July 31, 2011
— DrewM Above the post update:
Obama say leaders have agreed to $1 trillion in cuts, which were agreed to weeks ago. Cuts "won't be so" abrupt. Yeah, out years are for suckers.
Bi-partisan committee that reports by November. "Everything will be on the table"... there's the tax trap? I don't see how House GOP votes for that if the choice will be the possibility of taxes or slash defense. Unless there's some guarantee that won't happen, I don't see how this gets enough GOP votes in the House.
Via Andy...here's the PDF of the PowerPoint Boehner used to explain the plan to his conference.
Or not? From Boehner PP.
Requires baseline to be current law, effectively making it impossible for Joint Committee to increase taxes.
That from TendStl on Twitter.
The only person who is going to like this deal is Obama because he desperately wants to put off another debt hike debate beyond the '12 elections.
Via Hot Air, James Pethokoukis explains why insisting that current law be the baseline the joint committee uses makes it almost impossible for them to raise taxes.
Original Post:
For the love of God man...SHUT UP.
Reid is on Senate floor now (8:32pm edt) saying there's a deal to avoid default. McConnell says he'll be holding a Senate GOP caucus tomorrow to go over "the framework".
Obama will no doubt be out to start to take credit.
Meanwhile, Boehner is on a conference call right now with House GOP members. I bet that's a fun call.
I really hope Obama uses his speech tonight to reach out and repair relations with corporate jet owners.
Posted by: DrewM at
04:30 PM
| Comments (339)
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 31, 2011 04:32 PM (/62i9)
And if you don't even have a hammer, everything looks like an occasion for a speech.
Posted by: Brown Line at July 31, 2011 04:33 PM (DK79s)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 31, 2011 04:33 PM (Wm4Mf)
Posted by: Cynthia at July 31, 2011 04:33 PM (lhhNH)
To anyone who questions whether we remain THE superpower: Suck it!
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 04:34 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: iSpambooks starting early , bitches! at July 31, 2011 04:34 PM (hbAPu)
Posted by: sherlock at July 31, 2011 04:34 PM (thr9V)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 04:35 PM (FQFjX)
Posted by: DeusExMachina at July 31, 2011 04:35 PM (6RTwM)
Posted by: knob at July 31, 2011 04:35 PM (44Bsd)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 04:36 PM (FQFjX)
don't remember which moron said that first.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at July 31, 2011 04:36 PM (54F2e)
Just in time to have the last 20 minutes of some of those last 8:00 PM and 8:30 PM shows cut off.
That'll endear him further to the masses....
Time to go listen to the idiot.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 31, 2011 04:36 PM (GKQDR)
He considers national TV his personal soapbox.
Posted by: CanaDave at July 31, 2011 04:37 PM (z+X8V)
Posted by: Taxpayer at July 31, 2011 04:37 PM (NpmCe)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 04:37 PM (FQFjX)
Posted by: Carney at July 31, 2011 04:38 PM (H3jYe)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at July 31, 2011 04:38 PM (sVk8z)
Posted by: Big Zesty at July 31, 2011 04:38 PM (L83nQ)
Posted by: Hrothgar at July 31, 2011 04:39 PM (yrGif)
Posted by: Wooga at July 31, 2011 04:39 PM (I0RBv)
Posted by: Carney at July 31, 2011 08:38 PM (H3jYe)
*snort* hahaha
Posted by: knob at July 31, 2011 04:39 PM (44Bsd)
Posted by: Big Zesty at July 31, 2011 04:40 PM (L83nQ)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at July 31, 2011 04:41 PM (sVk8z)
Posted by: jjshaka at July 31, 2011 04:41 PM (1c5z6)
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 04:42 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: Taxpayer at July 31, 2011 08:37 PM (NpmCe)
One of the horde recently told us that the only thing saving his giant flat screen was the basket of Nerf balls he kept nearby.
Posted by: RushBabe at July 31, 2011 04:42 PM (Ew27I)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 31, 2011 04:42 PM (e7G9N)
Posted by: Collapsy the debt clown at July 31, 2011 04:42 PM (0f7gD)
JRubinBlogger getting details of a "fix" on defense cuts that gets negotiators past the last hurdle.. more soon..
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:43 PM (o2lIv)
Yeah. That Herbert Hoover was awful.
Posted by: vp joe 'the genius' biden at July 31, 2011 04:43 PM (oUG6f)
Posted by: Popcorn at July 31, 2011 04:43 PM (yHwLH)
This fool knows only one thing and that is how to shoot off his mouth and say nothing. And now he's going to prove me right.
Posted by: sherlock at July 31, 2011 04:43 PM (thr9V)
Posted by: DriveBy at July 31, 2011 04:43 PM (C9Vc8)
Damn tv had it comin'
Posted by: Elvis at July 31, 2011 04:43 PM (Y+DPZ)
Let me be perfectly clear, like I was the other four, (look left)
or was it five, times before. (Look right)
Rich people are buying corporate jets, (look left)
with hedge funds, (look right)
when there should be shared sacrifice, (look left)
in raising the debt ceiling, (look right)
before my birthday party. (Look left)
As I have said before (look right)
there are those who would hold (look left)
our country hostage (look right)
to our country living within its budget.(Look left)
How can that be possible (look right)
when we don't have a budget?
Posted by: Barack Obama, guilty of more than 50, 000 counts of strawmanslaughter at July 31, 2011 04:44 PM (hbAPu)
Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2011 04:44 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: Countrysquire at July 31, 2011 04:44 PM (/GzDz)
* $900 billion in the first stage of deficit reduction.
* $1.5 trillion in second stage of deficit reduction to be defined by a bipartisan special committee of lawmakers appointed by leaders of the House and Senate.
* If the special committee fails to deliver a deficit-cutting package that would trigger $1.2 trillion in cuts, half would be Defense cuts and the other half would be non-Defense cuts, exempting low-income programs Social Security and Medicaid, and only impacting providers in Medicare.
* The debt ceiling increase would be done in three phases: $400 billion initially; another $500 billion later thise year would be subject to a vote of disapproval; a third increase of $1.5 to get the rest through 2012 and would also be subject to vote of disapproval.
* There is also a provision to have Congress vote on balanced budget amendment.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (o2lIv)
The Cleveland Show is still on.
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (piMMO)
Morale will improve when there are no more Obama speeches.
catcha22
Posted by: Tesla at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (DPU1J)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (k1rwm)
Jaysus.
Tell him he's a dude and doesn't have to tell us each time he has a cramp. Or someone upset him.
Nothing new will be said.
Posted by: Who Knows at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (1cx/R)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (FQFjX)
Yeah, we already know Republicans got rolled.
Fuck you, you jug-eared sack of Marxist shit.
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 04:45 PM (P57Q4)
Posted by: Countrysquire at July 31, 2011 04:46 PM (/GzDz)
"Why are they bailing out Obama for 2012 election?"
They are just giving him enough rope, and I'm pretty sure he will know what to do with it.
Posted by: sherlock at July 31, 2011 04:46 PM (thr9V)
OT: Matrix Revolutions just finished on AMC, so I suspect that's why the quote. Boy, did that movie stink.
Posted by: pep at July 31, 2011 04:46 PM (6TB1Z)
so how come they cut boehner out of the loop?
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 04:46 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: joeindc44 at July 31, 2011 04:46 PM (u9B7L)
Because Defense is half the problem, amirite?
Fucking ROLLED.
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 04:47 PM (P57Q4)
It's a new cooking show and he's going to explain what's in a sugar-coated Satan sandwich...
Now with extra-crunchy horns! Watch out, dental work!
Posted by: Chef Barack at July 31, 2011 04:47 PM (Ew27I)
Got it.
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 04:47 PM (ECjvn)
What should be the republican response but they won't say it? Fuck you.
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 04:47 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: Red Shirt at July 31, 2011 04:47 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 04:49 PM (HjxoE)
"We will address the cloud of debt by approving the largest increase in debt in the history of the Republic".
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 04:49 PM (P57Q4)
Oh, no, no, no, NO...
The more Comrade Dear Leader talks on TV, disrupting programs and interfering with the viewers' lives, the more likely they will realize that they actually hate his stinking demagoguing guts.
And if he's late, the better.
Posted by: fava beans and a nice chianti at July 31, 2011 04:49 PM (r1b5V)
Posted by: Countrysquire at July 31, 2011 04:49 PM (/GzDz)
What the hell? Four minutes.
I've had longer orgasms.
Why even bother?
Posted by: Stateless InfidelWait...what?
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 04:49 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:49 PM (o2lIv)
What the hell? Four minutes.
I've had longer orgasms.
Why even bother?
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 31, 2011 08:47 PM (GKQDR)
I'll have what the Infidel is having.
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 04:50 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: joeindc44 at July 31, 2011 04:50 PM (u9B7L)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 04:51 PM (FQFjX)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 08:49 PM (o2lIv)
Now would be a good time to shoot the whole shit down...Dewy defeats Truman!
Posted by: Red Shirt at July 31, 2011 04:51 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Countrysquire at July 31, 2011 04:52 PM (/GzDz)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 04:52 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at July 31, 2011 04:52 PM (jgkJo)
Posted by: Larry Dickman at July 31, 2011 04:52 PM (4t9J5)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 04:52 PM (FQFjX)
Because that's what real leadership looks like, don'cha know.
Posted by: BHO at July 31, 2011 04:52 PM (6TB1Z)
Because Defense is half the problem, amirite?
Fucking ROLLED.
They haven't finalized details on that point and a number of members have said they won't vote for the proposal unless this is fixed.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:53 PM (o2lIv)
This plan is just more of the same...as will be the next, and the next.
Losing m'Bonga and his merry men won't help a bit. By then we'll be another 2 1/2 trillion in the hole. The loyal opposition is just as corrupt and addicted to spending as he is. They will never stop, never. I'm not Eeyore, I'm observant.
Time to start putting your energy to good use. The next elections are too late and too far away. Prepare for the worst...it's coming.
Posted by: trainer at July 31, 2011 04:53 PM (yCWYQ)
Posted by: Heather at July 31, 2011 08:50 PM (HjxoE)
No prob. Call me!
Posted by: Gordon Gecko at July 31, 2011 04:53 PM (L83nQ)
89If God still loves us, both the conservatives and commies will vote against this.
But if so only conservatives will have their votes reported in the MFM.
Posted by: sherlock at July 31, 2011 04:53 PM (thr9V)
so how come they cut boehner out of the loop?
What?
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 04:53 PM (piMMO)
Perhaps some lightning bolts to replace the halo.
Posted by: pep at July 31, 2011 04:54 PM (6TB1Z)
If we can't trust a part-time lecturer on Marxist theories of the US Constitution at Harvard to understand the legislative process, who can we trust?
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 04:54 PM (P57Q4)
Posted by: Countrysquire at July 31, 2011 04:54 PM (/GzDz)
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 04:54 PM (ECjvn)
So let me get this right, we've passed two bills, held out for weeks and we're going to get a deal worse than the first one we were offered by the whitehouse?
The GOP is a used car salesman's wet dream
Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2011 04:55 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: DougS at July 31, 2011 04:55 PM (o5yTz)
Did they fix the secret taxes in the Reid deal?
Which version are they reworking - House or Senate? Boehner, Reid, or McConnell?
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 04:55 PM (5H6zj)
You should have said something sooner! Of course we'll up your limit, because we know this close brush with disaster will teach you to be more wise with your finances!
Posted by: Mastercard at July 31, 2011 04:55 PM (H3jYe)
Posted by: willow at July 31, 2011 04:55 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 04:55 PM (HjxoE)
It is so inspiring to see Democrats and Republicans unite to defeat their common enemy - Conservatives.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 31, 2011 04:56 PM (EeYDk)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:56 PM (o2lIv)
Naw, we don't need all that money for defense.
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 04:56 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: joeindc44 at July 31, 2011 04:56 PM (u9B7L)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 04:56 PM (HjxoE)
Call your congressman and tell him not to vote for this shit.
also that's a fucking awful powerpoint
Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2011 04:56 PM (DKV43)
He's going to say that he can celebrate Ramad...er..his birthday soon because there will be a deal.
Lest we forget...This is from Dean M. in a comment at American Thinker.
1) His mother's marriages were to Muslim men. 2) He has a Muslim name. 3) Obama Sr. was a Muslim and his father a Muslim. 4) His step-father was a Muslim. 5) He is a Muslim by Muslim law (the child takes the father's religion). 6) He was registered under the name of Barry Soetoro as a Muslim in a Catholic school in Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population. 7) He said on national TV to George Stephanopoulos (as a supposed slip of tongue), "My Muslim faith." 
He told a reporter that the prettiest sound at sunset to him is the Muslim call to prayer. 9) He recited it to the reporter "with a perfect Arabic accent." 10) As President he bowed at the waist to the King of Saud, Guardian of Mecca.
11) His travels abroad as a student were to Muslim countries with Muslim friends. 12) The church he joined was pastored by Jeremiah Wright, a former Black Muslim. 13) His church gave Black Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan a Lifetime Achievement Award. 14) As a Senator he went to Kenya to campaign for Raila Odinga, who supports the establishment of Sharia law for Muslims in Kenya. 15) He always refers to the Koran as the "Holy Quran." 16) There is no record (that I'm aware of) that he underwent Christian baptism. 17) He doesn't allow the exchange of Christmas gifts to celebrate Christmas in his family. (The Christmas tree is called a "holiday tree.") 1
All the people he claims as relatives in Kenya are Muslim. 19) He botched his swearing in on the Bible and had a second ceremony in a small private gathering without a Bible. 20) During his early campaign he had an exclusive, private meeting with Iraqi-born Shiite Cleric and leader of American's largest mosque in Dearborn, Hasan al-Qazwini who gave him his book, American Crescent.
21) Obama said in his inauguration that America is now also a Muslim nation. 22) He said he would campaign in all 57 states (the number of states in the OIC, Organization of the Islamic Conference, not the USA!)
Posted by: RushBabe at July 31, 2011 04:57 PM (Ew27I)
Posted by: Peaches at July 31, 2011 04:57 PM (anaRJ)
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 04:57 PM (ECjvn)
Reid used that anecdote yesterday in a bit of lies and caterwauling I saw on CNN yesterday.
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 04:57 PM (P57Q4)
I don't think this bails out Obama at all.
The election will be ALL ABOUT JOBS. The GOP is far better off talking about growth rather than austerity.
Whoever the nominee is, he/she needs to focus on simplifying and limiting government, making the government work for the people not vice versa, and BRINGING BACK MANUFACTURING JOBS to the United States.
One smart thing Romney did last time around was talk about bringing back manufacturing jobs to Michigan (during the 2008 primary). That helped him beat McCain in Michigan.
If Mittens were smart, he'd talk EXCLUSIVELY about his business experience and his ability to make the U.S. a manufacturing power again.
Save the tough issues and discussions until AFTER you get into power. Talk optimistically, even unrealistically, when you're seeking power.
Posted by: stickety at July 31, 2011 04:57 PM (FUDwf)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 31, 2011 04:57 PM (DEcmU)
Posted by: WalrusRex at July 31, 2011 04:58 PM (TVvXc)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 04:59 PM (HjxoE)
Posted by: Obama's Autopen at July 31, 2011 04:59 PM (7X5Wk)
Boehner: Nothing in this framework violates our principles. We got 98 percent of what we asked for.
Boehner says "we've gone toe-to-toe with the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate on behalf of our people..."
Bwahahahahaha.....sob, sob, sob....
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 04:59 PM (X6akg)
Which version are they reworking - House or Senate? Boehner, Reid, or McConnell?
No, because it's not part of the deal.
None of the above. They're still arguing about triggers, specifically the one for the Rs that cuts defense if an agreement is not reached for increase #3.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:59 PM (o2lIv)
We need to get rid of all of these losers. How can they sit there and claim to be Americans.
Posted by: bobbymike at July 31, 2011 05:00 PM (xpx19)
Posted by: Pissed off 26-year old with three part-time jobs at July 31, 2011 05:00 PM (NbIC7)
Posted by: tinkerbella at July 31, 2011 05:01 PM (TTPDw)
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 05:01 PM (ECjvn)
Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2011 05:02 PM (DKV43)
The real radicals are the progressives. This whole mess is their fault. They just had to pass their precious PelosiCare.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at July 31, 2011 05:02 PM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 05:02 PM (5H6zj)
Boehner: Nothing in this framework violates our principles. We got 98 percent of what we asked for.
Just to reiterate, Boehner and Friends negotiated themselves into accepting a trillion dollar debt increase, then the choice between new taxes or defense cuts.
Thank goodness they didn't get 100%.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 31, 2011 05:02 PM (EeYDk)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 05:02 PM (FQFjX)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at July 31, 2011 05:02 PM (deaac)
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 09:01 PM (ECjvn)
Pretty sure any GOP'er is going to regret their aye vote...it might be tough explaining the continued boning of their constituents great great grand children
Posted by: Red Shirt at July 31, 2011 05:03 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: buzzion at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Oldsailors poet at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Lady Liberty at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (HjxoE)
Nancy Pelosi would lick a yak's ball sack if Obama snapped his fingers.
Every bit of angst and resistance about this shit from now until it becomes law is just another skit.
All these cocksuckers have their scripts in hand. I could write the headlines myself.
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (ECjvn)
It's not a "done" deal yet. Pelosi was saying that her guys aren't totally on board yet.
Posted by: tinkerbella
We drove such a hard bargain the used car salesman has to go in back to talk to the credit manager to see if he'll sign off on it....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (EeYDk)
Jose, It's appalling, HE sends these brave soldiers Out at His bidding and He threatens to not pay them???
where's HIS portion of the money that is unaccounted for, You'd think He'd know that without the military standing to serve, We as a nation are nada against those monsterous dictators waiting and mostly ready to screw with us and our allies.
There is nothing He won't use, old folks, sick folks, kids, really this is the MOST un-presidential president I've ever experienced
Posted by: willow at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Donna at July 31, 2011 05:04 PM (OVCfn)
When there was earth to plow, or guns to bear, I was always there right on the job.
They used to tell me I was building a dream, with peace and glory ahead,
Why should I be standing in line, just waiting for bread?
Brother can you spare a dime?
History-shmistory
Posted by: Hrothgar at July 31, 2011 05:05 PM (yrGif)
Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2011 05:07 PM (mXBxH)
We need to get rid of all of these losers. How can they sit there and claim to be Americans.
Posted by: bobbymike at July 31, 2011 09:00 PM
What are you going to do, throw away your vote!!
Posted by: Kang & Kodos at July 31, 2011 05:07 PM (Y+DPZ)
The framework is mostly Boehner's bill with some aspects of McConnell's bill. (Which is surprising because McConnell negotiated this.) As for CBO, yes, they will. They'd be derelict if they failed to score this.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:07 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 05:07 PM (5H6zj)
Or march on Washington and Fort Knox to collect?
Just wondering.
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 05:08 PM (ECjvn)
That's why we need to take the WH and Senate in 2012 and pass the Balanced Budget Amendment that will have some real teeth.
For now though, we have managed to change the conversation and make budget cutting the new normal. As I've said on many occasions, you have to boil the frog slowly. I think with this deal we've put Kermit in a pan of warm water and set it on medium. By 2012 he'll be boiling and wondering what he smells cooking.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 31, 2011 05:08 PM (uVlA4)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 05:09 PM (HjxoE)
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 08:51 PM (3TjSM)
OK. Once. Think Tantric. Or maybe it seemed 4 minutes.
Anyways, why even bother? I don't want to give the idiot ideas, but maybe he could come and do an "Everything's going as planned" press conference at the top of every hour. When we see him every hour, we know he's taken charge, if he DOES NOT show up, then we know something's wrong.
I've been telling people that if the cuts are anything less than $12 Trillion or so, I'm really worried about the country. Wish a few Republicans had my same concerns.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 31, 2011 05:09 PM (GKQDR)
Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2011 05:10 PM (mXBxH)
But Obama also has a sickle, so everything looks like Marxism.
Posted by: nickless at July 31, 2011 05:11 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: "Gold Hat" Obama at July 31, 2011 05:11 PM (HjxoE)
Every bit of angst and resistance about this shit from now until it becomes law is just another skit.
All these cocksuckers have their scripts in hand. I could write the headlines myself.
She does not yet have the votes, though she will likely come-through if they get whipped hard enough.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:11 PM (o2lIv)
Bullshit. You'll tell us to wait again so we can have a super-majority.
or it will be the wrong time to piss off moderates
or we'll need to replace the muffler bearings first
or the unicorn shipment will be late
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 05:11 PM (ECjvn)
Posted by: ignorant hobbit at July 31, 2011 05:12 PM (H3jYe)
You think San Fran Nan is going to come out and put the country into default tomorrow?? Let her try. Let's see the preznint get his party in order, if he can.
This is just the first battle of a long war. Sorry to sound like Krauthammer, but that's the truth.
Posted by: PJ at July 31, 2011 05:12 PM (FlVA8)
Eagerly we unwrap the gift, lift the top and look inside to find a huge, steaming, stinking, wet turd.
Posted by: mpfs, channeling Congress and POTUS at July 31, 2011 05:13 PM (3TjSM)
Going to go out with my family and enjoy a trip to Wal-Mart while we still can.
Posted by: sifty is Faptain America at July 31, 2011 05:13 PM (ECjvn)
Planning his 50th has taken a lot out of him. Hard to find a bouncy castle with styrofoam Greek pillars.
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 05:13 PM (P57Q4)
Posted by: Miss Piggy at July 31, 2011 05:14 PM (HjxoE)
Posted by: compass and chain at July 31, 2011 05:15 PM (N8iBi)
And America will get boned.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 31, 2011 05:15 PM (0f7gD)
RE Chaffetz, he wants passage of a BBA for this one.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:15 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2011 05:15 PM (mXBxH)
Don't bother we're already booooned.
Posted by: the clowns at July 31, 2011 05:16 PM (oUG6f)
Posted by: tinkerbella at July 31, 2011 09:01 PM (TTPDw)
I just read that she will confer with boehner and he is going to tell her how many votes he needs. That sounds pretty "done deal" "this is all part of the kabuki dance script" to me.
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 05:19 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Barky the Negotiator at July 31, 2011 05:19 PM (p2IBw)
The first bullet point in the supposed Boehner PowerPoint is um ah, er, a small detail but a major one as well ---- call it a paradox or a prevarication. You take your pick.
There is no way this plan cuts more than than it increases debt/spending. Absolutely no way, no how.
Posted by: journolist at July 31, 2011 05:21 PM (Fb9Q0)
Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2011 09:15 PM (mXBxH)
someone on the sunday shows said that all the president wanted was a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling and that the republicans have apparently screwed that up. This was said early in the day. "it's all bull chit"
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 05:21 PM (k1rwm)
Obama's base is gonna be WAY more pissed at this deal than the Republican base will be.
And to those who say we should have held out for a pure deal and shut the government down if necessary, I respect your passion but you are just wrong. Obama and the Democrats ONLY hope in 2012 is to successfully paint Republicans as extremists and scare the independents. Their ONLY hope because they have no record to run on.
This deal robs them of that opportunity.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 31, 2011 05:21 PM (uVlA4)
Why did we bail him out and push ti past the election with 2 trillion plus!?
It has two tranches, so they didn't. Second increase comes in February.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:21 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:22 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 31, 2011 05:22 PM (QBQcg)
Posted by: Dan at July 31, 2011 05:22 PM (mXBxH)
Weird. Carry on.
Posted by: Theresa's ready for the ONT (AND football!!!) at July 31, 2011 05:22 PM (mo1uZ)
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at July 31, 2011 05:24 PM (OAig5)
Posted by: Battlestar 2012 at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (ibzLr)
Every despot feeds his army first.
Unfortunately for them, the US Army is not his army. He'll feed the SEIU first.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (k1rwm)
The second issue regarding defense is in the ‘trigger’ or ‘contingency.’ The point of the ‘backstop’ is that it isn’t supposed to be used.
•Any savings from the Joint Committee would reduce the amount of the sequestration (dollar-for-dollar).
•Even if the committee failed to produce a single dollar in savings, Defense would be on the hook for less than $500 billion over nine years, beginning in 2013.
•FY 2012 would not be affected under any circumstances,
•If this occurs - Congress, and the President (whether Obama or his successor), could replace the Defense reductions with other spending reductions.
•And, again, the point of the ‘backstop’ is that it never, ever happens.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: buzzion at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (oVQFe)
Sorry, it's the big piece of shit that Congress will try to pass.
For Gawd's sake light a match if you're gonna create a stink like that!
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (3TjSM)
What does this mean? We used to define bi-partisan committee "the Congress." Is this still Congress? Or is it yet another unelected panel to be ignored but for the political spin and leverage that can be squeezed from it?
Whatever. DOOMed. We aren't a serious nation. Fantasy cutting with real, hole-deepening spending. The Best We Can Do!™
Congress supplies the Barbed Cock of Satan™. Obama supplies the lube. Voters either avert their eyes to Jersey Shore or look on and cheer, "Deeper! Harder!"
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (r4t7/)
I thought we already had a special bipartisan committee to work out a budget -- the fucking House of Representatives, hey?
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (gcp0j)
Posted by: jeannebodine at July 31, 2011 05:25 PM (nvlAW)
Its just too bad I missed the Kenyans 50 IQ speech tonight.
Posted by: Jimmah at July 31, 2011 05:26 PM (TfRqk)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 05:26 PM (k1rwm)
Yeah, I know what he wants, but where's the evidence that he was persuading anyone to his POV? Holding fast to a losing position is not leadership. And, I'd say it's particularly amusing Chaffetz to take the purity position when he's already gone out and endorsed Mitt Romney, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 05:26 PM (5H6zj)
Depends how it is written. The BBA written by Sen. Mike Lee has spending caps tied to GDP and a 2/3rds majority requirement to raise taxes or spend beyond revenues.
A simple BBA would be scary as some judge could use it to mandate higher taxes.
Posted by: Jose at July 31, 2011 05:26 PM (WTNJJ)
TheeRomney's business experience consisted of hustling foreign money (mostly Japanese) to fund leveraged buy outs of profitable American companies, then loot said company to the bone and sell off the remains and, doing so, threw thousands upon thousands of hardworking Americans out of their (say it with me class) manufacturing jobs. They would then use the profits from the first rape to fund more raping and pillaging of American companies that employed American workers manufacturing American goods.
This bastard is a lying thieving weasel. My apologies to weasels.
F him. F everyone sired by him. F him to the bone.
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood RN at July 31, 2011 05:26 PM (hZqYp)
Posted by: JD at July 31, 2011 05:26 PM (WtMd2)
Does anyone else remember when Animal Planet was about animals and the History Channel was about history?
MTV was about music?
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 05:27 PM (piMMO)
I thought it was the Senate? Either way, it exists.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at July 31, 2011 05:27 PM (0vDuM)
Posted by: a yak at July 31, 2011 05:28 PM (Fw2Gg)
Maybe it's just me, but he seems to be doing even less than voting 'present' throughout this mess. I can't remember the last time I saw him expressing an opinion about any of this.
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 05:29 PM (piMMO)
#174 - "You'll tell us to wait again so we can have a super-majority."
No, no, the Supreme Court! We can't do ANYTHING until we have an 8-1 majority on the Supreme Court!
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at July 31, 2011 05:29 PM (jgkJo)
You need new friends.
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 09:27 PM (3TjSM)
But the animal shelter doesn't allow for exchanges
Posted by: curiously stupid at July 31, 2011 05:29 PM (oVQFe)
Hutch: "I'll take the difference between the USA and Cuba for $100, Alex"
Alex: "Sorry, that is no longer a category"
Posted by: hutch1200 at July 31, 2011 05:30 PM (llgy4)
They will have $2.4T to pass out to their favorite cronies for payoffs.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 31, 2011 05:30 PM (0f7gD)
Me neither, As IF. He makes me want to puke.
Posted by: Peaches at July 31, 2011 05:31 PM (anaRJ)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 05:31 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at July 31, 2011 05:31 PM (RCYbQ)
Posted by: ignorant hobbit at July 31, 2011 09:12 PM (H3jYe)
Yes, if it is a CLEAN BBA. Someone with standing could go to court and force the bench to increase taxes to keep in line with the BBA.
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 05:31 PM (GiF31)
What does this mean? We used to define bi-partisan committee "the Congress." Is this still Congress? Or is it yet another unelected panel to be ignored but for the political spin and leverage that can be squeezed from it?
Joint committee
Conference committee
Each congressional leader appoints 3 members from their conference/caucus.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:31 PM (o2lIv)
-----
And you're not going to find them here.
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 05:31 PM (5H6zj)
I promise you that shutting down the government would be a DISASTER for Republicans in 2012. You wanna lose independents? Shut down the government.
So, other than shutting down the government, what plan would you recommend that can pass the Senate and the WH? Remember that unless it actually passes you are just pissing in the wind.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 31, 2011 05:32 PM (uVlA4)
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:32 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 09:25 PM
I thought he was the guy who shouted "hey, I'm walkin' heah!!"
Posted by: kbdabear at July 31, 2011 05:34 PM (Y+DPZ)
we could change the leadership in 2012. I fear now we can't without some courage and honesty. Honesty in DC? Whatever am I thinking?Posted by: compass and chain at July 31, 2011 05:34 PM (N8iBi)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 05:34 PM (FQFjX)
If you asked her nice and offered her a crisp glass of Chablis.
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:34 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 09:31 PM (5H6zj)
OMG! I laughed at your brutality.
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (piMMO)
The House and Senate both have budget committees. This is not a budget resolution. The FY 2012 budget gets resolved before September 30th.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (lpWVn)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (HjxoE)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (QBQcg)
Yes, if it is a CLEAN BBA. Someone with standing could go to court and force the bench to increase taxes to keep in line with the BBA.
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 09:31 PM (GiF31)
The one they were talking about forced Congress to balance against last year's revenues. I.e., if you want to spend more, you have to raise taxes a year in advance.
Of course, there are supermajority provisions that could override that.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: CMU VET at July 31, 2011 05:35 PM (Lc0+m)
BO: yep break out the caviar.
MO: cool, what do you want for your birthday?
BO: already got it. I got enough of a ceiling increase to have Turbo Timmy transfer the $1 billion to my campaign in $50 untraceable increments.
Posted by: whitehouse conversations at July 31, 2011 05:36 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: mpfs
Loan me your credit cards for a week. That'll learn all abouts da greeks.
Posted by: hutch1200 at July 31, 2011 05:36 PM (llgy4)
Posted by: Drider at July 31, 2011 05:36 PM (uJSfP)
Posted by: MrTea at July 31, 2011 05:37 PM (XWMLc)
Hmmmm.....
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 05:37 PM (X6akg)
Juan Williams is on Fox...HELP ME!
I require lots and lots of hot, sweaty sex to take my mind off of all this crap.
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:38 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: Peaches at July 31, 2011 05:38 PM (anaRJ)
Juan Williams is on Fox
Well there's your boob.
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 05:38 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 05:38 PM (k1rwm)
He's been persuasive on the need for a BBA and he was the drafter of CCB. Outside of that, he and Jordan were unable to permanently whip support against the Boehner bill in the Republican Study Committee (RSC).
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:39 PM (o2lIv)
No one mentions this but how much of the $4 Trillion put on the national credit cards are going to make it back to Obama and the Democrats in campaign contributions?
No one can phsically point to anything this money is buying. And $4 TRILLION is a hell of a lot of spreading around money.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 31, 2011 05:39 PM (GKQDR)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 09:38 PM (k1rwm)
And another boob heard from!
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 05:39 PM (X6akg)
First, Democrats wanted to ensure this was the last debt-limit increase before the 2012 elections. Raising the debt limit, as Sen. Obama said in 2006, is "a sign of leadership failure" and politically unpopular.
Second, they wanted to ensure that the right issues would be debated in the election year. A high-stakes debate over a balanced budget amendment -- as required by the bill the House passed on Friday -- would make it clear that Democrats, unlike most Americans, do not want a balanced budget.
Instead, the "trigger" in the new compromise bill sets up a debate that Obama can easily cast as a fight between cutting Medicare and raising taxes on Big Oil, corporate jet owners and the richest 1 percent.
Posted by: Jose at July 31, 2011 05:40 PM (WTNJJ)
Who is "you guys"?
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 05:40 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at July 31, 2011 09:31 PM (qjUnn)
Are you cheating on us!
Posted by: Outraged Moron Horde at July 31, 2011 05:40 PM (Ew27I)
The mask continues to slip.
Posted by: Y-not at July 31, 2011 05:40 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:40 PM (3TjSM)
Put up the overnight disaster or lobby for 80's Chikadee as the next cob-logger.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 31, 2011 05:42 PM (DEcmU)
I never understand why these assholes persist in posting in the face of universal derision and loathing. It boggles the mind . . . And, unlike painful stool, this one's not even remotely, accidentally amusing.
Posted by: Peaches at July 31, 2011 05:42 PM (anaRJ)
Posted by: curiously stupid at July 31, 2011 05:42 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish
That reminds me, I need to wash my dedicates. Thanks!
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 05:42 PM (3TjSM)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 31, 2011 05:43 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2011 05:43 PM (FQFjX)
Posted by: twiceblessedmom at July 31, 2011 05:43 PM (HjxoE)
Posted by: mpfs at July 31, 2011 09:38 PM (3TjSM)
Have you met stateless infidel?
Posted by: Moron Hook-up Inc. at July 31, 2011 05:43 PM (Ew27I)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 31, 2011 09:43 PM (c0A3e)
Do you have awesome tech friends who wrote a program who did that for you in exchange for food?
Posted by: buzzion at July 31, 2011 05:44 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: hutch1200 at July 31, 2011 05:44 PM (llgy4)
Posted by: ronno at July 31, 2011 05:45 PM (nQR0p)
Thanks but I'm still confused. Not that it matters, but three/leader is in the legislation? And is this a joint, and conference, a hybrid, or some other uniquely defined (or yet to be defined) entity with indeterminate authority?
I just don't see it mattering. At all. Other than the GOP might provide a token Hobbit wherein s/he doesn't matter. The Stupid Party™ either loses outright or it ties only to cave at a future date when we go through this charade again because of the urgency!!eleventy!
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at July 31, 2011 05:45 PM (r4t7/)
Posted by: CoolCzech at July 31, 2011 05:45 PM (kUaEF)
I don't remember who it was that I was chatting with about the Hamilton Beach drying center but, whoever it was.... it's now only $28 at Walmart.
I paid $60 and I'm buying a backup at the new price.
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 05:45 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Theresa is ready for some football! at July 31, 2011 05:46 PM (mo1uZ)
Posted by: nerdygirl at July 31, 2011 05:46 PM (g8JDc)
Posted by: compass and chain at July 31, 2011 05:46 PM (N8iBi)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 09:38 PM
Well, when you lose Margaret Cho, you've lost AMERICA!
Posted by: kbdabear at July 31, 2011 05:47 PM (Y+DPZ)
MTV was about music?
Yeah. Back when A&E and TLC had top-quality programming like PBS but you tax money didn't pay for it. So, what? 1985?
Posted by: andycanuck at July 31, 2011 05:48 PM (oUG6f)
That's good enough for me.
While you guys fuss, I am going to go watch some mindless TV and get my blood pressure down.
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 31, 2011 05:48 PM (Fo83G)
President Obama, video blogger.
Posted by: lowandslow at July 31, 2011 05:49 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: nerdygirl at July 31, 2011 05:57 PM (g8JDc)
The House and Senate both have budget committees. This is not a budget resolution. The FY 2012 budget gets resolved before September 30th.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 09:35 PM
It seems to me this special committee is a substitute for Congress.
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 05:57 PM (gcp0j)
Thanks but I'm still confused. Not that it matters, but three/leader is in the legislation? And is this a joint, and conference, a hybrid, or some other uniquely defined (or yet to be defined) entity with indeterminate authority?
I just don't see it mattering. At all. Other than the GOP might provide a token Hobbit wherein s/he doesn't matter. The Stupid Party™ either loses outright or it ties only to cave at a future date when we go through this charade again because of the urgency!!eleventy!
A conference committee is convened when their is an impasse between the House and Senate. The way it works is each leaders chooses 3 of their members for a total of 12 altogether:
Boener: 3 House Rs
Pelosi: 3 House Dem
McConnell: 3 Senate Rs
Reid: 3 Senate Dems
Both a conference committee and a joint committee have a narrow focus and are only temporary. In Boehner's bill, they have a whole list of rules they must follow before they report to Congress. They have a specific process whereby they vote for the suggestions of the committee and these may not be altered. If they fail to do their duty, the trigger mechanism comes into play.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:58 PM (o2lIv)
Embrace the suck.
Posted by: toby928™ at July 31, 2011 06:01 PM (GTbGH)
It is done by members of Congress but only occurs in certain situations. I believe this was last done when they discussed the closing of military bases under Bush 43.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 06:02 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 06:04 PM (GiF31)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 06:04 PM (GiF31)
I hope that the bill, if it passes, passes the both House and Senate with more Democratic votes than Republican.
I'm guessing it will, although it's the threats to entitlements that will bring teh dume -- to Democrats.
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 06:07 PM (gcp0j)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 06:13 PM (k1rwm)
/The Hill
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 06:15 PM (o2lIv)
by Jim Pethokoukis
An aide: "It has an undefined mandate of deficit reduction but the way that is constructed would essentially make it impossible to raise taxes. Anything scored by CBO is based on current law. Current law assumes that taxes are going to go up by three-and-a-half trillion dollars next year [over ten years]. So anything you do to the tax code, unless it starts off with a $3.5 trillion tax increase, itÂ’s going to be adding to the deficit Â… ItÂ’s almost impossible for them to touch taxes because if they do, almost anything will be scored as a tax cut, making it that much more difficult to reach the $1.5 trillion that they need to get to."
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 06:21 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: curious at July 31, 2011 06:21 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 07:11 PM (gcp0j)
I always love when they're mad at Sir Golfs-A-Lot.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 07:18 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: George Orwell at July 31, 2011 07:25 PM (NI5Sy)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 07:26 PM (Tk16+)
The debt deal has shaken Paul Krugman's faith in American democracy. http://tinyurl.com/3w64lgj #singletear
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 07:38 PM (o2lIv)
You realize their anger will last all of one day.
Some of them will eventually fall-in-love with him again, as if their routine. Still, the recent comments and articles railing against him show he has lost whatever magic they thought he had.
Besides, might as well enjoy their tears while they last.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 07:46 PM (o2lIv)
Democrats can look forward to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts next year, and will have to make the case in the 2012 elections for new lawmakers who will undo the damage.
--NY Times editorial
Looks like they're thinking the same as us: this is a stop-gap compromise to be torn up in 2013. We'll see who gets to do it.
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 07:46 PM (gcp0j)
It's gonna hurt.
It's the best a minority party can do.
Posted by: PJ at July 31, 2011 07:47 PM (FlVA8)
Some of them will eventually fall-in-love with him again, as if their routine. Still, the recent comments and articles railing against him show he has lost whatever magic they thought he had.
That loss of magic is pretty significant. The NY Times is so mad at him (editorial board, Krugman, Douthat) that I'm seriously wondering if they or others in the MSM will open the floodgates on Operation Fast and Furious. Yeah, I'm kind of a one-noter on that, but it's so bad I think it's going to be the thing that brings the Odministration down hard. I even see a primary challenge shaping up on it.
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 07:51 PM (gcp0j)
Newsflash, pal, it was not this abortion of a deal that made alleged budget cutting part of the national conversation or whatever. It was the fact we are running out of buyers credulous enough to stand in front of the firehouse spewing treasury bonds at 150psi. That is really all it is.
So, our feckless "leaders" came together to decide to take a turn on the valve and knock it down to 149 psi, and probably mostly by screwing the military, as usual.
What a glorious victory for Bill and the rest of the handwringers.
P.S. Who will be the first twat to belch the usual "well, Defense needs to be cut, too" cliches?
Yeah, sorry, but I would have to see some actual cuts in something besides Defense to fall for that trick this time.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 08:02 PM (agD4m)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 08:05 PM (agD4m)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 08:05 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at July 31, 2011 08:24 PM (x81hH)
*PowerPoint says joint, though it almost sound more like conference. They're unfortunately rather similar.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 08:32 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 08:47 PM (Tk16+)
Deficit Reduction can be accomplished through either Cutting Spending or Increasing Taxes...
The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is baked into the baseline because their budget window is 10yrs. They have to assume the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed next year. Now, they can say that amount goes towards deficit reduction, but raising taxes past that counts as a hike as compared to the current baseline because it already assumes the aforementioned expiration. CBO would have to cheat to not count it as a tax hike.
Moreover, it is not a "super-committee". It's been a bit questionable whether it's a joint committee or a conference committee, but further details suggest it is a joint committee.
Also, there was an article earlier that said the House resolved the matter about the trigger and it does not just refer to DoD. The Dems can pretend otherwise all they want but it doesn't change reality. Also, raising taxes 1yr out from an election would be risky. That's part of the reason why Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, is because it was politically smart to do so.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 09:09 PM (o2lIv)
A GOP aide authorized to speak on background explains: “CBO’s current law baseline assumes millions of middle class families will be hit by the AMT and also assumes large, across-the-board tax increases in 2013 (i.e., the expiration of all 01/03 tax rates). With current law as the baseline to measure deficit reduction, efforts by this Joint Committee to increase revenue would not officially ‘reduce the deficit’ unless the proposed tax increases are in excess of $3.5 trillion — in other words: tax hikes aren’t going to be a part of this deal. Tax hikes on top of tax hikes are a non-starter for the American people. This exercise underscores the painful folly on trying to chase ever-higher spending in Washington with ever-higher tax hikes on job creators and American families.”
http://tinyurl.com/44btbbv
Now, it is perhaps possible that these several aides (or just one speaking to a handful of outlets, as they did elsewhere?) are completely wrong, but that is the understanding.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 09:28 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 09:35 PM (Tk16+)
But there is a formidable barrier to raising taxes: the proposed structure of the committee, which will have six Republican and six Democratic lawmakers, and would need seven votes to advance a recommendation. That would require one Republican agreeing to raise taxes, unlikely in this political climate.
There's one detail in the fine print that has important implications for tax policy: selecting the yardstick to measure the committee's savings. According to a presentation that House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) sent to lawmakers Sunday night, the yardstick--known as a budget baseline--would be current law. This means the savings would reflect the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, among other tax breaks slated to end. Because of this, the joint committee's deficit reductions will be measured against a yardstick that already assumes some key taxes have already gone up.
Using the current law baseline is "effectively making it impossible for [the] Joint Committee to raise taxes," Boehner's presentation claimed. This arrangement, while not making it impossible to raise taxes, certainly makes it harder, according to a senior Senate aide and other analysts.
Under the proposal, the relevant committees would be able to make recommendations to the joint committee by Oct. 14, according to the aide.
The joint committee would need to produce a bill by late November, which would be evaluated by Congress' official budget score keepers, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The bill's tax provisions would then be sent to the Senate Finance and Ways and Means Committees, who couldn't amend it, but could vote whether to advance the report.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 09:38 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 09:46 PM (Tk16+)
I'm not disagreeing with that; what I'm saying is that it does not count in the same way this time due to Boehner's insistence on the current baseline. Furthermore, even if the Dems attempted to cheat on that point, they would have to get at least 1 vote to raise taxes, then get the measure through Ways & Means. It's hard to see how that would pass the House, too, unless the Rs were so completely boxed-in that they decided to ignore their most fervent pledge.
If the committee can not reach agreement or the Congress doesn't pass what they agree on or send a BBA to the states $1.2 Trillion in cuts will go in effect. The WSJ states the 50% of that total, $600 Bn, comes from Defense. The other 50% is broken up through other programs including Medicare....
The reports I've read say they fixed the trigger to make it more even, though there is disagreement over whether it's security spending (DoD plus other agencies) for Tranche #1 or Tranche #2. The statements from the House Rs do not seem to match what these senators are saying on TV, so a statement from someone who worked on this and/or the legislation itself would be most helpful.
As to your point about it being risky, that was only risky to Obama and the Dems because in 2010 there was nothing that would be forcing Republicans to vote for an increase. Now the Republicans will have a choice either go along with Dem tax Hikes or watch Defense get cut by $600 Bn. That gives Obama "Bipartisan" cover.
That's an interesting point but I must ask myself whether they cut some of their most beloved programs in exchange for members on the joint committee caving. It's possible, but it depends on which bloc of voters they prefer. You would think they would be careful due to MediScare, though they would obviously turn this against the Rs and their "stubbornness".
But we still have the issue of CBO scoring from the current baseline, which the Rs specifically requested in part because it was seen as a fail-safe against tax increases. The Dems are always eager to raise taxes, that is true, but the state of the economy would also factor-into their decision. Sometimes electoral politics thwarts their ambitions.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 10:00 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 10:02 PM (Tk16+)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 10:19 PM (Tk16+)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 10:22 PM (Tk16+)
Both of us have read and heard sources saying contradictory things regarding this matter, but it does not mean one or the other is lying, just that it indicates confusion. Furthermore, the type of baseline (formed by assumptions and current policy) make all-the-difference in how CBO scores budgets and other such legislation. We have already seen this several times with the Boehner and Reid revisions versus the original bills. Boehner and Reid's last drafts both used the current baseline and that (among other things) helped change the score. Under that baseline, CBO scores the elimination of the Bush tax cuts as tax hikes, since that's what they are. Any other measure that similarly raises taxes counts as an additional tax increase (on top of the $3.5T). This eliminates the idea of an ambiguous baseline as well. So CBO can guess at the amount of revenue this would bring-in but their report will still show this as a massive tax increase.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 10:27 PM (o2lIv)
Note.... CIVIL Fed Worker Salaries are off the table... even though they on average make much more than non Gov Workers...
Who is the Master, who is the Servant...
Posted by: Romeo13 at July 31, 2011 10:48 PM (NtXW4)
Boehner appoints 3, Pelosi appoints 3, Reid appoints 3, and McConnell appoints 3. McConnell is more likely to to appoint an Establishment R but Boehner less so.
Now all it takes is for 1 of those establishment Repubs to go wobbly and cave in. This wouldn't be hard to do because he/she would have good cover: [...] So now lets say the committee on a 7 to 5 margin proposes tax hikes. Now the Republicans in the House have to make a choice: [...]
So according to Boehner's PowerPoint, both the joint committee and the BBA are required, but it's an either/or for Obama to receive his debt increase. Sequestration would occur (in FY 2013-2021 budget resolutions) if Congress either failed to pass the recommendations or if they did not send a BBA to the states. However, sequestration only occurs if the committee fails to produce $1.2T in deficit reduction, which is also defined in the same sentence as spending cuts-- the primary headline being "Entitlement reforms and savings". Which of these terms are the primaries? I need to read the actual bill.
Both Houses have to vote and pass a BBA and send it to the states or again Defense gets cut by $600 Bn over 10 years. If the BBA passes the GOP is saved if it doesn't they are on the hook for gutting defense by $600 Bn over 10 years. Now how well does that pay to the GOP base? [...]
I think they honestly have a higher chance of passing a BBA than any of the other options, especially if it is the '95 version.
Remember there is only 3 possible outcomes from the Committee and 2 of them favor the Dems. To get the Dem favorable ones all the Dems have to do is stick together and not vote for any Repub proposal.
Since it's highly unlikely the House would vote for tax increases, the most likely outcome (if the Dems plan to stall) is sequestration. But that hurts them and their base as well. I also think that cuts to entitlements would be seen worse publicly than cuts to defense, since there is this bizarre public notion that defense is one of the primary drivers of the debt. You can also find some Rs in Congress who would also have few problems making cuts to the Pentagon. I remain strongly opposed to the idea of gutting defense at such a time, but it seems it unfortunately wouldn't hurt the Rs as much as it should.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 10:51 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 10:56 PM (Tk16+)
“Sequestration”
The second issue regarding defense is in the ‘trigger’ or ‘contingency.’ The point of the ‘backstop’ is that it isn’t supposed to be used. •Any savings from the Joint Committee would reduce the amount of the sequestration (dollar-for-dollar). •Even if the committee failed to produce a single dollar in savings, Defense would be on the hook for less than $500 billion over nine years, beginning in 2013. •FY 2012 would not be affected under any circumstances, •If this occurs - Congress, and the President (whether Obama or his successor), could replace the Defense reductions with other spending reductions. •And, again, the point of the ‘backstop’ is that it never, ever happens.
Conversely, this piece says that the above only refers to the first $900B:
"In the compromise, they kept Reid's firewall, but they defined the idea of "security" spending more broadly so that it didn't hit the Pentagon budget quite as hard. Under the Reid plan, 'security' only included the Department of Defense and Veterans' Affairs. Republicans assumed Democrats wouldn't actually cut veterans' benefits, so that effectively all of the cuts would come from defense. The new 'security' category, however, also includes foreign aid, Homeland Security, and additional parts of the budget, meaning the cuts won't fall as heavily on defense.
And just to be clear, this only applies to the first round of cuts, which will accompany the initial debt limit increase. This shouldn't be confused with the defense cuts that could be triggered if the joint Congressional committee to find another round of cuts cannot come to an agreement."
Who's right and who's wrong?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 10:59 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 11:01 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 11:10 PM (Tk16+)
They can simultaneously count it as deficit reduction and adding to the deficit. This has always been bizarre to me-- the constantly changing requested baseline changes how they score because there is no constant universal yardstick. I'm not talking about policy changes, since they obviously have to make adjustments for those, but some of their methods are absolutely ridiculous and sometimes downright contradictory. E.g., in the first report Boehner submitted, they used several different baselines but one primary. The second time, he asked for the current baseline score.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 11:11 PM (o2lIv)
So when they start down that line, grab the lube your about to get bent over the table and used.
Let's assume they ignore it. The Rs would not even have to worry about choosing between taxes and defense cuts. Moreover, Obama would not receive his last debt ceiling increase because the guidelines would have not been fulfilled. So we would return to square 1.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 11:15 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 11:18 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: boballab at July 31, 2011 11:25 PM (Tk16+)
Posted by: Jean at August 01, 2011 02:10 AM (ilc7b)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2473 seconds, 467 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 31, 2011 04:32 PM (yQWNf)