Are you happy or unhappy with the debt deal, and why?

begin_within

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 04:53 PM
Original message

Are you happy or unhappy with the debt deal, and why?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bluestateguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 04:55 PM
Response to Original message

1. I'm a soft No

Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 04:56 PM by bluestateguy

While this bill could have been worse and is better than default, so is syphilis and gonorrhea. That doesn't mean we should applaud syphilis and gonorrhea.

It represents on the whole, a major concession to teabagger hostage taking tactics and their framing of the issues.

If I was a senator I would vote for cloture to let it come up for a vote, but vote against the actual bill.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pinkkillersheep

(155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #1

7. Generally agree with this post.

It would be selfish to say we should've called their bluff and taken it past the deadline. The entire global financial system would have been impacted. Maybe we have to look longer term. Maybe the American public isn't ready to see what's staring them in the face. I'd love for all reasonable Republicans to shove David Frum's article today down the throat of every Tea partier, but that isn't happening. Washington isn't ready to be real, and come November 2012 we'll see if the public is. Breaks my heart...but then what else is new? Comes with being a bleeding heart liberal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

uppityperson

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 04:56 PM
Response to Original message

2. I haven't read the details yet. Has it passed the Senate and Pres Obama signed it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

napi21

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 04:58 PM
Original message

I'm not thrilled, but it's a lot better than default. I would have

much preferred at lease some tax increases and the elimination of the insane subsidies we make to corps who are making billions in profit, but I wasn't willing to let the Country default just to get my way!

That's the main reason Obama couldn't get more of what he wanted. He wasn't willing to see the Country default either, but the TBers were!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BigDemVoter

(169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 04:58 PM
Response to Original message

3. No

It doesn't ask enough of Repigs. . . In fact. . . It doesn't ask anything of them at all. Where is the revenue other than from cuts? The poor are sacrificing, but why not the wealthier? Why not ask the wealthier to pay higher amounts on their social security earnings?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mvd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #3

8. Problem is that it asks us for trust that..

this committee (which I don't like the idea of at all) will leave SS/Medicare/Medicaid off the table and that we'll get revenue increases or the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Every time, we get very little in each new deal. What if the Teabagger committee members hold things hostage? So no wonder I'm against the deal. The defense cuts are nice and the only thing that's encouraging, IMO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SpartanDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. And the reason we got little is because we had nothing over them

Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 05:26 PM by SpartanDem

kinda hard to negotiate when the other side hates everything about government except military spending. At least we now a have a playable card in the deck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mvd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. I don't agree

Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 05:28 PM by mvd

I think we had to completely contrast ourselves, invoke the 14th, and let the voters decide. BigDemVoter has the right idea here. Not even sure where the defense cuts will be, and it's a big part of the budget.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SpartanDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. I agree particularly about contrast

and framing the debate on our terms. I don't think we would've got a much better deal given the tea party's stubborn insanity, but it'd be easier to paint them as the terrorist they are. As for invoking 14th given that it was untested, legally questionable and the consequence of default it were found unconstitional I don't think I would've done it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mvd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but even he would have done it

Edited on Mon Aug-01-11 06:03 PM by mvd

That's good enough for me. I think it would have sent a message. I also think if you start high in negotiations, you are bound to do better.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

drm604

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:01 PM
Response to Original message

4. Unhappy.

Anything other than a straight debt ceiling bill with nothing else attached is a win for their side. It shows that they can get something by holding essential government functions hostage. Where will it stop?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leveymg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:01 PM
Response to Original message

5. There's no deal until the House signs the f-cking thing. eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Loge23

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:03 PM
Response to Original message

6. I oppose based on revenue

I wanted a ideological response which included enhanced revenue from the wealthiest corporations and citizens.
The income disparity is really the issue here - it explains an awful lot about the economy.
I want the left to be represented for what we truly believe in. I realize the President is not the guy for that, but I'll keep looking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

loyalsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:33 PM
Response to Original message

11. Skeptical

I'm not real excited about the "super congress" and I think there is plenty of room for future damage. On the other hand it headed off some very ugly consequences. The tea party may have blown their keg won't have as much of a hold on the House. And, getting through 2012 without messing with it again keeps it out of 2012 as a controversial nuisance and even frees them up to possibly do something productive.
In other words I am not deluded but I am leaving room for alternate results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Johnny2X2X

(356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 05:45 PM
Response to Original message

12. Mixed

I really wanted revenue to be included, but this deal apparently has some great things in it. First of all it raises it through 2011. Second there are barely $10 Billion in cuts (Half Military) the 1st 2 years, which is a necessity to stave off a deeper Recession. This committee will be negotiating, but the Triggers could give the Dems more leverage since one of them is $500 Billion in Military cuts of a deal cannot be reached on certain entitlement cuts, that gives the Dems all the power.

We'll see what was in it, but it appears to be miles and miles away from what the Tea Party folks want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dissidentboomer

(321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Aug-01-11 06:05 PM
Response to Original message

15. I'm SO HAPPY! Why, whatsoevah would we have done without these brave, noble....

corrupt fucks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:57 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.