PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Sleazy Dingy Harry is the roadblock?


HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 08:43 PM
GOP leaders voice optimism that impasse will be settled
But Senate Democratic Leader Reid claims no progress made Saturday


WASHINGTON — Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday afternoon he was “confident and optimistic” that he and GOP leaders will reach an accord “in the very near future” with President Barack Obama to settle the impasse over raising the government’s borrowing limit.

But a few hours later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to dispute McConnell's assessment, saying that "the process has not been moved forward during this day." SCUMBAG

McConnell responded by telling the Senate, "I'm more optimistic than my friend, the majority leader. We both talked to the president today, talked to the vice president several times. I think we've got a chance of getting there.... I actually cut short a conversation with the vice president to come out here" to the Senate floor.

At that point, McConnell proposed to move, after an interval of a few minutes, to a vote on ending debate on the deficit-cutting bill that Reid has offered.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday afternoon he was “confident and optimistic” that he and GOP leaders will reach an accord soon with President Barack Obama to settle the impasse over raising the government’s borrowing limit.


But Reid immediately blocked McConnell's proposal, leaving a 1 a.m. vote on cloture, or ending debate, still the most likely next move. Republicans are bad

As of Saturday evening, Reid apparently lacked the 60 votes he needs, under Senate rules, to end debate on his bill and proceed to a final vote

Forty-three Republican senators said they opposed the Reid bill. In a letter to Reid, they wrote that the bill "fails to address our current fiscal imbalance and lacks any serious effort to ensure that any subsequent spending cuts are enacted."

On Saturday the House voted down the Reid proposal by a vote of 246 to 173. Eleven Democrats, mostly from Republican-leaning districts, voted with 235 Republicans to defeat the bill.

Assessing Reid's proposal
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Reid proposal would reduce deficits by abut $2.1 trillion over ten years, which would be about a 16 percent reduction in future deficits, using the CBO's most plausible budget scenario.

But Republicans contend that $1 trillion of those savings are illusory since they're based on the anticipated cost of troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2021. Obama and Congress have already decided to end those deployments well before 2021.

Without those savings from Iraq, Afghanistan and other "overseas contingency operations," Reid's proposal would cut deficits by a total of $1.1 trillion, compared to $917 billion in deficit cutting in House Speaker John Boehner's plan, which the House approved but the Senate rejected Friday.

Earlier Saturday McDonnell told reporters that he and Boehner “are now fully engaged... with the one person on America, out of 307 million people, who can sign a bill into law..... We now have, I think, a level of seriousness with the right people at the table. We’re going to get a result.”

He added, “We all know that if the president decides to reach an agreement with us, the Democrats, most of them, will fall in line. He is the leader of the Democratic Party; he is the president of the United States. He needs to indicate what he will sign. And we are in those discussions now.”


The House and the Senate, where the Democrats have a majority of 53, had each other essentially in legislative check Saturday, with neither Reid's deficit reduction bill nor Boehner's having enough support in the other body to move ahead.

There appears to be general agreement between Democratic and Republican leaders on an initial round of cuts in discretionary spending. That first round of cuts would not apply to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

A crucial point blocking a final agreement is the question of “triggers” — mandatory actions that would occur if Congress did not approve a second round of spending cuts.
Given this discord, it was not clear what new development, if any, had made McConnell and Boehner sound so confident of a deal.

Boehner, standing with McConnell at the press conference Saturday, said he too was confident that an accord will be reached soon. Referring to Obama and his aides, Boehner said “We’re dealing with reasonable, responsible people who want this crisis to end as quickly as possible.”

McConnell also declared to reporters Saturday that a default on government debt “is not going to happen,” even though the government is only two days from reaching the date the Treasury Department had identified as the point at which the government will exhaust its legal ability to issue new bonds.

If the borrowing limit is reached, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said, the government will be forced to make a 40 percent cut in outlays.
Geithner has been unwilling to discuss in public how the Treasury would manage its cash if it exhausts its borrowing ability.

But Bloomberg News reported Friday that the Treasury would give priority to making interest payments to holders of Treasury bonds if lawmakers fail to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling.

The prolonged standoff over raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit comes at a time when data are pointing to persistent economic weakness and when business leaders are voicing worry that a disruption of bond markets would only make matters worse.


The government reported Friday that in the first quarter of the year the economy grew by only 0.4 percent.
The government also revised its previous output figures for 2008 and 2009, revealing that the recession was worse than previously thought, with the economy shrinking by 0.3 percent in 2009 and by 3.5 percent in 2008.

With more than 14 million people still officially categorized as unemployed, and with millions more having given up looking for jobs, the economy remains in a fragile state.
David Beers, the global head of sovereign ratings at the bond rating firm Standard & Poor’s, said last week that reaching the debt limit “would not be default so long as the government is continuing to pay its debt as it matures and its interest payments.”
But the government being unable to borrow, and the resulting cut in outlays, would be, Beers said, “a very sudden fiscal shock that, the longer it lasted, would filter powerfully through the system… Potentially that would be deeply disruptive to the economy.”

alnorth
07-30-2011, 08:48 PM
But a few hours later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to dispute McConnell's assessment, saying that "the process has not been moved forward during this day." SCUMBAG

Why do you automatically believe McConnell when he says they are close? Maybe they are, and maybe he's blowing sunshine up your ass. Wait and see.

But Reid immediately blocked McConnell's proposal, leaving a 1 a.m. vote on cloture, or ending debate, still the most likely next move. Republicans are bad

We went over this, thoroughly, in the "why is Reid changing the rules" thread.

The Republicans are filibustering the bill. Not Reid, not the democrats, the republicans are filibustering Reid's bill. Now maybe that doesn't mean anything because maybe they are working on an alternative bill that will pass and Reid's bill was always dead in the water, but this continued fiction that "OMG Reid is filibustering his own bill, he's gone mad!" is dead-ass wrong.

McConnell was only offering to vote on cloture last night. It would have failed. If it failed, the republican filibuster would have continued.

mlyonsd
07-30-2011, 08:52 PM
Seriously HCF, I think you might blow a gasket. Take it easy.

banyon
07-30-2011, 08:53 PM
I'll be watching CSPAN at 1 am for the first time that I can remember.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 08:55 PM
Seriously HCF, I think you might blow a gasket. Take it easy.

Doing my best. Hard to deal with the old fart. Lying bastard he is.

banyon
07-30-2011, 08:59 PM
Doing my best. Hard to deal with the old fart. Lying bastard he is.

What do you think he's lying about?

mlyonsd
07-30-2011, 08:59 PM
I'll be watching CSPAN at 1 am for the first time that I can remember.What are they doing then again? I mean unless my wife doesn't put me to sleep tonight?

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 09:01 PM
What do you think he's lying about?

Even you are smart enough to see he is a POS.

banyon
07-30-2011, 09:08 PM
What are they doing then again? I mean unless my wife doesn't put me to sleep tonight?

It's NBA action FAN-TASTIC! Cloture vote!

IOW, if they end debate, then they will vote on Reid's Amendment.

banyon
07-30-2011, 09:09 PM
Even you are smart enough to see he is a POS.

Yes, I have disliked him for several years, but that doesn't mean I know what you think he's lying about in this debate.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 09:10 PM
What are they doing then again? I mean unless my wife doesn't put me to sleep tonight?

don't bother, it wont pass, and nothing will happen.

mlyonsd
07-30-2011, 09:12 PM
It's NBA action FAN-TASTIC! Cloture vote!

IOW, if they end debate, then they will vote on Reid's Amendment.Well call me a bad American but I'm root'in for the wife.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 09:14 PM
. double post

banyon
07-30-2011, 09:16 PM
Well call me a bad American but I'm root'in for the wife.

Nevermind, apparently Reid delayed it until tomorrow, so enjoy!! :toast:

mlyonsd
07-30-2011, 09:19 PM
Nevermind, apparently Reid delayed it until tomorrow, so enjoy!! :toast:Awesome! I'll tell her in case she was planning on watching.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 09:23 PM
... and now things have changed to the point where the OP is obsolete.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2011/07/30/gIQAqdfdjI_print.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid announced late Saturday that negotiations with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House had made enough progress that he would delay consideration of his own legislation to avert the debt crisis.

Rather than a 1 a.m. Sunday vote, Reid said he would give the negotiators room to maneuver and set a 1 p.m. Sunday vote on his bill -- which McConnell has already assured would be defeated.

orange
07-30-2011, 09:32 PM
It's all about a Trigger, now.

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/27/2780/AWTTD00Z/art-print/walter-sanders-movie-cowboy-roy-rogers-standing-face-to-face-with-his-horse-trigger.jpg

You should be able to relate, HCF.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 09:39 PM
http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/Harry%20Reid%20Is%20Incompetent.jpg

alnorth
07-30-2011, 11:28 PM
A tentative deal has been struck. (not big or solid enough to deserve its own thread until someone actually goes on record, and this thread works as well as any)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/white-house-republicans-strike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html


Debt Ceiling Increase of up to $2.8T. Not only would that get us through the election, that would give Obama or the new president a few more months to work with.
Spending cuts of roughly $1T. (I assume these are "real" cuts, and not ending the wars)
A vote on the balanced budget amendment. (passage not required, requiring a vote is probably an attempt to get tea party support)
Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8T (to meet the GOP's demand of equal cuts to debt limit increase)
Recommendations must be made by the Thanksgiving Recess
If congress fails to approve the recommendation by the end of December, then we have automatic across-the-board $1.8T cuts to EVERYTHING, except social security. That would include Defense and Medicare.


A few senators are now at the white house to try to convince them to keep their pet program off the table like Social Security.

orange
07-30-2011, 11:35 PM
I was just looking at that. A couple lines seem to have been added:*


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.


* including by you. Beware the quick edit.

alnorth
07-30-2011, 11:53 PM
To recap: Obama offered up to $2.8T in cuts in exchange for $1.2T in taxes. Assuming he wins re-election (which is likely), the deal which the republicans walked away from is probably identical to this one, because by simply doing nothing Obama would get an $800B tax increase. But, he probably won't do nothing, and in exchange for keeping the middle-class tax cut he'll probably have all the leverage to get his $1.2T in taxes he asked for, bringing us back to the roughly 3:1 deal he was hammering with Boehner in the first place.

This is starting to smell like the GOP finding a back-door way of getting the deal they wanted all along before Rush Limbaugh and the tea party yanked them back. Sure there's some upside now if Obama loses the election, but that is not likely.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 11:53 PM
A different source has it this way...probably all change by daylight:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/budget/outlines-of-debt-compromise-emerge-20110730


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 the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.

No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2011, 11:57 PM
To recap: Obama offered up to $2.8T in cuts in exchange for $1.2T in taxes. Assuming he wins re-election (which is likely), the deal which the republicans walked away from is probably identical to this one, because by simply doing nothing Obama would get an $800B tax increase. But, he probably won't do nothing, and in exchange for keeping the middle-class tax cut he'll probably have all the leverage to get his $1.2T in taxes he asked for, bringing us back to the roughly 3:1 deal he was hammering with Boehner in the first place.

This is starting to smell like the GOP finding a back-door way of getting the deal they wanted all along before Rush Limbaugh and the tea party yanked them back. Sure there's some upside now if Obama loses the election, but that is not likely.

You bettin there is a tax increase in this?


Your read is a ways different than Major Garrets report....."I expect plenty of hyperventilating at the term “Super Committee,” but it’s basically the kind of ad hoc committee that Congress can authorize at any time. It sounds a lot like the BRAC process used by Congress to identify military bases for closure. The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds. I should note that Jimmie Bise in his post believes that the second round of cuts might be actual cuts; if so, then this is an even bigger win."

alnorth
07-31-2011, 12:13 AM
You bettin there is a tax increase in this?


Your read is a ways different than Major Garrets report....."I expect plenty of hyperventilating at the term “Super Committee,” but it’s basically the kind of ad hoc committee that Congress can authorize at any time. It sounds a lot like the BRAC process used by Congress to identify military bases for closure. The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds. I should note that Jimmie Bise in his post believes that the second round of cuts might be actual cuts; if so, then this is an even bigger win."

No.

This is basically exactly the same (with some minor details switched around) that Boehner was hammering out with Obama except with one key difference. The GOP is basically saying to Obama: "you want that tax increase? OK fine, but you have to win the election first"

This deal just suspiciously looks too similar to what Obama was trying to do, 2.8T in cuts, 800B-1.2T in taxes (if Obama wins the election he can let the bush tax cuts expire for the 800B or negotiate from a position of strength for 1.2T). I really think the GOP establishment wanted to take the offer Obama was laying out there, but they couldn't because of the tea-party crazies.

This looks to me like a back-door face-saving way of getting that same deal, on slightly better terms (huge upside for the republicans if Obama is defeated) in a way that might be more politically-acceptable to the tea party crazies.

alnorth
07-31-2011, 12:40 AM
If this ends up being the deal, then the 2012 election looks pretty clear to me. This would become a good old classic, class warfare holy war for the 2012 election. If this happens as reported, then I really think this election will be about taxes vs more cuts. Obama will argue that "our" sacrifice has been made and now it is now time for the wealthy to pay their fair share, and the GOP will obviously argue to extend the Bush tax cuts forever and instead we should do even more spending cuts.

orange
07-31-2011, 12:41 AM
The prohibition on net tax revenue gains is a big, big win for Republicans if it holds.

"Prohibition on net tax revenue gains" - net being the operative word.

That means they have to match new taxes with new cuts. That sounds like 1:1 to me (if it's true). GOP was getting 1:3 or 1:4. And this is a "big, big win for Republicans?" Boy, they see you guys coming, don't they?

alnorth
07-31-2011, 12:44 AM
"Prohibition on net tax revenue gains" - net being the operative word.

That means they have to match new taxes with new cuts. That sounds like 1:1 to me (if it's true). GOP was getting 1:3 or 1:4. And this is a "big, big win for Republicans?" Boy, they see you guys coming, don't they?

I don't think the Bush tax cuts are on the table. The commission can try to renegotiate that if they want, but the CBO is already scoring the Tax cuts as set to expire.

That doesn't mean they will expire if Obama loses re-election.