CNN: Reid traded 2013 renewal date for no revenue agreement

[Ruby the Liberal]

@LisaDCNN: DEBT DEAL: Reid just put out statement. Dems rejected short-term GOP offer. Dems offer $2.7 T deal that cuts spending, dsn't raise revenues.



>> No idea where this statement is online - this is a CNN feed. If anyone finds corroboration of information and it contradicts, please post and ask the mods to delete this thread as misinformation.

If true, this is heinous.

Edit to get rid of inadvertent smilie faces

[HereSince1628]

1. Hey, they'd rather protect their re-elections than help the nation

the DLC/Third Way/Pragmatic Politician crowd believes elections have priority over everything else.

[newfie11]

3. this is not a good way to do it

Right now they all have lost my vote

[adhd_what_huh]

5. in this case...they do!

We cannot tolerate another election where Rethugs gain. Look at all that has been lost over the last decade.

The goal is to beat the Rethugs....this is the only goal at this time.

[jaxx]

14. The repubs are pushing that meme, let's not see it pushed here too.

It's about the credit of this country. Short term says we're going to be in default territory again. Long term says we're ok.

Long term is the only way to go.

[HereSince1628]

15. No, a clean vote on the debt ceiling is about our credit.

The rest of it is the put up stagecraft of the brinksmen.

[jaxx]

17. A clean vote for 6 months....and then what?

I really wonder at the comments made here. I thought Democrats cared about this country and it's standing, but I guess that's pretty grown up.

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. No, thats the point. Apparently they took revenues off the table in order to extend to 2013.

[jaxx]

22. That wasn't the point that I first replied to.

It was the repub meme of PBO wanting long term to be reelected. Don't cover up for that crap.

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. What am I covering up for? They don't want this fight in 2012 and

apparently agreed to move from 1.6T in cuts and 1.2 in revenue increases to 2.7T in cuts with no revenue increases to ensure the next debt ceiling debate isn't until 2013. While the least amongst us foot the bill for the Bush/Obama tax cuts and credits for corporations. Lovely.

No talk about the fucking CAUSE of the debt. Just a 18 month reprieve in having to deal with it so that all involved can focus on their reelection campaigns.

What a country. /Yacof Smirnoff

[jaxx]

27. You know that is the only reason they want a long term solution?

Only because of election? Nothing to do with the safety of the USAs financial status?

That is bizarre.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. You seriously think any of them are negotiating for the long term

as opposed to their eye on the next-election jump ball?

Right.

Just like corporate America, who run their businesses based on long term (and R&D) goals as opposed to quarterly 10-K filings.

You in the market for a bridge? I have a snazzy one for sale. Prime real estate too - right into Manhattan. Holla! :hi:

[jaxx]

32. I seriously think this is at an end.

Bizarre attitudes and off the wall comments that try to deflect the reality may seem cutesie but they still look bizarre.

[Ruby the Liberal]

36. I'll not take that personally while you read this complete capitulation from Sen Reid:

Hot off the presses:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/new_statement_from_reid.php?ref=fpblg

[girl gone mad]

25. If you care about the country, you should be for a clean bill..

or a plan B from Treasury.

Anything else will bring serious economic pain.

[jaxx]

29. Don't even go there girl gone mad.

[Forkboy]

44. I don't think that's really fair to jaxx.

You (and I) may disagree with her on how this should play out, but I have no doubt she does indeed care for this country.

[leveymg]

16. I have no idea why they would think such a deal would get Dems reelected. Just the opposite.

Complete failure of negotiation. Gives the GOP what they want immediately - we'll wait for . . . what, exactly?

F---A---I---L.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. Not having to having to have this fight again until 2013

They take revenues off the table, they don't have to address the debt ceiling until after the election.

[leveymg]

24. Reid is reportedly willing to trade off $2.7T in cuts for future revenues, not specified, No deal.

I won't accept that deal. Will you?

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. Oh hells no.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Aw, jeez.

By 2012, the winning entry on the ballot will be "None of the Above."

[abelenkpe]

8. +1 nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. This

[BzaDem]

4. As I said in the other thread about this, the sources are misleading. Many of those cuts aren't real

There is 1.2 trillion from discretionary spending, that Obama already agreed to. This isn't actually a cut -- it is just a slower increase over 10 years than the CBO predicted. The CBO scores that as a 1.2 trillion dollar cut. Furthermore, it isn't actually binding. Future Congresses are going to pass whatever appropriations bill they please. Past Congresses can't bind future Congresses on discretionary spending.

There is over a trillion from ending the wars over a 10 year period. The CBO scores that as a trillion dollar cut, relative to a mythical baseline where we stay in Afghanistan/Iraq at full strength indefinitely. This isn't anything other than what was going to happen originally, so this is really a phony cut Reid put in their for political purposes. (It allows Reid to make the cut amount look huge, even though it really isn't. This is a good thing.)

Most of the rest comes from interest savings on the two items above.

So in reality, we are only talking about a 1.2 trillion dollar cut (which is actually just a non-binding reduction in the projected increase of spending), that Obama agreed to long ago, in exchange for a 2.5 trillion debt limit increase. This would be a great deal for us, which is why Republicans aren't going to accept it. This is just political positioning.

[emulatorloo]

7. Interesting stuff. Thanks.

[Schema Thing]

9. heh, it's good to be king...

or in this case, have command of the bully pulpit :)

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. As asked in OP, please provide a link.

OP (me) is watching CNN to add the story as opposed to the snippet. If you have a link refuting OP, please post.

[BzaDem]

34. Sure.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/duel-or-duet-reid-and-boehner-poised-to-introduce-different-bills-to-avoid-default.php?ref=fpa

[Skip_In_Boulder]

6. I too have seen this pop up on the net several times

in the last couple of hours.

Update:

"In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans' two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released in a statement Sunday night.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43864749/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. So CNN and MSNBC have this statement

How in hades did cuts go from 1.6T (Friday) to 2.5T (This afternoon) to 2.7T (tonight) WHILE going from 1.2T (Friday) to 0 (Today) in revenues?

All to keep a second vote from being forced in 2012?

I can see the campaign ads now...

Fuck me.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

18. Who knows

This thing is so convoluted at this point that it is hard to tell what is the truth and what is BS. Although I'm betting on the majority of it is BS.

[Ruby the Liberal]

Delete - system duped

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. Let me know who is taking that bet. I want in as well.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Like a CNN reporter would'nt "Pump the Story"

[gateley]

28. This could be Reid's statement -

from TPM (via DU, of course) but I don't see where TPM sourced it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/new_statement_from_reid.php?ref=fpblg

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. Thanks for digging that up. Will go look now...

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. Oh FFS. Really? Really?

"In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans' two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines.

Abandon his "my way or the highway"? Harry, you unimaginable putz - you just GAVE him everything his hostage negotiators demanded with this.

*deep sigh*

[BzaDem]

35. Not when more than half the cuts are meaningless. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. You have posted this shill shit on at least 5 of my posts. Where is the REVENUE?

[BzaDem]

40. You asked for a link. I posted one. You should probably expect me to continue to refute it wherever

anyone posts it, whether it is 5 times or 50. It is less for your benefit and more to ensure that the others reading your posts have the full picture.

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. Where is the revenue?

[BzaDem]

42. There is no revenue. Read the link. The "cuts" themselves aren't even binding.

They are more an informal commitment that discretionary spending over the next 10 years will grow more slowly when they pass their appropriation bills.

But there is NOTHING stopping future Congresses from increasing discretionary spending at whatever rate they would like.

And the rest of the cuts in the bill are completely phony. So there are no revenues and very few (if any) real cuts.

[gateley]

43. I know -- my jaw is STILL on the floor! nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

47. What happened Gately?

What happened to Howard Dean? Wes Clark? Joe Biden? Jim Hightower? (hide) David Sarota? (/hide) John Edwards?

(Yeah, I got the gig on the latter and may he rot, but) where is our fist-waiving, Howard-Deanite populist?

[Fearless]

37. Bye bye social programs. Pay off our wealthy overlords.

[Auntie Bush]

38. I can't believe this is happening!

So we'll be cutting Medicare, Medicaid and SS ...but we're not raising taxes on the rich. That seems like a good deal for Dems. :sarcasm:
You'd never know we control the Senate and the presidency. How can this happen!?
Why would the Senate vote for such an awful lopsided deal?

[madinmaryland]

45. Un-recced for un-sourced twitter jibberish. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

Thanks! Here it is from TPM. Forgive me for being early.

And you're welcome for trying to help you with navigating Twitter earlier. I won't bother again.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/new_statement_from_reid.php?ref=fpblg

Not sure whether the headline from Harry Reid's statement below is "Talks Break Down -- Again" or "Democrats Agree To Nearly $3 Trillion In Cuts With No Revenue Increases":

"Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans' continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support. A short-term extension would not provide the certainty the markets are looking for, and risks many of the same dire economic consequences that would be triggered by default itself. Speaker Boehner's plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President.

"In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans' two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines."

We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines :rofl:

[Ruby the Liberal]

46. Thanks! Here it is from TPM. Forgive me for being early.

And you're welcome for trying to help you with navigating Twitter earlier. I won't bother again.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/new_statement_from_reid.php?ref=fpblg

Not sure whether the headline from Harry Reid's statement below is "Talks Break Down -- Again" or "Democrats Agree To Nearly $3 Trillion In Cuts With No Revenue Increases":

"Tonight, talks broke down over Republicans' continued insistence on a short-term raise of the debt ceiling, which is something that President Obama, Leader Pelosi and I have been clear we would not support. A short-term extension would not provide the certainty the markets are looking for, and risks many of the same dire economic consequences that would be triggered by default itself. Speaker Boehner's plan, no matter how he tries to dress it up, is simply a short-term plan, and is therefore a non-starter in the Senate and with the President.

"In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans' two major criteria: it will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines."

We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines :rofl: