust fund" was already spent on foreign adventures. Rape my grandkids if you must, but I want my check.

JimBowie1958's picture

The people who paid into the Madoff Ponzi scheme want their check too.

And guess what? They are getting a good chunk if not most of it back, too.

It doesn't change the fact that SS is a Ponzi scheme ...

You apparently dont know what a Ponzi scheme is.

... and that the "trust fund" was already spent on foreign adventures.

No, it was 'borrowed' and spent in the general treasury as has been done for decades. The only difference now is that SS is changing from a net gain in revenue to a net cost. Too bad that Congress has to actually pay back that money but they had damned well better carry through on their promises. If they just repay the stolen/borrowed money, SS is good for several more decades.

Rape my grandkids if you must, but I want my check.

How about we just stop baling out these damned Wall Street banks instead? No one wants to rape your grandkids.

 

Cole Younger's picture

"the Treasury could print money to pay its bills, and the Fed could soak up the excess liquidity by selling its Treasury holdings. Between the Fed’s holdings of Treasurys, and Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac bonds and other securities held by the Fed, this drill could keep the government going and all creditors paid for another 18 months."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0728/Can-the-Treasury-Department-really-run-out-of-money/(page)/2

Cole Younger's picture

Good point....China?....It's the theorehtical stuff floating about...Not even sure if the numbers are correct...Maybe it's a hopey changy thing. I know I wouldn't buy them....

slaughterer's picture

FYI: I bought tons of "that stuff."  I have made over 500% gains on it. 

John_Coltrane's picture

A counterparty as always.  The price is the only issue.  Might not be what they're carrying them on their books though!

A Lunatic's picture

Sell them to Sheeple in the form of "recovery bonds". It's all the rage you know. Patriotic too. Mandatory. Automatically deducted from their paycheck. Only a Terrorist could say no.

kaiten's picture

It would be comical, if it wasnt so serious.

Pchelar's picture

Situation hopeless, but not serious...

DonnieD's picture

Exactly what Obama wants. Now he can invoke the 14th Amendment and pronounce himself Dictator of the United States.

i-dog's picture

Exactly! (If not now--due to a last minute "compromise"--then most definitely next year).

MichaelG's picture

How does 'invocation' work exactly?  (Declare TARP, TALF and PPIP to be "incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States" and hold them "illegal and void"?  Works for me...)

Doode's picture

How about passing that agreement that Boehner and Reid agreed on last last Sunday with 800 billion in tax base increase that president skuttled in the very last moment with an additional 400 billion in new taxes? It can possibly pass House and Senate. If Obama vetoes it - it is all on him. Fair and square - it would also avoid any downgrade I understand because cuts there are substantial.

Cole Younger's picture

Nothing will make it to Obama's desk unless he wants it. The Senate is Obama's veto.