- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199198
08 Sep 11
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.
08 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooEntitlements are "already bare bones"???
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.
If you think entitlements are bare bones, study entitlements as they used to be.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199198
08 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You mean before Reagan? Clinton?
Entitlements are "already bare bones"???
If you think entitlements are bare bones, study entitlements as they used to be.
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.
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooThe super committee was a joke from day 1........
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.
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooAs 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.
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.
Oh, and this is negotiating. Kyl is not in a position to "dictate" anything.
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76I like this guy, leave him alone!
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.
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooThat's right.
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 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.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199198
09 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyI 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.
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooThe 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.
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.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199198
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76I 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?"
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.
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Sep 11
Originally posted by KunsooThere 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?
There won't be a new equilibrium. We'll become a third world country.