Congressional Sources: Republicans and Democrats Reach Tentative Debt Deal

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 2:42 PM GMT
    As more or less anticipated:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/white-house-republicans-strike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html

    Democratic and Republican Congressional sources involved in the negotiations tell ABC News that a tentative agreement has been reached on the framework of a deal that would give the President a debt ceiling increase of up to $2.4 trillion and guarantee an equal amount of deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

    The details are still being worked out, and a senior White House aide tells ABC News, "talks continue but there is no deal to report."

    Congressional leaders plan to brief their members on the framework tomorrow. The reaction from both parties' rank-and-file will determine whether this tentative deal becomes a final deal.

    Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:

    - A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
    - They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
    - The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.
    - The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress' Thanksgiving recess).
    - If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This "trigger" is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee's recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.
    - A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.

    Democrats won't like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

    Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon's budget.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 31, 2011 3:00 PM GMT
    ain't gonna happen....



    icon_exclaim.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jul 31, 2011 4:58 PM GMT
    I think we all kind of knew deep down that, even if it took to the 11th hour, which is the case here, that a compromise would be reached by the deadline. Regardless of all the political theater, posturing, and dramatics that Americans had to endure while all this bickering back and forth took place down to the wire, I still feel strongly that it was a good thing in the end that politicians on both sides of the aisle had their feet held to the fire for all America to see. No one really came out of this one looking good, but it was certainly illuminating for Americans to watch it all unfold.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 31, 2011 5:00 PM GMT
    rnch saidain't gonna happen....



    icon_exclaim.gif


    To me it doesn't even look like a compromise. I would vote no on it.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jul 31, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    At some point, voting "NO" is not an option. Those who do will face the repercussions of not being willing to make the necessary compromises at the appropriate time. Debating is one this, being foolish is quite another.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 31, 2011 7:25 PM GMT
    The bill is lopsided. Hardly any sane concessions from the right side of the aisle were made. The Democrats gave up more.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 31, 2011 7:37 PM GMT
    creature said
    rnch saidain't gonna happen....



    icon_exclaim.gif


    To me it doesn't even look like a compromise. I would vote no on it.




    as should every democrat and any open minded, reasonable, patriotic non-TEAbagging republican...

    as WILL be veoted by our President.





    the Republican party is in SERIOUS trouble today.

    they made a "Deal With The Devil" (AKA teabaggers) in oder to gain control of part of congress.....now thay must pay the price of this deal.

    the once proud Republican party has ceased to be a viable political party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 7:56 PM GMT
    rnch said
    creature said
    rnch saidain't gonna happen....



    icon_exclaim.gif


    To me it doesn't even look like a compromise. I would vote no on it.




    as should every democrat and any open minded, reasonable, patriotic non-TEAbagging republican...

    as WILL be veoted by our President.





    the Republican party is in SERIOUS trouble today.

    they made a "Deal With The Devil" (AKA teabaggers) in oder to gain control of part of congress.....now thay must pay the price of this deal.

    the once proud Republican party has ceased to be a viable political party.


    Except that the President is the other side of the negotiating party of this deal as Reid is thought to have already been marginalized. Do you seriously believe it would be the Republicans who would face the consequences of a failed deal if a deal were hammered out between Congress and the Senate (controlled by Democrats) but vetoed by Obama?

    If anything the Tea Party Movement is resulting in a resurgence of the Republican Party.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/a-deal-comes-together/2011/03/29/gIQAHPUMkI_blog.html

    Two senior Republican offices have confirmed that while the outlines of a debt-ceiling deal are in place, no “paper” has been exchanged. The agreement would take the country through the 2012 election, but the Boehner bill two-step cutting process would remain. A trillion in cuts up front would be followed by $1.8 more to be determined by a bipartisan commission. The contents of the “trigger” — automatic cuts totaling $1.8 trillion that would go into effect if the commission cannot agree on cuts — are not yet determined.

    The hope is that the outlines of a deal will be put out on Sunday; the House leadership could brief its conference, and then votes would follow in the House and Senate. The process likely would not be completed until Tuesday.

    The president gets a deal through 2012; the House gets its cuts; and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gets his commission. And the GOP extremists don’t get their balanced budget amendment passed and sent to the states or the satisfaction of blowing up the deal. As for the country, if it passes, the agreement will take us from the days of automatic debt-ceiling raises to the first, tentative steps toward fiscal sanity.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 31, 2011 8:55 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]riddler78 said....
    If anything the Tea Party Movement is resulting in a resurgence of the Republican Party.
    [/quote]


    If Anything the Tea Party Movement is reulting in a DOWNFALL of the Republican Party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 9:01 PM GMT
    rnch said[quote][cite]riddler78 said....
    If anything the Tea Party Movement is resulting in a resurgence of the Republican Party.



    If Anything the Tea Party Movement is reulting in a DOWNFALL of the Republican Party.[/quote]

    Um no it isn't. That you can't see this isn't a surprise given that the economic values espoused either by the Republicans or the Tea Party Movement never appealed to you anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    Update:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/31/live-blog-the-u-s-debt-battle-2/

    4:24 pm Key Sticking Point In Debt Deal Likely Won't Involve Higher Tax Revenue – Lawmaker

    Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said Sunday he doesn’t expect higher tax revenues will be part of a process to automatically generate a reported $2 trillion in deficit reduction measures from an emerging budget deal.

    "At this point, the enforcement mechanism doesn't have a revenue component," Sen. Conrad told reporters. "I've been working on several iterations that would have revenue in it, but that did not carry the day, shall we say."

    House and Senate negotiators were close to a deal Sunday that would raise the country's $14.29 trillion debt ceiling and reduce the deficit by about $3 trillion over 10 years. The debt ceiling increase would likely take place in two steps, with the first increase lasting through the end of 2011. To get through 2012, Congress would form a special committee made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans to negotiate up to $2 trillion in additional cuts as part of a package containing a further debt-ceiling increase.

    The two-stage deal would include a deficit-cutting mechanism that would kick in should the special committee fail to act. That enforcement mechanism, known as a trigger, would likely involve a new process for holding back federal spending. Democrats had pushed to include higher tax revenues as part of the automatic mechanism.

    Sen. Conrad’s comments are significant since they suggest higher taxes would not be part of this automatic trigger process that kicks into gear should the committee fail to act.

    Sen. Conrad said the bipartisan committee of lawmakers, however, would be allowed to consider every option in making its recommendations, including higher tax revenues. But a committee split with even ranks of Democrats and Republicans could have a hard time reaching an agreement to raise taxes, which Republicans have firmly opposed.

    Details of how the automatic deficit reduction trigger would work are hazy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) declined to sketch out some of the details of the possible package, including what kinds of "triggers," or automatic spending cuts, if any, might be in place to force future spending cuts if a special committee can't agree on recommendations. Sen. McConnell said the issue of triggers has been a primary cause of the impasse between Republicans and Democrats over the last week.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 31, 2011 9:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidUpdate: Details of how the automatic deficit reduction trigger would work are hazy...





    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 9:29 PM GMT
    rnch said
    riddler78 saidUpdate: Details of how the automatic deficit reduction trigger would work are hazy...





    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    Not sure what your point is? It doesn't include increases to revenue - the question is just what happens if the bipartisan committee doesn't have agreement on a package of cuts and what that trigger is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    Update: 5:27 pm - Democratic Leaders Will Get Briefed on Deal

    Senate Democratic leaders plan to meet or brief lawmakers on a conference call to explain the debt ceiling deal just agreed to by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, an aide said.

    The broad outlines of the deal are known: the debt ceiling would be raised in two tranches totaling $2.5 trillion. It would include $3 trillion in deficit reduction measures over the next decade.

    Critical details, however, still aren’t known, starting with what mechanisms Congress will create to force itself to cut the deficit, and what will happen if lawmakers fail to reach their target.


  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 31, 2011 9:35 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch said
    riddler78 saidUpdate: Details of how the automatic deficit reduction trigger would work are hazy...





    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    icon_lol.gif


    Not sure what your point is? ....





    why am i NOT su-prised icon_question.gif


    ah, the irony icon_exclaim.gif


    rid...what are you? some kind of "test tube baby" that raised in a dry, sterile environment of conservative, "no sense of humor" republican sticks?


    rid, i suspect that you would be "comic relief" at a mortician's convention.


    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 9:47 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidI actually like the deal because it's substantive enough (I think) to hold off the ratings agencies from downgrading the US.

    There's no question that the dems did most of the leg spreading on this. They now need to convince the people that the repubs will never change, take back both houses, and put in revenue increases. And let them be severe revenue increases on the top 1%.

    And while they're at it, some legislation on what a "news organization" is might be an idea. If fact checking and 'equal time' considerations are being abused by a corp like Fox News, they should be forced to label themselves as 'entertainment' and never be allowed to falsely advertise that they are actually 'news'. It's insane to me that there are more regulations on truth in food labelling than there are controlling your airwaves (which are a limited public resource.)


    Figures - liberal against freedom of speech and for censorship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 10:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidI actually like the deal because it's substantive enough (I think) to hold off the ratings agencies from downgrading the US.

    There's no question that the dems did most of the leg spreading on this. They now need to convince the people that the repubs will never change, take back both houses, and put in revenue increases. And let them be severe revenue increases on the top 1%.

    And while they're at it, some legislation on what a "news organization" is might be an idea. If fact checking and 'equal time' considerations are being abused by a corp like Fox News, they should be forced to label themselves as 'entertainment' and never be allowed to falsely advertise that they are actually 'news'. It's insane to me that there are more regulations on truth in food labelling than there are controlling your airwaves (which are a limited public resource.)


    Figures - liberal against freedom of speech and for censorship.


    Nothing in his post suggests limited freedom of speech or censoring anything. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 31, 2011 10:25 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidI actually like the deal because it's substantive enough (I think) to hold off the ratings agencies from downgrading the US.

    There's no question that the dems did most of the leg spreading on this. They now need to convince the people that the repubs will never change, take back both houses, and put in revenue increases. And let them be severe revenue increases on the top 1%.

    And while they're at it, some legislation on what a "news organization" is might be an idea. If fact checking and 'equal time' considerations are being abused by a corp like Fox News, they should be forced to label themselves as 'entertainment' and never be allowed to falsely advertise that they are actually 'news'. It's insane to me that there are more regulations on truth in food labelling than there are controlling your airwaves (which are a limited public resource.)


    Figures - liberal against freedom of speech and for censorship.


    riddler78,

    Nothing yourname2000 said suggests he is against freedom of speech or is for censorship. If you bothered to read carefully, you would see he advocates for truth in labeling. He didn't advocate that Fox News should be removed from the airways because it presents a different side.

    Figures - riddler78 throws out unfounded accusations hoping they stick.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 31, 2011 10:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidI actually like the deal because it's substantive enough (I think) to hold off the ratings agencies from downgrading the US.

    There's no question that the dems did most of the leg spreading on this. They now need to convince the people that the repubs will never change, take back both houses, and put in revenue increases. And let them be severe revenue increases on the top 1%.

    And while they're at it, some legislation on what a "news organization" is might be an idea. If fact checking and 'equal time' considerations are being abused by a corp like Fox News, they should be forced to label themselves as 'entertainment' and never be allowed to falsely advertise that they are actually 'news'. It's insane to me that there are more regulations on truth in food labelling than there are controlling your airwaves (which are a limited public resource.)


    Figures - liberal against freedom of speech and for censorship.


    Nothing in his post suggests limited freedom of speech or censoring anything. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Damnit you beat me to it. I guess I owe you a beer now?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 31, 2011 10:27 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidI actually like the deal because it's substantive enough (I think) to hold off the ratings agencies from downgrading the US.

    There's no question that the dems did most of the leg spreading on this. They now need to convince the people that the repubs will never change, take back both houses, and put in revenue increases. And let them be severe revenue increases on the top 1%.

    And while they're at it, some legislation on what a "news organization" is might be an idea. If fact checking and 'equal time' considerations are being abused by a corp like Fox News, they should be forced to label themselves as 'entertainment' and never be allowed to falsely advertise that they are actually 'news'. It's insane to me that there are more regulations on truth in food labelling than there are controlling your airwaves (which are a limited public resource.)


    Figures - liberal against freedom of speech and for censorship.


    Nothing in his post suggests limited freedom of speech or censoring anything. icon_rolleyes.gif




    unless you are a conservative/tea bagging, fox news loving republican....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2011 10:37 PM GMT
    From what I’m hearing both the left wing progressives and right wing tea partiers both HATE this deal, so there must be something GOOD about it.

    icon_cool.gificon_cool.gificon_cool.gificon_cool.gif

    riddler78 saidAs more or less anticipated:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/white-house-republicans-strike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html

    Democratic and Republican Congressional sources involved in the negotiations tell ABC News that a tentative agreement has been reached on the framework of a deal that would give the President a debt ceiling increase of up to $2.4 trillion and guarantee an equal amount of deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

    The details are still being worked out, and a senior White House aide tells ABC News, "talks continue but there is no deal to report."

    Congressional leaders plan to brief their members on the framework tomorrow. The reaction from both parties' rank-and-file will determine whether this tentative deal becomes a final deal.

    Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:

    - A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
    - They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
    - The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.
    - The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress' Thanksgiving recess).
    - If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This "trigger" is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee's recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.
    - A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.

    Democrats won't like the fact that Medicare could be exposed to automatic cuts, but the size of the Medicare cuts is limited and they are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries.

    Two sources briefed on the framework say the automatic cuts would hit Defense spending harder than Medicare. A Republican briefed on the framework says this will be unacceptable to many Republicans because it could force them to face a choice between accepting tax increases (if that is what the committee recommends) or automatic cuts that would gut the Pentagon's budget.
    icon_cool.gificon_cool.gificon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 1:03 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    yourname2000 saidI actually like the deal because it's substantive enough (I think) to hold off the ratings agencies from downgrading the US.

    There's no question that the dems did most of the leg spreading on this. They now need to convince the people that the repubs will never change, take back both houses, and put in revenue increases. And let them be severe revenue increases on the top 1%.

    And while they're at it, some legislation on what a "news organization" is might be an idea. If fact checking and 'equal time' considerations are being abused by a corp like Fox News, they should be forced to label themselves as 'entertainment' and never be allowed to falsely advertise that they are actually 'news'. It's insane to me that there are more regulations on truth in food labelling than there are controlling your airwaves (which are a limited public resource.)


    Figures - liberal against freedom of speech and for censorship.


    Nothing in his post suggests limited freedom of speech or censoring anything. icon_rolleyes.gif


    You know, other than the fact he thinks that some regulatory agency should control what gets said and what doesn't and in what proportions on the airwaves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 1:06 AM GMT
    Update: 8:58 pm Obama: A Deal, But Not Done

    President Barack Obama, speaking from the White House as major Asian markets were opening, said congressional leaders agreed Sunday to a deal to cut the deficit and raise the federal debt ceiling, but he cautioned the struggle over U.S. fiscal policy isn’t over, either short term or long term.

    In the short term, Mr. Obama and congressional leaders need to deliver votes to pass the proposal worked out in closed-door talks among White House officials and congressional leaders. A big uncertainty: Will enough House Republicans agree to vote for the package?

    Long term, Mr. Obama made it clear in his remarks he’s not done fighting for his vision of how the U.S. should narrow its budget gap, which is a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending, including making what he described as modest changes to the big old-age entitlement programs. Republicans rejected tax increases throughout weeks of wrangling leading up to today. Democrats are equally adamant that Medicare and Social Security not be curtailed.

    A special committee appointed by congressional leaders will weigh how best to trim $1.2 trillion in spending in a second phase of the process to cut a total of about $2.4 trillion overall.

    “Everything will be on the table,” Mr. Obama said.

    “I will continue to make the case..that a balanced approach is necessary to do the job,” Mr. Obama said.

    “We are not done yet,” Mr. Obama said. “I urge members to do the right thing and support this deal with your vote.”


    It becomes clear who the extremists are - that they would prefer default over an imperfect deal. Exhibit A - the liberals on this site.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 01, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
    Southbeach,

    You've got some competition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    creature saidSouthbeach,

    You've got some competition.


    The sad thing is that we could replace your comments with that of rnch, rickrick and no one would be the wiser.