GOP And Dems Get Together On A BS Budget

[jamil]

If conservatives scuttle the deal, what's the endgame? They didn't have an endgame last time. They always cave because they put themselves in the position where they have to cave. Obama puts himself into the position where doing nothing results in a default win.

Republicans only won the sequester battle because that time, doing nothing resulted in a default win for them. And they almost ****ed that up until it finally occurred to them that they win by doing nothing. This time, the default is shutting the government down again, and with zero bargaining power, they'll be forced to cave again.

Being idealistic for the sake of ideology may make you feel all justified inside. But consuming that addictive dose of ideological indignation is not a substitute for achieving an overall goal. It turns out ideology by itself isn't a fruitful strategy.

A better strategy right now is to play for a tie while you don't have the power, and play for the win when you do. In the mean time, help the wealth redistributors hang themselves with their own ideology so that you can eventually get the power on your side.

All you ideologues talk a good game, but when are you actually going to achieve anything?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hornadyl, MrJarrell, you guys are right about the fact that both parties will spend until we go bankrupt if we let them, because both of the lifelong members of congress have learned to line their pockets with every bill. Term limits would likely reduce this sort of back scratching. There should also be a law that, when the government is deficit spending, they cannot add any more government programs, especially ones that cost trillions like Obamacare.

What I continue to disagree with you about is the Tea Party. They stand primarily for reducing government spending, and smaller government roles in our lives, which are the same philosophies you espouse. Yet you slander them as wingnuts at every turn. They are the best hope we have at getting a handle on this run away government, and you should support them, whether they have an L or an R designation. If you hate them because the religious Right is involved, I don't understand why you cannot ignore minor issues that you disagree with (i.e. right to life), and look at the big picture. Allies are allies, and all alliances have always been imperfect. We can argue about the minutiae AFTER the progressives are defeated!

Good post.

 

[rambone]

“If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.” -- John Boehner

See guys? The status quo is fiscally reasonable. Ha. Ha. Ha.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If conservatives scuttle the deal, what's the endgame? They didn't have an endgame last time. They always cave because they put themselves in the position where they have to cave. Obama puts himself into the position where doing nothing results in a default win.

Republicans only won the sequester battle because that time, doing nothing resulted in a default win for them. And they almost ****ed that up until it finally occurred to them that they win by doing nothing. This time, the default is shutting the government down again, and with zero bargaining power, they'll be forced to cave again.

Being idealistic for the sake of ideology may make you feel all justified inside. But consuming that addictive dose of ideological indignation is not a substitute for achieving an overall goal. It turns out ideology by itself isn't a fruitful strategy.

A better strategy right now is to play for a tie while you don't have the power, and play for the win when you do. In the mean time, help the wealth redistributors hang themselves with their own ideology so that you can eventually get the power on your side.

All you ideologues talk a good game, but when are you actually going to achieve anything?

I think it was Charles Krautheimer that said libertarianism is a good idea but is a lousy platform from which to govern...or something like that. I like to poke fun at them even though we agree, to varying degrees, on a great many things. But at least from the stuff I read here, I agree with CK, I can see why they're incapable of attracting more than 1% of the vote or generate alliances.

 

[mrjarrell]

If conservatives scuttle the deal, what's the endgame? They didn't have an endgame last time. They always cave because they put themselves in the position where they have to cave. Obama puts himself into the position where doing nothing results in a default win.

An acceptable endgame would be a balanced budget that cuts spending across the board. Of course the gop and their supporters will have none of that. Deficit spending is honky dory as long as their pet projects get funded.

 

[squirrelhntr]

Hornadyl, MrJarrell, you guys are right about the fact that both parties will spend until we go bankrupt if we let them, because both of the lifelong members of congress have learned to line their pockets with every bill. Term limits would likely reduce this sort of back scratching. There should also be a law that, when the government is deficit spending, they cannot add any more government programs, especially ones that cost trillions like Obamacare.

What I continue to disagree with you about is the Tea Party. They stand primarily for reducing government spending, and smaller government roles in our lives, which are the same philosophies you espouse. Yet you slander them as wingnuts at every turn. They are the best hope we have at getting a handle on this run away government, and you should support them, whether they have an L or an R designation. If you hate them because the religious Right is involved, I don't understand why you cannot ignore minor issues that you disagree with (i.e. right to life), and look at the big picture. Allies are allies, and all alliances have always been imperfect. We can argue about the minutiae AFTER the progressives are defeated!

HERE HERE. "United We Stand Divided We Fall". to govern a God less society is like tryin to play hockey on lake Michigan. good luck with that

 

[jamil]

An acceptable endgame would be a balanced budget that cuts spending across the board. Of course the gop and their supporters will have none of that. Deficit spending is honky dory as long as their pet projects get funded.

That's not an endgame, that's a goal. The endgame is how you go about achieving it. The goal is what you want to achieve. In this political climate, that goal is unachievable. Seems to me a more effective way to achieve that goal is to play for a tie until they gain enough political capital, and then play for the win.

But as it is, the House/Senate conservatives' only strategy seems to be forcing showdown after showdown that they're never prepared to win.

 

[kehrhit]

Sorry, net, but there's no deal on my side where the TEA Party is concerned anymore. They started out with my wholehearted support for their stances on limiting government and lowering taxes, but they've decided that jeebus, statism and the religious right are more important to them than liberty, smaller government and lower taxes. That's a non starter for me. If they had maintained their stance on social issues (having no stance on them) that they began with then they'd still have my support, but I've seen, right here in Indiana and across the nation, what they've become and I, (and most libertarians I know) want nothing to do with them. Add in the fact that they let themselves be co-opted by the likes of Beck, Armey and the gop and I have no use for them. Hell, even here in Indiana the TEA Party got taken over by statist religious right dolts and drove out the libertarians and many others who were there from day 1. If they ever decide to go back to their roots, I might change my mind on them, till then...screw 'em. They're part of the problem, now.

Agreed, but I think it was takeover/rebrand by design. The powers that be saw the tea party as a legitimate threat then went all out to kill it.

 

[Birds Away]

I just wish some of the Repubs who do the negotiating worked in gun stores. They wouldn't be in business long but I would want to make a deal or two before they went under.

 

[jamil]

Agreed, but I think it was takeover/rebrand by design. The powers that be saw the tea party as a legitimate threat then went all out to kill it.

No, I think it was a more natural phenomenon. People like Glen Beck saw the tea party's initial success and wanted to pile all their peeves on that bandwagon.

 

[gstanley102]

'This is probably a good strategy move on Ryan's part. We do get 23 billion over ten years, a drop in the bucket but still... The GOP couldn't afford a fight on this going into 2014. The Dems would demonize then into the election season (See: Susan Fluke, etc.) Personally, I grant Ryan sainthood for being able to work with the dim witted socialist Murray.

So why claim 23 bil over ten years is a good deal?
Why bother with non cuts at all?
This is business as usual.

Ryan's off my Christmas list.

 

[jamil]

So why claim 23 bil over ten years is a good deal?
Why bother with non cuts at all?
This is business as usual.

Ryan's off my Christmas list.

The deficit reduction isn't more than a rounding error, but even that is technically greater than a tie. With this legislative climate, I'd take that just to keep the press talking about how much Obamacare sucks. I imagine the President would love to have the media talk about another Republican induced government shutdown.

 

[BtG]

Just another classic example of why I am no longer supporting Republicans. Vote Libertarian.

 

[gstanley102]

The deficit reduction isn't more than a rounding error, but even that is technically greater than a tie. With this legislative climate, I'd take that just to keep the press talking about how much Obamacare sucks. I imagine the President would love to have the media talk about another Republican induced government shutdown.

According to CBO report, eliminating the sequester will cost 80 to 90 bil.
Where's the reduction?

 

[jamil]

According to CBO report, eliminating the sequester will cost 80 to 90 bil.
Where's the reduction?

What's been reported isn't supposed to be a complete revocation of the sequester, just parts of it which are said to be paid for by other cuts. The result wasn't billed as a spending reduction. It was billed as a deficit reduction, albeit a slight one.

After 5 years experiencing Democratic rule, if you think a better deal can be struck, I'd like to hear your strategy.

 

[gstanley102]

The problem is we are watching many Republicans morph into Democrats.

The Republicans have convinced themselves the so called shut down was bad for them.

They have convinced themselves that they cannot beat the Democrats.

I think it was Henry Ford that said, "If you say you can't, or if you say you can, you're right."

The way I see it is they didn't even attempt a better deal.

Now what we've got is more of what got us here.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

 

[Twangbanger]

I think the Pubs are just afraid of endangering their majority chances. And I guess I'd be inclined to agree with the strategy somewhat, if I were confident of what they'd do with that majority - if and when they get it.

If only controlling one chamber of one branch achieved the incredible, unbelieveable, never-before-seen-in-our-lifetime goal of real spending cuts...but to gain two chambers of that one branch requires rescinding those cuts...what the hell's the point of getting that majority? I don't see the Senate being the origin of anything that will ever shrink government, so why grow government to get control of it?

I agree with playing for a tie until we can win. Tea Party obstruction of the House and the Sequester are a pretty good definition of a tie to me. It's the "win" part that bothers me. What constitutes a "win" to Senate Republicans? Is it just controlling the purse-strings of government, so they can slather up their interests? If that's what they have in mind...I'd rather just keep what we have.

Nah, I say keep the a-hole Senate Republicans rotting away and watching helplessly in the Senate minority, while people who better represent us run the House and Starve the Beast. But, since we've given up our Ace card, I guess we have no choice but to go for the win now, knowing full well we will be declared the enemy and will be able to do nothing with that trophy when we win it.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like Ryan and his cohorts have made it easier for the senate to pass spending bills, too. They made it so a simple majority is all that's needed now. What a dolt.

Jeff Sessions: House GOP Didn't Understand Budget Deal Makes It Easier to Spend, Tax

 

[gstanley102]

Looks like Ryan and his cohorts have made it easier for the senate to pass spending bills, too. They made it so a simple majority is all that's needed now. What a dolt.

Jeff Sessions: House GOP Didn't Understand Budget Deal Makes It Easier to Spend, Tax

They didn't need to do that. There isn't enough oposition in the Senate now.

 

[gstanley102]

Just read on the Heritage site that this great deal increases discretionary spending
by 45 billion in 2014 and 18 billion in 2015. In return we get non existant cuts in spending
in 10 years.

What a deal!
Is it any wonder the Dems think it's a great deal?
Why do the Repubnuts think it's a great deal?