March 31, 2011

Oh, Dear: Now I Do Think A Lame Sell-Out Compromise Has Been Reached On Spending, Because The Liberals Are Spinning It As A Conservative Victory
Update: Could Just Be More Liberal Spin

— Ace

Read Ed's post, which includes this reportage by Chuck Todd:

If the current Washington fight over spending was a game of chicken, the Obama White House would already be pulled over on the side of the road, as House Republicans continue to barrel down the deserted highway. The fact is, the White House and Senate Democrats keep caving, while House Republicans — at least publicly — have yet to budge an inch. The latest development, as Politico reports, is that the administration has agreed to an overall cut of $33 billion, which is near the number that the House leadership originally proposed (before the Tea Party caucus forced it to go higher). And now the White House appears to be backing away from its demand that no riders be attached to the deal. Press Secretary Jay Carney said there is no veto threat from the White House on a deal that contains ANY riders, as was originally the position.

You know why I don't like that?

Consider yesterday the story was "GOP gives up and agrees to pitiful $33 billion in cuts."

Now, today, the story seems to be: "Democrats cave and agree to huge $33 billion in cuts."

See? In both cases, it's the same figure, which I am capable of deciding for myself whether I believe it constitutes a win or loss.

My belief is this: Word has gone out. The Republican base won't accept the compromise-- so the Republican leadership can't do what they want to do.

But what if we can convince the base that the same lame $33 billion constitutes not a defeat for the GOP but a defeat for Obama and Reid? If we cast this as a victory, are they dumb enough to now call the same figure a win where before they'd call it a loss?

This could be the price of the deal -- Democrats, and their media allies, agree to put out the "Gee you sure whipped up but good" spin, which permits the Republicans to cave to the Democrats.

If someone has climbed into a tree and is all a-scared and wants to get back down, sometimes you have to help him in his climb-down.

Am I too cynical? I don't think so. All I know is that a deal I thought was a liberal victory yesterday is today being spun by liberals as a liberal defeat.

And I have to ask myself, "Why?" Why is a narrative being created here, that $33 billion, just three billion more than the Democrats' opening bid of $30 billion, is somehow a great victory for conservatives?

Is it because they want to help the conservative cause via positive messaging and tales of great triumph?

I rather... doubt that.

So why?

Oldest diplomatic move in the book: Allow an opponent who doesn't want to fight a face-saving out so he can withdraw with his honor superficially intact.

Actually... Now that I think about it, there's no strong reason to accuse Republican leadership of complicity in this scam.

As pointed out earlier, the Democrats are eagerly feeding stories to their liberal stenographers about deals being made and Republicans walking away from them.

This spin -- "We caved and caved and gave in on everything important and still those extremists wouldn't agree!" -- could just be part of that battlespace preparation. It's all of the same piece, right? It's all the same basic meme, in slightly different versions.

Thanks to RWC for pointing out that possibility -- which, I have to admit, has fewer moving parts and less of a conspiratorial vibe to it than mine does.

Posted by: Ace at 07:58 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.

1

But what if we can convince the base that the same lame $33 billion constitutes not a defeat for the GOP but a defeat for Obama and Reid? If we cast this as a victory, are they dumb enough to now call the same figure a win where before they'd call it a loss?

I fully expect some GOP morons to be all about making that sale to us in these comments. Save yourbreath pixels, fellas.

Posted by: brobdingnagian at March 31, 2011 08:01 AM (K/USr)

2 Sucka's !

Posted by: Boehner's Swiffer at March 31, 2011 08:01 AM (EL+OC)

3 Did we at least get an extended warranty? You can't lose with an extended warranty.

Posted by: Ben at March 31, 2011 08:04 AM (wuv1c)

4

From NRO: Boehner: No Deal

This reiterates the point he made earlier. I think it's premature to say there is a deal until that slimeball Rogers actually emerges from one of those meetings with actual numbers.

Another story states that Boehner and McCarthy have continued to negotiate with "moderate Dems", which I thought was interesting because isn't the Majority Leader usually part of the process? Where is Cantor?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:04 AM (UO6+e)

5 All we need to know is the number - $33 Billion.  Is that enough?  Not even close.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 31, 2011 08:04 AM (Z1jiu)

6 Maybe because the selfsame so called "press" likes to do whatever I say down to letting me yell at them "take it all or your a dead hostage" while I put a gun to their head and massage their throat as they swallow.

Posted by: President Obama, lightworker, orater, and Nobel Peace Prize winner at March 31, 2011 08:04 AM (S35ta)

7 Please don't throw me in thet br'er patch!

Posted by: Br'er Reid at March 31, 2011 08:04 AM (+lsX1)

8 Either way, aren't we accepting the liberal characterization of it?

Posted by: nickless at March 31, 2011 08:05 AM (MMC8r)

9 Are they counting the cost of the Libyan war in this 33 billion dollars?

Posted by: Ben at March 31, 2011 08:06 AM (wuv1c)

10 Interestingly, Chuck Todd's story is the same one repeated by George S. last night.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:06 AM (UO6+e)

11 This sounds like more outside-the-negotiating-room propaganda to me. I'm working on the assumption that Boehner was serious when he said "no deal."

Posted by: joncelli at March 31, 2011 08:08 AM (RD7QR)

12 I don't know.  This makes me think even more that these reports are coming from Dems.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 31, 2011 08:08 AM (BvBKY)

13 The latest development, as Politico reports, is that the administration has agreed to an overall cut of $33 billion, which is near the number that the House leadership originally proposed (before the Tea Party caucus forced it to go higher).

Key word there is "Politico". They are either lying or just behind the times. The reports today are that there is no deal.

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 08:08 AM (M9Ie6)

14 OT - Wisconsin judge rules law limiting collective bargaining has not been published and is not in effect - Madison.com http://bit.ly/ee7uy2

/Damn the Left's infiltration of the courts.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 31, 2011 08:09 AM (9hSKh)

15 Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

See also: DOOM!

Posted by: Andy at March 31, 2011 08:10 AM (5Rurq)

16 14 
Well, implementation's already begun, looks like we have a constitutional crisis and the SCOWI better rule on it right now.

Posted by: nickless at March 31, 2011 08:11 AM (MMC8r)

17

Another thing-- this is the same game they played with that $20B deal from last week. They said there was a deal*, the Rs denied, nothing happened. So this thing keeps going 'round in circles and I don't see how it works in practical terms. Either there is a deal or there isn't, and the insider who talked to Andrew Stiles said this is a game so that the Dems can blame the Rs for a shutdown. I also don't see a deal receiving enough votes to pass in the House, regardless of what Steny Hoyer says. He has gone around Pelosi on these CRs but he will bend to her will on this one. I don't see how it ends any other way.

*Supposed deal was different from this one.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:12 AM (UO6+e)

18 I disagree...

Now, today, the story seems to be: "Democrats cave and agree to huge $33 billion in cuts."

and still the mean ol' republicans wouldn't agree to it!

Posted by: RWC at March 31, 2011 08:12 AM (fWAjv)

19 ...zzzz... Let's say we get an entire $61 billion. Less than two percent of the budget. Wake me when Doom gets here.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 08:13 AM (AZGON)

20 Well if Chuck Todd says so...

http://tinyurl.com/6f5sr65

Posted by: ryukyu at March 31, 2011 08:14 AM (MOHSR)

21 On a side note; can we get rid of that damn picture of Wonder Woman on the sidebar?

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 08:15 AM (M9Ie6)

22 Deck chairs must be aligned longitudinally!

Posted by: The GOP at March 31, 2011 08:15 AM (MMC8r)

23 Worst part;
"The latest development, as Politico reports, is that the administration has agreed to an overall cut of $33 billion, which is near the number that the House leadership originally proposed (before the Tea Party caucus forced it to go higher). "

That bolded part is a little bit of divide and conquer. It means that Democrats get their "extreme" theme and keep it running with the help of Boehner. Boehner and the other GOP acolytes, who in secret hate the "Tea Party" get to say; "well, this is the best we could do, but look at all the other lovely superfluous stuff we got like a balanced budget amendment and some shiny new promises for next year". Then they get to do their Oliver Hardy finger play and roll their eyes at the ceiling.

Their apologists are already permeating the blogs and other media with anonymous quotes and foisting the"balance the budget" crap as a diversion.

Freaking losers. 

Posted by: Marcus at March 31, 2011 08:15 AM (CHrmZ)

24 I agree with 18 this is just more fucking posturing so the Dems can say "hey we caved and offered them 1 dollar in cuts, they want a government shut down!"

Posted by: Mr Pink at March 31, 2011 08:16 AM (S35ta)

25 If deck chairs are not arranged in a rational lateral pattern, we will never come to agreement with the extremist Republicans!

Posted by: The Dems at March 31, 2011 08:16 AM (MMC8r)

26 should have started negotiating at $500 billion and not a penny less.

Posted by: matt at March 31, 2011 08:16 AM (X69df)

27 It has to pass the Senate too, right?

I don't think Rubio, West, Mike Lee, or Rand Paul will vote for it.  Probably some others as well.  How many votes do they need? 

Posted by: Y-not at March 31, 2011 08:17 AM (pW2o8)

28 If it's spin they want, let's give 'em spin

Harry Reid yields to the Kung Fu of House Freshmen,
$60 billion in cuts it is

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 31, 2011 08:17 AM (tvs2p)

29 I'm more ticked-off that Boehner wants to play it safe on SS reform than anything. When the Vice Chairman of the Budget Committee states that the leadership is only "allowing" them (Budget) to go so far, I have an issue with that.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:18 AM (UO6+e)

30 I've updated. I think this is probably just a part of the Democrats' spin game. They're trying to sell they've "caved" -- which is like a super-compromise -- and yet mean republicans still won't come to the table. A commenter (sorry, I forget who) suggested something like this above. It makes sense.

Posted by: ace at March 31, 2011 08:18 AM (nj1bB)

31 27 ...I don't think Rubio, West, Mike Lee, or Rand Paul will vote for it.  Probably some others as well.  How many votes do they need?    A simple majority in the House is 218.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:19 AM (UO6+e)

32 Oh I see, it was RWC. yes, I think RWC is almost certainly right and I was probably wrong.

Posted by: ace at March 31, 2011 08:19 AM (nj1bB)

33 A simple majority in the House is 218.

Yes, but doesn't it also have to pass the Senate?  (those folks are senators)

Posted by: Y-not at March 31, 2011 08:20 AM (pW2o8)

34 I still think We're.  Frakkin'.  Boned.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 31, 2011 08:21 AM (zgZzy)

35 Wow' Wonder Woman is brobdingnagian, isn't she? he?

Posted by: brobdingnagian at March 31, 2011 08:21 AM (K/USr)

36

I hate this briar patch, Br'er Fox.  You got me good.  Yessir.

 

The only difference between the Pubs and Br'er Fox is that Br'er Fox was only stupid sometimes.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 31, 2011 08:22 AM (epBek)

37 "There is no deal."

"I won't cum in your mouth."

Posted by: Boehner's lips flapping at March 31, 2011 08:22 AM (LH6ir)

38 They're trying to sell they've "caved" -- which is like a super-compromise -- and yet mean republicans still won't come to the table. Likely true. Never was it clearer that the primary motivation in the MBM is fellating the Democrat Party. It's as if the MBM were an organization devoted to spreading liberal propaganda and spin, with actual news as an occasional by-product.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 08:22 AM (AZGON)

39 Hey, you fucked up.  You trusted us.

Posted by: John Limp Boehner at March 31, 2011 08:22 AM (zgZzy)

40

33 Yes, but doesn't it also have to pass the Senate?  (those folks are senators)

Sorry; I saw "West", so I went with the House. My mistake. Simple majority in the Senate is 51, but I believe Reid can set the bar at 60 if he so chooses.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:23 AM (UO6+e)

41

Now that I think about it, there's no strong reason to accuse Republican leadership of complicity in this scam.

Maybe, but the problem is its entirely plausible.  These republican fuckwits running the show are going to force a 3rd party if this goes on for much longer because it truly is dem vs dem lite at this point.  I'm scared, because how do we prevent a perot redux?

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 31, 2011 08:23 AM (cniXs)

42 "Just the tip."

Posted by: Shit Boehner Says at March 31, 2011 08:23 AM (zgZzy)

43 Yes, but doesn't it also have to pass the Senate?  (those folks are senators)
Posted by: Y-not at March 31, 2011 01:20 PM (pW2o

West, by which I take it you mean Allen West, is a Rep. not a Senator.

Posted by: KG at March 31, 2011 08:23 AM (DeCj1)

44 Oh I see, it was RWC.
yes, I think RWC is almost certainly right and I was probably wrong.

I don't think so. The only reason I say that is Republicans are leaking some of the same stuff. Why would they do that?


Posted by: Marcus at March 31, 2011 08:24 AM (CHrmZ)

45 When the budget deficit is over a trillion, $33 billion amounts to jack shit. Hell, the original $60-something billion amounts to the same.

Posted by: Thrush at March 31, 2011 08:25 AM (fOEq7)

46 So there's basically two alternatives:

Next year, people stop buying our debt because we won't get our spending under control.  This leads to either 1) collapse, or 2) the Fed 'buys' up our debt by printing more of our own money which unleashes hyperinflation and leads to 1), just slightly further down the road.

My only question is this: 

What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first?

Posted by: nickless at March 31, 2011 08:26 AM (MMC8r)

47 Obama to secretly* (in his dreams) throw out first ball of season.
One of Barney Frank's, I've been lead to believe.

* Obama is sending Bill Ayers to throw out the pitch, telling him he can keep the royalties

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 31, 2011 08:26 AM (tvs2p)

48 May we look out to 2012? What happens if the Stupid Party keeps the House but the Dangerous Party retains the Senate and WH? Perhaps we can look forward to drastic cuts of nearly two percent of the budget. Maybe even two and a half. Of course if the Stupid Party gets the Senate, we can get three.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 08:26 AM (AZGON)

49

What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first?

 

Wrap 'em in bacon and fry them in a big skillet.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 31, 2011 08:27 AM (zgZzy)

50 1.7 Trillion dollar shortfall. Cut 33 billion. That moves the tenths down .3

Nice work.

Posted by: Mike H at March 31, 2011 08:27 AM (LdYLm)

51 The paradigm has already changed from just a few months ago, when the momentum was toward a much saner budget. The freshmen were ascendant, and the old guard was worried.

Now? We are bickering over 33B or 60B in cuts, when the deficit for the next budget is in excess of 1.6T.

We have lost. The only thing to do is regroup for 2012 and work toward a majority for those who understand how bad our economic prospects really are.

(And Monty, sorry about stealing your meme.)

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 31, 2011 08:28 AM (LH6ir)

52 It's shocking how many recipes involve

(1. Wrap in bacon
(2. fry,
(3. eat

I mean, really.  Bacon is the new salt.

Posted by: KinleyArdal at March 31, 2011 08:28 AM (VMkqN)

53

44 I don't think so. The only reason I say that is Republicans are leaking some of the same stuff. Why would they do that?

Where? If you mean NRO, Rich Lowry is the only one still standing behind a belief in the $33B, and it's because he wants to believe it. He's using it as a sign of progress in his latest, but Stiles has only posted denials since jumping on that story last night. Not to mention this from Daniel Foster:

"Andrew, about that deal. I have it from a very knowledgeable Hill insider that it might be a bait-and-switch.

'They are setting us up by saying there is a deal,' the source says, 'so when there isn’t one by 4/8, they can claim they had a deal but we backed out.'”

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:29 AM (UO6+e)

54 no strong reason to accuse Republican leadership of complicity in this scam

Don't know which scam you mean but they are complicit in the scam to continue trillion dollar deficits till borrowing becomes impossible. 

Posted by: Scraping the Couric off my shoes at March 31, 2011 08:30 AM (F/4zf)

55 I think Ace is right to be worried:

As budget negotiations resumed on Capitol Hill and appeared to make headway, House Republican leaders on Wednesday began the delicate task of assessing what level of compromise they can sell to a conservative rank-and-file spoiling for a fiscal fight.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 31, 2011 08:30 AM (Z1jiu)

56 Posted by: nickless at March 31, 2011 01:26 PM (MMC8r)

A long braise, preferably in a flavored liquid is the preferred method of cooking old things.

Coq au Vin is the classic preparation, and you can easily modify the recipe for rump of Grandma.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 31, 2011 08:30 AM (LH6ir)

57 My dad told me of the time of the hostage crisis and how our country was so diminished because it could not take out a bunch of sand people. Isnt libya sorta like this?

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at March 31, 2011 08:33 AM (QRS0z)

58 "There is no deal."

"I won't cum in your mouth."

Posted by: Boehner's lips flapping at March 31, 2011 01:22 PM (LH6ir)

"I'll still respect you in the morning!"

"The SS check is in the mail."

"We'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it."

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 08:34 AM (DCpHZ)

59 55 I think Ace is right to be worried:

As budget negotiations resumed on Capitol Hill and appeared to make headway, House Republican leaders on Wednesday began the delicate task of assessing what level of compromise they can sell to a conservative rank-and-file spoiling for a fiscal fight.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 31, 2011 01:30 PM (Z1jiu)

Here's the level of compromise I'd accept. Zero budget. Set priorities. Take in 1T in taxes, spend 1T in taxes. 

We get wrapped up arguing about the budget where the real argument is spend what you tax us - no more.

Posted by: Mike H at March 31, 2011 08:34 AM (LdYLm)

60 What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first? Posted by: nickless at March 31, 2011 01:26 PM (MMC8r) I hear soylent green is good.

Posted by: joncelli at March 31, 2011 08:35 AM (RD7QR)

61

We get wrapped up arguing about the budget where the real argument is spend what you tax us - no more.

Posted by: Mike H at March 31, 2011 01:34 PM (LdYLm)

And you tax and regulate us less!

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 08:35 AM (DCpHZ)

62 We get wrapped up arguing about the budget where the real argument is spend what you tax us - no more.

Sounds like a good deal to me, Now send me your paycheck.

Posted by: Barak H Obama at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (tf9Ne)

63

Great job Republicans!!! Now only 1570 Billion more to cut until a balanced budget. Glad you got all the easy cuts done before the painful EXTREME cuts begin. Cowards.

Posted by: Schwalbe : The at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (UU0OF)

64 What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first?

Use the same recipes as for pork, cut any added salt by 2/3rds. Don't eat anyone who shows any symptoms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Curing meat will result in extremely salty flavor and will need a sizable buffer to be palatable, such as using cured portions in a navy bean soup for instance.

Posted by: That guy who knows way too much about that awkward topic at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (0q2P7)

65 55 I think Ace is right to be worried:

As budget negotiations resumed on Capitol Hill and appeared to make headway, House Republican leaders on Wednesday began the delicate task of assessing what level of compromise they can sell to a conservative rank-and-file spoiling for a fiscal fight.

Where are you reading that? It's interesting because McCarthy already solicited opinions about a potential deal last month, which the article seems to indicate they've never considered the possibility. This info is all contradictory.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (UO6+e)

66

What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first?

They already taste like cat food.

Not that I'd know anything about that.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (d0Tfm)

67 We get wrapped up arguing about the budget where the real argument is spend what you tax us - no more.

This.

Zero-based budgeting needs to go to Washington.  And stay there.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (8y9MW)

68 What's a good recipe for old people

You want to cook and eat wonder woman?!?

Posted by: Scraping the Couric off my shoes at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (F/4zf)

69 Posted by: Flapjackmaka at March 31, 2011 01:33 PM (QRS0z)

Um, no. The Iranians took American hostages. Carter was unable to negotiate their release, and his military option failed.

Libya has no direct influence on America, and the outcome of the conflict will change very little of our prospects. The only good thing that may come of this little adventure in the desert is the death of Qaddaffi, and the involvement of Islamic terrorists (but I repeat myself) in a bloody war not on our land.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 31, 2011 08:36 AM (LH6ir)

70

You guys are really over thinking this.  Unlike in the movies, there are no real political uber geniuses that always think 10 moves ahead and have files full of backup plans. Especially not in the Senate where half of the membership is either in adult diapers or retarded (I’ m looking at you Patrick Leahy and Barbra Boxer) .

The fact is, in order to be a  super –player you only have to be one step ahead of the other guy.

There is only one plan in play from what I can tell, and its neither subtle nor clever:

Claim there is a “deal” for n-dollars. Let the R’s (r’s) deny that there is a deal. Stonewall till 4/8. Let the CR expire. Jump in front of the camera and claim that the Tea Party made the “deal” fall through.

That swine Chuck Schumer pretty much told us so.

Posted by: Chairman Mow at March 31, 2011 08:37 AM (ih+cL)

71 I hear soylent green is good.

Let's eat out tonite honey, do you want mexicans, italians, chinese, or jewish?  we can cleanse our palate with some black and white ice cream.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 31, 2011 08:39 AM (Z1jiu)

72 "Don't eat anyone who shows any symptoms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease."

Posted by: That guy who knows way too much about that awkward topic at March 31, 2011 01:36 PM (0q2P7)

How will you differentiate between CJ and dementia? And besides, if we have to eat the old, our prospects are pretty crappy.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 31, 2011 08:39 AM (LH6ir)

73

Latest from Stiles: "What's the Deal?"

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:39 AM (UO6+e)

74 What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first? They're tough birds, so usually you need to hang them for a week, in a shed that keeps temperatures low. They can be gamey, so serving them with a dark fruit or wine reduction usually works. Chestnut puree is nice as a side.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 08:40 AM (AZGON)

75
What's a good recipe for old people, since they'll be the ones we'll probably eat first?

Don't miss my next Good Eats, 'Longing for Long Pig,' friday on the Food Network!

Posted by: Alton Brown at March 31, 2011 08:40 AM (MMC8r)

76 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 31, 2011 01:36 PM (LH6ir)

I can actually see a lot of people making the comparison, though.  I do think your take is more accurate, however, and actually much worse if anyone thinks about it.

Iran Hostages:
1 - Iran took Americans hostage
2 - Negotiations Failed
3 - US Attempts Military Action (fails because of Feckless idiot in Oval Office)

Libya:
1 - No direct interest for the United States
2 - Negotiations never tried- or very truncated
3 - US Attempts Military Action (which will probably fail because of Fecklesser idiot in Oval Office).

Think about that- even with the failure in the former, you can't really argue that we didn't have a good reason to attempt military action.  In the latter, there was no reason for us to be there in the first place.  Nothing should have compelled us to fire even one cruise missile, or launch even one warplane.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 31, 2011 08:41 AM (8y9MW)

77 Unlike in the movies, there are no real political uber geniuses that always think 10 moves ahead and have files full of backup plans. Absolutely fucking right. These guys spend more time thinking about scoring the business class upgrade and dinner reservations than they do playing Congressional 11-dimensional chess.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 08:41 AM (AZGON)

78

Technically, any spending cut from 2010 levels could be considered (or spun as) a GOP victory.  Obama wanted a spending increase, and if they had their way, the Dems in Congress probably would've sent him a budget even bigger than what Obama asked for.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for as big a cut as we can get away with (we should), but if the GOP doesn't give an inch on the $61 billion in cuts, it'll be far easier for the Dems to pin a shutdown on the GOP politically.

In any case, there's almost no difference between cuts of $30 billion, $45 billion or $61 billion when compared to the massive sizes of the federal budget, deficit and debt.  2012 and 2013 are where the real fight should be held.

 

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 31, 2011 08:42 AM (SY2Kh)

79

House Budget Committee update

The post mainly reiterates what's been said previously but also expands on some ideas.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:43 AM (UO6+e)

80 How will you differentiate between CJ and dementia? And besides, if we have to eat the old, our prospects are pretty crappy.

Feed them to your pigs, then eat the pigs. Believe it or not, that actually works.

Posted by: That guy who knows way too much about that awkward topic at March 31, 2011 08:43 AM (0q2P7)

81 So does an artificial knee count as gristle?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 31, 2011 08:44 AM (Z1jiu)

82 DEBT: it's what's for dinner.  And breakfast.  And dessert.

Weak politicians:  it's what's for dinner.  And breakfast.  And dessert....

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 31, 2011 08:45 AM (Hyr6r)

83 Take what you can get, move the ball a little more down the field, and start working for more cuts. Never stop.

Posted by: Trimegistus at March 31, 2011 08:45 AM (YIKQc)

84 So does an artificial knee count as gristle? It's like a prize, like a set of stag horns. You can mount them over your front door.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 08:45 AM (AZGON)

85 There are a few truth go-to guys in Congress.  I'm hoping the GOP can do psy-ops now that there are some ex-military people just elected?  Please be the case...

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 31, 2011 08:46 AM (Hyr6r)

86 When the MBM says anything that can even be *perceived* as complimentary about Republicans, you know they're setting us up for *something*.

In this case, either falling for a budgetary shit-sandwich or being blamed for the Dems shutting services down as a political ploy.

You know, we set up our political systems to make disputes less lethal, and it may have been a mistake.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 31, 2011 08:47 AM (bxiXv)

87
For some perspective, can anyone tell me how big this CR is relative to a full year's budget?

Proportionally speaking, I mean.

In other words, if this CR is 10% of a full budget, isn't it reasonable to estimate that we're looking at a target of $330B in cuts for the next full budget? I'm trying to extrapolate to see what we can expect later, if you get my drift.


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 08:49 AM (gM4zK)

88 Ace: "Thanks to RWC for pointing out that possibility -- which, I have to admit, has fewer moving parts and less of a conspiratorial vibe to it than mine does."

It's not a conspiracy to believe the levers of government manned by those who live to govern cooperate in the dark. Actors in D.C. play off each other all the time, and the respective Whips count votes and decide who gets to be exactly how "extreme" members get to be on certain issues to retain their numbers.

What we know is that the machine either dislikes or hates reform which is to say the Tea Party because real money would leave D.C. Would it be a surprise to think they'd choreograph a dance to castrate a common foe?

The taxpayer is being gamed. A number such as $30B +/- $30B being the "extreme" slashing should tell us this.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 08:52 AM (swuwV)

89 2012 and 2013 are where the real fight should be held.

Why?  In 2012, we're going to be focused on winning 2014.  In 2014, we'll focus on winning 2016.  The GOP leadership will not want to rock the boat, always promising after that next victory we'll fix things.

This is the kick-the-can behavior we saw for the last forty years.  Why keep doing it?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 31, 2011 08:52 AM (TpXEI)

90

In addition to cutting the federal budget back to some semblance of sanity, I still don't hear any concrete ideas for getting us out of the Obama Depression. Things like deregulation, tax cuts for corporations or any of the old, out-of-date ideas that worked so well in the past.

I'm just an economic romantic that way. We are forgetting that we're in the doldrums, and any small movement towards getting the economy back on track will tend to be amplified due to the depths of our troubles. A little uptick will make things better. Unfortunately, that day may not come until the Dimocrat Dismantling in 2012 when Bill the Dead Cat beats The Vapid One® with a thirty point margin of victory.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 31, 2011 08:52 AM (d0Tfm)

91 In any case, there's almost no difference between cuts of $30 billion, $45 billion or $61 billion when compared to the massive sizes of the federal budget, deficit and debt.

Bingo. We pile on an additional $4 billion or so of debt every day; any one of those amounts of cuts is just rearranging the deck chairs on the S.S. DOOM.

That said, it's a shame we pussed out and didn't go for as high a number as possible instead of this sham of $61 billion that's supposedly $100 billion if you look at it from the right angle.

Posted by: Andy at March 31, 2011 08:53 AM (5Rurq)

92 I can't really see the dems and the GOP colluding on this.  In DC, the GOP are treated like the minority, whether they are in the majority or not.  The dems just tell their camp followers in the media what to report, and it comes out pretty much verbatim.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 08:54 AM (SNs7J)

93 i don't care how hungry i get, i'm not eating people.....that's just sick...and i'm not eating an animal that ate a people.............

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 31, 2011 08:56 AM (Cm66w)

94 Just for the record, I am assuming that all of these reported 'cut' numbers are missing a trailing zero, and the real proposed cuts are in the hundreds of millions.  Otherwise, this is a pathetic joke.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 08:57 AM (SNs7J)

95 billions

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 08:58 AM (SNs7J)

96 if you eat people...does that make you a humanitarian?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 31, 2011 08:58 AM (Cm66w)

97 It would be helpful to point out periodically that the cuts being discussed (often disingenuously) are from 2010 levels.

Some people seem to be going on the assumption that we're discussing the proposed Obama Budget with its insane spending increases, that even the administration admitted wasn't serious.

*That* one would have to be cut 2 trillion. This one needs to be cut 500 billion. They're fighting tooth-and-nail over 30 billion.

We're boned.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 31, 2011 08:58 AM (bxiXv)

98

The only thing I'm seeing from the updates is that Boehner is going to fight to get a deal but isn't really sure he's going to get one. I'm thinking not, because the Dems already played the shutdown hand. They want one, they think they can win it, and these negotiations are set-up with the intent of failure.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 08:58 AM (UO6+e)

99 94 Just for the record, I am assuming that all of these reported 'cut' numbers are missing a trailing zero, and the real proposed cuts are in the hundreds of millions. Otherwise, this is a pathetic joke.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 01:57 PM (SNs7J)

It's a pathetic joke.

Not that you really needed someone to tell you that.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 31, 2011 08:59 AM (bxiXv)

100 >>Bingo. We pile on an additional $4 billion or so of debt every day; any one of those amounts of cuts is just rearranging the deck chairs on the S.S. DOOM. Almost time to slip on the assless chaps, fire up the Interceptor and start wandering the countryside looking for soft targets.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 31, 2011 08:59 AM (TMB3S)

101 93 i don't care how hungry i get, i'm not eating people.....that's just sick...and i'm not eating an animal that ate a people............. Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 31, 2011 01:56 PM (Cm66w) But what if we eat a person, and then you eat us, and nobody tells you we ate people? Then we have the last laugh! Hahahahah! Hahahaha! Uh, wait...

Posted by: Pigs, not thinking things through at March 31, 2011 09:02 AM (RD7QR)

102 You're getting played, Ace.  McCarthy has it right, and Schumer exposed it the other day: the Dems are going to "shut down" the government and are simply preparing the propaganda battlefield with all this psychops garbage of Boehner & Co. "selling out" the Tea Party and Reid and Obama "caving" on $33 billion in cuts.  They know tighty-righties are reflexively fratricidal and paranoid about being "betrayed" by the "Republican establishment" and consequently how vulnerable so many TPers are to being distracted from the REAL opposition by a bunch of fearmongering hand-waving.

I'm with Boehner & Co.: Let's see an actual Donk offer of these phantom $33 billion in cuts.  On the table, in the open, in fine print printed with ink that doesn't disappear.  And then let's see our guys' reaction.

But can we look beyond this piddling amount to what is really the bigger point?  Are we really going to back-stab the majority we worked so hard to get back into power over $28 billion (if it comes to that)?  Couldn't it be that that is why the Dems are fighting so fiercely now, so that we'll bail on the GOP and the truly important battle of the 2012 budget will functionally never take place?  Divide & conquer, if you will?

After all, if the base deserts the party, what reason does the party have to do what the base wants?

Posted by: JASmius at March 31, 2011 09:02 AM (qtCHY)

103 Democrats: Can we fuck you in the ass?

Republicans: No!

Democrats: But you'll love us long time!

Republicans: Deal!

Posted by: Holger at March 31, 2011 09:03 AM (YxGud)

104

90 In addition to cutting the federal budget back to some semblance of sanity, I still don't hear any concrete ideas for getting us out of the Obama Depression. Things like deregulation, tax cuts for corporations or any of the old, out-of-date ideas that worked so well in the past.

deregulation bill is being voted-on before the House today. As for tax reform, Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp proposed capping individual and corporate tax rates at 25%.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 09:04 AM (UO6+e)

105 2011 estimated US Federal budget ('cause an official one does not exist): 3.82 trillion --GOP original proposal for cuts to budget: 0.1 trillion or 100 billion --GOP parsed that down to 0.061 trillion or 61 billion --that 100 or 61 billion was meant to cover the whole year but it's confusing because the GOP says the real cuts will come next year, but is that the 2012 or 2011 budget? It really doesn't matter because if we are comparing the 100 billion to the slightly smaller budget in 2010, that was 3.52 trillion. 0.061 billion happens once for a year's time as far as I can tell. The succession of numerous CR bills was going to be two or three billion at a time, so it's not 61 billion every month. Am I missing anything?

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 09:04 AM (AZGON)

106

Wrap 'em in bacon and fry them in a big skillet.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 31, 2011 01:27 PM (zgZzy)

He said old people, not Moooooslims.

Posted by: rightzilla at March 31, 2011 09:05 AM (SPVfc)

107 For some perspective, can anyone tell me how big this CR is relative to a full year's budget?
In other words, if this CR is 10% of a full budget, isn't it reasonable to estimate that we're looking at a target of $330B in cuts for the next full budget?

A budget is two years. This CR will last until Oct 1. Proportion as you will. Most budget deficits are framed as "annual deficits" meaning half of the total budget deficit.

We need at least 500B/yr (1T total) cut out of the next budget just to buy time between now and the monetary collapse. 33B is not near enough, but, this CR is a sparing match not the main event. The goal here is to put your political opponents in a position where they have no bargaining power when it comes to the next budget. You do this by sapping their popularity. I think this is why Repubs are letting the theater go on and on because it shows to a public who wants big cuts, how unreasonable the Dems are about giving them, put a bunch of purple state guys in jeopardy for 2012, and sap the caucus unity for the big budget fight in August/September.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 31, 2011 09:05 AM (0q2P7)

108

Why?  In 2012, we're going to be focused on winning 2014.  In 2014, we'll focus on winning 2016.  The GOP leadership will not want to rock the boat, always promising after that next victory we'll fix things.

This is the kick-the-can behavior we saw for the last forty years.  Why keep doing it?

The House bill with $61 billion in cuts has already passed; we're not going to get more than that this year.  $61 billion is not nearly enough to un-bone us; it's going to take more drastic measures (entitlement reform) to get where we need to be.  Selling those to a public who wants a spending cut without actually cutting spending on anything that might remotely affect them is going to take time.

Besides, we're half way through the 2011 fiscal year already; the damage has already been done.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 31, 2011 09:05 AM (SY2Kh)

109 Couldn't it be that that is why the Dems are fighting so fiercely now, so that we'll bail on the GOP and the truly important battle of the 2012 budget will functionally never take place? Winning! Folks, this is the welterweight fight before the Thrilla in Manila. The 2012 budget is what matters, really, and this fight now is a warmup to see how much the DemonRats will give away and how much control Boehner has over the base and the GOP freshmen. When the 2012 budget negotiations begin -- when is that, anyway? -- this will all seem like a scrimmage.

Posted by: Pigs, not thinking things through at March 31, 2011 09:06 AM (RD7QR)

110 And we have the ceremonial throwing out of the sock fail.

Posted by: joncelli at March 31, 2011 09:07 AM (RD7QR)

111 The spring budget, which is being released on Tuesday, is a 10-yr budget.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 09:08 AM (UO6+e)

112 i don't care how hungry i get, i'm not eating people.....that's just sick...and i'm not eating an animal that ate a people.............


Awesome! Might I reccomend a diet rich in corn while it is still readily available? Oh and try not to move around so much, it.....um......wastes calories, yeah wastes calories!

Posted by: That guy who knows way too much about that awkward topic at March 31, 2011 09:09 AM (0q2P7)

113 The 2012 budget is what matters, really, and this fight now is a warmup to see how much the DemonRats will give away and how much control Boehner has over the base and the GOP freshmen. Unless Weepy John is willing to threaten a real shutdown, with more than "non-essential" services affected, this will go nowhere. "Nowhere" being defined as cuts of anything from zero to 10 percent of the White House's proposed budget. Anything less is laughable. Anything more is impossible. So... boned.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 09:09 AM (AZGON)

114

But what if we can convince the base that the same lame $33 billion constitutes not a defeat for the GOP but a defeat for Obama and Reid? If we cast this as a victory, are they dumb enough to now call the same figure a win where before they'd call it a loss?

Not hardly. The people that stupid are Democrats.

Posted by: maddogg at March 31, 2011 09:10 AM (OlN4e)

115

As I said right after the election... the Old Guard, both Republican and Democrat, will come together to combat the real threat.o That of those Outsiders known as the TEA Party folks.

 

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 09:11 AM (NtXW4)

116 Can I just say that anyone whose top priority is the budget should be backing Rand Paul for President?

Posted by: FUBAR, Randbot at March 31, 2011 09:12 AM (McG46)

117 i don't care how hungry i get, i'm not eating people.....that's just sick...

H8rs b h8in'.

Posted by: The Donner Posse at March 31, 2011 09:13 AM (ZHZdZ)

118 Posted by: JASmius at March 31, 2011 02:02 PM (qtCHY)

Seriously, that's two threads in a row in which you've castigated Ace for holding a position he clearly doesn't hold.

Bad hair day or reading comprehension disorder?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 31, 2011 09:13 AM (bxiXv)

119 Democrats: Can we cum on your face?

Republicans: No!

Democrats: But you won!

Republicans: Deal.

Posted by: Holger at March 31, 2011 09:15 AM (YxGud)

120 After Monty's DOOM strike, long pig will be quite popular in the blue strongholds. Down here, we will still need to feed the dogs.

Posted by: maddogg at March 31, 2011 09:17 AM (OlN4e)

121 Selling those to a public who wants a spending cut without actually cutting spending on anything that might remotely affect them is going to take time.

If it's not being sold now, it's never going to be sold.  It will always be avoided in favor of not losing seats in the next election.

Whatever else, a government shutdown is a wake-up call.  It will get everybody's attention.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 31, 2011 09:19 AM (TpXEI)

122 Wondering if erg will have any food value, as he is worthless for anything else....

Posted by: maddogg at March 31, 2011 09:19 AM (OlN4e)

123

Why do Repubs and Dems like to do sex to me?

Posted by: Mr Chinese Chicken at March 31, 2011 09:19 AM (pr+up)

124 Democrats: Don't throw us in the briar patch.

Republicans: Hey, I've got a great idea!

Posted by: FUBAR, Randbot at March 31, 2011 09:22 AM (McG46)

125 Boehner needs to be replaced.  He really sucks donkey dick as Speaker.  And he cries while he's doing it.

I've had enough of these pussies.  They are the worst.  At least the dems can argue that they're retards and they hate America, so their actions are understandable.  But for these GOP dipshits ... there is no excuse, at all.  None.

I feel sick.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 09:27 AM (G/MYk)

126 Sadly I expect them to cave so these stories really ring true even if they are just spin right now.

Posted by: JAFKIAC at March 31, 2011 09:36 AM (8U0zO)

127 Pawlenty, Pawlenty, he's our man! If he can't do it, no one can!

Posted by: blaster at March 31, 2011 09:37 AM (l5dj7)

128

Would Trump really be a step backwards at this point?

Posted by: dananjcon at March 31, 2011 09:41 AM (pr+up)

129

If it's not being sold now, it's never going to be sold.  It will always be avoided in favor of not losing seats in the next election.

Whatever else, a government shutdown is a wake-up call.  It will get everybody's attention.

"Now" is the 2011 budget; the House bill didn't address entitlement reform.

Entitlement reform (where the real money is) ain't going to be easy, and the discussion should be had as soon as possible, but for the time being we need take care of current business.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 31, 2011 09:43 AM (SY2Kh)

130 116 Can I just say that anyone whose top priority is the budget should be backing Rand Paul for President?

Posted by: FUBAR, Randbot at March 31, 2011 02:12 PM (McG46)

Shhhhh... he has his fathers last name.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 31, 2011 09:44 AM (pr+up)

131

Senator Shutdown

Senator Schumer tries to orchestrate a government shutdown.

...which soldifies my opinion that this is all a charade.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 09:54 AM (UO6+e)

132 Now that I think about it, there's no strong reason to accuse Republican leadership of complicity in this scam.

Their complicity in the scam-in-general indicts them in every scam-in-particular.

Posted by: oblig. at March 31, 2011 10:00 AM (xvZW9)

133 What is wrong with you people? You act like this money belongs to you.

Posted by: bo bomber at March 31, 2011 10:32 AM (w7TI0)

134

You are welcome to browse our site and you will find your love items with surprise.The NFL jerseys outlet and the NHL jerseys outlet from our factory are your best choice.Don't hesitate to get your love items!

Reasons for choosing us:·All order only charge 19.99$;buy more,Save more!Cheap nfl jerseys as well as cheap nhl jerseys.

·None tax fee for all customers;discount nfl jerseys and discount nhl jerseys

·Easy ordering system make you enjoy your shopping;

·The Paypal Payment ensure to keep the security of our customers information nfl jersey sale

·It will be delivered within 24 hours after we confirm your payment;

Posted by: discount nhl jerseys at March 31, 2011 04:36 PM (OzXN4)

135

"And now the White House appears to be backing away from its demand that no riders be attached to the deal. Press Secretary Jay Carney said there is no veto threat from the White House on a deal that contains ANY riders, as was originally the position."

I'm not sure you are looking at the big picture here.  I wanted to see deeper cuts just as any fiscal conservative did but there are broader issues to look at.  

The riders have been a big "meat of the matter" issue in my book.  These riders include the defunding of Planned Parenthood and NPR along with restricting the EPA from regulating CO2. 

I know that there was also a defunding of Obamacare rider in the works as well which would be biggest victory of them all.

If ANY riders are to be accepted, then I say take the fiscal compromise with all the riders attached and work on further cuts down the road whenever and where ever possible.

Posted by: B-line at March 31, 2011 04:47 PM (ZUF6f)

136 thanks for your share!!

Posted by: wholesale lingerie at April 01, 2011 04:17 AM (t86IJ)

137 I have come here to chew bubblegum and burn Korans... and I am all out of bubblegum.Äþ²¨Ã×ÄÈ»éÉ´£¬Äþ²¨»éÉ´£¬Äþ²¨»éÉ´³ö×⣬Äþ²¨»éÉ´¶¨ÖÆ

Posted by: 0574mina at April 02, 2011 05:36 PM (a004l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
165kb generated in CPU 0.14, elapsed 1.1531 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0408 seconds, 373 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.