Home About Chat Users Issues Party Candidates Polling Firms Media News Polls Calendar Key Races United States President Senate House Governors International

New User Account
"A collaborative political resource." 
Email: Password:

  Debt deal: Obama, Hill leaders break through
NEWS DETAILS
Parent(s) Issue 
ContributorCOSDem 
Last EditedCOSDem  Jul 31, 2011 09:01pm
Logged 0
CategoryAnnouncement
News DateMonday, August 1, 2011 05:00:00 AM UTC0:0
DescriptionFacing the imminent prospect of default, the White House and congressional leaders reached a debt ceiling deal that gives President Barack Obama greater certainty in managing the Treasury’s borrowing needs while making a joint commitment to major deficit reduction without any explicit concessions by the GOP on new tax revenues.

Obama announced the deal at 8:40 p.m. on live TV in the White House briefing room as Speaker John Boehner was simultaneously briefing his own Republican conference on the deal.
Share
ArticleRead Article

NEWS
Date Category Headline Article Contributor

DISCUSSION
[View All
55
Previous Messages]
 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
x2 x2
Mon, August 1, 2011 05:10:57 PM UTC0:00
kal: I don't see why you guys are bagging on Obama

Because it's the thing to do whenever he reaches a compromise with the Republicans that contains things liberals don't like, that's why. Erik Erikson isn't happy and the left-wing blogosphere isn't happy. Sounds like a win to me.

Oh and as for the whole "but the Dems control the WH and the Senate!" business, terrific. The teabaggers control the House of Representatives, and you need all three of those institutions to get something done, so yeah concessions were made to them. Getting defense cuts as part of the trigger down the road wasn't nothing, but of course people who've made it their mission in life to bemoan every move Obama makes will focus exclusively on all the crap parts of the deal, even though everyone should have assumed there were going to be some. That's what constitutes a deal. Furthermore, I've heard a few times now some member of the Progressive Caucus or another talking about how the GOP got everything they wanted here. No they didn't. This package is to the left of the Boehner bill that most of them hated, well to the left of their "Cut Cap and Balance" proposal, and it's most certainly to the left of the Paul Ryan plan. So yeah, no one is happy.

And I already expect the troll icons, so bring it.

 
R:549kal ( -57.2262 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 05:33:09 PM UTC0:00
Yeah Brandon, you're right.

To those of you who don't like it, list for me exactly what you don't like.

Where did the GOP "win" anything?

 
IND:1196Monsieur ( 5890.8623 points)
x2
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:03:49 PM UTC0:00
Good win for Obama and the Dems. More predictable and stupid bitching from the left.

 
SAP:262Gaear Grimsrud ( 6920.2134 points)
x3
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:08:55 PM UTC0:00
I think some of us are just sick that these teabagging SCUMBAGS hold the country hostage and get away with it every time.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:13:06 PM UTC0:00
What have they gotten away with really? The grassroots teabaggers aren't any more happy with how this turned out than you are. Like it or not though, they do have political clout on the hill, so any big thing like this that passes is going to have their imprint on it. Does it suck? Sure, but that's the way things go when the opposition controls part of the process.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:17:04 PM UTC0:00
Look at it this way, it could have been a lot worse. Just see all the previously-mentioned crap that came out of the House that the Senate and the president shot down.

 
D:7CA Pol Junkie ( 2702.2412 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:17:58 PM UTC0:00
Monsieur: Good win for Obama and the Dems. More predictable and stupid bitching from the left.

Shhh! Democrats have to keep hating it for a couple days until enough Republicans vote for it to pass it.

 
D:7CA Pol Junkie ( 2702.2412 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:22:59 PM UTC0:00
kal: To those of you who don't like it, list for me exactly what you don't like.

I think Democrats will be content to reject whatever the commission comes up with since the GOP will reject any tax increases reflexively and Democrats would love to take an ax to defense spending. The biggest Democratic priorities have been saved from the spending cut trigger. I question why House Republicans would vote for this, but as long as they don't figure it out until next week that's fine with me.

 
R:549kal ( -57.2262 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:39:26 PM UTC0:00
Exactly. And regardless of any promises for later cuts/lack of tax increases, it only matters for ONE budget.


 
SAP:262Gaear Grimsrud ( 6920.2134 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:52:08 PM UTC0:00
CA Pol Junkie: The biggest Democratic priorities have been saved from the spending cut trigger

Not Medicare. FTA:

The biggest new feature is a return to something like the old Gramm-Rudman sequester model of the 1980s, using severe across-the-board cuts as an action-forcing device. The cuts would affect Democratic domestic priorities, including Medicare, but also about 50 percent would come from defense spending, which is a major priority for many Republicans.

 
D:478Bob ( 2253.6577 points)
x2
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:55:26 PM UTC0:00
Forwardista: Puke. Obama is gutless. The Democrats control the presidency and the US Senate and we're surrendering on this?

If we were building a bicycle here the refrain from the left would be "But Obama has the handlebar and the frame and all the GOP has are the wheels! Two out of three ain't bad; why can't he just get on and start pedaling?"

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
x2
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:56:18 PM UTC0:00
Gaear Grimsrud: Not Medicare.

It should be noted, however, that the Medicare cuts included here are NOT cuts that affect beneficiaries, i.e. there hasn't been any cut to benefits, etc. These are cuts to provider reimbursements. So as far as the Democratic line about protecting Medicare recipients, that's intact.

 
SAP:262Gaear Grimsrud ( 6920.2134 points)
x5
Mon, August 1, 2011 06:57:57 PM UTC0:00
Brandon: Look at it this way, it could have been a lot worse. Just see all the previously-mentioned crap that came out of the House that the Senate and the president shot down.

I agree, and I differ from some of the other angry people on the left in that default would have been infinitely worse, and Obama had little choice but to agree to it, since, unlike most Republicans, he's somewhat civic-minded.

I'm just really sick of "celebrating" ****ty compromise after ****ty compromise. It would be tolerable if our country was run by two reasonable sides that simply differed in how to solve problems, but it's not. The Republicans are scumbags whose only priority are a handful of filthy rich contributors.

 
SAP:262Gaear Grimsrud ( 6920.2134 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 07:04:02 PM UTC0:00
Brandon: These are cuts to provider reimbursements.

I stand corrected (I was too lazy to look for a newer article) but that does raise another potential political problem. Most doctors get a significant chunk of their income (if not most of it) from Medicare payments. I'd imagine hospitals do too. That could have a significant political backlash, especially if health service staff have to be laid off or have their salaries cut.

 
D:478Bob ( 2253.6577 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 07:14:11 PM UTC0:00
I agree, and I differ from some of the other angry people on the left in that default would have been infinitely worse, and Obama had little choice but to agree to it, since, unlike most Republicans, he's somewhat civic-minded.

I'm just really sick of "celebrating" ****ty compromise after ****ty compromise. It would be tolerable if our country was run by two reasonable sides that simply differed in how to solve problems, but it's not. The Republicans are scumbags whose only priority are a handful of filthy rich contributors.

I agree. It's not an easy pill to swallow but this particular issue had too many imminently serious consequences for Obama to be obstinate about. It's far from ideal but this wasn't the place to draw a line in the sand.

 
D:7CA Pol Junkie ( 2702.2412 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 07:22:50 PM UTC0:00
Gaear Grimsrud: That could have a significant political backlash, especially if health service staff have to be laid off or have their salaries cut.

Doesn't the "doc fix" that Congress passes every year just bypass the scheduled cuts in payments to providers to doctors won't stop taking Medicare? I kind of wonder why they bothered trying to cut payments to providers.

 
D:704John ( 3346.7625 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 08:22:04 PM UTC0:00
After reading into it a bit more, this isn't as bad as the initial reports on it. It still sucks that A) Republicans took so long to get there, B) that the Democrats weren't able to do something about this in December when we had all three parts of Bob's bicycle and C) that we couldn't get some sort of revenue included in the final bill. If Obama is able to keep the AAA-Credit rating, though, this bill will be worth it.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 08:28:25 PM UTC0:00
John: B) that the Democrats weren't able to do something about this in December

Agreed, but if you recall they were plenty busy in December getting things done for precisely the reason that they'd no longer have control of everything: DADT repeal, New START Treaty, etc.

 
D:478Bob ( 2253.6577 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 09:34:32 PM UTC0:00
Efficacy in power is not a Democratic virtue, to be sure, but as Brandon pointed out it's not as though we didn't just sit on our hands the entire time. Two years isn't much time to get a lot accomplished given the languid pace of business in Washington.

 
D:704John ( 3346.7625 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 09:56:04 PM UTC0:00
I suppose if there are "winners" in this deal, one of the one's no one is talking about is Pelosi-I think that she proved herself the far more effective Speaker to Boehner in the last couple of weeks to all but the most hyperpartisan observers.

 
R:1844fortytwo ( -1.7414 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 09:59:14 PM UTC0:00
If Pelosi had been an effective Speaker, wouldn't she still be Speaker?

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 10:02:36 PM UTC0:00
Effective in the sense of leading her caucus and getting priority legislation through the chamber is, of course, what he was referring to.

 
D:6086Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 10:56:04 PM UTC0:00
Brandon: Look at it this way, it could have been a lot worse. Just see all the previously-mentioned crap that came out of the House that the Senate and the president shot down.

Probably. It can always get worse, and anything is preferable to default. I'm just sick of seeing a minority opinion terrorize the majority into major concessions, only to make a silent statement in the end. In other words, I just wish the political process weren't loaded with grade-A bull****.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Mon, August 1, 2011 11:14:17 PM UTC0:00
That's a perfectly valid frustration. One that pretty much everyone shares, I'd wager.

 
D:704John ( 3346.7625 points)
Tue, August 2, 2011 02:11:36 AM UTC0:00
It has passed the House-Gabby Giffords showed up for the vote.