1 Making the Senate vote on Obamacare was a good move. MO. Clair is toast.

2 Gabe, you linkis screwed up.

3 Here we go again.

4

Just to get in front of the wave, I agree with this.

There. I'm on record.  FB friends, don't waste any time sending me invites to "crucify Boehner" groups.  Not interested.

5 Cowboy poets?  Did they save the cowboy poets?

6 In the face of a $2T annual deficit, I hope you are right, but my gut says buy beans, brass and barley malt.

7 They call you 'extreme,' call them 'irresponsible.'

They call you 'extreme,' call deficit spending 'irresponsible.'

They call you 'extreme,' say they're calling being responsible 'extreme.'

Paint them as children who've caused the problem.  You're just here to make them be responsible.

8

The truth, imo, is that the vote depended solely on who would look the worst if the gov't shut down.  Dems compromised because they would have looked meagerly worse. 

It'll probably be different in next year's budget negotiations.

9 More Dem sobbing:

Robert Reich: “The right held the U.S. govt hostage, and O paid most of the ransom — inviting more hostage-taking. Next is raising debt ceiling.”…

Rep. Weiner: “Our fights can’t be just to stop their horrible ideas. Don’t we need to have our own agenda?”

10 So there will be a floor vote in the Senate on defunding PP and it will fail. So basically Boehner got nothing. I really do not see how this is called a win here, but whatever WTF do I know im still drunk from last night.

11 I has the epiphany that Boehner has a lot of chuches he has to work with on his side of the aisle.

12 4 Just to get in front of the wave, I agree with this.

There. I'm on record.  FB friends, don't waste any time sending me invites to "crucify Boehner" groups.  Not interested.

Me neither. I'm also not going to join this ridiculous exercise to "purge" someone like Mike Pence from the Republican Party.

13 Remain clam, oil is well!

14 12 4 Italics fail 2nd paragraph.

15

oooooh yeah.  Churches.  Evil.

Almost forgot.

16 The Dems spent months characterizing the cuts as draconian and extreme, then voted for them.

17 I don't want to crucify Boehner, but I don't want to take all the pressure off the House Republicans, either. Incentives.

I just don't want the word "satisfied" to enter the discussion just yet, because we have an awful lot of work to do.

The problem is, if Boehner laid out all the details of what has been accomplished, there might be a place for an attaboy or two, but now apparently is not a great time to do that.

Besides, Boehner can't be the Good Cop if there are no Bad Cops.

18

Gabe, good post.  I am a reasonable person and will consider all of this despite the fact I believe Boehner has failed to harness the Tea Party momentum and has woefully mismanaged the GOP's message, allowing the debate to be framed when he and the GOP were given the keys to drive the bus a la the November mid-terms.

Gabe, you make cogent and salient arguments to reinforce your, "Meat, Jalla, Boehner Good" thesis however, the point in all of this is not to assuage this massive stinker of budgetary tom foolery.

While you correctly note some goodies were contained in the sum of the budgetary deal, the wide angle view of the deal against the economic realities of a 15T and growing revolving debt, malignant monetary policy, 75T plus in unfunded liabilities and an economic system beset with insolvent banks supported by zero rate fed funds all on top of 4T added to the debt the past few years with 1.5T annual deficits... your analysis becomes as trifling as an excited marm counting jelly beans... on the Titanic.

Oh, and I tried my best, I really did, to be 85% snark free.

Te amo, Journolist

 (who's currently jumping up and down with excitement over our Add-In service on the clay court of yippee, skippee policy Riders and 39B/15.5T)

19 16The Dems spent months characterizing the cuts as draconian and extreme, then voted for them.

Posted by: Tom at April 09, 2011 02:20 PM (MWXXs)

That should be the headline.

20 The proof of the pudding is in the the eating.

21 10 So there will be a floor vote in the Senate on defunding PP and it will fail. So basically Boehner got nothing. I really do not see how this is called a win here, but whatever WTF do I know im still drunk from last night.

Have you read all of the provisions? Skip down to "Guarantees Senate Vote".

22

The proof of the pudding is in the the eating.

They make Peanut Butter Pudding?

23

Miss'80sBaby

< Word.

24 no--chuches...a derisive term whose etymology and specific meaning are uncertain

25 21 I havent read anything actually, but if its going to be voted on in the Senate dont we have like every Democrat and douchebags like Scott Brown, Murkunski, and the Maine scrunts all saying they will vote to keep giving millions to abortion providers? Maybe I am confused here on the specifics but if the money is being allocated in the House, but then the Senate gets to vote to keep it there or not, it pretty much will pass.

26 "bans federal funding of abortion in Washington, D.C." I wonder how many inner-city black kids' lives will literally be saved by this Republican move. I wonder if they'll ever know.

27 17 I don't want to crucify Boehner, but I don't want to take all the pressure off the House Republicans, either. Incentives...


I think it's possible to keep the pressure on them while still liking this deal. Just because you agree with a politician on one thing doesn't mean you have to agree with them on everything, and it's always better to tell them that x is a good start but you still want y and z.

28
Have you read all of the provisions? Skip down to "Guarantees Senate Vote".

Not to be mean or anything, but Mr. Pink did say that there will be a floor vote, I believe his point is that you can have the vote, but the end result will be funding for PP because the dems will not defund it.

29 As I said in the first thread for this, this is not a win. The amount of the cut is really immaterial. The fact that the Republicans "compromised" to avoid a shutdown shows that the Dems can get their way by threatening a 1995 strategy that will no longer work.

This bodes ill for the 2012 budget that is coming up. The strategy of breaking up the budget into smaller pieces and telling the Dems to take it or leave it depends on having the balls to shut down those parts of the government.

If the Dems can bluff them into thinking they will suffer politically for a partial shutdown we will never get this gluttonous spending under control. The Monty doom will hit hard no matter who is claiming a win out of this.

30 Half-Step

31 It will not pass, but that is not all that is afoot.  The intent is to get the most [more] vulnerable Dem senators who are up for re-election on record. 

32 This was a small, but important victory for the GOP and the Republic.

33 I'm on record as saying Boehner is a ninny, so there. However, whether the republicans have squandered the momentum, supplied by the tea party, to cut the budget deficit will be determined next year, when they get to actually write their own budget.

34

Vic at April 09, 2011 02:26 PM (M9Ie6)

<Word²

35 In Russia, beeg red button push you.

36 Bush was irresponsible. These guys are bat shit crazy, and the GOP needs to say that everytime they get in front of a microphone.

37 eman, it was a particulate in the scope of what is assumed.

38 Gabe, oh Gabe, where art thou?

39 A pro-rated $80 billion on a $1.5T annual deficit is not a "good job"; it's a rounding error. The debt ceiling fight is coming up in a month and after what the Republicans just agreed to, I don't know anyone who thinks they'll stand firm. Maybe they'll get another few billion in token cuts, & in a few years our debt will be $20 trillion instead of the current $14.3T. Neither party is serious about balancing the budget; all of their proposals lead to over a trillion in new debt every year. Only a handful of GOP congressmen understand what's at stake. This budget has way more new borrowing than cuts in it, & we just made it even harder to balance the budget & maintain the debt ceiling. We shot ourselves in the foot, squabbling over practically nothing, & you all want to praise Boehner for a job well done. What a joke. The socialists are laughing at us right now.

40 25 21 I havent read anything actually, but if its going to be voted on in the Senate dont we have like every Democrat and douchebags like Scott Brown, Murkunski, and the Maine scrunts all saying they will vote to keep giving millions to abortion providers?

Harry Reid has been stacking votes lately because he doesn't want to take up-or-down votes. He didn't look happy about this last night and I'm glad his dictatorship will be briefly interrupted. I'm also going to call the most vulnerable senators and urge a yes vote, and I believe such a move might be productive. If the ObamaCare bill were to actually pass both houses-- like the 1099 repeal-- Obama is going to look bad when he uses that veto. As for Planned Parenthood, that one was always harder but a mere rider never guaranteed defunding.

41

Ok. So can someone explain the total cuts in this year's budget to me?

Both sides were already counting $40 billion from a budget that was never passed that came from Obama. When you count that plus this $38.5 billion, this is how you get to the $78.5 billion number people are describing, right?

This means that the $38.5 billion includes the CR's passed already, correct?

42 The Stupid Party's normal deft politicking would have involved around $200 billion in increases as "the compromise", so not incensed at the meagerness of the cuts.

The key issue I can't believe is how-in-the-fuck did the military become 'non-essential personnel', and why in the hell didn't we either get our 'hostages' the hell out of the line-of-fire all the way back in January, -or- make every soundbite available to the prostrate press quite nasty. 'The President has the authority to decide who is essential personnel, and his opinion of the military is at least consistent.'

43 Friends, I will take care of the debt.

44 No, not bad.  Real bad.  No cuts to the baby murderers. No cuts to NPR.  No cuts to PBS.

But cuts to our military?

Nice job Boehner.  How does Obama's dick taste?

45 Gabe, please reread your post... if you need help with the redaction, I know the number to Acme Redact.

46 Also, the Democrats showed they were willing to basically shut down the government, and Obama proved he was willing to cut off funding for the troops he commands in 3 war zones, just to fucking get money to planned parenthood so they can keep aborting babies. I really do not see how that bodes well for future negotiating.

47

#27

Miss 80's, I liked your analysis yesterday.

Do you think that the Senate vote on PP will help Republicans all that much considering that the at least Collins, Snowe, and Brown will all vote for PP? I don't think it helps that much in the long run, and more than a few Dems can switch over with their majority and the (R) defections.

48 I guess I don't really see this as a win. 

What I see is that the Democrats got their last proposal (which incidentally earlier in the week people were saying Boehner would never agree to) pretty much without modification, aside from some procedural votes no one will pay attention to.  Remember when McConnell agreed to a vote on Obamacare before Christmas to get an up or down debt ceiling vote?  Yeah, that didn't matter much.

The cuts, as everyone has been saying, were meaningless because they were too small.  All they mattered as was a symbol.

How do they stack up as a symbol?

To most in the GOP, this is a loss and not good enough.  You guys can yell at them till your blue in the face, it won't change that.  The original pledge number was 100 billion and the end result was 38 billion, not far from the Democrats' unserious offer.

The left obviously isn't happy cutting anything, but what they do see is that Obama and the Senate got what they wanted.  They also know that Boehner is averse to a shutdown.  Expect them to basically not negotiate with Boehner on the '12 budget for as long as they can, and expect Boehner to cut around 50 billion in cuts and claim a major victory.

To independents, they see that Boehner promised to cut 100 billion and only cut 38 billion.  People can dismiss that as unimportant, but not keeping campaign promises is usually bad for your credibility, and this is the kind of thing independents don't like. 

And ultimately, when a GOP presidential contender goes after Barry for massive spending, he can say that he 'worked with Speaker John Boehner' on 'sensible' cuts in 2011.

49 28
Not to be mean or anything, but Mr. Pink did say that there will be a floor vote, I believe his point is that you can have the vote, but the end result will be funding for PP because the dems will not defund it.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that a rider never guaranteed Planned Parenthood would be defunded. All bills must be passed by both houses and signed by the president to become law, and that includes riders. A shutdown wouldn't have guaranteed defunding, either; what it would have done is freeze spending at current levels.

50 Somewhere, probably in the deepest memory hole available at midnight Friday, thereÕs a portfolio of lists: Non-Essential Federal Employees, By Name, Department & Pay Grade. LetÕs see Ôem.

51

In mathematical terms: [bullshit/bullshit] x Gabe's enthrallment³

52 WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

53 29 This bodes ill for the 2012 budget that is coming up. The strategy of breaking up the budget into smaller pieces and telling the Dems to take it or leave it depends on having the balls to shut down those parts of the government.

That's going to be interesting because the appropriators are actually required to break-apart bills under old laws, but my understanding is Appropriations has to direct that process. The 2012 budget vote was also scheduled for next Friday, but Rogers now has to work on this bill so we'll have to wait to see what they do. I'll also add that the Budget Committee mark-up yielded an extra $100B in cuts.

54 This is why I get testy every time someone blames baby boomers for killing social security and calls for them to take a cut in the one program that real tax payers get.

Until we get a congress that is willing to quit spending all the SS funds with 150% of total income it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Yes, we cut the budget by 38 billion. Only in Washington is a "cut of requested spending" a budget cut even in the face of increased spending from the previous year.

Remember "porkulous" and Tarp I & II? Those were "temporary" spending programs.

55

O/T...where's Drew been? Is on extended vacation? Did he quit because the cobs voted down a union?

..or did he get his keys taken away?

56

I am going to cease and desit in making Gabe look like deep sea fishing chum, before I get banned.

I am pissed.

57

The tough part about this is that I would imagine that conservatives were paying more attention to this than anyone. Our effort in the midterm elections was supposed to bring substantial change to budget allocations.

Dem voters and independent voters didn't seem to care as much about the budget cuts per se as conservatives did, so my take is that the Republican leadership has disappointing the base a bit already is the main political consequence of the deal. The Ryan budget probably won't go anywhere in the next six months, and I think this raises the stakes on the debt ceiling vote and the 2012 budget even more than before.

58  I'm in agreement this was a good move.  Next round

59 You go Gabe. YAY!!11!!

60 24no--chuches...a derisive term whose etymology and specific meaning are uncertain

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 09, 2011 02:24 PM (gJNMj)

oooow.  Like grits?

61 These $ amounts and dickering about funding for pet projects are a joke.

The only victory here is getting these Beltway Crackheads to admit there's a problem, and then beating them over the head with it, repeatedly.

62 I hope before they have the vote on Planned Parenthood that the Repubs make sure that Margaret Sanger's views on non-whites are thoroughly aired, preferably by somebody like Alan West.  If that bigoted scrunts views were ever known to the muddle they'd drop PP like a warm turd.

63 47 #27 [...] Do you think that the Senate vote on PP will help Republicans all that much considering that the at least Collins, Snowe, and Brown will all vote for PP? I don't think it helps that much in the long run, and more than a few Dems can switch over with their majority and the (R) defections.

It depends. Those 3 are subject to change and there might (might) be an opportunity to pressure them into voting for it. Supposedly, there are also some pro-life Dems (I know) in the Senate, so there is actually a slight chance it could be passed.

64

#53

Sorry, another question. Does this mean that the 2012 budget is partially drafted with whatever cuts were made yesterday and $100 billion more in the 2012 year budget?

65 52WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 09, 2011 02:37 PM (bxiXv)

Crap!

66 I think it was important not to get the public too "budget weary" before the real work of the 2012 budget comes up.  Remember, this was the 2011 budget, the one the Democrats *should* have passed last year.

Had they dug their heels in and shut down the government over this one and if the public reaction turned out to be bad, they would have blown their political capital on a 6-month budget and would have lost significant leverage on a full year budget coming up.

If they want to dig their heels in, the 2012 budget is the place to do it.  Actually, FY 2013 will *really* be the place to do it assuming the Republicans will then have control of both houses of Congress after the 2012 elections (as it looks could well happen).

67 Another thing to note is this-- this "deal" being described is not necessarily done. RSC is experiencing some infighting again and what I read over at The Hill seems to indicate that some within the hierarchy are going to push their members to vote no. According to Cantor's schedule, the vote on this takes place on Thursday, so there is a chance things might change.

majorityleader.house.gov/Floor/

68

Posted by: Paper at April 09, 2011 02:41 PM (VoSja)

< Per the Pledge (gee, I wonder if Boehner remembers that document) they are suppose to go back to pre-08 base lines.

Did I get this right Vic?

69

I am going to cease and desit in making Gabe look like deep sea fishing chum, before I get banned.

I am pissed.

Posted by: journolist at April 09, 2011 02:38 PM (iHfo1)

I don't know, that might be pretty entertaining and besides, banhammers only come out for the truly egregious.

Case-in-point, I'm still here.

70

The best salesman for future budget cuts has been, ironically, the President himself.

Like a stopped calendar, he is.

71

Like grits?

girls raised in the south?

72 I am focusing on the swell 2012 campaign slogans we'll get out of this as well.  Obama, the Keynesian, stimulus loving President just signed the largest budget reduction in history.  After supporting a shut-down over taxpayer dollars to kill babies.  And halting military pay in the event of a shutdown.  Sometimes they just write themselves. 

73 Isn't "chuches" German for a whale's vagina?

74 So while the house is burning, we'll really bring in the serious brigade later on... that's a terrifc strategy.

75 This is a fine tactic in an election (and we do the same thing to "radical" Democrats)

I have to agree with the critics that this statement reeks of horseshit.

Republicans traditionally underplay the radicalism of their opponents (see: every fucking election), leftists go apeshit that every Republican is a baby-eating poor-stomping woman-killing fatcat.

There isn't even the remotest moral or fiscal equivalent between Reid, Slaughter, Rangel, Granny Botox on the one side and Boehner, Ryan, or Rand Paul on the other.

Horse. Shit.

76 The White House is already praising the budget deal. You know, the one that cuts four times as much spending as the one that Reid called "draconian." The best salesman for future budget cuts has been, ironically, the President himself. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:33 PM And this right here is why I believe we on the right are fools. We keep declaring "winning!", because we compare what we got to what the Democrats offer. The Democrats, as usual, always go for broke. They go for it all. That's their starting point. They go for 100% of what they want and then settle for 75% of what they want. And conservatives call that a "victory" for us? Meanwhile, we wanted $100bil (still meaningless in the big picture of $1+tril debt), but instead of starting out at 100% ($100bil) of what we want, we start out at 32% ($32bil) of what we want!? And then end up settling for 40% of what we want. "Winning!" This is the major disconnect between people like Gabe and most others. Most people don't see it as a "win" when the GOP *starts* their negotiation at 32% of what we want, the Democrats start their negotiation at 100% of what they want, and then the GOP ends up getting 40% of what they want ($100bil) and the Democrats get 60% of what they want.

77 Who cares about the Senate votes. Obama will never sign the bill. The vulnerable Dems can vote any way they want knowing that even if the bill passes, it's meaningless. They'll never vote to override the veto. It's all just a game. Their voting records don't even matter. It's like the House Dems who voted against Obamacare because they had more than enough YEAs. They pick & choose the most vulnerable, but if every vote is needed you know exactly where they would have voted. This game not only wastes time and money, it allows the Democrats meaningless votes to seem more reasonable than they really are. I would hope the electorate wouldn't be fooled, and if they vote for a Dem they should know what they're getting. But some of the less informed might actually vote for a "moderate" Dem who (knowing full well it would never become law) showed they would vote to defund the health bill. And if they don't vote to defund, well we already knew they liked Obamacare enough to vote for it the first time.

78 68 ETA: McCarthy was short 10 votes last night and he lost another after the CR, so he's going to have to fight for every last vote while counting on cross-over to reach the necessary threshold to pass. A few "Blue Dogs" who actually vote with Rs at times have stated they are voting "aye", so that lessens his headache a bit. But if RSC breaks-- and they could like last time-- all bets are off.

79 Really? We're celebrating on successfully punting the football on every single issue down the line?

Call me crazy, but is that really the most exciting part of rooting for your football team? An impressive punt? "Holy shit, did you see that! He punted it all the way to the ten yard line! WHOOO! Who cares that we're still down by twenty points and they now have the ball. 2012, here we fucking come baby!"

Now's certainly not a day to be overly negative, but am I seriously supposed to get excited? Today really seems to be separating the hard-core political junkies from people who are in this to actually save this damn country.

80

and then the GOP ends up getting 40% of what they want ($100bil) and the Democrats get 60% of what they want.

While they control the senate and the presidency. They actually fucked themselves by not passing a budget while they had all the power but they didn't want those numbers in the campaign. That ploy didn't work and they lost the house. If they keep demanding parades, cowboy poetry, etc then hopefully we win the senate and the presidency and can really do some cutting.

81

#79

This to me seems very dangerous politically. If the Republicans were going to hold their ground and not make an agreement, their leadership shouldn't have made a big deal about agreeing last night.

I don't think that voters would have blamed one party more than the other for the shutdown, but I do think Republicans would be blamed now after a big prodcution about how everyone agreed to a deal.

82

Call me crazy, but is that really the most exciting part of rooting for your football team? An impressive punt?

Yes.

83 With regards to the shutdown and bargaining, I have a few questions:

(1) How do we know for a fact that a shutdown would have yielded more?

(2) Was the shutdown to extract more cuts or for show, to prove that people can live without government?

(3) What were the terms you would have asked for if you were Speaker Boehner?

(4) Some members were on-record as saying they wanted to get to the 2012 budget instead of moving tiny margins. Does this conflict with some grass-root sentiment that says the same thing yet argues for moving tiny margins? 

84

Call me crazy, but is that really the most exciting part of rooting for your football team? An impressive punt?

Yes.

Posted by: Dallas Cowboy Fan at April 09, 2011 02:51 PM (gJNMj)

Us too

85

Call me crazy, but is that really the most exciting part of rooting for your football team? An impressive punt?

Yes.

Posted by: Dallas Cowboy Fan at April 09, 2011 02:51 PM (gJNMj)

Us too

Posted by: Redskins fan at April 09, 2011 02:55 PM (bk1fZ)

You guys can punt?

86 I get real sick and tired of these lame attempts to draw an equivalence between the right and left.  There's a difference between calling a radical a "radical" and calling a normal person "radical". 

I think that's what all the high-fiving today is about. The compromising, Dem-loving, pragmatic Republicans achieved a bipartisan "do something" and now they think they're the kings of the ball. Despite the irrelevance of it all. $40 billion per year in cuts from requested spending is now the high water mark for accomplishment, and we'll be told to accept it from here on out. So, with a $1.6T deficit this year, we'll balance the budget in 40 years. After running up another $32T in deficits. Not counting interest. And assuming government requests grows only dollar for dollar with tax receipts during that time. And assuming the economy continues to grow at whatever pie in the sky rates are being assumed (5% forever, I think is the Obama assumption).

BTW just saw $4.19 a gallon gas in the Chicago suburbs. So some assumptions may not be valid.

87 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 09, 2011 02:53 PM (uVLrI)

1) We don't.

2) It has to be the former because the latter isn't what actually happens during a "shutdown."

3) Repeal Obamacare, $500 billion in cuts, eliminate duplicate and wasteful departments (re: Paul's plan), Ryan's entitlement reform (minor as it is), a Ferrari 599 and Thai Tranny Hookers.

I don't actually want the Ferrari and the hookers, but you have to include some throw-away items.

Actually, I do want the Ferrari.

4) No. Yes. Maybe. Wait! I want to change my answer!

88 Any woman who bought into the B.S. about Republicans trying to kill women deserves free medical care....in the nearest government run psychiatric unit.

89 I know there are some Republican House members who are going to vote no. This thing may not pass.

90 Peace for our two weeks at a time!

91

All this is pointless. The much larger and far greater issue is that there is something seriously hinky with Teleprompter Jesus. Not just the radical BS and his insane clown posse. But something much worse.

AND, there isn't ONE fucking patriot in the CIA, FBI, or other branch of government out there trying to expose this fraud. NOT ONE! I know there is shit out there to expose but everyday, nothing. That is how I know we're boned, but good. Not a single patriot in a position to do something is willing to take one for the team. All because Whoopie will call them racist. GD!

92 I hope before they have the vote on Planned Parenthood that the Repubs make sure that Margaret Sanger's views on non-whites are thoroughly aired, preferably by somebody like Alan West.  If that bigoted scrunts views were ever known to the muddle they'd drop PP like a warm turd.
Posted by: Captain Hate at April 09, 2011 02:41 PM

I don't know.  I think that it has become so ingrained in some people that it's not just okay to kill babies, it's optimal, that abortion supporters will just say, maybe racism is what it was about, but it's not about that now.  Even though that is exactly what it's about now.  It was no accident where Kermit Gosnell practiced his particular brand of medicine.

93 Paint them as children who've caused the problem.  You're just here to make them be responsible.

I believe that the surest way to make them loose their nut is to do exactly that. NOBODY likes to be treated like a child, even when they are behaving as such.

Petulant, immature, adolescent, not-fully-developed...all favorite ways for describing the bastards and their "ideals".

94

28 Republican House members voted against the short-term resolution. If all of them vote 'No' on the deal, then the deciding vote will have been cast by a Democrat.

House Democrats are already basically ok with the deal. The majority of them voted for the week resolution until the vote. Next week, Boehner may be in the position of deciding whether or not to pass the bill with Democrats and lose his tea party caucus or deciding to abandon the bill.

This would be a very, very bad situation.

95 Oh. And Stossel's report on 'Freeloaders' is reairing on FNC right now. It's a good show.

96 Please, if the dems had passed their own budget we would be learning how to count in quadrillions.

97 Please, if the dems had passed their own budget we would be learning how to count in quadrillions.

How many 000000s is that again?

98 hopefully we win the senate and the presidency and can really do some cutting. Posted by: dagny at April 09, 2011 02:49 PM Ah yes, so we're now adopting Obama's 2008 campaign motto of "hope" regarding the GOP "changing" their ways and actually cutting spending. Brilliant.

99 (1) How do we know for a fact that a shutdown would have yielded more?

Dems need government, so aside from the military, it's primarily their people who feel what pain a government shutdown causes. More importantly, if you look at the list of things that the government would still be spending on, I think we've passed the point where a "shutdown" government is still running at a deficit. People would notice that, which would shape the other debates down the road.

100 82 #79 This to me seems very dangerous politically. If the Republicans were going to hold their ground and not make an agreement, their leadership shouldn't have made a big deal about agreeing last night.

The problem is that a segment of RSC is unpredictable and prone to shifting wildly. Chairman Jordan and Boehner have been fighting for some time. That faction is also upset that they several votes to cut spending back to '06 and that the leadership somewhat limited Budget's efforts on entitlement reform. While I agree with Jordan here-- and so does Ryan, another RSC member**-- a movement against the leadership while Budget, RSC members, and freshmen are fighting for the 2012 budget is shooting yourself in the foot. So I have no problem with him trying to shift that Overton Window but I think he's better-served by running against Boehner in 2012 if they retain the House. The deal's been made, you can try to push Boehner to extract significant cuts elsewhere, and it's time to fight for 2012. JMO.

_{*See Mulvaney Amendment, among other things}

_{** He told Mark Levin that he's writing outside legislation to further some reforms w/in his budget}

101 Some miserly, pathetic little cuts and the AoS staff are having a deep-throating competition on John Boehner. Just goes to show that AoS is trying to get bought out by AOL so they can get that mad HuffPo ca$h. Or worse - Ace, Gabe, and Dave are looking to see if they can get front-page posting privileges on DailyKOS.

102 Can someone put me some knowledge about PP funding so I have facts if this comes up at my liberal workplace. What % of their budget is from the government? How much do they spend on political contributions? They would still be eligible to apply for medicaid reimbursements for covered people/services no?

103 Stossel as beggar:

I'm not going to lie to you. I need a beer.

104 This to me seems very dangerous politically. If the Republicans were going to hold their ground and not make an agreement, their leadership shouldn't have made a big deal about agreeing last night.

Yep.  My fear as well.  To quote myself:  If the cuts are too small, I think the Republican Caucus will reject it, which then makes the Republicans be the ones shutting down the government, and Boehner looking the fool.

105

Hey Gabe...check this out, in light of your statements in the past that the SG would have no involvement in discussions regarding Obamacare.

To me it smells of a coverup

106 I really think the best thing about this deal is that the military is funded through September (end of the Fiscal Year).

This allows Boehner to get hard-nosed (no, really! Just like you want him to be) and shut down the government if necessary, without harming the military, or hindering their ability to fight Obama's series of wars for Islam, or civility, or making the world safe for golf or whatever.

That, and the fact that the narrative has changed from "All is well," to "We need to cut," are the two things that make this a victory. Maybe a small one, but a victory. A Battle of Coral Sea-type victory, but not nearly as bad as it has been painted in the last few hours.

Now we need to get a Midway-sized victory. Somehow.

107

AND, there isn't ONE fucking patriot in the CIA, FBI, or other branch of government out there trying to expose this fraud.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at April 09, 2011 03:00 PM (BPl2/)

What hasn't been exposed? We know about the New Party (socialists), Wright, Farrakhan, Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Wright, Pakistan...

Seriously, for whatever dumbfuck reasons, most people don't care that the President of the United States is a far-left wrecking, backstabbing POS.

I guess American Idol is on.

108

AND, there isn't ONE fucking patriot in the CIA, FBI, or other branch of government out there trying to expose this fraud. NOT ONE! I know there is shit out there to expose but everyday, nothing. That is how I know we're boned, but good. Not a single patriot in a position to do something is willing to take one for the team. All because Whoopie will call them racist. GD!

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at April 09, 2011 03:00 PM (BPl2/)

I wouldn't say that, Sarge.

109 Talk all you want about which side negotiated optimally or provided the best optics. What really moved the debate are the facts of our dire financial condition... or I should say should have moved the debate further. We are still in denial because the leviathan is turning much too slowly. That it is turning at all is considered a "win." Meh. We're in the reef already. The public is finally seeing it but the commanders were partying in the wheelhouse as we steered full bore into the boulders.

The fact is that we will not control events. Events will control us. It's inevitable because we act like we have all sorts of time. We don't. I'd like to see the nation work faster through our "conservative" apparatus (which we're to believe is the GOP) but we either can't or won't. Not at the pace required anyway. The Progressives will throw out roadblocks to federal contraction, the opposition will be "forced" to deal either because they have to or because they want to, and the money will continue to burn as the apparatus lighting it remains intact.

It's your typical sentiment of  DOOM... but in the afternoon. Sorry 'bout the fatalism. Keep up the fight but know that we're outmanned and probably getting outflanked.

110 Posted by: Evil Red Scandi at April 09, 2011 03:07 PM (M+Vm5)

You keep hyperventilating like that, you're gonna pass out.

111 I'm not mad at Boehner, who showed some good negotiating skills. But the moment we say, "yeah, okay, that's good" -- that's as far as Congress will ever move. If we want the window to move right, we've got to keep pushing.

112

#106

Well-said. The problem is that with voters, Boehner would equal Republicans because few people would care about divisions within the Republican House. The story would be that Republicans backed out.

Boehner's tenure as speaker might be very short if that happened.

113 89 1) We don't.

But some have tried to prove it's true. IMO, my fear all along was that Boehner would lose a shutdown in spite of some efforts by his members.

2) It has to be the former because the latter isn't what actually happens during a "shutdown."

Though I have heard that the purpose was to show that we can live without government. Rush especially was arguing that and I've seen it on a # of blogs.

3) Repeal Obamacare, $500 billion in cuts, eliminate duplicate and wasteful departments (re: Paul's plan), Ryan's entitlement reform (minor as it is)....

I would argue part of that is being done in the 2012 fight. As for the $500B in cuts, FY 2011 ends on Sept. 30th and Obama has either spent or allocated a majority of the money. So that money would have had to have been outside the '11 budget.

4) No. Yes. Maybe. Wait! I want to change my answer!

You joke but I've been given that answer.

114 It's a big win for us, no matter what the Eeyores say. 

We've come out as the responsible and reasonable side here.  We are in great shape to change the direction of the fiscal ship now.  Those who wanted us to go to the mattresses over this amount of chump change just aren't very politically savvy.

The public was NEVER going to support us through more than ONE actual shutdown.  Sure, conservatives are ready to fight over every nickel, but the independents and swing voters are nowhere near so committed.  They are squishy, which is why they keep changing sides. 

Obama hoped to trap us into using our "Get Out Of Shudown Blame FREE" card now, over the dangling entrails of what should have been the FY 2011 budget.  He got spooked when the unions couldn't deliver an off-year April election in Wisconsin, and the backlash over his plan to not pay the military would have left a mark.  He capitulated.  We won, get over it.

Now we have the high ground for the fight over the real money in the FY 2012 budget.  Duh!  Winning!

If you have no clue as to how this game is played, at least keep quiet and stop shouting out stupid suggestions.

115 Some miserly, pathetic little cuts and the AoS staff are having a deep-throating competition on John Boehner. Just goes to show that AoS is trying to get bought out by AOL so they can get that mad HuffPo ca$h.

That's one theory. Of course ace himself was pretty unimpressed last night and he owns the show, so you might want to reevaluate it.

116 The ghouls at Planned Parenthood couldn't have engineered an abortion as bad as this deal.

More dead babies on my dime. (except in the DC DMZ)
More NPR on my dime
More Piss Christ on my dime
More shitty cowboy poetry on my dime
More fucking cherry blossoms on my dime

Boehner leaves a mint and a rose on Obama's pillow before slinking away to cry in the shower like Elisabeth Shue.

All for "cuts" that they'll have spent again by 9PM EST tonight.

With victories like this, who needs cancer?


But I'm simple, there may be nuance and fancy shit I don't get.

117 Sadly, the dems suffered not one iota from not passing a budget last year. The Nov elections had nothing to do with their that. Shit, the treasonous RINO scumbags in the Senate let them go on and shove even more awful crap through in a totally illegitimate lame duck - that was criminal, in my mind - and STILL not pass a budget, thereby causing the GOP to spend so much time wrangling over that in the 112th Congress. And the GOP, instead of using that to do something useful, blew it on this fiasco of babbling idle threats and then showing how totally spineless they are. Posted by: iknowtheleft at April 09, 2011 02:54 PM Yep. I go to work every day and hear the libs in the office bitch about the GOP, how stupid is Sarah Palin, bitch about George W. Bush, make fun of John the weepy Boehner etc etc etc. Not one word about Obama or the Democrats. Just this morning on the radio here, they DJ on 97.1FM The Ticket was discussing Donald Trump. He brought him up to mock him. His first 2 callers were in support of Trump's run for the Presidency. They brought up his substantive ideas, while all the DJ wanted to do was mock his show ("I only know Trump through his reality show"). And then when one caller brought up that it will be Trump's capitalism vs Obama's New World socialism, the DJ got all "aww wait wait now, we don't want to get into calling Obama a socialist and all that blah blah blah". Yet these same tools on this station constantly mock the ideas of Trump, Palin, Beck, Rush, etc. Then of course there is my liberal family members who do nothing but mock Palin and the GOP and the TEA Party, yet get in my face about the facts I publish and the rants I go on about Obama ("you should respect the President blah blah f-ing blah"). And these are all people, if you asked them, who would tell you they are "independents". They're about as "independent" as the MF-ing media, but that's what they claim. So, yeah, I'm not seeing the Democrats suffering at all. The gullible American public believes all the bullshit fed to them by the Democrats' whining and claims of "radical" and "draconian". Boehner agreed to the deal, because he knew in the end that the MF-ing media and the Democrats and the President would all blame the GOP for the shutdown... and the gullible public would believe them.

118

#104

PP gets about one-third of their revenues from government grants/contracts. That is a little over $300 million in the last few years.

In 2008, PP gave around $400,000 to political campaigns. Only $10,000 was donated to Republican candidates. All $10,000 was donated to now Sen. Mark Kirk.

I'm not exactly sure if PP's ability to be eligible for government money is based on their ability to receive grants or compete for contracts.

119 it's not about crucifing anyone, and it's not even about which party is winning, we are now in a position where one poison or another must be chosen, people have clearly and consistently expressed their chioce, the only reason there is any arguement here is the arrogance and denial of the leaders of both parties.

120

Thanks, Gabe, for this post and the link. Thanks also, to Miss 80's. The more I read, the more I support this first step.

The up or down vote on Planned Parenthood (needs to change name to Planned Infanticide) will show the country how the individual Congressman/woman up for votes in 2012 feel about spending billions on contraception services. The same amount of funding to Planned Parenthood--if continued-- should also be levied to adoption agencies or homes for pregant girls. (Keep in mind I want not a dollar spent on contraception; boxes of condoms are cheaper than Thunderbird or malt liquor and cigs...what on earth did previous generations do? A box of Trojans is a lot cheaper than an abortion or the pill. Or, maybe--shock--if they want birth control pills, the woman should have a job and pay for them. Or, even cheaper for some, abstain?Being sarcastic here, but pre-government handouts, people worked for their $$).

The way I understand it,Title X Medicaid funding goes to heathcare for the poor (real healthcare, not the pretend stuff that Congress thinks Planned Parenthood does: no mammograms). I have no problem with Title X, except I think each patient should have to pay a co-pay just as I do for healthcare. Nothing should be free. Again, save your malt liquor and cig money instead of expecting the handout.The Dems hide literally behind the Hyde Act in that it does not fund abortions. Riiight.

I think, for those of us who are paying attention, it has been documented by Lila Rose's investigation into Planned Parenthood, and with the grand jury investigation of Philadelphia' Kermit Gosnell's butcher shop; that these legal services run wild and unsupervised. So they may get around the funding and the Hyde Amendment, as all abortions may be labeled as "needed for the health of the mother." Audits, please...there are not that many pregnancies that fall into this category.

With the ability to bring the Gosnell issue to the floor of Congress, and discuss that horror (heck, show the photos), and keep hammering on the investigative reporting showing the corruption in many clinics, many in the public may change their minds about abortion and what it means There is a detected heartbeat at 18 days conception, at 45 days active brain waves. Gosnell's records clearly show how untrasounds of the fetus were altered in order to perform late-term abortions on viable babies. Show the horror. Get the names on record who will vote for funding. How many will do as Dear Leader and vote "present"?

I vote for Reid and Pelosi, or any other millionaire politician or movie star to fund Planned Parenthood privately. The American public taxpayer should not have to spend one cent on this entitlement that has been milking the system for decades.

121 106 Yep.  My fear as well.  To quote myself:  If the cuts are too small, I think the Republican Caucus will reject it, which then makes the Republicans be the ones shutting down the government, and Boehner looking the fool.

They agreed to the cuts. Where things get difficult is that two sides within the party (Jordan vs. McCarthy) are now going to be leaning on them and some within RSC are going to drive it for all it's worth. But whether the leadership knew that before they voted on it during their conference meeting is an unknown. It will be interesting to see whether pressure from talk radio to get the leadership to renege is going to change anything. If the freshmen and certain others get "spooked" by reaction from their districts, this will not last. But this is all speculation from reactions in The Hill.

122

The best salesman for future budget cuts has been, ironically, the President himself.

Posted by Gabriel Malor at 01:33 PM New Comments Thingy

I think Obama is so detached from the budget process that he barely listens when he's briefed on it. And since he only cares about himself, he is going to say whatever seems to place him favorably for re-election. Thus, the senate, and House Dems will fight spending cuts, while Obama makes soothing noises, and then attempts to take credit for the cuts to create an image of fiscal responsibility.

The man lives in a bubble, thinking only of himself.

123 "And now, because of Boehner's oh-so-reasonable demeanor, there will be a floor vote on corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood."

Which will be defeated in the Senate, so what exactly did the Speaker gain here? Nothing.....

124 But some have tried to prove it's true. IMO, my fear all along was that Boehner would lose a shutdown in spite of some efforts by his members.

There are no communications majors in the GOP.

Though I have heard that the purpose was to show that we can live without government. Rush especially was arguing that and I've seen it on a # of blogs.

That's more of a punchline than a claim. I mean, yeah, a handful of people have that reaction, but my argument was always "if they didn't have that much influence in your life, would you care if they had a temper tantrum?

I would argue part of that is being done in the 2012 fight. As for the $500B in cuts, FY 2011 ends on Sept. 30th and Obama has either spent or allocated a majority of the money. So that money would have had to have been outside the '11 budget.

We're still so far outside of solvent that fixing it is gonna suck, and the longer it takes the more it will suck. Yeah, we have to deal with the possible, but frankly a complete and utter fucking collapse is possible, we don't want to go there. Well, the conservatives don't, Bill Ayers and Frankie Piven do.

You joke but I've been given that answer.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 09, 2011 03:14 PM (uVLrI)

I just thought the question was structured as to prevent an answer, no offense.

125 Why don't you rethugs just give up?

126

106  Now they have a comeback when the Dems screech about them being the uncompromising party of "no", right?  Right now the Democratic base is up in arms that they have been sold out (and from an extremist view, they have been -- because they wanted all of their wishes granted and didn't get that)...does the Republican base want to act exactly like the Dems and be upset that they didn't get everything?  Or are you willing to say "ok", and work at getting a bit more and a bit more?

Or will you tear the whole thing down and then possibly wind up with nothing? I'm just pointing this out because I've noticed that a lot of people seem to be going the route of "all or nothing", win/lose thinking.  This wasn't a win, but it wasn't a loss either, and I think you guys actually came out a bit ahead...now, chin up over not getting everything you wanted...time to put pressure on senators going into that up down vote; many of them are in vulnerable districts

127 We've come out as the responsible and reasonable side here.  We are in great shape to change the direction of the fiscal ship now.  Those who wanted us to go to the mattresses over this amount of chump change just aren't very politically savvy.

Posted by: Adjoran at April 09, 2011 03:14 PM (VfmLu)

JeffB, is that you?

128 Thanks Paper. I am guessing that PP now gets block grants and therefore does not have to deal with medicaid red tape to help make ends meet. Well why should THEY be exempt from all the triplicate forms other health groups have to find man hours to fill out?

129 The fact is that we will not control events. Events will control us. It's inevitable because we act like we have all sorts of time. We don't.

This. With gas well over 4$ now, we're going to be "double-dipping" this summer. Which means less tax receipts. Which means despite the herculean cuts accomplished by the GOP, the deficit for this calendar year will be worse than last year. The only question is whether the panic as the coming downturn sets in will result in the sensible fleeing US Treasuries.

short version-we have weeks, maybe months, not years.

130 Now we have the high ground for the fight over the real money in the FY 2012 budget.

Oh good, I was worried that the $1.6 trillion fucking dollar deficit in 2011 might be real money.

131

#122, this is kinda what you are saying as well.

I'm anti-abortion, so don't take what I say to be otherwise, but I've always wondered about this.

There are about 1 million abortions performed per year. I've seen numerous studies that say that medical abortions cost anywhere between $400 and $600. This means that the medical cost of abortions is somewhere around $400 million to $600 million.

Wouldn't a couple large liberal donors or organizations be able to fund a non-profit that could pay for this? Between Buffett, Gates, and all the other people who support abortion, I'm pretty sure they could fund an organization with a couple billion in assets and yearly revenues to take care of their 'project'?

Just another example in my mind that liberals just don't want their way, but they want you to pay for the things they think are important 'rights'.

132 Which will be defeated in the Senate, so what exactly did the Speaker gain here? Nothing.....

Posted by: Raxter54 at April 09, 2011 03:20 PM (ErQFR)

Purple senators don't want to vote for government-funded abortion with a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit and over 50% of the people in the country being at least nominally pro-life.  Increasing for a long time.   I would not assume all Dems are going to fall on their swords for PP.  

133

@26: "I wonder how many inner-city black kids' lives will literally be saved by this Republican move. I wonder if they'll ever know."

Of course, we will now need more social programs to care for them, the Dems will see to that.  And you can bet that those kids will be absolutely sure which party gave them their free stuff.  While it's clearly a moral victory, it's a lot less so as a financial matter.  Ugh - what a sick society LBJ created and Congress has chosen to maintain.

134 I'm also very pleased after learning more about the package in the deal.

135 Of course ace himself was pretty unimpressed last night and he owns the show, so you might want to reevaluate it. Posted by: Methos at April 09, 2011 03:14 PM Yep, he was even quoted in the American Thinker today: The GOP Made a Bad Deal Last night's budget compromise amounted to series of broken promises by the GOP, and it was a tremendous opportunity lost. No matter what the accounting tricks and PR machinations say, the simple facts are that the GOP promised conservatives $100 billion in cuts, and didn't deliver. Worse yet, the GOP misread its mandate for massive spending reform, and will suffer for it to the benefit of Democrats. Here's why: 1. There's too much at stake. This was last week's talking point -- one the GOP may have relinquished last night -- but it's impossible to underestimate the threat that that spending presents. Blogger Ace of Spades captured things nicely in writing that even Rep. Ryan's proposed budget cuts are necessary, but hardly sufficient. "If you believe that the GDP will start growing at a healthy rate and continue at that rate forever, and if you manage to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and if you reform the budget process, and if you reform the tax code, and if you accomplish all these reforms in FY12, then you might be able to pay off this year's spending within 11 to 12 years. Or maybe the decade after. This is what the President and his crackerjack economic team have wrought. A one-year deficit that is so large that it can only be paid back if everything goes exactly right." In the broader "spending-us-into-oblivion" context, last night's compromise struck exactly the wrong note. Forget "runaway spending." Ever seen Unstoppable?

136 Fuck it. Let's default on everything. Hold an ICBM garage sale. Sell the Great Lakes and everything West of the Rockies to China.

137 121 it's not about crucifing anyone, and it's not even about which party is winning, we are now in a position where one poison or another must be chosen, people have clearly and consistently expressed their chioce, the only reason there is any arguement here is the arrogance and denial of the leaders of both parties.

For some time now politics has been all about picking your poison. Some of the conservative lawmakers have been forced to make that choice themselves with some of these controversial votes. With the situation we're presented right now, there really are no good options. I think too many people-- including Majority Whip McCarthy* in The Pledge-- thought this was going to be a cake-walk, that Obama and Reid would finally triangulate. Remember what we were saying about that last year?  

_{*McCarthy is an excellent recruiter but he's not so skilled at predicting practical outcomes, which is actually part of his job.}

138

@44: "Nice job Boehner.  How does Obama's dick taste?"

See, all those Reichwing Rethuglikkkan extremists were right, I *am* a dictator.  And now you all know how my dick tate.

139 I would not assume all Dems are going to fall on their swords for PP.  

Posted by: Beagle at April 09, 2011 03:24 PM (sOtz/)

Especially with the example of the 2010 House elections. Even as insulated as they are, they have to know this could happen to them. Being a smart military blog, I will point out that as the Russians advanced on Berlin, many Nazis tried to get transferred westward, and at the end, simply skipped town.

My point? If it seems like it will save their careers, watch for some Ds to vote R, not from conviction, but from self-preservation.

140

Merovign,

First things first, to have any hope of implementing a true solution, Congress needs to truly be whitewashed.  The 2010 elections were very encouraging that we can turn this around, but what we learned last night and over the past weeks is that the fight has just begun.  Guys like Boehner and Cantor need to go.  In my opinion a massive effort needs to be put together to get these guys voted out in 2012.  A clear and decisive message needs to be sent to the Republicans at large that if they aren't going to be true to their constituents and promises they'll get sent home too.  The RINO acronym is 100% true and there are a lot of 'em.

We need a true leader like Paul Ryan or Ron Paul as the Speaker.

If I thought a 3rd party would have any meaningful effect, I'd be all for it.  But such as it is, I think it would just divide the vote and make things worse.  I think the most realistic solution is to turn the Republican party around.  Keep doing what started in 2009-2010 times 10.  If that proves to simply be impossible then make sure you have food and ammo storage to protect your family.  People call the doom and gloomers nuts, but this really is happening.  Does anybody think I'm nuts for suggesting this?  If so I'd like to know what you think is going to happen if we keep going down this road of debt? 

And keep in mind, this isn't just about the current 14+ trillion in debt, it's also about all the unfunded liabilities, aka social security, medicare, and medicade.  Obamacare further adds to this.  Other entitlements add even more.  We can't even calculate for sure what all the entitlements add up to, but estimates are around 50-100 trillion in additional debt. 

The problem isn't just about reducing current spending.  Even if we cut current spending levels in half and balance the budget, we still have to figure out how to pay back the current 14+ trillion while also paying for the 50-100 trillion in existing unfunded liabilities headed our way.  It may not even be possible, the CBO doesn't think it is.

But the bottom line is people need to wake the heck up and stop making excuses for guys like Boehner and giving them endless chances.  Enough is enough.  This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue.

There are lots of good guys in there.  Paul Ryan seems to have a very good plan.  His budget is an excellent practical first step.  And that's really the important point, most think Ryan's plan is "radical" and are against it.  When in fact the opposite is true.  The CBO doesn't think even a Ryan-style plan is enough to correct the course we're on.  Ryan himself says it's just a first step.  More would need to be done in the years to follow.  But given what we just witnessed, do you think his plan has a chance of going anywhere with the folks currently in office?  No way.

141 sifty: "Fuck it. Let's default on everything. Hold an ICBM garage sale. Sell the Great Lakes and everything West of the Rockies to China."

Can we throw in D.C.? Please? We could even gift-wrap it in tar and feathers.

142

I think this is a win, and, with proper input to Congress from our fellow citizens, conservatives and other responsible adults, I think we will do better next time.

We see Dingy Hairy's abilities; he has the skill of a 4th grader.  Even Chris Dodd has superior abilities; after all, he partied with Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy for decades, likely heard Ted make an incriminating admission or 500, and has not been investigated as potentially being an accessory after the fact.

There's debate on the failure to defund Planned Parenthood.  I think the later scheduled discussion in the Senate, even if Dingy Hairy prevents discussion, will hurt the D's. Badly. But the events need to be made very public.

I read, I think 2 days ago, that there is about $1.8billion or so of federal money that went to PP, and is completely unaccounted for.  How about an explanation? Why is Dingy Hairy so defensive about PP? What does he know?

There seem to be claims that PP does mammograms. Is this true? My understanding is that they only offer various forms of birth control and counseling.  Trumpet the truth from every street corner. Keep doing it.

Make the video, about PP pushing abortions on underage girls and avoiding parental notification/consent, go viral again, right about the time the PP question hits the Senate.

Hang the Thing From Philadelphia, the one who murdered newly-born-and-still-living-babies, on the Democrats. He is one of them, after all. The D's made him possible and protected him from investigation. Make sure everyone knows.

 

143 With the size of this years deficit, we needed about a trillion in cuts, we got 38B, this is pretty terrible...

144 The Dems desperately wanted the shutdown. It was the only card they had. Boehner made them fight for a shutdown over abortion funding. The Dems realized they had been played and folded. The debate has been changed from how much to spend to how much to cut. This was just one early battle. We won it.

145

 

The best salesman for future budget cuts has been, ironically, the President himself

 

He is thinking about getting re-elected and knows he'll get hammared on this by the GOP if he stands with dingy harry

146 Voting for Planned Parenthood and abortion in general isn't a vote for Democrats. It's a religious act.

These scumbags didn't turn off the crazy during Obamacare, they won't turn it off now.

Defunding PP would require a conversion, not changing their minds.

147 It is impossible to get the really big cuts we need this year. Impossible. We need victories in 2012 first.

148 142:

You sounded semi sane until you said Ron Paul.

149 126 There are no communications majors in the GOP.

Yes, but we also have a problem that everything they do from legislation to pressers is not reported. Yesterday was probably the 1st time in a long time that people remembered who Boehner was.


That's more of a punchline than a claim. I mean, yeah, a handful of people have that reaction, but my argument was always "if they didn't have that much influence in your life, would you care if they had a temper tantrum?

It was one of the most popular reasons for a shutdown on some parts of Facebook and conservative blog sites. Some people really wanted to show the American Idol crowd that bureaucracy of this magnitude is not necessary. That's a perfectly legitimate argument, but I'm wondering if that's more the reason that people are upset rather than that they thought we'd get a great deal on cuts. After all, the longer this occurred the less we would get.


We're still so far outside of solvent that fixing it is gonna suck, and the longer it takes the more it will suck. Yeah, we have to deal with the possible, but frankly a complete and utter fucking collapse is possible, we don't want to go there. Well, the conservatives don't, Bill Ayers and Frankie Piven do.

At this point, we're only delaying the inevitable.


I just thought the question was structured as to prevent an answer, no offense.

It's a serious question from watching some of the reaction. If it's a false narrative, then it's a false narrative.

150 It is impossible to get the really big cuts we need this year. Impossible. We need victories in 2012 first. Posted by: eman: Japanese Babe Rescue Team at April 09, 2011 03:35 PM (dT+/n) Amen

151

how long can you spend almost twice as much as you take in? how long can you spend 150% of what you take in? 125%?, 110%?...

the answer to all of them is "not long"

and that doesn't even touch on the debt we all ready have.

 

that messy old "practical" reality WILL have it's way in the end, that's a fact. 

152 >> I am going to cease and desit in making Gabe look like deep sea fishing chum, before I get banned.

I am pissed.

 

Seems so to me.

 

Don't take tylenol for a bit. 

153 145 With the size of this years deficit, we needed about a trillion in cuts, we got 38B, this is pretty terrible...

Posted by: Doc Merlin at April 09, 2011 03:30 PM (TC/9F)

How was Boehner supposed to get a trillion in cuts on partial year budget with only a majority in the house and no great popular support for such cuts? With a pistol to Obama's head?

I actually think he could have got more IF he had more support from the House, and IF he had more support from the people, and IF ...

We live in the world we live in and we deal with the hand we are dealt. Prepare to see our economy implode and a depression settle over the entire world the likes of which we have never seen. Get into survival prep in a serious way, and pray these oh so fallible men and women we sent to congress can turn back the tide of doom.

And don't forget to work like hell to elect better men and women in 2012, from your school board to the White House, and all points in between.

154

The Republican leadership promised $100 Billion in cuts and to repeal, and if not possible, defund Obamacare.

So far we have only gotten $38 Billion in cuts.  And Obamacare is being implemented with the $105 Billion stashed in the orginal law.

Republicans have until 2012 to defund Obamacare to fulfil that promise, or it will be known as Boehner-Obamacare.

Maybe Republicans (including DC consultants looking for gigs) like having a big program that businesses will be vying for contracts to implement and maintain.  The companies will be, in turn, donating to the party in power to keep their lock on the government teat.

Will Republicans be willing to cut off that sweet flow of cash in 2012?   Only if there are principled.  And all we see in Washington is a lack of principle.  I guess one can hope.

155 'm just pointing this out because I've noticed that a lot of people seem to be going the route of "all or nothing", win/lose thinking. This wasn't a win, but it wasn't a loss either, and I think you guys actually came out a bit ahead... now, chin up over not getting everything you wanted... Posted by: unknown jane at April 09, 2011 03:21 PM Speaking only for myself, I don't look at this crisis in which we find ourselves as a "win/lose" or "all or nothing" or "getting what I wanted". I read Monty's analysis every day here. I'm an engineer and numbers guy. I can do the math. This is not about politics. This is about the future of this nation to actually survive. So this isn't about "getting what I want", it's about "getting what will help this nation survive". People keep saying "well, it was the best that Boehner could get". Well, as far as politics is concerned, that might be a "win", but as far as the big picture is concerned, that's not good enough. Imagine we are all parents and our kids are held hostage, under the threat of being killed if the hostage taker's demands are not met. The negotiator comes back to tell the parents that he negotiated an extra 2 days for the children to stay alive, instead of the 2 hours the hostage takers were offering. Should the parents consider that "winning!"? Hell no. They should be righteously outraged that the negotiator has not done his job to get the children back alive. And it's also not on the parents to find a solution. So the talks of "well, what's *your* plan to get more than Boehner has gotten?" are meaningless. It is not our job to come up with the plan to save this nation. Boehner is *supposed* to be the expert here. *HE* is supposed to come up with the plan to save us. When he fails, we have every right to criticize him for doing so, even if we don't have a counter plan of our own. We are not experts. We all just suffer immensely because of his failures.

156 We had to fight a little bit before D-Day or there would never have been a D-Day.

Let's not keep surrendering 90% every time for the chance to win 95% the week before the whole fuckin country collapses.

157 Andrew: "The problem isn't just about reducing current spending. Even if we cut current spending levels in half and balance the budget, we still have to figure out how to pay back the current 14+ trillion while also paying for the 50-100 trillion in existing unfunded liabilities headed our way. It may not even be possible, the CBO doesn't think it is."

Exactly.

Granted, I don't have much confidence in CBO numbers because GIGO, but even with significant error and understating the liabilities (actual and projected), the numbers are crushing. The nation is addicted to crack and rather than go cold turkey, there's the illusion of kicking the habit by just cutting back a toke or two. Will. Not. Happen. We need an intervention. The intervention will be "events not under our control." That is the poison the nation has selected... or at least the poison our legislators will deliver to us because we don't insist on a real cure.

158 The first Republicans who need to go are the entrenched appropriators. While their are more conservatives on Appropriations this time, the hierarchy is comprised of individuals who are only out for themselves, in a worst way than most politicians. They have a committee structure that allows for them to fight for every last dollar, and the people on that committee are intelligent. E.g., Hal Rogers knows how to sell any plan in-place on a dime. He can be leaking to the press about how the cuts are terrible and will negatively affect the economy while arguing on the House floor that they're necessary steps because we're broke.

159

145 More terrible than none at all?  More terrible than a situation where the Republicans get swept out again in 2012 (with an economy that would no doubt be in worse shape)?

It's done; it's over with -- and you didn't exactly lose your shirts; in fact, you gained a few opportunities.  So instead of acting like you've lost your entire family, your dog, and your ice cream cone...call your congressperson, thank them for their efforts and reiterate that you are completely behind more being cut.

Boehner may not be perfect, but he's what you've got right now -- instead of pitching a fit (and undercutting the people you voted into office), why not work with what you've got?

The difference between the Dems/liberals and you guys is this: they push and piss and moan to get what they want, and they throw tantrums when they don't...but when push comes to shove, who are they out backing (really, how many Dems get voted out by their party after only one time or even two or three times in office)?  That's why they have kept winning for the last few decades, and you have lost.  Maybe it's time to quit that vicious cycle, hmm?

160 156 The Republican leadership promised $100 Billion in cuts and to repeal, and if not possible, defund Obamacare.

So far we have only gotten $38 Billion in cuts.  And Obamacare is being implemented with the $105 Billion stashed in the orginal law.

Heritage has a piece about the new bills defunding the slush funds within ObamaCare. They break-down each one. Also, defunding and repealing ObamaCare is in the '12 budget. Part of the savings from the '12 budget comes from doing that.

161 Posted by: Clyde Shelton at April 09, 2011 03:38 PM (NITzp) The plan to save us is underway. Here are some elements. 1) Use the Ryan Plan as a model for what needs to be done. 2) Use the Ryan Plan to educate the Public and hammer the Democrats 3) Change the model from spending levels to cutting levels. 4) Make the Democrats vote against cuts, and for spending and tax increases. 5) Use the records of 2011 and 2012 against the Democrats in 2012. 6) Keep the House, take the Senate and WH. 7) Enact the spending cuts we truly need.

162 Level-headed assessment, which is increasingly rare on conservative blogs.

163 I think that next time, somebody should tell the Armed Forces to strike, ala Wisconsin, since Obama deemed them "unnecessary".  The fact that he did, and it was his call, should be trumpeted during the elections.

164

No more Title X (which was passed, by the way, by Nixon). Medicaid for the low income and indigent, for screenings, but no more of crap on our dime.

Planned Parenthood has not decreased unwanted pregnancies with education in generations, it has made it easier with free birth control. When I hear of women using abortion as birth control, when there are so many couples wanting to adopt, it makes me livid. Kermit Gosnell should get more coming to him than prison. There is a special room in hell for him.

165

165 That was one of the potentially fatal errors the other side made.  It wouldn't have just been military that would have suffered from that shutdown.  How much of the local economies around the bases are dependent upon the troops getting their paychecks? 

And that needs to be something that is hammered in during the next go around...they were willing to destroy not just the troops' finances; therefore, they are not to be trusted anytime they say they are "for the people".

166 I've listed to parts of a few Budget Committee hearings and these individuals are in this for the long-hull, and their votes reflect that. They are serious, they know what's coming, they demonstrate mutual trust and respect, and I think they're going to keep fighting even if the moderates inside the conference flee if the polls start turning. So they may be the last ones standing-- with the backing of their fellow RSC members and the freshmen-- but they will fight for their budget.

167 People keep saying "well, it was the best that Boehner could get". Well, as far as politics is concerned, that might be a "win", but as far as the big picture is concerned, that's not good enough.

Well said. I'll defer to others about whether this was a fine bit of negotiation, excellent tactics, and the best that could be expected. The reality is that if $40 billion in cuts when the deficit is $1,600 billion is all that's "possible", there is serious bonage in store. And not in 20 years. Not in 10 years.

168 161:

Yes. Let's keep our guys in office for 40-50 years. Just in the off chance they will occasionally do the right thing in between election years.

Let's keep John McCain and Lindsay Graham in office until they shit the pew and fall over dead during session.

We need some Republican Robert Byrds!

If the GOP know they won't be fired, why the Hell would they listen to a word some simpleton like me says on the phone or in a letter?

Only the fear of financial hardship, fatwas, and humiliating job loss are motivating to politicians.

I'm about as politically active as a man with a shitty public education, poor family, and spotty past can be. And even I know that MORE job security is the last thing the GOP needs.

Fuck goodwill. We need to govern the GOP with fear.

169

170 Yes, by all means at the first hint of a reversal throw the baby out with the bathwater; that will certainly be a winning strategy.

 

170 In 2010, Planned Parenthood and a California affiliate together spent more than $700,000 on federal lobbying efforts, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal lobbying records finds. By comparison, all other organizations that primarily advocate for abortion rights collectively spent $247,280 on federal lobbying efforts during the same period, according to the CenterÂ’s research. Â…

The organization’s political action committee, for example, donated more than $148,000 to federal candidates — almost all Democrats — during the 2010 election cycle. The PAC spent more than $443,000 overall.

Planned Parenthood also recorded $905,796 in independent expenditures during the 2010 cycle — money spent in support of, or in opposition to, federal political candidates, largely through advertisements. The top beneficiaries of this money were Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

171 Yes, by all means at the first hint of a reversal throw the baby out with the bathwater; that will certainly be a winning strategy. Posted by: unknown jane at April 09, 2011 03:53 PM (5/yRG) And raise your water bills

172 I won't be happy until they cut 1.6 trillion and pass a balanced budget amendment. I have to live on a balanced budget, why can't my government?

173 How do McCain and Graham keep getting elected anyway? The Senate has been a thorn in the side of House Republicans for some time now and those two certainly haven't helped.

174 170 And I did not say, you must be exactly like the Dems...but sometimes a bit of continuity is not necessarily a bad thing for the long haul.  I am pointing out that now might not be a good time to be focusing on voting out people just because you didn't get everything you wanted.  In fact, it could be a very bad idea -- focus on getting to the goal one step at a time, not on the shoulda/woulda/coulda for right now, hmm?

175 What the flying fuck is this horseshit?

176 This was just a minor skirmish in the bigger budget war and eman has it right.  We can also use the debt cap to get a balanced budget amendment.  I would add to that amendment that Congress stops getting paid 1 October if a balanced budget is not passed in any year.  If that had been in the 1974 law you bet your ass they would have passed some serious piece of crap and we might have taken the Senate. 

We need to keep the pressure on and win cuts whenever we can and then take the Senate in a big way, so regardless what the dumb-ass independents do in regards to the White House we can still neuter the President.  Not all independents are dumb-asses but there is a very large group that vote like it is still high school and those are the ones I am talking about.

177 It seems to me that the women one this blog have been, with regard to this debate, more reasoned.

_{Let the fighting commence.}

178 let's go back to Feb 2009 Remember how We Must Do Something, And We Must Do It Now? The Democrats & Obama said we were in an economic crisis and We Must Spend $800B to fix the economy. But here we are in a *real* crisis and all our side can do is get a measly $38B in cuts until October. That sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks.

179 How do McCain and Graham keep getting elected anyway? The Senate has been a thorn in the side of House Republicans for some time now and those two certainly haven't helped.

Out and out laziness. People too fucking lazy to do their homework vote 'present', in essence, by voting for the name they recognize.

180

Because I am a numbers nerd, I spent a few hours doing some Internet research. In the last 4 years that Congress was in the hands of Democrats (2006-2010), here’s an idea of just how much the “Party of the People” cares about Blacks, Hispanics, and women:

Planned Parenthood – Abortions provided in 2006: 289,750
Planned Parenthood – Abortions provided in 2007: 305,310
Planned Parenthood – Abortions provided in 2008: 324,008
Planned Parenthood – Abortions provided in 2009: 332,278
————————————————————————Total Abortions provided by PP 2006-2009: 1,251,346

When Democrats controlled Congress from 2006-2009:
No. of Blacks aborted (2007 CDC 38.1% rate): 476,763
No. of Hispanics aborted (2007 CDC 21.2% rate): 265,285
No. of females aborted (assuming a 50/50 split): 625,673
————————————————————————

Total PP Abortions during ObamaÂ’s 1st 2 yrs. in office: 656,286

No. of Blacks aborted (2007 CDC 38.1% rate): 250,045
No. of Hispanics aborted (2007 CDC 21.2% rate): 139,133
No. of females aborted (assuming a 50/50 split): 328,143

These are just the numbers from Planned Parenthood – the numbers from the CDC are quite a bit higher (I assume the PP numbers are rolled into the CDC’s numbers, but I’m not sure). The PP numbers are roughly equivalent to 37% of the CDC’s numbers – in 2007, 827,609 abortions were REPORTED to the CDC; many states/cities (mostly Democratically-controlled) are not required to report all of the abortions that are performed (note: California has NEVER reported their abortion numbers to the CDC).

However, if you go to the Guttmacher Institute's latest report on Abortion Incidence in the US, you will find that 1,209,600 abortions are estimated to have been performed in 2007 alone.  (In that same report, California's numbers ARE reported; let's just say they're going to Hell and leave it at that.)

If you get further into the weeds, it turns out that the number of future taxpayers pre-emptively killed since 1973 is over 46,000,000 and counting (that's 46 MILLION for any Democrats reading this who might not be very good at math). 

What does that mean?

That's 23,000,000 women killed in just over 25 years by the "Party of Women's Rights".

That's 16,790,000 black children killed by the party which claims to champion African American rights (using 2007 CDC percentage of 36.5%).

That's 9,752,000 Hispanic children killed by the party which claims to care about Hispanic causes.

These numbers need to be shoved in Democrats' faces early and often - and please do use the phrase "pre-emptively killed"; it's what they're doing, after all.  They OWN these numbers.

And do remind them which party has tried their level best for the past 25+ years to prevent these killings from happening and then ask them which party REALLY cares about the rights of women, blacks, and Hispanics.....

181

Focus on supporting the House in any cuts they can make going forward; focus on putting the electoral heat on those Dems in shaky districts (this situation can put them into a hot seat); focus on removing some of the thorns in the House's side (but not before you focus on removing the Dems).  Keep building on what has been started.

Or pitch a fit, completely start over from square one, and see where it takes us all (could be a huge win...could also be a devastating loss too).

 

182

Oh, and the President was also a terrible negotiator for Democrats. He kept applauding the Republican plans. Boehner got billions in budget cuts in each of the last two CRs. Each time, Obama went on television and praised them! Meanwhile, Reid is standing there trying to portray each successive budget cut as "extreme." It happened over and over.

Oh my! It's like we're forcing Obama to move to the right and be reasonable and nice with us. Then everyone will see him as a moderate who's moved to the center in time for the 2012 election and they'll re-elect him just in time for the healthcare bill to start kicking in.

But that's OK, because the people who love him will love us. His wonderfully creased pants will be merciful and spare us, so a republican Senate can continue to compromise with him out of 'neccessity' and not face the abject horror of pondering trying to oppose or replace him with someone like Donald Trump, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty leading the charge.

But next time, believe me, we promise, it's gonna rock! We've got him right where we want him, and we're about to suck his brains right out.

183 Miss'80sBaby: "How do McCain and Graham keep getting elected anyway?"

Incumbent inertia, party machine, and "yeah, but he's better than the other guy and we shouldn't rock the vote because the challenger is too extreeeeme! for the moderates." But you knew this already.

184 I am not Boehner supporter, so if what he did was so great, what were the cuts? These cuts that all the msm hail including Gabe here, seems fishy to me. When the establishment gopers, dems and msm are finsihed patting themselves on back we shall see if it benefits the country. I have many doubts, all we can do is keep the fire to their feet and raise the bar for them because they have it set very low.

185 And what's the story with the half-pay from the Pentagon to the members of the armed forces? If that's still on schedule to continue...

186 Well I have already read accounts in the media that this is a sign Obama has moved to the middle. Riiiiight.

187 180 ...But here we are in a *real* crisis and all our side can do is get a measly $38B in cuts until October.

That sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks.

It does, and the Dems are complicit because they want this country to fall, but that shouldn't take-away from the fact that they just surrendered and gave-away precious leverage. Obama agreed to so many provisions regarding ObamaCare that he essentially signed its death warrant, among other things, and I for one am surprised the Dems weren't smarter than that. Reid deserved every bit of the thrashing he took last night.

188 And what's the story with the half-pay from the Pentagon to the members of the armed forces? If that's still on schedule to continue... Posted by: Soothsayer Maximus at April 09, 2011 04:04 PM (hBqOU) That was only if there was a gov shut down and there will not be in all likelyhood

189

188 Well of course the WH was going to spin it that way -- look at it this way: let the Senate Dems feel the same pressure that the House Dems did a year ago (who were conveniently thrown under the bus, now weren't they?).

By all means, the president has worked in favor of the people over his own party in the senate...by all means...

190 better not be 'cuz that would be the last straw

191 Or pitch a fit, completely start over from square one, and see where it takes us all (could be a huge win... could also be a devastating loss too). Posted by: unknown jane at April 09, 2011 04:01 PM A more devastating loss than the current GOP which has done nothing but allow our current devastating crisis to occur? You're suggesting we should keep the likes of Graham and McCain and Murkowski and Brown and all the Maine sisters and all the other GOP "moderates" who have done nothing over the past 10 years (or however long each have been in office) but contributed to the ever growing size of government? That's the "continuity" we should keep? UGH. And really, I don't understand accusing people of "pitching a fit" who are looking at a $1+ Trillion crisis and watching conservative and the GOP call it "winning!" when they negotiate for $38bil. Everyone in this nation should be "pitching a fit" about this situation. This is not a game.

192 185 Incumbent inertia, party machine, and "yeah, but he's better than the other guy and we shouldn't rock the vote because the challenger is too extreeeeme! for the moderates." But you knew this already.

I think both states can frankly do better, but they haven't because they prefer individuals who will give them things while occasionally saying the right thing. So they don't want to change.

193 YES, we could have shut down the government over the few billion in cuts we could identify in the 2011 spending, BUT anyone who thinks we would then be able to shut it down AGAIN over the FY 2012 budget just doesn't live in reality.

Step away from the bong, and take a few deep breaths.

All these big-mouthed morons haven't a clue as to how they would get their own cuts passed, or even what they are, exactly.  They just scream out their demands, like islamic rage boys.

"Nothing is impossible to the man who doesn't have to do it."

194

Of course, just to set expectations here...

We may have to face the prospect of finding out the epic, die-hard recalcitrance of tea party types trying to over-reach and shut down the whole goddarn great big ole goverment, all at once like, has cost us dearly again, just as we said it would and it did in '94, because we still won't have the senate and may loose a few numbers in the house when we run behind someone with the affect of Jon Huntsman, or of someone who lost the last primary to John McCain.

But that just means you aren't giving us enough of your money! We need grassroots efforts here, to fight the good fight, save the country! Save your children! Kill the muslims! Protect the unborn and repeal the healthcare act and the department of education too, in the next 30 years just like the last! For America!

195 I had a number in the back of my head. I said to myself, "Self, if the Republicans can get at least $50B in cuts, I won't be pissed." $38B is an embarrassment.

196 Sorry, Gabe, you are not getting it, at all.  The whole point was for Reid to take the extreme position, so that Obama could appear "Presidential" as he pivoted to the center by playing the adult who forced compromise on recalcitrant Congressional children, single handedly averting the dreaded government shutdown.  No one gives a shit about Harry Reid right now, least of all Harry Reid, as he won't face reelection for 5 years; it's all about protecting Obama and positioning him for the win in 2012, and hoping that the President gains enough momentum to limit or reverse the expected damage in the House and the Senate.  Obama and Reid just rolled Boehner, and all of the cute little goodies that the Republican spin machine is crowing over (like the stand alone votes and defunding abortion in DC) won't change that fact.  Chump change aint the jackpot, baby, no matter how shiny those nickles.   

197 188 Well I have already read accounts in the media that this is a sign Obama has moved to the middle. Riiiiight.

That's not what they were saying last night. But hey, when you run out of ideas you switch to old clichés. Still, it doesn't change the fact that they were angry last night, and many remain that way still.

198 our interest payments are $200B/yr

199 Donna@188,

Yep. As Entropy@184 described, let the triangulation begin. Team Reid is the foil. That is his sole function from here on out. Safe Democrat Senators will carry the Schumer Scream of Extreme^TM far and wide and the "moderates" will be whipped into voting the expedient way except when they can't because of local constituency blowback.

The 2012 campaigns have hit another gear.

200 >>Clyde Shelton at April 09, 2011 04:08 PM (NITzp) So what is the plan you and those who hate what happened yesterday would like to have seen enacted? They weren't getting more than they did so were you looking for a shutdown? How exactly would we be in a better position today?

201 My opinion is that we're wasting valuable energy over FY '11 when we should be fighting-for FY '12. If we keep trying to revisit this one-- which both sides will admit is just chump change-- then we aren't going to get anywhere. Entitlement and tax reform, discretionary and mandatory cuts, budgetary process reform, and a whole host of other issues should now take precedence. It is imperative that the entire GOP realize this fact as well, from the most liberal Republican to the most libertarian. 

202 I think we need to focus on reducing the size of government and reducing spending.  The deficit reduction will follow. 

But I'm a little drunk. 

203 Guess what? They just had a groundbreaking ceremony for the Edward Kennedy Memorial Museum College Whatever Center. Total projected price: $98M They raised $60M from private donations. The balance, $38M, is coming from federal funds. John Kerry, if you recall, snuck in a rider to a defense spending bill for those funds. And they have the nerve to even suggest half pay or no pay for the members of the military? Anyway, we can't afford this type of waste, anymore. Shutting down the govt if not for anything else but principle was the right thing to do.

204

193  And you are letting your disappointment get the better of you.

I've already addressed everything you talk about in posts up above.  You have some cuts rather than none, a Senate that now has to face an up down vote on some key issues for them at election time, and a president who has made an unmitigated ass of himself (plus a media that have also shown their true colors in trying to cover and spin his ass-ish-ness).

Would you prefer to cast those opportunities aside because you didn't get everything you wanted?

Without the Coral Sea, there would have been no Midway.  No, there was no "win" here...but you didn't lose either, so be thankful for that and keep going, huh?

205 A shutdown opens the debate. It raises awareness, to borrow a cliche.

206 Miss you are so correct in the fact that we need to let this go and move on to the battle over the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget.  We have seen how the other side is going to play, so we come in with hard facts and use their own quotes against them again and again.  This is only the start and we currently have limited forces, so we have to fight smart and not go scorched earth on ourselves or potential 2012 voters.

207 Shutting-down the government does not eliminate spending; it merely freezes spending at current levels. It would provide some savings, yes, but it would not eliminate the liberal spending binge.

208 >>>Obama agreed to so many provisions regarding ObamaCare that he essentially signed its death warrant... I'd take solace in that, normally, but if I know anything about Democrats it's that they are like the Palestinians -- they never keep their word.

209 Please change the title of this post to: A Good First Tiny Baby Step.

210 OT: Hey Vic, if you're still here.  Nice analogy with the well back at the Net Neutrality discussion.  I'm stealing it.  I kept trying to think of something having to do with farms and crops.

211

OK.... question...

Is this a CUT? ie, are we going to be spending less this year than last... or... is this just the Washington 2 step of a cut to the GROWTH of government.

I'm not reading this as cuts to Obamas PROPOSED budget?  The one that GREW the Government????

Because even the Governments own sites, pre this deal, showed the Government GROWING this year...

2010: 3591.1 Billion in spending

2011: 3614.8 Billion in spending pre deal... so now 3,611.0?  but still an INCREASE over last year??? does somebody have other hard numbers on what the deal allows? (not the Washington spin numbers?)

 

 

212 211 I'd take solace in that, normally, but if I know anything about Democrats it's that they are like the Palestinians -- they never keep their word.

I think Reid will hold that vote but he'll bully his conference into trying to save Obama's reputation. But I don't think he can weasel his way out of this agreement because all the D.C. circulars, little newspapers, and others have a record which states that he agreed to this. The only way I see him escaping is if Boehner scheduled it so far down that road that everyone will forget.

213 It does no good to get angry over something that was never possible.

214 206 The thing is the president did not look presidential (it's probably impossible for this man to do so), and the vulnerable senate Dems now have Harry's antics to answer for (as well as the antics of an unpresidential precedent); it is their party after all -- make them.

215 >>A shutdown opens the debate. It raises awareness, to borrow a cliche. Bullshit. The conversation has been going on for years. You have zero way of knowing if it would have helped and a very good reason to believe the public at large who doesn't give a rip about this crap 99% of the time would have seen the Republicans as the problem because the msm would have told them so 7 x 24 just like they always do. Do you not think having Harry Reid and Barack Obama admit that this was only a first step of cuts toward getting our fiscal house in order helps "raise awareness"? And you would have the military not being paid, yeah, that would have worked well for us with 3 wars going on. Not to mention tax returns not getting processed and any other thing the dems and the msm could have done to paint the Republicans as extremists. And then in 2 short weeks when the debt ceiling negotiations begin in earnest we would have had zero leverage having shot our wad on last years budget to do squat. Not to mention the 2012 budget the Republicans are going to present which proposes over $6 trillion in structural debt reduction. Some of you either aren't seeing the big picture or your just professionally pissed off.

216 The last Republican congress budget was 2007. We spent 2.73 Trillion with a deficit of 162 billion. The 2010 budget was 3.552 trillion with a deficit of 1.1 trillion.

This budget is now 3.82 trillion with a deficit of of 1.65 trillion after the supposed cuts.

So where is the cut?

Can you say boned to the bone and Monty doom⁹⁹ power?

But we won.

217 But I'm a little drunk.

I recently discovered Daily's individual frozen drink pouches and I've been sampling all the flavors. So far, Pomegranate Acai Maragarita is my fave. But I just finished up a frozen lemonade and it was pretty good too.

Only $2 for a nice size, tasty drink that requires nothing more than a freezer and a straw.

218 okay, Jackstraw, but if the Republicans cave on the debt ceiling negotiations, what are you gonna say then?

219 eman: "It does no good to get angry over something that was never possible."

I'm more resigned than angry. That's not to say I'm not angry, of course.

220

Posted by: UNE at April 09, 2011 04:20 PM (mr7ct)

That looks like the end result of what happens when I try to spell my name when pissing in snow.

221
Only the fear of financial hardship, fatwas, and humiliating job loss are motivating to politicians.

I'm about as politically active as a man with a shitty public education, poor family, and spotty past can be. And even I know that MORE job security is the last thing the GOP needs.

Fuck goodwill. We need to govern the GOP with fear.

Posted by: sifty at April 09, 2011 03:51 PM (FhUzC)

 

fuck yeah! Honey Badgers are go!

222 We need to fight the air superiority of the MSM with hard truth here and with every one we talk to because they are going to propagandize our parents and grandparents to scare the hell out of them.  We also need to directly combat the union cavalry that will rush in to intimidate anyone that doesn't tow the Democrat party line. 

They failed in WI and if we stick together they will fail in the bigger budget fight.  This is going to be a tough fight until 2013, so we can't grow weary.

223 And then in 2 short weeks when the debt ceiling negotiations begin in earnest we would have had zero leverage having shot our wad on last years budget to do squat.

No what we have is the Dems know the Repubs will back away from any threat of a shutdown. There will be no negotiation. Negotiating with a Dem is like negotiating with a divorce lawyer. What is hers is hers and what is yours is hers as well.

224 226 So...the Dems will threaten the shutdown again; maybe let them?

225 From MSNBC <quote> :

The aide says he witnessed the president say to Speaker Boehner in the Oval Office, "John, I will give you D.C. I'm not happy about it."

But when Boehner later asked for the elimination of funds for Title X -- spending for women's health and family planning organizations that also provide abortion services, the aide said the president flatly refused.

The president replied, "Nope. Zero."

Boehner continued to push to discuss the funds, the aide recalled.

The President repeated: "Nope. Zero." 

"'John, this is it,'" the aide described the president as saying. "'This is it, John."There was a long pause as no one spoke in the Oval Office spoke.

The Planned Parenthood issue was resolved that Thursday night.

226 216

It does no good to get angry over something that was never possible.

But the anger certainly provides some visceral pleasure,  even if such anger is worthless practically.

I dunno what people were expecting to happen if the gov't did shut down.  Magic fairies and unicorns weren't going to descend from the heavens and solve all our fiscal problems if nonessential gov't personnel got their paychecks delayed for a few days starting last night. 

/Then again, I think we're so boned anyway that whatever course correction is proposed now is too little, too late.

227 our interest payments are $200B/yr

at .280%   wait until its 2.8%

228

Posted by: Stir It Up, Little Darlin, Stir It Up at April 09, 2011 04:28 PM (piMMO)

Ah, the soothing tones of Marley. I should get that back in my library.

229 The Democrats wanted the shutdown. The Democrats wanted the shutdown. The Democrats wanted the shutdown. Ask yourself why.

230 It comes down to two things about this that makes me angry aside from the final monetary figure. 1. How and why would you negotiate with a side who's impugning your character and slandering you to the American people with outrageous and base accusations? 2. The continue funding of Planned Abortionhood and the EPA. We shoulda cut at least at one of those -- you know, as a compromise. But compromise means Republicans scrap all their demands instead of getting met halfway by the Democrats.

231

# 159 AnonymousDrivel - I don't really trust the CBO numbers either, they are often wrong, but in a bad way.  They generally underestimate the problem, their computer models assume things like economic growth which may or may not happen.  That's what makes them a good source though.  If they are saying things are dire, you know it's really bad.

# 161 anonymous jane

You said, "It's done; it's over with -- and you didn't exactly lose your shirts"

I don't mean to be rude, but are you an idiot?  Losing my shirt (and more) is exactly what happened.  Let's do some simple math.

Thanks to this "win" this years deficit will be about 1.7 trillion.  That is money we don't have.  1.7 trillion divided by 115 million (the number of households in the US) is $14,782 in debt liability per household to payoff JUST THIS YEARS DEBT.  Less than half of households pay even a cent in taxes.  86% of all federal income comes from the top 25% of earners.  Do you know who's in the top 25%?  Anybody making at least $67,000.  Spread across the top 25% that's $59,000 in tax liability PER HOUSEHOLD!

Again, just this year!  That's in addition to the taxes you're already paying.

This "win" will increase our debt from about 14 trillion to 16 trillion.  What is 16 trillion divided by 28.75 million households (the top 25%)?  $556,521.73 in tax liability!

Over half a million dollars!  That's just for current debt through this year!  Do you understand what I'm saying here?  Can you afford to pay half a million right now?

Unfunded liabilities turn this meager 16 trillion dollar problem into a 100+ trillion dollar problem.  Do you have 3.5 million laying around to donate to this cause?

Who gives a crap about t-shirts, we're talking about about entire lifetimes worth of personal earnings and savings!

232 229 Probably so -- but maybe with some luck we won't crash land too hard.  I think that would be the case whether $100B or 10...maybe it just won't crash too hard.  And there are other things besides the economy to consider.

233 The only winner that I see here is Obama. "Cuts" of proposed, new spending are not cuts. Republicans lose. A token vote on a measures that will go nowhere, Reid loses nothing. Neutral Obama does nothing but give up "spending" that never happened? Double win. One, the media will portray him as an epic negotiator who set aside partisan politics, crossed the aisle, blah, blah, blah. Sure we know better, but we'd vote for a rotten turnip before voting for him in 2012. He losing nothing from us, but makes a giant step toward getting the indie votes he needs. Win Two comes next years, when the media will report that despite giving in to Republican's draconian demands and signing the "largest budget cut in history" (yup, that's right they get to pretend that Obama did something "historic" and "unprecedented" again) millions more people are living in "Boehnervilles". See? Trickle down economics, tax breaks for the rich, blah, blah, blah, don't work. 5 gazillion more people would be alive today, if Republicans didn't force grandma to live on cat food for the past year. Oh... and Repubiicans hate women and minorities... So, for the price of a rounding error, Obama bought himself immediate "leadership" cred and a vast amount of steam his agenda. Yay! We won!

234 Only $2 for a nice size, tasty drink that requires nothing more than a freezer and a straw.

Straws suck.

heh.

235 216 It does no good to get angry over something that was never possible.

I'm unsure why it was ever thought to be possible. As I've said before, the Majority Whip created unrealistic expectations with his ridiculous Pledge*, but why the notion that Obama was going to change his mind about everything over this one? He and Reid are bad negotiators, yes, but they know enough to never give 100%. Yet Boehner went back there time and time again-- at the call of the entire House-- and got more out of both those two than I ever thought possible. Tiny baby steps? Yes, but I'm not sure why this is being spun like we received absolutely nothing.


_{*Which they've largely held-to, BTW}

236 >>okay, Jackstraw, but if the Republicans cave on the debt ceiling negotiations, what are you gonna say then? Your question presupposes they caved this time. They didn't. The Dems did. You won't find any serious analyst of DC outside conservative blogs who thinks this is remotely true. So no, I don't agree the caved with a group that wanted to increase spending. Obama's budget called for a $78 billion increase. I'm hopeful that the Republicans in Congress are going after the debt ceiling with the idea of getting another bite at the apple. If they get nothing then I will be disappointed. But the real battle is the '12 budget that Ryan has already laid out that has widespread support from Republicans in Congress that proposes over $6 Trillion in cuts. I don't know how many times this has to be stressed. This was the warm up act, the tone setter. You were never going to see hundreds of billions cut in this budget and if you believed you were then it is your own unrealistic expectations you should be upset with. The big battles are yet to come.

237 I would have preferred a shutdown with Obama refusing to pay the troops because he felt it was more important to pay for the abortions, but thats over now. I think we could have won that fight with the American people quite easily if a shutdown occurred and Obama would have been forced to sign anything to get them paid. He is their commander after all. But, the GOP went a different way. Fine. Obama handed us victory on a silver platter when he said he would veto the bill, and instead of using it, we handed him the platter right back lol. Lets see what they are willing to go to the mat for in the 2012 budget.

238

Posted by: Y-not hasn't read any of the comments at April 09, 2011 04:35 PM (pW2o

There's comments?

239 >>Obama's budget called for a $78 billion increase. Should have been $40 billion. $78 billion is how much he gave up in total.

240 233. Your number 1 point is spot on. It is quite disturbing that we are negotiating in good faith and compromising with people who say we are "killing women" among other colorful things. Not a peep on that from our courageous leadership.

241 >>>The big battles are yet to come. And the sand in the hour glass is running down. We're in a race to save this republic from dissolution before it all comes crashing down.

242

236 The only winner that I see here is Obama.

"Cuts" of proposed, new spending are not cuts. Republicans lose.

A token vote on a measures that will go nowhere, Reid loses nothing. Neutral

Obama does nothing but give up "spending" that never happened? Double win.

One, the media will portray him as an epic negotiator who set aside partisan politics, crossed the aisle, blah, blah, blah. Sure we know better, but we'd vote for a rotten turnip before voting for him in 2012. He losing nothing from us, but makes a giant step toward getting the indie votes he needs.

Duh, they're going to proclaim Obama and the Democrats as the winners no matter what.  They have two avenues for this.  They can say they won because they got the Republicans to backdown and prevented a government shutdown.  Or they can talk about how the evil Republicans force them into this corner to prevent a government shutdown and save all those people's jobs so the Republicans have been damaged due to their strong-arming ways.

243

234  No, you did not lose your shirts -- the Repubs could have wound up with nothing, no foothold going forward, and taken the blame for a shutdown as well.  While not a win, not a loss either.

Like I said, there are things besides the economy at play here -- things that might be just as important if not moreso. 

244 233 It comes down to two things about this that makes me angry aside from the final monetary figure.

1. How and why would you negotiate with a side who's impugning your character and slandering you to the American people with outrageous and base accusations?

It doesn't matter that the Dems are base and evil; Congress is required by law to pass a budget. We also wouldn't have received any spending cuts if we hadn't talked to them, since they control the Senate and the executive branch.

2. The continue funding of Planned Abortionhood and the EPA. We shoulda cut at least at one of those -- you know, as a compromise.

I'll take an up-or-down vote on Planned Parenthood so that Americans can see which party is really the Party of Death.

But compromise means Republicans scrap all their demands instead of getting met halfway by the Democrats.

We were never going to get the entirety of H.R. 1, but we did get more of it than Reid and Obama ever intended.

245 I think that using the size of the deficit - and the amount of money being wasted paying off the interest, etc - is a poor strategy for getting the American people behind reducing the size of the federal govt. 

Let's face it, even if the feds were efficient enough to run at current size without adding to the deficit, we'd want it to be smaller.  It's not the debt that matters, it's the intrusiveness of the feds and the dependence they're creating in regular people on the govt teat. 

So that's why I think things like cutting NPR (and PBS) are worth pursuing.  Helping the public to see and accept that the feds are not the source of all good things and don't need to be involved in everything.  We should fight that battle.  No lives are at stake and clearly those entities do not "need" federal support. 

Until we have the Senate and the White House (or at least the Senate, with the House) there's no point in getting all worked up a la Rand Paul about big numbers.  It's not doable.

I see this as the same as the abortion fight.  Whatever the law says, the battle is won or lost in the hearts and minds of people.  If people see abortion as truly not an option because it's immoral, then it will go away. 

If people accept that they do not need or want the federal government involved in every aspect of their lives, it will get smaller.

246 >>>but we did get more of it than Reid and Obama ever intended. you think so? I think Obama and Reid breathed a collective sigh: "Phew, I thought they were gonna hold out for at least $50B, hahahahaha!"

247 Nice analogy with the well back at the Net Neutrality discussion.  I'm stealing it.

Just saw your post, thanks.

248

I'll take an up-or-down vote on Planned Parenthood so that Americans can see which party is really the Party of Death.

The only problem with that is they don't talk about abortion.  I don't even think they mention Planned Parenthood when talking about it.  They say "Women's Health"

249 Soothsayer, are you saying you didn't see this coming?

250 I can imagine the meeting ending with Obama holding out his hand for a handshake with John Boehner: "Well, John, you sure do drive a hard bargain." And then Obama turns to Harry Reid and winks.

251 Shutting-down the government does not eliminate spending; it merely freezes spending at current levels. It would provide some savings, yes, but it would not eliminate the liberal spending binge.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 09, 2011 04:21 PM (uVLrI)

If they froze it at "current levels" it would have been a 350 billion "cut" the way they figure it. They are not cutting anything. They are increasing spending and the deficit by 300 billion dollars.

252

I'll take an up-or-down vote on Planned Parenthood so that Americans can see which party is really the Party of Death.

Miss'80sBaby at April 09, 2011 04:43 PM (uVLrI)

Most Americans have no idea what PP even does.

They are the epitome of evil and should be closed and their workers imprisoned.

253 Most Americans have no idea what PP even does.

Then somebody has been dropping the ball on education.

254 >>And the sand in the hour glass is running down. >>We're in a race to save this republic from dissolution before it all comes crashing down. And everyone here knows that. I was shouting Doom when Monty was knee high to a grasshopper. But if you were expecting to have a complete turnaround with the first battle when we don't have the Senate, don't have the Presidency, you were just kidding yourself. Look, I like the passion. We are certainly going to need it going forward. But let's recognize last night for what it was, the first step in a long battle. Someone up top compared the Liberals to terrorists. Ok, lets run with that. We've been fighting real terrorists in 2 active wars for a decade now. You don't win everything in one battle. You win by stacking lots of battles. People as diverse as Joe Mancin and Marco Rubio have already said they won't vote to raise the dbt limit with deficit action. I expect Dem defections to accelerate as they need to get elected next year and they saw what happened last fall. Last night is over. We won a small but significant battle. On to rounds 2 and 3.

255 Look, Vic is right. The proof is the fact that the Edward M Kennedy Center is still being funded. If cuts were being made, shit like that would be defunded. But, hey, maybe the Republicans stopped funding for a Dennis Kucinich Space Alien Outreach Center. Who knows.

256 254 If they froze it at "current levels" it would have been a 350 billion "cut" the way they figure it. They are not cutting anything. They are increasing spending and the deficit by 300 billion dollars.

A shutdown does indeed freeze spending levels, whereas this nibbles at the baseline a bit. They might have saved more money during a shutdown, but that's assuming they would have shutdown the government for a long-enough time for it to matter. The issue is that we really don't know.

257 We were NEVER going to get PP or Obamacare this round, nor enough money cuts to make much % difference.

We got some useful stuff.  Sure, Ø will veto Senate votes on PP & Obamacare, but every Senator has to go on record again, **Leading up to election in which we may well capture the Senate** on both, in a country that just crossed 50% dissaproving of abortion, and big majorities detest Øcare.  Øbama will veto both, in the face of these majorities. 

Leading up to these votes, all the lib crazies will be out in force, making lunatic videos and schizophrenic claims, for public observation.

Momentum changed from spending to cutting, with Dems trying to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon.

And a nice slogan: Dems would rather kill babies than pay our soldiers.

Setting up the stage for the 2012 budget voting, we are in better shape as sane, willing to compromise, responsible, and all that, after Dems didn't do their job in 2011.

258 If this is the best the GOP can do I'm sitting out 2012.

259 I still have not been able to find anything in the Ryan plan that actually cuts the 2012 budget. Everything talks about "ten years down the road".

Where have I heard that story before?

260 I wish the Repubs would point out that the precious right to women's health services provided by PP also includes free abortions to minors without requiring parental notification.

261 A shutdown does indeed freeze spending levels, whereas this nibbles at the baseline a bit.

Know it does not "reduce" the baseline by any amount, it increases the baseline spending even after their "cuts".

However, the "degree" of cut in this was not the issue. Backing away from a shutdown by failing on campaign promises is the issue. The Dems now don't just think they are yellow, they know they are.

262 Decks chairs, titanic.

Lipstick, pig.

Nope.

263 The truth is that this might demoralize the base in 2012. And it also might open the door for a Texan with big ears and a lot of poster-charts to enter the presidential race as a 3rd party candidate, which is the last thing we need in 2012. (Not saying Perot will run. Just saying a Perot-esque person might run.)

264 Vic
This article in Bloomberg implies cuts begin in October but I don't see specifics.

265 The deal mandates a host of studies and audits of Obama administration policies.

Something else to think about. A lot of good "audits" will do. Obama has already fired the few honest auditors the government had.

266 If this is the best the GOP can do I'm sitting out 2012.

Posted by: Ed Anger at April 09, 2011 04:55 PM (7+pP9)

Only Christie/Bolton will save us.

Ain't no fucking way I'm voting for any other of these douchebags.

267 JackStraw: "Obama's budget called for a $78 billion increase."

2011 US Budget - $3.82 trillion (Obama)
2010 US Budget - $3.55 trillion (Obama)
2009 US Budget - $3.11 trillion (Bush)

These numbers may not be exact but I think they're close enough. The change in FY'10 and FY'11 was ~ +$270 billion. At least that's how it starts out. I've lost track about what the ultimate baseline had become for the penciled in FY'11 number. The point is that the budget is a net increase from 2010. To say that it was less of an increase than we would have had is not very soothing. We need decreases from the previous budget, not a decrease from an increased one.

It's like the typical game of "cutting" when there's no actual cutting but a reduction in rate of increase. Who isn't willing to reduce phantom numbers when the ultimate end is still net growth in spending?

268 And a nice slogan: Dems would rather kill babies than pay our soldiers.

Posted by: jodetoad at April 09, 2011 04:54 PM (LFPYl)

But it wouldn't be "harsh" to phrase it that way, so you will never hear it from a Repub,

269

wish we could all gather our pennies and by an ad for t.v

blank white screen no sound. a piece of paper slides onto screen, no sound.

Thanks to this "win" this years deficit will be about 1.7 trillion.  That is money we don't have.  1.7 trillion divided by 115 million (the number of households in the US) is $14,782 in debt liability per household to payoff JUST THIS YEARS DEBT.  Less than half of households pay even a cent in taxes.  86% of all federal income comes from the top 25% of earners.  Do you know who's in the top 25%?  Anybody making at least $67,000.  Spread across the top 25% that's $59,000 in tax liability PER HOUSEHOLD!

Again, just this year!  That's in addition to the taxes you're already paying.

This "win" will increase our debt from about 14 trillion to 16 trillion.  What is 16 trillion divided by 28.75 million households (the top 25%)?  $556,521.73 in tax liability!

Over half a million dollars!  That's just for current debt through this year!  Do you understand what I'm saying here?  Can you afford to pay half a million right now?

Unfunded liabilities turn this meager 16 trillion dollar problem into a 100+ trillion dollar problem.  Do you have 3.5 million laying around to donate to this cause?

 thanks to Andrew

our interest payments are $200B/yr

and Toby :   at .280%   wait until its 2.8%

270 Fuck it, I might just go visit Kasich and ask him to run.

271 oh Buy an ad* good grief.

272 I have a correction to make:

Cantor's schedule for next week says they're taking this vote Wednesday. Further, the vote on the GOP 2012 budget will occur on Thursday, with the hope that work on the bill be finished by Friday.

http://majorityleader.house.gov/Floor/

273 Y-not thanks but even that article has no mention of what they are going to cut. Also this paragraph tells you where they are coming from:

Economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. likewise said last month that the $61 billion in cuts would lower annualized growth rates for two quarters by one-and-a-half to two percentage points. “The long-term benefit of fiscal consolidation comes with a temporary downside,” the New York-based firm said in a research note.

Even if they had got the 61B it was NOT a cut. It would have been 61B less of an increase in spending. In short, Goldman Sachs is lying.

274 maybe (-)Thanks to this "win"

275 I'm on the better than nothin' side, but I must say, they can kiss my ass on the "biggest cut ever" BS. It's only the biggest cut EVAH because it's the biggest, most bloated, obscene budget to start with.

276 If I recall correctly, the interest at $4bn/day eats the "hard-fought cuts" in ten days.  Winnah!

Forget 2008 budget levels, the Repubs just effectively accepted the 2010 budget level as configured by Comrade O as the reference budget.

277 Forget 2008 budget levels, the Repubs just effectively accepted the 2010 budget level as configured by Comrade O as the reference budget.

Actually they used his proposed 2011 budget as the reference level.

278

Interesting. I made a snide comment about PP and Margaret Sanger on my FB page ten minutes ago and now it's not there anymore.

Are they really all about cleansing that much?

279 OT/  I've heard of some of this before, but there's a whole lot I've never heard about Barry before. This is even way beyond what WND is always throwing around. Has any body heard all this stuff before?
http://tinyurl.com/3bxkw3t

280 Actually they used his proposed 2011 budget as the reference level.

Posted by: Vic at April 09, 2011 05:09 PM (M9Ie6)

My bad, Vic--you are correct and "our" win is even better than I thought.

281 I like he "sit it out" argument: "Those bastards aren't doing enough, but I'll teach them a lesson, I'll do even *less!*"

A slim chance is better than none.

Sure, I'm not happy. Sure, they need to do more. If I had a magic trick that could fix the problem, I sure wouldn't be posting here, I'd be in DC making history.

No magic tricks, though.

282

 Y-not thanks but even that article has no mention of what they are going to cut. Also this paragraph tells you where they are coming from:

Hell use this as a talking point. 

If we're cutting billions from the budget and you can't even tell where its being cut from then surely there is more that can be cut.

283 Interesting. I made a snide comment about PP and Margaret Sanger on my FB page ten minutes ago and now it's not there anymore.

Posted by: ErikW at April 09, 2011 05:10 PM (6fDRw)

Your comment or the page?

You have to be careful, only Jihadis are allowed to say insensitive things.

Well, insensitive to Liberals, anyway.

Terms of Use Standards:

Calling for violence against Jews - allowed

Criticizing abortion heroes - forbidden

284 Rogers and the rest of Appropriations still have to write the actual bill. Considering they're voting on this on Wednesday, the text should be posted by tomorrow night or Monday.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13TH
On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business.

H.R. 1217- To repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts / Energy and Commerce Committee)

H.R. __ - Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Department Of Defense and Other Agencies (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Hal Rogers / Appropriations Committee)

285

Bottom line question for those who like this deal.

Are we spending MORE or LESS this year, than last year....

Because from reading between the lines, we will STILL be spending more.

Only in Government, or those who carry water for Political partys, is an INCREASE in spending... celebrated as a CUT in spending...

But I guess its like the Unemployment stats.... where somehow LESS people working over a years period, becomes a decrease in unemployment.

286

Ok, I've read through posts and comments on several blogs and see a lot of people wailing on Boehner.  Yes, the cuts are not enough.  Yes, we need to get rid of rinos.  Yes, we should defund Planned Parenthood and NPR.

But...

If you take a breath and step back and look at where we're at, you'll see that we're only 5 months down the road from a historic mid-term election that saw a huge turn to the right in our country.  More Republican state houses, governors, and control of the House.  We see union strangleholds over several states being loosened.  Conservatives are on the rise.  Liberal ideology has shown its socialist stripes and people don't like it.

We've forced spending cuts, and some in the form of eliminating programs entirely.  We're in the process of repealing Obamacare.  Planned Parenthood and NPR will never get defunded until Republicans control the presidency and have good majorities in both houses.  That's what we need to work towards.  Getting control back.  With strong conservatives.  Only then can we seriously tackle the budget mess and deficits and debt.  We must be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  In other words, make sure we target the true rinos for replacement.  Like Graham, McCain, Snowe, etc.

Let's see the positive that's being done and channel our disappointment into productive endeavors like strengthening the conservative message and fixing the budget in the short term.  And it's imperative that we win in 2012.  I can't see how our country can survive another 4 years of Obumblefuck. 

We are making progress.  Maybe not as fast as we'd like, but progress nonetheless.

287

THURSDAY, APRIL 14TH
On Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business.

Begin Consideration of H.Con.Res__ - Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan / Budget Committee)

288 Ryan's actual budget as to be voted-on by the House. Ways & Means will be covering tax reform, among other things.

289

Posted by: Marmo at April 09, 2011 05:18 PM (1KSBb)

Please look at the numbers, and don't listen to the Pundits.

We will STILL spend more this year, than last year.

290

246 - It is impossible that the Republicans could have wound up with nothing.  READ THE CONSTITUTION.  The House SETS the budget.  They tell the govt how much it has to spend.

I don't understand this mindset that somehow things will be different with the 2012 budget.  How?  What is going to be different?  In principle what is different that they couldn't do now what they are supposedly going to do next year?

The same people will be in office, the issues will be the same.  Are Obama, Reid, and Pelosi going to suddenly shift gears and be onboard?  Boehner will magically grow a backbone between now and then?

This time next year we'll be close to 16 trillion in debt and the Democrats will be just as opposed to defunding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, or doing anything else that might threaten their socialist armageddon.  And to make matters worse, it will be an election year.  Gutless Republicans like Boehner will not want to do anything to rock the boat.

Hell will literally freeze before Ryan's budget gets passed.  Obama will walk out on the white house lawn wearing a sickel and hammer hat quoting Lenin in his speeches before he signs that legislation.  It will be the same fight.  The dems will dare Boehner to shut the government down.  Long in advance they'll organize groups of all sorts to protest cutting this or that.  The media will show the dems talking about cutting funding to cancer screenings and how the old people are going to starve to death.  The Republicans will cave just the same and for the exact same reasons.  It will be a charade.  They'll have a debate, agree to some peanuts "cuts" and both sides will brag about what they did.

And in a year when I'm proven right what will your reaction be?  Then finally will you wake up or will you make more excuses for the likes of Boehner?

291

Your comment or the page?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 09, 2011 05:16 PM (bxiXv)

Uh oh. There's a difference?

292

Posted by: lurker at April 09, 2011 05:10 PM (7CQ5O)

Barry was a homeless male prostitute in NY?

293

Uh oh. There's a difference?

Posted by: ErikW at April 09, 2011 05:23 PM (6fDRw)

Did you comment on your own wall or on someone else's?

294 Posted by: lurker at April 09, 2011 05:10 PM (7CQ5O)

Well, it is difficult to get past the illuminati / conspiracy / UFO nature of the site.

Also having a hard time believing that Obama was hard-working enough to get hired as a drug mule by the CIA.

Also, even if you strip the crazy form the article and go back to the actual legal point, that Obama's Indonesian citizenship effectively stripped him of US citizenship and thus he's not a Natural Born Citizen - do you seriously think he will be impeached even if he eats a baby on live TV?

We have to get him out of office with votes, neither the Congress nor the DOJ is going to touch him.

295 Posted by: Andrew at April 09, 2011 05:21 PM (Yvrvz)

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

296

Did you comment on your own wall or on someone else's?

Posted by: Tami at April 09, 2011 05:25 PM (VuLos)

On my own wall.

I'm starting to get frustrated.

What's a wall?

 

297

Well you've convinced me Andrew.  Boehner should have just said no.  He didn't win squat.  2012 isn't important at all.  Within 2 years after the Republicans took over the House and Senate with Bill Clinton as president we had a balanced budget.  HMMM, I think guys like John Boehner, John Kasich and even the reprehensible Newt Gingrich  were around then and running the show. Newt is still a good idea man but he is shot as a politician. Boehner is Speaker of the house and Kasich just pushed thru state worker union reform as the governor of Ohio.  These guys must be real losers.  They probably don't have our best interest at heart.

298 >>It's like the typical game of "cutting" when there's no actual cutting but a reduction in rate of increase. Who isn't willing to reduce phantom numbers when the ultimate end is still net growth in spending? Respectfully, I think some of you are looking at this in the wrong way. The actual spending number is less important than the spending as a percentage of GDP and revenue (taxes). Putting together a budget for future years has to take these things into account, just tossing out a spending number in a without looking at the entire economy doesn't tell the whole story. We all know that we have a major unemployment issue right now. Less workers equals less taxed and increases in spending (unemployment). The more government spends the more they crowd out private investment in the race for short term government jobs which don't fix crap, they just add to the problem. That is the Obama/Liberal way and it accelerates our journey toward oblivion. If you look at Ryan's plan, spending actually goes up after a brief decline and yet it projects trillions in savings. That's because it proposes to increase employment and thus revenues without increasing taxes and keeping spending around the historical average of 20% of GDP. Of course, there are also huge changes to the entitlement programs which are the real things driving us toward insolvency. $38 billion in cuts versus $40 billion in increased spending may not seem much in the big picture and it isn't but it's a start in changing the trajectory of gov't growth. It sends the right message to the markets we rely on to borrow money which no matter what happens we need to do for the foreseeable future just to keep our economy from cratering and it starts to send the signal to private investors that the gov't finally gets it.

299 WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 09, 2011 05:29 PM (bxiXv) 

May i finish my hair and  nails first, must look my best.

300

#290, you're wrong.  The Repulicans have absolute control to defund it all with one single vote - voting to not raise the debt ceiling.

No matter how much anybody may want to pay for this or that, the money simply doesn't exist.  Take away the kids credit card!  What will happen?  They will have to shut down a whole bunch of crap.  They will have to choose what to keep running and what to turn off.

They will try and scare everybody and say that the world will end unless the debt ceiling is raised, and it's a big fat lie.

301 We're not making progress at all.  We're bailing the boat out with a shotglass for every bucket of water that pours in.

The GOP will continue to cave when it doesn't have to, and this country will continue its slide down the crapper.  I refuse to celebrate these useless "cuts."  If they don't have a spine, we need to elect people who do. 

302

Facebook is confusing. If I click on "Friends" I don't get a list of friends, I get a variety of search engines.

Either I'm getting old and out of touch or Facebook fucking sucks.

303 Didn't get nerd rage and run off. I had to take Honey Badger Jr. for a walk to the ice cream store. His ice cream jonez trumps everything on Saturdays.

I am not advocating recalling or hanging politicians or dumping the baby.

What I am advocating is abolishing dynasties in American politics and making 20-50 year terms in office a shitty footnote in a future history book.

We have Constitutionally provided ways of keeping fresh blood and ideas in the government. It is up to us to use them more often.

Congress is the worst union offender in the country today. Abusive, insular, ignorant, protected, armed, dangerous, stupid, corrupt, senile, incontinent, and unaccountable.

The UAW and SEIU have nothing on the protection scam Congress is pulling on us.

304

262 If this is the best the GOP can do I'm sitting out 2012.

No Ed, I am not happy with what the GOP leadership did either.  But turn angst into action.

Become a precinct campaign.  Get involved in the primaries, and support conservatives over the Repubiks.

Just like we did in 2010.  Just like we did to Mike Castle.  Retire a few of these Republican's in the primaries--Boehner, Cantor, et al.  If they survive the primary, support them in the general.  But in no way should you not be involved because the liberals win.

Now is not the time to march off the field.

305

On my own wall.

I'm starting to get frustrated.

What's a wall?

Posted by: ErikW at April 09, 2011 05:29 PM (6fDRw)

LOL!

Your wall is your FB page where you and others can post comments (if you 'allow' others to post comments to your wall).

It's what your friends see when they click on your name.

So, you posted a 'status' (comment) on your FB page and it disappeared?

306 A (Failed) Test of Leadership?

After barely preventing a government shutdown, critics are questioning President Obama's overall strategy.

aol,  i sorta like it.

307 F the budget. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy is on TNT. I forgot how good this movie was...

308 Facebok fucking sucks.

It's designed to be flypaper for bored people so that marketers can feed on us like remoras.

309

So, you posted a 'status' (comment) on your FB page and it disappeared?

Posted by: Tami at April 09, 2011 05:33 PM (VuLos)

 

No, it's still there. I guess I just don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

There's a good reason I'm not an IT tech...

 

And thanks, Tami.

310

Facebook is confusing. If I click on "Friends" I don't get a list of friends, I get a variety of search engines.

Either I'm getting old and out of touch or Facebook fucking sucks.

Posted by: ErikW at April 09, 2011 05:31 PM (6fDRw)

Yeah, I hate that....I think it changed from how it use to be. 

If you want to look for someone, type their name in the white space at the top of the page.  It says 'search'.

311

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 09, 2011 05:21 PM (NtXW4)

But this is still the non-budget for 2011 that never existed.  With a $1.65 trillion deficit and larger government to pay for.  A huge ship can't turn on a dime.  I understand what you're saying, but any push-back to the wildly insane liberal policies of this administration is good. 

The real test for me will be the next budget.  Then the 2012 elections.  If we don't win then, we are boned.  Totally boned.

312 Facebook is confusing. If I click on "Friends" I don't get a list of friends, I get a variety of search engines.

Me, too. I finally just started clicking on "edit friends", then you have to go to some drop down and click "all friends"

I hate FB, and only have it to keep in touch with my nieces and nephews. I am never sure if I am on my wall, in my profile, or even on someone else's wall. And I don't know who half my friends are.

313 Here's some non-budget GOP new that's sure to thrill y'all:

Santorum takes presidential straw poll in South Carolina

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has visited South Carolina more than any other potential presidential hopeful, and his efforts paid off Saturday with a straw poll win at the Greenville County Republican Party convention.

Santorum was one of three potential candidates to address SaturdayÂ’s convention. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also spoke.

Vote-rich and conservative, Greenville County plays a pivotal role in the South Carolina presidential primary, traditionally one of the first states to cast ballots in the presidential nomination process.

314 OT:  Oooooh, gooody.....

MILWAUKEE -- Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin is asking for a federal investigation into the surprise discovery of 14,000 votes in Waukesha County for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

The Wisconsin Democrat sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Friday night asking him to assign the Justice Department Public Integrity Section. It oversees the federal prosecution of election crimes.

Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said today in an email that the department would review the letter. He declined further comment.

http://tinyurl.com/3e32ll2

315

... but this wasn't an election.

It is to Obama. He's already started campaigning for re-election. We have about a year to take advantage of his impulses to come across like Bill Clinton.

316 I'd say a few more victories like this and we're undone.

But, who's left to kid, who's paying attention of the big picture? We're already undone.

317

Quintessence of Bullshit and pathoOptimism

Clue up soyboy

 

318

This will probably make me look really stupid, but I have to know:  what is CR?

 

319 Continuing Resolution

320 Thank you.

321

Facebook is great for me. I have less than 100 "friends", most of whom are friends/family or long ago acquaintances from school/the Army. The key is to open your account with a "screenname" rather than your real name. I'm Lincolntf over there, and the only way anyway could "find" me is if they saw me on one of my close friends' "list", which is how I reconnected with a bunch of the old-school guys. Apart from the "friends", I have "liked" a bunch of publications, columnists, bloggers, etc. so I can do a lot of my surfing with one scroll down of the page. Just about everybody puts something out on FB the second it hits whatever passes for the "presses" these days. One more benefit, you get a glimpse at the personalities of people you've only ever read or heard in their professional setting.

The screenname is the key.

322 I'd say a few more victories like this and we're undone.

*nods*

323 Abe Vigoda is alive

324 We have to get him out of office with votes, neither the Congress nor the DOJ is going to touch him.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 09, 2011 05:27 PM (bxiXv) 

 

You got that Right.

 

Oh, I still owe you twenty bucks. 

325

If you want to look for someone, type their name in the white space at the top of the page.  It says 'search'.

Posted by: Tami at April 09, 2011 05:37 PM (VuLos)

I guess Facebook isn't for me. Most of my friends have iPhones and post innocuous shit like, "I bought a new collar for my Cocker Spaniel" or "My front left tire looks low."

I just can't get into it.

326 329:

Three different relatives feel it is imperative to post every change of clothes they make on their babies.

Then they call me on the phone if I don't comment on each one to ask if I'm OK.

327

I just can't get into it.

Posted by: ErikW at April 09, 2011 05:55 PM (6fDRw)

Yeah, a lot (most?) of it is just vapid crap.

328 I am so not sure. I like to think they did the best they could. I also believe what they did was far too little and is always too late. I understand the practicality of D.C. I also realize that Republicans may well be dragging their feet right along with Dems. I do know that this is less than nothing and that nothing substantive will even be possible unless Repu... no... conservatives take over all three branches of government which I do not see happening. Kill the messenger? Deny the truth? Whatever. I do understand that at this pace, we probably cannot avert a major collapse of the world economy. And, no, China will not fill in. Their growth is manufactured from our debt model and is at least as vulnerable. Imagine China having no markets for their goods and worthless paper in which they stored what wealth they have gained. There isn't a way out, they are on the same hook we are. They are merely hooked in a different manner. And, by the way, how valuable is oil if no one drives because no one works because companies have closed up shop along with transportation of goods? One heck of a hook, and we are all on it quite surely. Meanwhile, congress fiddles and Nero golfs. Bah!

329 Abe Vigoda is alive

Posted by: on the bright side at April 09, 2011 05:52 PM (GTbGH)

Really??? Is that really a bright side?

330 Looks like they are remaking my movie--with a new title "When Harry Met Doofus".  Bet Harry can't fake an orgasm as well as me though.

331 The GOP is so arrogant they think I have nowhere else to go.

Those assholes are gonna learn I have a comfy chair and a nice collection of DVDs for election day.

332

Yeah, a lot (most?) of it is just vapid crap.

Posted by: Tami at April 09, 2011 05:59 PM (VuLos)

Well, I'm also a guy. I hate texting and talking on the phone.

You chicks love that, which is cool and why we guys love you chicks!

333 JackStraw@302,

Yes, messaging is important while the fringe cuts we're debating are trivial. But I'm not convinced a) the country gets it as evidenced by our elected class or b) the elected class has any intention of carrying through with the long-term commitment needed to see the end through.

Ryan's trajectory is step one of plan A. It will be modified. Under current leadership it will be watered down. That's the messaging Team Boehner gave with "his" concessions. Let's assume, however, Ryan's roadmap is passed in full. Do you believe this nation will follow it for years, much less decades? Will we and our representatives maintain fidelity to a mere law guiding spending? Surely it will be amended and surely more gravy under a different name will emerge.

See, not to get bogged down in numbers but going big picture, the message given was the federal apparatus will give up nothing. We can play with the numbers to assuage the body politick between elections, but the infrastructure remains. Eliminate federal funding for PP? NPR? DoEd? Condoms for Kiddies? California Sand Flea Mating Sanctuary? Not happening. Nothing gets removed and, until now, the budgets only increase. Now they'll increase at decreasing rate... or they might even get reduced. But the infrastructure running it continues and grows tentacles. They'll grab back the money as soon as the perception of improvement peeks out of the abyss.

That to me is the long-term danger that we will not, as in refuse to, face. More acutely, we're merely adjusting numbers now. Maybe trivially but let's take it that trivial is better than less than trivial. The budget flatlines on average over the midterm. That's a huge leap of faith but go with that, too. We still have federal bloat and a constituency that has grown to depend on government and a political class that exploits it to the hilt. That the reformers (let's say the GOP) would be cowed into fearing federal shutdown or the aggressive termination of government agencies and programs while in this crisis indicates the will to adjust our collective behavior just isn't there. Sadly, it won't arrive until we really are starving people or rioting in the streets.

334 Kommie Karl Kameron just on Fox spewing one lie after another on the budget p0lan and the debt limit. he was immediately followed by Wendell "Great Pyramid" Goler who did his normal Obama ass kissing.

Fox has surely gone downhill.

Fox headline lie

Budget deal cuts 38.8 billion from previous spending levels.

it does NOT cut spending levels. It cuts 38.8 billion from the Obama proposed budget which INCREASED spending by 350 billion.

335 Those assholes are gonna learn I have a comfy chair and a nice collection of DVDs for election day.

Posted by: Ed Anger at April 09, 2011 06:05 PM (7+pP9)

Same here depending on who gets the nod from the still screwed up Republican Primary rules.

336 trivial new post up

337 My $.02 here: http://bit.ly/dYMOrk

338

"Not bad, Speaker. "

Agreed.  Boehner played this well, now only to the main entree for 2012.  Boehner did not make the same mistakes Ginrich did in '95.

339 - The Dems spent months characterizing the cuts as draconian and extreme, then voted for them.- Tom

Exactly why the Repubics should have proposed cuts that were truly "draconian and extreme". I'm pretty well acquainted with the smell of victory- and it's not the smell of the man-size pile of crap the Repubicans just dumped in our lap. We did not vote for and donate money to the 'Pubes for them to swing by DC and "take what they could get". We sent them there to go for broke! The likelihood of me voting for a Republican in 2012 has just been drastically reduced.

340 AD >>That to me is the long-term danger that we will not, as in refuse to, face I couldn't agree more that there are no quick fixes and the only way out of this is with a sustained effort over many years. Which is why I believe that taking the first step, turning the focus to how much to we spend to how much to we cut is crucial. Will we keep it up? Odds are against it but I'm not ready to toss in the towel just yet. I sometimes wonder if people understand the ramifications of elections and legislation. What happened last fall wasn't just an election, it was a repudiation of the direction liberals were taking us in historic proportions. That doesn't mean shit changes over night, it means a new direction has started. Same thing as what's going on in the states. What Walker has started in WI, Kaisich in OH and others is huge. The ripple affect of removing the public unions as a partner to the liberals can't be overstated. They have been badly crippled. Only a start. I get that, and it's not enough for many. But I'm encouraged and I think with some of the new blood in DC we have a fighting chance. We'll see.

341 232 The Democrats wanted the shutdown.

The Democrats wanted the shutdown.

The Democrats wanted the shutdown.

Ask yourself why.   The Democrats wanted the shutdown so they could scream that the mean old Republicans, the Party of No, does not support the troops and their families and want the taxpayers to pay more, and then give stats on how much the shutdown was costing daily. They would wave their fake patriotic flag for the military and their families.   In reality, it was Obama himself (or so I have read) who came up with the shutdown game-changer of not paying our great military. I also read that some military families on bases such as Pensacola were in a panic and buying groceries. I cannot say how much disdane I feel for this man,as I am being polite here. Evil, pure evil, to destroy this country.   Until Barky pulled this card, I was all for the shutdown. It was the straw that broke the back of the Republicans. Keep in mind, the GOP went with this agreement and it is temporary to keep things going. The GOP needs to shout it from the rooftops that we are in THREE wars (no matter how Obummer wants to cut the kinetic movement in Libya, it is a war) and the community organizer in chief bartered this deal with our military.   I will need a new liver by November 2012. I do hope my insurance will cover it by then.

342 "Weeping Boner"

I would hate to imagine what Andrew Sullivan thinks of when he hears that phrase. Of course it's nothing that couldn't be washed away by a few swipes with a fresh bar of Arab Spring.

343 JackStraw@347,

The only thing that gives me hope is the state level changes. That was where the real wins came as opposed to the pseudo-holding pattern we have at the federal level.

State governments are where the action is and the conservatives are definitely making inroads there. No question. And part of that has to do with governors who are actually required to provide balanced budgets and legislators/staff who live and mingle amongst the voters. It's much harder to hide and sequester. Plus, they don't have printing presses.

344   Until Barky pulled this card, I was all for the shutdown.- ChristyBlinky

Yes, that's how I saw it too. The shutdown was coming, and then Barry pulled the string- no military pay- and then Boner blinked. It can be spun however- this is a fail for us. Just ask yourself why Soetoro was willing to go to those lengths to avoid a shutdown- he knew he would lose over the shutdown. Of course, he enjoys toying with the military and the patriotic love the Right has for our armed forces, but he knew that Boner would buckle and needed him to do so. Soetizzle was doing the Ropadope and Baahner's the dupe.

Of course the Indonesian is pure evil- but don't tell Boehner. Boehner personally likes the devil. We know that because Boner has gone to great pains to point out what a great guy Soebarkah is. Did it ever occur to the Pubes that the reason Obama's personal numbers are still high while his policy numbers are low is because the Pubes spend so much time praising him before making even the softest criticism? If they spoke to him and about him the way Trump has been, we would see Barakat's personal numbers begin to go steadily down. Teh Boy Emperor has no clothes and not only does he bleed- like Dravot in The Man Who Would Be King- but he's a total bleeder. One cut and his legs begin to wobble. Of course to make him bleed, you must be swinging a clenched fist- not the wet noodle the Repubics have in hand.

345 There is still the possiblity of a shutdown.  Let's wait and see what happens; it's still very early.

346 but what will happen to us during a shutdown?

347 or us?

348 or me?

349

i'll save you rail!!!

where'd everyone go?

350 Was the "Military pay" issue used by Boehner to force passage of this bill? Here's a post from Dan Riehl which accuses Boehner as being the one behind this maneuver:

http://tinyurl.com/3pu994z

From the link, a bill that would separate from the budget and ensure military pay in the case of government shutdowns was drawn up by two R reps, but was not allowed to the floor by Boehner who wanted the issue of military pay to be used as a hammer for passage of his bill. If this is true, then it's Boner and not Obama who is responsible for this. Could this possibly be the case?

351 I will not be satisfied until BO is the replacement once the dribbling Judge Judy retires.

352 Yes, PoP, wouldn't it obviously be the case that the issue was forced by Boehner? I can see the despicable 'Pubicans pulling something like this to get their way.I'm not expert at this, but seeing as how spending is controlled by Congress it seems it would naturally follow that the Republicans could have remedied troop pay separately from this bill. Yet I only heard people knocking the White House for this. I wonder if this will get any play or is everyone so punch-drunk over avoiding the shutdown that no one will care-or will actively try to bury it. BTW, great interview with Mark Levin and Cavuto at the link to Riehl I posted above.

353 249 >>>but we did get more of it than Reid and Obama ever intended. you think so? I think Obama and Reid breathed a collective sigh: "Phew, I thought they were gonna hold out for at least $50B, hahahahaha!" Posted by: Soothsayer Maximus at April 09, 2011 04:45 PM Heh. Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer was suing the coffee company. They discuss among themselves that they are going to agree to give him $50,000 and free coffee for life so they can avoid a lawsuit. Kramer and his lawyer walk in and the coffee company lawyer says "We're prepared to offer you free coffee for life plus..." And before he can finish, Kramer jumps up off the couch and shakes his hand and says "I'll take it!" ----- Or, an episode of The Office where the office members were split over salaries. So the higher paid guys decide that they will give 2% of their commission to the lower paid guys. So they setup a nice spread of goodies in an office area and are ready to tell them their deal. But then the lower paid people tell them, upon seeing all the effort they went through to put together the nice spread of goodies and food, they forgive them and accept their apology. And they never did have to give up the 2% of their commission.

354 361 249 you think so? I think Obama and Reid breathed a collective sigh: "Phew, I thought they were gonna hold out for at least $50B, hahahahaha!"

I think so. Reid and Obama started at $0 and I believe that they thought that their repeated threats and desire to wear-down the Rs would eventually lead to a smaller amount of money than they just gave. Reid did not look like a happy man last night; no, far from it. If this was what he wanted all along, then he would have looked far happier than he did and the press would not have been bashing him for hurting their cause.

355 RE: You're Kidding, Right?
by Andrew Stiles

"...I am also thoroughly unconvinced by the notion that somehow Republicans 'blinked' by cutting a deal rather than shutting the government down. From what I can tell, there are two assumptions behind this line of thinking. One is that Republicans could have won a better deal, could have gotten more of what they wanted, refusing to move an inch off their original $61 billion and allowing the government shut down. How would that work exactly? President Obama would say ‘okay, you guys are serious, here’s another $21 billion.’ Really? If that were such a fail-proof strategy, why stop there? Why not demand the full repeal of Obamacare, the immediate enactment of Paul Ryan’s budget and the resignations of Pelosi, Reid, Obama et al?"

356 This is death by a 1,000 cuts. Death to the checked-pants GOPers!!

357 The DC abortions mean nothing! A short trip out of town will take care of that little one-night-stand issue. They are not so motivated when it comes to considering birth control, but highly motivated when it means life changes involving years of responsibility.

358 He isn't the only one saying the Repubs blew it.  Rush said if the GOP doesn't cut $100 billion, like they promised in the election, they're toast.

359 it does NOT cut spending levels. It cuts 38.8 billion from the Obama proposed budget which INCREASED spending by 350 billion.

As usual, Vic is completely wrong. It cuts $78 billion from Obama's proposed budget for this year. It cuts $38 billion compared to last year's spending.

360 Old guard Republicans are toast, but the Tea Party Republicans just a little dry.  We need to keep the pressure on and remind everyone in both parties that their jobs are at stake in 2012, if they don't fix this mess.

361

#363

What a silly, weak argument.  They didn't even try, so who knows.  It's easy to say what "would" have happened.

THE REPUBLICANS ALREADY PASSED A BUDGET!  Obama rejecting a budget does not equal the Republicans shutting things down on purpose.

We don't have the money, period.  Dance dance dance, the money won't appear.  Why is this confusing?  A true leader would say NO! and get out there and explain why... lead to a solution.  Instead, Boehner and like-minded Republicans have become part of the problem.  They have signed their names on a budget that takes us another 1.7 trillion in the hole.  We can no longer blame Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for the debt.  Boehner's signature is right next to theirs.

362 As usual, Vic is completely wrong. It cuts $78 billion from Obama's proposed budget for this year. It cuts $38 billion compared to last year's spending.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 09, 2011 09:03 PM (LO3jz)

Gabe I went to the budget pages for all those years and posted the actual number at post 219. So unless you have proof of different numbers than those, you are as usual completely wrong. 

363

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 09, 2011 08:19 PM (uVLrI)

Lets see.... the Obama budget, which is what they were cutting, RAISED Government spending by 350 Billion...

So the arguement was over RAISING spending by 350, or 312.... Yeah.... big F'n win there...

They did NOT cut Government spending, they cut the INCREASE in Government spending.

364  We can no longer blame Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for the debt.  Boehner's signature is right next to theirs.-Andrew

Yes, this is exactly what I take away. By signing on, they've accepted this new level of spending as the norm. They've consigned themselves to merely fighting to take chunks out of it forever. Eventually Obamacare will be accepted as well and we'll just be focused on simply lessening its effect on our lives. What the fuck do the Pubics really care- they still get paid to nibble at the edges, like camp dogs. This goose is cooked- stick a fork in it.

365 So once again the stupid party rinos screwed the conservatives.  And boney the weeper led the charge.  F*** him and all his stupid party friends.   I hope he likes the taste of demo-co**  because he will be eating a lot more of it until he loses the chair in 2012 .  And I suspect that '12 is going to look like the '08 pasting the repubs took only worse. 

366

Oh I can't WAIT to hear the spin when the Republicans cave to the raise the debt ceiling for a promise to vote to reduce the size of the EPA.

Or when they vote to 'cut' the 6T budget Obama proposes by 60BN, still leaving us with a 100% increase in REAL money spent.

Oh yes, fun times.

 

 

367

Sorry, I read adjoran's first post and just skipped to the end to do this rant - couldn't wait any longer. 

WTF is with so many clueless people on this site and HA who showboat their complete lack of experience and understanding of politics, congressional budgeting, and the economy while snarkily dismissing those who rightly see this week as a disaster as "fools" and people who don't understand the system?

Gee, adjoran, what would the "entrails" of the FY11 budget look like?  Ummm .... perhaps hundreds of billions?  I understand all of the relevant issues, worked on the Hill for years, worked on approps bills and CRs among other things, know some of the top leadership on both sides (wouldn't shake their hands after what they've become, but know them well).  You, and those like you - sadly, apparently including Gabe here - are completely out of touch with political, procedural, and most importantly financial reality.

WTF is with the idiots here and on other blogs talking about saving "political capital"?  There is no such thing, and in this case it wouldn't matter if there were.  The clock is ticking, and the catastrophe could come at any time.  How long did it take to unwind (partially) the first tranche of the Fannie Mae-driven mortgage derivative bubble?  Two weeks?  Remember your 401K on Sept. 1 2010, and then on October 1, 2010?

Who thinks it will take months or a year for the world to finally react when its risk tolerance level is exceeded by US fiscal recklessness, or some exogenous event triggers a failed bond auction (I know, I know - no such thing exists any more - the Fed buys over 70% of the crap - further eroding its own credibility and that of US sovereign debt in one swoop)?  Why do you clueless "atta boy, Boehner, good start" types think China (and now other sovereign creditors) has been drastically shortening the average maturity of its US paper, why have half a dozen flush US allies been fibbing to the IMF on their balance sheets and hiding their movement into huge gold positions?  Because they are "fools" who don't understand US politics or financial markets?

Jornolist, anonymousdrivel, and others here are using some common sense - whether or not they actually know the process in detail.  Miss80sbaby clearly knows the Hill and puts us morons some valuable info and insights - but is too polite to unload like I am now. 

As I said over at HA, this reaction to the CR debacle may be the final piece of the puzzle.  Several large foreign players started restructuring their dollar and USD debt exposure right after the pathetic collapse on taxes back in December's lame duck - in my own puny way I did too, along with everyone I know who works in intl. finance.  Writing was on the wall - and not much of a surprise.  But now, with this pathetic result, presaging more nothingburger "cuts" and "deals" in the coming months - and a significant portion of the "conservative" camp considering it acceptable - the rational investor can only run for the exits with any positions he hasn't already exited.

And to depart from the real issue - financial armageddon - WTF with the utterly misinformed and naive crap about "forcing" up or down Senate votes on health care destruction? 

McConnell's actually among the better of the old breed GOP, and did stellar, if often futile, work in complicating things for that bizarre idiot Reid in the last Congress.  But you don't need a solid parliamentary operator like McConnell to "force" votes in the Senate.  All it takes is someone with a sense of responsibility, a tiny bit of guts and maturity, and the parliamentary skills you can pick up in the CRS' intro class to Senate procedure - the Senate is 100 city-states.

So it is the definition of meaningless to get a "concession" of "guaranteed" votes in the Senate - if you have a clue and a spine, you can ALWAYS get votes in the Senate, it's the way the rules are set up.  Sheesh.

But teh stupid is deeper than this on the "good start" side.  You see, these geniuses recognize that this "guaranteed" Senate vote which is available anyway will "put on the record" some Dems up in 2012.  Uh huh.  By definition, EVERY Dem up next cycle voted for health destruction already - they are ALREADY on the record, with the original vote (OK, Manchin/WVA is the exception, as his was a special election).  So translated, the politically ingenious "concession" that the steely-eyed, savvy GOP leadership extracted from the outmanned Dems was this: a vote you can always get anyway, to put incumbents on record who are already on record on that specific issue.  Not since El Alamein have we seen such tactical brilliance!

And WTF with the "well we only control one house" rationalizations?  We control the House - where all spending orginates - if it doesn't "originate", there's nothing for the Senate or WH to do.  The Dems were monumentally incompetent - politically as well as substantively - in not passing at least some appropriations last year.  A gigantic club handed to the new GOP House.  The CR should have been bare-bones, a GOP product. 

To those - like Miss80sbaby - who ask "what better would have come from a shut-down?" - of course there is only speculation, no solid answer.  But the general idea is clear enough: the situation is dire, DIRE, and not amenable to business as usual, which for good reason moves slowly on the Hill and in guvamint in general.  You need to grab the public's attention - really grab it - and draw out the adult in enough Americans that something real gets done. 

So - a "good start" would have been a shut-down, after a GOP CR, not a slightly tweaked obamanation absurdity, was passed by the House - even if it led to some partial GOP back-down in the end.  NOTHING will be different when the magical 2012 budget is debated - same Dems, same media, same ignorant inattentive electorate - THEN is NOW.  The debt incurred NOW is the same as under the magical 2012 budget, which so many "good start" ignoramuses seem to think is somehow different dollars from a different country than everything being spent now.

So the avoidance of a serious confrontation now is very solid bit of intel on what to expect in a few months.  Look, even the hack radio host Hewitt was finally bashed into thinking clearly by the December tax debacle, and now asks every GOP twerp who comes on why people should expect results in July if they don't see them in December or April.  He never gets an answer.  The dodges aren't even artful, aren't even average by current degraded sound-bite standards.  The other day this McCarthy guy, when asked the question, barfs up the idiocy about "changing the conversation" re cuts vs. increases.  Hewitt's still enough of a hack that he didn't call him on it - but anyone with a brain and some experience would never rely on empty suits like these GOP leaders.

Markets will fix things if we don't.  What's happened is not a "good start" - and the fact that so many otherwise sensible people claim to believe it is should be nature's final signal to the more observant that it's time to review your investments with a view to reducing their vulnerability to an increasingly likely reckoning.

 

 

 

368

ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÎÇáÏ ÇáÍäíä

369  Who is the thing with beautiful cash best alternative? for so called patriotic choice those incomplete defective goods, be no good even if be no good. Without excuse, what do not see brand and producing area is quality is mixed practical!

370 Powerful ipod to mac is a smart choice for ipod users.

371 https://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Newthomassabo http://scrc.swem.wm.edu/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Newthomassabo http://tltc.shu.edu/mobile/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Newthomassabo

372 https://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Newthomassabo
http://scrc.swem.wm.edu/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Newthomassabo
http://tltc.shu.edu/mobile/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Newthomassabo

373

radii straight jacketWith futuristic designs and materials, each Radii Shoesexudes confidence for the ambitious forward-thinkers of the world. The Thriller is a high top lace-up sneaker with alluring urban design and detail. This style is a hot star in ourRadii Shoes Outletnow, radii 2011come and order at once!

374 Shop for swarovski crystal beads at the lowest wholesale prices. Our exclusive collection of Swarovski Necklaces, Bangles, Bracelets, Rings, Earrings, Beads. Unique designs, extraordinary prices. Welcome to buy!

375 Agreed with you on this very wonderful article