The Glade 4.0

They made public statements about it at the time, so no, they aren't just making it up after the fact. And as for putting it in writing - that's honestly a really weak argument (like, transparently b.s.). It's the kind of petty process objection you raise when you're looking for an excuse to say no.

Wow ... this thread is going in an unexpected direction. *passes out popcorn*

_________________

So you're saying that they made public statements about what was in an offer that there was no record of the offer or what was in it?

I don't think anyone is denying that.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I dunno, seems pretty predictable to me...

Could RD link me to the exact Democrat plan? Google-fu isn't working. Keeps telling me page not found.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

What's this "on the table"? Which "Dems" proposed this bill? Is this referring to the notion that Obama "talked" about it before poisoning the deal with a last minute 50% hike in "revenue"? Failure of "both parties" to agree on entitlement reform? I only know of one plan that deals with entitlement reform. It passed the House. Why didn't the D's in the Senate choose to debate the merits rather than go with the predictable scare tactics of pushing grandma off the cliff? Why haven't the D's presented their own plan as a means of at least having something to start with? It couldn't be because they are afraid of what will happen to their electorate? Is that the same reason there was no budget passed (or even proposed AFAIK) by the D controlled House and super-majority of D's in the Senate?


Scorched earth? Oh, you mean like presenting multiple bills, you know the ones that actually passed the House? You know the one's in writing?



It is unreal that people still talk about "default" when everyone knows there was zero chance of it actually happening even without an increase in the debt ceiling.

I can't tell you how freaking amazingly happy I am the the idea that the Gov't can get another line of credit without so much as a word about trying to curb our of control spending is now dead.



Or, if Obama had actually meant to present that plan to the Senate D's...
Or, if Obama hadn't intentionally poisoned it by leaving a message for Boehner (after the two of them had "agreed in principle") saying he needed to increase the taxation portion by $500 billion (50%)...
Or, if, since it was his "opening offer" there had been, I don't know, a second offer...
Or, if Obama had actually been willing to commit anything to writing...

It's not of "great substance" if it's not in writing, not approved by the D's, and not in good faith.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

This. I keep hearing the libs and dems parrot the same talking points of how Obama did this or Obama did that. But where is it? Where was this plan? Nice talk doesn't make a plan. Obama's word is about has trustworthy as Clinton in a room full of interns.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Were these public statements "statements of fact", or "throw it on the wall and see how much sticks"? Why was the POTUS so adamant about not putting anything in writing? Why, in the end was there never anything in writing from the other side of the aisle, until the last minute when Reid had to present something so he appropriated McConnel's plan? It couldn't be because the D's are looking for political cover in the most spineless way possible, by offering nothing? That couldn't be following the plan behind not even submitting a budget, and not presenting a plan regarding entitlement reform? They couldn't be attempting to protect themselves by doing nothing while simultaneously decrying everything presented by the R's as "extreme!!111oneone!!".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

For ease of quoting and discussion, here's a link to the text of the S&P press release. They say, over and over again, that the driving force for their decision was the political situation and the implications it has our ability to actually do anything to reduce the structural deficit. The three policy points they bring up, repeatedly, are the Republicans' debt ceiling nonsense, the Republicans' refusal to increase tax revenues, and both parties failure to agree on entitlement reforms. There's just no honest way to read this that doesn't see it as an indictment of Republicans' political decisions over the last year or so, particularly when you consider that (a) Obama offered a deal that hit S&P's $4 trillion deficit reduction target, and (b) the one thing the Dems are dinged on in the "both parties" faux-balance narrative - entitlement reform - was also included in the deal Obama offered. Feel free to disagree with S&P's reasoning, but don't try to pretend it's anything other than what it is - a finger pointing straight at the Reps in Congress.

I'm having a hard time as well. Little help RD?

As for the "on the table" proposal satisfying S&P, there were also two in writing,that would have satisfied S&P, that passed the House (twice), that the D's in the Senate refused to even discuss (twice).

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

pardon the vulgarity, but what **** level of taxation would finally be "fair" and would cause the liberals to actually look at the spending? 100%?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

As was put to me a few weeks ago..."more".

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I'd like to hear a compelling argument for raising the debt ceiling rather than either increasing revenues or cut spending. It seems that raising the debt ceiling is considered the default course only because cutting spending is off the table.

I'd be perfectly happy to see revenues increased. Remove the witholding and let people see how much they really pay in taxes, not just the 1040A number.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Heh. And here we have the lynchpin of the Republican counter-argument: "Pics or it didn't happen."

so you are saying there is not a plan we can look at? Or as the CBO said earlier this summer to Obama "We don't rate speeches"

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

You don't want to discuss the D's not presenting anything, or even debating what the R's presented, I guess? Just going to go with, "Well, somebody talked about a plan this one time..."?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I believe that the Borrower In Chief believes that the government borrowing money to hand out to large corporations will save the economy.


I've come to the conclusion that he's either A) a clueless dolt who has no fscking idea what he's doing, or B) he's intentionally sabotaging the country.

I prefer A, since I can't really think of a motive for B.

Are you serious? Asking for even the basic contents of the 'Plan' is too much ?

Saying you have a plan is very much different from, you know, actually HAVING ONE, and presenting it, and it's contents....

Plan

_________________

Yes, I am saying the Dems did not bother wasting legislative time by proposing bills they knew wouldn't pass, and they didn't release any term sheets or memos laying out a comprehensive deal, so I cannot link to any such items. However, I am also saying that the Dems negotiated with the Reps face-to-face for months, and the framework of their position was very well understood by all concerned. They were willing to do a deal that was in the $4 trillion range, heavily weighted toward spending cuts, with most of the revenue increases coming through tax reforms. If the Reps had said, "Great! We're on board with that. Now, let's get into the details," then we would have gotten to the phase where term sheets go back and forth.

That's how negotiations often work - You get both sides on board with the basic structure, and then you work out the details. The Reps just refused to agree to any framework that wasn't 100% spending cuts. The one possible exception to that was the agreement in principle Vind alluded to, but I'm not sure how that fell apart; it's kind of a he-said-she-said situation. That said, the larger "if it's not in writing, it's not a real offer" meme the Reps are pushing, however, is really quite ridiculous.

From the Underpants Gnomes:

Step 1: Raise debt ceiling
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Problems solved

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

I'm guessing the substance of the Democratic 'plan' was "we won't agree to anything that makes us look bad".

Their negotiation was Raise the Debt, raise taxes, or we kill Grandma! Hell even Obama told Cantor "Don't call my bluff"! WTF even the president admits he's bluffing. They, the dems, put forth no bold new positions, just the same old business that has gotten us in trouble for decades and decades. For the love of God the last two years the Dem's had a majority, they did not produce a budget, preferring to trying stick it to the Republicans. They could have passed any bold plan they wanted, but did not.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Yes funny how one side makes a statement and the other side asks for proof.

Oh we all agree they said there was an offer made...

BTW I am saying I saw the FSM last night.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Do you ever wonder why the D's have been inerrant about not having anything in writing that could later be looked at as defining their position? Doesn't it intrigue you a bit as to why they would have such a stance, RD? Why is "showing a lot of leg" sufficient for good faith negotiations before the American people?

Did you stop to consider that Boehner said, "Great! We're on board with that. Now, let's get into the details..." as they left the meeting room, then Obama started dealing with the D's and found out the deal wasn't sell-able to them, so he made the $500 billion tax increase call to Boehner's VM in order to shit-can the whole thing ?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko