July 30, 2011

Tentative Budget Deal Reached
— 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 07:12 PM | Comments (447)
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

1 yeah. how much did Get Along Mitch give up for this?

Posted by: eddiebear at July 30, 2011 07:13 PM (iUDDZ)

2 It's a trap!

Posted by: Admiral Akbar at July 30, 2011 07:15 PM (iYwUw)

3 this is rinoculous

Posted by: phoenixgirl at July 30, 2011 07:16 PM (eOXTH)

4 So, BOHICA.

At least we didn't upset President Big Spender's birthday plans, or something.

Posted by: Waterhouse at July 30, 2011 07:16 PM (4R29X)

5 Well, does Obama get to delay the next circus until after the 2012 election?

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:16 PM (jeLTI)

6 Cuts?  What cuts?

Posted by: Cooter at July 30, 2011 07:17 PM (C06Qq)

7 Tireless work by the President gets it done!!!11!11!!

Posted by: Some journalist clone at July 30, 2011 07:17 PM (YulS3)

8 Sounds McConnelltastic!

Posted by: Doc at July 30, 2011 07:17 PM (eJMcR)

9 Crap.  Misspelled that word and then my computer crashed.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 07:17 PM (i2fkw)

10 Weren't they originally asking for a $2.4 trillion increase? Also, oh look another symbolic vote that will end up coming to nothing and meaning nothing but will sound good in a campaign ad.

Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 07:17 PM (StBYg)

11 They are going to downgrade us no matter what these asshats do.

Posted by: Cooter at July 30, 2011 07:17 PM (C06Qq)

12 Carp.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:18 PM (jeLTI)

13 Ow. My butt is bleeding. What's going on here?

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:18 PM (jeLTI)

14 Well, now doesn't that sound a while lot like the Boehner plan!  Whoda thunk it?


Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 07:19 PM (Wm4Mf)

15 $1 trillion in cuts, huh?  ROUGHLY.  What exactly are those cuts, and are they NOW cuts or later cuts or budget hocus pocus cuts?

Posted by: MWR, proud Tea Party Hobbit at July 30, 2011 07:19 PM (CA2NO)

16 while=whole

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 07:19 PM (Wm4Mf)

17 A balanced budget in our time.

Posted by: 2SoonOld2LateSmart at July 30, 2011 07:19 PM (YFAMg)

18 Fore!

Posted by: Barry Soetero at July 30, 2011 07:21 PM (sXUiz)

19 Why do I doubt they'd ever stick to it? Sounds a little like smoke and mirrors

Posted by: Smoke and Mirrors at July 30, 2011 07:21 PM (jEEpE)

20 Real,massive debt today for promises of mysterious cuts tomorrow? Thanks for nothing RINO's. It's not going to matter who is in power after Obama spends another $2.8 Trillion. We are screwed.

Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 07:21 PM (41pdT)

21

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 07:22 PM (uM9Wf)

22 I guess that Mr. Soros was able to close his short positions so that Barry could agree to a deal... plus CAKE....

Posted by: phreshone at July 30, 2011 07:23 PM (T3vCe)

23 The cuts will likely be fictitious, down the road smoke and mirror crap..

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 07:23 PM (Wm4Mf)

24 I tenatively approve this post.

Posted by: Dr Spank at July 30, 2011 07:24 PM (IMglX)

25 I fixed it, Spank.  I just forgot to save it before making a 2d change.  Oh, well.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 07:25 PM (i2fkw)

26

McConnel deserves a Swirlie.

Posted by: garrett at July 30, 2011 07:25 PM (kPTo9)

27 Boehner has one way to save face... major budget item a week, starting with repeal of Obamacare... 

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 07:26 PM (T3vCe)

28 Oh,I see now. I thought they said Reid postponed the vote to give everyone "much room" to work. What they really said was Reid postponed the deal to give  the "MUSHROOMS TIME TO WORK".

Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 07:26 PM (41pdT)

29 Lay the patient down gently after administering the morphine. Nurse, would you get some more pillows? Excuse me? The Hearse is here? But the patient's not dea... Oh.

Posted by: Smoke and Mirrors at July 30, 2011 07:26 PM (jEEpE)

30 The actual merits of the proposal aside, there is simply no chance in hell a balanced budget amendment would pass right now.

Its purely a symbolic sop towards the spending-hawks.

Posted by: looking closely at July 30, 2011 07:26 PM (KNy97)

31 Wait. If this is accurate we got Barry to agree to not only $2.8 trillion in cuts and, and this is a huge and, cuts to entitlements and you guys are unhappy? When has Congress ever agreed to cuts? When has Congress, ever agreed to entitlement cuts? Winning. Duh?

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 07:27 PM (TMB3S)

32

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 07:27 PM (7EV/g)

33 Eeeeewwwwwww Weeeeeee! I can't wait for the flippin hisser to make another primetime speech and tell me how wonderful he was when he personally drafted the deal and how he was was the one ....IIII....me me me me.....Good Gawd just wake me up from this nightmare when Rubio gets sworn in.

Posted by: Kawfy at July 30, 2011 07:28 PM (2trrN)

34 31
"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 07:29 PM (KNy97)

35 Boehner has one way to save face... major budget item a week, starting with repeal of Obamacare... 

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 07:30 PM (Wm4Mf)

36 Now we can move on to more important stuff like immigration reform, and rubber stamping Obama's judicial nominees.

Posted by: Lindsey Graham at July 30, 2011 07:30 PM (IMglX)

37 When has Congress, ever agreed to entitlement cuts?

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 07:30 PM (7EV/g)

38

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 07:32 PM (41pdT)

39

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 07:32 PM (Fb9Q0)

40 Giving Obama enough borrowing authority to get him past the 2012 election is the only thing that should have been unthinkable.

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 07:33 PM (LH6ir)

41 If this is accurate we got Barry to agree to not only $2.8 trillion in cuts and, and this is a huge and, cuts to entitlements and you guys are unhappy?

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 07:33 PM (4R29X)

42 Cost of giving the demoRATs control of the government in 2006 Election ---- over nine thousand-billion dollars...

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 07:33 PM (T3vCe)

43

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 07:35 PM (+qKsl)

44 Will the House approve this?  If they will why didn't Obama accept this last week (or whenever it was)?

Posted by: ParisParamus at July 30, 2011 07:35 PM (oISis)

45 Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 12:27 AM (TMB3S)

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 07:35 PM (LH6ir)

46 This is a pretty good deal.  This commission has to come up with 1.8 Trillion in new cuts by Thanksgiving or automatic cuts kick in.

When was the last time a commission agreed on anything??

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 07:36 PM (Wm4Mf)

47

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 07:36 PM (Fb9Q0)

48 >>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. 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. With the current makeup of DC, if we get $2.8 trillion in real cuts which means entitlements are on the table I will be really impressed with what these guys were able to do.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 07:36 PM (TMB3S)

49 Shit, man. Double-secret probation. These guys are serious now.

Posted by: Charles Krauthammer at July 30, 2011 07:36 PM (/q/kQ)

50

Jackstraw,

What is your assessment of this potential deal.

It sounds fishy.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 07:37 PM (Fb9Q0)

51 I'm seeing contradictory reports and sources wavering on confirmation of this "deal". Unless they are close enough to announce within the next hr, we'll likely have to wait until late this morning for full confirmation-- if this actually happens. Both sides have to consult with their conferences and caucuses, too.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 07:38 PM (o2lIv)

52 38
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 07:39 PM (StBYg)

53

We need to bring back the Tar, Feather and Rails.

Posted by: garrett at July 30, 2011 07:39 PM (W6ap7)

54 Regardless of the status, I did enjoy this:

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 07:40 PM (o2lIv)

55 I look for the price of both tar and feathers to go through the roof Monday.

Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 07:41 PM (41pdT)

56

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 07:41 PM (kG75t)

57

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 07:41 PM (7EV/g)

58 Obama skates until 2013. The chili fries are flowing at the WH tonight.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:42 PM (jeLTI)

59 Cant wait for the Daily kook thread. They;re funny if you can stomach it. Just check their front page now. ROFL

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 07:43 PM (kG75t)

60

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 07:43 PM (MtwBb)

61 What exactly do we know and what does it mean in the long run. I'm so tired of all the "stories" about who wins this and who loses that. Just give me the facts!

Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 07:43 PM (OVCfn)

62 52 38 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.

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 07:43 PM (o2lIv)

63

Quoting  Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars.....

THIS IS A TRAP !

Posted by: TheShaz at July 30, 2011 07:43 PM (xLdTq)

64

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 07:45 PM (Fb9Q0)

65 Boned Again.  The only thing you can count on is if its a $2.8T ceiling increase, we will have $2.8T in new debt.

There are no cuts.  Ever.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 07:45 PM (0f7gD)

66 If this is accurate we got Barry to agree to not only $2.8 trillion in cuts and, and this is a huge and, cuts to entitlements and you guys are unhappy?

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 07:46 PM (tZyw2)

67 Hmm on second thought, from what I have been hearing it seems like behind the scenes it appears as though the Dems are cheering for a financial collapse they can blame on the Republicans. With that in mind it seems like we should settle on a deal now and then scrap the whole thing and start over once Obama is out of office.

Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 07:46 PM (StBYg)

68 >>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. Nonsense. Obama's position for the last 6 months was a clean debt raise with a budget that raised spending to a level that would have doubled our debt in 10 years. The conservative/Tea Party position was to start making real cuts and finally put entitlements on the table. Until they are, any talk about cuts or baselines was just talk. For the last 50 years, Democrats have tried to poison any talks about entitlements with images of Republicans killing granny. Look what they did to Ryan 2 months ago. The devil is always in the details but if the battle is now over how much we are cutting and we are including entitlements in the equation for the first time ever this is a big win. Particularly when you look at who controls the Senate and the Presidency.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 07:46 PM (TMB3S)

69 I'm ordering a pizza.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 07:46 PM (Fb9Q0)

70 Obama skates until 2013. The chili fries are flowing at the WH tonight.

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 07:46 PM (kG75t)

71 Please explain something to me......someone.....

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 07:46 PM (b3K4f)

72 Will the manager please come out to the mound and pull Boehner?

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:46 PM (jeLTI)

73 Boned Again.  The only thing you can count on is if its a $2.8T ceiling increase, we will have $2.8T in new debt.

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 07:48 PM (MtwBb)

74

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 07:48 PM (9imoz)

75

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 07:48 PM (Fb9Q0)

76 61 What exactly do we know and what does it mean in the long run. I'm so tired of all the "stories" about who wins this and who loses that. Just give me the facts!

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 07:49 PM (o2lIv)

77 THERE ARE NO CUTS!

BIRM

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 07:49 PM (0f7gD)

78 We can only hope the Freshmen have the stones to trash the old rino/bulls.

Posted by: Richard at July 30, 2011 07:49 PM (+qKsl)

79 It ain't getting by the House this time. I think many who voted yes on the Boehner bill got thoroughly mauled by their constituents.

Posted by: Soona at July 30, 2011 07:49 PM (gZ0cH)

80 You have to to be fucking kidding me.

Posted by: Robert at July 30, 2011 07:49 PM (4ixH5)

81 THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

Posted by: Captain Jean-Luc Picard at July 30, 2011 07:50 PM (4R29X)

82

I ain't kidding Heritage.

Get the analysis up.... puhhleeese.

 

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 07:50 PM (Fb9Q0)

83

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 07:50 PM (7EV/g)

84 Dear Ace,
Please bring back the Ewoks

Posted by: Mt Top patriot at July 30, 2011 07:50 PM (ITaIZ)

85 If you thought that would sell we wouldn't need a debt increase.

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 07:50 PM (0f7gD)

86 I know this is jumping the gun but if this proposed super committee on spending reduction does happen, the Republicans should stack the deck with guys like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

Posted by: Drew in MO at July 30, 2011 07:51 PM (StBYg)

87 Another commission? Really? That's the best you can do?

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 07:51 PM (FlVA8)

88 80s baby thanks... I thought as much...

Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 07:52 PM (OVCfn)

89 Well, yes, there are never ever any cuts, but we can rest assured there are always increases.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:52 PM (jeLTI)

90 It ain't getting by the House this time. I think many who voted yes on the Boehner bill got thoroughly mauled by their constituents.

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 07:52 PM (MtwBb)

91 It ain't getting by the House this time. I think many who voted yes on the Boehner bill got thoroughly mauled by their constituents. Posted by: Soona
......
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 07:53 PM (Wm4Mf)

92

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 07:53 PM (kG75t)

93 I still think the best course of action is to what for full confirmation before fully analyzing something that has not happened and may not be completely accurate.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 07:53 PM (o2lIv)

94 Posted by: 80sBaby
......
You are probably right..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 30, 2011 07:54 PM (Wm4Mf)

95 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 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 07:54 PM (MtwBb)

96 Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion

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 07:55 PM (lofS9)

97

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 07:55 PM (Fb9Q0)

98 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 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 07:55 PM (kG75t)

99 Maybe the Super Committee will suggest we legalize marijuana. Will it help with the Weimar-like conditions we will be creeping up on after Obama spends another $2.8T? No,but at least we can be so stoned that it won't matter the next time we get screwed like this.

Posted by: Ticked Off at July 30, 2011 07:55 PM (41pdT)

100

I'm ordering a pizza.

 

It's pointless if they won't deliver it!

Posted by: Kate Schecter at July 30, 2011 07:56 PM (KuYSu)

101 A Constitutional Republic rendered by a super-committee. Perhaps we can keep wittling it down to an emperor.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 07:56 PM (Fb9Q0)

102 So for giving Obama the cover that he needs to get re-elected, the GOP bought the US economy for 1 trillion of fake cuts over 10 years with a possible 1.8 trillion of fake cuts? Lets see spending is going to increase automatically next year by 7% and so will each year after that due to base line spending. So in 10 years the deficit would be over 9 trillion dollars. Now thanks to these cuts (if they were real) the deficit would only grow between $6 trillion and $7 trillion. This deal saves the US! And re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic stopped it from sinking too.

Posted by: boballab at July 30, 2011 07:56 PM (Tk16+)

103

So if the Super Committee fails, will we get a Super Duper Committee?

Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 07:56 PM (4q5tP)

104 the Republicans should stack the deck with guys like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul -- No, no. We will put up highly respected members of the caucus like myself, senator McCain and senator Murkowski. We know how to handle these sorts of deals.

Posted by: Mitch McConnell, your better at July 30, 2011 07:56 PM (eJMcR)

105 80's is right, we should see if this actually happens or if abc or some jagoff in the white house is pulling our chain.


still, there will be no cuts.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 07:57 PM (0f7gD)

106

OK, I'm going to watch Lincoln Lawyer right now.

 

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 07:57 PM (Fb9Q0)

107 A Constitutional Republic rendered by a super-committee. Perhaps we can keep wittling it down to an emperor.

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 07:57 PM (MtwBb)

108 >>Ried and Pelosi were sidelined, it was McConnel, Boner and Bambi who did the deal. Yes it was. Do you see Pelosi or Reid going against the leader of their party and their President? Not a chance.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 07:58 PM (TMB3S)

109 103... Boehner in the Super Dupe.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 07:58 PM (jeLTI)

110

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 07:59 PM (+qKsl)

111 No, you see if you hit the iceberg head on, it's all good.

Posted by: Captain Smith at July 30, 2011 07:59 PM (Pjih7)

112 Oh f--k, read the new update:

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 08:00 PM (tZyw2)

113 Consider the source, ABC is ass-weaseling for Obama (sorry, King, consider it a tax).  They're trying to pressure the repubs.

Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 08:00 PM (b3K4f)

114 Yes it was. Do you see Pelosi or Reid going against the leader of their party and their President? Not a chance.

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 08:00 PM (MtwBb)

115 Boner: Hey, That's my deck chair! Greid: No it's not, it's his. BamBam: Yeah, it's mine. Boner: Ok, I'll take this one then. Hey, where's all the water coming from?

Posted by: Titanic at July 30, 2011 08:00 PM (mS2A1)

116

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 08:01 PM (KuYSu)

117 ABC has updated their article another time, claiming that there will be conference and caucus meetings tomorrow. Still no confirmation from an outside sources, including National Journal.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:01 PM (o2lIv)

118 I wish Pelosi would resign soon if they dont retake the house. I want Clyburn in a higher house position. He'll help us.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:03 PM (kG75t)

119 Stossel's on FNC with a Debt Crisis special

Posted by: As IF... at July 30, 2011 08:03 PM (piMMO)

120

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 08:04 PM (9imoz)

121 Betcha Moodys and S&P will downgrade the US if the republicans win 2012, at least in the beginning.

Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 08:04 PM (b3K4f)

122 Tax increases do not cut debt. Rather, they allow the maintenance of expenditures. Decrease in spending .... that's what cuts debt.

Posted by: journolist at July 30, 2011 08:05 PM (Fb9Q0)

123 Boehner has another way to save face: pack the committee with hardcore conservatives that will never agree to shit, therefore causing the BBA to be sent to the States.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 08:05 PM (OX4OZ)

124 So, it's contingent on a vote on the BBA, not passage? Who here thinks it'll actually pass?

Posted by: KG at July 30, 2011 08:05 PM (LD21B)

125

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 08:06 PM (MtwBb)

126 Does the BBA have the states necessary right now to pass?  Has anyone counted?

Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 08:06 PM (b3K4f)

127 Nice, Rich. I like that.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:06 PM (jeLTI)

128 These alleged details still look like Boehner's plan to me, minus some of the triggers (he had some different ones). Reid's plan had some similarities to Boehner's but the cuts were completely different and he had hidden gimmicks throughout the entire bill.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:07 PM (o2lIv)

129 Ok, I may be wrong it appears there will be cuts.  In your wallet.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:07 PM (0f7gD)

130 >>Pelosi on the other hand will go balistic. This will end her hopes of taking over the house again. She'll go ballistic but she will line the troops up. Don't forget, 8 months ago her team took an historic drubbing based upon the various planks she forced them to walk and yet, she is still the majority leader. She retains a ton of power over the mostly very far left members of her caucus and Obama has a lot of control over her. He gave her the stimulus and the healthcare bill to run, she owes him. Her team will line up for an Obama bill. It might not be exactly what we want but we aren't ever getting that till we own a lot more of DC. If we can actually get what is being leaked I'd be happy.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:07 PM (TMB3S)

131

 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 08:08 PM (OX4OZ)

132 So, it's contingent on a vote on the BBA, not passage? Who here thinks it'll actually pass?

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 08:08 PM (MtwBb)

133 ABC says that  tax increases could be offered and National Journal says no, that is incorrect.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:09 PM (o2lIv)

134 Yea the whole committee cuts are a joke. The only way that thing has any positive is if it's true that a failure to enact anything from the committee sends the BBA to the states. If that's true, then fail away boys.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 08:10 PM (OX4OZ)

135

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 08:10 PM (4q5tP)

136 38

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 08:10 PM (NtXW4)

137 So, it's contingent on a vote on the BBA, not passage? Who here thinks it'll actually pass?

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 08:10 PM (o2lIv)

138 I added some commentary.  Lemme know what you think.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:10 PM (i2fkw)

139

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 08:11 PM (OX4OZ)

140
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 08:11 PM (EeYDk)

141

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 08:11 PM (LD21B)

142 So let's say the BBA doesn't pass and they also don't pass the super duper committee recommendations, what are the across the board cuts?  .oooo1% to the 7% annual increases?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:11 PM (0f7gD)

143 Does the BBA have the states necessary right now to pass?  Has anyone counted?

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 08:12 PM (MtwBb)

144
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 08:13 PM (rbSCb)

145 So let's say the BBA doesn't pass and they also don't pass the super duper committee recommendations, what are the across the board cuts?  .oooo1% to the 7% annual increases?

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 08:14 PM (MtwBb)

146 There's nobody else to extract money from except citizens. We currently have about 330 million.

$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 08:14 PM (kaalw)

147 It takes 38 states. And considering 49 of the 50 states have some sort of balanced budget process of their own, I think it has an ok chance out there. Problem right now is 2/3 of congress.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 08:14 PM (OX4OZ)

148 They're now saying the size of the increase is dependent on the size of the cuts, which has been the Republican position from the beginning.

WH continues to deny deal; Republican side is still silent

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:14 PM (o2lIv)

149 RD on your update:  It sounds like the super duper comm could recommend tax increases.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:14 PM (0f7gD)

150

"... 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 08:14 PM (9imoz)

151 Obama blinked.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at July 30, 2011 08:15 PM (deaac)

152 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 31, 2011 01:13 AM (rbSCb)


  I so hope you're right.

Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 08:15 PM (OVCfn)

153 A debt ceiling increase of $2.8T puts every man, woman, and child in the US another $8,000 in debt. There is nowhere else to repay the money from.

Posted by: cthulhu at July 30, 2011 08:16 PM (kaalw)

154 149 RD on your update:  It sounds like the super duper comm could recommend tax increases.

One source says perhaps, another says no. Who do we believe?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:16 PM (o2lIv)

155 147 It takes 38 states. And considering 49 of the 50 states have some sort of balanced budget process of their own, I think it has an ok chance out there. Problem right now is 2/3 of congress.

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 08:16 PM (LD21B)

156
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 08:16 PM (rbSCb)

157 From the ashes of the Super Duper Committee will rise the Super De-Duper Committee.

Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 08:17 PM (4q5tP)

158

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

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 08:18 PM (rbSCb)

159

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 08:18 PM (9imoz)

160 Operation Fast & Furious is where it will soon be at.

La la la I can't hear you la la la la la!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!!!!!

Posted by: The MBM at July 30, 2011 08:18 PM (JOM6t)

161 157 From the ashes of the Super Duper Committee will rise the Super De-Duper Committee.

 I triple dog super duper- de dog dare you...

Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 08:18 PM (OVCfn)

162

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 08:18 PM (OX4OZ)

163 >>They're now saying the size of the increase is dependent on the size of the cuts, which has been the Republican position from the beginning. They've been saying that all along. $1 trillion up front and the difference between that and the debt ceiling raise by the end of the year. Awful lot of similar leaks, sounds like this may be the tentative agreement.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:18 PM (TMB3S)

164 I think I know how to get a term limit amendment pass congress. Make it not go into effect until 2030 or when all current politicians leave.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:19 PM (kG75t)

165 Who do we believe?

I pretty much get my info from you, so I'll believe whatever you say it is. 

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:19 PM (0f7gD)

166 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 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 08:19 PM (MtwBb)

167 158 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.

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 08:20 PM (o2lIv)

168 151 Obama blinked. -------------------- Nope. Obama got the one big thing he desperately wanted... a reprieve until 2013.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:20 PM (jeLTI)

169 That Ben link has got me pissed off.

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:20 PM (7P7Ij)

170 165 Who do we believe?

 Dang, that's why I come here. Serves me right relying on a bunch of morons,...

Posted by: Donna at July 30, 2011 08:20 PM (OVCfn)

171 Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2011 01:18 AM (OX4OZ)

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 08:21 PM (LD21B)

172 Exit Question: Is holder entitled to a civilian trial?

yes, in Mexico

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:21 PM (7P7Ij)

173

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 08:21 PM (7EV/g)

174 Tweet Tracker is (as usual) following all the latest news in D.C.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:21 PM (o2lIv)

175

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 08:21 PM (4q5tP)

176 Looks like OBozo was holding a bunch of jokers when the house called his bluff! hahahahaha!!!!

Posted by: Krazy Kat at July 30, 2011 08:21 PM (A23u6)

177

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 08:22 PM (OX4OZ)

178 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

Yeah, but Nickie, he's going to get trounced by Perry and Rubio.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:22 PM (i2fkw)

179

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 08:22 PM (NtXW4)

180 Does the BBA have the states necessary right now to pass?  Has anyone counted?
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 08:23 PM (EeYDk)

181 Yeah, Rich, and I'm a little skeptical about that BBA triggering language.  It sounds too good to be true.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:23 PM (i2fkw)

182 rd... Were that it was.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:24 PM (jeLTI)

183 Tomorrow's headline at FOX:

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 08:24 PM (JOM6t)

184

Well tomorrow will be interesting. It will be a nice fill in before football starts.

I'm out.

Posted by: robtr at July 30, 2011 08:24 PM (MtwBb)

185 cthulhu - how much SAN have you lost following this?

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:24 PM (7P7Ij)

186 I was going to link Jennifer Rubin, but she just had to throw in a gratuitous slam about GOP extremists or something.  Extremists.  

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:25 PM (i2fkw)

187 I will say as I think about this, if this is the deal then OdipO may have left the dems hanging out to dry.  He got the only thing he cared about, thinking only of himself again.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:25 PM (0f7gD)

188 Hey in Greece they got no budget and no money, cause everyone is at the beach.  75 here, sun up, naked women already on the beach.

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 08:26 PM (wooFc)

189
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 08:26 PM (rbSCb)

190 I could have sworn I heard Barry saying we needed new taxes on the rich - did those bastards skate again.

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:27 PM (7P7Ij)

191

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 08:27 PM (OX4OZ)

192 Don't worry this will come up before the election. What will Obama talk about except how the GOP wants us to eat dog food? Oh yeah. Osama bin Laden but no one will care with $4 gas.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at July 30, 2011 08:27 PM (kG75t)

193 188... Never use "Greek" and "smoking" in the same sentence. NEVER.

Posted by: Paul Lynde at July 30, 2011 08:27 PM (jeLTI)

194 >>Nope. Obama got the one big thing he desperately wanted... a reprieve until 2013. Nonsense. 99% of the public had never heard of the debt ceiling until about 2 days ago and less of them give a shit. They just want the trains to run on time. But everyone knows about entitlements and they do give a shit about them. The one thing Obama and all of the left has been trying for decades to keep off the table is entitlements. $2.8 trillion in cuts means we are talking about entitlements. If this is the deal watch the lefty blogs erupt in outrage. 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.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:28 PM (TMB3S)

195 Kemp, the problem in Greece is that "all" of the women are naked on the beach

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:29 PM (7P7Ij)

196 And I continue to absolutely love how these "conservative" media outlets take shot after shot at the "extremist tea party" but don't have the guts to call some of them by name. Mainly Rush Limbaugh, who has been on the side of the extremists throughout this whole thing.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 08:29 PM (OX4OZ)

197

#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 08:29 PM (9imoz)

198 190 I could have sworn I heard Barry saying we needed new taxes on the rich - did those bastards skate again. ----------------------- Yup. I limboed under it once again.

Posted by: Fat Tabby at July 30, 2011 08:30 PM (jeLTI)

199 Another thing working against this deal coming out like it's being reported is Obama's character.  We already know he's a slimeball at the bargaining table, and there is everything to indicate he'd try to fuck up the deal at the 11th hour by weaseling this way and that on what was agreed to.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:30 PM (i2fkw)

200 If the leaders all schedule conference and caucus meetings for later this morning, then we potentially have a deal (framework agreed to, nothing added at last min., etc.). Everything else from there is dependent on the reaction of said members.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:30 PM (o2lIv)

201
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 08:31 PM (rbSCb)

202

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 08:31 PM (OX4OZ)

203 Uh.... isn't this essentialy the Boehner deal??? The one that barley passed the House, and got slammed in the Senate???

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 30, 2011 08:32 PM (NtXW4)

204 Good enough for Govt. Work!

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 30, 2011 08:33 PM (/62i9)

205 So, who is on this Super Committee: Ryan, Rand, Pence, ... I'm sure Lindsey or McCain will worm their way on

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:33 PM (7P7Ij)

206

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 08:33 PM (OX4OZ)

207 185 cthulhu - how much SAN have you lost following this?

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 08:34 PM (kaalw)

208 201 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).

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 08:34 PM (o2lIv)

209

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 08:34 PM (OX4OZ)

210 An effective leader is able to gather his troops and prepare them for battle. After a massive landslide in 2010, Boehner has been weak and unable to get his lumbering gaggle of RINOs to join forces with the new young Turks. He's had momentum and a majority. It is now time to force the tan man out into the pasture.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at July 30, 2011 08:35 PM (jeLTI)

211

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 08:36 PM (OITDh)

212 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.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:37 PM (0f7gD)

213 No updates from reporters and insiders in the last 30-40min.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:37 PM (o2lIv)

214 err, pragmatic.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 08:37 PM (OX4OZ)

215 "The cuts are largely in the future. 

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 08:37 PM (4q5tP)

216 cthulu - don't know, have to roll

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:38 PM (7P7Ij)

217

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 08:38 PM (OX4OZ)

218 Can't the House just pass the CC&B bill again, then take a week's vacation?

Posted by: HappyGoLucky at July 30, 2011 08:38 PM (b3K4f)

219 dropped the link:  http://tinyurl.com/b39gf2

Posted by: Jean at July 30, 2011 08:39 PM (7P7Ij)

220 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.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:40 PM (i2fkw)

221 Yea, I just don't understand how anyone thinks we were losing this PR battle. O's polling at 40% people. We needed to continue to fight tooth and nail on this thing, if only for that reason. Have 10 more votes on it before the election (which is a switched position for me..the Gallup numbers got me).

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2011 08:40 PM (OX4OZ)

222 POTUS is handling the debt crisis in roughly the same manner as the gulf oil spill crisis.  Namely, doing nothing but hoping for change.

Posted by: Chuck Z at July 30, 2011 08:40 PM (OITDh)

223

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 08:40 PM (OX4OZ)

224 This business about all Obama cared about was getting this past the election is nonsense. If you'll recall Boehner opted in to that demand late ... after Sir Charles got to him. It became Boehner's best card in the deck. He didn't really give a crap about revisiting this in 2012 . In fact, he likely feared that. There was no assurance the Repus would come out of that enhanced. No, he put it into the negotiation, used it to smoke out the Gambler, and the Gambler, to his credit, knew when to fold. It was fold or run. Boehner rules after this.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at July 30, 2011 08:42 PM (deaac)

225

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 08:42 PM (OX4OZ)

226 It is too good to be true.  I don't believe it.  I could see a vote being triggered, but not some kind of thing that sends a BBA to the states. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:43 PM (i2fkw)

227 210 An effective leader is able to gather his troops and prepare them for battle. After a massive landslide in 2010, Boehner has been weak and unable to get his lumbering gaggle of RINOs to join forces with the new young Turks. He's had momentum and a majority.

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 08:43 PM (o2lIv)

228 @177: Although I agree with you that I'd have loved to see Obama squirm through this yet again with absolutely nothing of substance to say, you've still gotta admit that this whole debacle was not necessarily a slam dunk PR move for Republicans.  I mean, no one knows what would have happened if we had reached no deal [and I know we still technically haven't].  Sure, Obama's in charge, so the public would certainly blame him.  But would they also blame Congress?  And if so, who would get punished more in 2012.  And if the House gets some of the blame, would it specifically fall on the Tea Party for the stalemate and thereby strengthen the hand of the RINOs in the intra-party struggle?  You know the establishment types would promote that along with a complicit media.  So, this whole episode was something of a game of Russian Roulette.  We might've won by holding out even more, but I submit that the stakes were too high to play and lose now when we have a surer bet to win more in November.

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 08:44 PM (Y5I9o)

229 >>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. I think they have taken it to the brink. I know a lot of people on our side don't believe that DC is playing with fire right now, I disagree. We are the United States of America and if we fart the rest of the world smells it. We saw it in '08 when the rest of the world freaked over our financial meltdown and the IMF and others have been very public about what's going on in DC right now. Its easy for us to pound away on blogs but the pressure in DC from all sides has got to be intense. If either side overplays their hand their are real consequences. And as much as we know they are mindless, there are as many diehard liberals in Congress as there are conservatives. The deal was always going to be around the 50 yard line, the goal was to keep it on our side and get as much as we could.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 08:45 PM (TMB3S)

230 "Government" is losing this PR battle. If the GOPs try to defend government against the people, they'll get slaughtered like the rest. The Dems keep trying to say "government is good" -- like that's going to work.

Posted by: cthulhu at July 30, 2011 08:45 PM (kaalw)

231

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 08:45 PM (7EV/g)

232 Big winners here: John Boehner Mitch McConnell Tea Party Freshmen Repubs Big losers: Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Joe Biden Obama comes out tarnished greatly but still standing ... for now.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at July 30, 2011 08:47 PM (deaac)

233 I personally am over the PR battle part, mainly because we get lied to all the time about whats in and whats out.  For me, its simple, any increase in debt is a lowering of the quality of life for my children in the future.  Every dollar of debt must be paid and will be paid by a massive redistribution from productive people to the takers.  So they got the best deal they could get, wahoo, we will be another $2.8T on our way to involuntary servitude.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:47 PM (0f7gD)

234

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 08:50 PM (kG75t)

235 232 Big winners here: [...]


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 08:52 PM (o2lIv)

236 We are the United States of America and if we fart the rest of the world smells it. Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 01:45 AM

Hell, that happens when I fart.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 30, 2011 08:53 PM (i2fkw)

237

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 08:54 PM (4q5tP)

238 We should not care what the IMF thinks, they are a socialist organization which transfers wealth from the US to other countries.  Of course they want us to raise our debt limit.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 30, 2011 08:54 PM (0f7gD)

239 The KosKids are mostly upset but are trying to find a silver lining.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 08:56 PM (o2lIv)

240 @236: That was you?!  It all makes sense now...

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 30, 2011 09:01 PM (Y5I9o)

241

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 09:01 PM (kG75t)

242 instead of releasing the thanksgiving turkey this year, can we torture him?

Posted by: ;'lil turkey at July 30, 2011 09:02 PM (FduBR)

243 It will be interesting to see what happens later this morning.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 30, 2011 09:02 PM (o2lIv)

244 >>We should not care what the IMF thinks, they are a socialist organization which transfers wealth from the US to other countries. Of course they want us to raise our debt limit. That ship sailed years ago. Everybody knows what Bernanke's day job is, how many know what his part time job at the BIS is? We now live in a global market and we are interconnected. Part of that comes from being the world's reserve currency, part of it comes from the fact we have been living in a crony capitalist country for years.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 30, 2011 09:07 PM (TMB3S)

245
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 09:08 PM (rbSCb)

246

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 09:08 PM (4q5tP)

247
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 09:10 PM (rbSCb)

248

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 09:10 PM (Fb9Q0)

249 All things considered, I think this will be OK. We realistically can't do much without all three branches. If we get three branches and fuck it up, I don't even know. Until then, I'll take this.

Posted by: emaugust at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (E8wmM)

250

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.

Here's the Elite 80 list of the dems and repubs.

Posted by: RushBabe at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (Ew27I)

251 There's one thing that needs to be pointed out.  Right now Obama's biggest weakness is the economy.  That is why he's vulnerable.  If there were no deal Obama would use the market reaction to hang the entire economy on the GOP.  Sure it's illogical to contend that the 2010 economy was due to the failure to pass a debt limit increase in 2011, but when the hell have the Democrats or the media let logic stand in their way.  The voters don't care about the economy in 2010, they just care about the economy in 2012.  If it sucks, and it will, they're going to punish someone.  If 80% of the media is telling them that the crappy economy is due to the extremist GOP not raising the debt limit they're going to vote against us in droves.

This deal keeps our powder dry for the real battle.

Posted by: Jeff Gauch at July 30, 2011 09:16 PM (1BiMH)

252 Does the can roll or bounce down the road...?

Posted by: Inquiring Minds at July 30, 2011 09:19 PM (W7JEz)

253 This deal keeps our powder dry for the real battle.

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 09:23 PM (kG75t)

254 This deal keeps our powder dry for the real battle.

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 09:24 PM (4q5tP)

255 These are not spending cuts.  They are increases that are less than the 7.5% upon which the baseline is projected.  We could therefore "cut" $9 Trillion by merely freezing spending at its current level.

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 09:24 PM (agD4m)

256
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 09:25 PM (rbSCb)

257 The ship is still taking on water, but not quite as fast.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 30, 2011 09:27 PM (agD4m)

258 I just came all over myself.

Posted by: Larry Kudlow, Dunce at July 30, 2011 09:27 PM (agD4m)

259 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 30, 2011 09:28 PM (E8wmM)

260
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 09:29 PM (rbSCb)

261 Ever hear the word "moot"?

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 09:29 PM (4q5tP)

262
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 09:32 PM (rbSCb)

263 We are still increasing our velocity, while slightly decreasing our acceleration steep angle of of descent. 

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 09:33 PM (4q5tP)

264 Yay! We get a new 2.8 trillion dollar credit card in exchange for pinky swearing reduce our spending increases by 1% over the next ten years. Uh huh. I'm broke and should be bankrupt, but I got a new credit card, and I promise to only buy a small mansion and opt for the 5 series BMW rather than the 7 series on my government paycheck. Call me when "cuts" includes closing government agencies, pay cuts for elected scumbags, and laying off congressional staff. Till then, it's nothing but bogus accounting and kabuki theater.

Posted by: Damiano at July 30, 2011 09:34 PM (A2+pr)

265

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 09:35 PM (g5MrG)

266 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. Get em!!

Posted by: emaugust at July 30, 2011 09:35 PM (E8wmM)

267

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 09:39 PM (OX4OZ)

268 It's hard to take any 'cuts' seriously until Congress eliminates baseline budgeting that requires 7 percent (or more) increases in spending.  This charade of a budgeting rule means a 6 percent increase in spending is really a cut, when it's just another increase in spending money we don't have. 

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 09:57 PM (iNKlO)

269 be back in the morning  zzzzZZZzzzzz

Posted by: Count de Monet at July 30, 2011 10:11 PM (4q5tP)

270 For everyone that is still reading and commenting: The numbers stated above from the ABC piece have been updated and changed. There is also more stipulations that are not good. Here is the numbers from the updated ABC article: A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal). 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. The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress' Thanksgiving recess). If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This "trigger" is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee's recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans. A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment. Read carefully the part about the Commission and the automatic cuts. You see the Commission puts Tax Increases back on the table. Remember the Debt Commission that Obama convened then ignored? Well one of the things they recommended was Tax Increases and you can bet that this one will as well. Well you are probably saying to yourself that ain't too bad the GOP can just vote that down in the House and go with "across the board" automatic spending cuts. Hah hah hah... Boehner and McConnel got rolled here too. You see while both Medicare and Defense get cut, the deal stipulates that Medicare only gets light cuts while Defense gets gutted. From the article: Democrats won't like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries. Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon's budget. Now who here thinks that the Dems wouldn't deliberately force that choice on the GOP in an Election year. Give Obama the Tax Increases he has wanted all along or Gut Defense. Either way the GOP gets reamed by their base. Also remember it was $1.2 Trillion in tax Increases that caused Boehner to walk out on the "Grand Bargain". Now do the math $1.2 Trillion in cuts + $1.2 Trillion in tax increase = $2.4 Trillion. Hey that equals the upper limit of the Debt increase. It is also the "Balanced" Obama Non Plan (equal cuts and tax increases) Obama got everything he wanted.

Posted by: boballab at July 30, 2011 10:14 PM (Tk16+)

271 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.
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 10:20 PM (QHzLG)

272

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 10:23 PM (OX4OZ)

273

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 10:24 PM (OX4OZ)

274

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 10:49 PM (DXIOE)

275

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 10:52 PM (DXIOE)

276 Alright morons, let me tell you why this is a spectacular win for the GOP: 1. No new taxes 2. No new taxes 3. Real cuts in SOMETHING 4. Liberal base demoralized because 5. No new taxes Those whining about seeing real spending cuts should concentrate that anger on getting the Dems out of power in the Senate and the White House. Nothing can happen until that's achieved. Now, go rub your nearest progressive nose in it.

Posted by: Chris R at July 30, 2011 11:09 PM (QiNmA)

277 #277 needs to read #271.

No new taxes, yet.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 30, 2011 11:17 PM (agD4m)

278 277 also should explain how merely slowing the rate of increase in spending on SOMETHING is "Real cuts in SOMETHING."  Lay it out for me in terms an unfrozen caveman lawyer, unschooled in your arcane arts of budgetary wizardry, could understand.

Somehow, I feel I am being sold a handful of magic beans.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 12:04 AM (agD4m)

279
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 12:21 AM (BSWJE)

280 Memo to Congress:

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 12:36 AM (VMcEw)

281 Sounds like the GOP once again lets Obama off the hook. Maybe McConnell and Boehner can be co-chairs of the Obama re-election campaign.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at July 31, 2011 12:51 AM (N5zTl)

282

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 12:54 AM (on5PS)

283

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 12:57 AM (on5PS)

284 Any deal that results in a committee determining tax increases is a loser. If a BBA hinges on a (at best) deadlocked committee vote then a BBA will never happen via the committee. The fact that a vote on a BBA is in the deal is a joke but everyone needs to keep focused on 2012. If enough of the right people take over in the senate in 2012 then we stand a chance of finally getting the BBA. And remember, should this plan pass the house and senate, we did put our guys in there who held the line. More please!

Posted by: Drider at July 31, 2011 01:15 AM (uJSfP)

285 The 10-year timeframe says to me that nothing will actually get done, and we're just punting it down the road again. But the guaranteed vote on the BBA is good political fodder to make the Dems look bad when they vote no.

Posted by: Paul at July 31, 2011 01:33 AM (7SryP)

286 Someone over at Instapundit had a question.

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 01:40 AM (HRWnz)

287 AoS HQ is ranked 28 out of 150 for top news blogs.

Ace is really moving up.


Posted by: sTevo at July 31, 2011 01:51 AM (VMcEw)

288 Well Good Morning Morons

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 01:52 AM (M9Ie6)

289 I'm wondering if the BBA would be similar to California's. Look how well that worked out.

Posted by: Robert17 at July 31, 2011 01:54 AM (LaaRT)

290 AoS HQ is ranked 28 out of 150 for top news blogs.

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 01:54 AM (M9Ie6)

291 Remember, Obumbles is trying to embrace the spirit of Ronald Reagan.
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 01:54 AM (HRWnz)

292 AoS HQ is ranked 28 out of 150 for top news blogs.

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 01:55 AM (X6akg)

293 Here's what Fox says about the BBA:

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 01:57 AM (M9Ie6)

294 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.

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 02:02 AM (lpWVn)

295 Fox reporting Dingy Harry says there is no deal.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:02 AM (M9Ie6)

296 >>Wait...Politico is a Conservative website?!
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 02:03 AM (VMcEw)

297 Fox also reporting that all the cuts are "down the road". So this deal ain't shit. Its "pinky swear" cuts.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:04 AM (M9Ie6)

298 Make that 23 based on Vic's observation.

Posted by: sTevo at July 31, 2011 02:05 AM (VMcEw)

299 Ace (comments) got Breitbart's endorsement, sTevo.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 02:06 AM (lpWVn)

300 Fox just showed Dingy Harry saying they were held up over the "trigger" in the Super Committee not including tax increases if they don't make a deal.

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 02:08 AM (M9Ie6)

301 Make that 23 based on Vic's observation.

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 02:09 AM (M9Ie6)

302 These are "pull the football away" cuts.

Fucking Lucy.

Posted by: Charlie Brown at July 31, 2011 02:13 AM (8IAHO)

303 These aren't the cuts you've been looking for.

Posted by: Obawana Sith at July 31, 2011 02:15 AM (8IAHO)

304 I fart in Congress' general direction.

Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 02:16 AM (4q5tP)

305 The only Texas Republican who voted against Friday's package was Ron Paul. I sent my congressman a scathing letter. The Texas Republican Party proved by their representative congressional votes in Washington that they are of the biggest spender breed of hypocrites to curse the earth, and that there is no way the Republicans will ever tolerate fiscal and constitutional conservative governance. What an empty case of lip service they deliver after the American citizens resoundingly vote for cut spending and lower taxes.

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 02:20 AM (lpWVn)

306

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 02:21 AM (M9Ie6)

307

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 02:21 AM (4q5tP)

308 Future cuts enacted into law are REAL. They worked in the 1990's. Yes, future congresses can repeal them, but to do so requires control of the White House and BOTH houses of Congress, including 60 votes in the Senate. NOTHING we can do now will keep us from getting screwed if we lose both houses and the White House in the future.

Posted by: chris at July 31, 2011 02:21 AM (YLqOu)

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:24 AM (M9Ie6)

310 So my understanding of the "Grand Bargain" is that in December we either have to accept massive defense cuts or a tax increase.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 31, 2011 02:26 AM (uhAkr)

311 But they know if he does use this phony argument he will get away with it.

...so far as they are concerned, he already has gotten away with it.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 02:27 AM (lpWVn)

312 This "deal" sucks donkey dick.  Bye, bye Boehner, you shitty Weeping Speaker of Shit.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 02:30 AM (G/MYk)

313 Vic at July 31, 2011 07:24 AM

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 02:32 AM (lpWVn)

314 Bye, bye Boehner, you shitty Weeping Speaker of Shit.

This is not a Boner deal from what I understand. It is a McConnell deal.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:34 AM (M9Ie6)

315 CPAC is in league with DHS to set up the take down of conservatives, offering up sacrifices that aren't worthy of toleration, scapegoats.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 31, 2011 02:35 AM (lpWVn)

316  So my understanding of the "Grand Bargain" is that in December we either have to accept massive defense cuts or a tax increase.

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 02:35 AM (4q5tP)

317 This is not a Boner deal from what I understand. It is a McConnell deal.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 07:34 AM (M9Ie6)

It doesn't really matter, though.  This debt limit deal was Bohner's to work out, not McConnell's.  That Boehner cut this deal would be enough to toss him out on his ass.  That Boehner screwed things up enough so that he became irrelevant and let that French surrender monkey, McConnell, present a "pound the Tea Party in the ass" deal is enough to toss Boehner out on his head.

This is it.  All MUST-PASS legislation (if this goes through) will be finished and done.  End of leverage.  And we got NOTHING.  Well ... some bad press and 6 shitty dals, but really NOTHING compared to what we demanded and what America's situation demands.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 02:39 AM (G/MYk)

318 You can always count on elitists to sabotage any coalition against authoritarianism given their interest to protect elitism.

There has always been a lot of controversy with these two groups at CPAC.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:41 AM (M9Ie6)

319

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 02:42 AM (M9Ie6)

320
This is great news. The Congressional pricks have only polished the debt relief turd from the dirty end, leaving the clean end and massive debt for the American people.  The turd shiners in both parties worked in the best interest of....themselves.  Fuck 'um all!

Posted by: Fish the Impaler at July 31, 2011 02:42 AM (Lt/Za)

321 Unprecedented!

Posted by: Bo having chili fries for breakfast at July 31, 2011 02:43 AM (N2yhW)

322 There has always been a lot of controversy with these two groups at CPAC.

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 02:44 AM (uhAkr)

323 I don't have a problem with gay Republicans.  I have a problem with Planned Parenthood shills claiming they are conservative.

That was what the "controversy" was. A lot of people said they were not conservatives.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 02:47 AM (M9Ie6)

324 I want language like "cuts over ten years" stricken from public discourse.

Posted by: gary gulrud at July 31, 2011 02:48 AM (CZ6D9)

325

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 02:50 AM (MpJqA)

326 Spineless RINOs demonstrate once again their ability to lick the boots of their Democrat Masters.
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 02:51 AM (yrGif)

327 Can. Kicked.
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 02:52 AM (AWzOz)

328 Guess who's on the "super committee".
How was the committee chosen?


Sick of it.

Posted by: BOHICA at July 31, 2011 02:53 AM (NGq6u)

329 I, for one, welcome our new Super Committee overlords!

Posted by: J Bonered at July 31, 2011 02:55 AM (yrGif)

330 From the dept. of nothing has changed: Same old shit. More revenue now. Cuts later. From the dept. of hope: Republicans have learned they can not hypnotize small government types with a Republican party affiliation. The brand does not have the trust it once did. Represent us, not yourselves and your cocksucking buddies. And in case you missed the message: Government is too damn big.

Posted by: Dropping brown at July 31, 2011 02:56 AM (STTZD)

331 I'm ok with this deal. We can't do that much with just the House. We got cuts, a vote on the BBA which will put Ds up for re-election on record if they vote against it. If anyone thinks that Obama would capitulate any more you are crazy. He is looking at re-election and needs his base, any more concessions and his re-election is over. I was a tea partier from the get go, and I remember the platforms for election of new house member being that we STOP this administrations reckless spending and eventually start cutting government down to size. Most tea partiers realized that with Obama in the executive and his veto pen there would be no way to reduce the size of government the way we wanted. I think we win here, also keep in mind, now WE don't have to deal with the debt limit increase again either.

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 02:56 AM (B89As)

332 "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?"

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 03:00 AM (M9Ie6)

333 I just saw the video of that kid kicking the mascot in the balls at the baseball game.  Someone needs to get that kid over to Boehner's office. And the kid can swing by the White House for a bit, too.  We'll need to get him steel-toed boots for that excursion, though.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 03:03 AM (G/MYk)

334 I think we win here, also keep in mind, now WE don't have to deal with the debt limit increase again either.

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 03:05 AM (yrGif)

335 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 08:05 AM (yrGif) We are agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, which we have to. Obama will never agree to cuts only. You are making the assumption that Democrats and the MFM (BIRM) won't make the pitch that we are responsible for the debt now. My biggest fear is this. If we demand a HUGE amount of cuts and the economy doesn't improve or we get a double dip, then it will be blamed on us for our "draconian cuts that we warned the American People about".

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:12 AM (B89As)

336 Big Win for Barky, Boehner and Mitch--all three were scared to death of the issue.

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 03:14 AM (+kznc)

337 If we demand a HUGE amount of cuts and the economy doesn't improve or we get a double dip, then it will be blamed on us for our "draconian cuts that we warned the American People about".

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 03:16 AM (M9Ie6)

338 Actually if we don not make serious cuts that the world T-Bill buyers will recognize we will collapse. That is the end of all the arguments.

Not the BS AAA ratings, the T-Bill buyers themselves.

Posted by: Vic at July 31, 2011 03:18 AM (M9Ie6)

339 Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 08:12 AM (B89As)
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 03:20 AM (yrGif)

340

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 03:21 AM (4q5tP)

341 The way to handle automatic defense cuts is to move operational funds into an "emergency supplemental" or war funding bill, then sprinkle it with pork. Enough Dims will vote for it to make it hard for Obama to veto. So if the Dims try to hold the super committee hostage to tax increases - call their bluff.

Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 03:23 AM (7P7Ij)

342 So let's see, federal spending increases $8.5T over 10 years (and they pinky swear to come up with some more cuts) and the democrats get the money they need to pay off their constituents between now and the next election.

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 03:26 AM (sOXQX)

343 Why is noone discussing including the repeal of Obamacare? I believe that is the biggest big government program we all want gone. We all know the answer, Obama will never sign it even if it got through the Senate. I believe you should ask yourself the same question when saying we capitulated.

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:27 AM (B89As)

344 Thus far, no affirmative information on potential conference and caucus meetings.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 03:29 AM (o2lIv)

345 Then have a bill ready to backfill Medicare/Aid by returning the funds from Obamacare. Pass this and the previous post defense bill thru Committee, and let them sit while the Super Committee works.

Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 03:30 AM (7P7Ij)

346 I believe that is the biggest big government program we all want gone.

The biggest big government program I want gone is the federal government.

Posted by: Methos at July 31, 2011 03:30 AM (sOXQX)

347 So the fucking Repukes have got all the sand out of their vags and can continue spending money like drunk sailors that Rove is blowing?  Fuck that shit.  Another cave job by the party of stoopid.  Primary every fucking one of 'em.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 03:32 AM (zsvKP)

348 We are giving up on the idea of debating the debt in the middle of the election season then?  I'd call that a loss.

Posted by: toby928 at July 31, 2011 03:37 AM (GTbGH)

349 249...While we are operating without a budget and trillion dollar annual deficits, projected over the next 10 years. 


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 03:38 AM (o2lIv)

350 Why is noone discussing including the repeal of Obamacare? I believe that is the biggest big government program we all want gone. We all know the answer, Obama will never sign it even if it got through the Senate. I believe you should ask yourself the same question when saying we capitulated.

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 03:41 AM (zsvKP)

351

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 03:42 AM (C0Z3w)

352 Has it been announced that the leaders are back at the WH or returning to the WH sometime today?

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 03:44 AM (o2lIv)

353 Happy Ramadan, Rons!

Posted by: Chuck Z at July 31, 2011 03:44 AM (OITDh)

354 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 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 03:44 AM (C0Z3w)

355 Methos - you forgot the silver lining - negative GDP means the COLAs wont kick in or will be lower

Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 03:47 AM (7P7Ij)

356 Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 08:44 AM (o2lIv) Ed at HotAir is saying that they are putting the vote off until 1pm so the Whitehouse and Congress can hammer out details. Senate will reconvene at Noon today. Going unnoticed is this: “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."

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:49 AM (0gKao)

357 Why is noone discussing including the repeal of Obamacare?

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 08:27 AM (B89As)

That was always the single, most important problem to take care of - and to do it FIRST (since no reform to "entitlements" can actually occur while ObamaCare is around, supercharging the most dangerous part of the budget and federal power - MediCAID).  With ObamaCare around, no other reforms will ever amount to anything since the growth of MediCAID and people on government insurance will be locked in for decades.  The only real thing this set of asswipes in the GOP were supposed to do was get rid of ObamaCare.

So, they ignored it and made pretend it didn't exist.  They slammed everyone who KNOWS what's going on - Bachmann had said that she wouldn't sign a debt limit increase without an ObamaCare repeal or major, serious, real cuts and they all reported it as "she refused to ever raise the debt limit".  Meanwhile, she's one of the very few who actually understand the situation.

The GOP just sucks so bad it hurts.  I think Trump is going to jump into this race.  Not as a Republican, but in a third party run.  Unless Bachmann looks to be winning the GOP, I would think.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 03:51 AM (G/MYk)

358 We are giving up on the idea of debating the debt in the middle of the election season then?  I'd call that a loss.

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 03:51 AM (4q5tP)

359 Has it been announced that the leaders are back at the WH or returning to the WH sometime today?

Expected to be after King Putt is finished with a meeting at Andrews AFB.

Posted by: Retread at July 31, 2011 03:52 AM (hyWkl)

360 344 - election issue, Reid won't even let it hit the floor - so the Pubs will make a grand announcement in late summer '12 and wrap it around every Senate candidate's neck.

Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2011 03:52 AM (7P7Ij)

361 Ed at HotAir is saying that they are putting the vote off until 1pm so the Whitehouse and Congress

Hmmm. So the purse-a-dent has an early tee time.

Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 03:53 AM (lpWVn)

362 ABC is reporting congressional leaders have already begun speaking with their caucuses. The AP reported earlier on the $2.4 trillion number, too, although they say the cuts will be “slightly more” than the debt-ceiling boost. That’s still enough to get Barack Obama past the 2012 election, but not by much. It guarantees that the debt ceiling will be a 2012 election issue, although by now that was a given anyway. However, the added McConnell wrinkle is interesting — and potentially a big win for Republicans. Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama. If they “disapprove,” Obama will veto the disapproval and end up owning all of the political baggage for the debt-ceiling increases. Again, swiped from HotAir

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:54 AM (0gKao)

363 Unless Bachmann looks to be winning the GOP, I would think.

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 03:55 AM (zsvKP)

364 Essentially, Republicans get to claim credit for the cuts while laying blame for the debt increases on Obama.

ROFLMAO!

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 31, 2011 03:55 AM (G/MYk)

365 So Ed Morrissey claims big win for the GOP?  shocka!
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 03:56 AM (+kznc)

366 357 Ed at HotAir is saying that they are putting the vote off until 1pm so the Whitehouse and Congress can hammer out details. Senate will reconvene at Noon today. Going unnoticed is this:

“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 03:56 AM (o2lIv)

367 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 08:51 AM (4q5tP) We told the truth in 2008: Jeremiah Wright Bill Ayers Socialism Spread the wealth Fundamentally transform America Howd that work out?

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:57 AM (B89As)

368 364--Capn, Mittens has been quiet about all of the deals and plans. that won't change.

Posted by: some dope at July 31, 2011 03:57 AM (+kznc)

369 If reports of this "deal" are correct, it should put Mittens in a pile of shit up to his corn sombrero.

I would sweat blood for a video of that.

Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 03:59 AM (lpWVn)

370

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 08:55 AM (zsvKP)

For some reason, I have always assumed that Mitt will just go away at some point.  Maybe it was wishful thinking, but I've kind of been running on that. 

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 03:59 AM (G/MYk)

371 Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 08:56 AM (o2lIv) Sorry if it was missed, but my earlier post stated that they have already begun meeting with their caucuses.

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 03:59 AM (B89As)

372 I'm just waiting for the surprise that real safety net programs are pinched and Obama Care is accelerated.

Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 04:01 AM (lpWVn)

373

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 04:01 AM (4q5tP)

374 363 ABC is reporting congressional leaders have already begun speaking with their caucuses...

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 04:03 AM (o2lIv)

375 Howd that work out?

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 04:04 AM (4q5tP)

376

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 04:06 AM (zsvKP)

377 Bet you a 6 pack of your favorite brew there are tax hikes in the deal as finally announced--not that hikes are needed to make this deal suck.

Mitch McConnell for Senate Majority Leader 2012!!

Posted by: some dope at July 31, 2011 04:07 AM (+kznc)

378 During this national emergency, I should be out there fighting for the Democratic Party, not sitting here in my underwear watching TV in the dark.What a waste. I used to be important. Important. Important. ImportantImportantImportantImportant*squirt*

Posted by: Anthony Weiner at July 31, 2011 04:07 AM (C0Z3w)

379 With all the speculation, looks like it might be better to hold off on an update until the facts become a little more fixed--like after a news conference. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 31, 2011 04:07 AM (POEzP)

380 374 Still time enough to make the deal worse?  Great!!11!eleventy!!1

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 04:08 AM (o2lIv)

381 Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 09:08 AM (o2lIv) This deal was negotiated with the President, if he tells Reid to get it done how can they NOT vote for it?

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 04:10 AM (B89As)

382

#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 04:10 AM (1kwr2)

383 until the facts become a little more fixed--like after a news conference.

Facts in a news conference? I'm skeptical.

Posted by: Retread at July 31, 2011 04:11 AM (hyWkl)

384 Gene Sperling is on FNS sucking major cock (El JEFe inherited the worst economy since THE DEPRESSION!!!!).  Fortunately Chris Wallace is of at some commie retreat and Bret Baier is doing the questioning.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 04:13 AM (zsvKP)

385

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: 

The president gets a deal through 2012; the House gets its cuts; and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gets his commission. And the GOP extremists don’t get their balanced budget amendment passed and sent to the states or the satisfaction of blowing up the deal.

 

 

 

 

Posted by: blaster at July 31, 2011 04:13 AM (Fw2Gg)

386 383 This deal was negotiated with the President, if he tells Reid to get it done how can they NOT vote for it?

The vote was to be held on Reid's bill, not the compromise.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:14 AM (o2lIv)

387 Fuck Jennifer Rubin; that insecure skeezer has a massive inferiority complex regarding Palin and it reflects in everything she writes.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2011 04:19 AM (zsvKP)

388

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 04:19 AM (EhYdw)

389 Roll Call:

"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 04:21 AM (o2lIv)

390 Chad Pergram, Fox:
"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 04:23 AM (o2lIv)

391

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 09:23 AM (o2lIv)

I'd like to take a moment to say you rock.

Posted by: Count de Monet at July 31, 2011 04:27 AM (4q5tP)

392 T this point, I would have preferred a clean DC increase of $1.4T and the elimination of "Baseline Budgeting".  Then at least we would be debating the FY12 budget using real numbers during the election season.  It would be a lot more fun debating lifting the DC in, say July of next year, while pointing out that Congress was increasing the spending by 7% during the continuing depression.

Posted by: toby928 at July 31, 2011 04:28 AM (GTbGH)

393 "McConnell on CNN says they are close to a deal. Lays out potential groundwork of $3 trillion package handing the Child-Emperor a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card."

Fixed.

Posted by: Waterhouse at July 31, 2011 04:28 AM (Ccp1F)

394
392          An astute summation.

Posted by: Beto Ochoa at July 31, 2011 04:31 AM (lpWVn)

395

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 04:33 AM (4q5tP)

396 So we know McConnell confirmed that (1) they are close to a deal, (2) the numbers involved, and (3) the framework (what exactly?) but specifically mentioned the triggers. Boehner and his people have thus far said nothing (McConnell was previously scheduled to go on TV this morning).

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:35 AM (o2lIv)

397

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 04:37 AM (X6akg)

398 You really make it seem so uderstandable with your presentation but I find this topic before really hard to understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me.

Posted by: The Music Lesson AudioBook at July 31, 2011 04:39 AM (UDi1L)

399 Fox News congressional reporter Chad Pergram:

"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 04:42 AM (o2lIv)

400 Sorry, I'll take updates back to the other thread.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:46 AM (o2lIv)

401 405 Meant to say that on the other thread. I need caffeine.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:47 AM (o2lIv)

402

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 04:49 AM (4q5tP)

403
This Price is Right® moment is similar to the acclaimed book and musical The Best Little Whore House in Texas Washington.

After a night of hard partying and debauchery, the whores commensurate about their riches, the johns sleep off a very bad tequila hangover, and the old ladies wash the towels and sheets while the madam Missy McConnell, prepares for another night of boning for dollars. 

Posted by: Fish the Impaler at July 31, 2011 04:49 AM (Lt/Za)

404 More from McConnell from The WSJ Live Blog:

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 04:53 AM (o2lIv)

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 04:54 AM (o2lIv)

406 In terms of political pain . . . do we get to revisit this before Election Day next year?  I hope so.  I smell a winner.

Posted by: logprof at July 31, 2011 04:59 AM (BP6Z1)

407 Screw it, I'm not going to read the rest of these idiotic comments.

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 05:07 AM (cSkZ5)

408

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 05:07 AM (X6akg)

409   A senior House GOP aide tells me there is nothing to announce yet.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:10 AM (o2lIv)

410 We might be waiting for a while- again...

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:14 AM (o2lIv)

411   A sr GOP ldrshp aide."Discussions are moving in the right direction, but serious issues remain."

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:17 AM (o2lIv)

412 Senior House GOP leadership aide."No agreement will be final until Members have a chance to weigh in."

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 31, 2011 05:18 AM (o2lIv)

413 As per the update, no the debt ceiling increase isn't pinned to the passing of the BBA. It was never stated as such. IIRC, if the super committee could not agree on cuts, then across the board cuts are made and a vote on the BBA is called.

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 05:18 AM (B89As)

414 Oh great, so after reading 1/3 of the posts it just looks like another Internet Rumor for now.

*SIGH*

Posted by: logprof at July 31, 2011 05:19 AM (BP6Z1)

415

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 05:20 AM (OkWjw)

416 "It's A Trap" was one of my better performances as Han Solo - My problem making that film was that Princess Lea seems to be the only chick in the whole fucking Galaxy.

Posted by: Peter Griffin, Family Guy at July 31, 2011 05:21 AM (nVLlM)

417 31Wait. If this is accurate we got Barry to agree to not only $2.8 trillion in cuts and, and this is a huge and, cuts to entitlements and you guys are unhappy?

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 05:21 AM (X1Y8q)

418 Okay, before I grab a fresh cup of coffee and settle in for C-Span and some good old-fashioned bitching and moaning: Which thread are we patronizing? I hate chatting on a thread only to learn that every one else has left.

And, I still think the vote would be hella fun as a live-blog.

Posted by: As IF... at July 31, 2011 05:24 AM (piMMO)

419 blindside- I get your apprehension on the cuts but there are enough guys on our side in this fight that are all to aware of the yogurt the moon ploy, it's one of the major reasons Reid's bill never got a vote. I agree pretty much with what Dave in Fla wrote at 412. If this goes through the Obama/left dream of ever larger gov't is done. I'm watching Krugman right now and he looks like he is about to cry. I wish we had a conservative President and a conservative Senate and could have gotten more. Hell, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if we hadn't had so many liberals running DC for decades. But with this Congress and this President, to actually get real cuts, no taxes, a national and ongoing focus on the debt and finally an acknowledgement that we must deal with entitlements, I'll take my chips off the table and play the next hand.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 31, 2011 05:30 AM (TMB3S)

420 There is a reason we don't know the details of this thing.  We are going to have to pass it before we know what is in it.  All that is important to these guys is that they can get back to spending our money as soon as possible.

Posted by: Voluble at July 31, 2011 05:33 AM (JKX4x)

421 I'm with Jack. The winds of change they are a blowin'.

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 05:36 AM (piMMO)

422 Posted by: Voluble at July 31, 2011 10:33 AM (JKX4x) I don't buy that. Eric Cantor is our canary in the coal mine. Along with the tea party caucus and others. They will have to sign off on this.

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 05:43 AM (B89As)

423 Like I said: LukeRussert: House Tea Party & Progressive sources both tell me they have huge problems w supposed #debt deal. Going to be an interesting march to 216. (5 minutes ago from web, retweeted by allahpundit and 9 others)

Posted by: TendStl at July 31, 2011 05:45 AM (N0z1T)

424 In all seriousness, it doesn't matter what shit-bill they pass. NOTHING resembling fiscal sanity will be passed UNTIL dems are removed from all positions of decision making. We can't piss on the details all day, but reality always comes back with a donkey kick to the face.

Posted by: balls_to_you_sir at July 31, 2011 05:50 AM (pOOCt)

425 427 I don't buy that. Eric Cantor is our canary in the coal mine. Along with the tea party caucus and others. They will have to sign off on this.

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 06:14 AM (o2lIv)

426 Pretty funny reading some of these comments. I have the same feelings as most others seem too. This deal is a joke. We're adding almost 3 trillion in new debt just to maintain the status quo for another year and a half? And in exchange for this we get what? Phantom "cuts" far in the future spread over a decade? The bottom line problem is the spending and the debt enslavement. The only solution to that is cuts now, not ten years from now. And the only way to solve the debt problem is by cutting so much that we go from deficits to surpluses. Even with a one trillion surplus it would take DECADES to pay off the current debt. Thats not taking our unfunded liabilities into account, which are another 100+trillion. LOL! I don't get the impression that either party grasps how huge the problem actually is. Current government spending must be cut by at least 50%, really 75%, anything short of that leads to the same nightmare.

Posted by: Andrew at July 31, 2011 06:15 AM (JC4Ts)

427 Yes the BBA will be voted on: Surprise it passes the house and fails in the Senate. How obvious is that?

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 06:19 AM (ylhEn)

428 Yea, 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 06:28 AM (GOG1H)

429

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 06:44 AM (TEgVw)

430 I am also concerned by the large number of folks making excuses for the likes of Boehner. This mindset that we can't do anything until the Dems are gone is folly. We have the power to vote NO now. An election is always around the corner. Those afraid to make tough choices now will be just as gutless the next time around. And what if the GOP loses the election? What if Obama wins? Heck, what if the GOP loses House and Senate seats? We're giving up on a fight now because we think that will help us with the next one? Stupid. That's not the sort of determination that defeated the Japanese and it sure wont defeat the socialists. We need to wake up and realize who the enemy is. The democrats and RINOs have a vested interest in bringing about our economic ruin, that is their goal. Really, does anybody think Obama is just naieve? You think he can't add 2+2?

Posted by: Andrew at July 31, 2011 06:45 AM (JC4Ts)

431 Oh, and John McCain is looking alot like Bill Ferny these days.

Posted by: TeaParty Hobbit at July 31, 2011 06:47 AM (TEgVw)

432 "We got 1T in cuts" That is a lie. No Congress can bind a a future Congress. Unless all 1T in cuts happen now, it is a lie and anyone who believes it is a fool

Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 31, 2011 06:47 AM (QBQcg)

433

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 06:51 AM (TEgVw)

434 Worth reinforcing, convenient that it may be to boosters, that there are no cuts. There are promises to reduce projected increases in future spending. All of which can be voided by future Congresses.

The permanent stimulus/Obama spending is now mainstreamed and accepted.

Posted by: MlR at July 31, 2011 06:57 AM (Qsfvj)

435 Oh, but wait. There were no tax increases. (At least publicly, today.)

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 07:02 AM (Qsfvj)

436 I've spent some time the last couple days trying to find why baseline budgeting is used.  I consider tech manuals (well written ones, more a rarity these days) and calculus texts a decent read, but getting through some of the crap on the treasury and CBO websites is downright painful and sleep inducing.   I still can't figure if baseline budgeting is a product of the '74 budget act, though that is the closest I can figure it.

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 07:07 AM (juh4Z)

437 They are using Washington-speak. In Washington-speak a "cut" is nothing more that a smaller increase than expected.

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 07:20 AM (9J2fY)

438 27 Boehner has one way to save face... major budget item a week, starting with repeal of Obamacare... 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 The House has already repealed ObamaCare, that bill died in the Senate - Surprise!! I would have told Obama - Repeal ObamaCare NOW or forget your debt increase.....of course this would help Obama at election time. Let's let ObamaCare be the anchor that sinks Obama.

Posted by: izoneguy at July 31, 2011 07:22 AM (i6Neb)

439

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 07:23 AM (OX4OZ)

440 38 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? Exactly, nothing will be cut as long as the democrats control anything.....vote all those meatpuppets out. The Repubucans will write the bill in such a way as to preserve their spending as well. This is what we have to watch.

Posted by: izoneguy at July 31, 2011 07:26 AM (i6Neb)

441

So we're looking at a $16.2 Trillion dollar debt by the next election?

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 31, 2011 07:26 AM (GKQDR)

442 249 OK, let's take a step back. Obama's got the one thing he wanted, 2013. The economy is still going to crater and the US will be downgraded. The Chinese are saying "No Thanks". Where will Obama get his money? He will just print more. The price of butter & guns will skyrocket. Shit, the prices of everything is going up but my clients want me to keep cutting mine. This shit won't float for long.

Posted by: izoneguy at July 31, 2011 07:30 AM (i6Neb)

443 Oh, and there is word that if that wonderful committee fails to act, there might just be auto tax increases. Yea, way to go boys. Thank the holy lord we got that Boehner plan passed. No clue where we would be without it.

Posted by: Rich at July 31, 2011 07:30 AM (OX4OZ)

444

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 Reid’s (and Boehner’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 07:32 AM (OX4OZ)

445 Such an epic victory that even its proponents here at AoSHQ are reduced to making excuses.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at July 31, 2011 09:26 AM (agD4m)

446 Posted by: kurtilator at July 31, 2011 12:07 PM (juh4Z)
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 03:54 PM (yrGif)

447 Only a republican would believe a balanced budget can be achieved with cuts alone.  You're gonna have to generate revenue from sources more than spending cuts can provide.  Americans are paying 900B a year.  Corporations pay in 200B a year.  I'd say it's time they pay their fare share.  Don't ya think it's odd the big oil guys report lucrative profits and we pay more more at the pump despite the tax breaks and incentives they have.  Aw well, oversimplified and too short of space.  Dems have to take back the house in 2012!

Posted by: Janice at July 31, 2011 07:59 PM (cwX/l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
307kb generated in CPU 0.37, elapsed 1.8253 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5111 seconds, 683 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.