Mirror, mirror on the wall, who was the most "childish" of them all?

[Marston]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

[Marston]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. It seems to be a reputable forum but, as I see, it does have its fair share of hacks (what forum doesn't?). However, unlike other forums, this one seems to have some thought-provoking commentary.

Anyways, I just heard that Harry Reid is offering spending cuts amounting to around $2 trillion in "his own plan" this evening that would take us past the election. The specifics aren't clear but with Boehner and Reid now seemingly having competing plans, It seems that we are, again, at an impasse.

I don't know if Reid's plan can get get Pelosi's and her liberal posse's support, however. A 100% spending cut plan would go against everything they've said previously and I don't think that Reid can get to $2 trillion without including entitlements unless he really squeezes domestic and defense discretionary...

I never thought we would get this close to default but with all these competing ultimatums... I just don't know...

Reports are it's 2.5 trillion from Reid.  The odd thing about this story is that reports last week that Obama was about to do a deal with Boehner for no revenue spurred Reid to protest against a revenue-free plan.  I apologize in advance for being a hack.  I've considered not being one, but the Republicans suck so I have no choice.  Welcome.

You're right. It is $2.5 trillion. I apologize. Well that makes it even harder to see how they get there without including entitlements. Even the plan to grow discretionary spending at one-half of inflation doesn't get us 'that' far.

 

[Marston]

Marston,

Welcome to the forum!

Obama had better not take Reid's "deal."  The last offer Boehner had on the table is a lot better than Reid's cop-out and ultimately self-destructive gimmick.

I would have to agree with you on that point. Frankly, I don't even know if that plan could pass the House. They seem hell-bent against any deal or plan even remotely associated with the Democrats and/or Obama.

Right now, I'm rooting for the old McConnell plan of shifting the debt-raising burden onto Obama. It'll get us past 2012 and I really don't believe it would be that politically damaging to Obama. Maybe it'll make a come-back in the last minute. 

This whole debt-ceiling + deficit reduction debate is manufactured crap, quite honestly. We need to be focusing on job creation, not this.

[Marston]

Well, the last statement I heard from Boehner was that his last offer was still on the table.  If all that's left is Reid's $2.5 trillion deal and Boehner's last offer, the latter is better. 

I'm not sure whether I'm remembering this correctly, but when McConnell put forward his offer of handing over raising the debt ceiling powers to the president, Reid added on to that $1.5 trillion of spending cuts and government commissions to decide on a later package of revenue raisers and further cuts?  And, when that was put forward, the House rejected it.  I think that's what Joementum reminded me of the other day, should be on page 3 of this thread.

Thanks for the info.

The Tea Party has already won in the sense that they shifted D.C.'s focus onto deficit reduction. Quite dispiriting for a Keynesian like myself.

Reid's $1.2 trillion figure is still quite a lot for discretionary spending. It has to include defense. How could it not?

I'm not sure I'd take Boehner's offer without knowing all the specifics, first. I know the general framework came out after Boehner walked out but the devil is in the details. Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would be quite difficult to stomach for a single-payer advocate like myself. I'm also not totally bought into this chained-CPI for SS COLA's. Just keeping the cuts to discretionary spending as it is in Reid's plan would at least guarantee entitlements are saved from the Tea Party's and Obama's hatchet for the next couple years.  

[Marston]

Reid just put out the following statement:

“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.”

-----

Yeah, so nothing new except that the Democrats are holding strong on the anti-short-term extension.

And it does look like Reid's plan has Obama's and Pelosi's blessing, though. At least that's my interpretation of "we". So it seems the Dems have already caved on revenues. Depressing.

Oh, and it looks like they increased their cuts from $2.5 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

[Marston]

I wonder if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are really just really banking on the House being beholden to the Republican's who don't want any debt ceiling increase whatsoever to kill any plan they offer. Perhaps they know that even Reid's all-cuts plan will not sit well with the Tea Party elements and they just want to be able to say "hey, we tried to compromise and cut spending without any tax hikes and the GOP wouldn't even accept that". It's an interesting, but risky, theory.

In any case, entitlements will need to be tackled relatively soon. There's no doubt about that. There are ways to sustain the programs without gutting them, however. Linking Medicare premiums to income is one way that comes to mind.

 

[Marston]

I agree with you. It's something I would never offer at the negotiating table.

Even so, an Administration official said this morning that the chances are 50/50 that we won't have a deal by August 2nd. Boehner is also still trying to force his balanced-budget amendment into any sort of deal that takes place.

[Marston]

More details are emerging about Reid's proposal.  Supposedly, it's going to include detailed discretionary cuts taken right out of Paul Ryan's budget. It's going to include cuts that Republican's previously went on record as voting for so as to back Republican's into a corner and define them as hypocrites if they vote against the Reid proposal.  

It's a sad day to be a Democrat when your leaders consider $2.7 trillion in cuts and no revenue a "win".

[Marston]

BigSkyBob,

I really don't see how the 'peace dividend' and interest savings could account for the entire $2.7 Trillion in Reid's proposal.  Even the most optimistic estimates regarding the 'peace dividend' only gets us to $1.3 trillion in deficit reduction. Where does the difference come from?

[Marston]

Obama's going to address the Nation at 9 PM on the debt ceiling.

Now, about "100" GOP congressmen are resisting any hike in the debt ceiling, according to Politico. They even oppose Boehner's two-step plan. They're just that hell bent on it.

Well, it's to the brink, I guess.

 

[Marston]

Obama's going to address the Nation at 9 PM on the debt ceiling.

Now, about "100" GOP congressmen are resisting any hike in the debt ceiling, according to Politico. They even oppose Boehner's two-step plan. They're just that hell bent on it.

Well, it's to the brink, I guess.

 

Well, I suppose this means that Obama is going to be lying to the American People because he is already being cited as contacting banksters to reassure them if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd all our debts will be honored. Instead of telling the American people what he is telling banksters, I'm sure he continue to hype the doomsday scenario. Irresponsible.

Care to provide a link?

[Marston]

And now it's all over the Dems not wanting another vote before the election, so now it's time to score the planned wind down of the twin wars as "cuts" to shove stuff past the election. Charming.

It is a accounting-gimmick. I'll give you that. To assume that the Overseas Contingency fund will deplete by that much when we're such a war-happy nation is, well, do I even have to finish that sentence?