Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Harry Reid: Those negotiations will fail, that debt deal will be lost

Harry Reid: Those negotiations will fail, that debt deal will be lost

When word spread via leaks to The NY Times and others that there was the possibility of a debt deal being worked out between Obama and Boehner in which budget cuts would be frontloaded with no new taxes on “the rich,” Democrats in the Senate rushed to scuttle any deal, led by Harry Reid. 

As reported by WaPo (h/t SoccerDad):

After a lunchtime meeting between [White House Budget Director Jacob J.] Lew and Senate Democrats, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made no attempt to hide his anger, telling reporters that his caucus would oppose the “potential agreement” because it appeared to include no clear guarantee of increased revenue.

“The president always talked about balance, that there had to be some fairness in this, that this can’t be all cuts. There has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue and cuts. My caucus agrees with that,” Reid said. “I hope that the president sticks with that. I’m confident that he will.”

TPM reports:

At this point, Democrats are hoping they’re popping a trial balloon — proving to both Obama and Boehner that a no-revenue idea can’t pass.

I’m waiting for Reid to step to the microphone and declare with pride and conviction:  The negotiations have failed, the debt deal is lost.

Update: A vote will take place today, possibly even this morning, on a procedural motion by Harry Reid to kill the Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed by the House. The motion needs only 51 votes to kill the bill without any debate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Fact 1. – Obama raised the national debt $4 billion dollars per day since he has been in office.
Fact 2 – The American taxpayers just lost $1.3 billion dollars on the Chrysler bailout.
I could go on with this theme at great length, couldn’t I?

We need to get beyond the NONSENSE that members of congress should always compromise to develop bipartisan solutions to our problems. The Democrats are now spending us into oblivion (and yes, Republicans have too in recent times) and they are in the process of ruining our entire economy with their failed attempt at putting capitalism behind us and ushering in socialism. What is the point in compromising with these looters of our treasury? Why compromise with the people who are taking us down?

It is entirely possible that a failure to reach a compromise on the debt limit talks, resulting on a shut down of our government, might be to our nation’s benefit in the long term. If an agreement is not reached and we have a shutdown, I believe the American people, who now (according to CNN) support Cut, Cap and Balance by 66% and a Balanced Budget Amendment by 74%, will overwhelmingly fall in line against Obama and support the Republican budget solutions.

I hope those who got elected, with pledges NOT to increase spending, hold their ground. Let the government shut down and then let Obama try to tell the people that his way is better. Upon what premise or policy of his to date can he possibly make this assertion? What data supports his view? People need to get over their fantasy that bipartisan politics are best. And to those who continue to push for bipartisan solutions – get out and vote in the best interests of our nation next time!

Is it possible for a legislative body to be more inept, impotent, and corrupt than Nancy Pelosi’s 111th Congress?

Harry Reid says “yes”.

Like Pelosi, Reid has taken the legislative process out of legislating, and replaced it with “it is what I say it is”.

I still can’t believe this guy got re-elected.

I guess I should not be surprised to see Reid is putting himself in the position of torpedoing an extension of the debt ceiling. With all those Democratic Senators up for reelection in 2012, Reid seems to think it is a good idea to make life even tougher on them. But, no one ever said Reid was very bright.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 22, 2011 at 9:53 am

There was no “balance” when the Democrats jacked up federal spending from the historical level of about 20% of GDP to the unprecedented level of 25% where it is today. In a $15 trillion economy, that’s an addition $750 billion of government spending per year.

That’s why when the Republicans say it’s a spending problem, it’s not hollow rhetoric. It’s the truth. It is infuriating that the press refuses to put the Democrat borrowing and spending binge into historical context.

The President needs a debt deal and will get one in some shape or form so that he can claim it as his success. Harry Reid’s value to the president declines every day and he’d be wise to tread cautiously, the rest of “his” senate will fold like a house of cards if forced to choose between him and the President. The President, sensing that some are tiring of Oleaginous Harry, may see that putting him under a bus might be viewed favorably by some and be a risk worth taking as the election nears. Just sayin’.

Two of the President’s significant victories, ridding us of and Harry (“the Hope”) Reid Osama (“the Change”) bin Laden. Just sayin’.

bleached cat | July 22, 2011 at 10:51 am

“The president always talked about balance, that there had to be some fairness in this, that this can’t be all cuts. There has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue and cuts.”

Balance is for tightrope artists and performing seals with balls on their noses. The Dems’ “reasonable” rhetoric belies any arithmetic reason; there is no balance unless the ratio of cuts to raised revenues is a one-to-one equivalence (which would even so constitute a soul-bruising concession on the part of Dems- to keep the debt exactly at its current level and not offset every dollar of spending cuts with any integer greater than one of new excise monies.)

You know, EVERY TIME I see the “there has to be balance, the wealthy have to pay their ‘fair share’ or the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations should do their part as well” I nearly start screaming that the wealthiest are doing almost FIFTY TIMES their part ALREADY. The Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Statists just LOVE to look at EVERYTHING in terms of ratio EXCEPT taxes.

The Republicans and Conservatives need to be out there combating this idea that the ‘Wealthy’ aren’t doing their fair share. As the top 1% which Obama wants to pay ‘just a little bit more’ ALREADY pay 38% of the federal Income tax Burden, while the bottom 50% pay less than 2.5% TOTAL (and WILL pay an even LARGER percentage once the Obamacare social taxes go into effect taxing investment income and surcharging income for FICA purposes), it’s time that the Republicans simply came out and said it: It’s NOT the Wealthy that aren’t paying ‘their fair share,’ It’s the POOR.

The Republicans and Conservatives need to be hitting the President EVERY DAMN DAY on his “desire for wealth redistribution in the form of ever higher taxes and ever more spending.” They need to be in front of the press EVERY SINGLE DAY repeating OVER AND OVER again, until the press gets it right that the top 1% is ALREADY paying their fair share, and to ask them to pay more is IMMORAL THEFT to feed the unlimited spending desires of Washington.

Let me correct and clarify my above statement: the average “top 1%” taxpayer (those making $1.34 Million or more) pays a burden actually OVER 50X the burden of the “average” taxpayer earning $58,000 (the middle quintile group of which pays, total, 4.4% of federal tax revenue) BY PERCENTAGE of taxes paid to income earned.

Obama can try to demonize all he wants, but the Republicans need to be out there saying “a progressive income tax is one thing, but forcing one percent of the population to pay a burden more than 50 TIMES heaver than that of the average taxpayer is IMMORAL.” Make OBAMA defend the fact that he wants 1% of the population to pay a burden 50X that of the “average” taxpayer.

The public will absolutely REVOLT if they understand that burden.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend