US Shutdown Crisis: Day 11

I’ve lost track of which threads say what. Here’s today’s offering, following yesterday’s GOP attempt to float a six week debt ceiling hike to uncouple that from the shutdown problem.

Republicans are offering to end the shutdown, hike the debt ceiling and ease the sequester spending if Obama will agree to budget cuts on things he’s in favor of. Details are sketchy but increased means testing for medicare might be acceptable to Republicans.

It’s a big offer from the Pubs. It would solve a bunch of problems provided Obama is personally willing to take the pain of cuts to benefits programs which he supports and is also willing to ‘negotiate’. He probably would be, but I’m not sure it’s the best move. I think he should stick with his no negotiating guns but he’s a better grown-up than I am.

Devil’s in the details, of course.
Oh, an Ted Cruz continues to stoke the Fires of Stupid, claiming that Obamacare is forcing Christian companies to distribute abortificants.

No surrender, Ted!

Situation: There are too many threads.

Solution: Start a new thread.

Situation: There are too many threads plus 1.

Where have I heard this one before?

I’m not complaining that there are too many threads. I’m complaining that they’re not properly numbered and organized. This looks like a situation for a Librarian!

Also: Ted Cruz continues to be a chickenfucker. In case you were wondering.

Its not a good offer. Obama was willing to sign on to cuts to Medicare/Medicaid in return for increased revenue. That’s different then saying he wants them.

This is basically the hundreth iteration of the same thing, the GOP offers something both sides want (to end the gov’t shutdown) in return for something they want (cuts to Medicare/Medicaid). That’s not really negotiating, and Obama has made pretty clear he isn’t entertaing it.

I don’t think it’s a good deal - I just think it might be a deal Obama could live with. The Pubs here aren’t just offering a deal on the shutdown but on the shutdown, the debit limit and the sequester spending. (Well, caveat. We don’t have details.) For all that, it might be worth discussing a restructuring of benefits. I’m guessing that if the Reps are willing to implement means testing medicare, it would be more on paper than reality. It would give them a way to say - see? Obama is limiting medicare without explaining the asterisk on “limiting medicare to people who make under $500M a year” or whatever. I could say Obama saying, sure, fine, make it my fault as long as we get this shutdown/sequester/debt limit over with.

I don’t know. You’re right though. I don’t think it’s a good deal.

Elsewhere - Peter King (R-NY) thinks the Tea Party has lost this fight and says that if Boehner doesn’t bring a clean bill to the floor, he will personally bring the discharge vote that the Dems want.

It’s all very glass-half-full but he’s a high-profile congressman who’s willing to talk on the record that the Tea Party has lost it. So that’s an improvement.
Even More Elsewhere - the “values voters” conference is going on and Fox News’ new personality, Ben Carson, tackles the abortion issue with all the grace and sensitivity we’ve come to expect from conservative men.

So not a great day to be a Republican, all in all.

The chickens are not willing. They have standards.

That’s not really a deal at all. The GOP has said they don’t want to default, and want to end the Sequester and shutdown. How is there being willing to do things that they say they want to do anyways, and somehow get something Obama doesn’t want in return, a “good deal”?

Isn’t ‘Peter “too many mosques in this country” King says something rational’ one of the signs of the apocalypse?

“Obama and the Senate Democrats voted to reduce your medicare! Tell those Washington insiders to keep the government’s hands of your medicare and vote for me. This message was approved by Charles Emerson Winchester, Republican for Senate.”

And, means testing:

  1. Adds a layer of bureaucracy to make sure only eligible recipients get medicare
  2. Doesn’t save much money, since you’re only going to cut a few percent of the richest people off the medicare rolls.
  3. Makes medicare start to look like a welfare program, rather than a program where everyone contributes and everyone benefits. Soon, there will be calls to cut the program lower, get those medicare queens off the dole, and so on.

So, it doesn’t save much and it creates an instant campaign ad for future Republicans. What’s not to love?

Rhythmdvl - I think it’s a sign that King knows where his votes are coming from, actually.

Simplico -

Like I keep saying - I don’t think it is a good deal. But you know, I’m not actually expecting to get a good deal, even with Republican poll numbers tanking. (Sam Wang is saying current events are sufficiently bad that he’s willing to predict that the Pubs have only a 50% chance to hold onto the House.) I don’t think the Republicans are really motivated by anything other than saving face at this point. They’re going to keep pushing bad deal after bad deal until they find one that the Democrats can hold their nose and vote for. So a deal that opens the government, lifts the debt ceiling a reasonable amount and begins to fix the sequester problem - probably worth discussing, imo.
And they are discussing it. “Signs of Progress,” sez the Times.

I’m not enthused about any of that, really. A four month debt ceiling increase is fool’s gold, imo, and a bipartisan budget committee is unlikely to be any more productive than the last one.

On the upside though, Obama’s got Republicans praising him for listening now, lol.

I hear you. But you can’t solve a problem if no one’s even talking. Right now, Obama’s got Republicans running back and forth to him with plans and thanking him for listening. It’s a start.

Well, the medicare thing is particularly bad, in my view. But, the other things that are in the plan are also things only Republicans want. No new revenue? No immigration reform? Nothing that would appeal to Democrats at all? It’s still not a negotiation.

And I’m saying good or bad is irrelevant, its not a deal in any sense, which is why it won’t happen. The GOP getting something they want in return for something else they want isn’t a deal.

No doubt. One that trades benefit cuts for those same things isn’t worth discussing, however.

So, they’re willing to let spending rise on everything, then just cut it back on programs favored by Democrats.

Gee, thanks.

The Whitehouse shares your skepticism but is willing to keep listening.

The Republicans want to hit the reset button and try to reposition themselves so that the next time they take the economy hostage, they can do it without making it so obviously their fault.