Harry Reid says "We didnt get what we wanted"

[Claudette]

We didn't avoid default. There never was going to be a default and they knew it. That was purely manufactured rhetoric to scare and stir up the people so they would apply pressure where the politicians wanted pressure applied. And unfortunately, those not paying attention or so partisan blind they can't see fell for it.

Those on the right who were demanding fiscal responsibility and accountability got almost nothing they wanted. Essentially no budget cuts--those promised won't be upheld by future congresses. Such promises never do.

So we are left with:

The 2012 budget was slashed by $36 billion which translates to being raised $7 billion less than it otherwise would have been raised. There is no actual reduction of any budgeted item. And a legislation gimmick was used in the negotiations that the budget is now deemed to be passed. Meaning it will just go into effect and they won't vote on it. (The old Gephardt Rule or Slaughter Solution.)

The only items addressed in Social Security or Medicare was a possible trigger forcing a2% reduction in payments to Medicare providers meaning more doctors will stop accepting Medicare patients.

The "Super Congress" charged to find $1.5 trilion in more cuts by Thanksgiving is actualy rigged to force some revenue increases. The Bush tax cuts are off the table but when it comes to actually making tough choices, it is unlikely that at least one of the six will balk which will kill the initiative.

The $350 billion in Pentagon cuts are a win for liberals as entitlement benefits won't be touched. Just $7 billion will be cut in 2012 and $3 bilion in 2013 and of that combined $10 billion, half will be from the Pentagon. Anybody want to lay odds that a future Congress will have incentive to do more?

The debt ceiling: Raising the debt ceiling through 2013 will not be contingent on the second round of cuts. There will merely be a vote of disapproval. This avoids another messy fight in January and another round of painful forced cuts.

Discretionary spending would be cut by $21 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. A drop in the bucket considering it is only cuts in increases and not actually less money to be spent.

President Obama gets all the extra cash he wants to spend and the debt is still on track to grow by $7 billion over the next 10 years. (Such estimates are usually about half or two thirds less than what the actual debt will be if we continue as we are.)

FINAL ANALYSIS: The GOP caved, the Democrats got pretty much everything they wanted, and the President is speaking right now spinning even a more outrageous web of smoke and mirrors to convince his constituency that they actually did something worthwhile.

Meanwhile we are still in serious danger of a downgrade of our credit rating, unemployment will continue to hover around 10% and will likely get worse, the debt clock hasn't even slowed down a little bit, and the train continues a headlong rush toward the bankruptcy cliff.

I am seriously close to tears here.

Yup. Your right. This is just business as usual for the idiots in DC.

I find it hard to believe we taxpayers actually pay these Clowns.

 

[8537]

I think you're out of your mind, you don't think the pols in Washington and the talking heads on TV are going to be talking about what's going to get cut and how the tax code might be revised from now until the election?

Sure they will! And who do you suppose will have the upperhand in that conversation now that failing to compromise will cost R's the Defense budget?

Like to know why you think the dems have any leverage at all with the special committee, it'll have 6 dems and 6 repubs on it. Sounds even to me, nd BTW the dems haven't had any leverage up til now, what makes you think they'll gain any?

The Defense budget. 50% of the cuts must come from the defense budget, while the other 50% will come from everywhere else. The Dems can give a bit here, a bit there while the Republicans need to swallow a huge defense cut.

So you think Obama wants to go into the election cutting defense spending by that much while he's trying to fight wars in several places?

No! And he won't have to. Part of the defense savings will come from continued departure from Iraq and Afghanistan.

True, the GOP really hates it, but I think you over estimate their position here. Remember, whoever the GOP candidate is will have clean hands from not being a part of this. And BTW, Medicare takes a hit too, don't think the Dems don't have their own problems even if it is to providers rather than beneficiaries. For the life of me I cannot envision how the dems can possibly think that they can reduce Medicare spending that much AND and it millions of new participants wih little or no impact. I don't think many voters will be fooled.

The cuts to Medicare can be no more than 2% (is that 2% of the total amount cut? 2% of Medicare's budget? I honestly don't know...) But whatever it is, it's a fairly small amount compared to other options that were on the table.

And if Bachman is the GOP candidate, her hands won't be clean of this.

 

[8537]

With the billions in social programs in the DOD bill. It wont be that hard going down.

I'm not disagreeing with you there - it's just difficult for some (certainly not all!) Republicans to accept that there's any room for cutting defense spending - just as some Dems refuse to believe there's any room for cutting certain social programs. But the Dems got the major social programs taken off the table for round 2, while defense spending must account for 50% of the cuts (it might be 40%...I'm working from memory here).

The 50% cut in defense only occurs if the committee plan is voted down in congress. No debates or amendments are allowed either. So its not a definite cut of that amount unless the committee plans are voted down.

Don't be so giddy....

I didn't mean to imply that 50% of the cuts in the 1.2-1.5T committee have to be defense - sorry if it reads like that. Only that if they fail to reach agreement, 50% of the cuts must come from defense. So Republicans come to the table with a weakness - if they fail to compromise, their most important priority is singularly cut by a large amount. If the Dems fail to compromise, their most important priorities are protected and they face a series of smaller cuts in a range of programs - much more palatable than what the R's face.

So, by my read, the Dems have the leverage there.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm not disagreeing with you there - it's just difficult for some (certainly not all!) Republicans to accept that there's any room for cutting defense spending - just as some Dems refuse to believe there's any room for cutting certain social programs. But the Dems got the major social programs taken off the table for round 2, while defense spending must account for 50% of the cuts (it might be 40%...I'm working from memory here).

The 50% cut in defense only occurs if the committee plan is voted down in congress. No debates or amendments are allowed either. So its not a definite cut of that amount unless the committee plans are voted down.

Don't be so giddy....

I didn't mean to imply that 50% of the cuts in the 1.2-1.5T committee have to be defense - sorry if it reads like that. Only that if they fail to reach agreement, 50% of the cuts must come from defense. So Republicans come to the table with a weakness - if they fail to compromise, their most important priority is singularly cut by a large amount. If the Dems fail to compromise, their most important priorities are protected and they face a series of smaller cuts in a range of programs - much more palatable than what the R's face.

So, by my read, the Dems have the leverage there.

Ok, I did indeed misread your post. Carry on..

 

[Foxfyre]

With the billions in social programs in the DOD bill. It wont be that hard going down.

I'm not disagreeing with you there - it's just difficult for some (certainly not all!) Republicans to accept that there's any room for cutting defense spending - just as some Dems refuse to believe there's any room for cutting certain social programs. But the Dems got the major social programs taken off the table for round 2, while defense spending must account for 50% of the cuts (it might be 40%...I'm working from memory here).

The 50% cut in defense only occurs if the committee plan is voted down in congress. No debates or amendments are allowed either. So its not a definite cut of that amount unless the committee plans are voted down.

Don't be so giddy....

And the mostly mythical defense cuts are approved by the Left even though there won't be less money spent. They may gut defense but they'll just shift the money to other purposes. Then a future president will ratchet up defense spending to rebuild a badly decimated military as did Reagan and as did Bush 43.

But it is politically correct to attach mythical cuts to defense. It is not politically correct to attach mythical cuts to ANY entitlement program.