• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who won the budget deal?

Who won the budget deal?


  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
Alright, I'm going to come at this from a political science perspective rather than an average observer spectrum whose going "America Won!". Doing this because I actually would like to discuss politically who won here. Going to try to be objective

The President - Obama comes out a winner here, though not quite as much as he would've if this happened earlier. Ultimately after 2010 Obama needed to pull a Clinton and angle center a bit. He's not done it nearly as well as Clinton did, but cutting the budget was one of the few things he did try to use to make that move. Getting a budget passed, and having it with cuts, is a benefit to him politically.

The Republicans - This is primarily the House Republicans here, and I think they absolutely came out a winner. While some of the social riders did not get passed, the primary thing they were focused on...reducing of the budget...succeeded. From the start of the CR's they've cut $53 billion, which is only about $10 billion less than their original compromised number they through out. Not a bad result. Yes, their riders failed, however I think they were more bargaining chips than anything. Many of the Tea Party House Republicans will benefit far more due to the cut in budget and the fact they stayed firm on THAT issue, as many Tea Partiers main concern was electing people to see them immedietely abandon what they were saying. I think the Republicans would've been far more hurt if they had got to keep some of the social riders and yet didn't cut the budget as much. This budget battle showed, at least in the short term, that these new Republicans aren't going to compromise away their fiscal principles largely.

The Democrats - This is a wash here I believe. They get points for not having the government shut down, which I believe would've hurt them greatly due to their constituents being largely affected. At the same time, you had the Republicans driving home that this should've been passed 6 months ago when they had a majority compared to the Democrats saying Republicans wanted to take away women's health care. I think the more realistic and less sensationalized message is going to be the more lasting one. The debate here was simply not in their favor. While they can sell the removal of the riders to their people, essentially they gave the Republicans what they wanted and in return got to have the Republicans to remove the bonus content on top.

So Obama helped himself some, Republicans helped themselves a decent bit, and the Democrats came out neutral to a bit down.

This entire time though is going to be a mostly afterthought to all but government workers. 2012's budget fight is going to be far more important to all of them, with Republicans pushing for an actual significant cut, Democrats fighting for what they think is more reasonable, and Obama straddled with the situation of figuring where to fall and how to play it. The next 6 months is going to be very interesting budgetarily
 
No one won! AT least not until Obama leaves and Harry Reid dies.
 
I didn't post about your fantasies? You're right, I don't post about fake history.



Republicans prevented passage of the 2011 Omnibus Budget Bill in December, 2010.

So you are admitting that the democrats, with massive majorities in the house and senate AND control of the white house, failed to pass their budget proposals. In case you missed it...the Fed fiscal year ends in Sept and begins in Oct. And you swant to blame republicans in December.

Honestly dood...you make things too easy. You come across just as silly as those democrats that lined up to the microphone and proclaimed that fiscal accountability means republicans want to kill women and children. YOU and THEY, dood...seriously.
 
The Denocrats lose because it was clear they shoudl have passed a bill much earlier. Republicans lose because they look petty and too linked to the tea party. The president managed to appear above the fray, which gives a slight win to a very poor effort all around.
 
I wanted to vote depends or neither. This was just a stop gap for the 2012 budget. The outcome of that bill will be the result of the positions gained in this bill. I think the Republicans were smart to not waste political capital on a bill that was never going to accomplish much. 2012 better come out balanced or damn near.
 
I wanted to vote depends or neither. This was just a stop gap for the 2012 budget. The outcome of that bill will be the result of the positions gained in this bill. I think the Republicans were smart to not waste political capital on a bill that was never going to accomplish much. 2012 better come out balanced or damn near.

I think if the conservative republicans are smart (OK...strike one) they will start right now educating the general populace on just how ****ed we are economically, what we are actually spending every year, and what the long term implications are. They need to project serious and honest need for across the board cuts and even tax increases. Let the dems continue to come across like...well...like they have been the last few months. If thats not enough to convince people then people dont want to be convinced. There are those crippled and dependent pets that exist on government cheese and spending...forget 'em...they are unreachable. There are the mindless ideologues...forget them as well...they are locked into their partisan mentality (and yeah...that includes the automatons on the right that reject any tax increases or cuts in defense spending). Intelligent, reasoned, rational people can see this annual deficit and overall debt for the nightmare that it will be unless there is some serious action.

14.5 trillion and counting folks. Its not going to get better without MAJOR cuts across the board.
 
The Denocrats lose because it was clear they shoudl have passed a bill much earlier. Republicans lose because they look petty and too linked to the tea party. The president managed to appear above the fray, which gives a slight win to a very poor effort all around.

How can a president who does not get involved in one of the most important issues of the day until the last minute be considered a winner excet by those who blindly follow him.

To the extent that republicans have changed the fundemental debate about federal spending they had a win of large proportions. They may have lost some of the win in political terms because they allowed Reid and Obama to demagoge on side issues that were never going to happen and where probably considered by Boehner as nothing more than bargaining chips.

If you look at the start of this fight, rebulicans put out of committee a budget that cut something like $35 billion, they allowed the number to get pushed to 61 billion. Then the settled for 38 billion. Most people familiar with nogotiations would say Boehner did better than Reid/Obama. But like I said Reis/Obama won the demagoge war. Republicans and democrats will look back at this battle like generals after a war and decide how to exploit where they saw weaknesses, and adopt what they saw as strenghts.
 
How can a president who does not get involved in one of the most important issues of the day until the last minute be considered a winner excet by those who blindly follow him.

To the extent that republicans have changed the fundemental debate about federal spending they had a win of large proportions. They may have lost some of the win in political terms because they allowed Reid and Obama to demagoge on side issues that were never going to happen and where probably considered by Boehner as nothing more than bargaining chips.

If you look at the start of this fight, rebulicans put out of committee a budget that cut something like $35 billion, they allowed the number to get pushed to 61 billion. Then the settled for 38 billion. Most people familiar with nogotiations would say Boehner did better than Reid/Obama. But like I said Reis/Obama won the demagoge war. Republicans and democrats will look back at this battle like generals after a war and decide how to exploit where they saw weaknesses, and adopt what they saw as strenghts.

Winner by not losing. He did not seem part of the silliness. But don't worry, it was only a slight edge. Hardly praise worthy, and only because of how bad the other two looked.
 
Winner by not losing. He did not seem part of the silliness. But don't worry, it was only a slight edge. Hardly praise worthy, and only because of how bad the other two looked.

OK I see what you mean. What I would call: Cream of the crap.
 
I am not even sure what's in the bill... Where all the riders taken out?

I did hear that Bachmann didn't vote for the bill and the Tea Party is mad at Boehner, but I am not sure why... or even if it's the entire TP or a fringe.
 
I will say though, Obama came through at a leader IMO... I always thought he was kind of weak, but he fought and he worked hard. I respect him for that.
 
Did it, or did it not cut the budget and begin that process? Why the need to spin things?

What? You think I made that up? Geithner (that's your guy) admits, that even if the president's budget had been passed, it would be unsustainable.

YouTube - Geithner Admits: Obligations in President's Budget "Unsustainable"




I have not denied that republicans get a share of the credit. Straw men are weak arguments. In fact, only you are trying to deny any party in this credit. Kinda ironic, no?
Not at all, details matter. Would you ever credit the GOP for sustaining some government program you thought was good? A prime example, the prescription drug plan for seniors passed during the Bush admin. Even though it's the kind of thing liberals usually support, I've only ever seen it used by the left as a bludgeon against the GOP, "See?!!!! They spend too!!!"



And again you repeat the lie.

I'm just taking Dems at their word that every government program and grant, from cowboy poetry to NPR just had to be left alone for the good of the nation and failing to do so was just mean-spirited. You didn't see any of those claims?
 
I am not even sure what's in the bill... Where all the riders taken out?

specifics on the spending are still being hammered out - only the total amount is set in stone. most the riders were taken out, but government funding for abortion in DC has been stopped, and the voucher system to allow disadvantaged kids to escape the DC school system was reinstated.

I did hear that Bachmann didn't vote for the bill and the Tea Party is mad at Boehner, but I am not sure why... or even if it's the entire TP or a fringe.


it's split; and it comes down to the feeling that they broke a promise. the "pledge" swore up and down to cut 100 Bn, then they tried for 33 Bn. Then they got into trouble and agreed to shoot for 61 Bn, before settling for 38 Bn. there's a sense that if we can't trust leadership not to fold on the small potatos, trusting them not to fold later might be iffy. but we shall see. we are caught now between two visions; and one cannot survive. the next three years are gonna be interesting.
 
I will say though, Obama came through at a leader IMO... I always thought he was kind of weak, but he fought and he worked hard. I respect him for that.

what? Obama let Reid do his work, went off campaiging. Like when he dithered for weeks, finally decided to bomb Libya and so went off to cruise South America. Or when he decided to change 1/8th of the Economy and so left healthcare reform to congress. Or when he couldn't decide whether or not to support the effort in Afghanistan and so - after months of indecision - boldly set on the brave course of seeing if he could split the difference. Or when he decided to save the economy and led nancy pelosi write the "stimulus" bill. Even Democrats are now publicly complaining about the Presidents utter lack of leadership on this issue.

Obama voted 'present' on this and then scurried in front of the television to try to claim credit for cuts when he'd asked for spending increases. :roll: i have to admire the gall, but still, not impressive.
 
This is obviously a big win for the new Republican congress.

Our congress has finally proposed serious spending cuts in entitlement programs. Will they be successful? We'll see. The fact that we are talking about reducing the deficit with the ultimate goal of a tax surplus so we can start to pay off our debt is moving in the right direction.

So far 0bama's economic policy has been to spend even more. Exactly what got us in this situation in the first place. He’s smart enough to know that.
 
well well well, it turns out that the "cuts" agreed on weren't cuts at all.... Boehner lied to us.

this thing might not even pass at this point; and raising the debt ceiling just got a whole lot tougher. the tea party-esque right today is infuriated.


Strike One

...All the cuts in the deal aren’t equal. The ones that matter most are the cuts in discretionary spending that reduce the budget baseline in future years. Even with more the details of the deal released early yesterday morning, the exact numbers are still shrouded in confusion, but it is clear the cuts are much less than meets the eye — the gimmickry is not merely around the edges.

The $38.5 billion includes real cuts, but also a dog’s breakfast of budgetary legerdemain. According to the Associated Press, the deal purports to save $2.5 billion “from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation.” It gets another $4.9 billion by capping a reserve fund for the victims of crime that also wasn’t going to be spent this year — a long-standing trick of appropriators. The Washington Post reports that a notional $3.5 billion cut from the Children’s Health Insurance Program “would affect only rewards for states that make an extra effort to enroll children. But officials with knowledge of the budget deal said that most states were unlikely to qualify for the bonuses and that sufficient money would be available for those that did.” And so on.

There’s realism and then there’s cynicism. This deal — oversold and dependent on classic Washington budget trickery — comes too close to the latter. John Boehner has repeatedly said he’s going to reject “business as usual,” but that’s what he’s offered his caucus. It’s one thing for Tea Party Republicans to vote for a cut that falls short of what they’d get if the controlled all of Washington; it’s another thing for them, after making so much of bringing transparency and honesty to the Beltway, to vote for a deal sold partly on false pretenses...
 
This makes this a bad deal for Boehner, whose position which was already on thin ice is now going to be on cracking thin ice. Its going to make for an interesting situation for the Tea Party elected members as well to see if they walk the walk with the new relevations, or if they stand up for what they were elected in at.

This is the first hand in a long tournament of poker. If any Republican tips his hand as being a bad bluffer this early on they can expect to be doomed pretty quickly.
 
well well well, it turns out that the "cuts" agreed on weren't cuts at all.... Boehner lied to us.

this thing might not even pass at this point; and raising the debt ceiling just got a whole lot tougher. the tea party-esque right today is infuriated.


Strike One

...All the cuts in the deal aren’t equal. The ones that matter most are the cuts in discretionary spending that reduce the budget baseline in future years. Even with more the details of the deal released early yesterday morning, the exact numbers are still shrouded in confusion, but it is clear the cuts are much less than meets the eye — the gimmickry is not merely around the edges.

The $38.5 billion includes real cuts, but also a dog’s breakfast of budgetary legerdemain. According to the Associated Press, the deal purports to save $2.5 billion “from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation.” It gets another $4.9 billion by capping a reserve fund for the victims of crime that also wasn’t going to be spent this year — a long-standing trick of appropriators. The Washington Post reports that a notional $3.5 billion cut from the Children’s Health Insurance Program “would affect only rewards for states that make an extra effort to enroll children. But officials with knowledge of the budget deal said that most states were unlikely to qualify for the bonuses and that sufficient money would be available for those that did.” And so on.

There’s realism and then there’s cynicism. This deal — oversold and dependent on classic Washington budget trickery — comes too close to the latter. John Boehner has repeatedly said he’s going to reject “business as usual,” but that’s what he’s offered his caucus. It’s one thing for Tea Party Republicans to vote for a cut that falls short of what they’d get if the controlled all of Washington; it’s another thing for them, after making so much of bringing transparency and honesty to the Beltway, to vote for a deal sold partly on false pretenses...

Wow. So they cutbudgeted items that wasn't going to be spent anyway. What in the hell where the Republicans thinking?

I was disappointed in the amount of cuts, but I thought hey at least we're moving in the right direction, even if it's at a glacier's pace. I thought it was a potentially important tactical victory for deficit hawks and the Republican Party. But now I find out we got the status quo and they're hailing it as "historic cuts"! I can't begin to express my disgust at this revalation. Here I was starting to think maybe the Republican Party was serious about fiscal conservatism, maybe not to the extent I am, but at least moving in that direction. Now they hand us this crap.

One thing that will be nice is when this thing is put to a vote, we'll find out which Tea Party candidates were serious about spending cuts and which ones were blowing hot air. Sadly I have a feeling there will be only a handful of holdouts and dissenters in the GOP.
 
59Republican defectors

The House just passed the Boehner-White House spending deal, to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. Fifty-nine Republicans voted against the measure. On the Democratic side, 81 members supported the package. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the party leader, voted nay; Democratic whip Steny Hoyer voted in favor...

(one Republican whomissed the vote said later he would have voted 'nay')


Representative Allan West: boehner needs toCome To Jesus

...Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.) tells reporters that House GOP leaders bungled the deal. “My leadership needs to sit down and have a ‘come to Jesus’ with [each other],” he says. “Character and integrity are important things with me. I like people to be upfront with me. Surprises are for birthdays... West says the deal has led him to question the leadership’s early spin. “In the military they teach you that the first report is always kind of incorrect,” he says. “You have to go back and do your studying, you have to do your research and let the smoke dissipate.”

West, of course, will be voting against the measure.
 
Back
Top Bottom