The 'cat food dozen's' default mechanism is ALL CUTS, no revenue. We will be

[grahamhgreen]

rolled over a barrel on that too.

There is no incentive for them to raise taxes on the wealthy, which is what 80% of Americans want.

It's a simple con.

[Pholus]

1. Exactly. Posters here today keep talking like somehow revenue increases will come later

They won't.

1) Boner wouldn't have made his prediction about no tax increases unless he figured "SUPERcongress" has his back because the design favors his outcome.

2) The baddies have found out we bow to pressure with ease. Prepare for yet another hostage situation.

[SugarShack]

2. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha i can't stop laughing! That will never happen. Why would it at this point?

[Pholus]

3. Your laughing, my crying... :(

[Lorien]

5. Yeah, just like the Public Option

they are either hopelessly obtuse or completely corrupt.

[grahamhgreen]

8. The Repubs on the supersized committee can do nothing and attain their goal

of cuts only.

The Dems must negotiate from weakness. The repubs will only need to buy of one Dem to have a majority.

We have lost before we begin, IMHO.

Our only hope is a filibuster.

[Creideiki]

17. Next hostage situation is 2012 budget

Can't WAIT to see what we give away this time for nothing.

[cliffordu]

4. So: you actually read the fucking thing? And come up with this??

:rofl:

[jpak]

41. !

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

6. If so, 50% of those cuts will be from the Department of Defense. ZERO CUTS TO SS/MEDICARE BENEFITS

Federal agencies will see cuts, as well as SS/Medicare providers. NO CUTS TO MANY PROGRAMS TO THE POOR.

"...because Republicans would not budge on new revenue and Democrats sought to protect entitlement programs, federal agencies would bear the brunt of the Congressional drive for deficit reduction."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us/politics/02fiscal.html?pagewanted=2&hp

[jeff47]

29. "Provider-side" medicare cuts hurt seniors just as much as benefit cuts.

It's desperate spin to claim otherwise.

[SpartanDem]

7. 850 billion in defense cuts isn't motivation?

that's gonna be tough pill for neo-cons to swallow.

[Pholus]

9. Not as tough as a revenue increase tilted towards their master, but apparently that wasn't possible.

[SpartanDem]

12. Maybe not, but it is motivation

Do you think that the GOP will live with those cuts being triggered?

[Pholus]

22. Possibly. There is a strong "stop being the world's policeman" movement in the tealiban.

Perhaps they can "starve the best" into getting their way on this too...

[ClarkUSA]

10. Exactly. Plus, no cuts until 2013 so if we win back the House, Democrats could change policy.

Of course, that means keeping the Senate and WH, too, so I hope all those who say they won't lift a finger to help the Democratic Party will consider their ultimately self-defeating stance.

[Capitalocracy]

21. They could change the policy, but that trigger is automatic.

Which means they would have to either pass whatever the committee comes up with or accept those cuts, and then theoretically reverse them, which I somehow doubt they would actually do.

If they win the House and keep the Senate and WH, reject whatever crap that committee comes up with, then reverse the triggered cuts and enact real progressive legislation that will save the economy, then I'll admit that 12-dimensional chess is looking pretty good. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. That represents the cancellation of a few programs & the layoffs

of some more engineers, technicians & office workers. I've seen this shit happen for the last 40 years.

[grahamhgreen]

13. They're cuts. Cuts only. Not taxes for the rich. That's what they wanted to start with.

And then, cuts in veterans benefits?

I suppose that will be considered a defense cut. Untenable.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. $850 billion is in the initial cuts

Not in the trigger.

The trigger has additional cuts to Defense over and above the $850 billion.

[jeff47]

30. No, it'll be easy to swallow. Wall Street has more money than defense contractors. (nt)

[killbotfactory]

14. Bush tax cuts are still set to expire

Before most of the cuts take place.

Just fyi.

[grahamhgreen]

16. Actually that happens the same day as the trigger.

[jeff47]

31. And I'm sure Obama wouldn't extend them again

After all, he promised! Just like he did before he extended them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. You may be forgetting

He made two promises with regard to tax rates:

1) No new taxes for singles under $200,000 or households under $250,000
2) Ending the Bush tax cuts for those over those limits.

The composition of Congress kept him from keeping both, since the R's in the Senate would not allow a vote on any bill that combined those two. So, he broke promise 2 in order to keep promise 1. He also got them to vote on a clean DADT Repeal bill (you may remember that they actually filibustered the Defense Authorization in order to block DADT before that deal was made), and for a UI extension.

Was it a shitty deal? Probably. Could we have done without DADT Repeal and UI extensions? I don't know. It's a question for the board.

[jeff47]

37. And the Republicans won't take hostages next time because......

Obama's demonstrated that he responds very, very well to Republican hostage taking. So they'll just take hostages again to get the tax cuts extended again.

Btw, DADT isn't an "accomplishment". DADT was ruled unconstitutional before the bill repealing it was introduced (original ruling stayed pending appeal). It's not an accomplishment to repeal a law the courts struck down.

[jpak]

42. Ummm - the GOP extended them

yup

[jeff47]

45. The GOP held the White House in 2010?

Boy, you guys are rewriting history really fast. When was Obama sworn in now?

Or are you pretending vetoes don't exist?

[killbotfactory]

46. If he vetoed extending the tax cuts, he would have had to negotiate with this congress

for stimulus funds, unemployment insurance, DADT, and everything else that happened within the last month of 2010. It would have weakened his position on these issues considerably. It would have given this congress a half dozen more issues to take hostage. It would have been stupid.

[JDPriestly]

15. Absolutely a con, and a dereliction of duty by those members of Congress

who voted to abdicate from their obligation to vote publicly and answer for their votes to their voters.

I will not vote for any member of either the House or Senate who voted or votes for this bill with its special committee.

It is unclear to me whether the meetings of this special committee will be public or closed.

We will, however, probably be able to predict from the list of appointments to the committee just what will be cut.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. You have two elements: a discussion of the mechanism, and a prediction

It's easy enough to say, "Oh, well, that will go against us too," but that's just a prediction. It's based on your understanding of the mechanism:: all cuts means no incentive to increase revenue on the front end.

People who disagree with you (like me) have a different reading of the mechanisms, and therefore a different prediction. As I see it, the structure of the committee and the character of the cuts will incentivize the GOP members to accept revenue increases rather than face cuts to programs they don't want to cut, particularly in security/defense. Moreover, the fact that many Democratic programs are completely shielded from cuts in the trigger means that the Dems are NOT incentivized to accept such cuts: you wouldn't shield SS in the trigger if you were going to cut it on the front end.

Ultimately, we disagree on a fundamental assumption: you think Republicans are FOR ALL CUTS, while I think that's a stage show, and they're for only PARTICULAR KINDS OF CUTS. As a result, you see the trigger as favorable to them because it is just cuts. I see it as unfavorable to them because it weighs cuts precisely on the programs that they have an interest in protecting (defense and farm subsidies and district specific pet projects). Ultimately, you believe the GOP when they say they want to cut government; I do not believe them at all: they need government spending as much if not more than Democrats - they just lie about it and pick and choose the kind of spending they prefer.

So, we both have readings of the Joint Committee mechanism, and predictions as to results. What will decide our difference here? Nothing but the results. Clearly, we will revisit this again around late November, when the report and legislative language comes out, and before December 23.

[Capitalocracy]

20. But what kind of cuts to military spending will they be?

Will they be cuts to contractors and fatcats who have Republicans in their pockets, or will they be cuts that affect the soldiers the Republicans claim to love so much but are willing to throw under a bus (or onto an IED) if it'll earn them a buck?

What kind of cuts are they? Where are the cuts exactly?

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. They are across the board cuts of 3% to programs in Budget Function 050

with exemptions for veteran's benefits as specified in 38 US Sec 113, which are not available to sequestration:


http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t37t40+242+0++%28%29%20%20AND

For a more detailed look at Budget Function 050, see DoD Green Book on 2012 estimates:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY12_Green_Book.pdf

[jeff47]

33. The deal doesn't specify. So if the past is any guide, they'll be mostly felt by soldiers. (nt)

[Pholus]

23. I think you underestimate their ability to accept item "b" in order to protect item "a"

a) Historically low taxes that are allowing a return to the gilded age

b) The MIC that was a huge earner for them but has more utility to the "useless eaters" than "a"

At some level, I think those at the very top are ready to transcend citizenship -- their money *is* their power -- and in that way, why would they care about a strong military?

Anyway, why I think you are misguided is that there are a lot of republicans ready to "swallow hard cuts" in the military, but there are NO republicans ready to do so on taxes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. We disagree

As I said, it will be decided in the results, not in our predictions. We can make reasonable arguments about the structure of the Joint Committee and its mechanisms. Apart from that, we're in a holding pattern.

In terms of your points, I don't rely on any sort of care about the military (although I think your description is not that accurate for all Republicans); all your points about motive could be correct, and the GOP would still have a political self-interest in avoiding the contemplated cuts.

[Pholus]

25. You're right about some things, but the point is the debate moved. The trigger does not

threaten their higher priority. Oh yes, it does threaten the military, but at some level they're already throwing out lists of what can be cut/cancelled/funded less so they are already not treating military spending as sacrosanct. Try the google.

Exploitative tax structures, on the other hand, are secure now. And they will remain secure. The 'thugs have managed to make it look like WE are holding our national defence hostage.

When the Joint Committee says "no" to any revenue increases, we say "fine the trigger will pull" and they'll cry from the rooftops that "the Dems are endangering the country to protect entitlement spending." And watch out public opinion!

If the trigger activates, it isn't the actual end of the military -- but the media will be playing it like it is.

Why are we ALWAYS a half a step behind? I thought the President was a master at this kind of stuff.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. That's your set of predictions for what will happen

We will see how it plays out.

[Pholus]

28. That we will

[jeff47]

32. You're being too clever by half

"As I see it, the structure of the committee and the character of the cuts will incentivize the GOP members to accept revenue increases rather than face cuts to programs they don't want to cut, particularly in security/defense."

You might want to catch up on the last decade of Republican politics. They stopped fearing defense cuts in the 90s. During the W administration, they proposed and enacted cuts to specific programs, the first step in embracing broad Defense cuts.

More to the point, Wall Street has a lot more money than defense contractors. So they will not raise taxes on Wall Street, even if it requires hurting defense contractors.

"Moreover, the fact that many Democratic programs are completely shielded from cuts in the trigger means that the Dems are NOT incentivized to accept such cuts: you wouldn't shield SS in the trigger if you were going to cut it on the front end."

You're assuming competent negotiation on the part of Democrats. That's an assumption without basis. Furthermore, "provider-side" Medicare cuts hurt seniors just as much as benefit cuts. Claiming otherwise is desperate spin.

"What will decide our difference here?"

The negotiating abilities of the representatives from the two parties. And after the last two years of massive Democratic capitulation, you have no logical reason to predict they will be tough negotiators in the "super-congress".

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. You have a nice set of predictions

We will see how they cash out.

[jeff47]

38. My point was to try and find out the logical basis for your predictions

But your response answered that question anyway.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. You have a set of assumptions, as do I

I've already spelled them out here and around the board.

You say the GOP is willing to cut the military. I think they are far more comfortable with their own targeted cuts than with the across the board cuts in the trigger, and they will have a devil of a time explaining their positions. That these across the board cuts will also hit farm subsidies puts further pressure on their base constituents in distric. You say they are beholden only to Wall Street. I disagree. They respond rather sensitively to defense issues and district issues on particular points, all of which are emphasized in the triggers. On that basis, they will fold.

I don't assume skillful negotiation by the Congressional Dems selected to the Joint Committee by Reid and Pelosi. I assume only that they will have particular interests, and that a number of Democratic interests that would otherwise cause them to be wary are protected in the trigger.

[jeff47]

44. So you've spent the last week unconscious?

The Republicans were never going to actually destroy the world economy. The Democrats caved anyway.

So perhaps you can answer the question you keep avoiding: Given that Democratic response to hostage taking has been complete capitulation, how do you expect them to get anything from the super-congress?

You dance around it saying "Republicans will hate the triggers". Well, Republicans also hate global financial meltdown. Yet they still took hostages and won. Next time will be different because they somehow like defense spending more than global financial meltdown?

[grahamhgreen]

36. Here's how i see it: Our starting negotiating position is revenue only, as supported by 80%

of Americans, as well as cuts to the war department, as supported by 70+% of Americans.

Very strong positions with strong support.


The commissions default has no revenue increases, so we have already given up 50%.

Then, it cuts spending across the board, not just the military as 70% of Americans would like.

Now, my side (the majority of Americans) are down to 25% of what we wanted.

So, we are entering into the 'cat food dozens' negotiations with the default being a fraction of what we want. They have no incentive to give us tax hikes on the hoarders, or deep cuts in war profiteering that exceeds 85 billion a year (on a 1.2T per year budget).


Further, they will come up with a thousand page undecipherable bill, unseen til the last minute, and ram it down our throats. No-one but the lawyers in the room will really know what's in it, but i assure you, it will not be in our best interest, IMHO.

They win. As Boner said, "I got 98% of what we wanted".

[kelly1mm]

39. Doesn't the majority of Americans want a balanced budget amendment? nt

[grahamhgreen]

43. True, but this amendment actually is a hidden "no new taxes on the rich" amendment

It will take a 2/3's vote in both houses to raise taxes on the wealthy.