Debt BillFollow

The bill pretty crappy. Basically the only group that likes it are the lobbyists of those segments of the budget that are under the microscope.

Just curious, what did you hope he would do? Get the senate to vote against any bill that didn't increase taxes; an impossibility with a GOP-dominated House? Veto any bill that came to his desk that didn't increase taxes (I believe an impossibility, since it passed with more than 2/3 of the senate approving)?

I don't think there was much Obama could have done differently, so I'm curious what you had hoped he would do. If he blocked the bills, he would have been shooting himself, his party, and the country in the financial foot.

I give credit for this fiasco to the our dysfunctional legislature.

The same sort of "bipartisan support" you lauded from the House healthcare bill, right?

You never answered Locke's question, so I'll ask it again: What exactly should he have done? When you have a group of people who care more about some conservative think tank's opinion and welcome the idea of a government default and their leader is powerless to sway them, what's your plan?

I really would have liked to see him be more effective in setting the boundaries of the debate, although I admittedly have no specific ideas as to how he could have done that.

I'm just really venting some frustration at the whole debacle, and expressing some general disappointment with what I see as a consistent problem with his term in office so far. He seems to be too willing to let Congress drive the debate, although his increased use of national press conferences to discuss the debt issue were a welcome change of tactic.

It would have been fewer keystrokes to type "You're right"


Mmm-Hmmm... I'd wonder why you espouse your view except I already know where your radio is tuned over lunch.

The $330B coincidentally matches the yearly cut agreed to earlier this year by the GOP anyway. Remember? The one where the Dems wiggled out of giving up much of any cuts to non-defense discretionary spending? So the GOP simply extend the same cuts they agreed to this year for the next 10 years, but this time instead of broken promises by the Dems, they have a bare minimum trigger which requires equal amounts of non-defense spending cuts if a deal isn't reached.

You keep failing to mention that if that trigger with the $600B defense cuts goes into play, it also requires $600B non-defense cuts. The GOP is more than willing to allow the defense cuts if this time it actually means we cut the non-defense stuff for once. The fall back is literally a better deal than the GOP has been able to get out of the Dems ever. That's why the Dems don't like it.

The GOP doesn't like it not so much because of the spending cuts to defense (that's really a strawman the left uses to claim that the GOP likes to spend too!), but that the super committee recommendations might include tax rate changes which the GOP is strongly opposed to. The position they really care about it that we should not raise taxes. Period. Everything else is negotiable.





That's a joke and you know it. There was no $4.3T plan Joph. Obama presented a vague set of ideas, guessed it would save X amount of money and never bothered to follow up on it even to the point of writing enough down to be scored. Which kinda goes to the whole point of him being a weak leader.


Obama talks a great talk, but fails to walk the walk. And after a few years, the public has realized this.

Which non-defense cuts? IIRC, there were only a few billion in non-defense cuts agreed to as a result of the discretionary budget negotiations earlier this year. Anything is going to be more than what we got then.



Really? He wrote a proposed bill? He had a member of his party submit it? It was scored by the CBO? Do you have a cite for this?

Oh wait! You were talking about the Biden stuff which went nowhere and which no one who wasn't slavishly following liberal blogs paid much mind to? I'm sorry, but when were they ever even remotely close to any deal, much less one with 4.3T in cuts? Oh wait! They weren't.

It was liberal PR Joph. Everyone but you apparently realized this.

You're kidding, right? How about you write our a real, complete and cited post detailing the 4.3T debt deal you mentioned earlier and which I said was just a PR stunt by the left.

You're the one who made a big deal about this other plan which would have been so much better for everyone. Yet when I challenge you on this, you insist that I provide sources? Really? LOL!!!

You made the claim Joph. You back it up. If you can't, then I'll happily place just as much weight on your whole "They should have gone with the 4.3T deal" as it deserves: None.

So... can't do it, huh? That's fine. Let me know when you learn something.

Still getting your news from nowhere

See, I'm not interested in trying to prove things to you because past threads have shown that you'll just say "Oh no! That's not true! Those are just, um, like ultra-liberal sources and stuff!" before going back to your spoonfed talking points.

So when you can show me that you have even a basic understanding (and are getting your news from somewhere), we'll talk. Delaying this by stomping your feet and saying you don't have to display this much won't get us any closer.