So you are claiming that the Republican proposal – H.R. 2560 – was passed by the Senate and signed by the President?
If so, I will need a cite.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Well what the hell fun is the 'Pit if I can’t make a few folks dizzy? If I leave the 'Pit and I haven’t shredded someone a new asshole with my prickly prose, I haven’t done my job.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, agree completely. We are in perfect accord on that point at least. And, as always, it’s been a pleasure. 
-XT
Shayna, I understand you’re in full rip-tearing mode here, and you’re arguing with a poster who’s somewhat impermeable to reason, however I’d like to know where you got this idea that revenues -or any avenue toward defecit reduction- are off the table for the super committee. My reading of the Budget Control Act, Section 402, is that there are no restrictions placed on the recommendations the committee is allowed to send to the House. Meaning that the committee can draft a report recommending changes to entitlement programs, to the tax code, and to both discretionary and non discretionary spending. In my view, this broad goal allows the necessary freedom for the super committee to develop a consensus approach and a balanced recommendation. It also practically assures paralysis within the committee, and an ultimate punt which activates the triggers and puts the potato back into Congress’ hands.
Got two bits says that the Republicans who will be nominated to the Super Duper Pooper Scooper Committee are on record as Norquist Bots. Which is easy to do, because there are almost none in the House who are not One With Grover. What, six? Seven?
The Act itself doesn’t put any restrictions on what should be on the table, of course not.
But we’re talking about what Democrats are willing to do vs what Republicans are willing to do. Sorry I wasn’t more clear about that as we moved through the thread.
Look at what the parties who are responsible for choosing delegates to the committee have said. "Both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have insisted that they won’t appoint anyone in their respective conferences who are open to the idea that tax rates should be increased.
Instead of matching those statements with ideological bravado of their own, Democratic leaders have chosen to stress that the committee must be balanced in its approach. At an interview with bloggers and online reporters on Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted that there was a “very strong relationship” between House and Senate Democrats and that each caucus understood “why we are Democrats and who we are here to fight for.”
“It is important for us to be as forceful as possible and as unified as possible to send a message to the American people about what the difference is here,” she said, signaling that lawmakers would have a keen eye on protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid during super committee negotiations.
But when pressed to rule out specific reforms to entitlement programs, Pelosi notably declined.
“If they want to draw lines in the sand, let them look like the obstructionists,” she said. “You won’t see me drawing lines in the sand.”
Nancy Pelosi: Dems Will Be Forceful On Super Committee But Won't Draw 'Lines In The Sand' | HuffPost Latest News And you can see from Cantor’s statement above that he has no intention of being reasonable. None.
We’re getting the trigger.
You ought to at least give a guy time to get the last one sewn up, recover a little.
To Shayna: Yes, we’re getting the trigger. Which means both cuts and revenue enhancements, and the specifics ultimately depend on the 2012 general election results.
And what we don’t like we’ll just change when we take the House back. 
Well that would be fair, sure. But I just didn’t feel like it today. Maybe tomorrow.
Before I even begin, I’d like to say ‘Congratz!’ on, at the very least, given up on the “holding the country” hostage rhetoric. But with that being said.
I know someone who can’t read. If I’ve said it once I’ll say it again; there are no Medicare cuts in the budget deal. Zero. You think there are? Okay. Find them. Show them to me. Here is the text of the bill. Section, page number and sentence please
While you’re busy looking for something which doesn’t exist, I’ll reiterate something I’ve said two or three times now. What you’re talking about is an across the board trigger affecting multiple facets of the government which will activate if no budget deal is reached, which was added in order to please some Republicans, and those cuts themselves exempt. There is close to a 0% chance of this actually happening, though, which the majority of persons-- S&P included-- knows, which is why Tea Partiers, Republicans and Independents, in general, were unsatisfied with the deal, why Democrats were unsatisfied with the deal and why S&P stated that the deal did little to address entitlement programs (ftr, there are exemptions for said entitlement programs in the bill). But keep on trotting out how the bill cuts Medicare. Rest assured, most Republicans and Tea Partiers wish it did but, alas, it doesn’t.
This is fucking ridiculous. It really is. Here’s precisely your argument.
If Democrats refuse to compromise, they’re standing on principle. If Republicans refuse to compromise, they’re playing with the U.S.’ future. Apparently, this is how things work in your world:
If, for example the House Republicans send a plan to the Senate (i.e., the Paul Ryan Budget Plan or the Balanced Budget Amendment) and Senate Democrats reject it, then that’s on the House Republicans for refusing to compromise and sending a plan to the Senate they knew wouldn’t pass. If Senate Democrats, however, approve a plan and send it to the House yet it’s rejected by House Republicans, then those House Republicans are holding the country hostage for failing to compromise.
Excuse me? How the fuck does that work. That’s a rhetorical question, of course, because it doesn’t. It’s nothing more than partisan hackery, where you excuse Democrats for refusing to compromise with Republicans yet lambaste Republicans for refusing to compromise with Democrats. It’s pathetic, if not outright sad.
Anyway, guess what? Obama sent a plan to the Senate and it failed 0 - 97. No one voted for it. Not a single one of your “so-willing-to-compromise” Democrats voted for it. So give me the logic behind that one. I mean, if Democrats were sooo willing to compromise and everything, then why did not a single person vote for it? When Joe Lieberman and Tom Coburn unveiled their plan to slash $800B or whatever it was from Medicare over the next decade, what was the Congressional Democrat response? Oh, yeah. They said “Hell, no”.
But yeah. Democrats were so totally willing to compromise.
It’s not uncommon for people to post a source and selectively quote portions of it. Furthermore, given your utter shock that the Republicans would push for spending cuts rather than tax increases in a recession, I figured you didn’t bother clicking on any of the links.
Cantor acknowledged no such thing. Do you not know how to read? Note how you rather blatantly ignored an exact quote taken from the S&P release provided on Friday. Again, I point out to you that S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating based on two factors:
(1) The inability of elected officials to come to an agreement on tax increases or cuts to Medicare and entitlement programs, neither of which happened with the the current budget deal and
(2) The inability to institute major policy changes in Medicare and other entitlements.
Which Cantor clearly acknowledges when he says:
Of course, you refused to acknowledge this because it doesn’t conform to what partisan hackery you’re content to engage in. The simple fact is that S&P isn’t looking specifically for increases in taxes; they’re looking for a sustainable fiscal plan, which can be achieved either through tax increases, through spending cuts, especially in entitlement spending, or a combination of both. Of course, Republicans want spending cuts entirely and Democrats don’t want to touch entitlement programs, so we’re at a standstill. But stop acting like Democrats are playing the saints and bending over backwards to compromise. They ain’t in any sense of the word.
Irony.
And more irony. I’m sure you’ll be back to tell me more of things S&P didn’t say, though.
What was it that the Republicans wanted that they didn’t get? Immediate resignation of all elected Democratic government officials and the complete dismantlement of the Democratic Party for all time?
Here’s the Wiki article:
Among other things, caps on future spending pegged to the GDP.
It’s simple. The Democrats were willing to pass the debt ceiling plain. The Republicans were not. Therefore the Republicans are responsible for this particular problem.
It’s like claiming that a person who is raped is partly at fault because they dressed slutty. That has nothing to do with the blame. The blame still goes 100% to the rapist: the person who responded in a way that was bonafied, 100% wrong.
Trying to cause a Greater Depression because you don’t want Obama to be elected a second term is also bonafied, 100% wrong. Anything else, up until that point, can be justified, but this cannot.
So, no. Both parties are not at fault. The Republicans, particularly those in the Tea Party, did something that was 100% wrong. They even admitted what they wanted to do. They are evil. The only reason you are defending them is that you can’t believe you backed an evil person, or that you let them get to Congress in the first place.
It is not partisan hackery to point out RIGHT and WRONG, nor to condemn evil. The facts speak for themselves. The Republicans caused the debt ceiling crisis. The only way the Democrats could have stopped it was to anticipate that these people were evil. But, again, that’s like anticipating that someone is going to rape you. It isn’t their fault that they followed their own precepts, the precept of all liberal philosophy: that man is inherently good.
Ummm, the Democrats were willing to pass the Democrat-sponsored debt ceiling plan and the Republicans were not. Just as the Republicans were willing to pass the Republican-sponsored debt ceiling plan and the Democrats were not. The parties ultimately compromised.
It is if you are selective in your condemnation. The fact is that obstruction and brinkmanship have been an accepted part of the legislative process for a long time. Both parties do it.
Does that sound like a man that compromised? What didn’t they get? A Balanced Budget Amendment that they know full well would be a disaster?
It’s true that John Boehner says he’s pretty happy. Have you considered the probability that 100% of what John Boehner wanted out of the deal was to keep his Speakership intact?
Certainly a large goal for him and he’s got to be hearing Ryan’s footsteps. But I think his priorities are 1) A Republican victory 2) His personal Speakership 3) What’s good for the country.
Not quite.
Republicans - Bad, no matter what.
Democrats - Good, no matter what.
Regards,
Shodan
Not true at all. Republicans are *mostly *bad, because sickening partisan idiots like you vote for them not matter what. But occasionally a decent Republican sneaks by and gets in office. They still vote like assholes, because partisan unity is more important than integrity to them.
Democrats aren’t always good. It just seems that way because of the dregs you and your other dipshit, ignorant partisan jerkoffs elect.
Glad I could help you understand. <3
I voted for Dole in 1996. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008.
I will not WILL NOT vote Republican in 2012. I don’t give a damn who is running. In fact, I will most likely vote a straight Democratic ticket in 2012 and will most likely continue in later years until the Republicans show me they are changed.
I view what they did as borderline treasonous if not out-right treasonous. Legally, I’m not sure but they put the good of their own party ahead of the country and my own interests and I WILL BE FUCKING DAMNED if I support them!
YES, I am pissed off. I hate the party I supported with a vengence at this time.
I don’t think I am alone in this. My MIL - who has almost always voted Republican all her life recently stated she cannot vote Republican anymore.
I hope and pray with fervor that the Republican party goes down in flames in 2012. So bad they kick the nuts out and form a true Republican party that is fiscally conservative and socially moderate.