[Frannypaync]

ABC News: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...-ceiling-.html

ABC News has learned that Republicans and the White House have struck a tentative deal to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 deadline. It's not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:

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.
A senior White House aide pushed back against the idea that a deal was struck. "Talks continue, but there is no deal to report," the aide said.

[Anykeylo]

The geighs are crazy on the christina board

[Mumeseest]

Care to elaborate, or rather give a defense?

[M1zdL0hh]

Whenever a Democrat says "Revenue" he/she means taxes. Always.

"Revenue" sounds so much better...and they think the public is just too darn dumb to figure out what they're really talking about. You didn't think they'd give up, did you? Memories of that "shellacking" of 2010 are long, long gone.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...deficit-panel/


Dems Preparing to Renew Push for Revenue Increases on Proposed Deficit Panel

Published July 31, 2011
| FoxNews.com

Democratic officials indicated Sunday that they would revive their push for revenue increases later this year, presuming Congress can first clear away the immediate crisis over the debt ceiling.

The Senate is hard at work crafting a potential compromise package to both raise the debt cap and cut spending. Leaders are trying to get a package out of Congress and to the president's desk in the next two days to avoid the possibility of default.

An emerging compromise includes a component that some Democrats see as a way to bring "balance" back to the deficit-reduction push -- after recent plans relied on spending cuts only to achieve savings.

Under the outline of the new plan, Congress would approve spending cuts worth about $900 billion now and create a committee to find at least another $1.5 trillion in savings by the end of the year.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday that Democrats will "fight" for revenue increases as part of that process.

"There's going to be a lot of tough decisions on the committee. The committee has no restraints on it. We will fight very hard for revenues on that committee if it should come to exist," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Schumer also said Democrats will be "adamant" that the committee should not cut benefits in Medicare, though he conceded the committee could extract savings by cutting "waste and inefficiency" in the system.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1TkqQis8x

[reiruviartugs]

Would one of our GOP apologists (Paul or Brad) care to clue us in on exactly what the Republicans gave in this "compromise" agreement?

[Breevereurl]

Would someone tell me what's wrong with bringing such "revenue"?

[EntectCelpelm]

Would someone tell me what's wrong with bringing such "revenue"?

Nothing, unless you're of the mind that a cabin, a shotgun and a kerosene lamp are all anyone needs to thrive. For those of us who use roads and expect them to be lit and value police and fire departments and
-- like it when bridges don't crack and
-- like it when buildings don't collapse and
-- like it when levies don't break and
-- think that a good education in public schools is important and
-- want Medicare to be there for us and
-- want Social Security to be there for us and
-- care that those in poverty get the care they need

Those are the things we all pay into with taxes. And contrary to a few anti-government zealots, we gladly pay those taxes to keep those things alive. And those taxes that allow those things to happen provide jobs for millions of our fellow Americans. And those millions of Americans who have those jobs pay taxes and buy a lot of things that keep the economy humming. We want all of that to happen.

I heard an interesting statistic the other day. $1 billion in infrastructure spending (modernizing bridges and highways and buildings, building new bridges and highways and buildings, building high-speed rail systems to make commuting greener, faster and cheaper) produces 25,000 skilled-labor jobs. $200 billion in dedicated, core infrastructure can generate 5 million jobs.

Money in the hands of middle-class workers will always generate purchase power and lift the economy. Money in the hands of corporations or the very wealthy goes to other countries or into savings and does very little to lift the economy. Thinking that if some people just get rich enough, they'll start creating jobs in droves has no basis in reality. The wealthy in this country have never been wealthier and the jobs aren't coming. The corporations are sitting on their largest cash reserves in history and the jobs aren't coming. And the jobs aren't coming because the middle class isn't buying products or services because they're squeezed.

[Noilemaillilm]

Would one of our GOP apologists (Paul or Brad) care to clue us in on exactly what the Republicans gave in this "compromise" agreement?

The analysis I'm seeing today focuses on the "trigger." If the committee can't agree on a deal or if they float something that Obama vetoes, the Pentagon is immediately forced to slice $600 billion from its budget along with Medicare providers taking a 2% cut in payments.

Given that the Pentagon cuts would probably involve massive job cuts at military facilities in Republican states as well as the sense of reducing our battle-readiness, there's a lot of GOP incentive not to let that happen. And the thinking is that this puts expiration of the Bush tax cuts or closing other loopholes squarely on the table. If a package can be produced that can carry Democratic votes in the House along with moderate Republican votes, it can crush the minor rebellions of the Tea Party caucus.

[twiffatticy]

That makes sense, but it still seems to me that the Democrats have had their hand forced, and are making far greater concessions.

[wowwieholmes]

Yes, and that seems to derive from a few specific points:

-- Obama and Democrats were very naive in the winter of 2010 to assume that incoming extremists on the right would not use this very issue to hold the country hostage. They put off raising the debt ceiling with the belief that it's always been done without much of a fight.
-- Obama recognizes that the choice for most Democrats is to vote for him or stay home. And the likelihood of them staying home shrinks every time Republicans try to shut down Planned Parenthood or overturn Roe V Wade or privatize Social Security or turn Medicare into a voucher system. So he sees an opening to play to the center and even the center-right, because Republicans pretty much abandoned that territory when Tea Party extremists replaced GOP moderates and veered the party hard to the right. That's how he's playing it. He's going after independents who have buyers' remorse over voting GOP last time around.
-- Obama has chosen to play mediator rather than pugilist in these fights. He's tried hard to stay above the fray, but that role has painted him as ineffective to the left, and it's not clear whether he's really winning the center with that ploy.

[RokgroofeTeme]

Nothing, unless you're of the mind that a cabin, a shotgun and a kerosene lamp are all anyone needs to thrive. For those of us who use roads and expect them to be lit and value police and fire departments and
-- like it when bridges don't crack and
-- like it when buildings don't collapse and
-- like it when levies don't break and
-- think that a good education in public schools is important and
-- want Medicare to be there for us and
-- want Social Security to be there for us and
-- care that those in poverty get the care they need

Those are the things we all pay into with taxes. And contrary to a few anti-government zealots, we gladly pay those taxes to keep those things alive. And those taxes that allow those things to happen provide jobs for millions of our fellow Americans. And those millions of Americans who have those jobs pay taxes and buy a lot of things that keep the economy humming. We want all of that to happen.

I heard an interesting statistic the other day. $1 billion in infrastructure spending (modernizing bridges and highways and buildings, building new bridges and highways and buildings, building high-speed rail systems to make commuting greener, faster and cheaper) produces 25,000 skilled-labor jobs. $200 billion in dedicated, core infrastructure can generate 5 million jobs.

Money in the hands of middle-class workers will always generate purchase power and lift the economy. Money in the hands of corporations or the very wealthy goes to other countries or into savings and does very little to lift the economy. Thinking that if some people just get rich enough, they'll start creating jobs in droves has no basis in reality. The wealthy in this country have never been wealthier and the jobs aren't coming. The corporations are sitting on their largest cash reserves in history and the jobs aren't coming. And the jobs aren't coming because the middle class isn't buying products or services because they're squeezed.

Kinda the driving point to the second part of my second book... Where a similar political group to the Tea Party takes over and suddenly the poor can't go anywhere and the rich travel in flying cars and helicopters...

Speakin' of which people: Buy my first book!

[MAKEMONEY]

Yes, you should! It's worth the price, and a fun, interesting story.

[Yifnvmzp]

Would someone tell me what's wrong with bringing such "revenue"?

Absolutely nothing - Our revenue's are at a 50 year low, kind of resembles the confidence of our citizens.

[Carol]

That makes sense, but it still seems to me that the Democrats have had their hand forced, and are making far greater concessions.

Same ole BS, I am sick of the D's being so agreeable, but I am not so crazy to push fort a default, a pretty sucky position to be in.

[Thunderzee]

Honestly, I think the President should have put his foot down, explained that he would veto any bill that didn't include revenue increments, and then invoked the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without the fools in Congress.

[DeedPatmeda]

Honestly, I think the President should have put his foot down, explained that he would veto any bill that didn't include revenue increments, and then invoked the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without the fools in Congress.

The problem with the 14th is it is uncharted territory, it would have created a **** storm and then the Get Obama Party would have gone into impeachment mode and even if it were to be unsuccessful, it would waste a lot of time and another three ring circus, and I feel Obama knew that going in.

But i agree he should have been more forceful, other than avoiding default, I am not happy with this outcome.

[astefecyAvevy]

And the Dems could have played that off as the GOP deliberately crippling the government, just like they tried to cripple the economy.

They need James Carville back in action.

[sandracuk]

From what I understand the way this super committee is set up, if they do reach some kind of bipartisan agreement (what are the Vegas odds on that one?), any legislation that contains spending cuts gets an up-and-down vote, while any legislation that contains revenues can be filibustered. That's stacking the deck in the Republicans favor (now, what are the Vegas odds?)

If Pres. Obama has a choice, he can veto any legislation and let the trigger fly, but he may not have a choice. With as much trouble as Spkr. Boehner had wrangling the Tea Party into this vote, what makes anyone think it will be easier in November? If this group is willing to let our country default, what are some cuts to defense and Medicare providers to them?

Then we move on to the Bush/Obama tax cut extension expiration at the end of the year. Who the hell knows what the Tea Party will come u.p with. What will try to extort from their own party leaders, who really, really want that extension, not to mention from the Democrats?

[lookanddiscover]

My understanding is that the committee was timed to coincide with the proposed lapse of the Bush cuts to give most of the GOP an exit path on revenues by grudgingly agreeing to let all or part of the tax cuts lapse. The timing also lays the foundation for holiday sentimentality on the politics of "do you want to cut Grandma's Medicare access starting in January or trim back just 3% of the financial windfall that millionaires and billionaires have enjoyed while we've all suffered?"

If they carve the tax cut lapse to those making over $1 million a year, they can probably sell it.

[Erexecike]

Yes, you should! It's worth the price, and a fun, interesting story.

Thanks, Pinky!