Skip to comments.White House, Republicans Strike Tenative Deal To Raise Debt Ceiling
Posted on 07/30/2011 8:21:33 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
ABC News has learned that Republicans and the White House have struck a tenative deal to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 deadline.
It's not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
aren’t we lucky?
BBA tied to NOTHING??—so they can spend with no cares and then say lawfully we have to pay for all their spending. It needed to be tied to GDP and have limits. Nothing about baseline budgeting. UGh!
I am sure that China and Putin are watching intently.
why do you say that? Reid’s bill didn’t have any taxes. The dems were always willing to forget about taxes. The fact taht they didn’t raise them in 09-10 and even extended them another 2 years shows they don’t really care about them and they’re just using the issue to whip up their base.
i’m not saying this deal is bad. But I think it could have been so much better. I think if the GOP held firm through tomorrow and into Monday they could have gotten far more. I think they could have gotten CCB passed, or at the least passage of a BBA and have it sent to the states, along with everything else they have in this deal.
If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.
Across the board including cuts but not limited to those programs.
Anyway. I want to hear more details about this provision. On the surface this one caught my eye as something worthwhile but they have a habit of creating loopholes that don't favor us.
If Congress does not agree to whatever the comission wants, there will be automatic cuts - i.e. any increase in taxes would have to be voted on (another thing that the GOP wanted).
This White House assertion smells of Axelsleazy astroturfing.
Maybe no tax increase...just pass along the 1.8 TRILLION extra in spending over the cuts....
Yes, looks that way to me too.
Obama didn't get much at all, if anything.
Hussein didn't want the 2 part deal, didn't want cuts equal to debt hike, wanted a tax increase, didn't want a BBA vote.
He got slammed on all 4 counts.
So. They still would have to own cuts to social programs. They cannot put this around the GOP’s neck in 2012.
I like this framework. It does a fairly good job of holding the politicians accountable. It is not perfect, but a good way to get over the hump.
This country desperately needs a national election ASAP!
Umm.. Reid’s bill was loaded assuming Bush tax cuts expired. Between that and the “War Cuts”, he had nothing.
No guarantee - at least in this report - that it goes to the states. Guess we should all just wait to see the details.
Obama gets what he wants politically, which is the only important thing to him: taking the debt and spending off the table during the election.
$2.8 trillion gets him past the election
Everything is wrapped up by December, before the election gets underway.
December offers another opportunity to split off the Tea Party house members from the other Republicans, letting the MSM go to work painting them as extremists. RINOs will vote for any $1.8 trillion in cuts offered by Obama in the “out years” to avoid the Medicare cuts and pushing grandma off a cliff.
What we need is a debt ceiling increase that takes us to Sept-Oct of 2012, and let the issue come up again and let the public decide between Tax Borrow & Spend and Cut Cap & Balance.
That's not the way I read that post...appears the cuts are across the board to every program "including" Medicare and the Military if the committee recommended spending 'cuts' (which are probably just reductions in the rate of increase if history is any guide) do not get passed - there is no "first" or "last" with the across the board cuts.
It says a vote on BBA. I thought CCB and Boehner 3.0 required a BBA amendment to the states which means it would have to pass both houses of congress in order to get more spending. So what happens if there is a vote and the Senate rejects it? Do the RATs still get their spending increases?
Seasons on - ever other year.
Uh, lets see...was that baiting to get me called a Troll again by Jim?
Nice try...now why don’t you just try to keep Freeper forum of conservative discussion?
Bimgo. Dumpster is going to explode.
I agree, even though the dems MSM enablers kept spinning it was looking poorly for the GOPers, the internal polls don’t spin and nobama knew if was now or never. Dingy harry better be prepared for the WON laying load of blame on him.
Then again, nobama ain’t signed dog doo yet and could pull another flipflop just when everyone was about to let out a sigh of releif.
In exchange for this he has to own up to across the board cuts. Who cares if he doesn’t get another debt ceiling increase vote. The cuts will be somewhere and the WH will own them. This would take a campaign issue away from the Dems.
Under this deal, if spending is greater in 2012 than it is in 2011 do you consider that to be a spending cut?
I disagree, the whole thing is a distraction from what the 2012 will really be about ... JOBS.
We need to stay focused on that issue, and hand it around Obama’s neck.
The other great thing about this is that it’s going to make his base even more mad at him. They were already mad before because they thought he was giving too much with no tax increases, but they’re going to be fuming now. Indy’s were mad at him for his lack of leadership on this and trying to scare seniors that they weren’t going to get paid. He’s really in a lose/lose situation now and may see his numbers continue to drop. Oh well...it’s all self-inflicted. He wanted to play chicken and thought the Reps would flinch last week.
That's the way I see. I'm going to cool my jets and wait for a more detailed report.
You might be right, but I have a different take. Obama cannot "re-invent" the economy in a mere 4 years, and tax increases will make re-election difficult. Tax increases are the engine that make "spread the wealth" work, in his mind. If Obama is elected in 2012, we will see tax increases, and not just on the wealthy.
It looks like the GOP got everything they wanted.
respectfully, i disagree.
our best chance to survive as a nation, was to NOT raise the cap.
to HOLD THE LINE as Jim Robinson, Rush, and Mark Levine said.
Weve Been Played for Saps, Folks: Boehner Bill Will Become Reid Bill
RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 7/28/11 | Rush Limbaugh
Urgent message to the Tea Party Freshmen and fiscal conservatives: HOLD THE LINE!
July 28, 2011 | Jim Robinson
even the Boehner plan, added 2.4 trillion to the Cap,
and 9 TRILLION more to the deficit.
we cannot afford that. there will be no economy left in 2013. especially after the debt rating goes down, and increases interest payments on our 17.5 trillion debt.
which happens even under the Boehner plan:
Moodys: Neither debt plan protects the nations AAA rating [ Well then Cut cut cut ]
The “limited magnitude” of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation’s AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody’s Investors Service announced Friday.
And I believe anything ABC publishes why?
That was always going to happen anyway. The furthest Boehner took the 2nd part was up to March.
Looks like the concession to the WH was to bring it back to November. But it's still in 2 parts and now if the discussions don't work there are automatic cuts to Medicare...which is anathema to the Dems.
I'm amazed that Boehner got this much. I think all along the Speaker had way more political capital than the headlines attribed to him.
I think what you outlined describes a tactical victory for Boehner/GOP.
When the got going ALL the Libs wanted was to raise the debt ceiling AND increase Taxes.
Given there’s a plan with NO ADDED Taxes, this has to be a win.
Obama has to look like a clown for singing off on these cuts, especially given that he was the one responsible for the increases to begin with.
Its only a good start, for me.
But its a hell of allot better than the outcome Bammy/Harry/Pelosi originally wanted.
Agreed that jobs and the economy will be the real issue but I think this was an opportunity to get so much more. I think Obama would have folded in the end. Not totally. Not “ok, lets repeal health care” level folding. But we could have gotten the BBA to the states along with every thing else, and I think that would have been a much bigger win.
Guessin the paulnutz could blame it on the bilderburgers.
“Good point. When has a tax increase EVER been attached to any previous debt ceiling increases?”
The deal that we thought was happening when Boehner walked out? Bozo tried sticking in a bunch of tax increases in at zero hour.
And he gets $2.5 trillion to fund his ACORN re-election team.
It’s worse than that. Obama put Medicare on the chopping block. The liberals in the House such as Conyers will lose their minds over this.
Of course, the “deal” is ridiculous. It does nothing to stave off a financial collapse, which now is inevitable. The only question is when?
The $1.8T cuts approved by Congress in Dec will be illusory, kicking in in the “out years” or counting things that were winding down anyway, like the wars.
What Obama will be able to say during the election is look, I “solved” the spending and debt problems together with the “responsible” Republicans, and it’s not an issue anymore [yes, you and I know that’s bs]. Now let’s talk about how racist my opponents are.
Starting with the $105 billion to implement the damn thing. Michelle Bachmann is the only presidential candidate even talking about it.
Dude, enhance your calm! We know very little about this at this point or if this is even accurate.
Yes and i don't think it will be easy. It's bad enough for Rs that it will have trouble and the dems won't like it either.
“Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion”
Proposed committee members: Harry Reid, Harry Reid, Harry Reid, Harry Reid, Harry Reid, and Harry Reid.
Interesting that we forgot about obamacare. I guess that “We will defund obamacare” campaign promise wasn’t kept.
Oh, well. Baptist preacher Huckabee said tonight it’s okay to lie during a campaign. Those weren’t his exact words but that’s what he meant.
In the end, I don’t think any of this will matter. The election will come down to jobs. If unemployment doesn’t get any better, he’ll lose. If it gets better, he’ll win.
All this other stuff is for show.
If it’s still at 9% or higher in the fall of 2012, he’s done. If it’s closer to 8% or even below it by then, he’ll win.
No that can’t be. All those trolls said the republicans would cave and the rats would look good. Oh well they can’t always be right.
If this report is true, I agree with you. I am not happy with the solution, but it was not the typical Fred Flintstone (Cave Man) approach.
They voted to repeal it.
IF this is the actual deal, it looks like Hussein caved more than we did.
Oh I'm sure there will be no real spending cuts other than what is in next years budget (a few billion tops), but we get the BBA vote which the Democrats desperately want to avoid, no new taxes and a chance to refight this again in November and December this year. And because the budget wars kick off soon anyway, we just might be able to keep the massive budget deficit and debt issue number one all the way through the rest of Hussein's term.
For anyone that expected real cuts, they'll be disappointed. As for me, I never believed there was any actual chance of real cuts till Hussein is out of office and we have the Senate back. Shifting the debate as far as we have is a victory in and of itself.
If there is a vote Early Sunday Morning then this story is not true.
After reading a few details, here is my impression :
It is virtually the same as the Boehner deal in the actual cuts, which will likely be back-end loaded (we expect about $10-20 billion in 2012 cuts), but the Democrats get what they want in that it will not require a second debt ceiling hike before Obama’s re-elecetion as $2.8 trillion should last well into 2013.
As for “future cuts”, well, that’s easily what Congress is so very good at. Indefinite future cuts that is
Because it would include spending cuts, with tax increases.
I am with the previous poster, though, that the BBA, in some form, must go to the states as a condition precedent.
No taxes increases = good, but without tax cuts, this is epic fail.