Serious Question.....what did the GOP give up in this debt deal?

[Logical]

I am posting this in GDP because I think there are many more pro-Obama supporters here. I want an honest discussion.

It seems to me the GOP now knows there will be no tax increases on the rich until 2013. One of their goals because it means rich donors are happy for the general election for them.

They also got huge spending cuts that means no job gains at the least and in the worst case job losses and more bad economic news all the way up until the election.

Their goal the last 2 years is to tank the economy and this seems like it played into their hands 100%.

Maybe we had not choice if you believe their bluff, but how did this benefit the progressive movement at all and how did it hurt the GOP/Teabagger movement at all?

Thanks!

[FSogol]

1. They didn't get to completely destroy the US economy. They'll keep trying though. n/t

[COLGATE4]

16. Until November of this year, that is...

[Dad Infinitum]

2. A lot of people are defending this deal as something good for Democrats

I have yet to hear a single one say WHAT is in it that is so good for Democrats

[Logical]

3. That is why I asked. I really want an answer from someone who is 100% pro-Obama. n-t

[Recursion]

5. What's good for us is different from what's bad for Republicans

What's good for us is:

1) The tax cut expiration was disentangled from the negotiation (IMO they should all expire; the middle class tax cuts are about 5 times as expensive as the upper class tax cuts and we can't really afford any of them)
2) Defense spending was "cut" (but see my post below about how none of these cuts actually mean anything)
3) SS and Medicaid are exempt from triggered automatic spending cuts, and most of the Medicare cuts are cost controls that were already part of health care reform

[Recursion]

4. Any actual reduction in spending or realistic attempt to decrease long-term debt

The "cuts" agreed to are in future discretionary spending, which it's not within the current Congress's power to set -- all they've done is expressed a sincere hope that future Congresses will only spend a certain amount. They also gave up any leverage on the expiration of the tax cuts.

This happens every decade or so: Congress makes phony "cuts" to future discretionary spending (which later Congresses simply ignore) and appoints a commission which will make similar phony "cuts" to future discretionary spending. It's like me balancing my checkbook by saying "if I don't go to the bar next weekend, I'll save a lot of money".

The only politician who has done anything about future deficits is Obama through Health Care Reform.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. they wanted a balanced budget amendment-

they wanted to make massive cuts to 'entitlements'. are two things I can think of right off the bat. As much as they said they always intended to increase the "debt limit" I personally think they were prepared to tank the economy to destroy this administration.
They didn't get anywhere near the spending cuts that they had wanted. They also have to deal with cuts to the beloved 'defense' budget-

How did it hurt them? They can't pretend that "they" really care about the most vulnerable anymore- or that they don't have responsibility for the way things are in this country. The polls have expressed deep anger at both houses of congress, despite the media's focus on the Democrats.

Their 'base' is pretty pissed- look at what they're pissed about, that should tell what they feel was 'given up'.

[COLGATE4]

17. They know as well as anybody that they will NEVER get a

Balanced Budget Amendment, so that first part is just bullshit. As to preserving entitlements, all we got was a temporary reprieve until November when the 'Super Committee' makes its 'take it or leave it' recommendations. Any bets as to whether there will be entitlement cuts in that little beauty? (BTW, if you believe that there will NOT be any, I've got some dandy beachfront property in Nebraska to sell you).

[Bluerthanblue]

22. well, many of us knew as well as anybody that

we'd never have gotten single-payer universal health care, but that doesn't mean we're not disappointed that we DIDN'T get it.

As for the cuts to entitlements, any cuts to entitlements will be balanced by cuts to defense as I understand the bill.

The OP didn't ask what realistic things the republicans didn't get- it asked what they didn't get that they wanted.

There are many people on our side who are angry about things we had no chance of getting either- that doesn't mean we didn't want them- nor does it stop us from being angry that we couldn't get them.

Never been to Nebraska, and haven't got any money to by anything except the bare necessities. Thanks for the offer though- (does Nebraska not have any lakes?)

:hi:

[treestar]

7. If you ever want to be winning

Read the other side's media. Then you will see.

For example:

http://www.youtube.com/user/catoinstitutevideo?ob=5#p/u/9/we5FUR1Opc0

[bowens43]

8. nothing.....nt

[tridim]

9. They gave up the chance to beat Obama next year.

Which is their only goal. Destroying the country was just a means to that end.

[Raine1967]

10. Facts and Myths:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/myths-and-facts-about-debt-ceiling-compromise?utm_source=email125&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=deficit

[Logical]

11. Nothing in there looks like it hurt the GOP! Nothing! n-t

[Kolesar]

14. "Ensuring that House Republicans could not use the threat of default in just a few months to force"

"... severe cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

[Logical]

15. So we just delayed the black mail and the GOP has the market tanking now! They are unhappy how?

[Kolesar]

26. "could not" does not mean "delay"

apparently, you did not read the "myths and facts" blog
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/myths-and-facts-about-debt-ceiling-compromise?utm_source=email125&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=deficit

[Dawgs]

21. Uh, the only person pushing cuts in entitlement programs was the President. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Large cuts to defense spending

[jeff47]

24. No, that's the threat that's supposed to keep the R's at the table.

Considering they'll spin it as "Obama and the Democrats hate the troops!!!", it's not much of a threat.

[golfguru]

13. They gave up chance to hold nation hostage BEFORE 2012 elections

[jeff47]

23. Holding the country hostage made them look terrible.

We'd want them to do that right before an election.

[golfguru]

31. Then you and the president differ on that n/t

[jeff47]

32. Yep. And my approval rating isn't tanking. (nt)

[flamingdem]

27. Good point, they would have created chaos over that nt

[Fire1]

18. What spending cuts? n/t

[Sheepshank]

19. Their darling is very much on the line...military spending

Not too long and a pretty good perspective and idea of how this is actually to be implemented...and it's real political implications http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-deal-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

....The CBO baseline already assumes that the Bush Era tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. The spending levels for 2013 include the additional revenue from those cuts expiring. If Republicans want to extend those tax cuts (which are considered spending), they will have to make cuts to the budget to offset every penny. They won’t have the political control needed to do that before the end of 2012, even if the President loses his office and they take control of the Senate, as the cuts expire in 2012, and a new administration and Congress would not be seated until January 2013.

So, unless Republicans want to try to pass an extension along with offsetting cuts during an election year, those cuts will expire. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already said he will not allow the issue to come to a vote, and the President has vowed he will veto it. So if Republicans want to extend those cuts, they will have to come up with $4T in spending cuts to offset the tax cuts. To make it more difficult still, the deal makes it clear that those cuts must come in a 50/50 ratio between defense and non-defense spending, with Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, civilian and military retirement off the table. Medicare cuts would only come from the provider side, not the individual.

Now, take that in for a minute. If Republicans want to extend the tax cuts, they will need to cut an equal amount out of spending, with half of that coming from defense spending. Half. This is in addition to the $350B that are already being cut as part of this deal. To get their tax cuts, Republicans would have to slash another $2T from defense spending............

[ProSense]

20. Here

is information from the WH site.

[grahamhgreen]

25. It's all cuts, no revenue. FAIL.

[great white snark]

30. "The deal lays out two paths for further reducing our deficit. Both of them include revenues."

Did you FAIL to read it correctly?

[grahamhgreen]

35. "The deal did not include any revenue increases now, but it does lay out a path over thin ice

that may possibly result in some revenue increases on the obesely wealthy provided the President does not lobby for the Republican position, one Dem on the committee is not enticed to vote with the R's, and money is allocated to build a new skating rink in hell."

At the end of the day, my guess is we will all be calling our rep's, begging that they do not pass the cat-food extreme bill and only have to live with across the board cuts.

And finally allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

I really wish you guys would listen to us BEFORE half of the Dems in congress are forced to vote against the Dem President. Next time, he may only have R's on his side.

[JoePhilly]

28. They gave up a default and cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Take a second and think about what the GOP's long term goal is. And its not the simplistic goal of helping the rich that you suggest.

They have one major goal. That goal is to make the Federal government unable to function. If they do that, they can kill the EPA, the DOE, FEMA, on and on and on ...

That's why they block everything, filibuster everything, block all appointments.

They were not bluffing. Many of them would HAPPILY default.

You are correct, they want to tank the economy ... and in 2010, as we on the left fought each others, the GOP created a crazy base who voted in 2010. The left spent its time complaining, and telling low information voters that "Obama is BAd".

The GOP also tells the low information voter that "Obama is bad".

Since that is the only message the low information hears "Obama BAD" ... what do you think they will do?

Those who lean right will vote against him ... those who lean left, will be discouraged and stay home.

Also ... the GOP already knew that the Bush tax cuts for the rich can't expire until 2013, after all, in November 2010, the GOP took the House ... and so they were NEVER going away before 2013.

[FrenchieCat]

29. They wanted the US to Default......

That was the whole point of holding the default hostage.

What they got, ain't exactly what the ransom note demanded...
tell you that!

[Control-Z]

33. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1663946

[GOPBasher]

34. They didn't get to gut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and they had to accept huge military cuts. n/t