July 30, 2011
— rdbrewer From ABC:
- Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion
- Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion
- Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
- Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)
- Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess
- If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.
Jeff Dunetz at Yid With Lid has more:
- $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
- The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
- The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
- If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification (at least according to Major Garrett, the ABC report is that there has to be a Balanced budget vote either way)
- The Super Committee is allowed to discuss spending cuts only...No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.
Jeff says he is going to check with his congressional aide sources in the morning and try to get more. If he does, I'll steal that too. From Major Garrett at National Journal:
In many respects, the deal will, if approved by all parties, resemble the contours of a short-lived pact negotiated last weekend by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.. . .
Among the newest wrinkles, according to informed sources, is an agreement to extend the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling very briefly to give the legislative process time to work without resorting to emergency, hurry-up measures.
Keep in mind, these reports are early. Details could change. But I have to say, at first glance, with those triggers in place, this does not sound like the capitulation some are saying it is. Consider: We got a short term fix on the dreaded deadline the White House has been raving about. That deadline, real or imagined, carried with it the threat of political damage to the GOP because of all that puffery. There are no new taxes. We got 1T in cuts agreed to now, though, granted, the cuts are mostly prospective. And we got language that triggers a balanced budget amendment if we can't agree upon the balance of the cuts. What's not to like about that, considering we only have one-half of one branch of government right now?
I suspect Obama finally got on the phone to GOP leadership because of recent reports the debt fight was hurting him in the polls. If anybody capitulated, it was him. You know that call was a hard for him to make. So, if the actual language of the bill resembles what these early reports are saying, I'd call this a great GOP victory.
Update: Jeff Dunetz links to this AP report that says under the deal Congress would be required to vote on the BBA but that none of the debt limit increase would be contingent on its approval. We were discussing this in comments, and the idea of debt deal language that triggers a BBA being sent to the states did sound a little too good to be true. Again, take all this with a grain of salt. These are the first reports.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
08:12 PM
| Comments (439)
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:16 PM (jeLTI)
Posted by: Some journalist clone at July 30, 2011 08:17 PM (YulS3)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:17 PM (i2fkw)
Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 08:17 PM (StBYg)
Posted by: Cooter at July 30, 2011 08:17 PM (C06Qq)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:18 PM (jeLTI)
Posted by: MWR, proud Tea Party Hobbit at July 30, 2011 08:19 PM (CA2NO)
Posted by: Smoke and Mirrors at July 30, 2011 08:21 PM (jEEpE)
Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 08:21 PM (41pdT)
My fellow millionaires and billionaires, we must support a corporate jet approach, which Speaker Reid and Senator Boehner have worked out. If you like your corporate jet, you can keep your corporate jet. May God bless you, and may God bless Slurpees.
Posted by: Barry Obama's Campaign Speech Generator at July 30, 2011 08:22 PM (uM9Wf)
Posted by: phreshone at July 30, 2011 08:23 PM (T3vCe)
I'm more interested in the Balanced Budget Amendment part.. do they have to merely vote on it? Or, must it pass?
I'm becoming more and more against a BBA as I think about it and listen to others. Larry Kudlow had a really good point on the radio today. Once something becomes part of the Constitution, as a Balanced Budget Amendment would, courts will start getting involved ruling this and that should be done. Budget matters should never, ever get into the hands of the courts.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 08:23 PM (Wm4Mf)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:25 PM (i2fkw)
who the hell am i kidding... he'll go into four-corners mode until Nov. 12 elections, betting that the economy will crush Barry and Harry at the ballot box
Posted by: phreshone at July 30, 2011 08:26 PM (T3vCe)
Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 08:26 PM (41pdT)
Posted by: Smoke and Mirrors at July 30, 2011 08:26 PM (jEEpE)
Its purely a symbolic sop towards the spending-hawks.
Posted by: looking closely at July 30, 2011 08:26 PM (KNy97)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:27 PM (TMB3S)
Thank God for bipartisanship! Now John Boehner (weeps be upon him) won't have to count on any votes from those nasty, smelly Tea Party types.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 30, 2011 08:27 PM (7EV/g)
Posted by: Kawfy at July 30, 2011 08:28 PM (2trrN)
"Cuts" can mean all sort of things. The devil is in the details (which I'm guessing have yet to fully emerge).
In typical Washington talk a "cut" is anything that reduces program growth beyond projected rise.
In other words, if absolute spending on social security "only" goes up 5% next year, that's a "cut".
Posted by: looking closely at July 30, 2011 08:29 PM (KNy97)
Posted by: phreshone
And what should he do with those items he gets passed in the House? se them for toilet paper, or send them over to the Senate where Reid will stick them in a drawer and pass them on to Obama for a good laugh?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 08:30 PM (Wm4Mf)
Posted by: Lindsey Graham at July 30, 2011 08:30 PM (IMglX)
Obamacare cut $500B from Medicare. Okay, that's was just shifting from one entitlement to another. But still, they managed to take 500 big ones from granny with the blessing of AARP.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 30, 2011 08:30 PM (7EV/g)
What good is $2.8T in cuts when you are agreeing to $2.8T in increases....plus interest? Does the word "suckers" ring a bell with anyone here?
Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 08:32 PM (41pdT)
brewer,
I am still trying to analyze this.
With this, Obama will not have to face this until after the election.
This is capitulation.
Please provide some additional commentary.
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:32 PM (Fb9Q0)
That they are accepting this is beyond the pale. And if you believe that any of this is of any import other than the debt limit you are a fool.
The debt has been buried. By Boehner, by the senate Republicans, and by the cowardice of the rest of the mainstream Republicans who care only of their next paycheck, their next blowjob from a political groupie, and their next election win in a comfortable district.
Burn it down.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 30, 2011 08:33 PM (LH6ir)
Unnamed, undefined "cuts" (actually - reductions in the rate of increase), spread out over ten years, in return for King Shit being able to celebrate his 50th without worrying about his country-destroying profligacy coming up again before the election? That's losing. Duh.
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 30, 2011 08:33 PM (4R29X)
The look on your grand-children's faces when they get their first shovel to help dig the US out of its mountain of debt----- priceless
Posted by: phreshone at July 30, 2011 08:33 PM (T3vCe)
I am holding out hope for the freshmen,
They have now seen the"DEAL" and all the shit-drivle that goes along with the way the "OLD BOYS" play on the hill. My hope they is that they all go out and get themselves stone drunk over the weekend and come back monday morn. armed with a 2 foot length of steel pipe and the will to use it. I'm sure most of them are ready to commit to ass-kicking based on what they had to endure this week.
Posted by: Richard at July 30, 2011 08:35 PM (+qKsl)
Posted by: ParisParamus at July 30, 2011 08:35 PM (oISis)
You're joking. Right?
Baseline increase of 7% per year dwarfs any of these mythical cuts. The only number that is solid is the debt increase. If this story is correct, Obama won.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 30, 2011 08:35 PM (LH6ir)
When was the last time a commission agreed on anything??
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 08:36 PM (Wm4Mf)
OK, something smells rotten in the State of Denmark.... to borrow a line from Hamlet.
Total and complete capitulation is what this smells like.
We have just outsourced a constitutional function of Congress to a committee.
Mr. Boehner, you sir will be primaried.
Club for Growth ain't gonna stand for this b.s.
This is chicanery. And Boehner has demoralized the conservative movement.
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:36 PM (Fb9Q0)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:36 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:38 PM (o2lIv)
Actually from the read it seems like only a $1T cut to a $2.8T increase. There is also the $1.8T as suggested by a special committee, and we all know what good work special committees do in Washington.
Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 08:39 PM (StBYg)
We need to bring back the Tar, Feather and Rails.
Posted by: garrett at July 30, 2011 08:39 PM (W6ap7)
fivethirtyeight Nate Silver The debt deals as reported really seem like more a capitulation by the White House than a compromise.
Liberal tears
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:40 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 08:41 PM (41pdT)
I had no illusions that the debt ceiling was going to be raised. Thinking about it. Obama wont be able to blame the evil republicans from the economy if we never defaulted. Even if the debt ceiling is not reached until after the 2012 elections, the economy will kill the One's chances. Reuters has an article about how the economy is once again in the danger zone. It wont get better by 2012. Plus, isn't the numbers for eliminating O-Care clearly on our side?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:41 PM (kG75t)
Will the House approve this? If they will why didn't Obama accept this last week (or whenever it was)?
This will be passed in the house with about 150 Rs with the difference made up bt the Ds. This is a compromise between the establishment Ds and Rs against the taxpayer.
And, JackStraw, if the info above is correct, the cuts to SS/MC come in only if there's no agreement on cuts elsewhere. But cuts on future spending growth, that don't actually have to be honored, are easy to make. Duh.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 30, 2011 08:41 PM (7EV/g)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:42 PM (jeLTI)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:43 PM (kG75t)
I think it's a pretty good deal, it has medicare cuts at least mentioned in it so it disarms the democrats ( and where else are they going to find another $1.8 Trillion) We still have to pass two more budgets before the election so we can still ding obama there. We get a vote on the BBA so democrats will have to explain why they voted against it next year.
Pretty good deal for a bunch of newbies in the house i think.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 08:43 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 08:43 PM (OVCfn)
But if this is actually true, the failure of the committee has a trigger mechanism. Moreover, the details we're seeing are pretty much Boehner's bill without the complete two-tiered approach.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:43 PM (o2lIv)
And we should remember that we are 800 plus days without a budget and operating on a CR.
Boehner lost the argument at square one on this.
Negotiating with a group that jammed through Obamacare. And manipulated the CBO, took out 500B in medicare to fund Obamacare and then pre-loaded it with 4 years of taxes, and then scored it on a 10 year benefit horizon.
Yeah, this negotiation thing is real good.
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:45 PM (Fb9Q0)
There are no cuts. Ever.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:45 PM (0f7gD)
1. This puts puts the next fight past the 2012 election.
2. Like everybody else is saying the devil's in the details. Does it actually front load any of those cuts or not?
3. We still have to actually cut the national debt and a big figure like$ 2.8 trillion (that doesn't actually cut the national debt) will make it easier for Democrats to demagogue that fight.
It's really not bad if it actually front loads some of those cuts. We're talking about trillions of dollars, no tax increases, and there's still the battle over the next budget (when these fights really should be taking place, anyway). Given that the contest over the past couple weeks was whether the debt ceiling would cover the next six months or 18, though, the Dems did win there if this is true.
P.S., also, yeah, BBA didn't have a chance of passing this time around. It's nice in theory, but we have had to acquire a large amount of debt in the past in fighting wars, so at minimum, you'd need some sort of exception for that.
Posted by: AD at July 30, 2011 08:46 PM (tZyw2)
Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 08:46 PM (StBYg)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:46 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 31, 2011 12:42 AM (jeLTI)
But will another debate really help us? Obama wants to campaign on raising taxes. We have enough video clips from that debate. I dont want to get disappointed again and have the Tea Party hurt by people calling us terrorists. The economy, Libya, O-care, Israel, Immigration, Racist DOJ, Geithner, FED policy, and energy issues will finish him off. He has nothing to add to debates except demonizing
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:46 PM (kG75t)
We're happy with a $1 Trillion cut over TEN years, yet we borrow $1.6 Trillion just this year alone? WTF?
Second question: If we're borrowing forty cents on the dollar now, with this budget, aren't we going to have to borrow more once Obamacare takes place in 2014?
Hello? Any congress critters out there?
Hello?
.........<ahh> Tequila shots help the headache. Hey, do you think that liberals do body shots on their own from all the practice navel-gazing?
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 08:46 PM (b3K4f)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:46 PM (jeLTI)
There are no cuts. Ever.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 31, 2011 12:45 AM (0f7gD)
Unless you are going to start cutting $1.6 Trillion a year we are going to have more debt. If you thought that would sell we wouldn't need a debt increase.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 08:48 PM (MtwBb)
On the plus side, everyone in the US has seen how this deal happened.
Dingy Harry caused it, and very likely at JEF's orders. If everything takes a dump, and even if the pain level only continues, JEF owns it.
I expect 2012 to be very unpleasant for the Ds.
Posted by: Bolt Upright at July 30, 2011 08:48 PM (9imoz)
Hey, you folks over at heritage who are scanning these comments.
Put together an analysis of what we know post haste.
Oh, and Ericka Andersen, get some info out to us on this stat. Stop partying and get working.
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:48 PM (Fb9Q0)
Hard to say until this rumor is confirmed. I'd like to hear some Republican aides talk about this instead of just Dems. The White House is also engaging in push-back, but it's hard to say why. Regardless, we have leaker who could be doing this for a multitude of reasons.
I also noted that ABC News has been quiet since they started getting contradictory sources about this. Few conservative media outlets or journalists have "bit" on this story, either. Remember the NYT "leaks" about the last deal that were only partially true? This one looks like it might be more than that, but it's hard to tell what's absolutely real and what isn't.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:49 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Richard at July 30, 2011 08:49 PM (+qKsl)
Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 08:49 PM (gZ0cH)
Well as you noted that wasn't a cut, it was a transfer from one program to the one that will replace it. If Obamacare stand Medicare will cease to exist. It will just be one big plan for everyone. AARP loves that idea.
Obamacare won't replace Medicare over the time frame in which those cuts were made. Those were real cuts in Medicare to fund coverage to the currently uninsured. Of course, the plan is to destroy the private insurance market over time and force everyone into Ocare, but that will take many years. AARP loves the deal because they get to keep their insurance concessions and that's what they care about (not the welfare of seniors). Of course they're too stupid to see far enough down the road when all health insurance goes away that they won't have anything left.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 30, 2011 08:50 PM (7EV/g)
Of course that wouldn't sell, how about everybody else agree that there are no cuts. Ever.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:50 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 08:51 PM (StBYg)
Our only hope is if S&P and Moody's grow a pair and actually hold these weasels to their word. The opinion of the American people doesn't count.
Posted by: PJ at July 30, 2011 08:51 PM (FlVA8)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:52 PM (jeLTI)
Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2011 12:49 AM (gZ0cH)
You may be right about that, I don't think it will get any dem votes. They just got sold out by Obama for his election campaign. Other than that they didn't get anything they wanted so it will be up to the repubs to pass it.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 08:52 PM (MtwBb)
......
Of course it will pass the House.. If Obama and Reid approve, all the Dems will vote for it.. only some holdout Tea Party pubs will vote against it.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 08:53 PM (Wm4Mf)
It can get by the house. Nancy will cowherd her Democrat sheep to vote for it and all they will need is a few RINOS.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:53 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:53 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 31, 2011 12:53 AM (Wm4Mf)
Ried and Pelosi were sidelined, it was McConnel, Boner and Bambi who did the deal.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 08:54 PM (MtwBb)
Yeah, probably over ten fuckin' years again. Come back to me when you're cutting a trillion right the hell now, and we'll talk.
Posted by: blue star at July 30, 2011 08:55 PM (lofS9)
So we shall fund 2.8T and every aspect of this administration's agenda.
Boehner, you are not a leader and have really messed this up.
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:55 PM (Fb9Q0)
Posted by: PJ at July 31, 2011 12:51 AM (FlVA
The ratings agencies are pieces of shit. They're run by banks and wall street. As long as Washington is in their pocket, then they won't downgrade us.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:55 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 08:55 PM (41pdT)
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:56 PM (Fb9Q0)
Posted by: boballab at July 30, 2011 08:56 PM (Tk16+)
So if the Super Committee fails, will we get a Super Duper Committee?
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 08:56 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Mitch McConnell, your better at July 30, 2011 08:56 PM (eJMcR)
still, there will be no cuts.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:57 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: journolist at July 31, 2011 12:56 AM (Fb9Q0)
No, they still have to vote on it. If that can't pass it it's accross the board cuts.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 08:57 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:58 PM (TMB3S)
95
Sorry for jumpin your shit the other night....major pain/stress lack of will to fight off my own demons and all that...
apologies
Posted by: Richard at July 30, 2011 08:59 PM (+qKsl)
Posted by: Captain Smith at July 30, 2011 08:59 PM (Pjih7)
They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.. . . .
Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare.
So, there's still the potential for tax increases and maybe not that much of a hit on Medicare. Plus, again, 1.2 trillion over ten years...let's see if any of that's front-loaded.
Posted by: AD at July 30, 2011 09:00 PM (tZyw2)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 09:00 PM (b3K4f)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 12:58 AM (TMB3S)
Not Reid, he can find enough senators that aren't up for reelection to pass it.
Pelosi on the other hand will go balistic. This will end her hopes of taking over the house again.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 09:00 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Titanic at July 30, 2011 09:00 PM (mS2A1)
So if the Super Committee fails, will we get a Super Duper Committee?
If you roll a 20, we get a 'High Speed -Super Duper Blue Ribbon Panel Committee'.
Posted by: Joe Biden - Done Jen Master at July 30, 2011 09:01 PM (KuYSu)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:01 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 09:03 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: As IF... at July 30, 2011 09:03 PM (piMMO)
Were Reid and Pelosi really sidelined?
That sounds very interesting, and something, if true, that should be made very public very soon.
It suggests that the Senate, as run by Dingy Harry, might not be reliable for the D's, and Pelosi is no longer taken seriously .. some D's really see 2012 sooner than others, and it doesn't look good
Perhaps when things cool off after Tuesday, certain deals can be reworked ...
Posted by: Arbalest at July 30, 2011 09:04 PM (9imoz)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 09:04 PM (b3K4f)
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 09:05 PM (Fb9Q0)
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:05 PM (OX4OZ)
Were Reid and Pelosi really sidelined?
That sounds very interesting, and something, if true, that should be made very public very soon.
Yes, they weren't even in the room at least I know Ried wasn't because he said so on the floor of the senate when he postponed the vote. I don't think Pelosi was there either but I don't have any proof of that.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 09:06 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 09:06 PM (b3K4f)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:07 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:07 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 09:07 PM (TMB3S)
So, it's contingent on a vote on the BBA, not passage? Who here thinks it'll actually pass?
----------
It doesn't. At least not unless the rules are really wierd. But if it's an actual constitutional ammendment, it needs 66 votes in the Senate. That's not happening.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:08 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: KG at July 31, 2011 01:05 AM (LD21B)
I don't know, 2/3 is hard to get. Probably won't. Who here thought you could force someone to vote for it by holding the entire economy hostage? Maybe but I don't even like that way of doing business.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 09:08 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:09 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:10 PM (OX4OZ)
What's gonna effing change between now and Thanksgiving? The math ain't gonna change, it only gets worse the longer they dick around with not making absolute cuts to reduce the deficit.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 09:10 PM (4q5tP)
What good is $2.8T in cuts when you are agreeing to $2.8T in increases....plus interest? Does the word "suckers" ring a bell with anyone here?
Posted by: Ticked Off at July 31, 2011 12:32 AM (41pdT)
Lets see.... $2.8 Trillion in debt... accrued in 2 years (we spend an extra 1.4 per year now).... means we pay interest on that money for 8 years.... while best guess is the 'savings' will be back ended...
These folks seem to have no idea of how Interest and debt works...
Posted by: Romeo13 at July 30, 2011 09:10 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: KG at July 31, 2011 01:05 AM (LD21B)
Depends on which BBA they bring-forward. The '95 version has a greater chance of passing than the one favored by conservatives in the House.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:10 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:10 PM (i2fkw)
I don't know, 2/3 is hard to get. Probably won't. Who here thought you could force someone to vote for it by holding the entire economy hostage? Maybe but I don't even like that way of doing business.
-------------
Well then Mitch McConnell is your man.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:11 PM (OX4OZ)
P R O C L A M A T I O N
We command all Our people forthwith to cease hostilities, to lay down their arms and faithfully to carry out all the provisions of Instrument of Surrender and the General Orders issued by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters hereunder.
This second day of the ninth month of the twentieth year of Showa
Signed: H I R O H I T O
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 30, 2011 09:11 PM (EeYDk)
I don't know, 2/3 is hard to get. Probably won't. Who here thought you could force someone to vote for it by holding the entire economy hostage? Maybe but I don't even like that way of doing business.
Posted by: robtr at July 31, 2011 01:08 AM (MtwBb)
Um, I meant that now that the requirement is merely for a vote, it won't pass because there isn't even the minimum amount of leverage on it, ie further debt ceiling increase with passage of BBA.
The Republicans can't fight for shit. I really have very little hope that they will ever roll anything back because it's always "next time".
Posted by: KG at July 30, 2011 09:11 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:11 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 31, 2011 01:06 AM (b3K4f)
Who knows, according to one poll 77% of the people want it so maybe. It takes like 35 states though and even if it passed the house and the senate it would take at least 10 years to get throught the states and that is according to the repubs who put it forward.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 09:12 PM (MtwBb)
I expect 2012 to be very unpleasant for the Ds.
Posted by: Bolt Upright at July 31, 2011 12:48 AM
I've pretty much put this debt deadlock out of my mind and resigned it to forces of nature.
Operation Fast & Furious is where it will soon be at. The AP finally broke a long story on it. By the end of this year, Holder's career will be at death's door. By March of next year, Obama and Jarrett will be like Lord and Lady MacBeth in Act V.
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 09:13 PM (rbSCb)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 31, 2011 01:11 AM (0f7gD)
No, about 5% per year of the projected budgets
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 09:14 PM (MtwBb)
$1T is about $3,000 apiece. The government's response to the recession of 2008 has been to say, "you rat bastards aren't spending money fast enough; we'll spend your money in your name to make up for it and tax you for it later. How about $5K per person per year?"
Posted by: cthulhu at July 30, 2011 09:14 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:14 PM (OX4OZ)
WH continues to deny deal; Republican side is still silent
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:14 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:14 PM (0f7gD)
"... Ried wasn't because he said so on the floor of the senate when he postponed the vote."
Having Dingy Harry , instead of one of his minions, do his job does make him look sidelined ... maybe Harry is being punished.
I still think that the D's are scared, and Boehner either doesn't see it, is being "collegial" and letting them off the hook, .... or things really are bad.
I suppose we will find out over the next 38 hours.
Posted by: Arbalest at July 30, 2011 09:14 PM (9imoz)
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 01:13 AM (rbSCb)
I so hope you're right.
Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 09:15 PM (OVCfn)
Posted by: cthulhu at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (kaalw)
One source says perhaps, another says no. Who do we believe?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2011 01:14 AM (OX4OZ)
My biggest problem with BBA is the enforcement mechanism, what will force Congress and the President to actually balance the budget?
Posted by: KG at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (LD21B)
it would take at least 10 years to get throught the states
How long did it take to pass the 21st amendment, which repealed the 18th (prohibition)? A couple of months, what?
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (rbSCb)
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 09:17 PM (4q5tP)
My biggest problem with BBA is the
enforcement mechanism, what will force Congress and the President to
actually balance the budget?
Good question. The Senate is in violation of the law right now in not having passed a budget for two consecutive years. No legal consequences whatsoever.
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 09:18 PM (rbSCb)
144 arhooley at July 31, 2011 01:13 AM (rbSCb)
Many agents seem to be speaking publicly, and with little encouragement. I expect Holder to be out by Thanksgiving.
Exit Question: Is holder entitled to a civilian trial?
Posted by: Bolt Upright at July 30, 2011 09:18 PM (9imoz)
La la la I can't hear you la la la la la!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!!!!!
Posted by: The MBM at July 30, 2011 09:18 PM (JOM6t)
I triple dog super duper- de dog dare you...
Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 09:18 PM (OVCfn)
My biggest problem with BBA is the enforcement mechanism, what will force Congress and the President to actually balance the budget?
---------
Well, look, you hope the rule of law still means something. If a BBA becomes an ammendment and they ignore completely, they should be taken to court. If that happens and they continue to ignore it, they should be impeached and removed from their offices. If that doesn't happen, then there needs to be a revolution, because clearly the social compact we have set-up is not one that is now agreed upon.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:18 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 09:18 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 09:19 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: arhooley at July 31, 2011 01:16 AM (rbSCb)
I don't know. I just heard the guy the co authored CC&B say that. Chavetz or whoever.
Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 09:19 PM (MtwBb)
The '74 Budget Act does not include any triggers; it just assumed that violating the law meant you would be punished.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:20 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 09:20 PM (jeLTI)
Dang, that's why I come here. Serves me right relying on a bunch of morons,...
Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 09:20 PM (OVCfn)
I know, you'd think rule of law counts for something, eh? But does it in today's America?
As arhooley pointed out, the Senate has illegally not passed a budget the past couple years, and then there's things like Obama's flagrant campaign finance violations, and black panther case, pigford, etc...
Posted by: KG at July 30, 2011 09:21 PM (LD21B)
There's nobody else to extract money from except citizens.
Wait a second. There's over 6.5 billion people out there in the world that we haven't taxed yet. I think it's well past time we started charging them for Pax Americana and Baywatch reruns.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 30, 2011 09:21 PM (7EV/g)
My biggest problem with BBA is the enforcement mechanism, what will force Congress and the President to actually balance the budget?
Posted by: KG at July 31, 2011 01:16 AM (LD21B)
Frau Blucher, the Wise Latina, and the Softball Player will get right to it.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 09:21 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Krazy Kat at July 30, 2011 09:21 PM (A23u6)
And if that extra part from Yid isn't correct, that a committee failure results in the BBA being sent to the States, then the Rs should vote against the deal. Period.
Why? Because Obama gets his big increase now, which means he won't have to discuss this thing again before the election. This is was the one freaking thing Boehner wanted, and he isn't even going to get that now. The only saving grace is what I see yid with lid saying. That's it. So if it's wrong, screw this deal.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:22 PM (OX4OZ)
Yeah, but Nickie, he's going to get trounced by Perry and Rubio.
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:22 PM (i2fkw)
Posted by: KG at July 31, 2011 01:21 AM (LD21B)
Add in Congress passing a law which will FORCE you to buy a product (health insurance)...
They are out of control...
Posted by: Romeo13 at July 30, 2011 09:22 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky
2011 Party Control of State Legislators
26 Rep
15 Dem
8 Split
And some of those Rep states may not be safe bets. I'm looking at you, South Carolina....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 30, 2011 09:23 PM (EeYDk)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:23 PM (i2fkw)
Massive Victory for Republicans in Last-Minute Debt Ceiling Deal
At CNN:
Dems Cave to Radical Tea Party Right with New Budget Agreement
At MSNBC:
THEY'RE GONNA FORCE FEED GRANDMA DOG FOOD AND THEN SHOOT HER!!!!!;!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: The MBM at July 30, 2011 09:24 PM (JOM6t)
Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 09:24 PM (7P7Ij)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:25 PM (i2fkw)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:25 PM (0f7gD)
We could go broke too and have fun, too.
I guess we'd all have to learn Greek and start smoking.
Posted by: Kemp at July 30, 2011 09:26 PM (wooFc)
I so hope you're right.
Posted by: Donna at July 31, 2011 01:15 AM
I'm reading every drib and drab that comes out on this. I don't see how it fails to blow up. Deaths. International reach. When the MSM picks it up in order to refute it, it will get away from them.
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 09:26 PM (rbSCb)
Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 09:27 PM (7P7Ij)
Jennifer Rubin and the WSJ seem to be trying, for whatever reason, to totally piss of the base. Can someone explain the logic in this?
Tell me, those crazy wingers that held out, did they hurt or help this deal? Seriously, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't even be a fucking vote on the BBA coming up. Instead, if we just went the Thursday Boehner deal, we would have gotten all of this crap w/o the BBA vote. The extremists improved this piece of crap, even if just slightly.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:27 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 09:27 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: Paul Lynde at July 30, 2011 09:27 PM (jeLTI)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 09:28 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 09:29 PM (7P7Ij)
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:29 PM (OX4OZ)
#168 Nope. Obama got the one big thing he desperately wanted... a reprieve until 2013. Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 31, 2011 01:20 AM
Perhaps, but this was all Very Public, and JEF is stuck playing the short game.
I think there was little the R's could have done, given their leaders. Boehner should have done better, and with more support, might have done better, a month ago. This late in the game, with some severe internal divisions among the R's, and no game plan to hand blame to the D's and the MBM, I think we got probably the best deal we could.
Posted by: Arbalest at July 30, 2011 09:29 PM (9imoz)
Posted by: Fat Tabby at July 30, 2011 09:30 PM (jeLTI)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:30 PM (i2fkw)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:30 PM (o2lIv)
The '74 Budget Act does not include any triggers; it just assumed that violating the law meant you would be punished.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 01:20 AM
Then I have every confidence that our legislative branch will learn from that experience (i.e. preserve those assumptions and exclude those triggers in any BBA).
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 09:31 PM (rbSCb)
The debt limit was always going to be raised. It has to be raised. I said back during the budget debate that the debt limit raise was when the R's were going to make their stand and they did. If they get this deal then they have done a great job of extracting the maximum they could with very little leverage.
-----------
Well, we will agree to disagree on this. If you aren't going to take the game to the brink, then don't play brinksmanship in the first place. Not raising the ceiling should have always been an option on the table.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:31 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: Romeo13 at July 30, 2011 09:32 PM (NtXW4)
Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 09:33 PM (7P7Ij)
Uh.... isn't this essentialy the Boehner deal??? The one that barley passed the House, and got slammed in the Senate???
-------------
The difference is it gets raised enough to push it past the 2012 elections, which seemingly means it gets enough Dems on board to make up for the conservatives who won't vote for it. We will see.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:33 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 01:24 AM (7P7Ij)
How much did I have to begin with?
Posted by: cthulhu at July 30, 2011 09:34 PM (kaalw)
You mean ignoring the triggers RE the joint committee? The Dems especially could try that, but if the legislation is written a certain way, they wouldn't be able to do so. (FTR, Boehner was pretty strict in his bill.) It all depends on who and how they write the legislation, if this actually true and will indeed happen.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:34 PM (o2lIv)
So, who is on this Super Committee: Ryan, Rand, Pence, ... I'm sure Lindsey or McCain will worm their way on
------------
It will be a cold day in hell before they put Rand Paul on it. No, no, it will be the fiscal hawks...just the ones who aren't so "extreme." YOu know, the pragmatistic realists.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:34 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 09:35 PM (jeLTI)
Can we top with the "every man, woman, and child" nonsense?
Only 55% of us are paying taxes. So the 45% includes the children, as well as the men and women who don't pay taxes.
So saying a $1.8T increase in debt adds $8K to every M/W/C really adds $11K to the debt of those of us who pay taxes--roughly $916/month
Posted by: Chuck Z at July 30, 2011 09:36 PM (OITDh)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:37 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:37 PM (o2lIv)
I am confident that the near-term cuts will be, well, rhetorical. Long-term cuts will melt away into the baseline...."
From a DKos commenter, happy that the debt ceiling would be raised now with enough cushion to get past the 2012 elections.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 09:37 PM (4q5tP)
It all depends on how the BBA is written, I suppose, which I would hope they would have that actual language in the bill. If they don't, then that point too will be moot.
-----------
Oh, no, see this is another awesome thing. They don't have any actual specifics. That's supposed to be hashed over the coming days and weeks on exactly what it might say so they can vote on it. How, you ask? Who the hell knows.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:38 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 09:38 PM (b3K4f)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:40 PM (i2fkw)
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:40 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: Chuck Z at July 30, 2011 09:40 PM (OITDh)
Doesn't it sound too good to be true--the way YWL says a BBA will be triggered and "sent to the states." I mean, dang.
------------
Yes, it does.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:40 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at July 30, 2011 09:42 PM (deaac)
Can't wait to see how much of these cuts are upfront. Anything beyond this year is pointless. If it isn't in the neighborhood of at least 30 billion...then the Rs got rolled.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 09:42 PM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:43 PM (i2fkw)
It is now time to force the tan man out into the pasture.
Boehner has made some terrible mistakes, but I will say this-- he has a conference full of strong-willed people with varying ideas. That is both a good thing and a bad thing. Pelosi has no such trouble because only 5-15 Dems ever refuse her on anything but no one really listens to them anyway. Boehner, on the other hand, does.
I would also say McConnell is more of a problem than Boehner, as has long been the case. The problems with the Senate GOP are numerous and need to be corrected. I'm glad to hear so many House conservatives are running for Senate seats, but that is only the first step.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:43 PM (o2lIv)
Besides, it's not like the economy is going to rally and take off because of this, such that Obama is positioned to take credit for making things better. He's still going to have a crap economy hung around his neck, and with this issue gone, he's going to have to find some other manufactured "crisis" to specifically blame on Republicans.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 30, 2011 09:44 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 09:45 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: cthulhu at July 30, 2011 09:45 PM (kaalw)
Doesn't it sound too good to be true--the way YWL says a BBA will be triggered and "sent to the states." I mean, dang.
Well, it's under Article XIII of the Constitution, whereby if any Super Committee fails to act on any issue, said issue is automatically sent to the states for amendment to the Constitution. Yeah, it's to good to be true as written, because as written it would have precisely zero constitutional legitimacy.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 30, 2011 09:45 PM (7EV/g)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at July 30, 2011 09:47 PM (deaac)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:47 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 31, 2011 01:44 AM (Y5I9o)
+1. It is not guarenteed that another one of these fights will be good for us. All his other issues are easy. Gas, Energy, Israel, O care, Economy, Turbo Timmy, Debt, Holder, Debbie Washedup Schultz, Reid and Pelosi will kill him. As long as we have a candidate who fights like Palin or Perry. BTW, where has Mitt been? Under his desk?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 09:50 PM (kG75t)
What about every member of the RSC for constantly pushing a vision and numerous requirements, as well as doing excellent PR work?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:52 PM (o2lIv)
Hell, that happens when I fart.
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 09:53 PM (i2fkw)
Well, there no point, really, on going on a diet now, what with Labor Day cookouts, then Halloween treating, then Thanksgiving feasting , and then the month of December? Forget it.
So, let me eat all I want in the meantime and then I promise, pinky swearsies and cross my heart and hope to die and on a stack of bibles, that I will reform and reduce my caloric intake 1% starting in January. Every year I'll bump that percentage reduction up and in 10 years.... Well, wait'll the girls on the beach (they're all within reach) get a load of me in my speedo!
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 09:54 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 09:54 PM (0f7gD)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:56 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 30, 2011 10:01 PM (Y5I9o)
I'm saving powder for 2012. Our goals for 2012:
1. defeat mitt
2. defeat bambi
3. ???
4. Profit!!
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 10:01 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: ;'lil turkey at July 30, 2011 10:02 PM (FduBR)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 10:02 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 10:07 PM (TMB3S)
You mean ignoring the triggers RE the joint committee?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 01:34 AM
-------------------
I'm referring to what KG asked: My biggest problem with BBA is the enforcement mechanism, what will force Congress and the President to actually balance the budget?
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 10:08 PM (rbSCb)
The KosKids are mostly upset but are trying to find a silver lining.
Yeah, an orange excerpt re Obama from the self-labeled "reality based community": "Could also be a matter of him not wanting the banksters and the MIC to do him like they did JFK.
I wouldn't put anything past the ruling corporate elite."
Dude! You're wearing your tinfoil hat the wrong side out. You're doomed!!
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 10:08 PM (4q5tP)
The KosKids are mostly upset but are trying to find a silver lining.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 01:56 AM
Sounds like us.
Are they also saying "Wait until we know whether we've been sold down the river"?
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 10:10 PM (rbSCb)
OK, let's take a step back.
Obama's got the one thing he wanted, 2013.
So it may indeed look like Boehner, et al got what they held to in the latest round of negotiations. But that is kinda the point.... what exactly was it that Boehner held to. He failed to lead on this and has fractured his caucus and now we are supposed to get excited over farcical baseline budget cuts? While we are operating without a budget and trillion dollar annual deficits, projected over the next 10 years.
Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 10:10 PM (Fb9Q0)
Posted by: emaugust at July 30, 2011 10:16 PM (E8wmM)
It's just SO odd. Congress doesn't seem to be able to make any dough for us, but they're getting by okay. Actually, Mitch McConnell had an estimated net worth of $3M in 2004. In 2009, it was estimated at nearly $20M, an increase of 453% !
Ever notice Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, (R-Wash), who stands behind Boehner with a silly grin at all his press conferences? She increased her net worth in those years by 1,236%
But the grand-prize winner among the Repubs was Steven LaTourette of Ohio. He increased his net worth by 13,225%
Lastly, if you did this, you'd be in jail. It's called insider trading for the little people.
Posted by: RushBabe at July 30, 2011 10:16 PM (Ew27I)
This deal keeps our powder dry for the real battle.
Posted by: Jeff Gauch at July 30, 2011 10:16 PM (1BiMH)
Posted by: Inquiring Minds at July 30, 2011 10:19 PM (W7JEz)
Posted by: Jeff Gauch at July 31, 2011 02:16 AM (1BiMH)
True. And having the ceiling raised in 2013 may be a blessing in disguise. The one will ahve nothing to blame the GOP with while we crush his nuts in 2012
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 10:23 PM (kG75t)
Posted by: Jeff Gauch at July 31, 2011 02:16 AM (1BiMH)
This is the real battle, right now, for actual and substantial spending cuts, not triggers and phoney-baloney cuts in the out years.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 10:24 PM (4q5tP)
It is not that we get nothing out of this, but I think it important to know the meanings of the words we use to describe things.
We are still increasing our velocity, while slightly decreasing our acceleration.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 30, 2011 10:24 PM (agD4m)
I will reform and reduce my caloric intake 1% starting in January. Every year I'll bump that percentage reduction up and in 10 years....
Ever hear the word "moot"?
Posted by: January 2013 at July 30, 2011 10:25 PM (rbSCb)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 30, 2011 10:27 PM (agD4m)
Posted by: emaugust at July 30, 2011 10:28 PM (E8wmM)
I think it important to know the meanings of the words we use to describe things.
Yes. At a minimum, will someone (Rush?) please quit letting Obama get away with saying "revenues" when he means "taxes"? Christ, even Boehner is aping him on that.
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 10:29 PM (rbSCb)
Posted by: January 2013 at July 31, 2011 02:25 AM (rbSCb)
Heh, it's more like moo.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 10:29 PM (4q5tP)
It is kind of amazing that the KOS kids are every bit as pissed as we are. I'm not sure what that means.
Posted by: emaugust at July 31, 2011 02:28 AM
I believe that a diverse group of PO'd people means that compromise has occurred.
I'm going to head over there and have a little fun reading . . . and perhaps trolling. That gem that Count de Monet found @247 is precious.
Posted by: arhooley at July 30, 2011 10:32 PM (rbSCb)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 02:24 AM (agD4m)
FIFM. Need Bugs Bunny and his air brakes airplane gag.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 10:33 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Damiano at July 30, 2011 10:34 PM (A2+pr)
Pathetic, I'd expect somesort of balanced analysis instead I get something from the copybook of the Kos Kiddies or the DU.
Is this what any sane person would call a huge victory:
-Unidentified special committee (composed of the usual suspects)
-the recommendations of this special committee overules the will of both bodies of Congress?
-The usual Washington "spending cuts."
-No mention of closing of "tax loopholes" (you can bet this will be included.
-Across the board cuts? Really. I imagine these will be 80% defense and 20% intelligence. Does anyone believe welfare will be cut or foreign aid?
Mandatory across the board cuts? Really the Dhimmies all ready have legions of lawyers and their pet judges ready to challenge any cuts.
A one per cent across the board spending cut based on the last budget, to be followed till the budget is balanced is what is required, or better yet until the debt is eliminated.
Just as I predicted an agreement was reached just as with TARP. The results will be the same.
I think the 22 Republicans who voted against this bill are the leadership of the GOP. The rest need to be removed.
As for the Dhimmies, anyone who votes for them must have unresolved childhood issues that are very grave.
Posted by: Molon Labe at July 30, 2011 10:35 PM (g5MrG)
Posted by: emaugust at July 30, 2011 10:35 PM (E8wmM)
So it may indeed look like Boehner, et al got what they held to in the latest round of negotiations. But that is kinda the point.... what exactly was it that Boehner held to. He failed to lead on this and has fractured his caucus and now we are supposed to get excited over farcical baseline budget cuts? While we are operating without a budget and trillion dollar annual deficits, projected over the next 10 years.
--------
I agree, the only thing Boehner got was a vote on a BBA. And let's not fool ourselves, a few weeks of public pressure could have at least forced the thing to the floor, much like the OBamacare repeal bill was finally forced to the floor.
Other than, he got nothing.
But some will say "WE DIDNT GET RAISED TAXES!!!"
And to that I say, that was never a serious option. A clean debt ceiling could have always been passed from moment 1.
The cuts..pointless. We all know this. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 10:39 PM (OX4OZ)
IMHO, baseline budgeting ought to be pegged to last year's economic growth. While we have such debts and deficits, any revenue increases beyond the 'baseline' should be dedicated to paying down the debt, not more spending. You know, sort of like how businesses and households deal with out of control debt loads.
Posted by: drfredc at July 30, 2011 10:57 PM (iNKlO)
Posted by: boballab at July 30, 2011 11:14 PM (Tk16+)
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillionOh, really? Then we don't need to raise the debt ceiling.
Vote on the Balanced Budget AmendmentOooh, a vote. Pointless symbolism at its finest.
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)Oh really? Then we REALLY don't need to raise the debt ceiling.
Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recessYeah...that'll happen. Nothing like a pointless deadline.
If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.Yeah...that'll happen too.
Most hilarious thing about this. The President get to sit back next years and point his finger at Congress, telling the American people it was their plan, not his.
Posted by: Sgt. York at July 30, 2011 11:20 PM (QHzLG)
Yea, so let's get this straight, the BBA is now just a vote with no force behind it. It doesn't need to be passed in order for the second increase in the debt ceiling.
Of course, there isn't even a second increase in the debt ceiling. They get all of it right now, for...1 trillion in cuts with of course most of them being 10 years out that will never happen.
Finally, the rest of the cuts are left up to a committee. Yea, this is total fail. This is basically the Harry Reid bill with a BBA vote thrown in.
Great victory indeed.
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 11:23 PM (OX4OZ)
This thing is a disaster. The few who switched over in the House will be switching back to no's. I
Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 11:24 PM (OX4OZ)
Jesus christ, reading this thread it's obvious that basically no of youi guys know what the debt ceiling is and why it needs to be increased.
We aren't going to be able to get back in the black all in one stroke. This is going to be a decade long process.
Posted by: Nancy Piglosi at July 30, 2011 11:49 PM (DXIOE)
Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion"Up to"? Any sane person think they won't push us right up against it? Anyone?
Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillionOh, really? Then we don't need to raise the debt ceiling.
------
I don't think you understand. We are spending over a trillion more than we are taking in each year. Even if you cut enough to get a balanced budget for this year (impossible), you'd still need to raise the debt ceiling because we need to "roll over" pre-existing debt by borrowing more to pay for the interest.
Posted by: Nancy Piglosi at July 30, 2011 11:52 PM (DXIOE)
Posted by: Chris R at July 31, 2011 12:09 AM (QiNmA)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 12:17 AM (agD4m)
Somehow, I feel I am being sold a handful of magic beans.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 01:04 AM (agD4m)
Somehow, I feel I am being sold a handful of magic beans.
Nope, those are too soft and too highly polished.
Posted by: Jack (of beanstalk fame) at July 31, 2011 01:21 AM (BSWJE)
You want spending money, hop on the Cannibus.
Let the peasants and under achievers contribute to the national debt.
Taking Bong Hits for Obama.
Posted by: Spicoli at July 31, 2011 01:36 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at July 31, 2011 01:51 AM (N5zTl)
How much of the cuts are in 2011-12? Anything later than that is just gas.
The Dems get the debt ceiling increase now, the GOP gets spending restraint starting when?
Posted by: Marty at July 31, 2011 01:54 AM (on5PS)
Anyway, cuts, schmuts.
What are the actual numbers for obligation authority and outlays for each year?
I can apply my own baseline, thank you.
Come to think, I can apply my own Vaseline, too. Oww.
Posted by: Marty at July 31, 2011 01:57 AM (on5PS)
Posted by: Drider at July 31, 2011 02:15 AM (uJSfP)
Posted by: Paul at July 31, 2011 02:33 AM (7SryP)
If it is unconstitutional for Congress to raise the debt limit to meet obligations, would it not be unconstitutional for a Preznadent to veto an offered budget as well?
And reading Moody's statement from Friday, two things are pretty clear.
They will downgrade based on...
The proposed cuts in spending are not deep enough, and they will not look favorably on a debt extension of six months or less.
It's clear that they are not looking at increasing our debt limit as the cure, but spending less money is.
Make deeper cuts, and take the debt limit extension out till April.
Then change the discourse to read "We will not extend the debt limit beyond the preznadents re-election campaign.
The message can not be allowed to be "Short term vs long term limit"
The message must be " During the campaign, or after the campaign.
We all know that the preznadent does not want to have debt limit discussions occurring during the campaign. We need to make the average citizen understand this as well.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at July 31, 2011 02:40 AM (HRWnz)
Just woke up and saw this. Big question; are they real cuts or have we sold out for another bag of beans and a symbolic "vote"?
I am not confident. Turned on Fox for an update and they are covering 4H at the State fair in OH.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:52 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Robert17 at July 31, 2011 02:54 AM (LaaRT)
LOL its even better when you see that only about 5 of those in the top above are actually blogs.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:54 AM (M9Ie6)
And he has two arguments.
Ronald Reagan was a wonderful man, and I wish to govern in the same manner.
And, a short term debt increase will only cause continued uncertainty in the market place.
If Reagan's ideas were good, and short term debt increases are bad, how come Obumbles is embracing a man who oversaw 17 debt increases in 8 years in office?
That comes out to one debt increase every 6 months on the average.
And it didn't seem to rile up the markets too terribly much over time.
Maybe it's because the nation perceived that even with the debt increases, Reagan could show a trend of continuing economic recovery.
With Obumbles, there are no indicators showing that his methods are working.
It's all about Obumbles getting the debt increase battle pushed out of the minds of the people during the Styrofoam Greek column re-election tour.
He is an empty shell, and he knows it.
But he also knows that the average Joe six-pack has a political memory of about 30 days.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at July 31, 2011 02:54 AM (HRWnz)
Ace is really moving up.
Posted by: sTevo at July 31, 2011 06:51 AM (VMcEw)
Wait...Politico is a Conservative website?!
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 02:55 AM (X6akg)
Congress would be required to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but none of the debt limit increase would be contingent on its approval. The officials who described the talks did so on condition of anonymity, citing their sensitive nature.
So yeah, all it is is another promise to vote. It will never happen.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:57 AM (M9Ie6)
As if those abusing the legislative process haven't had all the time to work fiscal solvency that it took to get into this debt "without resorting to emergency, hurry-up measures."
The only "emergency, hurry-up measures" still in progress are more profligate spending measures as corrupt politicians get more pieces of that fiat pie in the sky before the sky falls.
WITHOUT RESORTING TO EMERGENCY HURRY-UP MEASURES ... But of course that explains the Federal approach to our problem as America lies bleeding to death while simultaneously suffering a series of national heart attacks. No need for emergency hurry-up measures. No one but Keynesian quacks here. No highly skilled fiscal conservatives tolerated on the scene, no emergency room necessary. Stay in denial of the debt death threat as if the audacity of perpetual over spending guarantees eternal life.
/The USSR didn't mind overspending, either.
Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 03:02 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:02 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Tami
OK, make that 27 /150.
I don't go there so I wouldn't have seen that. What is cool is that ace ranks above Ms Malkin by a couple of points. This is impressive. Maybe on day we will see ace on Fox too.
Posted by: sTevo at July 31, 2011 03:03 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:04 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 03:06 AM (lpWVn)
So there it is. He refuses to make any deal that hasn't got a tax increase.
FUCK.HIS.SHITTY.COMMUNIST.ASS
I say let it burn and throw him on the pile as it burns.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:08 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: sTevo at July 31, 2011 07:05 AM (VMcEw)
I'd say 6 based on my observation.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:09 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Obawana Sith at July 31, 2011 03:15 AM (8IAHO)
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 03:16 AM (4q5tP)
Political insiders remark that the Tea Party freshmen are insanely committed to their cause without regard for re-election. pff
AS IF constituents aren't proud of their Tea Party sound off voice fighting on their behalf against the Washingtonian Philistine Army. As if it's the Tea Party members of Congress who need to fear for their re-election.
Push came to shove, with 85% of America and Texas openly supporting the Tea Party agenda, and "conservative" Republicans buckled in line with Democrat demands. I told our Congressman that he may as well retire because we're looking now to replace him.
Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 03:20 AM (lpWVn)
Lying suckers of cockholsters in the CBC want the President to use the phony 14th amendment route
Only in Washington could a racist organization like this exist as part of government. But they know if he does use this phony argument he will get away with it.Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:21 AM (M9Ie6)
Time to use Obama's trick play in reverse. Boehner should go back and add $400 billion in this year, real live actual cuts to the proposed deal and tell 'em to stick that in their collective Marxist pipe and smoke it.
/sarc
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 03:21 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: chris at July 31, 2011 03:21 AM (YLqOu)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 31, 2011 03:26 AM (uhAkr)
...so far as they are concerned, he already has gotten away with it.
Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 03:27 AM (lpWVn)
CPAC has a small tent.
You can always count on elitists to sabotage any coalition against authoritarianism given their interest to protect elitism.
Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 03:32 AM (lpWVn)
This is not a Boner deal from what I understand. It is a McConnell deal.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:34 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 03:35 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 31, 2011 07:26 AM (uhAkr)
Bingo. And no real change to grow the economy to help it close the annual $1.5 trillion deficit.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 03:35 AM (4q5tP)
There has always been a lot of controversy with these two groups at CPAC.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:41 AM (M9Ie6)
More evil Tea party shenanigans
Tea Party candidates are going to take SC in the Republican Primary this time instead of the favored Republican establishment candidate (Romney of course).
This will cause SC to lose its “bell weather” status in elections. I have heard some stupid arguments from these Democrat PR rags but this one takes the cake. And WTF should a Dem org give a dman who wins the SC Primary?
They want Romney to win of course so the Conservatives will stay at home again as in 2008 or the Tea Party will go completely rouge and runa thrird Party candidate.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:42 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 07:41 AM (M9Ie6)
And GOProud isn't an actual organization. It's one guy who at one time was paid by Planned Parenthood for "Republican Outreach".
I don't have a problem with gay Republicans. I have a problem with Planned Parenthood shills claiming they are conservative.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 31, 2011 03:44 AM (uhAkr)
That was what the "controversy" was. A lot of people said they were not conservatives.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:47 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: gary gulrud at July 31, 2011 03:48 AM (CZ6D9)
One of the biggest problems that American Progressives and American conservatives have is a lack of communication. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the past few years with the Heath care bill and now with the debt ceiling crisis. I don't know what conservatives want and this is a big part of the problem. Over the course of the rest of the day, I will be posting this question on 100 conservative blogs as well as at media outlets in comments:
"It is 2013, you have a supermajority in both the House and the Senate and a true conservative GOP president. What are the top ten things that you would want to see come out of government in the two years you would have certainty that a conservative agenda will be carried out?"
Your options are open. You can respond at the post for this question at our blog or if you're not comfortable going to a liberal blog you can post your answers inline here and they'll be retrieved by a member of my crack staff.
Diane Valencen
Editorial Page Editor
[q c p n!]
Posted by: Diane Valencen at July 31, 2011 03:50 AM (MpJqA)
The use of the term "cut" is a deliberate lie specifically designed by lawyers (that would pontificate upon the true meaning of "is") to make it appear that they did something meaningful.
One analogy is that Obama has had the spending accelerator pressed hard to the floor for 2+ years. This budget deal (or anything our inside the beltway RINOs come up with) is equivalent to begging Obama to at least not keep the accelerator on the floor for the next 18 months. The problem is that Congress should be demanding that Obama stand on the brakes for the next eighteen months.
Based on my observations over the years:
Establishment politicians lie and feather their nests--that's what they do!
Republican establishment politicians lie and capitulate--that's what they do!
Democrat establishment politicians lie and sell your children's souls into debt slavery--that's what they do!
Posted by: Hrothgar at July 31, 2011 03:51 AM (yrGif)
So President Unprecedented gets his shiny new Visa card (with a $2.8T credit line), no questions asked, no strings attached.
We get another "Blue Ribbon Commission" that will recommend "cuts" that will never happen from budgets that grow every single freaking year (the $1T in "cuts" are decreases from the baseline increase).
The "across the board" cut trigger will be treated precisely the way it was in 1986 and 1990 - ignored if not outright repealed.
Moody's and S&P get to continue to pretend we're "AAA" and, heck, solvent.
The Banksters get to skim their "Holiday" bonuses from the rent all this new debt will generate.
And the American taxpayer continues to be inflated and taxed into poverty.
It's the feel-good story of Recovery Summer 2.0
Posted by: DocJ at July 31, 2011 03:52 AM (AWzOz)
Posted by: J Bonered at July 31, 2011 03:55 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: Dropping brown at July 31, 2011 03:56 AM (STTZD)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:56 AM (B89As)
Are you going to quote them accurately?
What I want is one not so simply thing: Roll back ALL of the FDR new deal socialist programs, roll back ALL of LBJ's socialist programs, and get all of the liberal activist judges that enable those kinds of unconstitutional programs off of the court.
Then start reversing some of the other bad shit like KELO.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 04:00 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 07:56 AM (B89As)
I can't think of a reason why we win if we have no leverage on having a continuing discussion of out of control bankruptcy inducing spending! Counting on people being out of work and on the dole galloping to the polls to vote conservative just doesn't seem likely to me. If they are reminded that the reason they are on the dole is Obama's spending disaster (via another pianful debt spending debate), maybe some of them would wake up and vote in their best long-term interests.
Posted by: Hrothgar at July 31, 2011 04:05 AM (yrGif)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:12 AM (B89As)
Big Loss for us--they just took several more years of my kids' lives in exchange for non-binding cuts down the road and a non-binding threat of a vote on BBA down the road.
Bipartisan socialism.
Posted by: some dope at July 31, 2011 04:14 AM (+kznc)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 08:12 AM (B89As)
Get real, we will be blamed for everything from a bad economy to kitchen sink faucet drips. I gave up on the BS blame game long ago.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 04:16 AM (M9Ie6)
Not the BS AAA ratings, the T-Bill buyers themselves.
Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 04:18 AM (M9Ie6)
I believe that the Repub/conservatives will be blamed for everything all the time with our lapdog MFM, so that should not be a primary consideration. Explaining the bedrock principles of renewed fiscal and personal responsibility to the people is what is required. Yes, it may lead to failure (DOOM is not off the table), but it beats endless capitulation for short-term political gain.
Posted by: Hrothgar at July 31, 2011 04:20 AM (yrGif)
The debt level increase needs to happen in installments, not all at once, and in conjuction with no less than an equal amount of here and now real live spending cuts. None of this out year timing or partial decrease in automatic baseline increases nonsense. Passing an annual budget is a prerequisite before any debt limit increase may be considered.
Wanna make the spending cuts effective in the next budget, or spread out over three to five years? Fine, but the net present value of the future cuts needs to not be less than the present value of the proposed debt limit increase.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 04:21 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 04:23 AM (7P7Ij)
Obviously this is a major victory and Boehner/McConnell deserve statues made in their honor.
On the humorous side, if you're in the mood for it, check my math.
7% of $4T budget increase 2011 to 2012 (baseline budgeting) is $280B
$1.7T deficit this year
means $1.98T deficit for 2012, all things being equal
All things are not equal, Q1 GDP .4% and all the indicators over the last 3 months show a slowdown from Q1, strongly suggesting Q2, when finally revised 3 months from now will be negative in a big way. There is no reason to think things are getting better, so GDP for the year is going to be negative, so less tax revenue and bigger deficit. Let's be generous and call it $2T.
Aug, Sep, Oct, to november is 1/4 of the year. So, 1 1/4 of a year from today will see deficit spending to the tune of $2.5T. Treasury has to replace $300B from federal pension funds its been raiding all summer for ...
$2.8T. So the dems have accepted a plan which ought to run out of money right around the beginning of November next year. Geniuses, all of them.
Posted by: Methos at July 31, 2011 04:26 AM (sOXQX)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:27 AM (B89As)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:29 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 04:30 AM (7P7Ij)
The biggest big government program I want gone is the federal government.
Posted by: Methos at July 31, 2011 04:30 AM (sOXQX)
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 04:32 AM (zsvKP)
Posted by: toby928™ at July 31, 2011 04:37 AM (GTbGH)
They will debate what to do regarding the budget come September. Unless the Dems produce something by then, we may be looking at another round of CRs.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:38 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 08:27 AM (B89As)
The public overwhelmingly hates Obamacare and with the economy in the shitter that attitude isn't going away. The repeal should be attached to every bill that comes before El JEFe just to make him act like an asswipe as he continues to own it. As usual, the Repukes get played for fools by having ONE single vote on repealing the POS and then said "Ok, we did that; now we can get back to fucking everything else up". It's attitudes like that that produced clusterfucks like 2006 and 2008 and is why people don't trust those pansy assed twats. When you have a winning issue you keep banging the fuck out of it for every advantage. That's not a difficult concept to grasp yet it escapes those shitheads every fucking time.
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 04:41 AM (zsvKP)
The only way that the Republicans' behavior makes sense is if
1. They don't really think that everything is different now and still believe that the deficit spending gravy train is the road to re-election.
2. They are terrified of being attacked by the mainstream media.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at July 31, 2011 04:42 AM (C0Z3w)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:44 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 08:41 AM (zsvKP)
But if they did that the mainstream media would say bad things about them. Unlike now.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at July 31, 2011 04:44 AM (C0Z3w)
Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 04:47 AM (7P7Ij)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:49 AM (0gKao)
Posted by: toby928™ at July 31, 2011 08:37 AM (GTbGH)
This. Make 2012 a national referendum on solving the debt/GDP growth/unemployment/economy problem and all its interrelated facets. Each party's platform commits to a "Grand Plan" for addressing these issues. We have more than a year to analyze, dissect, and debate the merits (or not) of each plan.
We can point to the absolute hash the Pelosi/Reid/Obama triumvirate has made of our economy since Jan 20, 2007 and pose the question, "you really want more of this?
For as a rawboned railsplitter once said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer.”
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 04:51 AM (4q5tP)
Expected to be after King Putt is finished with a meeting at Andrews AFB.
Posted by: Retread at July 31, 2011 04:52 AM (hyWkl)
Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 04:52 AM (7P7Ij)
Hmmm. So the purse-a-dent has an early tee time.
Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 04:53 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:54 AM (0gKao)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 08:51 AM (G/MYk)
If reports of this "deal" are correct, it should put Mittens in a pile of shit up to his corn sombrero.
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 04:55 AM (zsvKP)
Ed got the talking points memo first. Faux News will nominate Mush McConnell and Boner for Mt Rushmore, as usual.
Posted by: some dope at July 31, 2011 04:56 AM (+kznc)
“I spoke to the White House, quite a few times this evening, and they’ve asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an agreement if one can be reached."
Reid said that last night on the Senate floor, before Jonathan Karl released his report. Reason I ask is because nothing has really changed since late last night/early morning, so I'm wondering whether they're returning to the WH or if they've now scheduled meetings with members. Still no firm information regarding either.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:56 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:57 AM (B89As)
Posted by: some dope at July 31, 2011 04:57 AM (+kznc)
I would sweat blood for a video of that.
Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 04:59 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:59 AM (B89As)
Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 05:01 AM (lpWVn)
Ed at HotAir is saying that they are putting the vote off until 1pm so the Whitehouse and Congress ....
Still time enough to make the deal worse? Great!!11!eleventy!!1
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 05:01 AM (4q5tP)
Thank you. That is the latest revision then. Still waiting for other reports to confirm likewise, as there was some confusion last night. When the meetings are completely finished, we will know more.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:03 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 08:57 AM (B89As)
Give it time, the truth will out that a god that bleeds is no god at all.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 05:04 AM (4q5tP)
I have nothing against Mitt. I
think he's like Boehner. Seems like a real personable guy. Pretty
smart. He seems to know the right thing, most of the time. But he will
just be a total failure in the lead, for whatever odd reason.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 08:59 AM (G/MYk)
I pretty much agree with everything on that; it's not that I dislike Mitt so much (does anybody doubt that he'd be a major improvement over El JEFe?) is that he's such an ungodly panderer who will say anything to anybody even if he has to walk it back almost immediately. I'd rather he was an insider in the Repub party and send Rove away to cuddle with Mike Castle for the rest of his worthless life.
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 05:06 AM (zsvKP)
Mitch McConnell for Senate Majority Leader 2012!!
Posted by: some dope at July 31, 2011 05:07 AM (+kznc)
Posted by: Anthony Weiner at July 31, 2011 05:07 AM (C0Z3w)
Posted by: rdbrewer at July 31, 2011 05:07 AM (POEzP)
That happened last night. If there is great certainly this deal will go through, Reid may not hold that vote at all. He doesn't have the votes and his bill is not the basis of the reported compromise (Boehner's bill is).
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:08 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 05:10 AM (B89As)
#371 Agree. Mitt would have been better than McCain in 2008. However a centrist GOPer that was ok in 2008 is not acceptable in 2012 as drastic action is needed
#379 The 2 GOP wins were to be forcing O to deal with this issue again before the election and no tax hikes. It looks like both of these are out so a big loss for the GOP
Posted by: notfeelinggoodabout12 at July 31, 2011 05:10 AM (1kwr2)
Facts in a news conference? I'm skeptical.
Posted by: Retread at July 31, 2011 05:11 AM (hyWkl)
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 05:13 AM (zsvKP)
We do not have any details yet but I feel confident in predicting the following:
1. There are no cuts occurring in FY11. Because we are spending more than $600B in the next two months, and there is not one penny less that could be spent. I would not be surprised if FY11 spending goes updue to earmarking to get votes for the bill.
2. Spending cuts from baseline in FY 12 will round to zero (<.5%)
3. The Superfriends committee or whatever will recommend new taxes, so the premise that this is a "cuts only" deal will be a broken promise.
In other news, Jennifer Rubin is dead to me now:
Posted by: blaster at July 31, 2011 05:13 AM (Fw2Gg)
The vote was to be held on Reid's bill, not the compromise.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:14 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 05:19 AM (zsvKP)
FOLDARAMA coming to a Congress near you!!! Hurry... hurry get your popcorn and front row seats now. Valu-Rite vodka on sale in the lobby.
This is and always was an amateur production of Brinkmanship Kabuki brought to you by Teh Ruling Class. Already the GOP is teeing up the "It makes us look bad," ball for Beaner to knock into the quicksand of capitulation. We'll give Barry a huge debt ceiling raise to use for bribing voters with another "boost to the economy" that work just as well as the last one. In return we'll get 'future' cuts of trillions and trillions of varporware dollars.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today." - Popeye's Wimpy
Posted by: chuck in st paul at July 31, 2011 05:19 AM (EhYdw)
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) postponed a procedural vote on his budget plan Saturday night, just hours after Congressional Republicans announced they had re-entered negotiations with the White House... "
/Posted at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:21 AM (o2lIv)
"McConnell on CNN says they are close to a deal. Lays out potential groundwork of $3 trillion package."
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:23 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: toby928™ at July 31, 2011 05:28 AM (GTbGH)
Fixed.
Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 05:28 AM (Ccp1F)
Behold! A god who bleeds!! A KosKid shaman begins to see the light:
I dont even like him personally anymore. It seems he has no moral center, other than to get people who hate him to like him. The man is a paradox, the worse political disappointment in my lifetime.
I have come to the conclusion that I tried for so many months to avoid- that this man lied to us deliberately and took advantage of our hopes and fears and dreams for a better future- all the while he knew that once elected on a wave of change he would proceed to do the service of his corporate, Wall Street bankster sponsors.
...
And, I might ask, how can you keep on "personally liking" this man if he has betrayed your trust and dashed your dreams a thousand times like Obama has done!
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 05:33 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:35 AM (o2lIv)
And, I might ask, how can you keep on "personally liking" this man if he has betrayed your trust and dashed your dreams a thousand times like Obama has done!
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 09:33 AM (4q5tP)
I guess that's better than nothing but I think the reason he/she stopped liking him is because Obama isn't socialist enough for this person.
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 05:37 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: The Music Lesson AudioBook at July 31, 2011 05:39 AM (UDi1L)
"Despite indications of a 'deal,' there still is no formal plan to brief rank and file members."
This contradicts the ABC report but who really knows what's true outside of what leaders have confirmed?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:42 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:46 AM (o2lIv)
I guess that's better than nothing but I think the reason he/she stopped liking him is because Obama isn't socialist enough for this person.
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 09:37 AM (X6akg)
You are correct. They're calling him a (gasp) Republican over there this morning.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 05:49 AM (4q5tP)
And Sen. McConnell trumpeted what could be a political triumph for Republicans: The lack of revenue increases in the deal.
“We’re not going to raise taxes in this deal,” he said. Asked about tax-reform that could close certain loopholes and effectively amount to tax hikes, he said, “There will be no tax increase.”
So National Journal was correct in their assessment?
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:53 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: logprof at July 31, 2011 05:59 AM (BP6Z1)
Most of you have no clue how congressional budgeting works. This deal, if it passes, does mean $2.8T in real cuts. So take your chicken littleisms and shove them.
1) Reduction in spending authority is a "real" cut. Spending is done through programs, and programs are established in future budgets. A federal program includes a long range forecast for spending, that is included in all future budgets unless it is cancelled. The reason you can't get savings NOW is because you can't go back into the past and kill programs in their infancy. The federal government isn't spending $2T a year on groceries like you do in your budget. It is spending it on things like bridges. You are asking them to stop paying for a bridge that is finished except for laying the asphalt.
2) It is a trap, and the Dems have fallen into it. The commission is unlikely to agree on an additional $1.8T, so we will then get an automatic percentage cut across the board to all departments. This could be the start of pushing us back to 2008 spending levels. It is also a complete capitulation by Obama, since his goal has been to turn us into a European social democracy. He needed permanent increase in the size of government to do that. He failed.
3) Pushing this into 2013 is huge political mistake by Obama. The Republican nominee adds another increase in the debt limit to the campaign rhetoric, joining pending tax increases and Obamacare. Massive political blunder.
4) No taxes. Everyone seems to have forgotten what a huge win this part is. Two weeks ago, raising taxes was the left's "hill to die on"
Posted by: Dave in Fla at July 31, 2011 06:07 AM (cSkZ5)
You are correct. They're calling him a (gasp) Republican over there this morning.
Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 09:49 AM (4q5tP)
30-35% of the population is batshit crazy. This will not end well.
Posted by: Tami at July 31, 2011 06:07 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 06:17 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 06:18 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 06:18 AM (B89As)
*SIGH*
Posted by: logprof at July 31, 2011 06:19 AM (BP6Z1)
I'd say it's another win for the Statist's, were screwed.
Bye Bye miss american pie, drove my civic to the quicky mart and the quicky mart was dry.
Posted by: Ringo at July 31, 2011 06:20 AM (OkWjw)
Posted by: Peter Griffin, Family Guy at July 31, 2011 06:21 AM (nVLlM)
When has Congress ever agreed to cuts?
When has Congress, ever agreed to entitlement cuts?
Winning. Duh?
Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 12:27 AM (TMB3S)
See Paul Ryan's 'cover the moon in Yogurt video'. This is why we don't trust them when they talk about cuts. Are the cuts REAL - the government will spend less next year than this year, or are they phantom - the government will spend less that it asked to spend next year, but still 5 or 6% more (instead of 7%)?
If this 1 trillion in 'cuts' are the 1 trillion that wouldn't be spent when the military is withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq...that's not really a cut because it was supposed to be something that happens anyway.
Further, what do we do with those service members when they are withdrawn? Do they remain in the employ of the US Armed Forces - which means, on net, we don't see a 1 trillion cut.
Now, if we can take them and stick them on the border with orders to kill anyone who isn't crossing at a checkpoint, I'm all for that.
IMO, the debt ceiling increase should be tied to a passing vote in house and Senate. If the states deny it, then we're doomed anyway, but leave this decision up to the people.
Posted by: blindside at July 31, 2011 06:21 AM (X1Y8q)
And, I still think the vote would be hella fun as a live-blog.
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 06:24 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 06:30 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Voluble at July 31, 2011 06:33 AM (JKX4x)
This time the Rs had to, essentially, appeal to the more conservative elements to get a deal through, rather than the other way around. That, in itself, is an indicator that the boat has been steered at least slightly towards the right.
The Dems now will raise their rhetoric against the Tea Party to an ear drum-piercing level and our side has to be prepared for it.....and not eat our own when it happens.
Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 06:36 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 06:43 AM (B89As)
Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 06:45 AM (N0z1T)
Posted by: balls_to_you_sir at July 31, 2011 06:50 AM (pOOCt)
Not so sure about Cantor. The most conservative leadership member out of the top 4 is Jeb Hensarling, who has no problem voting against the whims of te top 3.
Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 07:14 AM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Andrew at July 31, 2011 07:15 AM (JC4Ts)
As I have pointed out in a fiat money system a deficit up to the size of the amount of new money required for the growth of the economy does not cause inflation.
What is very bad is not deficits, it is DEBT. Stop swallowing the Liberal Shit sandwich of DEBT.
Posted by: An Observation at July 31, 2011 07:19 AM (ylhEn)
This is a garbage in-garbage out- one giant party. The power elite keep their dough, the masses get the bill. Fucking people carrying the parasite's water. Unreal.
Posted by: Frankenstein Government at July 31, 2011 07:28 AM (GOG1H)
Business as usual in D.C.
There are no Gandalfs, Elronds, or Galadriels in this world. Prepare yourselves for enslavement.
Posted by: TeaParty Hobbit at July 31, 2011 07:44 AM (TEgVw)
Posted by: Andrew at July 31, 2011 07:45 AM (JC4Ts)
Posted by: TeaParty Hobbit at July 31, 2011 07:47 AM (TEgVw)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 31, 2011 07:47 AM (QBQcg)
433Yea, let me try to contain my excitement over this "non capitulation." It is a parasite host relationship. The parasite has all but killed the host- and likes to tell us how nice it is.
This is a garbage in-garbage out- one giant party. The power elite keep their dough, the masses get the bill. Fucking people carrying the parasite's water. Unreal.
Posted by: Frankenstein Government at July 31, 2011 11:28 AM (GOG1H)
Watching leaders from both parties speak is simply watching a beast speak out of both sides of its mouth. Every fiber of my being is repulsed.
Posted by: TeaParty Hobbit at July 31, 2011 07:51 AM (TEgVw)
The permanent stimulus/Obama spending is now mainstreamed and accepted.
Posted by: MlR at July 31, 2011 07:57 AM (Qsfvj)
The better to allow everyone to maintain the fiction that they aren't eventually going to jack up future taxes in any case. Nothing to see here.
Posted by: MlR at July 31, 2011 08:02 AM (Qsfvj)
If this is so, then part of any bill should have a direction to the CBO to start at zero based budget. Until Boehner and Reid can no longer come to us with a $2.78 trillion (or whatever the real number is) increase and report it as a cut, I do not believe anything is going to get better. When a trillion dollar increase is reported as a cut, we are still screwed because there is no way to get the populace excited about a trillion dollar increase when they think we are cutting spending because the gatekeepers have told them so.
Posted by: kurtilator at July 31, 2011 08:07 AM (juh4Z)
Rush gave an understandable example last week: If there was a total freeze on spending, not a single penny more next year than this year it would, in D.C., be called a 9.5 trillion dollar cut in spending over ten years. The reason is that the expected increase is $9.5 trillion over ten years. Take away the expected increase and, voila, you have a cut.
Never mind that in the example not a single penny was either cut from or added to Washington's yearly spending. If you take away the expected increase or any part of it you have a cut--period.
Posted by: RayH at July 31, 2011 08:20 AM (9J2fY)
Posted by: izoneguy at July 31, 2011 08:22 AM (i6Neb)
Good news, everyone, McConnell's great idea of giving Obama the power to veto a non-increase is back. Thanks Mitch. Brilliant idea to bring that one up weeks ago instead of just keeping your mouth shut.
THis deal is atrocious.
Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2011 08:23 AM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: izoneguy at July 31, 2011 08:26 AM (i6Neb)
So we're looking at a $16.2 Trillion dollar debt by the next election?
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 31, 2011 08:26 AM (GKQDR)
Posted by: izoneguy at July 31, 2011 08:30 AM (i6Neb)
Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2011 08:30 AM (OX4OZ)
From Andrew Stiles at NRO
"Not only that, but a Republican source tells me that Democrats are currently negotiating for automatic tax increases as part of a trigger mechanism that will go into effect if the bipartisan committee called for in ReidÂ’s (and BoehnerÂ’s) plan fails to reach an agreement on an additional $1.2 trillion to $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction. Several GOP Senators confirm that this is the primary hang-up in the ongoing negotiations."
Huge, huge win for the Rs. So huge I didn't even notice it was a win.
Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2011 08:32 AM (OX4OZ)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 10:26 AM (agD4m)
I believe that baseline budgeting was another clever lawyerly legislative design to obscure the fact of the steady unrelenting growth of government and leave no fingerprints or paper trial to inconvenience your friendly establishment politician.
Posted by: Hrothgar at July 31, 2011 04:54 PM (yrGif)
Posted by: Janice at July 31, 2011 08:59 PM (cwX/l)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3916 seconds, 567 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: eddiebear at July 30, 2011 08:13 PM (iUDDZ)