The Debt Crisis Thread

I have a serious question: what concessions are the republicans making in such an agreement? AFAICT, the bulk of the programs receiving budget cuts are ones that are generally advocated by democrats. There are also no tax increases. That’s all fine and good, but IMO a compromise generally involves concessions from both parties.

Based on that article, it sounds like the sole concession from republicans is allowing the debt ceiling to be increased. Am I understanding this correctly?

ETA: I missed the food stamp exemption - so there’s that. But I’m reluctant to file Social Security and Medicaid under “republican concessions”; I think those are programs that both parties are interested in not cutting. (And if that isn’t the case, then let’s publicize the fact that republicans want to cut those programs - I’d think their constituents would raise holy hell.)

Did you read your own link?

The last paragraph has me a little concerned:

What the incentive for Republicans to be serious with that committee or its recommendations if the consequence of failure is something they want to happen?

Rather than think in terms of Republicans vs. Democrats, there are elements of society to consider. We’re all in this together, right? If there are tough times and belt tightening ahead, surely every American citizen has to be called on to share in that sacrifice.

So what are the rich being asked to give up?

No Cut, Cap, and Balance. No BBA being sent to the states. An extension past the 2012 elections.

36% of their income. I give up 20%. They are already giving up more.

You leave the rich people alone! (sob) They work so hard, they give and they give (blubber, sob) and you can do is just tear them down (wail) You bastards…

Their lives are affected by it a whole lot less than yours. YOU are giving up more.

So I assume this means you’re a flat taxer?

If sacrifice is needed, everybody should be asked to give up something over and above what they already do. Including the rich.

soooooo, Cut Cap and Balance, which was a pipe dream. The BBA wouldn’t pass both houses of congress now. Finally, extending that which, IIRC, for the past 100 incidents since 1940 was a forulaic vote.

Yep, seeing a lot of compromise there. :rolleyes:

Some people have said that the Democrats shouldn’t be able to count decreased military spending from the wind down in the wars as part of their budget cuts, since it was scheduled to happen anyway.[sup]*[/sup] By that rationale, I say the Republicans can’t count as a concession something that never existed in the first place.

  • And it appears that politicians on both sides have included that in their accounting.

Wow. This is looking like another complete capitulation by the Democrats. It must really be nice to be a member of the Rich, who have both of the major political parties in their employ.

As a non-military Federal employee, I am really worried about my future.

Oh great. They’re going to create another committee to produce a bunch of recommendations that everyone will ignore.

Huge cuts with no revenue. I give up. The Dems capitulated to save the shaky economy. That will be seen as a sign of weakness.

1 - Conceding a possible solution to the problem is not exactly in the same boat as the other concessions that I mentioned, no?

2 - Are you sure about that? As Robot Arm pointed out above:
(from the article)

3 - How is this a concession?

Which has nothing to do with this agreement. It’s a concession of the democrats to not raise it to 39%. Doing nothing leaves it at 36%.

CNN is reporting that Obama came out and said it’s a done deal. Details to come.

My simplistic view of this situation was that Democrats wanted to have tax increases on the rich, and Republicans wanted spending cuts. They compromised and it’s entirely spending cuts and no tax increases.

I know I must be missing something. What exactly did the Democrats get in these negotiations?

A consistent reputation.

A better understanding of the game “chicken”.