Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:21 AM Jan 2013

"Of particular interest is what isn't in the package"

<...>

Of particular interest is what isn't in the package: there's no debt-ceiling increase, no new stimulus spending, and as it turns out, no spending cuts, either. What about the automatic sequestration cuts? The White House wanted a one-year postponement, but only secured a two-month break.

And you know what that means: by the end of February, President Obama and Congress will be expected to reach another agreement on offsetting the costs of the sequester, just as the nation reaches its next debt-ceiling deadline.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/31/16275041-bipartisan-fiscal-agreement-reached

There really was no need to give away the debt ceiling and sequestration on Republican terms.



12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Of particular interest is what isn't in the package" (Original Post) ProSense Jan 2013 OP
the drama continues...guess this will become a two-month cycle of bribery. spanone Jan 2013 #1
Perhaps if we ignore all the drama hype in 2 months southerncrone Jan 2013 #4
:::facepalm::: Melinda Jan 2013 #2
The thing is, the Republicans would never agree to those two items... regnaD kciN Jan 2013 #3
Why can't it be that the Democrats "would never agree to not incluuding those two items iemitsu Jan 2013 #6
Thank you! oxymoron Jan 2013 #8
You are very welcome. iemitsu Jan 2013 #10
Very well put. nt oxymoron Jan 2013 #12
Offsetting the costs of the sequester? Igel Jan 2013 #5
That and the continuation of the payroll tax cuts are the things that worry me about this deal. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #7
The payroll tax cut was expired in the bill. BumRushDaShow Jan 2013 #9
"What's in the box?!?!" (nt) The Straight Story Jan 2013 #11

southerncrone

(5,506 posts)
4. Perhaps if we ignore all the drama hype in 2 months
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:42 AM
Jan 2013

we can stop this insanity. THAT will have them worrying what WE'RE up to. It's becoming a dog & pony show every month. Congress has become a guild of bad actors.

regnaD kciN

(26,044 posts)
3. The thing is, the Republicans would never agree to those two items...
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:41 AM
Jan 2013

...along with the rest of the current package. And, even if they had been delayed a year instead of two months, does anyone believe the Repugs wouldn't have played the same old games at that time?

iemitsu

(3,888 posts)
6. Why can't it be that the Democrats "would never agree to not incluuding those two items
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:05 AM
Jan 2013

along with the rest of the current package?" I am so damn sick of having to be the one to give in. Shared sacrifice my ass. Working Americans have been given the shaft for the last 40 years. All of my adult life. We have carried this nation and the rich too long to have to accept their unwillingness to contribute.
Democrats do not have to play the republican game. Americans are getting sick of republican obstructionism and given time it could ruin that parties chances for the next several elections. But instead of doing what is right and would be good for the country, Obama and the democrats legitimize the republican bull-shit as if the rich had any case against us.
What utter BS.

iemitsu

(3,888 posts)
10. You are very welcome.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:35 PM
Jan 2013

And I thank you for recognizing my voice, which seems inaudible to most in America today.
Even democrats, on this board, defend and celebrate the erosion of our rights and our growing economic inequality, with statements like, "it is the best we can do under the circumstances" or "republicans would not ever agree to be fair so we have to accept an unfair deal".
What a bunch of horse shit?
A more accurate statement reflecting the situation would be, "Democrats won't ask the rich and powerful to carry their own weight so workers and the elderly should shut-up and be happy if they are not yet living on the streets or in prison (and remember, of course, that if you do end up on the streets or in prison, it is your own fault)."

Igel

(35,317 posts)
5. Offsetting the costs of the sequester?
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:55 AM
Jan 2013

You mean you need to find revenue to cover the cost of not spending money?

"Dear, we can't afford to not go out tonight. Yeah, it'll cost $50 we don't have, but if we don't go we have to find an additional $100 in income."

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
7. That and the continuation of the payroll tax cuts are the things that worry me about this deal.
Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:30 AM
Jan 2013

I know I'm never happy. That may be because I've been watching politics for a long time, and I know the signs of a bad deal.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Of particular inter...