Supercommittee: Who Wouldn't Compromise?

[PoliticalChic]

1. "...committee members apparently couldn’t even agree on their mandated $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction — and it seems increasingly likely that they will now throw in the towel with no agreement at all.

2. There are hundreds of billions in cuts that Democrats and Republicans could pocket without cutting entitlements or raising taxes. Failure to do so will make this one of the saddest displays of incompetence ever witnessed in Washington.

3. On Friday, Republicans offered a “go small” plan that would reduce the deficit by $640 billion — including a pay freeze and bigger pension contributions for federal workers, cuts in farm subsidies and other spending reductions. According to one GOP aide, this is “the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, stuff that everyone agrees on.”

a. Republicans even gave in to one of the Democrats’ long-held demands, eliminating the special tax break for corporate jets, which would raise $3 billion in new taxes over 10 years.

4. The Democrats rejected the GOP offer.

a. Patty Murray, Democratic co-chairman of the supercommittee, declared “it does not meet, even close to coming to meet, the issues that we set out from the beginning: fair and balanced.” Translation: Democrats won’t sign on to any spending cuts, no matter how modest, if Republicans do not agree to massive tax increases.

b. [Rember this brainstorm from Patty Murray: she told high school students that bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. ]Democrat senator<br>praises bin Laden

5. This makes no sense at all. The $1.2 billion sequester, which will go into effect if the supercommittee fails, is made up entirely of spending cuts, with no tax increases. Refusing to substitute some mutually agreed upon targeted cuts for the automatic, across-the-board cuts is ridiculous.

6. Democrats seem intent on letting the supercommittee crash and burn rather than making a less-than-optimal emergency landing.

7. If the supercommittee fails, Republicans will rightly point out that they put two serious proposals on the table only to have Democrats reject both offers without ever putting forward a unified counterproposal.

8. [Dems] dismissed a proposal by Sen. Pat Toomey that included some $300 billion in tax increases. In making this offer, Toomey and his fellow Republicans crossed a line in the sand their party had drawn — risking a major backlash from the GOP rank-and-file and the conservative grassroots. But instead of accepting this concession in good faith and putting forward a serious counteroffer, Democrats immediately attacked it and demanded $1 trillion in tax increases —

9. ...failure. ...may be precisely what the Democrats want. With President Obama’s approval ratings in the tank, and their party poised to lose control of the Senate in 2012, Democrats know their only hope to stave off electoral disaster is to run a negative campaign that paints Republicans as intransigent extremists.

10. It is the Democrats who have rejected every offer and every compromise Republicans put forward."
Our super-pathetic debt supercommittee - The Washington Post

Based on this, the only folks who will vote Democrat are, as usual, the uninformed.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right, is Obama's fault - he ain't crackin' the whip hard enough on dat do-nothin' Congress...

Super committee about to fail: Is it Obama's fault?
November 21, 2011 - Mitt Romney says it is. The GOP presidential candidate has used the super committee's apparent failure as an opportunity to go after the incumbent.

The not-so-super committee that was supposed to figure out how to reduce federal red ink by at least $1.2 trillion is about to fail in its mission. Republicans refused to allow increases in tax rates, Democrats refused to allow big cuts in entitlement programs, and you can figure out the rest. So, now that the Hindenburg has pretty much crashed and burned, who is to blame? You guessed it: President Obama! That’s what Mitt Romney says, anyway. As a Republican hopeful of replacing Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, Mr. Romney has largely ignored his rivals and gone after the incumbent – and the apparent super committee failure has allowed him an opportunity to do what he’s been doing. “He’s done nothing,” Romney said while campaigning in New Hampshire. “It is another example of failed leadership. He has not taken personal responsibility to get the super committee to find ways to balance the budget and cut spending.”

Was it really Obama’s fault? We suppose he could have pressed harder, hovered over the committee’s shoulder, metaphorically speaking, and done little else in recent weeks. But we’ve got a number of other observations about Romney’s claim. First, Obama’s not actually a member of the panel. And to complain that a president hasn’t forced members of Congress to do something they don’t want to do is kind of like grousing that Obama hasn’t forced a herd of cats of run an obstacle course in record time. Second, if Obama had managed to corral the super committee into an agreement, the odds are it would have been an agreement that Romney wouldn’t support. Obama wants tax hikes on the rich, Romney doesn’t, and so forth and so on.

Third ... what was that third point? It was right here. Oops, this is a Rick Perry moment. However, Romney is not the only GOP candidate who is trying to make political lemonade out of a super committee lemon. New front-runner Newt Gingrich has released an ad that showcases his previous criticism of the whole super-thingy idea. It includes a clip from a previous debate in which Gingrich says, “I think this super committee is about as dumb an idea as Washington has come up with.... What they ought to do is scrap the committee right now, recognize it’s a dumb idea, go back to regular legislative business, assign every subcommittee the task of finding savings, do it out in the open through regular legislative order, and get rid of this secret phony business.”

Hmm. This is the same regular legislative business in which the annual budget cycle hasn't actually been finished in years, right? Or all appropriations bills passed. Well, maybe it would work this time. Meanwhile, Ron Paul – who is a front-runner in Iowa – goes mega on his criticism of the deal. He says the problem is that Congress isn’t doing enough. Cutting $1.2 trillion over 10 years is chicken feed, he says. What it really needs to do is cut $1.2 trillion per year. “This shows how unserious politicians are about our very serious debt problems,” says Representative Paul. Ouch. Maybe Jon Stewart is right: Paul really is the candidate who creates uncomfortable silences.

Source

 

[alan1]

1. "...committee members apparently couldn&#8217;t even agree on their mandated $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction &#8212; and it seems increasingly likely that they will now throw in the towel with no agreement at all.

2. There are hundreds of billions in cuts that Democrats and Republicans could pocket without cutting entitlements or raising taxes. Failure to do so will make this one of the saddest displays of incompetence ever witnessed in Washington.

3. On Friday, Republicans offered a &#8220;go small&#8221; plan that would reduce the deficit by $640 billion &#8212; including a pay freeze and bigger pension contributions for federal workers, cuts in farm subsidies and other spending reductions. According to one GOP aide, this is &#8220;the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, stuff that everyone agrees on.&#8221;

a. Republicans even gave in to one of the Democrats&#8217; long-held demands, eliminating the special tax break for corporate jets, which would raise $3 billion in new taxes over 10 years.

4. The Democrats rejected the GOP offer.

a. Patty Murray, Democratic co-chairman of the supercommittee, declared &#8220;it does not meet, even close to coming to meet, the issues that we set out from the beginning: fair and balanced.&#8221; Translation: Democrats won&#8217;t sign on to any spending cuts, no matter how modest, if Republicans do not agree to massive tax increases.

b. [Rember this brainstorm from Patty Murray: she told high school students that bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. ]Democrat senator<br>praises bin Laden

5. This makes no sense at all. The $1.2 billion sequester, which will go into effect if the supercommittee fails, is made up entirely of spending cuts, with no tax increases. Refusing to substitute some mutually agreed upon targeted cuts for the automatic, across-the-board cuts is ridiculous.

6. Democrats seem intent on letting the supercommittee crash and burn rather than making a less-than-optimal emergency landing.

7. If the supercommittee fails, Republicans will rightly point out that they put two serious proposals on the table only to have Democrats reject both offers without ever putting forward a unified counterproposal.

8. [Dems] dismissed a proposal by Sen. Pat Toomey that included some $300 billion in tax increases. In making this offer, Toomey and his fellow Republicans crossed a line in the sand their party had drawn &#8212; risking a major backlash from the GOP rank-and-file and the conservative grassroots. But instead of accepting this concession in good faith and putting forward a serious counteroffer, Democrats immediately attacked it and demanded $1 trillion in tax increases &#8212;

9. ...failure. ...may be precisely what the Democrats want. With President Obama&#8217;s approval ratings in the tank, and their party poised to lose control of the Senate in 2012, Democrats know their only hope to stave off electoral disaster is to run a negative campaign that paints Republicans as intransigent extremists.

10. It is the Democrats who have rejected every offer and every compromise Republicans put forward."
Our super-pathetic debt supercommittee - The Washington Post

Based on this, the only folks who will vote Democrat are, as usual, the uninformed.

But, but, but,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...l-veto-any-effort-to-undo-automatic-cuts.html

President Obama Monday evening blamed Republicans.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Supercommittee: Who Wouldn't Compromise?

Irrelevant.

There should have been no need for such a committee had the House leadership done its job.

 

[Oddball]

President Obama Monday evening blamed Republicans.....

Golly, never saw that one coming!

 

[Oddball]

Supercommittee: Who Wouldn't Compromise?

Irrelevant.

There should have been no need for such a committee had the House leadership done its job.

Where are the budgets for FY 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012?

Nice try, hack boy.

 

[alan1]

President Obama Monday evening blamed Republicans.....

Golly, never saw that one coming!

It's shocking, just shocking, I tell ya'

 

[del]

looks like someone took my idea about editing the 1st amendment down to the first five words and ran with it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Supercommittee: Who Wouldn't Compromise?

Irrelevant.

There should have been no need for such a committee had the House leadership done its job.

Where are the budgets for FY 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012?

Nice try, hack boy.

The budgets for all those years are buried on the desk of the congressional house leadership. We've been on one continuing resolution after another - their only job is to pass a budget and they've been paid $500,000 per year for the last 5 years for... What, exactly?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fair and simple taxes, a budget balanced by law and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

Once personal responsibility in business (in lieu of corporate paper to hide behind) and transparency in politics and political money settles in, Momma's little bastards will go far. I still believe America will play a leadership role.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems = Party > Country

 

[zzzz]

Did anyone really expect anything to come from this exercise? After all both sides put people on the committee to make sure they would give up the farm for their side. Whose fault is it? Congress, all of them for not doing their job in the first place and playing this little game.

I still am not sure any cuts will happen. In an election year anything can and will happen.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's the TEA Party's fault! Oh wait, none of the "Stooper Committee" Republicans are TEA Party types.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bank ATM's!

Airport kiosks!

Tsunami!

Bad Luck!

Booooooosh

 

[Oddball]

That tears it....Time to play for keeps....

We need a SUPER-OOOOPER-DUPER COMMITTEE!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Did anyone really expect anything to come from this exercise? After all both sides put people on the committee to make sure they would give up the farm for their side. Whose fault is it? Congress, all of them for not doing their job in the first place and playing this little game.

I still am not sure any cuts will happen. In an election year anything can and will happen.

I'm betting that a whole lot of not much is going to happen before the next government is elected.

Fucking waste.

 

[Oddball]

Bank ATM's!

Airport kiosks!

Tsunami!

Bad Luck!

Booooooosh

Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire.... I didn't have enough money for cab fare.... My tux didn't come back from the cleaners.... An old friend came in from out of town.... Someone stole my car. ...There was an earthquake.... A terrible flood.... Locusts! .....IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

 

[Wiseacre]

The dems are going to run next year on the argument for taxing the rich. They got nothing else, sure can't run on their record. They can't say they cut spending, can't say they helped the economy and created jobs, all they really did was pass a healthcare insurance bill that more people want to remove than want to keep.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Granny says, "Dat's right, is Obama's fault - he ain't crackin' the whip hard enough on dat do-nothin' Congress...

Super committee about to fail: Is it Obama's fault?
November 21, 2011 - Mitt Romney says it is. The GOP presidential candidate has used the super committee's apparent failure as an opportunity to go after the incumbent.

The not-so-super committee that was supposed to figure out how to reduce federal red ink by at least $1.2 trillion is about to fail in its mission. Republicans refused to allow increases in tax rates, Democrats refused to allow big cuts in entitlement programs, and you can figure out the rest. So, now that the Hindenburg has pretty much crashed and burned, who is to blame? You guessed it: President Obama! That’s what Mitt Romney says, anyway. As a Republican hopeful of replacing Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, Mr. Romney has largely ignored his rivals and gone after the incumbent – and the apparent super committee failure has allowed him an opportunity to do what he’s been doing. “He’s done nothing,” Romney said while campaigning in New Hampshire. “It is another example of failed leadership. He has not taken personal responsibility to get the super committee to find ways to balance the budget and cut spending.”

Was it really Obama’s fault? We suppose he could have pressed harder, hovered over the committee’s shoulder, metaphorically speaking, and done little else in recent weeks. But we’ve got a number of other observations about Romney’s claim. First, Obama’s not actually a member of the panel. And to complain that a president hasn’t forced members of Congress to do something they don’t want to do is kind of like grousing that Obama hasn’t forced a herd of cats of run an obstacle course in record time. Second, if Obama had managed to corral the super committee into an agreement, the odds are it would have been an agreement that Romney wouldn’t support. Obama wants tax hikes on the rich, Romney doesn’t, and so forth and so on.

Third ... what was that third point? It was right here. Oops, this is a Rick Perry moment. However, Romney is not the only GOP candidate who is trying to make political lemonade out of a super committee lemon. New front-runner Newt Gingrich has released an ad that showcases his previous criticism of the whole super-thingy idea. It includes a clip from a previous debate in which Gingrich says, “I think this super committee is about as dumb an idea as Washington has come up with.... What they ought to do is scrap the committee right now, recognize it’s a dumb idea, go back to regular legislative business, assign every subcommittee the task of finding savings, do it out in the open through regular legislative order, and get rid of this secret phony business.”

Hmm. This is the same regular legislative business in which the annual budget cycle hasn't actually been finished in years, right? Or all appropriations bills passed. Well, maybe it would work this time. Meanwhile, Ron Paul – who is a front-runner in Iowa – goes mega on his criticism of the deal. He says the problem is that Congress isn’t doing enough. Cutting $1.2 trillion over 10 years is chicken feed, he says. What it really needs to do is cut $1.2 trillion per year. “This shows how unserious politicians are about our very serious debt problems,” says Representative Paul. Ouch. Maybe Jon Stewart is right: Paul really is the candidate who creates uncomfortable silences.

Source

Walt...both the OP and your post (CSM) find their provenance in left-leaning publications.
Today's WSJ explains the failure as based on the disparate views of government by Republicans and Democrats

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bank ATM's!

Airport kiosks!

Tsunami!

Bad Luck!

Booooooosh

Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire.... I didn't have enough money for cab fare.... My tux didn't come back from the cleaners.... An old friend came in from out of town.... Someone stole my car. ...There was an earthquake.... A terrible flood.... Locusts! .....IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

And the dog ate your homework????