TPM: Reid Agrees To Major Debt Limit Deal — Here’s What He’s Signed Off On

[cal04]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/reid-agrees-to-major-debt-limit-deal----heres-what-hes-signed-off-on.php

(snip)
It guarantees the debt limit will be hiked by $2.4 trillion. Immediately upon enactment of the plan, the Treasury will be granted $400 billion of new borrowing authority, after which President Obama will be allowed to extend the debt limit by $500 billion, subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

That initial $900 billion will be paired with $900 billion of discretionary spending cuts, first identified in a weeks-old bipartisan working group led by Vice President Joe Biden, which will be spread out over 10 years.

Obama will later be able to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, again subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.

(snip)
If the committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.5 trillion. The domestic cuts come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans as well.

more at link

[Jon Ace]

1. And no tax increase... (nt)

[grasswire]

2. who blinked?

[KoKo]

54. You need to ask? n/t

[EFerrari]

3. The triggers in this deal suck. They will let the Committee

throw their hands up in the air in the next round, and NO ONE will have to take ownership of cutting our social programs. F#ck that.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Don't be shy: FUCK THAT! Say it out loud! FUCK WASHINGTON.

[Poll_Blind]

6. I think the meme will be that if that happens, defense will be cut equally harshly.

Of course, what can more easily survive a 750 Billion dollar cut if that happens? Defense or Social Security? It's not a percentage cut and that's a RAW deal.

PB

[KittyWampus]

12. Social Security isn't included.

[Poll_Blind]

32. Nope- you're 100% right- my bad. It's domestic spending cuts which will come from Medicare...

...providers, which is also going to have a negative impact as well.

PB

[KoKo]

56. Yes and Plus it wil come from every Social Program that FDR and Johnson

manged to get out of the Powers that Be. It's a boondoggle for the Banksters and Wall Street who created this crisis in the first place. That Bush swindled American People as he went out the door and Obama our Dem Elected President who had Dem Congress and Senate that most of us worked butts off to give him...would do this abomination like a "Bush II" cave to Wall St. and Banksters (just like Bush) is just so depressing.

Why do we work for him?

[BzaDem]

10. But it appears most social programs will be exempted, right?

No SS, no Medicare benefits, no Medicaid, apparently no food stamps/veterans benefits/etc. Just limited Medicare provider cuts of the type in HCR, that the IPAB in HCR was likely to recommend anyway.

As for the rest, I really don't think that Republicans are going to live with the equal 800 billion cut in defense. That means they will either agree wit Democrats on tax increases or offer to repeal the trigger.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. The triggers sound like a solid Dem win

REAL cuts to defense, which we presumably want, provider side cuts to Medicare, which we presumably don't - at least not that much.

But that means they have to wrangle with the proposals, which will certainly include revenue generation, since six dems sit on the committee.

This is a good deal. The GOP gets their ridiculous "votes of disapproval," which are meaningless except to their own constituencies, and we get revenues through the back door on these triggers, which will fracture the GOP ideological bloc by forcing GOP reps to explain how opposing revenue is more important than defense and local district spending.

No Social Security, no Medicaid.

Not bad, all around.

[EFerrari]

22. That committee answers to no one.

It has no incentive to fight for revenue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. It is made up of at least three Dem reps

who have every incentive to fight for revenue!

Why wouldn't they? Because they're "betraying" the people or something? That's the whole point of splitting the representation.

[EFerrari]

26. No, they have zero incentive to fight for revenue

because if they get no result, it won't matter.

That's the whole point of this committee.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Disagree completely

The Democratic representatives on the Committee have every reason to fight for revenue, because they don't want to see the Medicare cuts or across the board cuts in general, and they are directly beholden to their constituents in terms of what they recommend. They are completely incentivized to argue for revenue increases, furthermore, since to do so puts the House GOP in an impossible position of having to accept either revenue increases or cuts to defense, Medicare, and whatever pet projects they have in their districts that would be exposed to across the board cuts.

How are they not incentivized? Explain.

[EFerrari]

44. No, this committee isn't about putting 3 Democrats under the hot light.

It's about letting everyone off the hook. "The other side was intransigent". Please.

[Inuca]

37. You have no fricking idea what you are talking about n/t

[EFerrari]

42. The whole point of this committee is to allow Congress to wash its hands.

[Inuca]

43. No, because they will have

to VOTE on the committee recomendations.

[EFerrari]

45. No one on that committee will be held responsible

for anything that committee does. If you don't understand that, I can't put it more plainly.

[Inuca]

36. Why do you always have to enflame the spirits

around here? don't you think that people are on the edge enough? What's this nonsense with the "committee answers to no one, has no incentives...". Do you know what you are talking about or you these posts just for the perverse pleasure to see people react?

The committee will have 6 dems, 3 from the house, 3 from the senate. Kucicich and Sanders I would guess will not be included (with apologies to Sen. Sanders that I like and respect a lot, Kucinich, not so much), but they will still be dems. And they will have to "answer" to their respective caucuses. Doee anybody really think that there will 3 congressman and even less 3 senators that will be part on this much reviled and littel understood committe, and just start going "rogue"? They are not you know who. They are part of a system, they have relationships and responsibilities as part of their respective caucuses. Does this gurantee that the final product will be soemthing that will make everybody happy? Absolutely not, most likely it will make everybody unhappy. But all this nonsense that these people will decide the fate of the country and of world with no accountability, etc. is just ABSURD.

End rant and apologoes to all, but my nerves are on edge as well.

[EFerrari]

46. You need to ask yourself why this committee is being set up.

These committees always serve the same function. To do dirty work that can be attributed to a one off happening and to buffer both sides from political fallout. I haven't claimed these people will decide the fate of the country or the world.

And I will ignore the personal attack.

[Inuca]

48. We have to agree to disagree

The civility of your reply is much appreciated though, thanks.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. The tax increase comes from the committee with six dems on it

The GOP is then forced to choose between revenue increases and 3% cuts to defense and whatever local projects they have in their districts, and I'm happy to see them try to explain to their constituents why they chose cuts rather than a tax increase. Why aren't you?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

55. Exactly...it's weak and subject to more skullduggery. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

4. If accurate this is a bad deal. A very bad deal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. How so?

Explain.

[KittyWampus]

17. If accurate, it's not that bad. In fact, since Social Security and Medicare aren't cut

that means the Reactionary Screamers were wrong yet again.

[EFerrari]

23. Triggers automatic cuts to Medicare, so no, those posters you're insulting

were not wrong.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Those trigger hit only if the recommendations of the committee

are rejected, and those triggers are explicitly for cost cutting on the provider side - no cuts to beneficiaries. Now, of course people will come here and tell us how provider side cuts are IN FACT cuts to benefits, after eight different cascading results kick in, but the fact is that these cuts only kick in if the recommendations fall through. Now, suppose the committee recommends particular revenue increases: the House GOP has the choice of accepting those, or explaining to their constituents how Medicare cuts and Defense cuts were more important than tax increases on corporations!

And you think that's a loss?

Are you kidding me?

[EFerrari]

29. Wait -- after this weekend you question how that unaccountable Committee

could wind up with no result?

Are you kidding me?

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. The mechanism is in place

Across the board cuts to Defense and district pet projects would be as intolerable to the GOP as revenue increases. Have YOU been paying attention to THEIR proposals?

[EFerrari]

47. And they are working to erode the defense cuts right now.

Yes, I am paying attention.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. Let me know when the defense cuts get "eroded"

The reason the GOP are screaming like stuck pigs over the defense cuts is because they recognize, unlike the people who always imagine the GOP to be winning, that it is a massive win for Democrats to force the GOP to choose between a 3% defense cut along with across the board cuts and a tax increase. They know it, Reid knows it, Obama knows it. The only people who don't seem to know it are the progressives who always imagine the Dems to be losing. So, if you recognize that the GOP is hopping mad over the triggers, how can you not recognize that the triggers are a winning strategy for reinjecting revenue through the back door?

Like I said, pay attention.

[sabrina 1]

63. If they kept their hands off SS and Medicare, which I'll wait

to see before celebrating, since neither should ever have even been part of this discussion, it will be THANKS TO THE REACTIONARY SCREAMERS on the LEFT, once again, of which btw, I am a proud member.

But, as I said, I do not trust these people one bit so we will keep SCREAMING until they realize that lying about SS is a failed policy and do not even try it again.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Disagree

Moderate Dem win here.

[Dragonfli]

60. if by moderate dem you mean Baucus then I agree

Moderate appears to be the new name for supply side economics devotees. (formerly known as Republicans)

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. No, I mean it was a modest win by Dems

Sorry for the misstatement.

:-)

[KittyWampus]

19. No, they aren't. And only a GOP apologist would say so. The cuts are over such a long spread of time

and can be absorbed by military cut backs with wind down in Middle East, for instance.

[EFerrari]

25. Right -- the unaccountable Committee will cut defense and save

Medicare. That will happen.

LMAO

[suffragette]

49. More likely if there are any "defense" cuts, they would be the ones pushed by Simpson

of cutting vets disability benefits.

[Kaleva]

39. There's nothing in the deal that prevents the Bush tax cuts from expiring

As another poster has pointed out, I think this is a victory for moderates. Teabaggers in my district are pretty upset about this possible deal as it raises the debt limit, doesn't prohibit new taxes in the future, and doesn't guarantee passage in Congress of the BBA.

[vi5]

8. Oh, well if both sides hate it, then it must be good...

Of course Republicans hate it because they only got 98% of what they wanted, and Democrats hate it because they barely got 2% of what they wanted.

[Parker CA]

9. Sounds very much like the McConnell plan floated a week or two ago. Two chances for the GOP

to have votes against Obama raising the ceiling incrementally. More chances for them to get in the camera and hammer this issue.

Anyone have any idea what the $900B in discretionary cuts identified by the Biden group are? I don't remember seeing specifics on those.

[maryellen99]

11. How is it going to pass the House?

That's where I think the problem lies

[CakeGrrl]

33. Bingo. Contrary to some opinions, the Teabag GOP DOES NOT like this deal. -nt

[obama14]

52. The democrats can vote yes... push it over easy.

80 republicans can vote against it, democrats will vote for it if the democrat leadership wants it. You can have 150 republicans vote against it, and it can still pass if all the democrats vote yes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Another Glorious Victory! Will it be added to The List?

Along with, "It could have been worse", "What else could he do?", "We'll fix it later", and "Do you want Michele as president?" :puke:

[readmoreoften]

41. DLC Doublespeak. The deal is double plus good!

[Dragonfli]

61. It will be the biggest victory on that BS list second only to "health care deform"

The list only needs for stuff to pass, it doesn't matter if it is regressive or a blow job to the wealthy while raping everyone else, if it passes it makes the Obama "victory" list.

[sad sally]

18. Couldn't be better said than this...

The real trap is for Congressional Democrats, who lose no matter what Obama does.

Right now, GOP campaign ad writers are being fired because their work will be done for them. Just iMovie that shit and put it out on YouTube. Democrats better be ready to chew their legs off.

One other thing: because this doesn't just raise the debt ceiling $2.5 trillion in one fell swoop, it requires a certain amount of trust in the Republicans by the Obama administration. If they dick the President over, then we plunge once again into crisis. Those fuckers aren't worthy of that kind of trust. Why would you let the arsonists guard the gas stove?

http://blueinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/2011/07/id-swear-theyre-in-cahoots.html?du

[Snoutport]

35. and give them matches to play with....

[spanone]

20. mcconnell?

[WinkyDink]

21. "cuts come from Medicare providers" = fewer providers and higher costs to patients.

[EFerrari]

27. A lot of those providers are barely hanging in there as it is.

What a farce.

[ThomWV]

51. Exactly - what they couldn't kill through the front door they will murder through the back.

[Bluebear]

30. Roll over! Good dem!

[andym]

38. They would need Dems for that to pass the House

probably won't happen.

[readmoreoften]

40. The SS cuts come in the next round now that the stage us set.

[Igel]

50. Timing of cuts?

$100 billion zapped out of the budget in the upcoming f/y? Or have everything subject to the 2014's Congress ignore the deal?

"Hon, I just saved $10k in our budget."

"Great news! We were about to default on our mortgae"

"Yeah, it's over 10 years. We're going to increase expenses by $5k this year and next, with no new income, but by 2014 we should be treading water and in 2016-2019 be able to pay it off!"

"And what makes you think that that's going to happen in 2014? It didn't in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, or this year?"

"Look. I wrote it down, and my friend Jimmy and I both signed it. It's in writing, it's binding, so must be true!"

I guess if my wife loved me blindly she'd nod adoringly, even as she started downsizing our belongings so they'd all fit in the car, with us and our son and still leaving room for sleeping and eating.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.