[quote name='speedracer']This is one of those lib vs. con disconnects. I see the exact opposite and would like to know what your timeline looks like.
In my mind, the Repubs have walked away from 3 offers that have pissed off Dems, offers that would have raised the age of SS and cut Medicare. At one point, the offer was allegedly 83/17 spending cuts/tax "hikes" and the Repubs said no. Repubs have said we need stability for the markets but have outright refused *any* long term offer and even offered multiple versions that would require multiple votes, which is in direct contrast to the rhetoric. They haven't come close to Obama's $4T debt reduction plan and have at most put forward $2.6T, meaning that debt reduction is far less important than not closing tax loopholes and handouts (and in direct contrast to the rhetoric).
Less debt reduction than Obama plan.
Less stability via multiple votes in their own plans.
An unwillingness to close pork loopholes (not even true tax increases!), even when Obama put SS and Medicare on the table.
As a "Dem"-ish voter, I have no idea what the Republicans actually want aside from wanting Obama to look bad.[/QUOTE]
That's called politics, and both sides are trying to do it to each other, plain and simple. It's happening on both sides, but the media by and large would make you believe it's only going one way.
I've looked at like...5 timelines, 4 walkaways from Obama, 1 from Republicans. Republicans have said no to tax hikes, but that doesn't mean they're walking away from a deal. It means they're pushing the deal back across the table. It seems like now that Congress is doing it themselves, but who knows what that'll accomplish, probably very little.
The problem with all proposals, from what I've seen, do little to alleviate the problem that faces us now. They're all the same 'let's kick it down the road again' model of bill. Cutting 2.4 trillion dollars from the deficit over a decade does little to alleviate the problem since we're spend 1.5 trillion more than we take in A YEAR.
Also, I should say that I'm not one of those people who looks at the news, but instead data and proposals for what's been presented because I don't really trust the news to report anything correctly. And from what I've seen and from what I'm looking at, it'll roughly be January 2013 when this problem pops up again, even if they raise the debt ceiling 2.7 trillion dollars.
And Msut77, a clean vote, whether it be about the debt or anything else would never happen unless you evacuated Washington D.C. except for the politicians themselves before a vote. I honestly can't remember the last time a clean vote on anything happened that wasn't about a positional appointment. And quite frankly you can't do it here because it'd be a numbers game, requiring more debate about where to put it at, meaning it wouldn't be clean.