“The president’s been very clear on this. The answer is no.”

[bigtree]

11/30/11 10:27 AM EST

President Barack Obama isn’t open to renegotiating the spending cuts triggered by the supercommittee’s failure to reach a deficit-reduction deal even as some Democrats float the possibility, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

“The president’s been very clear on this. The answer is no,” Carney said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.”

The third-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, said Tuesday that he would consider redoing the automatic spending cuts known as the “sequester,” perhaps to reach a deal with Republicans over the payroll tax break that Obama wants extended.

But Carney said the president isn’t interested in altering the cuts that are scheduled to take effect in January 2013.

“The sequester was designed to be so onerous, to have the kinds of cuts that were so objectionable to members of both parties in Congress that they would never come to pass, that they would force Congress to work hard and reach a compromise that was responsible and balanced to reduce our deficit and deal with our long-term debt challenge,” Carney said. “The president believes that the very nature of the sequester needs to stay the same to keep the pressure on Congress to do its job.”


read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69410.html

[Bandit]

1. The very second Republicans have some sort of hold over the country, I believe Obama will reconsider

Just as soon as some "must pass" bill comes along and Republicans do what they have been doing for some time now, hold 'em hostage for ransom, I will bet Obama will do just the same as he has done so far.. CAVE....

[Javaman]

2. or as I like to say...

it's a no, until he says yes.

lol

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. It's no for the 99% yes for the 1%

[sad sally]

18. Here it is - heck, old people don't need no stinking health care anyway - let 'em (us) die.

(Reuters) - Republicans in Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.
----
"In all likelihood we will agree to continue the current payroll tax relief for another year," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said after a closed-door meeting of his colleagues.
----
McConnell did not provide details on how Republicans would offset the cost of extending the tax cut. There has been speculation among some Democratic aides in Congress that Republicans could take aim at new federal subsidies under President Barack Obama's overhaul of the healthcare system.
----
Among the ways to potentially cover the cost of renewing the payroll tax cuts are: cutting federal farm subsidies, selling some government assets, reducing federal pensions and administrative savings in the Medicare healthcare program for the elderly. All these ideas have been discussed in past budget negotiations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-usa-taxes-idUSTRE7AS2KR20111130?du

[woo me with science]

4. Still trying to sell this as a win?

Good grief.

Five years ago this plan would have been excoriated by everyone here as a Republican wet dream.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2363074&mesg_id=2363074

[Safetykitten]

5. But it has everything needed for a win for him. Distance, deniability...

the result, a republican in the WH in 2012.

[woo me with science]

8. +1 What a travesty that

it seems we will have Republican policies in the White House either way.

Support OWS.

[bigtree]

6. still think posting here is some sort of contest?

[woo me with science]

7. It's absolutely NOT a contest or a game.

That is why it's so important to point out when despicable Republican legislation that will harm Americans across this country is misrepresented as some sort of victory for Democrats.

[hfojvt]

9. truthfully, I cannot remember the details of the cuts

I thought they at least included deep cuts in defense spending, although that may be the marketing. I still think the automatic cuts are probably not as bad as anything the supercommittee would have come up with. I was afraid they would come up with something like the gang of six proposal or the Catfoord Commission Report, both of which Obama has endorsed, at THAT pile of excrement would be sold as a win.

[bigtree]

11. Trigger And Expiration Of Bush Tax Cuts More Progressive Than Either Parties' Proposals

from Ezra Klein: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-gops-dual-trigger-nightmare-in-one-graph/2011/11/25/gIQAQSAYvN_print.html


I posted a column about the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare: the prospect that deficit reduction would now take place through a combination of the supercommittee’s $1.2 trillion spending trigger and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That would cut the deficit by $5 trillion — actually, $6 trillion, once you include reduce interest payments — but in a vastly more progressive fashion than either party has even considered proposing. To get a sense of how progressive, here’s a graph comparing the spending cuts and tax increases in all of the major deficit-reduction packages proposed thus far. (Note: I’m measuring revenues against the tax code as it it is right now, and I’m not including savings on interest payments.)



It would be quite a turn of events if the GOP started by proposing the Ryan plan and ended with the dual-trigger plan.

[woo me with science]

13. More than three hundred economists warned the President against austerity budget slashing

during the worst economy since the Great Depression. Our entire history as Democrats warns against right-wing economic policies like this.

Instead, our bought-and-paid-for corporate leaders in both parties set up a game in which our only options were a bad Republican plan and a worse Republican plan. They like this game, because it has worked well for them.

This was the new version of, "Would you rather extend the Bush tax cuts, or cut off unemployment for desperate Americans?"

And it's textbook Republican policy: slashing budgets during a bad economy. What a scam. What brilliant politics, to use Social Security and Medicare as hostages to convince people that this Republican budget slashing is a *good* deal. Here we see the culmination of Obama's turning what used to be Republican talking points into bipartisan talking points.

Slashing over a trillion from the budget now is a Republican wet dream and something that Democrats of even five years ago would never have accepted, much less praised. Any way you look at it, these cuts will be destructive to the economy and painful to millions of Americans.

And if you think the Military Industrial Complex will be affected by these cuts, I have a bridge to sell you...

[bigtree]

14. other economists disagree

[woo me with science]

20. There have always been economists who support

free trade agreements; budget slashing during recessionary times; and regressive, supply-side tax policies.

Guess which political party they have historically voted for?

[woo me with science]

12. Why do you think Obama endorsed those things?

Why do you think he put SS and Medicare and Medicaid on the table in the first place? Nobody made him do it.

What do you think Democrats across the country would have said if Obama had stood up during the 2008 campaign and announced, "Under my Presidency, we will herald a new age of austerity. We will slash over a TRILLION dollars from the budget, while simultaneously keeping in place massive tax breaks for the filthy rich"?

The Super Committee was a scam to begin with. They used Social Security and Medicare as hostages to pull off a Republican-style theft that no Democrat would have voted for in a million years. And now they reap praise for it.

These cuts are an outrage and go against all economic sense. This President was warned by hundreds of economists not to slash the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression. Doing so will not only hurt millions of individuals in cruel, unnecessary ways, but it will starve the economy during a time when the economy desperately needs stimulus. Do we even remember what we stand for?

Talk about brilliant politics. Five years ago, the very plan that is now being cheered as a victory would have been excoriated by everyone here as a Republican wet dream.

No, vowing to uphold the cuts is not a "win" for Democrats. This whole thing is an outrage and should be left behind entirely.

[bigtree]

16. who can argue with all of that

. . . it comes right out of your under-informed imagination, complete with the obligatory reactionary rhetoric. :crazy:

[hfojvt]

17. that just looks like a copy of your link

and includes no information about the cuts.

I know, I broke my own precedent and actually clicked on a link.

Not all budget cuts are bad. Cutting $10 billion from DOD is not the same as cutting $10 billion from SNAP.

While fiery rhetoric is nice, it is not a substitute for actual facts.

[woo me with science]

19. ,That's just nonsense.

Slashing over a trillion from the budget during an economy like this is destructive, period. The economy is in need of stimulus, not starvation. Even if cutting were targeted at the war machine at the level specified by the trigger (which it won't be; the cuts will be taken from pay, benefits, and from other parts of the budget), you are talking about only a small fraction of the stress that will be placed on the economy and the American people from this plan.

[hfojvt]

21. except for one thing

the cuts don't happen in THIS economy.

They happen 14 months from now, in that future to come. "But Carney said the president isn’t interested in altering the cuts that are scheduled to take effect in January 2013."

January 2013 the economy will not be in the same Dire Straits that it is now. Especially if the President's awesome trickle down jobs proposal passes.

[Scurrilous]

10. K & R

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

15. K&R...nt

Sid