This Budget deal is Shit!!!

[Heather MC]

Paul Ryan and Co gets everything they want.
No tax increase on the takers
no Defense cuts
Unemployed not helped
Tax loopholes still wide open
Apparently this stuff is permnate in some way
And Sequestration is mildly lifted 1/3rd that's it


Military Retirement Cuts

The only good thing is that it prevents another stupid Gov Shutdown

But did I miss something, didn't we reject the Paul Ryan Budget when we voted not have him or Willard in the White House.

[kelliekat44]

1. Really? There was going to be another government shutdown??? The GOP could not stand another

shutdown and the impact on the economy. They called our bluff and won again. Why is no Dem standing up to the GOP and explaining how much the deficit has already been cut and how spending has been slowed? Why aren't the Dems out in the trenches educating the people about what is at stake? We keep letting them win where it hurts ordinary people the most. This deal is sickening.

[awoke_in_2003]

18. Because we have two parties...

that act exactly the same in regards to the economy, and only slightly differently the same in regards to social issues.

[Scuba]

28. +1,000

[abelenkpe]

55. +1000

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. Yup.

[calimary]

2. Anything with paul ryan's fingerprints on it is shit.

[russspeakeasy]

3. You nailed it.

[Doctor_J]

4. Our party no longer offers any resistance to the Repukes,

even when we have majorities and the WH.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Except for a few social issues...

they are the same party.

[RBInMaine]

32. YOU ARE VERY WRONG. You are viewing the world through such a narrow lens. Reality please.

[woo me with science]

58. [phone] The differences on social issues are tactical and deliberate.

The goal of both parties is to strengthen and empower corporations. The social issues are deliberately used to inflame and divide us against each other and to sustain the illusion that we have a choice.

[awoke_in_2003]

65. When we are busy fighting each other...

we don't have time to notice he fucking we are receiving

[villager]

77. Many on this site -- in this thread! -- buy into that very illusion

Alas

[RBInMaine]

33. Not true at all. Um, remember the SHUTDOWN a couple months ago? No resistance? Where were you?

[woo me with science]

59. Ha ha ha ha.

The shutdown that was deliberately orchestrated to ensure that the only possible outcomes were Austerity or Austerity.

[Doctor_J]

79. Remind me again what the proletariat got from the shutdown

[polichick]

35. Probably because many in "our party" are really RepubliCons.

[woo me with science]

60. They are all corporatists.

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Republican and Democrat are just different team colors to keep us fighting each other instead of the ones who are looting us all.

The same direction of policy continues no matter which team is in office. The only thing that changes is which half of the electorate is being urged to circle the wagons to defend the continued pillaging of the country, "because it's better than what the other guys would do."

Textbook garbage today: We should celebrate the new military-pumping, austerity-inflicting "budget deal" because it does not starve old people quite as much as they threatened it might.

[polichick]

66. Yeah, that's how I see it too - one party, two faces...

It's hard to see how we're going to get out of this mess, when the vast majority of people haven't even begun to figure out the game. I do see some hope in the networking abilities of the youngest voters - and in their "pox on both parties" attitude.

For me, an activist since the first Earth Day, what's changing is that I'm no longer affiliated with a party and won't be voting for a corporate "Dem" again.

[CrispyQ]

74. Another first Earth Day activist here.

I changed my party affiliation this summer. I was a dem since 1975. Now when I write to my senators & rep, I let them know I no longer vote straight party & that they have to earn my vote, even though they are all dems.

It's time to think outside the two party box.

[polichick]

75. We've done a lot of good work, but yes, "It's time to think...

outside the two party box." (Or the ONE party box.)

[Triana]

5. Heard about it on the way home earlier - it is TOTAL. CRAP.

INCREASED military spending.

Unemployment STILL being yanked from millions who are still unable to find work.

NOTHING done about corprat tax loopholes.

NO tax increases on the money-sucking rich pigs.

[RBInMaine]

23. Unemployment insurance will be done separately. The tax increases and elimination of loopholes

would never pass the GOP House. When will progressives realize that if WAY too many don't vote and allow the GOP to take over a huge part of government as they did in 2010 then there are going to be consequences.
Well, here's the consequence. You HAVE to negotiate with them. Progressives need to remind themselves how the government works.

[former9thward]

54. Where is the evidence that UI will be done separately?

There has been no mention of that by anyone and it would not pass the House.

[lostincalifornia]

78. The President and other Democrats are pushing it. Is it part of this budget? No it isn't, but it

should be clear to most people who oppose extending unemployment insurance, it is the republicans

So what would be served having the government shut down again? The sad fact is unless the voters vote in Democrats to take back Congress in 2014 this is really a moot point.

[bullwinkle428]

6. Democratic Party Negotiating School 101.

[pnwmom]

7. Did they get the cuts to social security they wanted?

[daleanime]

11. If they did....

there will be blood.

[pnwmom]

16. They didn't. Which is why the OP is very misleading.

No chained CPI or other cuts to Social Security.

[Heather MC]

40. it's a shitty deal with or without the cuts to SS. The budget numbers are

lower than the Paul Ryan Budget.
And the only ones feeling the cuts are the ones who need the support the most.

[pnwmom]

41. Which budget numbers are lower? Not the overall budget. n/t

[Heather MC]

48. I stand corrected

However the numbers are still Closer to Ryan's budget

[JoePhilly]

53. Misleading graph that should start at zero on the Y axis.

This is an old statistics trick.

By starting the Y axis at 950, the differences are visually exaggerated.

Chris Hayes should know better.

Also ... if you do the math, the final budget is EXACTLY between the Ryan Budget and the Senate Budget.

[SidDithers]

63. Yup...

Sid

[JoePhilly]

64. Same graph, with about 75% less outrage. nt

[Sirveri]

86. Except that the bars don't correspond. Red bar should be above the 1k line, not below.

[pnwmom]

56. The final budget is $45-46 Billion between

each of the two (Senate and Ryan) budgets.

So they just split the difference.

[Recursion]

15. No. Entitlements aren't touched* and domestic spending goes back up

* Federal civilian and military pensions are cut somewhat, which are technically entitlements, but not what most people mean when they see that word.

As far as I can see the biggest revenue increase is from FAA fees.

[Jamaal510]

8. I remain wary of any deal

associated with Paul Ryan, but I guess the good news is that the far-right and the Heritage Foundation don't seem to like it, either. I'm not fully sure what to make out of this one.

[Heather MC]

9. Heritage Foundation was mad the Government Reopen

They hate the ACA they wrote
I don't understand why anyone listens to them they make no sense

[Phlem]

10. Just sent her a message and

I'm sure it wont be the last of my communications.

I expected more from Patty Murray, but just like any politician, she's only looking out for herself.

-p

[PoliticAverse]

12. President Obama's statement on the budget deal...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/10/statement-president-budget

Earlier this year, I called on Congress to work together on a balanced approach to a budget that grows our economy faster and creates more jobs – not through aimless, reckless spending cuts that harm our economy now, but by making sure we can afford to invest in the things that have always grown our economy and strengthened our middle class. Today’s bipartisan budget agreement is a good first step.

This agreement replaces a portion of the across-the-board spending cuts known as "the sequester” that have harmed students, seniors, and middle-class families and served as a mindless drag on our economy over the last year. It clears the path for critical investments in things like scientific research, which has the potential to unleash new innovation and new industries. It’s balanced, and includes targeted fee increases and spending cuts designed in a way that doesn’t hurt our economy or break the ironclad promises we’ve made to our seniors. It does all this while slightly reducing our deficits over time – coming on top of four years of the fastest deficit reduction since the end of World War II. And because it’s the first budget that leaders of both parties have agreed to in a few years, the American people should not have to endure the pain of another government shutdown for the next two years.

This agreement doesn’t include everything I’d like – and I know many Republicans feel the same way. That’s the nature of compromise. But it’s a good sign that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were able to come together and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making to get this done. That’s the way the American people expect Washington to work. I want to thank Senator Murray, Congressman Ryan and all the other leaders who helped forge this bipartisan agreement. And I want to call on Members of Congress from both parties to take the next step and actually pass a budget based on this agreement so I can sign it into law and our economy can continue growing and creating jobs without more Washington headwinds.

But, as I said last week, the defining challenge of our time is not whether Congress can pass a budget – it’s whether we can make sure our economy works for every working American. And while today’s agreement is a good first step, Congress has a lot more to do on that front. In the immediate term, Congress should extend unemployment insurance, so more than a million Americans looking for work don’t lose a vital economic lifeline right after Christmas, and our economy doesn’t take a hit. And beyond that, they should do more to expand broad-based growth and opportunity – by creating more jobs that pay better wages, by growing our economy, and by offering a path into the middle class for every American willing to work for it.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. People had been predicting that this was the plan all on along on both sides of the aisle.

They act as crazy as they possibly can so that they can present a crappy deal as being reasonable. I can't believe this is the representation we have and they claim it is a step in the right direction, that they are working together and getting things done. They are getting nothing done. So, we are suppose to be grateful that all we could get is that you won't shut the government down? That is how low our expectations are suppose to be now? I don't think so. We expect much, much, much more from our representation. This is not good enough, by far not good enough.

[great white snark]

21. I thought the plan was to cut Social Security.

No cuts but I'm sure we'll hear all about how hard Obama tried to do so.

[DrDan]

22. are you denying it was put on the table?

[polichick]

38. By the prez, right?

[DrDan]

39. by the prez, right

[polichick]

67. In the spirit of "compromise" or some such bullshit.

[DrDan]

71. playing around, in the name of politics, with the livelihood of millions of seniors,

(some, their only livelihood), is NOT a Democratic Party ideal

[polichick]

72. What passes as a "Democratic leader" has morphed into meaninglessness...

and it'll take a huge awakening to change that.

[jsr]

61. It's the best we can get and hope for.

Because our President is not an emperor and we don't have 90 Democratic senators.

[Recursion]

14. AFP and Heritage hate it, which is good enough for me

And you're wrong, the unemployed are helped quite a bit, because the sequester goes away.

[pnwmom]

17. I agree. Good job, Patty Murray. n/t

[eqfan592]

25. The sequester goes away in part because all federal employees face a pay cut.

5.5% under the Ryan plan. Oh sure, they are calling it an increase to our retirement contribution, but given that our pensions may actually go down some, it's a damn pay cut. And all so the defense budget and corporate welfare continue to be protected.

[Recursion]

26. Yes, we do

I'm not ecstatic about that by any means

[NutmegYankee]

27. The sequester on Defense cost a lot of Fed employees pay as well

They lost pay due to furloughs while still needing to get the work done in a timely manner.

[eqfan592]

29. As an employee that experienced the furloughs this year...

...as well as the joys of working without knowing when the next paycheck was coming, I sympathise.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

82. It doesn't affect all federal employees

Only those hired after Dec 31st of this year.

Yes, it still sucks, but it doesn't affect current federal employees.

[eqfan592]

83. you're correct. there was some bad info going around our office. nt

[lonestarnot]

20. It was bullshit then and it is bullshit now!

[RBInMaine]

24. The budget deal is about the best that could be expected with a right wing HOUSE.

If you don't like the budget deal, WIN MORE ELECTIONS. Way too many progressives sat home and bitched in 2010 instead of voting. So the RePukes won the HOUSE and now they are bitching about the consequences. Don't like the budget deal, then WIN MORE ELECTIONS and DON'T SIT HOME AND BITCH.

[gelsdorf]

30. Strong case of xactlies here n/t

[RBInMaine]

31. It is a strong case of REALITY and TRUTH here.

[polichick]

36. People didn't vote because "Dems" cut deals like this...

and voters didn't feel like supporting RepubliCons pretending to be Dems.

If the party keeps running third way "Dems," less people will vote next time.

[demwing]

44. Hey, let's blame the victim!

If Progressives didn't want this deal, they shouldn't have went out in public in such a slutty damned dress.

[MineralMan]

51. +100

GOTV 2014/2016!

[Autumn]

34. Yes it's shit, But look at the bright side, if not for the Democrats standing up to them

we would have gotten a handful of shit. Funny how that works out, almost like they want it that way.

[Little Star]

37. Yes, shit for us but looks pretty good for the Republicans.

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. they call it bi-partisan

[mother earth]

43. Yes, you missed this one descriptive word: OLIGARCHY

Austerity only brings more of the same, and when the big pig, DEFENSE, is not cut? My party, your party, it's all the same, THEIR party at our expense, but celebrate it as MSM will go with that meme.

[fredamae]

45. Third Way Wall Street Corp Dems Strike Again!

Complete with a Full Menu of BS Reasoning....When are we gonna call 'em Out?

[randome]

50. 'Calling them out' does nothing to pass a budget.

We have no choice but to pass something that the House will approve. This budget repudiates the GOP in many ways but it's only a start.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[fredamae]

52. The Dem Give-Aways are so close to the

original Ryan Budget--Based on what I know (political learning curve is a bitch) I'd rather have No deal than a Bad deal---based upon an assumption the GOP would be stupid enuf to risk another shutdown this close to the 2014 mid-terms...

I would have called their Bluff---not caved. To me this represents the Third Way Dem Economic dream, Wall Street again gets congressional representation that is NOT representative of the majority from Any side of the aisle......

This is a bad deal and "dems" who support it are gonna have to face their constituencies back home--I don't believe these "dems" will be "well received".

[mucifer]

46. In the small non-profit hospice I work for my boss was freaking out because the planned

sequester mess was gonna cost us a loss of an additional 10% of pay from all of our medicare patients.

The current budget that just passed reduced the 10% loss to a 2% loss.

It's a mess. But, we thought it was going to be worse.


I totally agree with the frustration of the wealthy paying nothing and everyone else paying more is totally f'd up.

We need to get rid of the teabaggers.

[Gothmog]

47. We need to take back the House

The stupidity of the GOP is the reason for this stupidity

[crazylikafox]

49. ^^^ This n/t

[davidthegnome]

62. I'm starting to think there is no "we"

With the possible exception of folks like Grayson, Warren and Sanders (well, technically he's an independent, but..), the vast majority of our elected democrats are puppets held by corporate strings. If we elect a bunch of people to congress with a D next to their name - but without courage, integrity, or heart, then we likely enable more of the same shit to get shoved down our throats.

While I'll go so far as to say a D majority is somewhat better than an R, generally speaking, our options do not inspire hope and faith.

Did "we" ever really have the house to begin with? Sure, there was a D majority, but it was a very soft D. I can't really include myself in that "we". If we are the collective body of this forum, for instance, or if we represent the collective body of American liberals or progressives in some way, then what goes on in Congress, among those who call themselves democrats, is shameful and bizarre - because for the most part, they do not represent us. Where is the we here?

Are "we" working for minimum wage? Are "we" accepting "bi-partisan" agreements that swing the budget axe at people desperately in need while protecting the wealth of the wealthy?

I must finally conclude that we is not we. Or at least, it certainly isn't me.

At this point, I am much more a frustrated liberal than a democrat. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for corporate hacks.

[jeff47]

70. You fix that in the primaries.

You fix that by voting for the liberal in the primary, and then voting for the Democrat in the general. That shifts the window to the left. No liberal? Recruit one.

If you refuse to vote for the Democrat in the general, then the Democrat has no reason to try and win your vote. Moving the window to the right.

The Republican party didn't get so insane because the powers that be wanted it. It got insane because of the Republican primary voters. We can drag the Democratic party to the left using the same tactics.

[davidthegnome]

84. I think it requires far more fixing than that.

While I've always voted for (and will continue to vote for) democrats, often even as the lesser of two evils, I'm not expecting much. I do vote for liberals during the primaries, when there is one available.

It needs to be considered though, that the game is rigged. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to get into an important race, millions of dollars in advertising and campaign fees. This is a game that only the rich can afford to play - and a game that only the rich have any hope of winning.

There are rare exceptions to rule, but for the most part, I expect the system and the people who run it to remain stagnant.

[jeff47]

87. Except it isn't.

If it was only about cash, Carly Fiorina would be a US senator.

Yes, money is very helpful. But you still have to attract enough votes to win.

[polichick]

68. Won't matter unless we've also taken back the party.

[Doctor_J]

81. Tried that in 2008

Got nothing but appeasement

[DCBob]

69. "The only good thing is that it prevents another stupid Gov Shutdown"

Thats not the only thing but for sure thats a big thing.

[taught_me_patience]

73. Looks mostly like business as usual.

nothing to really get excited over one way or another.

[woo me with science]

76. It's a con game.

Again.

[glinda]

80. Doncha know...it is called "compromise".

[upi402]

85. When a Republican is involved it's a CONpromise

Patty Murray was a supporter of NAFTA and dodged her state's labor convention to avoid the heat.

I expected even less to be honest.