Anyone have details on the new debt deal?

[Balog]

Sounds like insignificant cuts over the next decade, compared to massive debt limit raise now. 

[makattak]

I think you've got the same impression I have.

We'll spend $1 trillion less than we were planning to spend (but still WAAAAYYYY more than we are now) over the next 10 years in exchange for letting us borrow $2.7 trillion over the next year and a half.



Gee, that's... great...

[Balog]

I just don't get why all the lefties are bitching about it?

[AZRedhawk44]

I just don't get why all the lefties are bitching about it?

Spin.

It's astroturfed "complaints" to make it look like they are giving up on something.

They won.  Plain and simple.

More debt, on unborn generations, in exchange for bread and circuses now.  I fail to see how that can be called anything but slavery.

[griz]

Increase debt by 2.1 Trillion and it's good until after the election, cut spending by 2.4 Trillion over ten years*.  What the liberals gave up was they didn't rape the rich increase taxes.

* my problem with that "promise" is that the vast majority of those imaginary cuts are always scheduled to happen toward the end of the ten years.  In other words, during the next term of office.

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm really hating the new spin over the last ~5 years on budget deficit and planning talks.

Bush-43 started it, in my recollection, and it's now standard practice in the Obama admin and also espoused by Boehner.

Everyone wants to talk about "trillions" in decade figures rather than THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

Let's talk THIS YEAR.  Fund THIS YEAR.  Then fund NEXT YEAR.

Quit blowing smoke up our skirts, talking about trillions of cuts in ten years, and comparing it to deficits or borrowing increases for this year.

Otherwise, talk about borrowing increases for 10 years in context of funding for 10 years.

Congress should be barred from enacting any financial policy that extends more than 3 months past their next election.

[AZRedhawk44]

Article 1, Section 8 of that pesky Constitution thing:

Powers of Congress

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Just add another amendment, that says:

No Appropriation of Money shall be made for any Use for a longer Term than two Years.

[Perd Hapley]

Any discussion of the details would be inappropriate for a public forum.

[HankB]

The current Congress can't impose restraint on a future Congress, so even if they say "We'll spend less in 2015" . . . it really means NOTHING since the Congress of 2015 can, and will, do whatever they can muster the votes for in 2015.

So all this hand-wringing and back-slapping is just utter bovine excrement. 

[AZRedhawk44]

The current Congress can't impose restraint on a future Congress, so even if they say "We'll spend less in 2015" . . . it really means NOTHING since the Congress of 2015 can, and will, do whatever they can muster the votes for in 2015.

So all this hand-wringing and back-slapping is just utter bovine excrement. 

Exactly.

The assumption that a Congressional 10-year spending plan will be honored by Congress 4 years from now is asinine.  What exactly do you expect Congress to do for 10 years, if the budget is already taken care of for that period?

[lupinus]

Sounds like insignificant cuts over the next decade, compared to massive debt limit raise now. 

Details? Perhaps I can summarize.

The stupid party fought the good fight.
Caved in the end.
Spin it to sound like they made something of it, when really they did not and gave in so the socialist paradise can be further.
And we the taxpayers just got bent over and get to pay for the privilege.

Is that about right?

[Nick1911]

Details? Perhaps I can summarize.

The stupid party fought the good fight.
Caved in the end.
Spin it to sound like they made something of it, when really they did not and gave in so the socialist paradise can be further.
And we the taxpayers just got bent over and get to pay for the privilege.

Is that about right?

I'm trying to think of a major piece of legislation in the past decade that can't be summed up by that.

[lupinus]

I'm trying to think of a major piece of legislation in the past decade that can't be summed up by that.

Hey I never said it wasn't a predictable part of an ongoing trend.

[Waitone]

This is the second time Boehner has labored mightly and brought forth a mouse.  Last time around what he agreed to was what democrats had previously agreed to.  Cuts were an illusion.  So now we fast forward to now and see the same things.  Congress has wasted stupendous amounts of emotional energy of the public for nothing.  I'll be willing to wager a steak dinner at the local Waffle House that nothing is said in the bill of reducing current baseline budget factor from 8% to oh, say 0%.  That would result in real cuts not the phoney stuff Boehner evidently agreed to.

My guts are telling me Boehner will face a primary next year.

[Monkeyleg]

Remember, Reagan was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases, and got $3 in new spending for every $1 in tax increases. Same shell game, different year.

[Hutch]

So, it's not all fuzzy kittens and puppy kisses   The caterwauling by the Religious Left is them going all Sun Tzu on us?

Damn, I was afraid of that.

[lee n. field]

So, it's not all fuzzy kittens and puppy kisses   The caterwauling by the Religious Left is them going all Sun Tzu on us?

Damn, I was afraid of that.

What caterwauling by the religious left?  I never got the impression they were a force to be bothered with.

[Hutch]

The Religious Left as described by George Will.  Those that worship Government.  Many news summary sites show headlines from the left expressing disgust with the Dems caving.  Krugman, Van Den Heuvel, et al.  Just sayin'.  IMHO, we're re-arranging the deck chairs on the fiscal Titanic.  I just wish I knew if it was gonna be a bang, or a whimper.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

We'll spend $1 trillion less than we were planning to spend (but still WAAAAYYYY more than we are now) over the next 10 years in exchange for letting us borrow $2.7 trillion over the next year and a half.

*sigh*
Washington Cuts strike again.

Notice who unanimously voted for the bill. Anyone know if Paul the Younger will filibuster this thing?

[brimic]

Boehner screwed us all.

[drewtam]

Tough crowd here.

I didn't realise Boehner had such indomitable control of the Senate. Last I checked, he led the House which was only a 55% Repub majority. And the Senate was a Democrat majority. And the presidential veto is held by a Democrat President who stamped his foot and pouted his lip at anything he didn't like; without offering any compromise.

My point:
America's fiscal problems were not created over night. From the welfare state, to SS, Medicare, and the trillions of things that make up our debt; these have been erected over decades. They will not be solved in one election. They will not be solved in one budget vote.


PS.
Doesn't the "boner" comments violate the goals of maturity?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11378.0

[drewtam]

Additionally...

The original post might find this site useful for distilling the facts and details.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/08/help-me-crowdsource-the-bill/

[AZRedhawk44]

Tough crowd here.

I didn't realise Boehner had such indomitable control of the Senate. Last I checked, he led the House which was only a 55% Repub majority. And the Senate was a Democrat majority. And the presidential veto is held by a Democrat President who stamped his foot and pouted his lip at anything he didn't like; without offering any compromise.

Constitutionally, the Senate doesn't matter.

I want a House Speaker that tells the Senate to go take a flying stab at a rolling donut when it comes to fiscal bills, citing Article 1 Section 7.

All spending bills MUST originate in the House.  Anything originating in the Senate is unConstitutional.

Boehner isn't leading.  Plain and simple.

In the LONG TERM, an immediate default for a week or two is better for the health of the country, if it results in drastic change now, than status quo. 

And $2.7 trillion for 18 months in exchange for nebulous $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years (or $100 billion a year, or about $150 billion over that same 18 months) is an insult, joke and threat to the American People.

That makes Boehner a threat to the American People.

The only thing that saves us is direct confrontation of evil.

But, Biden and Obama are already lauding the removal of the deficit obstacle from the political arena in the 2012 elections.  God forbid they be accountable for their policies that brought about the fiscal murder of this country.  And Boehner is an accomplice.  Along with McCain and the other Statist Apologists.

[brimic]

My point:
America's fiscal problems were not created over night. From the welfare state, to SS, Medicare, and the trillions of things that make up our debt; these have been erected over decades. They will not be solved in one election. They will not be solved in one budget vote.

Boehner and most of the house rinos chose to carry on with 'business as usual.'



The House had the Cut/Cap/Balance bill and Boehner, with the help of McConnel undermined the bill.
The Cut/Cap/balance bill wouldn't have been signed by el presidente, but it was at least a strong position to negotiate from.
In football terms, The House Republicans were on defense and the ball was at the Dems 10 yards line, and Boehner allowed the ball to be waled down into the red zone and gave Obama everything he wanted.

[drewtam]

Really? Everything he wanted?

So there is a tax increase in this bill?

Grandstanding with a bill that would barely pass House, and never pass Senate, and would never override a veto is not actually helpful. It may, in fact, hurt the negotiating position.