Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Republicans Say Boehner Has Offered Assurances on Default; USA
Topic Started: 4 Oct 2013, 06:58 AM (702 Views)
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Republicans Say Boehner Has Offered Assurances on Default
Link

WASHINGTON — With a budget deal still elusive and a deadline approaching on raising the debt ceiling, Speaker John A. Boehner has told colleagues that he is determined to prevent a federal default and is willing to pass a measure through a combination of Republican and Democratic votes, according to one House Republican.

The lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of not being named, said Mr. Boehner indicated he would be willing to violate the so-called Hastert rule if necessary to pass a debt limit increase. The informal rule refers to a policy of not bringing to the floor any measure that does not have a majority of Republican votes.

Other Republicans also said Thursday that they got the sense that Mr. Boehner, who held two meetings Wednesday with groups of House moderates, would do whatever was necessary to ensure that the country did not default on its debt.

Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, was one of just 22 House Republicans this year who helped Mr. Boehner pass three crucially important bills — to avert a fiscal showdown, to provide relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, and to pass the Violence Against Women Act — with a majority of Democratic support. He said he expected he might be asked to do so again.

“Hurricane Sandy, the fiscal cliff — all of the big votes require reasonable Republicans and Democrats to come together in order to pass it and get it to the president’s desk,” he said. “This will be no different.”

And, Mr. Fitzpatrick added, “I’ve been there in the past and I’m prepared to be there again.”


Representative Leonard Lance of New Jersey, one of the moderate Republicans who met privately with Mr. Boehner on Wednesday, would not provide details of the meeting, but said, “The speaker of the House does not want to default on the debt on the United States and I believe he believes in Congress as an institution, and I certainly believe he is working for the best interests of the American people.”

Passing a measure with a majority of Democratic votes could bring Mr. Boehner trouble from his right flank. He has so far refused to bring to the floor a measure that could halt the shutdown but that would require significant support from Democrats.

Though not addressing the Hastert rule specifically, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner said that the speaker knew that a default must be headed off.

“The speaker has always been clear that a default would be disastrous for our economy,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner. “He’s also been clear that a ‘clean’ debt hike cannot pass the House. That’s why the president and Senate Democrats should drop their ‘no negotiations’ stance, and work with us on a plan to raise the debt limit in a responsible way, with spending cuts and reforms to get our economy moving again and create jobs.”
Edited by peter fraser, 4 Oct 2013, 06:59 AM.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


From the WSJ:

Quote:
 
GOP Begins Search for Broad Deal on Budget

WASHINGTON—Senior Republicans in Congress, frustrated over their inability to strike a deal to reopen the government, began shifting from their drive to undercut the 2010 health-care law, which has been the central element of the dispute, toward a broader budget deal.

Unlike the summer 2011 debt-ceiling debacle, President Obama and his administration appear to be pushing for market unrest, with the hope that it will spur Republicans to end the current budget standoff. WSJ's Sudeep Reddy reports. Photo: AP

The new focus comes as Congress is beginning to confront the need to raise the nation's debt ceiling, which the Treasury said must be done this month in order for it to pay all its obligations. With federal agencies largely shuttered for a third day, some GOP lawmakers were exploring whether the political stalemate over funding the government could best be resolved by crafting a broader fiscal package that would include an increase in the debt ceiling.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) on Thursday signaled he would follow that course. He told a group of his closest allies over lunch that he doesn't want to broker a deal to fund federal agencies and reopen the government only to face an immediate negotiation over raising the debt ceiling, participants said. The speaker expressed optimism at the lunch that he might be able to combine the two issues to embark on broader budget negotiations with the White House and Senate Democrats.

Meanwhile, some House Democrats also sought to pressure their leaders to take additional steps to reopen the government. A group publicly endorsed repealing the health-care law's tax on medical devices—a long-held Republican priority—as a way out of the budget battle. The idea was quickly rejected by Democratic leaders but signaled lawmakers' growing frustration with the stalemate.

President Barack Obama has said that he won't negotiate terms for raising the debt ceiling—that Congress must pass it with no conditions—but Republicans have said they won't back an increase unless deficit-reduction measures or other GOP policy goals are included. That has raised concerns that lawmakers and the president wouldn't come to an agreement in time to avoid dangerous financial and economic consequences.

In recent days, Mr. Boehner has been talking with Republican House members about raising the debt ceiling, insisting to them it must be done. By taking that stance, he has raised questions about how much leverage he could take into negotiations—should any materialize—with Democrats over the debt ceiling.

In a session with centrist Republicans, Mr. Boehner suggested that debt-ceiling legislation would likely have to have some support from Democrats, acknowledging that any such measure would be opposed by at least some conservative Republicans.

Some House Republicans were openly dismissive of suggestions that Mr. Boehner might turn to Democrats to pass legislation raising the ceiling without extracting demands from Senate Democrats and the White House.

"I don't think there are 218 votes to raise the debt ceiling without some sort of effort to deal with the deficit," said Rep. Tom Cole (R., Okla.). "Who are these Republicans who are going to vote for the debt-ceiling increase with absolutely no effort to deal with the deficit?"

Louisiana GOP Rep. John Fleming, an outspoken conservative, was even more direct: "I don't see any way he would get a debt ceiling passed in the House without some conditions."

A Boehner spokesman, Michael Steel, said the speaker "has always said that the United States will not default on its debt—but if we're going to raise the debt limit, we need to deal with the drivers of our debt and deficits."

Some GOP lawmakers openly pleaded for their party to get past the government-shutdown standoff and look to broader budget issues. "Let's put this behind us and move on as a nation,'' said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) on the Senate floor. He called on Republicans to shift their focus from undercutting the health-care law—an effort that he derisively called a "shiny object''—to spending reductions and broader issues.

The House GOP plans a closed-door meeting Friday morning to discuss strategy for budget and fiscal matters.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) has said he wants to include a "down payment'' on reducing the deficit—including cost-cutting changes in Medicare—as part of a debt-limit increase. But Mr. Obama on Thursday repeated that he wouldn't negotiate over raising the debt ceiling.

If the borrowing limit isn't raised, "the whole world will have problems, which is why, generally, nobody's ever thought to actually threaten not to pay our bills,'' said Mr. Obama in an address at a construction company in Rockville, Md., on Thursday.

"I'm going to repeat it: There will be no negotiations over this,'' he said. "The American people are not pawns in some political game.'' "The American people are not pawns in some political game.''

Mr. Boehner, in response, repeated his party's demand that Democrats agree to changes in the health-care law, the Affordable Care Act. ", the Affordable Care ActWe want to resolve this dispute as soon as possible, but that will require Washington Democrats to realize neither side gets everything it wants,'' Mr. Boehner said.

Democrats highlighted a comment by one GOP lawmaker, suggesting it showed that Republicans were extending the impasse with no clear policy goal.

"We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) had told the Washington Examiner newspaper.

Mr. Obama mocked the comment on Thursday, saying, "What you get is our medical researchers back on the job'' by resolving the budget stalemate. "What you get is little kids back into Head Start.'' "What you get is little kids back into Head Start.''

Mr. Stutzman on Thursday stood down from his remark, saying he had "carelessly misrepresented'' the budget debate.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


This is just staggering, although Malcolm Fraser withheld supply from Whitlam in 1975?? Not sure about the year, maybe 1974.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Sydneyite
Member Avatar


peter fraser
4 Oct 2013, 12:37 PM
This is just staggering, although Malcolm Fraser withheld supply from Whitlam in 1975?? Not sure about the year, maybe 1974.
Yea it was 1975, and it sparked the biggest constitutional crisis Australia has ever had, including the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the then GG (Sir) John Kerr.
Edited by Sydneyite, 4 Oct 2013, 01:09 PM.
For Aussie property bears, "denial", is not just a long river in North Africa.....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


peter fraser
4 Oct 2013, 12:37 PM
This is just staggering, although Malcolm Fraser withheld supply from Whitlam in 1975?? Not sure about the year, maybe 1974.
It was 1975, although Fraser never actually withheld supply - just said he was going to. Whitlam was working on the assumption that he had another couple of weeks to secure supply, but he was ambushed by Kerr who was working on an earlier date because of the impending holiday shutdown. The coalition passed supply within a couple of hours of the government being sacked.

This difference being, of course, that in Australia supply running out automatically results in the government being sacked, a caretaker being appointed, and both houses being dissolved.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


miw
4 Oct 2013, 12:52 PM
peter fraser
4 Oct 2013, 12:37 PM
This is just staggering, although Malcolm Fraser withheld supply from Whitlam in 1975?? Not sure about the year, maybe 1974.
It was 1975, although Fraser never actually withheld supply - just said he was going to. Whitlam was working on the assumption that he had another couple of weeks to secure supply, but he was ambushed by Kerr who was working on an earlier date because of the impending holiday shutdown. The coalition passed supply within a couple of hours of the government being sacked.

This difference being, of course, that in Australia supply running out automatically results in the government being sacked, a caretaker being appointed, and both houses being dissolved.
They were certainly interesting times. The Kemlani affair, Juni Morosi, sacking two treasurers, massive inflation.

Years later an ex-minister in the Whitlam cabinet was a client of mine when I worked for a bank. He was insisting that I do something for him without giving me the information that I needed, and I said "when you were a minister you wouldn't have made a decision without knowing all of the facts"
to which he replied "yes we made all of our decisions on the run"

That pretty much summed up the Whitlam government for me.

Damned interesting guy though. Much more colourful than any Lib MP's that I've met.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy