Reply With Quote
But the qualification, in itself, is telling.
I linked such an offer above.
But the qualification, in itself, is telling.
They didn't. They promise to object to raising the debt limit.
Why the walkback, CC?
Really? They promised that? Link, please.
No walkback involved Chump.
You walked back from saying there were no cuts on the table to saying there are at least $1.5T in cuts on the table.
I'll just accept you don't really know.
cc was telling me the other day there was no plan...when there was one
The GOP already passed on the best deal offered, but it might have been an political winner for Obama too. Can't have that.
The Republican definition of compromise involves demanding the other side give in at all times.
"Democrats, you take the time to propose all cuts, opening yourself up to criticism, and we make no promise to agree to raising taxes in the slightest. However, we do promise to maybe perhaps look at the idea of creating a small group that might perhaps look at MAYBE maybe raising taxes.
But probably not."
I'll just accept that you have reading comprehension issues.
Meanwhille, the Repug House assholes have a symbolic vote today, grandstanding for their asshole base, rather than doing serious work. Their kind of "govt IS the problem".
Inhofe, hired climate change denier, has a proposal to cut $9T, nothing but grandstanding for the ignorant bubba Okies.
What did I read wrong, CC?
You said there were no cuts on the table, then said there were cuts on the table.
God damn you can be dense sometime.
Obama has NO firm offer listing specific cuts he would accept on the table, not to mention that any general cuts he may have insinuated could be offered were directly linked to tax increases that he knew could not possibly get passed in the House.
That's not an offer, that's talking points for gullible people like you.
God damn you can be dense sometime.
Obama has NO firm offer listing specific cuts he would accept on the table, not to mention that any general cuts he may have insinuated could be offered were directly linked to tax increases that he knew could not possibly get passed in the House.
That's not an offer, that's internet talking points for gullible people like you.
So you're back to saying no cuts are on the table.
Meh, go eat your peas. I didn't realize you were that gullible. Guess I was wrong.
I didn't realize you couldn't make up your mind about this. Guess I was wrong.
Meanwhile, Coburn & Lieberman put out their own plan yesterday.
$9 trillion total defecit reduction over the next 10 years.
$1 trillion in new tax revenue via getting rid of deductions & loopholes
$1 trillion in defense spending cuts
$2.6 trillion in en lement savings (includes retirement ages for both SS&M going up, as well as ins uting medicare deductibles which increase with income)
Can't seem to find any details about where the other $4.4T would come from.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/Coburn-...1.html?pos=hmp
EDIT: More details available on Coburn's website.
http://coburn.senate.gov/public//ind...0-42fc20111974 (summary table)
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...reduction-plan (specifics)
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 07-19-2011 at 01:04 PM.
Using CC's logic, simply by citing provisions as toxic to one caucus (revenue enhancers) or another (raising retirement age for SS and Medicare), this too could be dismissed as a non-starter.
Oh, it's ABSOLUTELY a non-starter.
No way in any of that passes as is with either party.
Darrell Issa: Debt Deadline Is ‘Artificial’ Date Obama Is Using To ‘Extort’ A Deal From Congress
Congressional Republicans continue to doubt President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s urgings that Treasury will exhaust its ability to keep the country beneath its statutory debt limit on Aug. 2. While Treasury was able to find ways to push back earlier deadlines, the Aug. 2 date is the “drop dead date,” according to Geithner and other Treasury officials.
So far, however, the questioning has come mainly from talk radio hosts and backbench Republicans who lack any real influence in the party. Their attacks, that deadline is Aug. 2 so Obama can celebrate Ramadan or have celebrities perceive him as a hero at his birthday party, have been easily dismissed. But Monday, the first attack came from a member of House leadership when Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, claimed on Southern California Public Radio that Aug. 2 was an “artificial deadline” Obama was using to “extort a deal” out of Congress:
“We should not be having a discussion with a artificial deadline of August 2nd, set by the President so the President can extort a deal through his reelection period. That’s not right, it’s not what the American people expect us to do.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...from-congress/
Probably. Although it does present kind of a paradox. There needs to be a deal. It's inevitable that any such deal will include provisions that will piss off a bunch of people.
So what's a congress-critter to do? Tell everyone what's going on and risk passage when your congressional collegues start getting angry phone calls from their cons uents? Or just do everything behind closed doors until it's all over and tell the masses "here's your plan, deal with it"?
Barry pissing off Medicare recipients is gonna cost Barry more than the Repugs pissing off their asshole base.
Hence republicans taking the approach of "here's our plan, where's yours" and obama/democrats taking one of "your plan is mean".
You could easily reverse that. Obama said, "Here's my plan" and Republicans said, "Taxes? NOOO!!!!!!"
The Republicans plan has spending cuts, mostly on things that Democrats favor. I'm pretty sure if the Dems came up with a plan to reduce savings that only cut defense spending, and then raised taxes on individuals and businesses, Republicans would rightly skewer them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
