Obama Says Debt Deal Agreed to By Leadership of Both Parties

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:08:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It's a done deal with Congressional leadership, says Obama.

The "bipartisan" deal will be unveiled tomorrow, in all it's glory (not.) You can still make your voice heard. Harry Reid says:

"To pass this settlement, we'll need the support of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate. There is no way either party, in either chamber, can do this alone."

What did Boehner tell Republicans tonight?

“There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," Boehner told House Republicans. "It’s all spending cuts."

Here's the slideshow of Boehner's presentation.

What did Obama say?

Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we have to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare, to make sure they are still around for future generations."

You can watch Obama's statement here. The full text of his comments are here. [More...]

In the first round, Obama said, "Everything is on the table" if Congress doesn't act on the Commission's recommendations.

To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don't act

Obama is distancing himself from the failure of this deal. He calls it Congress' deal and says it was our phone calls, e-mails, tweets, etc. that compelled Congress to act. As if he wasn't right in the center and responsible for failing to negotiate an acceptable compromise. Whatever happened to "The buck stops here?"

< Deal or No Deal: Why is a Default so Bad? | Sunday Night TV and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Says Debt Deal Agreed to By Leadership of Both Parties | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What did Obama say? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by mjames on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:16:18 PM EST

There is nothing in this agreement that upholds Democratic Party principles.

: James Fallows at The Atlantic says (none / 0) (#17)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:01:25 PM EST

"Disaster averted, decline embraced."

It's playing out... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Romberry on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:27:11 PM EST

...exactly as I have been saying it would play out. Take it to the brink and try to use the crisis/panic as pressure to get the Dem votes needed to pass as though there is no other choice. But there are other choices, and I hope this all falls apart so that Obama is forced to make the right choice. This "deal" is the wrong choice.

He will probably (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:43:58 PM EST

campaign on saving Medicare.

He's absolutely lost it if he thinks (5.00 / 5) (#5)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:48:14 PM EST

he can dump responsibility for this deal on us.

: Yeh. I ate my peas (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Towanda on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:51:49 PM EST

and all I got was this stinkin' deal.
And not even a t-shirt.

This deal shows (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:47:41 PM EST

Obama to be a masterful politician. Yet again, he gets the result he wants, but is able to foist responsibility on Congress. And once more, he plays the sober compromiser. IMO, everything in the last few days has been show, except possibly in the case of Pelosi. Yes, this was a terrible result, but don't kid yourself, Obama nailed this one.

When the theoretical meets the actual, (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:16:25 PM EST

I don't believe Obama is not going to come out of this looking as good as you think he is, because the economy's going to get worse, more people will join the ranks of the unemployed, and the buck - or what's left of it - is going to stop with Obama.

I expect there to be some Democrats up for re-election who are going to find out what the undercarriage of a bus looks like, because Obama will not sacrifice his own political fortune to anyone else's; it's going to be an ugly, ugly election campaign, and the intra-party back-stabbing may be the ugliest part of it.


Progressive Caucus (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:14:28 PM EST

meeting tomorrow at 2pm. I wonder what, if anything, the Caucus will do. I wrote my Senators today indicating that though a life-long Dem who has campaigned, raised and donated money for decades, and worked on voter protection, etc., I will NOT vote for any member of Congress who supports the debt ceiling deal.


same here (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Amiss on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:25:29 PM EST

and the medicare cuts to providers helps seniors how? There are already so many doctors that will not accept medicare that it will just push the rest over the edge and the seniors further under the bus.


My prediction: (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by shoephone on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:51:59 PM EST

Some, but not all, of the members of the CPC will vote against the bill. Boehner will pull together enough non-teabagger votes and enough remaining Dem votes to pass the bill. Pelosi and Grijalva will get to say they stood up for the little people, and Obama will get to say that the bipartisan adults in the room made it safe for Americans to leave their houses on August 2nd.

It has been pre-ordained. Everyone gets to pretend they did the right thing, while saving their own a$$e$. The corporate media will declare there was never any doubt a default would be averted. On Tuesday, August 3rd, the DJIA will gain 250+ points, the S&P and the Russell 500 will rise by a collective 30 points, and the Nasdaq will enjoy its biggest gains in over a month. Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and the Koch brothers will throw a DC cocktail party where Austen Goolsby will be given an award for stamina, Claire McCaskill will be caught on Biden's camera phone dancing the Frug with Mitch McConnell, and Tom Freidman will be seen weaving towards the men's room after spilling champagne all over his yellow tie, and everyone will laugh and say "Oh, that Tom. He just spilled another Freidman unit on himself. Someone call him a cab."

On that same August 3rd, 14.1 million Americans will still be unemployed. Another 100,000 will see their COBRA benefits expire. July's foreclosure numbers will be reported to equal June's. Housing starts will still be static, and the polling agencies will report that a large majority of Americans in both parties say the country is going in the "wrong direction."

Hail Obama. Hail Obama. Vini vidi vici and all that.


This deal cannot pass without (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MO Blue on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:26:56 AM EST

Democratic votes.

I told both my Rep and my Dem Senator that if this passed I would not vote for any Democrat currently in D.C. since it could not happen without the consent of a Democratic president and the votes of Dems in Congress. No picking and choosing on how many Dems will vote to make sure it passes. It passes and I hold the entire Democratic Party responsible.


: I agree (none / 0) (#27)
by nycstray on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:46:31 AM EST

this should never pass. The more we hear, the worse it gets

One too many negatives in that (none / 0) (#16)
by Anne on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:55:57 PM EST

opening sentence of mine: "I don't believe Obama is going to come out of this looking as good..." is how that should read.

Brain working faster than fingers, I guess.


sure. I hope his rating (none / 0) (#18)
by observed on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:07:47 PM EST

plummets right away, myself.


Local Congressman, Cleaver (Kansas City) (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by katiebird on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:09:19 PM EST

Called it a Satan Sandwich. Which doesn't sound like he likes it.

: He's a good guy (none / 0) (#15)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:55:48 PM EST

That whole bunch of Civil Rights veterans in Congress are about the only ones I trust at all.

Jeralynn I think that this statement (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:54:23 PM EST

in your post is incorrect:

In the first round, Obama said, "Everything is on the table" if Congress doesn't act on the Commission's recommendations.

To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don't act

The first round has predetermined cuts that both sides have agreed upon. Per statement:

"The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process.

The second round is the Cat Food CommisionII where everything is on the table including cuts to the "entitlement programs." Per statement:

"That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don't act.
"Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Obama has not taken cutting the safety net off the table merely delayed them until the second round.

unveiled tomorrow, eh? (none / 0) (#3)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 08:32:34 PM EST

how nice . . .

White House fact sheet on deal (none / 0) (#7)
by Addison on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:11:46 PM EST

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

Let's go back to Eisenhower's Admin. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
by caseyOR on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 09:30:42 PM EST

In reading the WH fact sheet I noticed this little gem

Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

If regressing to Ike era spending levels is the responsible thing to do, shouldn't we also enact Ike era income tax levels? What was the marginal tax rate? 70%? 90%?


: I heard that in his speech! (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by katiebird on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:04:26 PM EST

It sounds insane. I don't get how that's a good thing. I mean why ANYONE would think it's a good thing.

: Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 10:51:27 PM EST

Exactly what I thought when I heard the words come out of his mouth.
As I recall, the top marginal rate during Eisenhower was 90 percent. I'm good with that.

Says that step two (none / 0) (#21)
by MKS on Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 11:34:29 PM EST

enforcement mechanism will not have cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and that cuts to Medicare limited to providers.

If true, then rejecting the Catfood Commission findings may be the best way to go--which will likely have such cuts.

What is makeup of Catfood Commission? How many people and who gets to appoint?


12 people (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by MO Blue on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 12:38:11 AM EST

3 D Reps and 3 R Reps.
3 D Senators and 3 R Senators.

I would guess that each party picks its own people like what happened on Cat Food CommissionI. The key question is if Obama is actually the one doing the picking for the Dems regardless of what is said.

If members of the Gang of Six (either just the Dems or all six) comprise the committee members for the Senate, it will be a sure sign that the fix is in since they have already agreed to cuts to the safety net programs.

Boxer, Schumer and B. Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by MKS on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:12:14 AM EST

Grijalva, Barbara Lee and Barney Frank.


Except why Schumer? (none / 0) (#31)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:17:01 AM EST

He's pretty much a captive of Wall Street. I'd rather Franken for a truly reliable liberal.


That'll work (none / 0) (#32)
by MKS on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 10:49:41 AM EST

Does anyone know if the trigger occurs if the Catfood Commission fails to reach agreement?

Is only a bare majority vote required for Catfood Commission to report a recommendation?


Trigger does definitely (none / 0) (#34)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 11:52:17 AM EST

apply if the commission fails to agree. Haven't heard a single word about what kind of vote is involved.

I wonder if they'll have trouble getting people to serve on that committee. The amount of pressure that's going to be put on those people is horrendous to contemplate-- lobbyists, constituents, contributors, other pols. Aiieee.


: 7-5 (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by CoralGables on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 11:54:03 AM EST

would move it along to the House and Senate where a majority would also be needed.

I like your picks (none / 0) (#36)
by MO Blue on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 11:56:59 AM EST

But I think the Senate side will consist of Durbin, Warner and Conrad (i.e. Gang of 6).

Plenty of House Members to chose from if Obama is actually making the picks and not Pelosi. At the moment I can't recall who backed the original Simpson/Bowles recommendations from the House side.

The choice of committee members will be a sure indication of the final recommendations.


If I read correctly (none / 0) (#25)
by CoralGables on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:52:38 AM EST

the picks are made by McConnell and Reid in the Senate, and by Pelosi and Boehner in the House. Depending on whether you favor a compromise or the trigger is how you pick your team. From what I see not many would want the trigger.


You do realize that the (none / 0) (#28)
by MO Blue on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 07:20:18 AM EST

committee has the ability to make all the cuts to the safety net programs that it wants.* The committee, with its fast track up or down vote, is designed to do exactly that while relieving individual members of the responsibility of making cuts that the public is strongly against.

If the reporting is accurate, the triggers are more protective of the safety net programs.

So while you may support Obama's goals of weakening the safety net programs, many would not and might prefer the triggers.

*From Obama's statement: bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table....believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process.

Bottom line this agreement is horrible but what you can expect. When Obama negotiates a deal with the Republicans they get everything they want and more since Obama shares their objectives.


: Personally (none / 0) (#33)
by CoralGables on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 11:33:51 AM EST

I won't judge the outcome of the committee decision until it makes the light of day, and then I can call my Congressman and my two Senators to voice my view one way or the other as to how I would prefer they vote.
If enough Tea Party House members and Progressive House members woo each other over drinks and jump into bed together tonight, it may never be an issue.

How do you get a majority vote? (none / 0) (#29)
by MKS on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 09:54:56 AM EST

If the Dems and Republicans split, then is there no recommendation and the whole thing fails?


I'm tellin' all a y'all... (none / 0) (#26)
by Addison on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:11:16 AM EST

I think the triggers can also be avoided if the Congress sends the Balanced Budget Amendment to the states.

I have to say, there are numerous motives for sabotaging the commission on all sides...
