Kyl makes threats

He's threatening to quit the super committee if they push defense cuts.

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/180271-sen-kyl-ill-quit-supercommittee-if-it-mulls-more-defense-cuts

And since he and the rest of the Republicans have ruled out defense cuts, I guess the entirety of the 1.2 trillion is supposed to come from entitlements - which are already bare bones.

Of course, if he quits and the committee can't put anything together, the military cuts happen automatically. Maybe Obama didn't negotiate this so badly after all.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
He's threatening to quit the super committee if they push defense cuts.

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/180271-sen-kyl-ill-quit-supercommittee-if-it-mulls-more-defense-cuts

And since he and the rest of the Republicans have ruled out defense cuts, I guess the entirety of the 1.2 trillion is supposed to come from entitlements he military cuts happen automatically. Maybe Obama didn't negotiate this so badly after all.

Entitlements are "already bare bones"???

If you think entitlements are bare bones, study entitlements as they used to be.

Originally posted by sh76
Entitlements are "already bare bones"???

If you think entitlements are bare bones, study entitlements as they used to be.

You mean before Reagan? Clinton?

But again, this is the Republican way. He's not coming to the table to negotiate. He's already dictating the terms.

Bachman is already angry because there are actually consequences to a super committee failure which would affect the conservative agenda. So basically, she considers failure an option. Apparently Kyl does too.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
He's threatening to quit the super committee if they push defense cuts.

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/180271-sen-kyl-ill-quit-supercommittee-if-it-mulls-more-defense-cuts

And since he and the rest of the Republicans have ruled out defense cuts, I guess the entirety of the 1.2 trillion is supposed to come from entitlements ...[text shortened]... he military cuts happen automatically. Maybe Obama didn't negotiate this so badly after all.

The super committee was a joke from day 1........

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
The super committee was a joke from day 1........

Brlliant, on Obama's part, to lay the cost of The Jobs Act to that same commitee.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
You mean before Reagan? Clinton?

But again, this is the Republican way. He's not coming to the table to negotiate. He's already dictating the terms.

Bachman is already angry because there are actually consequences to a super committee failure which would affect the conservative agenda. So basically, she considers failure an option. Apparently Kyl does too.

As an exercise, one day, you really ought to examine the way you make these sweeping attacks on Republicans for using all the exact same tactics that both parties use and really think about whether you'd level the same criticism if a Dem would do the exact same thing.

Oh, and this is negotiating. Kyl is not in a position to "dictate" anything.

Originally posted by sh76
As an exercise, one day, you really ought to examine the way you make these sweeping attacks on Republicans for using all the exact same tactics that both parties use and really think about whether you'd level the same criticism if a Dem would do the exact same thing.

Oh, and this is negotiating. Kyl is not in a position to "dictate" anything.

I like this guy, leave him alone!

Originally posted by Kunsoo
He's threatening to quit the super committee if they push defense cuts.

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/180271-sen-kyl-ill-quit-supercommittee-if-it-mulls-more-defense-cuts

And since he and the rest of the Republicans have ruled out defense cuts, I guess the entirety of the 1.2 trillion is supposed to come from entitlements ...[text shortened]... he military cuts happen automatically. Maybe Obama didn't negotiate this so badly after all.

That's right.

The Republicans made a mistake falling for this super committee BS. They should have stood firm on cut cap and balance come hell or high water, but Boehner had no spine.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
That's right.

The Republicans made a mistake falling for this super committee BS. They should have stood firm on cut cap and balance come hell or high water, but Boehner had no spine.

I think it was their idea. But they only wanted the incentives, or rather disincentives, to cut one way. Now it's a game of chicken.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I think it was their idea. But they only wanted the incentives, or rather disincentives, to cut one way. Now it's a game of chicken.

The faster we get to a breakdown of government, the faster we'll get through it to the new equilibrium. This is not an advocacy of illegal means.

Originally posted by sh76
As an exercise, one day, you really ought to examine the way you make these sweeping attacks on Republicans for using all the exact same tactics that both parties use and really think about whether you'd level the same criticism if a Dem would do the exact same thing.

Oh, and this is negotiating. Kyl is not in a position to "dictate" anything.

I really don't believe there's an equivalency. Do Democrats play hard ball and punch underhanded? Certainly. But more often they treat the who discussion as a debating society exercise while the Republicans treat it like a knife fight. I'm not begrudging the Republicans actually. When some of the Democrats in this last round were complaining that Sen. McConnell was cold, ruthless, and calculating in his negotiations my response was "It sounds like he was doing his job. What were YOU doing?"

But the point is, if it was going to be only cuts to entitlements, which won't be adequate no matter how you slice it. The math just doesn't add up unless you want to do away with them entirely, or reduce them to a token gesture. And the first round of debt negotiations has already led to a number of cuts to entitlements, and quite frankly, social security shouldn't even be in the discussion as it has nothing to do with the deficit except that it would have to be paid back for the money borrowed from it - and that shouldn't be on the table.

So if Kyl is going in expecting that there will only be cuts to entitlements, with no tax increases and no cuts to defense and war spending (which Obama thankfully incorporated into the budget as opposed to his predecessor), then what is the point of negotiation? It's their way or the highway.

Personally, I would just say let the default cuts trigger. Unfortunately, the Democrats have a weak link in Max Baucus, famous for torpedoing the public option for health care.

Originally posted by JS357
The faster we get to a breakdown of government, the faster we'll get through it to the new equilibrium. This is not an advocacy of illegal means.

There won't be a new equilibrium. We'll become a third world country.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
There won't be a new equilibrium. We'll become a third world country.

There are stable third world counties, although nothing lasts forever. Wouldn't you love to have a world history book from the year 3011? I wonder what language it would be written in?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
[b]
I guess the entirety of the 1.2 trillion is supposed to come from entitlements - which are already bare bones.

b]

Sounds good to me...

Originally posted by JS357
There are stable third world counties, although nothing lasts forever. Wouldn't you love to have a world history book from the year 3011? I wonder what language it would be written in?

Klingon, obviously.