"Against the Boehner Plan"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

As usual you're a dunce. Krugman was saying this is a bad deal in his opinion so it's better to vote it down and go with the 14th amendment approach instead. He's not saying "just say no no matter what" like the t-baggers have been doing.

Kudos. I couldn't write a more hypocritical justification for partisanship if I tried. In a nutshell your response is simply. "He thinks the deal is a bad deal, therefore he is justified in voting no." What an original thought

The more repugnant corollary to that approach, as outlined by Krugs, is the be damned with the concept of separation of powers, an approach advocating and reserved exclusively for people of Krugs ilk throwing a hissy fit when they don't get their way. Grownups

More amusingly is his rationales and justifications seemed eerily familiar to the rationales of the tea partiers. Namely that Aug 2nd was an artificial date. But anyone who espoused that was immediately casitigated as know nothings (save for Krugs and "his sources") for not beleiveing the unimpeachable words of Sec. Treas.

Likewise his concern that US reputation damage has already occurred, (due in large part for all the scare mongering going on considering the deal was accomplished by the artificial Aug. 2nd date), call me a cynic but I highly doubt Krugs has ever been bullish on the US and been cheerleading it to success.

[The Mad Monk]

Debt Deal: A Democrat's Perspective
August 1, 2011

Renee Montagne talks with Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri about the deal on the debt ceiling.
Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

STEVE INSKEEP, host:

It's MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm Steve Inskeep.

RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

And I'm Renee Montagne.

Let's hear two more responses to the debt ceiling agreement from lawmakers who will be asked to vote on it. First, Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri.

Welcome to the program.

Senator CLAIRE MCCASKILL (Democrat, Missouri): Thank you for having me.

MONTAGNE: Well, let's begin with President Obama saying that this was not the deal that he preferred. That's his language. How close or how far removed is this deal from what you would've hoped for?

Sen. MCCASKILL: Well, it's a compromise. But I am ecstatic about compromise. I was beginning to worry that Washington had forgotten that some of the brightest moments in this country had been forged around compromises. So it's not perfect, but wehave avoided the massive dismantling of Medicare that the House Republicans wanted.

We have an opportunity to look at real tax reform, take some of the goodies out of the tax code, level the playing field so that we just don't have the powerful people that can buy lobbyists that get tax breaks. And, you know, we've got a long way to go on the second step of this compromise. And that's what this committee will have to work on through the fall.

But the good news is that assuming that the people in the House, you know, don't lose their minds today, we will get this done and our nation will not default for the first time in history.

MONTAGNE: Well, let's talk about that committee that you mentioned. In a way, though, this deal could be looked at as creating another crisis, even hostage situation, in the sense that are a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts right now - part of the deal.

But the committee, this committee, is supposed to find more deficit reduction. If they don't agree, automatic cuts take effect. I mean, what are we looking at in terms of a Congress that seems to need a gun to its head in order to accomplish anything?

Sen. MCCASKILL: Well, this isn't unusual. You know, in fact, this compromise is fashioned after two things - Gramm-Rudman, which was done a few decades ago to try to instill some fiscal discipline, and also the way we close military bases, the BRAC commission, because in those instances we found that every individual senator wants to protect their district. And so you have to allow just an up or down vote with no amendments.

And I guess the bottom line is that too many people come to Washington and want to be loved. And the way you're loved is by always saying yes and never saying no. We are not wired - Washington is not wired - to say no. And so we need that extra push. And so what we've put in this comprise is some discipline that will hopefully give us the push necessary to get our fiscal house in order.

MONTAGNE: Although, let's talk about one wing of your party that is seeming to be saying no. The co-chair of the Congressional Progressive caucus has said in a statement last night that he won't back the deal in its current form. Can it pass without the support of this progressive caucus?

Sen. MCCASKILL: I think it can. I think as people get into the details of the agreement - what I looked for first, as I reviewed the agreement, was what happens with Medicare, because I have been very worried that some of these Republicans really want to get rid of the Medicare program.

And what I found was that worst-case scenario, that is the committee fails and there is this automatic cut, it is only a maximum of a 2 percent cut in Medicare and it can only come on the providers' side of the equation. No cuts to benefits.

MONTAGNE: So what you're saying is these automatic cuts from your point of view aren't that harsh?

Sen. MCCASKILL: It's going to be tough, because people are going to feel them. But it is going to maintain - it completely exempts Social Security. It completely exempts the safety net programs we have for the poor in this country. It exempts food stamps. It exempts Medicaid.

So I do think there are protections in this agreement for many of the values that I came to Washington wanting to fight for. So I think that most progressives in Congress, once they realize the details of the agreement, are going to feel better about it.

MONTAGNE: Senator, thank you very much.

Sen. MCCASKILL: Thank you.

MONTAGNE: Senator Clair McCaskill is a Democrat from Missouri.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/01/138884572/debt-deal-a-democrats-perspective

[Dinner]

MY personal opinion is the deal isn't that big of a deal as all the supposed cuts are put off on a different congress who will, in all likelihood, find a way to avoid enacting them. The panel could result in a more balanced approach of cuts plus revenue increases (most likely by removing lobbyist tax loopholes) and that's much better then we can expect out of the general house. As an added bonus, assuming the next congress doesn't just ditch all the cuts, the axe will fall heavily on two areas which have lots of lobbyists so instead of being obstructionists those lobbyists are more likely to try to get a deal down which effects other areas as well as just their turf. That means two large lobbying groups will be pushing for a deal instead of trying to block a deal.

[DaShi]

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/01/138884...ts-perspective

Said so eloquently.

[DaShi]

Kudos. I couldn't write a more hypocritical justification for partisanship if I tried. In a nutshell your response is simply. "He thinks the deal is a bad deal, therefore he is justified in voting no." What an original thought

The more repugnant corollary to that approach, as outlined by Krugs, is the be damned with the concept of separation of powers, an approach advocating and reserved exclusively for people of Krugs ilk throwing a hissy fit when they don't get their way. Grownups

More amusingly is his rationales and justifications seemed eerily familiar to the rationales of the tea partiers. Namely that Aug 2nd was an artificial date. But anyone who espoused that was immediately casitigated as know nothings (save for Krugs and "his sources") for not beleiveing the unimpeachable words of Sec. Treas.

Likewise his concern that US reputation damage has already occurred, (due in large part for all the scare mongering going on considering the deal was accomplished by the artificial Aug. 2nd date), call me a cynic but I highly doubt Krugs has ever been bullish on the US and been cheerleading it to success.

Yes, avoiding destroying America's credit rating through using a constitutional amendment to do just that is worse than threatening to destroy America's credit rating just to pass unpopular, one-sided legislation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've always liked Senator McCaskill, even when I don't agree with her on the substance of the issue.

[Tupac Shakur]

As usual you're a dunce. Krugman was saying this is a bad deal in his opinion so it's better to vote it down and go with the 14th amendment approach instead. He's not saying "just say no no matter what" like the t-baggers have been doing.

I can't say I'm surprised that a moonbat extremist like yourself would support "just say no and precipitate a constitutional crisis to boot."

[Tupac Shakur]

I've always liked Senator McCaskill, even when I don't agree with her on the substance of the issue.

Nepotism/Dynasticism

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes, avoiding destroying America's credit rating through using a constitutional amendment to do just that is worse than threatening to destroy America's credit rating just to pass unpopular, one-sided legislation.

Always the proponent of hissy fits.

[DaShi]

I never condone your behavior.

[Dinner]

it's always hilarious to see right wing americans say obama = hard left.

Sadly there is no hard left in America, there is barely even a left, and Obama is a center right corporatist.

[Dinner]

I can't say I'm surprised that a moonbat extremist like yourself would support "just say no and precipitate a constitutional crisis to boot."

As usual you are completely wrong. I didn't advocate anything and instead simply explained Krugman's position to your fellow mental midget Ogie.

If you're interested in my position then read post 63 but if you don't then please be honest enough to stop trying to tell people what my position is, dumb ass.

[C0ckney]

yup that was kind of my point.

edit: x-post, was responding to oerdin'a comment on my post.

[OzzyKP]

I've always liked Senator McCaskill, even when I don't agree with her on the substance of the issue.

Agreed. She has always struck me as one of the sensible ones.

[Dinner]

McCaskill seems to always want to split the difference between Republicans and Democrats no matter what because she wants to appear to be a "moderate". Truth is not found halfway between right and wrong but she ALWAYS wants to go halfway between instead of staking out sensible positions.