Skip to main content

All the Republicans are slapping themselves on the back on what a great deal they got, and all of the Democrats are waving their hands in frustration. Ah we lost, Obama is so terrible, etc.

But maybe not. Remember the government shutdown threatened in 2011? There, a last minute budget deal was also made. If you looked closely at the details, that deal did not deliver anywhere near the cuts that Republicans claim.

How about the debt deal? check out this article by Tom Coburn.

In the article, Coburn explains why he voted against the debt deal. First, he notes that the change next year is totally insignificant.

It is true that next year there will be a genuine cut of $7 billion when discretionary spending drops from $1.05 trillion to $1.043 trillion. But with our government borrowing $4.5 billion a day, that $7 billion is enough to fund the government for about 36 hours. And after our day and a half of restraint, spending will increase $830 billion over 10 years.

Then he notes that this committee is a charade and that the trigger will have no effect.

Supporters say the real savings will come when the joint committee the deal empowers makes recommendations to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion (as we increase the debt limit by the same amount). But the enforcement mechanism designed to force these hard decisions — across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs — will never work. Congress will easily evade these caps. In the Senate, all it will take is 60 votes — the threshold for passing anything. Some have complained about defense cuts, but everyone in Washington knows those cuts can be avoided through supplemental or “emergency” spending bills.

Basically this whole debt bill that the Republicans are congratulating themselves on? It's a farce. It won't cut anything. It will have no significant effect. All of the effect is in the 10 yr time scale. Totally unenforceable, that future Congress and President will easily get around it.

Fact is that the Republicans talk a big game, but they are frauds. They have no appetite for these cuts either. This whole debt deal is smoke and mirrors, and the cuts are ultimately insignificant.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  This is snark right? n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

      by maxschell on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:25:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When you use old Tom as your source of inspiration (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxschell

        You are either a Republican or you are very confused.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:08:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep and its the 2d Wrecklist diary w Red logic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FishOutofWater

          There was one earlier quoting Redstate as if that has persuasive power.

          The contortions are unbelievable and would be parody if they weren't so desperate.

          But I think that means its the beginning of the end.

          Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library.

          by maxschell on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:17:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Don't be dense. The diarist is using (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          docb

          Tom Coburn as a reverse barometer. Tom Coburn is a sincere and sincerely misguided fiscal conservative and deficit hawk. The point of the diary is that Tom Coburn dislikes the law for precisely the same reason progressives should like it. If you are too foolish to see that, even after it's spelled out for you, it is no wonder you are constantly annoyed and frustrated with Obama.

          `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

          by seanwright on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:33:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Tom Coburn... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens

      apparently sick of his party and/or sick of his job in the U.S. Senate.

      I don't care if his oped is a grudge piece. I'm good with that.

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:36:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's what this charade did: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FishOutofWater, kurt

      by accepting the premise offered by the Republicans, it made solving our real problems -- such as the need to provide jobs to prime demand to pull the economy out of what looks like a double dip recession (and for most of us has been a single-dip disaster) before Obama goes before the voters in 2012.

      I wish we could have "failed" that well against the incumbent in 1984 or 2004.

      Obama had an option: he could have beaten the Republicans over the head with Keynesian economics until everyone in the public understood it -- and the Tea Party was dead, dead, dead.  But he didn't -- because he's really not a Keynesian.

      I'd address the particulars of your comment, but given the above it's unnecessary.

      In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

      by Seneca Doane on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:49:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, you and your facts. (20+ / 0-)

    This comment may not be reproduced or excerpted on other sites without my express written permission.

    by psilocynic on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:12:54 PM PDT

    •  I Believe Tom Coburn--- Is Completely Full of Shit (7+ / 0-)

      He wanted $9 trillion in cuts so he's pissed off.  Big deal.    

      But hey, if you are going to take the GOP Tom Coburn's word as Gospel, then I guess you also agree with tom on all of the following:

      Abortion
      In 2000, Coburn sponsored a bill to prevent the FDA from developing, testing or approving RU-486. On July 13, the bill failed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 182 to 187. [1] During his Senate campaign against Democratic congressman. Coburn, a former obstetrician-gynecologist, has admitted to performing two abortions on women with heart disease in cases where he had to up hold his Hippocratic oath. Coburn also objects to legal abortion in cases of rape, and he justifies his position by noting that his great-grandmother was raped by a sheriff. [2]

      Allegation of unauthorized medical procedure
      It has been alleged that Coburn sterilized a woman without her consent on November 7, 1990 resulting in a civil malpractice suit. Coburn contends that he had her oral consent, but he did not obtain written consent. Coburn admitted that he performed the same procedure on "lots" of women. He also admitted during testimony that he charged Medicaid for the procedure, although the patient was under the age of 21. Under the applicable funding rules, the sterilization would have been ineligible for reimbursement even though it was administered as part of the same procedure (termination of an ectopic pregnancy) which saved the patient's life. The suit was ultimately dismissed with no finding of liability on Coburn's part.

      Breast Implants
      In January, 2005, during a Senate Judiciary Committee discussion about class-action lawsuits and silicone breast implants, The Washington Post quoted Coburn as stating: "You know, I immediately thought about silicone breast implants and the legal wrangling and the class-action suits off that. And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows...In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier." [3]

      Coburn may have been referring to the conclusions of a December, 2004 study published in the journal, Breast Cancer Research[4]. The study, however, does not show that women with breast implants are healthier, only that the sample group had a slightly lower than expected incident of breast cancer over the period of the study.

      Global warming
      During his run for the U. S. Senate, Tom Coburn was quoted as saying that there was, "....no hard evidence to support global warming." Coburn called global warming, "just a lot of crap." [5]

      Homosexual Panic
      According to The American Prospect during Coburn's 2004 senatorial campaign in Oklahoma, Coburn remarked that in the town of Coalgate, Oklahoma, lesbianism was "so rampant in some of the schools...that they'll let only one girl go to the bathroom." [6] Coburn has also been quoted as saying: "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda." [7]

      Mind Reading Claims
      During Senate hearings on conservative Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Coburn claimed that he could detect whether or not someone was speaking the truth because of his medical training. He repeated this assertion of practical mind reading ability in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on November 6, 2005. Coburn explicitly stated that he used his physician training to detremine when witnesses before Congressional hearings were lying although he refused to specifiy which instances. One obvious question to ask is whether or not Coburn believes his own claims of superhuman powers.

      Schindler's List
      As a congressman in the 1990s, Coburn protested NBC's airing of the movie Schindler's List. Coburn said in airing the movie NBC had taken television "to an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity". He also said the broadcast should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere. Coburn described the airing of Schindler's List as, "...irresponsible sexual behavior...I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program." Many people disagreed with this statement.

      Racism
      Coburn placed a hold on H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007, a bill that would have reopened hate crimes cases from before 1970. This bill passed the House by a vote of 422-2. (Source: Tom Coburn: The Shame of the Senate)

           

      Tom Coburn

      Yeah, sure Tom's a great guy to follow.  Off a cliff.  

  •  It opens the door to the entitlement programs. (11+ / 0-)

    That is a major league problem for US citizens.

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:15:41 PM PDT

    •  The only think it does is prevent Senate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, radmul, Troubadour

      filibuster of possible entitlement cuts. That's it.

    •  The politics of that pie fight are the problem (3+ / 0-)

      Obama legitimized the notion of cutting SS and Medicare. Thanks to Obama, there is no more third rail. That's one big fucking problem that won't go away.

      But, the President still has many defenders on DKos. And frankly, I hope they are right. And rather than talk of 11th dimensional chess, I prefer an other analogy.

      May be Obama is in fact a Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly for our times, engaged in a brilliant scorched earth strategy against the Republicans, spurned by the aristocracy as an interloper, detested by the population for the devastation he created all across Russia, but ultimately victorious, recognized and honored.

      I hope this is correct. I'm afraid it is not, that what we saw was not brilliant long term strategic thinking but simply sheer ineptitude on a staggering scale.

      I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

      by Farugia on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:23:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (6+ / 0-)

        I, for one, do think there are legitimate Medicare cuts worth pursuing... Not to benefits and not across the board, but just as an example Medicare pays for more MRI's than any other health care system in the world (yes- that's system- including single payer systems... By itself, not counting MRI's from Medicaid or private insurance).

        An MRI in Japan costs about $160. An MRI in the US more than 10 times that. Medicare's reimbursement formula is complicated, so it's not a flat price, but Medicare isn't paying $160 for any MRI's, I can guarantee you that

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:56:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Medicare Part D. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, virginislandsguy, gc10

          Cuts there are existing Democratic Party policy.

          But nuance is so passe'.

          Don't panic. Demonstrate.

          by Quicklund on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:31:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is that what Obama's talking about? Part D only? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Farugia, Quicklund

            Has he said so?  If not, why is he being so coy?  What does the ambiguity gain him?

            In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

            by Seneca Doane on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:51:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Part D is on the table (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              virginislandsguy, gc10

              What happens is not set yet. So he is not being coy because the negotiations will decide what and how much.

              But when you talk"cuts to providers not beneficiaries" that includes payments to Big Pharma, provider of, well . um... pharmaso, pharmasc.. drugs.  

              Anotehr cut to Medicare I would pump my fistover is cutting funds for nursing homes by providing better funding of home care.  Home care costs pennies on the dollar compared to nursing homes .. but Medicare is set up to funnel people into nursing homes.

              My mothr has been bedridden for three years, under my care for longer than that. We live off of SS for day to day and Medicare to pay for home nursing (I found a loophole.)

              So I have skin in the game, and I think this deal is pretty good compared to what could have happened.

              Don't panic. Demonstrate.

              by Quicklund on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:59:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So some cuts are better than bad they're good (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane, virginislandsguy, gc10

                Is the sentence I failed to include in the above.

                Don't panic. Demonstrate.

                by Quicklund on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:00:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I asked five questions above (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Free Jazz at High Noon

                I don't think you've given even one full answer.

                What you're saying is akin to thinking that we shouldn't be worried about the maniac coming at us with a chainsaw and saying that he's going to cut our body into eleven pieces because he could only be promising to trim our fingernails.

                I'm sorry to hear about your situation and am glad you found a loophole.

                The article you cite is wrong all over the place.  Our BATNA was to allow the Republicans to push us into default and then for Obama to take unilateral action to stop it, rendering him an unambiguous hero.  Yes, the Republicans could impeach him for it.  That would make him stronger.  Yes, the Republicans could have taken him to court and asked the court to order that their booby trap be allowed to go off.  That would make them unpopular.  We held the trump cards.  He just folded them.

                A default could have, furthermore, driven a schism so deeply into the GOP that it might have guaranteed a third party Tea Party candidacy once the Rich Establishment Republicans got through trying to dismember them.  The Republican BATNA sucked.

                I'll quote parts of the final five paragraphs so that we can glory in their absurdity:

                The deal eliminates the leverage created by another imminent default until after the next election.

                Yes, no default.  Instead, they can threaten a government shutdown over the FY 2012 budget -- and have largely the same effect except that bondholders are spared.

                [T]he bipartisan committee charged with negotiating a grander bargain in the fall is free to revisit the possibility of new taxes.

                Indeed.  And throughout their entire adult lives, Julia Roberts and Michelle Pfeiffer were both "free" to call me up and offer to dance on my bed naked.  That was probably more likely than that any of the six Republicans will consider new taxes.

                Perhaps most important, this week's debt deal does nothing to change the fact that the George W. Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. Obama and congressional Democrats will be able to bargain for increased taxes on the wealthy, in a situation in which they have much less to lose.

                Indeed.  That's why they'll either be extended in negotiations over the FY 2012 budget or -- if Republicans think they make a good issue -- over the FY 2013 budget, during the height of election season.  Remember last December?

                The radicals in the Republican Party dragged the country to the edge of a cliff, but they failed to push us off; and they were even forced, at the last moment, to pull back.

                The Republican radicals can boast to the public that this shows how strong Republican negotiation beat Democratic weakness.  But that's OK, because the public loves kittenish and puppyish political leaders.

                [T]hat which does not kill a social contract may make it stronger. And neither progressives nor the country should lose sight of the fact that the core institutions of ours — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — have all been reaffirmed.

                Oh, it may, may it?  The Big Three safety net programs have not been affirmed, they have been spared.  Had the Republicans reached out to touch them only to draw back bloody stumps -- which is what should have happened with what were heretofore the "third rails" (well, except Medicaid) -- then the institutions would have been reaffirmed.  Now the Sword of Ericantorcles hangs over them forever.

                Great hire, Yale Law School!

                In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

                by Seneca Doane on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 11:19:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No that is not what I am saying (0+ / 0-)

                  I am saying your chainsaw imiagry is overblown alarmist talk. But thanks for giving me the "job" of answering all your questions to the extent you demand.  

                  Me, I went to bed.

                  Don't panic. Demonstrate.

                  by Quicklund on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:16:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Between me and Obama (0+ / 0-)

                    at least one of us is creating jobs.

                    In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

                    by Seneca Doane on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Medicare isn't paying $160 for any MRI's (0+ / 0-)

          ... because it's not a single payer system.

          Single payer systems are a monopsony. Providers don't have a choice but accept what the single payer system is willing to pay. They can't turn to other, more profitable clients because there aren't any.

          Balance that with the desire of the single payer system to actually deliver health care, for instance, make MRI actually available to the patients and you end up with an acceptable equilibrium between the providers and the single payer system.

          I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

          by Farugia on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:57:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Doesn't hold water (0+ / 0-)

            First - it doesn't account for the fact this isn't all markup, the types of machines employed are fundamentally different.  

            Second - it doesn't explain the several times over per capita use of them, despite the price tag.  

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 05:43:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I see. (0+ / 0-)
              First - it doesn't account for the fact this isn't all markup, the types of machines employed are fundamentally different.  

              I know Americans are a bit special when it comes to health care but I don't buy the argument. It's a little bit like Japan who couldn't import foreign skis because Japanese snow is "special". I'm serious. They actually used that argument in the 80s and 90s to prevent US and EU-made skis from entering their market.

              Of course, US providers will buy the darndest most expensive machines if they can fully pass the costs to insurers, who themselves don't care about how much they pay, given that they themselves operate in what is essentially in a cost-plus model.

              I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

              by Farugia on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 10:21:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not a clinician (0+ / 0-)

                So I certainly can't proclaim expertise on the subject matter, but my understanding is that it's a fundamental difference in machine type, and that difference is enforced by the device industry.

                My understanding is that the type of MRI machine used in Europe and Japan use a different type of imaging technique/magnetic field.

                The cost differential is mainly driven by the fact that the 'magnet' (not a clinician, like I said :-) in the foreign models is easily replaceable, so machines can be easily be refurbished and re-used, whereas the US model cannot be refurbished.

                What I've read indicates that the differences/benefits is marginal at best (and even the 'marginally better' usually comes from a device maker funded study).

                Betsy "death panels" McCaughey -- the Med Device lobbyist gift that keeps on "giving"!

                Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                by zonk on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Yep, I have a feeling you are correct. My gut (18+ / 0-)

    tells me that none of this stuff will ever happen.  The only thing in this deal that mattered was Obama getting his debt ceiling increase.  The rest will never happen.  And if Obama wins in 2012, the Bush tax cuts will be expiring while he is being sweared in.  You can not force congress to do anything.  This Super Congress will get absolutely nothing done because what ever they do try to do can be countered with a bill passed by the rest of the members.  Obama might look not so good right now, but all these media pundits are gonna be yelling "genius" come December 23.

  •  Obama is very capable (7+ / 0-)

    and if you check my diaries, you'll see I likes him a lot.

    But I'll reserve "genius" until he does an Osama job on the tea party...

    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

    by durrati on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:20:48 PM PDT

    •  That remains to be seen (4+ / 0-)

      If he's re-elected and the economy miraculously rebounds during the rest of 2011 and in 2012, I will be very happy to agree with you. And yes, there were times when things were looking bad in 2007 and 2008 and I wondered why Obama didn't counter Clinton or McCain harder. And he pulled off a very solid victory. So, perhaps my fears are unfounded. But things don't look so good right now.

  •  By that standard (10+ / 0-)

    Almost nothing Congress passes matters, because most things can always be revoked/changed.

    "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

    by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:23:01 PM PDT

    •  You really think that? (4+ / 0-)

      Passing a bill saying 'this is what happens this year' is the same as 'this is how the person sitting in this chair in 2023 must vote (or I will be VERY sad!)' are equvalent?

      •  Of course not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TimmyB, pot

        But this deal takes effect much earlier than 2023, doesn't it?

        "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

        by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:29:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some right away, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radmul

          but most beginning in 2013. I think this is the case, but I'm not sure.

        •  Not a lot. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snackdoodle

          There was a big fight over what should be predicted for Afghanistan in 2023. KB Hutchison argued that it was irresponsible to budget Medicare just in case Karzai would be asking for our health care budget 10 years from now.

          The bill is basically about the other side of the looking glass. This side will be just fine.

          •  Not sure I understand exactly what you're arguing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pot, Clem Yeobright

            Look, legislation can always be changed.  It's ridiculous to use that fact, and that fact alone, to argue that legislation doesn't matter.

            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:36:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Rules in this Congress are serious (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xanthippe2, DaNang65, ybruti, FG

              Which is not to say that in an emergency this winter Congress can't scrap this whole thing in an afternoon.

              Legislation binding future Congresses is illusory.

              Very little of this applies to the next two budgets. No big surpise: it's mostly back-loaded.

              •  That applies to most spending cuts (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pot

                The majority of spending happens every year, even non-defense discretionary spending.  Therefore, almost all cuts will be "mostly back-ended," and would theoretically not be binding on future Congresses.

                Look, let me give a concrete example.  What if this deal cut Social Security benefits in half?  Would you still argue that, since the next Congress could theoretically restore those benefits (and more), that concession wouldn't be a "real" concession?

                This is what I mean when I say that this basis for judging the meaningfulness of legislation is ridiculous.

                "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:45:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But it doesn't. SS is an entitlement. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Unduna

                  Congress can budget the CDC or Pell Grants for $100 billion this year, $0 next year, and $200 billion the year after. They're not assigned a long-term share of the budget nor an entitlement - it's arbitrary and completely different from SS.

                  •  I admit I'm not an expert (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    But it strikes me that there's nothing stopping Congress from assigning SS to pay out whatever the hell they want it to.

                    But fine.  Let's say that the deal cut all non-defense discretionary spending to $0.  Would that be acceptable, since the next Congress could always restore it?

                    "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                    by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:10:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But it didn't. ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY didn't. (0+ / 0-)

                      It cut spending 2 to 10 years from now - providing Congress at that time agrees.

                      FY2012 and FY2013 'cuts' are in the range of $30 billion out of a $1350 billion dollar budget.

                      That's just the way it is.

                      Did you think they would tie their own hands? It would be like saying 'gays can't marry and I can only fuck my own wife'. Too close to home!

                      •  Yes, I realize that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Clem Yeobright

                        I was making a hypothetical argument.

                        Let me put it a different way.  Approximately how big would the cuts have to get before you'd be ready to declare it a shit deal?

                        (and 30/1350 is still greater than 0/1350, so I think it's somewhat disingenuous to put "cuts" in scare-quotes there)

                        "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                        by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:28:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What did Congress in 2004 recommend for 2012? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          mattinjersey

                          What? Don't know? But the budget makers should be investigating that, shouldn't they? Don't predecessors get any respect? They had so much information on what the economy would look like today!

                          Congress could have imposed regulation on themselves, but they didn't. That's how Republicans work. [Remember that Ds adhered to PAYGO rules in the 90s - not because it was in the Constitution but because it was good policy.]

                          •  Um...you didn't adress my comment... (0+ / 0-)

                            But if you want to have a conversation with yourself, be my guest.

                            We'll have to agree to disagree about PAYGO being good policy, though.

                            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:40:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  It will be a problem this year. Or until it (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clem Yeobright

                      is restored. Will create a lot of disruption, possibly loss of life.

                •  A good example would be the infamous (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  "doctor fix".  That was a 90s era attempt to slow reimbursement costs.  A reform plan was supposed to be created and passed, and if not - automatic, across-the-board provider reimbursement cuts go into effect.  

                  So what happened?  Well, every couple of years, Congress essentially hits the "do over" button and negates the cuts (never addressing the fundamental and real issue, either- but still).  In fact, both Democratic and GOP controlled congresses have overriden what a long gone congress threatened would come to pass. It's almost become automatic.  

                  Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                  by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:00:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That could happen (0+ / 0-)

                    But of course, in this case, it's the current Congress who'd have to stop the trigger from firing.  Given recent history, I find it hard to believe that would happen.

                    "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                    by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:12:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No it's not (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clem Yeobright

                      this congress has at absolute most, two more budgets... One if they basically do what the Dems did in 2010 and don't get something through both chambers next fall.

                      The GOP was talking about cutting 36 billion from the next budget... That was their target number.  This bill actually includes the topline number for the next budget already - and puts the cut at "only" 7 billion.

                      Look, at the end of the day, the GOP controls the house - and budgets have to start in the house - until 2013.

                      Any dreams of spending hikes are just that - dreams.... At least until the chamber flips back.

                      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                      by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:20:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have no expectation of spending hikes (0+ / 0-)

                        Once again, all I have to say is that, by your standard, no budget matters.  By your standard, the 2012 budget could cut spending in half and it still wouldn't be a big deal, because the next Congress could always reverse it in the 2013 budget.

                        That standard still seems ridiculous to me.

                        "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                        by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:23:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No offense (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Clem Yeobright

                          but I think you're misunderstanding the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. The budget is basically discretionary.  Congress decides every year what they will spend (and on what).  In theory, congress could decide to vary their budgets wildly from year to year. They don't, but they could.... So essentially, each year's budget is independent and a thing unto itself. It need not care about last year or the next year.  Functionally, it has to because very few programs or things have a single year shelf life... But congress could theoretically decide on a big highway bill this year, while next year they decide No highway spending at all.

                          Non-discretionary spending is statutorily authorized spending and programs- congress doesn't really have year to year control over it. This includes things like social security and Medicare.  Those only change if congress passes a law that alters the programs.  

                          This deal tries to circumvent that natural course of year to year events, but it only does so if no deal is reached- and even then, the next congress is free to simply pass a bill that tells the previous congress "Fuck off, we'll decide on our own budget, thank you very much".  

                          Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                          by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:46:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Others have talked to me about this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright

                            I admit that I'm lumping together discretionary and non-discretionary spending in a way that is, perhaps, unfair.  It is true that the budget is easier to change than entitlement spending or tax changes.

                            That said, the viewpoint I'm seeing is that, because the budget is easy to change, any sacrifices in it are essentially meaningless.  That might be an unfair characterization--if it is, I'm happy to be schooled.

                            But as defenses go, "Don't worry, Congress can always change it in the future!" seems very weaksauce no matter how you cut it.

                            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:50:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NOT "Congress can always change it" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TealTerror

                            Instead: NOTHING happens until THAT Congress passes something. It can take this Congress's advice or it can raise it or it can cut it, or it can allocate ZERO if it does nothing - regardless of WHAT this Congress advises.

                            Better?

                          •  It's somewhat better (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright

                            First of all, it isn't "nothing"--some cuts will take effect before 2013.

                            Second of all, it's still setting a baseline for the next Congress.  I think it's naive to think this bill will have absolutely no impact on future budgets.

                            Look, if the argument is "It's not as bad as it appears at first glance," I'd actually be inclined to agree.  If the argument is "It's not bad at all," I begin looking side-eyed.  If the argument is "This is a great deal and Obama is a genius for negotiating it"...well...

                            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:59:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Look at this! Bright shiny object! Neat, huh?" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TealTerror

                            That's what Coburn says Obama deflected the Rs with.

                            I'll talk to you about this again in 2017 or so. Right here. Write it on your calendar so you don't forget.

                          •  Haha (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright

                            I'll hold you to that one, Clem.  I neither forgive nor forget. ;)

                            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:12:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And do you really think they would do that with (0+ / 0-)

                            discretionary domestic programs?  Or even the non-discretionary income security programs they will likely reduce?  Particularly over defense, security and intelligence.  Theoretically you're right but doubtful that would happen.

                            S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

                            by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:50:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I refer you to my Latka/Simka comment below (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Maybe you're just far more optimistic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright

                            than I am.  The past few years (well...make that 8 years, starting with the Iraq War) haven't exactly filled me with a very sunny outlook, to say the least.

                            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:53:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Ahh, don't confuse entitlements that don't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  get budgeted every year with regular budget items that are.

    •  True (5+ / 0-)

      All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

      That is why we have a vote

      So that we may change congress but an elephant will never change it's spots

      Photobucket

      In my opinion......

      by xanthippe2 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:34:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Entitlements and tax rates do. They are hard to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      change. And non-budgetary laws don't get changed so easily. The rest of budget issues are important in the future simply as a baseline.

      •  Why is that? (0+ / 0-)

        Honest question.  I'd like to learn more about this.  Why are entitlements and tax rates harder to change than other budget issues?

        "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

        by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:30:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No decision of a past Congress is binding on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TealTerror, Clem Yeobright

          future Congresses. But if a law (let's say DOMA) is passed, it may be hard to repeal or modify. You need to find votes for it, make sure it's not vetoed, it takes a long time. So only a few substantial laws pass. But budget has to pass every year anyway. So in theory there is nothing that will prevent Congress to appropriate as much money to Pentagon (or any other program) as they want. In practice, large changes to big programs in one year are rare but for small ones they are fairly common.

          •  I see (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FG, Clem Yeobright

            That's fair enough, I suppose.  I don't think it makes the yearly budgets pointless, but I can see the argument that they're less important than other bills.

            Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but isn't the current deal one of the more permanent laws it's harder to change?  I mean, it certainly isn't a yearly budget.

            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

            by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:46:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, it's a long-term law (not permanent, has (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TealTerror, Clem Yeobright

              a 10-year expiration date like Bush tax cuts). But tax rates are not set every year in a budget so tax cuts remain on the books until they expire or are overturned. This law tells Congress how to write budgets. It's very similar to Doc Fix.

              http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

              What Doc Fix does is this: 1997 law sets unrealistically low Medicare reimbursement rates. So every year when Congress passes a budget, it sticks into a budget a temporary exemption from these rates. It can do the same for any other purely appropriation-related items (Pentagon funding etc.). Of course, any fix is only valid until the end of the fiscal year but it can be passed again next year.

              •  Hmmm... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright, FG

                OK.  Thanks for explaining it to me, lol.

                As I say above, I'd actually tend to agree that the deal isn't as bad as it seems at first glance.  But people like the diarist who try to pass off the deal as being actively good seem to me to be way overshooting it.

                "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

                by TealTerror on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:04:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's certainly not good by any stretch (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TealTerror

                  of imagination. And if Republicans keep control of Congress it may be implemented in all its glory which won't be much fun. It's just not as set in stone as some people may believe or claim.

  •  Perspective is what has taken a hit with this (9+ / 0-)

    deal.

    I swear to god, it's the loss of perspective that took the greatest gutting here.

    I have never seen this site take to the traditional media spin on anything like it is sucking on the trad med right now.

    It's fucking weird.

    If we would sit down, and say to ourselves, "ok, WE need to spin this, and in the meantime we need to figure out what just got agreed to here" we would discover that the ways out of this are endless.

    But no. Why cover you and your party's ass while you do an honest assessment and design a game plan when you can follow the trad med into over-simplistic, cartoonish hell?

    It is so damn weird. What part of strategy don't we get? And shit, if we think our leadership hasn't got any, then where the hell do we think our strategy is going to come from? Outer space, or worse, Tom Coburn?!

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:25:59 PM PDT

    •  2010 shellshock (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unduna, snackdoodle, gc10

      I think.  Rather than addressing that- we're still fighting the 2010 battle.  

      A good retrospective is needed across the board... Perhaps health care WAS the wrong fight in 2009... In retrospect, maybe short term stimulus should have bee constant, rather than one big bill and done.  Maybe instead of health care being the big ideological fight, we should have taken on immigration instead.

      There are no shortage of good questions to ask, and all the answers do not lead back to Obama, nor pretending we didn't get our asses handed to us.

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:43:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hell, I've still got 2000 shell shock (0+ / 0-)

        and 2004 shell shock, too. I've been reeling for more than a decade, here. And I'm not alone.

        We MUST must must learn to 1) regroup, and 2) we must learn to do it fast and 3) cover our asses while we do it.
        This is just unbelievably essential and unbelievably lacking.

        We kept the hostage from getting shot, and the enemy wanted, wanted!! to shoot the hostage. There's a nifty trick to pull off. So our blood is on the street. Well, yeah, no shit.

        Now. Next?  PR and strategy, cuz the next fight is coming at dawn.

        Sorry, just freakin' irritated generally right now, hope you understand.

        "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

        by Unduna on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:58:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We should have rammed through health care (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aranfell, FishOutofWater

        Anyone with a decent sense of history knows that the Republicans were going to try to stop it no matter what the bill looked like. As soon as Franken got into the Senate, they should have started the push for a health care bill and not consulted the Republicans. If we'd done things swiftly enough, we might have even prevented Lieberman and Nelson from filibustering. Sort of the shock doctrine in reverse, if that makes any sense. But, futile negotiations slowed down the process and made it a weaker bill. We lost all momentum and our lack of action for more stimulus led to massive losses in 2010.

        •  Something like that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          was always going to be costly and bloody, and given that we were never going rip up the system and start over, I just increasingly think immigration would have been a better partisan fight.  Yeah, it's crass (not that I don't support it with a path to citizenship on it's merits)- but I think it had the potential for political upside immediately, as in next election.  Health care reform - even a liberal dream bill - was never going to yield short-term electoral results.  It just wasnt.  You can't change about 1/5 of the economy overnight and expect it to immediately come up roses, at least - not in a Democracy. I'd say you can't realistically do that in any other form of government either - but i suppose perhaps if your totalitarian is some sort of benevolent genius you could.

          Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

          by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:30:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt if Coburn (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, kerflooey, snackdoodle

        is wholly correct here. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

         the main thing is focusing on how the tea party was willing to default. A position which Romney decided to agree with.

        you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

        by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:08:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perspective? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jethrock

      OK, at what point, prior to its passage, would you have been ready to accept this bill as it is?

      I might prefer that you not answer that.

      You know, when your argument is that the bill is not that bad because of, essentially, accounting tricks, you just know that you'll look great to the public.  Maybe this is the "Get Michele Bachmann the Nomination Act."  If so, then it's clever.

      In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

      by Seneca Doane on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:58:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It will be interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Unduna, gc10

    to see how this all plays out. If we have learned anything, we should know that nothing is as it seems.

    One thing is for certain: We need action on jobs! And that is true under all scenarios.

  •  You know (15+ / 0-)

    I was thinking just today, that if a Republican administration presented these cuts to the public with the same sunny face that the Obama administration is currently doing so, this site would be alive with diaries saying that it was all accounting tricks and bullshit.

    You better check yourself chunky.

    by MeMeMeMeMe on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:28:50 PM PDT

    •  I think some of it genuinely sucks, (3+ / 0-)

      but lets work it out, ffs, instead of freaking out.

      And lord, when, oh when, will we learn the value of PR and spin for ourselves?

      Wailing and nashing of teeth instead of, "look what those GOP assholes just did to you!! Holy crap, can you believe that? We tried so hard to do damage control, but man, they wanted to shoot you! What are you gonna do to make them pay?!"

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:40:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Congress will certainly be able to evade the caps (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethrock, Brooke In Seattle

    on defense, the language is built in the Budget Control Act of 2011.  But I don't see where they can evade the caps for the domestic spending or the mandatory entitlement and/or income security programs they're going to cut.  The military empire will go on but the domestic programs will continue to stagnate and social programs will be reduced.   This is absolutely nothing to celebrate or even be satisfied with at all.

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:33:19 PM PDT

  •  Yebbut - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raptavio, hotheadCA
    Totally unenforceable, that future Congress and President will easily get around it.

    As long as they're Democrats.

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:34:13 PM PDT

  •  It's something of a repeat (11+ / 0-)

    of the budget deal, where most (not all, but most) of the "cuts" were illusory shifts and surplus zero outs.  

    I get that progressives are simply more interested in and angry about the fact that this whole discussion took place on GOP turf, I really do.  I'm even sympathetic to that sentiment.  

    But- legislatively speaking, the rubber has to meet the road and you can't codify rhetoric.

    I'm not even claiming that, from a strictly progressive wonk perspective, this is a wonderful bill.  I'm simply saying that from a progressive wonk perspective, this wasn't at all a bad deal.  Once Boehner got the House gavel and Reid had a slimmer majority that included the Joes (Lieberman and Manchin) plus a good 3 to 5 blue dogs who might as well be Republicans on debt matters, this was inevitably where the legislative agenda was going to go.  

    To put it metaphorically, it would have been the mother of all stupid ideas for the British expeditionary force to be told to dig in and fight back at Dunquerqe. That's a foolish waste of resources... Instead, you tactically withdraw, you save what you can, and you live to fight another day.

    The Brits didn't hold a victory parade after that ragtag fleet got so many of their troops home, and I'm not saying we should here, either... Buy you do have appreciate the fact that it could have been one hell of a lot worse and instead of jeering the lads for failing to stop the panzers, work towards getting them requipped for the counterattack.

    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

    by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:34:16 PM PDT

  •  As usual Tom Coburn is wrong again as he always (10+ / 0-)

    is with anything that requires facts, numbers and math.

    Basically this whole debt bill that the Republicans are congratulating themselves on? It's a farce. It won't cut anything. It will have no significant effect. All of the effect is in the 10 yr time scale. Totally unenforceable, that future Congress and President will easily get around it.

    Bullshit.

    What Gets Cut If The Debt Commission Doesn’t Agree?

    Wow... I'm amazed that you trust Tom Coburn.

    I mean, really. Wow.

    This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
    --Ian Curtis

    by jethrock on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:39:33 PM PDT

    •  Wow is right, such disinformation. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jethrock, magnetics

      S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:47:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It should be noted though (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NMDad

      and it's right there in the language of the bill- the discretionary budget doesn't actually shrink.   In fact, it grows, even under the triggers.

      Now, yes, of course - just because the number grows that doesn't mean it keeps up with national growth or inflation.  

      I just wish that instead of finding ever new and clever ways to deride the deal, we were instead rubbing it in the TP's face that their "cuts" actually mean the discretionary budget goes from 500,000,000,0000 to 510,000,000,000 to 521,000,000,000 to 535,000,000,000 etc (those numbers are from memory, so don't quote them).

      I mean we're already not being objectively honest about the real details, I wish we'd at least do so in a way that tweaks the other side.  

      Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

      by zonk on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:11:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Debt commission (0+ / 0-)

      These cuts resulting from debt commission will kick in in later years. It would be possible for future congresses to restore them. Just an illusion. Triggers like this have never worked and they probably won't now.

      Apparenly I'm a sanctimonious purist!

      by mattinjersey on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:48:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, Coburn admits that the trigger only punishes (9+ / 0-)

    Democrats.  Obama will ask for a supplemental, and thus evade any meaningful pressure on Republicans or threat of actual defense cuts.

    More proof this was a shit deal.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:40:26 PM PDT

    •  I think defense spending cuts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hotheadCA

      in the trigger are huge.

       And cuts to medicare are only on the providers, which fits in nicely with HCR and pressuring insurance industry for cuts.

      you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

      by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:11:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You think wrong. Anything that has to do with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigAlinWashSt, Little

        Iraq, Afghanistan or current foreign adventures will be exempt from cuts.

        Which is pretty much everything except The Coast Guard, The National Guard, and the Army Corp. of Engineers. Which will also hurt us domestically and make it harder for the US to respond to any natural disasters, infrastructure problems, forest fires etc.

        This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
        --Ian Curtis

        by jethrock on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:17:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

          you know what you are talking about.

          you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

          by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:19:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um. Yes actually I do. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BigAlinWashSt, FishOutofWater

            And as someone who used to work on Wall Street I'm pretty good on the economics of this deal.

            And it ain't gonna be good.

            This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
            --Ian Curtis

            by jethrock on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:21:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ya he does. It's right in the Act. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jethrock

            S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

            by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:24:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  links (0+ / 0-)

              you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

              by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:31:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did this earlier, the CBO link is in the diary. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jethrock

                S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

                by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:42:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Here's one... I'll find more. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FishOutofWater, cville townie

                I'm not just pulling this out of my ass missliberties. I'm basing this on actual trust worthy reports.

                When Eleanor Holmes Norton was asked what she thought of this Deal after she saw the details in the meeting with Joe Biden... her response was "I don't think, I cry"

                She knows how bad it is. And she is no Obama hater.

                Via Think Progress

                Experts Skeptical That Debt Deal Will Result In Significant Military Spending Cuts

                This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
                --Ian Curtis

                by jethrock on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:44:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't see it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mrbeen38

                  The legislation also would establish a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction charged with a goal of reducing the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021.

                     If, by January 15, 2012, enactment of legislation originating with the joint select committee does not achieve an estimated $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction (including an allowance for interest savings), the bill would require reductions in both discretionary and direct spending to make up for any shortfall in that targeted savings.

                   Those automatic reductions in spending would be spread evenly over the fiscal years 2013 through 2021; half would come from defense spending and half from nondefense spending, including both discretionary and direct spending.

                   That says reduce spending by a trillion  in 9 years. That's not that big of a deal.

                   Reducing spending by half from 2013 to 2021 in military.

                   Guess what discretionary spending means? It means discretionary.

                   This actually seems like pretty weak tea.

                   If we can raise just a little revenue, and somehow get the economy growing again, this bill is really not that drastic, all things considered.

                  you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

                  by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:49:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So overall I am saying (0+ / 0-)

                  the cuts are not that sever to either military or other spending..... spanned out of nine years. So the austerity in the austerity plan isn't so bad as it is being portrayed.

                  you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

                  by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:51:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Way heavier on domestic programs than defense cuts (0+ / 0-)

                    Just the short term cuts from now through 2012:

                    $30.5 billion domestic spending programs

                    $7  billion defense cuts

                    After that the majority of the projected savings from defense are supposed to come from drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. But any actual cuts to defense spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, Lybia, Pakistan etc. are off the table.

                    While the bulk of the cuts are back-loaded – coming more in the future – the near-term cuts would still have an immediate impact. Applying conventional multipliers, the reduction of $30.5 billion in calendar year 2012 would reduce GDP by 0.3%, and result in roughly 323,000 fewer jobs

                    Here are a couple more links you might find interesting

                    Why the Debt Deal Won't Hurt the Pentagon

                    What’s missing from the debt ceiling debate? Jobs

                    This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
                    --Ian Curtis

                    by jethrock on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:13:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Econ data are taking a dive (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jethrock

                    Joblessness is high and rising.

                    This deal is poison for 2012.

                    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

                    by FishOutofWater on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:23:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The econ data (0+ / 0-)

                      is related to the tea party holding the debt ceiling hostage... and slow growth in China and fears about European banks.

                      The global economy is changing right now and things are in flux.

                      you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

                      by missliberties on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:06:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I know you don't have a clue about jethrock (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jethrock

            so I couldn't care less what you say about him.

            look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

            by FishOutofWater on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:20:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I agree. (5+ / 0-)

    Tom Coburn is totally trustworthy. Republicans have never lied to Americans.

    "I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans." - President Obama, 2/28/08

    by indiemcemopants on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:41:45 PM PDT

    •  Neither has obama ;) (0+ / 0-)

      you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

      by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:11:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And our good friends and fellow (0+ / 0-)

      patriotic Americans, the Big Banks are now going to raise their interest rates regardless of this cluster fuck that occurred over the past couple of days claiming that the US just doesn't have the credit rating it use to have, bad, bad US, you need to be spanked, more !!

      Geez, imagine that ?!  Golly Gee Whiz Obama and chicken shit  Democaves I thought this cluster fuck was suppose to avoid financial disaster ??  Oh, I see, not my financial disaster ... how selfish and non-equal sacrifice of me to consider that ?!

      America, land of the submissive living in denial greed fodder and home of the blatant thieving rotten scoundrels !

      the US MSM, enemy of informed democracy

      by XajaX on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:21:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I still always come back to the (9+ / 0-)

    GOD FUCKING DAMMIT WE WASTED TWO FUCKING MONTHS ON THIS FUCKING SHIT INSTEAD OF JOBS argument.

    I don't much CARE what the agreement was. I DO care that we wasted two months on this while people are losing their jobs again.

    •  What was the chance of passing any jobs bills (0+ / 0-)

      in the House? They would occupy themselves with various ways of banning abortion and repealing ACA. But I agree, it would be nice to at least press them on it. Maybe they would have passed smth minor.

      •  I don't know, but I know there was a 100% chance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        of TRYING to pass a jobs bill.  People want to see us at least trying to get something done, even if the Tea Baggers block it.  Look how the Tea Baggers PR has taken a hit from their holding the economy hostage.

        We need to have bill and another bill and another bill...all focused on jobs.  We need to make a huge spectacle out of proposing them and arguing for them and pushing them through the Senate.  The House Dems then need to stand up and fight for passage in the House.  They will lose.  So be it.

        But the American people can then see the difference between the two parties [presuming there really is one] and 2012 can be mo' better.

        Why we don't do this mystifies me.

        Join us at the Amateur Radio Group. Serving the Left Side of the Dial since 2011.

        by briefer on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:45:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Diarist, have you read the Budget Control Act? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethrock, pot, Nailbanger

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 08:44:33 PM PDT

  •  We should get this out on RedState (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raptavio

    They will totally lose it!

    •  They already have (0+ / 0-)

      No one is happy. Not the right, nor the left, nor apparently the stock market.

      The best news is the hedge funders and their stupid junk bonds are taking a huge hit here.

       This is shaking out a lot of fake wealth that was in the markets.

      you just can not pretend like spitting in the face of some progress, because it is 'not enough ' is going to get you more progress

      by missliberties on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:12:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Look, just because a complete lunatic... (4+ / 0-)

    ....isn't happy with this deal does not mean this is some sort of triumph for Obama. Stop with the embarrassing defense of the indefensible. I'm not a hater, by any means. When Obama does well, I praise him and I'm not planning on voting third party. But I don't want Obama making dumb decisions and capitulating to terrorists (and believe you me, they're coming back for more). I don't want him to lose by allowing the Republicans to tank the economy. He needs to intimidate them. So, when he's wrong, I'll point that out too. This deal is bad and yes, I realize it could have been worse. But that fact does not make the deal good.

  •  Oh, and not just Obama but our reps. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gc10

    This was a legislative battle, which the Pres kept trying to point out over and over....

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 09:02:06 PM PDT

  •  Remember the Taxi where Latka and Simka (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peacearena, briefer

    had to get divorced? And Alex lamented the tragedy and Jim in all his idiocy said "Why not just get married again?" And Alex said that obviously that wasn't an option and Latka and Simka smacked their foreheads and said "Why not?" And then they did?

    That's what this deal is like.

  •  Spending bills are superceded all the time, this (0+ / 0-)

    probably will be 10 times before 2013.

  •  Coburn vs. ... everyone sane (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks

    Right... so you are basically quoting an article by Republican Senator Tom Coburn, one of the least sane people in Congress and perhaps in America, and leader of the congressional group that wanted to blow up America's finances, as "evidence" of the great deal that President Obama and his Republican advisor Tim Geithner struck with... the Republican party.

    Wouldn't the party that had just scored a major triumph not want to gloat about it, especially if they knew they would be using the same tactics in the not-too-distant future?

    And you are ignoring the opinions of actual non-insane people like Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Digby, etc etc etc?

    And this diary is on the Rec List?

    Dear god almighty...

    "I like stories". - Homer

    by pinhead on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:15:59 PM PDT

  •  The big issue is why has Obama allowed (0+ / 0-)

    7 months to be wasted on this meaningless legislation or deeply harmful legislation instead of using the power of the White House to focus on jobs.  Tell me, what interest group would oppose him if he were really committed to the issue?

    We are at the precipice of a double-dip recession and one can fairly argue that government action and inaction will be the cause of the slowdown and as President, Obama will bear responsibility.  That's not a great record to run on or legacy to leave the Democratic Party.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Tue Aug 02, 2011 at 10:26:09 PM PDT

  •  Coburn is right about one thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethrock

    the Defense cuts won't happen, because of supplimentals.

    On the other hand, the discretionary spending cuts will most certainly happen.

  •  You know all those calls we are supposed to make (0+ / 0-)

    to our reps in DC?  Well this creep is my senator.  

    Any deal that does not do away with the federal government is a travesty to Coburn.  

    It gets on my nerves, and you know how I am about my nerves...

    by ciganka on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 02:38:56 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site