Oh WTF now....is Harry Reid SERIOUSLY considering a deal W/ NO NEW REVENUE?

[tpsbmam]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is reportedly working on a plan that would raise the federal debt ceiling while pairing $2.7 trillion in spending cuts with no new revenue in an attempt to break the impasse that has settled over the debt ceiling negotiations. Republicans have (for the most part) been adamant that revenue not be a part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling.

One of the main thrusts of the GOP’s argument is that the economy is still to weak to handle a tax increase, even on the richest Americans or corporations making record profits. “Tax hikes would only hurt job growth,” according to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH). “It is counter-intuitive to think you impose taxes on people right now and businesses if you want to get Americans back to work,” added House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. “There’s a rule that even Obama abided by in 2009 that you don’t increase taxes during a recession,” quipped Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

As we've seen, conservative icon Reagan did, indeed, raise taxes, per Reagan budget director David Stockman.

Reagan signed his 1982 tax increase into law in September 1982, even though the early 1980s recession didn’t end until November 1982. Following that tax increase, as former Reagan economic official Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, gross domestic product “grew 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984 – an exceptionally strong performance. The stock market had one of its best years ever in 1983…The unemployment rate fell from 10.6 percent in December 1982 to 8.1 percent by December 1983 and 7.1 percent in December 1984.”

According to the Treasury Department, “Reagan’s tax increases now would bring in about $300 billion a year, if the increases were measured against today’s economy.” But today’s Republicans have gone to the mat over preserving tax cuts for millionaires, tax loopholes for corporate jet owners, and tax subsidies for hugely profitable companies.

The rest at Think Progress.


Are you fucking kidding me? No new revenue? Keeping the tax breaks for the ridiculously wealthy while ALL of the cuts are to programs that help everyone else? WTF!!?!! Harry Reid has the occasional decent moment where he shows he may have a spine somewhere but it's invariably overshadowed by his total spinelessness in the end.


:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[ixion]

1. Just Reid "keeping the powder dry"

don'cha know. :eyes: :sarcasm: :grr:

[no limit]

2. No surprise. This could have been seen from a mile away.

And I know I will get a response saying nothing is final yet. But anyone that thinks we will have a truly balanced plan is lying to themselves. Social security will be cut, medicare will be cut, and taxes will either stay the same or they will be lowered even more.

[Big Blue Marble]

3. This is the best deal that the Dems can get now.

This is not the time to battle for tax increases. Let that be an issue in the next election cycle. The shift is coming. We need to shift the
makeup of Congress. As one writer called it, the cargo cult Republicans have just about run the string on no new tax increases.
THe pressure will build in the coming months. The opinion polls are shifting.

Right now, saving the world economy has to be the critical focus. This is far better than Obama's Grand Bargain from
what I can tell and puts a lot of pressure on the Pubs as this was their original offer. I support Reid on this one,

[nomb]

This three dimensional chess is a shitty game. What was wrong with the old-school kind?

Just curios

[emulatorloo]

11. Election Results of 2010 put Right Wing Extremists in Control of The House.

[Dr Fate]

29. We did not, we do not and we will not have the votes.

When will the far left learn that we are always going to say this, no matter who is in the majority?

When we said we did not have the votes before 2010, they never beleived us. Now that excuse is FOR REAL and they still wont listen.

[emulatorloo]

37. Our problem before is we had the votes in the House, but we had a "fake majority" in the Senate

Liebermann, etc.

Our top priority should be to get the majority we had back in the House and a REAL SOLID majority in the Senate (more and better Democrats)

[Doctor_J]

40. Well then the wingers don't have those majorities now, right?

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

50. Rigid ideologues control the House now. They will not compromise. Any bill has to pass the house.

Boehner has lost control over them. They want to default. They will not pass a sane bill. They have already rejected Boenher's plan, not extreme enough for them.

[Dr Fate]

44. And Obama called them out, by name, almost daily. He pointed this out in the same way you just did.

So did all the other elected DEMS.

By the time he got through educating the public about his "fake majority" and naming who they were, the Public realized which DEMS "did not have the votes" and they all lined up with Obama in opposition to them.

Or at least that is what the Liberals BEGGED him to do.

Good thing he did not listen to those crazies.

Once we get the majority back (87 votes in the Senate should do it)then I'm sure we will never be told we do not have the votes again. Unless it is for Liberal stuff.

[emulatorloo]

51. He did do a fair amount of calling them out, especially at the town halls. Media did not like when

He did that, so they didn't like showing those parts.

I've been a bit of a student of the media's selective editing practices since the 2004 election.

Remember how they would show Bush's best sound bites, and never show the ones where he sounded idiotic?

And then they would show Kerry's worst sound bytes, and throw away his best ones?

Or "summarize" his speeches incorrectly?

It goes on with Dems all the time - media hides what the want to hide. If they don't want to report something, they won't.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

[Dr Fate]

54. I knew we would have a good excuse for him not calling them out by name.

The media fools us or will not let us say it.

Obama knows that instead of calling out fox for their editing practices, let's use Shirley Sherrod as just one example, you let them have the front row at press conferences as a reward.


Instead of calling them out and listing examples and details just like you just did, we fool them into thinking we did not notice.

You are right- I can't really figure out this whole "standing up" thing either. It's so ambiguous. Even if we tried, the media would just fool us again. Oh well BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD!

[emulatorloo]

57. The "standing up" thing was a serious question.

I wish you would have taken it seriously.

[Dr Fate]

55. Show us the Links where Obama called out, say, Max Baccus, by name.

oh- I see-you cant do it, b/c he KNEW from the Kerry and Bush years that the media would just edit it, so he out smarted them by not saying it in the 1st place.

[emulatorloo]

58. Max Baucus is a Democrat. Obama called out Republicans. And don't put words in my mouth.

You:

"oh- I see-you cant do it, b/c he KNEW from the Kerry and Bush years that the media would just edit it, so he out smarted them by not saying it in the 1st place."

I never said that, I never meant that, and you know exactly how intellectually dishonest you are being.

[Doctor_J]

6. In that case the party is finished

RIP

[jtown1123]

9. Right now we have to protect SS, medicare and medicaid from cuts

[Big Blue Marble]

24. I agree that is critical.

And from what I can tell Reid's plan does that, at least more than Obama's does.

[jtown1123]

26. Pretty scary Reid is the great defender of these programs! He's not the most forceful fellow

[librechik]

4. do you even need to ask?

months from now we will be scolded by our fellow democrats for not understanding that Reid just didn't have the votes to do the right thing. How dare we demand that he protect us from these predators in the top 1%?

[emulatorloo]

25. How can you get this teabag house to pass a bill that includes revenue increases?

I'm not trying to be confrontational or snarky or whatever. I am trying to see a way out of this mess. and it sounds like you have some ideas about this.

Here's the reality as I see it:

- tea bag house that will not pass revenue increases
- tea bag house that seems to thing defaulting would be a good thing, as in their view it would "shrink government"

[librechik]

48. Revenue increases=luxury loopholes for millionaires and oil execs

also temporary tax cuts which should have expired months ago, kept alive becasue of cowardice in the House. Nobody's raising taxes on ordinary folks. These idiots are just crazy and using bumper sticker ideology.

I think Obama has to suck it up and do the constitutional option. Will he? I have no idea. Probably not. I think he's going to cave.

[JoePhilly]

5. Can you tell us what the cuts are comprised of?

This is an important question ... and one such an OP should be able to quickly answer.

[emulatorloo]

7. 1. Reid's plan does not touch entitlements 2. REALITY: Republican House will never pass Tax Increas

Those people are not rational, and they are more than willing to default.

I get the idea that Boehner has tried to educate them on the consequences of defaulting, per some stories I have read. I also believe Boehner may have been trying to "finesse" them into giving some revenue increase (this is me reading between the lines.)

The teabaggers are so out of touch with reality.

The ONLY way we are ever going to get increased taxes on the wealthy is if we control the House and have a solid majority in the Senate. THIS IS THE MAJOR THING WE MUST ACCOMPLISH IN 2012.

Pelosi's House would have passed a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling in a heartbeat.

We are only having this conversation because of the Republican controlled house.

[Doctor_J]

10. Then we should never pass cuts in help for poor & elderly

If we continue to give in while the Repukes never do, we are finished as a political party.

[emulatorloo]

13. How do we get past a House controlled by fanatics? They see the same polls we do that people want

taxes raised for deficit reduction.

They ignore that - they are on a Mission. They are like religious fanatics.

That's the basic problem we are facing. How do we deal with that? I hate to call anybody "ignorant", but these teabaggers are so ideological driven that they are unable or unwilling to see how crazy this is.

[Doctor_J]

22. By not giving in to them

stand up for something, for once.

[emulatorloo]

23. What does "standing up" mean to you? (this is a serious question, I am struggling with this)

I am totally conflicted over what "standing up" means

Bottom line, Teabag House will not pass Revenue Increases. Bottom line, most of these same people believe defaulting on the debt is a "good idea." They love the idea as a way to "shrink government" They love the idea of their being NO MONEY for the safety net. I don't think I am being hyperbolic,

In a post below I wrote:

=====================================

But what is going to happen if the Republicans reject this too?

They are already claiming Reid's cuts are "fake" (a big chunk of the cuts are based on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so they are calling that "fake")

A large part of me wants the Dems to say NO DEAL, FUCK YOU.

But I am pretty sure the teabagger house is ready to default which is going to FUCK all of us up in a serious way. (although the Rich will be fine)

=========================================

[Doctor_J]

35. This:

"The Republican tax cuts from 10 years ago have resulted in the biggest job loss in history. We now have more people in need than ever before - all due directly to the reckless spending and top-heavy tax cuts enacted by the right wing congress. Now this same group of reactionaries wants to slash subsistance benefits from these same people who were put out of work by their disastrous policies. Well, it's not going to happen while I'm in the White House. They also voted to raise the debt ceiling every single year that George Bush was in office, and now are holding our neediest citizens hostage for the simple reason to crash the economy and blame it on me. Well, the hostage taking is over. There will be no cuts to vital programs, period. They can resume their lying and terrorism within those parameters"

[Make7]

43. Wasn't the high ground on the Bush Tax Cuts lost when they were extended? (nt)

[Dr Fate]

45. We did not, we do not and we will not have the votes to stop the extensions.

Not even back when we had the majority.

Now if we can get 87 far left Liberals in the Senate over the next 20 years, we might have a chance.

Liberals better get working for DEMS to make that happen! Obviously it is they who are not working hard enough.

[Doctor_J]

46. Also easily dispatched

"I let myself be blackmailed into extending these disastrous tax cuts in December, because the reactionaries in Congress were threatening the jobless benefits of the very people their policies had driven to unemployment. Well, as Mr Bush once tried unsuccessfully to say, "Fool me twice, shame on me". The days of taking Americans economic hostage just to sink my presidency are over. If I leave office in 2013, it will be because I stood up to these hypocrites, not because I gave into them"

[Dr Fate]

Never putting the big 3 on the table to start with? Insisting that ALL cuts be in war spending?

Then go on TV every night for 3 weeks straight and say so, over and over and over?

Have a "town hall meeting" on film, with 1000 people in the audience. Ask all in the audience to raise their hands if they prefer domestic cuts to war cuts. Then ask them to raise their hands if they would rather spend more on wars.

Bring up results of footage over and over. Repeat stunt?

Call out any Democrat, by name, who disagrees, then call for the base to put pressure on said DEM? Do the same with the GOP- by name.

"Boener/Lieberman/Baccus (insert conservative here) keeps saying that voters would rather spend money on wars than on domestic programs. Does anyone think he is telling the truth? We have filmed town hall after town hall and the opposite is the truth. We cant find a single poll where anyone says they want to keep spending trillions on these wars..."

These would be examples of standing up- but the Liberals dont realize that we already have excuses lined up for not doing this.

For one thing, Democrats disagree with the base- they dont want to offer up war spending for the majority of the cuts.

While these things could be examples of "standing up"-We know these things would not work, without even trying it.

Obama could "stand up" if he and his party were Liberal- but they cannot "stand up" within the confines of a centrist construct.

The problem here is that Liberals dont just want Obama to "stand up" to Republicans, but they also want him to stand up to the centrists in his own party- people who he AGREES with. Not gonna happen.

[Big Blue Marble]

27. Standing up is not worth a world-wide depression.

This is not the time to make the tax increase stand. Get the debt ceiling raised with as little damage to our country as
possible and move forward. Sometimes you need to retreat to win. IMO, this is one of those times. Reid's plan apparently
does this without cutting the big three. If that is the case, then I am for it.

The Dems then have to take the case of raising taxes to the people in the 2012 election. Show the outright craziness of
the current pubs. It may or may not work, but right now we have a bunch of loonies who are irrational and will not
support tax increases under any circumstances. That is the reality, period.

[Doctor_J]

32. Neither is giving in to terrorists

That is a losing proposition - always has been, always will be.

[Doctor_J]

42. So we give in to the terrorists, then run in 2012 on a "raise taxes" platform

wow. I hope you're not getting paid too much for your political strategizing

[Big Blue Marble]

52. You have a better plan?

Where will we be if we let the loonies melt our economy?

It is clear to most of the public even many Republicans that taxes will need to raised.
The politics of on who and when will be decided in the coming elections.
But this is not the time.

You can scream all you want about terrorists; but I bet you do not have a better solution to this enormous crisis.

[jtown1123]

8. Apparently, there are no entitlement cuts so atleast we have something to cheer about

[LonePirate]

12. Hurray? Obama should never had agreed to the 2010 budget deal.

Sure, we probably wouldn't have gotten a one year extension in emergency unemployment benefits; but the deficit reduction we would have gained during 2011 and 2012 would have really dented this entire raise the debt ceiling debate.

[jtown1123]

14. I agree with you 100%. This still sucks.

[emulatorloo]

20. It does suck. I gotta tell you I don't know what the endgame is going to be. And it scares the crap

out of me.

Given the reality of the situation (teabag house won't pass a bill with revenue increases) this sucks but it could be worse. Because entitlements won't get touched.

But what is going to happen if the Republicans reject this too?

They are already claiming Reid's cuts are "fake" (a big chunk of the cuts are based on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, so they are calling that "fake")

A large part of me wants the Dems to say NO DEAL, FUCK YOU.

But I am pretty sure the teabagger house is ready to default which is going to FUCK all of us up in a serious way. (although the Rich will be fine)

[jtown1123]

30. Even if teabaggers all vote no, I think it could still pass if everyone else votes "yes"

not sure though...

[emulatorloo]

33. I think you may be right

as long as the Republicans don't have to vote for a revenue increase, some would vote for it.

I appreciate you saying that.

[emulatorloo]

15. The problem with that is taxes would have gone up on everybody, not just the upper class.

The other problem is we would not be having a "debt ceiling debate" if we still had control of the House. Pelosi would have gotten a clean bill to raise the deficit with no problems.

[LonePirate]

28. That would have been OK with me. The ensuing deficit reduction would have weakened the Repubs.

Then we could all focus on the economy instead of pending cuts that would only worsen the economy.

Obama needs to think of the future and not right now. He is clearly not playing any sort of chess despite what so many people on here claim.

[Ship of Fools]

16. With all due respect, I beg to differ --

there have been alot of us unemployed out here!

In 12/10, Obama was responding very much in the moment. Personally, if anyone thinks he was exaggerating THEN about Repukes holding America hostage, well I've a fake debt ceiling crisis I'd like to sell ya...

[jtown1123]

31. I think the political pressure of passing Unemployment would have forced GOp to cave

that's what most political analysts thought...

[Ship of Fools]

36. Now that I think about it, actually ...

That WAS their first foray into extortion politics ... It's just that they're so stupidly irrational and twisted by the Norquist shit ... Even when presented with the possibility of damaging the ENTIRE global financial system, it wouldn't have surprised me if they HADN'T caved.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. As usual, the people get screwed by the rich and the politicians.

And, now we get the chorus demanding that we be grateful for the adroit maneuvering of the bosses.

[WI_DEM]

18. but it's not cutting Medicare or Social Security that will be the talking point.

[emulatorloo]

21. Well it doesn't touch SS or Medicare. That's not a "talking point". That's what's in Reid's plan.

Probably doesn't matter anyway, Repubs will probably reject it. If they put us into default, events will probably destroy the safety net - I think that is what the fanatic teabaggers are thinking these days.

[maxrandb]

19. Let's be honest here

if we do nothing, the Bush tax-cuts expire in 2012. There are already revenue increases on the table.

[Make7]

49. And then they can re-introduce tax cuts for those below $250,000.

And when the GOP refuse to pass it, or even bring it to the floor, without also including those above $250,000 - shout it from the rooftops (if they know how to do such a thing).

I guess that would presuppose that the Democratic party is not just as beholden to the over $250,000 crowd as the GOP.
 

[KamaAina]

34. This is the same kind of crap they shoved down our throats in California

Here, they had us over a barrel because of the requirement of a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. They're using the threat of default to pull the same stunt on the entire country. Someone please make them stop. Please?

[Doctor_J]

38. We probably can, but it will require more than petitions and phone calls

If they want to play terrorist, then treat them like terrorists

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. 1) hands off SS. 2) no extension of Bush tax cuts. 3) end the wars.

A lot here to like, actually.

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Apparently so. It's Changelicious.

n/t

[phleshdef]

47. Reid's proposal will do the least amount of damage out of everything in the realm of passable.

The only other option is if they just raise the damn ceiling without any strings at all. This is what happens when voters give Republicans the power to be significant.

[Big Blue Marble]

53. You are absolutely right on all points.

The only solution now is to change the makeup of Congress.

[Doctor_J]

56. Least amount of damage to whom?

If it increases Repuke chances in next year's elections, that's a lot of damage