Replies

From what ratings houses warned publicly, this outlined "deal" will NOT prevent a credit downgrade. We'll see if they keep that threat.

This "deal" is stupid and shows the ugliness that is the Democrat party.

First, Obama gets the thing he craved most of all: no debt limit debate in 2012. Another Democrat shameful sham exposed right there, just as Republicans said: the election was his priority.

Second, this outlined deal is similar to Boehner 2.0 which Democrats demagogued as "Tea Party extremism." So they lied; Boehner 2.0 *was* the compromise bill he claimed it was.

Dems lie? I'm shocked! /s

I notice the "cuts" don't exceed the debt limit increase as they would under the Boehner plan if ABCNews' outline reflects the "deal." I'll wait and see if that holds in the final "deal" which we'll see at the last minute without opportunity to fully digest or provide feedback.

There's still the commission which could be an EID waiting to go off. It depends on the details.

It isn't clear yet if the "cuts" are double-counting Reid "war savings" cuts or actual reductions in increase "cuts."

Tea Party Freshman lose the required passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) so the element Boehner added in 3.0 to win passage by House GOP is gone.

So... they wasted a day, embarrassed the Speaker/leadership and have absolutely nothing to show for it in the "deal." They'll vote against it but if Obama's on board, Dems will vote in lockstep and only a few dozen GOP votes are needed to pass the House version of this bill.

This is worse than Boehner's bill 2.0 or 3.0, it's much worse than "Cut, Cap & Balance."

In the most favorable light, all you can really say is there'll be a (meaningless) BBA vote, may not be tax hikes but, for once, a debt ceiling increase may have offsets.

I'm thrilled. Victory is ours. /s

Boehner isn't the problem. REID. OBAMA. They are the problem. They need to go in 2012.