1409 replies to this topic

[wedjat]

You know what's just blatant stupidity? Comments regarding what he said ".....tarbaby isn't a racist epithet, it means a sticky situation". Come ON! You're not that stupid really, are you? Who can honestly say that that word is not a negative connotation for black people? Jesus, isn't this a known thing? Of course it is, these idjits are just spinning crap as usual. Can we see a major beatdown please?

[Mr. Roboto]

Losing is one thing. Losing to a black man is quite another. It's pissed them off beyond anything they could ever imagine.

[Felina]

You know what's just blatant stupidity? Comments regarding what he said ".....tarbaby isn't a racist epithet, it means a sticky situation". Come ON! You're not that stupid really, are you? Who can honestly say that that word is not a negative connotation for black people? Jesus, isn't this a known thing? Of course it is, these idjits are just spinning crap as usual. Can we see a major beatdown please?

There's an interesting article about the origins of 'tar baby' at 3chicspolitico which pretty much throws ice on the weasely argument that it only means being stuck in a "sticky situation."

[Mr. Roboto]

That's what I don't get about the online racists...look your obviously a bigot and you're behind the safety of a computer. Why not just come out of the closet already? Why continue to play games?

[Timothy]

When the Tea Party said they wanted to govern like our ancestors, they meant monkeys and chimps.

[Mr. Roboto]

By cutting spending like this the GOP will probably succeed it killing our fragile economy, then turn around and blame it all on Obama. I'm starting to really wonder about his skills. Obviously he tries to govern from the center and work both sides of the room, but how could he not see the outcome here?

[Felina]

I just spent the last half hour posting on the 'tar baby' thread at CD. I can't believe there are so many racists over there who are unwilling to admit that racial slurs have historical context and are not just someone being overly sensitive or making stuff up "to stir the pot."

Good for you! I can't do it...that type of gamesmanship is left to cooler heads than mine.

[wedjat]

That's what I don't get about the online racists...look your obviously a bigot and you're behind the safety of a computer. Why not just come out of the closet already? Why continue to play games?

These are the same people who if it comes down to someone outright calling Obama the "n" word on camera, they will turn around & claim it's not racist, other blacks call each other that! Fucking assholes.

[Mr. Roboto]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdVODFombco&feature=player_embedded[/url]

[Mr. Roboto]

We were downgraded. Hope everybody in Washington is happy. I'm worried how this will effect the housing market now, among other things...

[Mr. Roboto]

The current debt ceiling debacle is sputtering its last coughs. While Republican leaders are tinkling their victory triangles, a more nuanced view reveals that Obama and Dems are the ones who outplayed the GOP.

Yes, on the surface, Dems didn’t get Republicans to open their tight fists and offer any revenue. But the devil’s in the details – and here they are (from the White House fact sheet):

Republican ‘Wins’:

GOP achieved a debt limit increase that requires almost dollar-for-dollar spending cuts ($2.4 trillion).Revenues aren’t part of the first step in the two-step process.Republicans get to keep up the appearance that they are fighting for a balanced budget amendment (but it won’t ultimately pass – the enforcement clause of the deal sees to that).

White House/Democrat Wins:

Spending cuts ($2.4 trillion over 10 years) are a little more than half of what was originally on the table.Nearly 40% ($350 billion) of the initial $900 billion in cuts comes from the defense/security budget. The remaining $550 billion over 10 years results from caps on discretionary spending (not itemized cuts), so expect the President and Dems to fight to spread those losses out to places where they’ll have the least impact.Of primary importance to Obama’s base, all entitlement benefits and many programs for the poor are exempt from current cuts and the trigger cuts.The “triggers,” or fail-safe plans, heavily favor Democrats. If the bi-partisan commission fails to agree to a balanced plan – or Congress fails to pass a balanced plan – the Defense & Security budget alone will take half the spending cuts ($600-750 billion). This trigger gives Democrats significant leverage.The process is gimmicky and allows Congress symbolic votes of disapproval, but essentially the agreement will raise the debt ceiling through 2012, one of Obama’s biggest sticking points – meant to settle financial markets and to avoid repeating this charade before the election.Did you notice that repealing the health insurance individual mandate – Boehner’s big last-minute sticking point – is no longer part of the deal? Don’t think that wasn’t a hard-won battle.

The reason this agreement is being touted as similar to Boehner’s plan is because Boehner put together a weak plan that was quite light on cuts (hovering around $1 trillion) that he couldn’t even get his own caucus to sign off on last week – until he added some fluff about a balanced budget amendment.

Again, the difference between this agreement and Boehner’s plan – and it’s significant – is that almost 40% of the initial cut is from Defense and Security budget.


Balancing the budget on the back of defense is like telling Republicans they’ll be dragged by the hair into rehab as a consequence for not breaking their tax-cut addiction.

All this Republican trumpeting about how they won this battle is their way of coddling bruised egos and pretending to conservative and swing voters that the GOP is strong and principled. As was the case in the April budget deal, Obama was willing to let Republicans save some face if it meant that the real meat and gristle of the deal – the long-range view – was the best possible outcome he could have bargained for in this Republican Congress climate.

That means Obama has the smaller ego … and the better intentions – and he’s banking that his base has the smarts to see the hard-fought victories in this whole debt limit debacle.

Of course, Obama and Dems can’t claim a total victory; we don’t have immediate revenue and programs we value will be cut due to caps on discretionary (non-entitlement) spending. That’s because the Left has to face the reality of an off-the-rails, sociopathic House of Representatives and filibuster-happy majority in the Senate.

Still, here are more need-to-know details on the three successful layups the White House executed on the debt and deficit deal:

_
1. Triggers Put Defense on Chopping Block
If Republicans refuse to compromise on revenue, they’ll face an axe that will be too much for them to bear – massive cuts to their “pet” defense budget. Thus, they have great incentive to compromise on a deal capable of passing the two chambers and the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare benefits, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement funds are exempt from any trigger on the Democratic side. The only entitlement touched by the enforcement would be (capped) cuts to Medicare providers (hospitals and doctors) – not seniors’ benefits.

300,212http://liberallamppost.com/files/2011/08/www.reuters.com_-300x212.jpg[/img]
Reuters/Jason Reed

An anonymous Republican lawmaker had this to say to Fox News:
[blockquote]
Obama’s health care law was protected while “the military got screwed,” [and it] left Medicaid left off the table.
[/blockquote]
Moreover, the inclusion of a balanced budget amendment in the debt deal is a mirage that would only hazily materialize should Congress fail to cut at least $1.2 trillion in second-round spending. However, we already have a trigger for an automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts (half of which comes from defense), making the BBA virtually moot.

Bottom line: The President agreed to $550 billion in non-defense cuts over 10 years (1.6% of federal operating budget of $3.5 trillion/year). He also agreed to form a bi-partisan commission tasked with coming to a balanced approach on cutting the remaining $1.5 trillion, with a trigger that takes half the cuts from defense if no agreement is reached.

Thus, of the total of $2.4 trillion in cuts agreed to in the near- and long-term, nearly $1 trillion could potentially come straight out of the defense budget. How is that for the “balanced” approach the White House has been rooting for all along?

Essentially, Dems have substituted defense spending for the tax cut revenue Republicans have refused to move on.

Remember that the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 7) requires that all tax legislation originate in the House of Representatives – that’s why Republicans are holding the tax cut/tax increase cards. The ONLY way to get Republicans to agree to new tax revenue is if something near and dear to them is held hostage (i.e., defense spending).

_
2. Medicare Benefits, Social Security, Medicaid, Pell Grants Preserved

To the liberal base that has been frenzied by the gossip of proposed entitlement cuts, please do a fact check. This is what Obama fought to protect in this deficit deal:

In last minute back-and-forths, Obama won exemption for the Medicaid program from automatic spending reductions and worked to make certain that the Medicare cuts hit health care providers, not beneficiaries.He protected Social Security from any annual cost-of-living adjustments, effectively taking that program off the chopping block.He safeguarded his historic investments in Pell Grants, ensuring that the increase in maximum award to $5,500 (from $819) would remain.

The somewhat harsher reality is that the bi-partisan commission (equally split between Republicans and Democrats) can make cuts to some parts of entitlements. However, look for Dems to hold a hard line to restrict any entitlement cuts to trimming waste and capping payments to physicians. I don’t see the Dems on the commission – and then the Dems in Congress – agreeing to any significant changes to benefits, particularly since the triggers for inaction favor the Democrats.

_
3. Republicans Losing Grip on Bush Tax Cuts
Let’s hold our horses on our hot-button issue (forcing the Bush tax cuts expiration) to think about the Dems’ long-term strategy. Just because the Bush tax cuts aren’t part of this deficit deal doesn’t mean they won’t expire.

But now Dems get to hold Bush tax breaks for wealthiest Americans as a bargaining chip to force the Republicans to agree to tax reform.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein effectively rained on the Republican parade in last night’s column:
[blockquote]
“Boehner is misleading his members to make them think taxes are impossible under this deal. The Joint Committee could close loopholes and cap tax expenditures. It could impose a value-added tax, or even a tax on carbon. All of this would reduce the deficit under a current-law baseline. [The Bush tax cuts going untouched] … is actually good news for people who want to raise taxes. The Bush tax cuts will still be set to expire in 2012, which means that if Democrats get some revenue as part of this deal, they’ll be able to get more revenue if Congress gridlocks over the Bush tax cuts in 2012.”
[/blockquote]
Klein is saying the Obama strategy – if it plays out right, of course – is actually quite brilliant. Dems now have a double trigger. Not only will their defense contractor donors go bonkers over at least $600 billion in trigger cuts, but Dems also get to hold the Bush tax cuts as the barrel in the back of Republicans – saying “compromise – or else your precious tax cuts go up in smoke.”

Looking at it from another angle, if Bush tax cut expiration was written into the deal, Republicans would have a great excuse to refuse to offer up any other (corporate tax) revenue. We also must remember that the Bush tax cuts aren’t protected by this deal. Independent of the $1.2-1.5 trillion deficit reduction fast-track vote scheduled for Dec. 2011, Obama and Senate Dems could still refuse to sign off on Bush tax cut renewal, allowing the tax cuts to expire Jan. 1, 2013.

The question is: How much tax reform will Republicans offer to again protect their precious Bush tax cuts? It will be fascinating to watch what happens when Dems turn the hostage-taking tables on Republicans. (Of course, this whole plan depends on keeping Obama in the White House and giving him some slack with Congressional seats. Click here to learn more about the dangerous Republican strategy to tank jobs and economy to rig the next election.)

_

[freedom78]

Love the anonymous GOP quote...might as well be "how DARE we help poor people at the expense of our ability to aggressively start unnecessary wars!".

Truth be told, we need to BOTH raise revenue and cut defense. That starts to sound like the Clinton years...now we only need a fantastic economy and we might come within 100B of a balanced budget.