Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Not so bad afterall. Good read from TPM.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 12:55 PM
Original message
Not so bad afterall. Good read from TPM.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg

From TPM Reader RW ...

Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?

snip more at the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. +1. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. Josh Marshall did not write that. In fact, his reponse was, "The fact that there are cuts?"
The question posed by a TPM reader was,
"What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #50
60. Josh further states..
The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. I read it and appreciate it but it has zero bearing on the point the OP was trying to make.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 03:58 PM by Luminous Animal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. They didn't turn out because Obama had already let them down on Single Payer and prosecuting war
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 03:59 PM by librechik
crimes. Those things won't change and won't get better. Plus the corporate money from Citizens United will flow in for 2012 and the issues will be conflated and confused beyond any recognition. Voting will be more difficult than ever. (due to various GOP voter suppression strategies. ) But for Gad's sake don't do anything for progressives so they will want to help. Those people are morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. The largest swing between 2008-2010 in voting demographics were independents.
In 2010:

Fewer young Democrats voted.

A huge turnout for older Republicans.

A a wide swing to the Republicans from independents.

http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article001936729.cfm?x=b11,0,w
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #74
89. Independents want Single Payer, not Romneycare.
Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 09:20 PM by Leopolds Ghost
They are trying to sell us this BS that Independents are right-wing conservatives and Republicans simply moreso.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aerows Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #65
84. You are starting to become my favorite poster
Stop laying it on the line so bluntly and sensibly.

WTF can't other people recognize what the hell is going on. Why do they persist in being blind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. but...but...but.. Obama caved!!111
not

Boner got Boned

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trueblue2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. oh he did not cave
he had no choice. THE FACT THAT THE GOP HAS A HUGE MEMBERSHIP in congress... they would not pass anything!!! we have 2/3 they have a HUGE 1/3.



the bush tax cuts will be toast. PRES OBAMA HAD TO COMPROMISE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
88. A majority of Tea Party voted for the bill. They are very happy. Majority of Dems did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. How did he keep revenues on the table?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. bush tax cuts will not be extended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. they weren't going to be extended last October either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
77. +100 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Now WHERE have I heard THAT one before?
Deja Vu?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. And other revenue will be dealt with
by the special commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. Special commission cannot deal with taxes. Art. 1 Section 7 Clause 1,
unless the Constitutional Scholar want to get rid of that quaint piece of paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
49. Haven't been paying much attention the last two weeks then? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piratefish08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. deja fucking vu'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. Wait, there will be another politicalapalooza and the tax cuts will be extended. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
33. They could extend them in 2013 if there is a different president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
87. They were set to expire before - and he caved into the terrorists demands.
Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 08:09 AM by myrna minx
Who's to say it won't happen again? What incentive do the teabag terrorists' have to be reasonable now when they have a long demonstrated track record of victories against the President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. NOOOOOO!!!! This goes against my constructed reality where my Progressive values
ARE SO MUCH better then the President's.


Don't take my self-righteous indignation away with your FACTS!.. DAMNIT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
51. Josh Marshall did not write that. A reader did and Josh disagrees with the writer.

The question posed by a TPM reader was,
"What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #51
62. Josh is not disagreeing with the reader. Really read what Josh
is saying. He's actually chiding those who think they have all the answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. Actually, he disagreed with the question raised and then offered his own critique of the process.
And the continuous reactions to it.

The question raised was, "What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?" Clearly, the position the OP was trying to catapult is not the position of Josh Marshall.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Nothing. Energy is better spent on the races in Wisconsin, and
identifying candidates that can win House seats for democrats during the 2012 election. The goal should be to take back the House, hold the Senate, and re-elect President Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. I'm noticing a pattern where the goal is always to get re-elected n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
81. I almost read a "pattern of moving the goal."
Which seems to have occurred here with so many previously insisting Obama will given up Medicare and SS bennies....now it's something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. what is wrong? Only that we've set the precedent of negotiating with Terrorists...
but, yes, I'd have to agree with the assessment that all things considered, it could have been a lot worse.

But, I hate that this will only embolden these arrogant teabaggers--that is unless the American people have finally awakened to their ignorance and total disregard to the nation's best interests and tosses them out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
36. + 10000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
78. ditto n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. The biggest for people here is it feels bad
Despite everything above being true those tea party jerks were able to hold us hostage and get an all cuts deal. I think Nate Silver today summed it up best

Nevertheless, this will be an extremely difficult deal for Mr. Obama to sell to Democratic voters, and with good reason.

(Snip)

Fiscal austerity at a time of economic distress, and on largely Republican terms, is not what Democrats thought they were getting when they elected Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Obama might have done more to make short-term stimulus — like further reductions to the payroll tax, something which would would not have violated the Republicans’ ostensible goals — the price for long-term austerity.

Although it is impossible to prove one way or the other, I am not persuaded by the notion that Mr. Obama could have delivered no better a result to Democrats had he done more to stand his ground. Despite the dissent in the Republican caucus — which had originally seemed like a tactical victory for Democrats — the compromise wound up looking more like Mr. Boehner’s original bill than Mr. Reid’s."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. it doesn't pass the "Progressive Purity Test".
and frankly, I dont think any deal would pass that test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. Oh yeah, trot out the old "progressive purity" cliche again.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 02:22 PM by Raksha
Are you going to lecture us about "making the perfect the enemy of the good" too? That's usually what comes next. You might want to consider getting some new material, because that one is getting a little old.

There is nothing remotely "good" about this turkey. As one CBC congressman said, it's a Satan sandwich. He was being diplomatic.

It's long past time for a little progressive purity in the Democratic Party, and even purges if we had the power to kick out the DLC infiltrators and hijackers. It's a little late for that, though. Most likely us "fucking retard" progressives will be the ones getting purged. Good luck trying to re-elect Obama without us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. just because its "old" doesnt mean its incorrect.
clearly it would have been impossible to please the hard-core progressives with any deal that would have had any chance of passing both chambers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheepshank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #48
80. there ya go, trying to make sense again.
clearly it's lost on progressives that demand purity in all bills going through both house and Senate. .... as if there were a fighting chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
64. +1 there is no way any deal was going to
If Congress was Democratic and the majority did a clean bill to pass an increase in debt ceiling - there would have been wailing about that. Increase not enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. but that would mean that the MSM lied to us!
That we got upset for nothing. That we followed every rumor and speculation to its most extreme end, got our stomachs churning and stressed out for... ??

Sometimes it is good to be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. always takes a day or so before the facts come out...
happens all the time.

meanwhile, yesterday was loaded with grenades here, all ready to jump off the ledge cursing Obama on the way down.

but now we are getting some real information. and the ledgers will be shhhhh cricket quiet in the next little while, until the next foghorn leghorn blast of 'Obama is killing gramma!'

you can set your clock by it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DocMac Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. Well,
I hope The Pres. explains this "deep plan" to the congressional Democrats.

Pelosi is not yet convinced and i'm not convinced it will pass. Then again, perhaps Pelosi is playing along to keep "selling it" to the Repugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
57. So you take the OP at face value?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R...
thanks for posting.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. The Bipartisan Committee is what's wrong. Look out for SS, Medicare, Medicaid cut proposals...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. "Only" Medicare provider cuts...
...So what happens when providers stop taking Medicare patients, requiring the beneficiaries to pay the exorbitant prices they charge the uninsured?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yep. Provider cuts = beneficiary cuts when they can't see their doctor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Overton Window theory = making what was previously unacceptable acceptable
by moving the overall frame of discourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Singe payer, or public option, would become reality if services were denied by hospitals, etc.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 01:14 PM by Hoyt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
46. Fuck that...I'm pissed at "only provider cuts" for a different reason...
My wife is a "provider." We're not rich. We're not in the upper 1%. Every year, the govt takes more and more and more out of my wife's paycheck, because she's a "provider." At her practice, they've determined what it costs to run the office, keep the lights on, pay everyone's salary and insurance, get the lab work done, etc, etc...we've all been there. It takes money to run a medical practice, it's not magic. They set their rates based on what it takes for them to run a successful business and provide patient care. Then, they submit the bill to Medicare and they say, "Oh, nice, you want $XX dollars for the office visit and tests...but we're only going to pay you $YY. Don't worry, it's only "provider cuts." Bullshit. Fucking bullshit.

Tangentially, Congress has said they're going on a five-week vacation as soon as this debt bill is passed. Congress...you know, those guys who say teachers don't work and take half the year off. And Congress, who gets insanely good health care, is deciding that my wife's office expenses should be paid for out of HER salary, not by charging her patients a fair and equitable rate for services. Try that at Best Buy when you purchase your next TV..."You know, I'm a little strapped right now...I'm only paying $500 for this $1000 tv, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it." Let me know how it works out for you.

Fuck that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
20. the Wall Street Journal disagrees....
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 01:18 PM by mike_c
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576480653492061150.html

A Tea Party Triumph



The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama's demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps.

(snip)

No wonder liberals are howling. They have come to believe in the upward spending ratchet, under which all spending increases are permanent. Not any more.

(snip)

One reason to think tax increases are unlikely, however, is that the 12-Member committee will operate from CBO's baseline that assumes that the Bush tax rates expire in 2013. CBO assumes that taxes will rise by $3.5 trillion over the next decade, including huge increases for middle-class earners. Since any elimination of those tax increases would increase the deficit under CBO's math, the strong incentive for the Members will be to avoid the tax issue. This increases the political incentive for deficit reduction to come from spending cuts.

Mr. Obama's biggest gain in the deal is that he gets his highest priority of not having to repeat this debt-limit fight again before the 2012 election. The deal stipulates that the debt ceiling will rise automatically by $900 billion this year, and at least $1.2 trillion next year, unless two-thirds of Congress disapproves it. Congress will not do so.


So the republican leadership (read politicians) got just about everything they wanted, Obama got some lessened anxiety during his campaign, and the rest of us got screwed. Oh, and the rich and their corporations will likely continue to reap record profits without having to share in any of that "sacrifice" I keep hearing that we have to shoulder because we endlessly borrow money from them to maintain deficits (and their profits) rather than taxing them to balance the budget. Yay! We won!

Oh, wait....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. ROFL: The WSJ's argument is that since the Bush tax cuts will expire
you won't see additional tax increases in the Joint Committee recommendation?

:rofl: :rofl:

Shorter WSJ: "We got everything we want: for instance, the Bush tax cuts will expire for everybody, so there won't be incentives to cut tax loopholes for corporations!"

:rofl:

Are you even reading what you're posting here? They first admit that the Bush tax cuts are history, then try to make that into a positive by speculating that it will prevent further tax increases in the Joint Committee, though the second doesn't even follow from the first. It's ludicrous!

:rofl:

Here's what's going to happen: the Bush tax cuts WILL in fact expire, as the WSJ all but takes as a given in the very portion of the article you posted. Second, the Joint Committee WILL recommend additional tax increases through ending subsifi9es and closing loopholes, since, despite the nonsense you posted above, closing an oil company loophole has fuck all to do with the Bush tax rate increases.

Oy fucking vey! That's the best they could do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. they are already using the rhetoric they'll use later....
Since the end of the Bush/Obama tax cuts is likely, they'll use the argument that relieving the working class from those increases will enlarge the deficit-- in fact, I'll bet they extend that argument even further and push for increasing the proportion of the tax burden shifted to the working class in order to protect the "job creators." Republicans will twist that logic until it's unrecognizable, and use it to justify draconian cuts later, while holding up the increase in working class tax burdens to flog the middle class into even more concessions.

One can argue that the WSJ is celebrating a pyrrhic victory, but they are celebrating nonetheless, and I don't think they're misjudging events. What democrats gain in this deal, as it's being reported, is a pittance-- some small reductions in military spending that won't even significantly slow the growth of MIC spending. Many of the republican victories lie in what isn't in the deal: meaningful reduction in military spending, or those utterly boondoggle wars, no "shared sacrifice" for the rich or their corporations at all, and so on. It's a terrible deal for democrats and for democratic principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. Gahahaha
Oh, I have no doubt that this is their attempted rhetoric. However, since the Bush tax cuts don't expire until January 2013, and since they will have to vote on revenue increases (almost certainly those already proposed by Obama to Boehner two weeks ago) from the Joint Committee by December 23 of THIS year, it's going to be a very silly argument indeed. They got burned good on this one. The WSJ is trying to HIDE THAT FACT because they desperately need to GOP caucus to raise the debt ceiling.

Of course the WSJ, the representative of the financial interests, is going to run around declaring a massive Tea Party victory. Do you think they want the bill to fail and default to hit?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawson Leery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
22. There are two problems.
1) The "Super Congress" has the power to force an up or down vote on all cuts, including medicare.
2) Never in the past, has the debt ceiling been held hostage by budget negotiations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessionalLeftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Yea that precedent thing is a HUGE problem as well.
Now that the Tealiban know how well extortion works, it will become the common form of "government".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessionalLeftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
25. "Everything will be on the table again in November" -BHO 7/31/11
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 01:12 PM by ProfessionalLeftist
Also "Super Congress" - that's who will be carving up what's on "the table" in November.

'scuse me if I don't get all warm and fuzzy over this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
29. Just lay back and enjoy the rape.
Sorry, but that IS the best metaphor for what we're being told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. Rape as a political metaphor (for anything other than war) is always flawed (and offensive)
It's maddening and it's frustrating knowing people are going to be hurt by this terrible compromise. But it ain't rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
30. Josh Marshall talking sense
It was fairly predictable that this place would explode into an "Obama betrayed us" lovefest. There was always going to be screaming.

Glad to see TPM taking a look in a reasonable way at the actual provisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
52. Josh didn't write that, a reader did. Josh disagreed with it.

The question posed by a TPM reader was,
"What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. Josh did not disagree with it. He actually is agreeing with it. His
question is a rhetorial one. sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cognitive_Resonance Donating Member (733 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
37. The Tea Baggers have nothing to celebrate. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #37
68. Nothing. Their goal was to hang entitlement cuts around the neck
of Obama and the Dems so they could say, see! It's not just us. They failed miserably. We win! :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
39. adding in only provider cuts in the trigger
Do any of you understand what that means? I means less doctors and hospitals will take Medicare patients. So you have medicare but no one to treat you. Good for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
40. adding in only provider cuts in the trigger
Do any of you understand what that means? I means less doctors and hospitals will take Medicare patients. So you have medicare but no one to treat you. Good for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
41. Spin . No revenues only cuts during massive unemployment
in a weak economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Spin? There's so many other threads you could have put your
negativity in, but you just had to come and poot here didn't you. LOL

It wouldn't matter to you what the democrats got in the deal. You'd still be telling us the same thing. You are invested in democratic failure. There's simply nothing they could do to satisfy you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
58. When this thing passes, YOU watch what it does to the economy
and to job creation, which Obama needs for re-election, and THEN come back to me and explain to me how I wanted Democrats to fail. Okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #41
53. Hey, guess what? Josh Marshall didn't write that, a reader did and Josh disagreed with him!
The question posed by a TPM reader was,
"What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. There's a concerted disinfo effort here today. It's disgusting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. All these people trying to score a partisan point by using a comment by A READER of TPM as evidence
that it's not so bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #63
76. They're cheering against Obama's re-election and
they don't even get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
70. As many times as you post that, I will correct you. Josh is agreeing
with the reader. His question is rhetorical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
47. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
54. Unrec for pretending a reader of TPM is the position of TPM. Josh disagreed with that readers
conclution.


The question posed by a TPM reader was,
"What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
71. Again..Josh's question is rhetorical. He's actually agreeing with
the reader and chiding the whiners by asking the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
55. But...but..but...He didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts....
Waaaaaahhhhhhhh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. The OP is NOT the position of TPM. It is a comment from a reader and Josh disagrees.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 03:50 PM by Luminous Animal
The question posed by a TPM reader was,
"What exactly is wrong with this deal? "

Josh answered. ""The fact that there are cuts?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. you are confused.. read it again.
Joah's comments..

"The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. I read it. He answered the question, went on to castigate people for not voting because
if they had voted, they wouldn't find themselves upset over CUTS which, in his opinion, is what is wrong with this deal.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
83. did you read this part?
"The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games."

If you read it, did you understand it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Thank you DCBob. This character does't understand that Josh is
actually chiding the whiners by asking that rhetorical question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #56
75. Did you read beyond that first line?
YOU keep replying to various posts that "Josh disagrees". He does not. He does nto agree eitehr. He just comments what the reader has said. He is part of what he says:

The GOP came out of this looking unreasonable--I've been getting E-mail messages from friends saying they are back with the Democrats because the Tea Party is "destroying this country." Nate Silver tweeted last week that local conservative talk radio in Kansas was filled with callers attacking the Tea Party! The Wall Street Journal ran two editorials which called the GOP delusional and "childish." The vaunted GOP message discipline broke down--I read stories all over the "inside baseball" papers here in DC where GOP House members went on the record after the Friday vote wondering out loud if the party had been damaged! I don't know if you noticed, but John Boehner spent last week negotiating with himself. No new proposals came out from the Dem side, but he produced two proposals, one of which he had to pull after he didn't have votes. A congressional Dem staffer told me his dad, an urban Catholic who voted for Nixon over Kennedy and has always voted Republican suddenly thinks the GOP is out to lunch and supports the President.

Hey, we all hate the pain, but this is an ongoing process. They are going to try this again with a government shutdown. When that happens, I'm pretty sure that the country will be resoundingly against a repeat of these types of hijinks.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
79. It depends. What was the alternative?
Executive order, invoking the 14th obviously.

Much worse than the alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-11 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
82. I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but the Obama bashing is out of control around here.
This deserves a big K/R!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. We're bashing the Super-Congress they just enacted. You've heard of that, right?
Independents and Sensible Centrists tend to = low-information voters, that's why I asked.

The reason people are pissed off is because they understand the whole story, including the part that the rest of Dems will be bitching and moaning about in November. "How could this happen? Oh well, it must be the Republicans, so darn hard to negotiate with them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
85. Geez I dunno. Maybe a fascist SuperCongress bent on cutting Social Security and Medicare? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
86. Thanks Josh. I'm glad to read a more reasoned and less
dramatic description of the events. I'm not thrilled with the deal but I don't think it's as bad as we first thought. I'm reserving judgement for now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
90. It's amazing..
Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 09:25 PM by sendero
... how two people can look at a turd, one call it a work of art, the other call it a piece of shit.

I'm pretty sure it is a piece of shit, but whatever floats your boat. You perennial optimists are going to really hang your head when the special commission reams you with more spending cuts and no revenue increases. You will have to make up a new "three dimensional chess" fairy tale then, and it is getting harder and harder to make up one that anyone with an IQ above 80 will believe.

Good luck with that and congratulations to Obama for figuring out that it's about JOBS fer chris sake. 3 years too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC