Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Dems on the left, just as dug in, just as uncompromising as anyone on the right:

But Raul, 80% favor a "balanced approach" that includes tax increases and spending cuts.

 

And if there is a deal on the table that includes these tax increases and the Democrats kill it because of the spending cuts, I can say Pelosi and the others should be pushed out, and I will not vote for my congressman if he votes against the deal and it fails. And I think a lot of people would feel like me, the majority favors spending cuts AND tax increases, not spending cuts OR tax increases. Yes, the Dems do bear responsibility for it. I don't know how the math works exactly, but the numbers you're posting on the Dem side do not seem to preclude a deal from being reached.

 

As infrequently as I agree with Boom, this is political theater, not governance. A summer-stock production of "Empty Brinksmanship."

 

And this is exactly why President Obama won't put a plan out in public.

Because then pressure would build on Republicans and Democrats to support it.

Right now, everyone is acting like it's just the Republicans who are "dug in" to a position and are unwilling to "compromise".

 

I don't know. "Mark McGwire" has gotten me very concerned.

 

Sounds like some people leaned on Norquist.

 

NYT has a banner on its main site reporting Obama and Boehner are close to a deal. Will be very interested to see what it is.

 

Somebody ought to lean on him with a Louisville Slugger. Who the fuck is this fat little fuck to tell the whole fucking country what to do? Who died and made him emperor?

 

He's on some interesting boards, for sure.

 

I hope the Post reporter has the interview on tape. If they did ... and find out Norquist is lying about being misquoted, that would be hysterical.

 

This is true. What happened under Clinton is the basis of serious hyperbole, a lot of it having to do with not understanding that "deficit" and "debt" are two different things. The deficit -- as it's calculated by the CBO -- was wiped out. The debt was not.

However, it is true that in an apples-to-apples comparison, the Clinton years were the best in dealing with deficit and debt in the last 50 years at least. It's the only stretch in those 50 years where -- going by CBO calculations (and you can critique those calculations with the intra-governmental debt argument if you like) -- the budget was not in deficit. All the other years where there IS deficit the results were calculated exactly the same by CBO. In other words, they do not include intra-governmental debt either.

So it's not as if CBO changed the formula to make the Clinton era look better. Apples-to-apples, those were the best budget years in the last half century.

 

Per this, all cuts, only the possibility of revenue increases in the future.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/obama-press-skeptical-house-senate-dem-leadership-on-big-deal-with-boehner.php?ref=fpa

If this is what Obama settles for, he really is the capitulator in chief, a spineless coward who doesn't have the cojones to be a leader in 21st century American politics.

What's the point of even having two parties if one is always going to cave to the other's whims?