politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: It's a deal: Obama, Congress will avert default
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110801/ap_on_go_co/us_debt_showdown
Published: Jul 31, 2011
Author: David Espo
Post Date: 2011-07-31 21:34:12 by Sebastian
Keywords: None
Views: 29754
Comments: 53
Ending a perilous stalemate, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders announced agreement Sunday night on an emergency deal to avoid to avert the nation's first-ever financial default. The arrangement would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade. The dramatic agreement, with scant time remaining before Tuesday's deadline, "will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America," Obama said. Default "would have had a devastating effect on our economy," the president said at the White House, relaying the news to the nation and to financial markets around the world. He thanked the leaders of both parties. House Speaker John Boehner telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck, officials said. No votes were expected in either house of Congress until Monday at the earliest, to give rank-and-file lawmakers time to review the package. But leaders in both parties were already beginning the work of rounding up votes. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ] In a conference call with his rank and file, Boehner said the agreement "isn't the greatest deal in the world, but it shows how much we've changed the terms of the debate in this town." Obama underscored that point. He said that, if enacted, the agreement would mean "the lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president" more than a half century ago. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid provided the first word of the agreement. "Sometimes it seems our two sides disagree on almost everything," he said. "But in the end, reasonable people were able to agree on this: The United States could not take the chance of defaulting on our debt, risking a United States financial collapse and a world-wide depression." In his remarks, Obama said there will be no initial cuts to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. But he said both could be on the table along with changes in tax law as part of future cuts. That was a reference to a special joint committee of lawmakers that will be established to recommend a second round of deficit reductions, to be voted on by Congress before year's end as part of an arrangement to raise the debt ceiling yet again. That is expected to be necessary early next year. Pending final passage, the agreement marked a dramatic reach across party lines that played out over six months and several rounds of negotiating, interspersed by periods of intense partisanship. A final stick point had concerned possible cuts in the nation's defense budget in the next two years. Republicans wanted less. Democrats pressed for more in an attempt to shield domestic accounts from greater reductions. Details apparently included in the agreement provide that the federal debt limit would rise in two stages by at least $2.2 trillion, enough to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections. Big cuts in government spending would be phased in over a decade. Thousands of programs — the Park Service, Labor Department and housing among them — could be trimmed to levels last seen years ago. No Social Security or Medicare benefits would be cut, but the programs could be scoured for other savings. Taxes would be unlikely to rise. Without legislation in place by Tuesday, the Treasury will not be able to pay all its bills, raising the threat of a default that administration officials say could inflict catastrophic damage on the economy. If approved, though, a compromise would presumably preserve America's sterling credit rating, reassure investors in financial markets across the globe and possibly reverse the losses that spread across Wall Street in recent days as the threat of a default grew. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that McConnell had been in frequent contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who has played an influential role across months of negotiations. In the first stage under the agreement, the nation's debt limit would rise immediately by nearly $1 trillion and spending would be cut by a slightly larger amount over a decade. That would be followed by creation of the new congressional committee that would have until the end of November to recommend $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or overhauling the tax code. Those deficit cuts would allow a second increase in the debt limit. If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed constitutional balanced-budget amendment. If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount. Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare. Officials describing those steps spoke on condition of anonymity, citing both the sensitivity of the talks and the potential that details could change. The deal marked a classic compromise, a triumph of divided government that would let both Obama and Republicans claim they had achieved their objectives. As the president demanded, the deal would allow the debt limit to rise by enough to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections. But it appeared Obama's proposal to extend the current payroll tax holiday beyond the end of 2011 would not be included, nor his call for extended unemployment benefits for victims of the recession. Republicans would win spending cuts of slightly more than the increase in the debt limit, as they have demanded. Additionally, tax increases would be off-limits unless recommended by the bipartisan committee that is expected to include six Republicans and six Democrats. The conservative campaign to force Congress to approve a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution would be jettisoned. Congressional Democrats have long insisted that Medicare and Social Security benefits not be cut, a victory for them in the proposal under discussion. Yet they would have to absorb even deeper cuts in hundreds of federal programs than were included in Reid's bill, which many Democrats supported in a symbolic vote on the House floor on Saturday. As details began to emerge, one liberal organization, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, issued a statement that was harshly critical. "Seeing a Democratic president take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe — one with horrific consequences for middle-class families," it said. While politically powerful business groups like the Chamber of Commerce are expected to support the deal, tea party organizations and others have looked disapprovingly on legislation that doesn't require approval of a balanced-budget amendment. If they keep to that position, it could present Boehner a challenge in lining up enough votes to support a compromise, just as Obama may have to stand down rebels within his own party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
#3. To: Sebastian (#0)
Fuck them. And the horse they rode in on. ' ReCap: The Right Wing Tea Party, a wedge of the gop, has, despite the POTUS, the Senate being Democratic, imposed a fiscal strait jacket to wipe out SS and Medicare and Unemployment benefits, w/o impacting/encumbering the Top 1%/Military/FedRes in any way, shape or form. When you send dictats to fly over country, better include your LE Goons...;}
imposed a fiscal strait jacket to wipe out SS and Medicare and Unemployment benefits, w/o impacting/encumbering the Top 1%/Military/FedRes in any way, shape or form. Your problem is in defining "Right Wing." And of course the blind spot in your ideological rearview mirror the size of Manchelle's azz. The problem is S-P-E-N-D-ING. Across the board, Commie.
No problem. Anyone with Zero empathy for the Bottom 90%. Think that Master/Slave relationship along with everything being a contract enforced by a military/corporation is natural....;}
Think that Master/Slave relationship along with everything being a contract enforced by a military/corporation is natural....;} Here's your problem, Jimmy: YOU are a slave to a Lie. You believe the Left is the solution while they are just as much if not more an aider and abettor of the corporate quid pro quo theft. EXAMPLE: 0bama's good friend - General Electric - paid ZERO taxes last year. Do either you or war want to explain THAT?
What does Obama have to do with GE paying 0 taxes? He has made closing coporate loopholes a priority and has gotten nothing but silence from the Congress and derisiion from the media sources YOU pay attention to.
I'm sure it's nothing. NOTHING at all. OOOOPS!! What's this?? Obama created an economic advisory board and named GE honcho Jeffrey Immelt the head of his private sector job creation council?? Who is Immelt? Immm....only the CEO of General Electric and now a minority owner of NBC (and MSNBC.) I believe GE made FIVE billion dollars in profit and paid no federal income tax. Go ahead - do the math, war.
Who is Immelt? Immm....only the CEO of General Electric and now a minority owner of NBC (and MSNBC.) I believe GE made FIVE billion dollars in profit and paid no federal income tax. Go ahead - do the math, war. So you are saying there is now a pattern of GE paying less or zero taxes as compared to similiar periods during other president's admimistrations? Plus this action by the Bushees should have helped their bottom line: "Bush Administration Asks for Dismissal of General Electric Lawsuit Posted by Staff Writer Monday, February 25, 2002 12:00 AM EST General Electric's (GE) Hudson River contamination case took an interesting turn last week when the Justice Department called for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the company. The lawsuit claims the Superfund toxic-waste- cleanup law grants Federal regulators unrestrained power to order environmental cleanups. GE released over 1 million pounds of PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, into the Hudson River between 1940 and 1977. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invoked the Superfund law in the fall of 2000, ordering GE to pay a projected $460 million to dredge a forty-mile stretch of the Hudson north of Albany. PCBs can cause irritation of the nose and throat, acne, and rashes. In addition, the EPA lists PCBs as possible carcinogens. Read more: http://asks.aspx?">news.injuryboard.com/bush-administration- asks.aspx? googleid=26570#ixzz1TtGLvCBd
Can you defend 0bama's pattern of select blatant hypocrisy? Aaaah - I see how you defend 0bama - by citing THIS anecdote during Bush's Presidency? Monday, February 25, 2002 12:00 AM EST General Electric's (GE) Hudson River contamination case took an interesting turn last week when the Justice Department called for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the company. The lawsuit claims the Superfund toxic-waste- cleanup law grants Federal regulators unrestrained power to order environmental cleanups...the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invoked the Superfund law in the fall of 2000, ordering GE to pay a projected $460 million to dredge a forty-mile stretch of the Hudson north of Albany. So the deal Bush's EPA made with GE in 2002 has WHAT to do with 0bama hiring GE CEO Jeffery Immelt as jobs creator AND GE paying ZERO taxes on profits of FIVE BILLION DOLLARS?? Geez, you liberal/leftist are so damn craven and hypocritical apologists for 0bama.
Aaaah - I see how you defend 0bama - by citing THIS anecdote during Bush's Presidency? It's time you learned to read English. I'm defending no one. I'm merely pointing out thst there is nothing unusual at all in GE and various other capitalist enterprises getting perks from various administrations. Isn't that what lobbyists are all about?
Sure you are; You've defended 0bama by citing anecdotal "evidence" that "BUSH DOES IT TOO!" I'm merely pointing out thst there is nothing unusual at all in GE and various other capitalist enterprises getting perks from various administrations. Isn't that what lobbyists are all about? Paying ZERO taxes on $5,000,000,000 is QUITE a "perk" while the Dem/Commie President is screeching about "closing corporate loopholes."
#22. To: Liberator (#21)
I pointed out a comparison and invited you to show that GE is being treated exceptionally by this administration as compared to others. I really don't care what you 'think' about my motives, because you cannot find any statement of mine that backs you up. Other than your historically proven ability to continually come to wrong conclusions evidently based on your 'figments'.
Libby...I'm sorry...but that statement is just flat out stupid. GE paid ZERO TAXES and it's because the POTUS is "screeching" about making it so they HAVE to pay SOME taxes?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: mcgowanjm (#3)
The Right Wing Tea Party, a wedge of the gop, has, despite the POTUS, the Senate being Democratic,
#12. To: Liberator (#7)
(Edited)
Your problem is in defining "Right Wing."
#14. To: mcgowanjm, war (#12)
Anyone with Zero empathy for the Bottom 90%.
#15. To: Liberator (#14)
Do either you or war want to explain THAT?
#16. To: war (#15)
What does Obama have to do with GE paying 0 taxes?
#18. To: Liberator (#16)
(Edited)
OOOOPS!! What's this?? Obama created an economic advisory board and named GE honcho Jeffrey Immelt the head of his private sector job creation council??
#19. To: mininggold (#18)
(Edited)
So you are saying there is now a pattern of GE paying less or zero taxes as compared to similiar periods during other president's admimistrations?
#20. To: Liberator (#19)
Can you defend 0bama's pattern of select blatant hypocrisy?
#21. To: mininggold, war (#20)
I'm defending no one.
Replies to Comment # 21. Sure you are; You've defended 0bama by citing anecdotal "evidence" that "BUSH DOES IT TOO!"
#25. To: Liberator (#21)
Paying ZERO taxes on $5,000,000,000 is QUITE a "perk" while the Dem/Commie President is screeching about "closing corporate loopholes."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]