Reid: "The Only Compromise There Is, Is Mine"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/29/reid_the_only_compromise_there_is_is_mine.html

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

lol, tool

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

God, we need the People's Budget. It'll never pass the corporatist establishment, though.

[Torie]

Reid mouths off too much. Why doesn't he take a hint from McConnell that less is more?  I mean the House Pubbies could say that the Reid plan is DOA in the House every day too. What does that accomplish?  One thing that I do hope is that the Reid phony cuts as to the wars are not counted, and if he wants to avoid another vote before the election, he needs to come up with more real cuts. Simple isn't it?  If Harry says no, then I think the Pubs will have the high ground. It is always about framing the terms of battle in a way that gives your team the advantage. That has been what is going on since day one. It is just one great PR battle. The PR battle however is coming to the end. It was fun, but now it is time to choose.

[memphis]

If ending W's disasterous wars isn't a "real" cut, then ending the equally disasterous tax cuts isn't a "real" tax hike. Do them both.

[NVGonzalez]

Well... he is right. Though I agree that we need the people's budget.

[Torie]

If ending W's disasterous wars isn't a "real" cut, then ending the equally disasterous tax cuts isn't a "real" tax hike. Do them both.

The issue is what the rating agencies think is real. They are not interested in political rhetoric.

[Marston]

Reid's plan isn't a compromise. It's a total cave-in that neither completes the underlying objective of averting a budget bust or strengthens the economy in the interim. Same goes for Boehner's loony proposal.

[anvi]

Genuine question--I don't know nor am implying any pre-conceived answer, but am merely asking the question.

I realize that the so-called Peace Dividend, which would accompany the winding down of the wars anyway, is not something Republicans are inclined to see as a long-term budget cut.  But why would credit rating agencies not take the cutbacks in spending that result from winding down these wars into account at all?  After all, it's government spending, coming partially through taxes and partly through borrowing, and the funding gets appropriated through DOD as well as granted in lump-sums through so-called "flexible" and "special purpose" accounts.  The less the government spends, the less it has to borrow.  So, why would these wind-downs be utterly irrelevant to the credit agencies?  What is the distinction that they apply to differentiate between a presumably "fake" and "real" budget cut?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

How about this:

There shouldn't be a debt crisis. For purely political reasons, the GOP has created a massive situation over a routine vote, held the country by the fire, and let the Democrats ignore the real crisis of unemployment, poverty, and inequality.

[Torie]

Genuine question--I don't know nor am implying any pre-conceived answer, but am merely asking the question.

I realize that the so-called Peace Dividend, which would accompany the winding down of the wars anyway, is not something Republicans are inclined to see as a long-term budget cut.  But why would credit rating agencies not take the cutbacks in spending that result from winding down these wars into account at all?  After all, it's government spending, coming partially through taxes and partly through borrowing, and the funding gets appropriated through DOD as well as granted in lump-sums through so-called "flexible" and "special purpose" accounts.  The less the government spends, the less it has to borrow.  So, why would these wind-downs be utterly irrelevant to the credit agencies?  What is the distinction that they apply to differentiate between a presumably "fake" and "real" budget cut?

Because they already assumed those "cuts" would be made in the ordinary course, per Obama's policy, and the emerging consensus that we cannot afford to engage in nation building anymore, because we are broke. This is why. And it was something that the ratings guy actually sort of said on the tube to boot. The rating agencies want 4 trillion more on top of that.

[Beet]

He's right.

The Boehner plan is a not a compromise. It is an attempt at blackmail.

[J. J.]

Well... he is right. Though I agree that we need the people's budget.

That is why we are in this mess, too many "People's Budgets."

We really should look at cuts and an income tax increase, possibly with a cap gains/corporate tax cut.

[memphis]

If ending W's disasterous wars isn't a "real" cut, then ending the equally disasterous tax cuts isn't a "real" tax hike. Do them both.

The issue is what the rating agencies think is real. They are not interested in political rhetoric.

Your claim that ending two expensive wars isn't a "real" cut in gov't expenditures is beyond political rhetoric. It's willful disregard for the truth. And I'm sure the rating agencies think it's hilarious that the GOP is playing chicken with the debt limit to bend policy their way.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your claim that ending two expensive wars isn't a "real" cut in gov't expenditures is beyond political rhetoric. It's willful disregard for the truth. And I'm sure the rating agencies think it's hilarious that the GOP is playing chicken with the debt limit to bend policy their way.

dude, get a leg, everyone knows the pullout depends on things beyond the control of congress...if obama pulls them out then they are out, if obama leaves them in, congress will fund the troops

[memphis]

Your claim that ending two expensive wars isn't a "real" cut in gov't expenditures is beyond political rhetoric. It's willful disregard for the truth. And I'm sure the rating agencies think it's hilarious that the GOP is playing chicken with the debt limit to bend policy their way.

dude, get a leg, everyone knows the pullout depends on things beyond the control of congress...if obama pulls them out then they are out, if obama leaves them in, congress will fund the troops

Iraq's done. We spent a trillion dollars there, more or less, over the last 8 years. That's a trillion dollars we could have spent on anything else (paying down the debt if that's your thing) We're no longer going to do that. Money was going out. It no longer will be. That's a cut in expenditures. There's nothing "phony" about it except that it was an expense the GOP wanted.

[Bull Moose Base]

Genuine question--I don't know nor am implying any pre-conceived answer, but am merely asking the question.

I realize that the so-called Peace Dividend, which would accompany the winding down of the wars anyway, is not something Republicans are inclined to see as a long-term budget cut.  But why would credit rating agencies not take the cutbacks in spending that result from winding down these wars into account at all?  After all, it's government spending, coming partially through taxes and partly through borrowing, and the funding gets appropriated through DOD as well as granted in lump-sums through so-called "flexible" and "special purpose" accounts.  The less the government spends, the less it has to borrow.  So, why would these wind-downs be utterly irrelevant to the credit agencies?  What is the distinction that they apply to differentiate between a presumably "fake" and "real" budget cut?

Because they already assumed those "cuts" would be made in the ordinary course, per Obama's policy, and the emerging consensus that we cannot afford to engage in nation building anymore, because we are broke. This is why. And it was something that the ratings guy actually sort of said on the tube to boot. The rating agencies want 4 trillion more on top of that.

There's a similarity between S&P and the GOP here as I see it.  If S&P were to downgrade because the debt wasn't cut enough, our debt would go up.  It's also a paradox to move from "You have a couple years to real a deal to cut 4 trillion" (their recent position) to "You have to do it now" (their more recent position) because watching this particular congress has made you pessimistic a deal can be made.  There is always the chance elections will sort it all out.  Besides which, gridlock on tax reform could actually help cut the debt.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Ouch... what a terrible thing to say.  He's somewhat right, the House GOP's plan is too conservative to pass (and the GOP needs to realize that they only control a quarter of the process), but the way he worded that makes him look like the bad guy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your claim that ending two expensive wars isn't a "real" cut in gov't expenditures is beyond political rhetoric. It's willful disregard for the truth. And I'm sure the rating agencies think it's hilarious that the GOP is playing chicken with the debt limit to bend policy their way.

dude, get a leg, everyone knows the pullout depends on things beyond the control of congress...if obama pulls them out then they are out, if obama leaves them in, congress will fund the troops

Iraq's done. We spent a trillion dollars there, more or less, over the last 8 years. That's a trillion dollars we could have spent on anything else (paying down the debt if that's your thing) We're no longer going to do that. Money was going out. It no longer will be. That's a cut in expenditures. There's nothing "phony" about it except that it was an expense the GOP wanted.

and if there is another war during the next 10 years?...we dont count the expense of wars in long term budget projections because wars are unpredictable

[BigSkyBob]

If ending W's disasterous wars isn't a "real" cut, then ending the equally disasterous tax cuts isn't a "real" tax hike. Do them both.

The issue is what the rating agencies think is real. They are not interested in political rhetoric.

Your claim that ending two expensive wars isn't a "real" cut in gov't expenditures is beyond political rhetoric. It's willful disregard for the truth.

What is "willful disregard for the truth" is the notion that if Obama decides we should stay in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya longer than anticipated some show vote in the Senate will force him to leave against his better judgment.

Before the vote, our policy has been we will stay as long, and spend as much as Bush/Obama deem approporate. After the vote, our policy will be to stay as long, and spend as much as Bush/Obama deem appropriate. How can no actual change in policy be scored a "cut?"

How about the real spending cut of stop bombing Libya tomorrow?

You must be logged in to read this quote.