General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the President is meeting with the Republican leaders?
It is not necessarily about the present shutdown. This is small potatoes, relatively speaking.
He wants to impress upon them that the debt limit is rapidly approaching and that they are playing with fire. They could throw our country, and the entire world, into a steep economic decline.
He is not going to give up anything in regards to the ACA. This is about the debt limit. He would like for them to extend the debt limit and then go to conference to resolve the present shutdown over the ACA.
He will ask them to come to their senses.
It will be up to the Turtle and the Weeping Cheeto whether or not our nation is threatened by the upcoming debt limit vote.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)If Obama backs down on anything right now even Social Security he will really destroy what is left of his presidency and even the Dems.
madamesilverspurs
(15,805 posts)It sends a message that the adults in the room are being the adults in the room.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)...the President gives up something like the oil pipeline or cuts in Social Security. I don't think he will do that. I think he wants to impress upon them to come to their senses.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Peregrine Took
(7,414 posts)Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)He can call for a meeting, but in my opinion, he should not participate.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)and so he is turning this invitation into a "victory" where he can claim he brought the President "to the table". There is nothing the President can do about what Boehner says, but watch the media play it that way.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to sacrifice Social Security.
Obama may be figuring that he has a lot of support among Democrats right now and can get by with cheating Social Security.
I think that people could turn against him if he did that. Turn against him very fast.
If the President wants to drop a program, he should drop the NSA spying and metadata collection programs. What wastes. They should focus on real terrorists and not just sop up phone records for everyone. Way back when, I used to deal with phone company customers, phone bills, etc. I know the volume involved. They are wasting our money on those surveillance and metadata programs.
Before someone accuses me, I hope I am wrong on this. But I am really edgy about Social Security. Presidents of the United States don't need it. I wish that we could limit their retirement to what they privately save and Social Security. But unfortunately, they get big comfy pension cushions. If you get elected president, you do not have to worry about Social Security.
But most of the rest of us Americans do.
Wall Street is just not reliable when it comes to investing pension money.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)Not when he is weak and compromising.
Let's hope that lesson is learned.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is the problem. There is a lot of pressure against Social Security.
But I am retired, and I know that for most of us, Social Security is the only hope for actual income in our retirement years.
The other day, I was reviewing documents about my retirement funds. I ran across one that predicted that if were 65 today, I would receive about $95 dollars per month in retirement cash.
I am well over 65, and I am not receiving anywhere near that kind of money. The fund lost money in the recession, and was adding next to nothing in monthly increases. What a joke! Empty promises.
The 401(K) hysteria is just a huge, cruel joke.
Don't every give up on Social Security. Unless you are very wealthy, you will probably need it, sorely need it when you are over 65.
And don't think that you can easily get a job once you are over 55, much less 65. It gets harder and harder. You read about the people who are still working.
You read about them because the fact that they are still working is exceptional. Jobs are not, in my opinion, going to get more plentiful. If anything, they will become more scarce.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He got 98% of what he wanted in the 2011 negotiations. Democrats on the Hill laughed
republicans on the Hill cried
Pundits on both sides shot down the claim
The only ones that believed him were, and continue to be, folks calling themselves Democrats on DU.
Go figure
Uncle Joe
(58,365 posts)within his power to send a message to the Republicans that shutting down the government is a stupid, irresponsible policy with disastorous consequences for both the nation and the Republican Party.
If Obama didn't meet with them, the Republicans and their corporate media puppets would only end up using it as ammunition that Obama was to blame for the actions of the Republican House.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why is it so difficult for so many to understand that the ONLY reason that President Obama has a majority of the electorate saying that the modern gop is being unreasonable is because he has cultivated the reasonable player imagine for himself (and Democrats).
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)He is not backing down. Incidentally, Nancy Pelosi, and Reid will also be there
Skittles
(153,169 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)kentuck
(111,102 posts)I read it somewhere but I don't recall where?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Uncanny resemblance, I'd say.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)barbiegeek
(1,140 posts)Milk assistance gone by end of year. look for $8 a gallon milk
Food stamps not funded
riqster
(13,986 posts)Lifelong Dem
(344 posts)Then we really have a big problem and maybe we should deal with them as rebels who are in rebellion against the Government.
They could throw our country, and the entire world, into a steep economic decline.
Obama won't budge on ACA.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)This fight will be played out on television.
The meeting is good.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)...refuse to extend the debt limit unless ACA is repealed? Are they that crazy??
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/just-where-is-the-center-of-gravity-here
Insane doesn't come into it. Cowardice does, apparently.
So my answer: yes. It could quite easily happen, especially if Obama folds on the shutdown. Give a mouse a cookie...
kentuck
(111,102 posts)Roberts would be hesitant to vote against something he has already voted for, I would think?
The President has the duty and responsibility to execute the laws and it specifically states in the 14th Amendment that the debt of the United States shall not be questioned.
So....
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Not following.
kentuck
(111,102 posts)Also, the right and responsibility of the President to execute the laws. The 14th Amendment needs to be clarified by the Court, in my opinion.
Intriguing.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)But it is a damn shame that we even have to consider creating a law that will keep a political party from holding the debt hostage.
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)and that is what they do?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)He should be pissed enough by now that he concedes nothing and asks for more.