Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

But to get Dems to accept that, GOP would probably have had to accept tax increases; defense cuts may be unpalatable, but tax cuts are poison.

Just a guess.

NO i mean they should've put the equivillent sacred democrat cow on the automatic cuts. Republican's defense spending was put up there, not a very fair trade.

Sure it was. Defense is the Republican's #2 priority. Medicare is the Democrats #2 priority. Taxes are the Republicans #1 priority. Social Security is the Democrats #1 priority.

Don't you get it? You weren't getting a deal where the Dems give up their sacred cow and the Republicans give up a slab of bacon.

The democrats priorities sure sounds anti american and anti economic recovery. They fail.

Everyone is fooled

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

But to get Dems to accept that, GOP would probably have had to accept tax increases; defense cuts may be unpalatable, but tax cuts are poison.

Just a guess.

NO i mean they should've put the equivillent sacred democrat cow on the automatic cuts. Republican's defense spending was put up there, not a very fair trade.

Sure it was. Defense is the Republican's #2 priority. Medicare is the Democrats #2 priority. Taxes are the Republicans #1 priority. Social Security is the Democrats #1 priority.

Don't you get it? You weren't getting a deal where the Dems give up their sacred cow and the Republicans give up a slab of bacon.

we need to stop supporting the underperforming people on SS welfare. If we stop supporting them they will be motivated to work and make more money.

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

But to get Dems to accept that, GOP would probably have had to accept tax increases; defense cuts may be unpalatable, but tax cuts are poison.

Just a guess.

NO i mean they should've put the equivillent sacred democrat cow on the automatic cuts. Republican's defense spending was put up there, not a very fair trade.

What you meant was obvious. That they had made the deal shows they already had equivalence. To have gotten more, they'd have had to give more, and that's where taxes come in.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

But to get Dems to accept that, GOP would probably have had to accept tax increases; defense cuts may be unpalatable, but tax cuts are poison.

Just a guess.

NO i mean they should've put the equivillent sacred democrat cow on the automatic cuts. Republican's defense spending was put up there, not a very fair trade.

Anonymous wrote:In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

Sure, and if the Dems wanted leverage they should have said 8% tax increase for the top 5% of the population. Huge leverage, but a fantasy just like the pp's. That deal could not have ever been done.

Anonymous wrote:In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

But to get Dems to accept that, GOP would probably have had to accept tax increases; defense cuts may be unpalatable, but tax cuts are poison.

Just a guess.

In order to actually get anything done they should have said mandatory cuts in Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts

So what do you think, ManWhoFormerlyHadAUsername?

Anonymous wrote:The dems never did want the super committee to succeed. Politically a failure was more advantageous for the Dems.

Not true. We would have rather had a change to the tax code. Everyone knows that, and this doesn't deliver it.

But it's interesting to see who squeals the loudest when real cuts actually happen.

The dems never did want the super committee to succeed. Politically a failure was more advantageous for the Dems.

Not all democrats support cuts in defense and want social security and medicaid to remain the same.

Yep, as long as they can keep the Republicans from overturning the half they don't like.

I think this does a very interesting thing during the election, because if the Republicans run on a campaign to overturn the law, then they are on the wrong side of debt reduction. It makes them admit that they have spending priorities and that the debt is a Republican problem, too. So it undermines a campaign on spending reduction and turns it into a campaign about what spending cuts are good.

On top of that, they are going back on the bill they themselves signed, which makes bare their dysfunction. When the bill was signed, it was portrayed as something that made cuts which are painful to both sides. Yet only one side seems willing to take the medicine, and the other wants to weasel out of it.

The cuts would slash $1.2 trillion in defense and nondefense spending. Exempt from the cuts: Social Security and programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid. Medicare cuts, meanwhile, would be limited.