NO FLAMES please, I am satisfied with the deal, here is why:

[Change Happens]

Our longterm deficit is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2020, this issue was going to come to a head sooner or later, and/or sooner AND OFTEN crippling everything else Washington can get done...etc.

Please remember that some Puke Senator (Cornyn?) had already proposed a $9 trillion in cuts as recently as this month, and the Ryan budget had called for $5.7 trillion in cuts...In this deal they are not even getting anything close to these numbers. Plus, at minimum, we keep the Bush tax cuts expiration on the table, this is a win.

Reports already out today that whatever commission they put together will have to consider taxes as an element of a balanced budget: this is not too different from Simpson-Bowles(sp) had proposed and what the gang of six have in their plan - Again, I consider this a win for us ONLY because we do have this covered in this agreement.

The president gets what we wanted, table this issue until after the 2012 elections! This is good for our country, giving our markets some stability going forward. Remember, we want stability because we want hiring to pick up...etc.

Total cuts proposed are nothing close to what the puke/teabaggers have screaming about: I heard them over and over saying that we can pay our expenses from whatever revenues we have, which we know is way WAY under what the government needs right now...So they will all have to eat shit and die for now, we are NOT going to try live within our means bla blah blah...And what they were elected on in 2010 just blew up in their faces.

Another win is the good size cuts in defense AND the fact that this deal counts on having those cuts, forcing everyone's hand in terms of truly leaving both Iraq and Afghanistan! I consider this a big win.

Finally, cutting near $3 trillion over 10 years when we have a $14-$15 trillion per year economy is not that dramatic.

Nutshell to me: Teabag Republicans, from Bachmann to Rand Paul to the so-called moderate Paul Ryan himself, all put everything on the line all year long, making the argument that that we have to learn to use whatever monies come in to pay our expenses...etc. we can't keep printing money, we can't continue to borrow, we can't afford certain programs bla blah blah - Now they lost everything they stood for in this deal.

[Blecht]

1. One does not have to read past the first sentence

To know what follows is a pile of horseshit.

"Our longterm deficit is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2020,"

Longterm projections about the debt are meaningless. Get the economy going, and debt problems disappear. It's as simple as that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Bingo

But the dumbshits in Washington don't want to do that.

IMHO, the powers that be WANT to lower our standard of living. And the are doing it incrementally. Have been for a long time.

[dgibby]

10. You're 100% correct.

Globalization is impossible as long as there's an economic disparity between 1st and 3rd world countries.

[Coyote_Bandit]

26. The ultimate end of globalization is

a single worldwide standard of living.

That means we will continue to decline.

That also means there are better opportunities elsewhere.

[Change Happens]

7. Except our economy is not going, has not in 3 years because we have structural

issues that need to be fixed and nobody is fixing them...We are looking a longterm problem.

Hate to say ot, but I am predicting near 12% unemployment by the end of 2012...I hope to god I am wrong.

[indurancevile]

39. Then the question to ask is why is no one fixing them & instead focusing on making them worse by

taking income/benefits out of the hands of ordinary people?

[girl gone mad]

50. Then the solution is to put more money into the private sector..

not to take money out of the private sector.

The public sector deficit represents a private sector surplus. When the government increases the deficit, it is increasing the amount of money available for the private sector to spend (savings). When it decreases the deficit, it reduces the amount of money available for the private sector to spend.

It's really that simple.

If you think the main problem with our economy right now is that the private sector has too much money and we're in danger of overheating, this is the plan for you.

If you think the main problem is that the private sector is deleveraging and reducing private debt levels to the point where the demand for savings is keeping unemployment high and productive investment low, this is not the plan for you.

[neverforget]

12. That's way to difficult to understand. People with jobs pay taxes? But I thought

only the "job creators" ie the wealthy elite pay taxes? At least that's what I've been told on the tee vee.

[lonestarnot]

15. +9000!

But that ain't gona happen either. :(

[woo me with science]

19. Thank you. nt

[NorthCarolina]

51. Can't beat 'em it appears. Might as well mosey on over to GD:P to be schooled

on why this is such a fantastic win for Obama.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. ugh: "this is not too different from Simpson-Bowles" - well you got that part right.

This is the mechanism for implementing the catfood commission. Oh and the 'revenue' side of that proposal - the tax side - cut rates for billionaires while eliminating middle class deductions and/or adding on new taxes to middle class taxpayers. Yes thank you sir, may I please have some more?

[Change Happens]

8. only that part of the deal.....nt

[johnd83]

3. We need to raise revenue and get unemployment down

Until we do that the whole debt debate is moot.

[AlabamaLibrul]

4. If you can't say something nice..... Just Say Unrec n/t

[South End Liberal]

6. I am not satisfied with the latest deal!

Plain and simple, the deal being bounced around on the corporate media today is that a special group of 6 (Super Congress) will meet to decide what gets cut in the 2nd round AND SOCIAL SECURITY IS ON THE TABLE!

Social Security should not even be discussed as it actually has a surplus of $2.5 TRILLION. The issue is that Congress has taken our surplus and left us with empty IOUs. What we should be discussing is who embezzled our SS money (for that's what they did) and how they will be held accountable!

This whole debt ceiling drama plays out as a win-win for the Koch brothers and other billionaires who want to see Social Security and Medicare gutted so the middle class continues it's downward economic spiral. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Since when is 'what we wanted' to table this for later?

What we wanted was tax increases on the wealthy, hands off of Social Security and Medicare. We got no increases and a commission created to do the cuts with the least political fall out for those in Congress.

[AlabamaLibrul]

11. I think OP is conflating the President's political desires (sailing into the sunset)

with the desires of the nation.

[Jack Sprat]

48. that's what i'm talking about.!! nt

[abelenkpe]

13. Cutting spending means fewer jobs

Not going to improve unemployment or revenue. Project that then tell me it's a good deal

[KarenS]

14. I'm sorry, did I miss something??

I don't know what "deal" you're talking about. Where are the details published??

[MadHound]

16. Another one who is willing to sacrifice this country for some sort of mythical political gain

These are the largest spending cuts in history. Any sane economist will tell you that enacting such draconian spending cuts(and remember, these cuts are frontloaded) will send the send the economy back over the cliff(see Krugman's comments). Thus, this deal will do major, long term damage, damage that will cause harm to millions.

As far as the possibility of tax increases, that is all it is, a vague possibility. Taking this deal means exchanging the cow for some "magic" beans, beans that will never sprout.

As far as the question about the deficit, the fact of the matter is that our debt is not the biggest problem with our economy, the lack of JOBS is our biggest problem. And the only way we're going to solve that problem is with a massive WPA style jobs program. Which means spending money.

Austerity programs don't save economies, that has been proven time and again. At best they stagnate an economy, at worst, they sink it.

So I suggest that you start considering the ramifications of such harsh cuts will have on our economy rather than putting political gains first and foremost. I also suggest that you learn some basic economics.

[marions ghost]

20. +++++

Even I get it*...and I did NOT do well in Econ 101.

Krugman makes sense to me.

*that the deal sucks

[WinkyDink]

23. Obama is being persuaded by the global destruction of nation-states by banksters. He thinks cuts

in spending and social programs is the wave of the future, not part of "the battles of the 60's."

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. Ah. You weren't wearing your flame-retardant suit.

[Enrique]

18. this is a conservative argument

you're saying massive spending cuts will help the economy. If I thought that, I would be for it. But I don't think it will, I think the opposite. I might be wrong. If I am wrong, if this helps the economy, then I will be happy and I will switch party affiliations because their philosophy will have been proven right. I don't expect this to happen.

[KittyWampus]

22. And yet I'll bet you've called for cutting military spending. For allowing Medicare to bargain drug

prices etc. Which all equals spending cuts.

[WinkyDink]

25. Letting Medicare lower the price of drugs is a "spending cut"? It's called "Then having extra $$."

[Change Happens]

28. You are right, cuts will hurt the economy, but I do not consider these MASSIVE cuts

over the 10 years, and they will not all come in on Monday, only $1 trillion of it is something they think they can get done in the short term.

I honesly think we needed to discuss this sooner or later...

[Bluebear]

21. No flames my liberal ass! Nt

[B Calm]

24. We don't need to cut spending. We need to increase revenues, A good

place to start would be to go after tariffs, thus protecting US manufacturing jobs and collecting revenue at the same time.

[gulliver]

27. I tend to agree

The deal has a lot going for it. The Tea Party will vote against it unanimously, and the Republican party rift will widen.

Everyone has seen the Tea/Republican party drag the country through a trauma. With the election happening just before the next debt ceiling raise date, the Dems can ask Independents, "Do you really want to go through that again?" He can also ask them to imagine what might have happened if there had been more Tea Partiers in Congress.

The people who want tax revenues raised from the rich have a way to get that done. Vote. The Bush Tax Cuts expire right after the election too. Going to be a wing ding.

[Change Happens]

29. "The Tea Party will vote against it unanimously, and the Republican party rift will widen."

This in itself is a big win for all the sane people...A great point.

[flamingdem]

30. kick for balance nt

[Autumn]

31. No flames here, but don't flame me

I am not satisfied with the deal. We have got to get the economy going ,we need revenues. This will not do it.

[Change Happens]

32. Agreed 100%, but there is nothing happening to get our economy

going, nothing at all...This was a detour in a way!

[sendero]

33. Without revenue side enhancements..

.. this deal is a FAIL and there is no point in trying to spin it otherwise.

[Change Happens]

34. From what we know so far, taxes will increase on Jan. 1, 2013 :)

Bush Tax cuts are on schedule to expire and they are not part of this deal (to keep them).

And as mentioned in my OP, whatever commission is put together will have to consider taxes as part of an overall balanced budget or a deficit plan...etc.

[sendero]

44. They will expire...

.. if we elect a different Dem president. This president isn't going to do it and certainly no Republican will.

So good luck with that.

[Change Happens]

35. See more detailed update here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1621280&mesg_id=1621280

[moondust]

36. "use whatever monies come in"

If the Teapublicans had their way there wouldn't be any monies coming in, at least not from them.

In the context of the lowest tax rates in 60 years, some corporations making BILLIONS in profits each quarter but not paying any taxes, and millions of would-be taxpayers unable to find work and therefore unable to pay taxes, the idea of not raising taxes on fat cats and corporatinos as part of the solution is ludicrous.

[spanone]

37. i may too when it's a done deal. until then i can't endorse what i don't know

[Maru Kitteh]

46. That's where I am too. nt

[demwing]

38. If I begin negotiations by taking a hammer to my opponent's knuckles

and in the end, am reduced to only being able to smack him in the face, repeatedly, is that a win? For him?

I suppose it is, if he doesn't (SLAP) mind (SLAP) the stinging (SLAP)(SLAP)(SLAP)

[customerserviceguy]

40. There are a lot of 'if's' here

First, I'm not convinced that this will pass in the House. McConnell and the President were in on it, leaving Boehner out of it. Also, the tea party is not thrilled with either McConnell or Boehner, even though they're willing to not trash them as much as they do the President at this point in time.

Plus, the whole "kick the can down the road" thing means we'll be revisiting this debate at the end of the year. Look for the uncertainty created in the meantime to keep holiday spending and hiring down, and employment prospects deferred until at least January, 2012. In the meantime, millions will run out of unemployment, joining the millions who already have.

We need an end to uncertainty, as much as we can get, not just a deferral of the problem to a future date.

[Angry Dragon]

41. ................

:thumbsdown:

[Dappleganger]

42. Hope that R koolaide is worth it to you.

Because you have drunk it to the nasty bottom.

[Imajika]

43. If this were the end of the deficit conversation you'd be right...

Unfortunately, it's just the beginning. The real budget battle begins in September, and because the Senate hasn't passed an actual budget in over 2 years we may be at a PR disadvantage - at least initially.

This deal won't even be enough to satisfy the ratings agencies. Yes, we avoid default - but that was never going to be allowed to happen anyway.

What this has done is drive the issue of deficit reduction to the top of the agenda for the rest of the President's first term (unless something huge and dramatic happens in the world anyway). Instead of talking about stimulus and jobs programs, we will be yammering on endlessly about deficit reduction.

Your right about one thing though, the cuts are not all that much. 1 trillion seems big, but the only cuts that actually matter are the ones in 2012 and they are peanuts (about 5-10 billion). Every years new budget can and will override anything agreed to in the out-years in this agreement. As for the rest of the cuts? LOL. I will believe it when I see it. I bet they never happen as proposed - even with a trigger. Gotta remember, Congress and the President can just agree to a new law overriding anything they've passed before.

"This is good for our country, giving our markets some stability going forward. Remember, we want stability because we want hiring to pick up...etc."

Ahh, the stability card ;) Considered nonsense when the Republicans claim business/markets needs stability, and shouted from the rooftops when we think it's a useful, focus group tested phrase to throw around.

What we really lost here is control of the debate. The teabaggers have managed to change the debate in this country into one about austerity. The good news if there is any? Austerity isn't a very popular message to run elections on.

[Logical]

45. Until we see the cuts how can you make that statement? n-t

[Maru Kitteh]

47. I rec'd this pretty much based on your courage to say it alone. I don't know how I feel yet

because the deal isn't done yet.

[Change Happens]

49. I am starting to feel even more optimistic...Things are rolling along just fine!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1622859