Skip to main content

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speaks at the Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington July 15, 2013.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Republicans aren't going to be able to defund Obamacare with this government shutdown threat. It's just not going to happen. But they're winning a larger war by keeping the focus on Obamacare, and that's the austerity war. Here's what they've got Senate Democrats to concede.
[W]hile the expected battle lines were fleshed out by both sides on and off the Senate floor, it was also quickly apparent that Senators in both parties were looking for a way out—a way to avoid a government shutdown.

The signs were an interesting mix:

+ Democrats made clear that Sen. Reid would likely not push to raise the amount of money to be spent in a stop gap budget from the $986 billion figure approved by the House.

+ Senate Republican leaders let it be known that they would not filibuster the temporary budget plan if Democrats succeed in striking language blocking money for the Obama health law.

That means that Democrats will accept the sequester funding levels, not the funding levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, the law that supposedly set iron-clad spending limits. Instead, they'll accept the levels that the supposedly temporary sequester set. That means foregoing about $70 billion to help lessen the sequester pain. Reid's acquiescence to the austerity funding levels has been all but confirmed by senior Democratic aides, giving the Republicans some measure of saving face. Because by all means, Republicans have to be thrown a bone for not insisting on shutting down the government.

There is one possible move Reid is supposedly considering, amending the House's continuing resolution window through just November 15 instead of December 15. Presumably, we'd be through both this shutdown fight and the debt ceiling hike by then, when perhaps Democrats could take on the larger sequester fight. But how successful they could be after having rolled over in this fight, when the Republicans are over the barrel, is certainly not clear. Right now, a government shutdown would only be blamed on Republicans because of their Obamacare hissy fit. In seven weeks, it's hard to see what advantage Democrats are going to have.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:43 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (146+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, skillet, annieli, Phoebe Loosinhouse, Involuntary Exile, basquebob, mspicata, Serendipity, highacidity, Gooserock, MKinTN, bfitzinAR, MartyM, Hey338Too, flatford39, jessical, bbctooman, Lefty Coaster, RFK Lives, greenbell, ctsteve, expatjourno, PatConnors, librarisingnsf, GeorgeXVIII, ebgill, Kentucky Kid, eeff, HappyinNM, madgranny, Simplify, Gottlieb, Eddie L, blueyescryinintherain, Sylv, kharma, BachFan, fumie, theBreeze, tofumagoo, Aureas2, Brian82, WheninRome, old wobbly, Shockwave, J M F, The Hindsight Times, ratzo, greycat, dance you monster, thomask, barkingcat, wasatch, Rosaura, Cofcos, miracle11, prfb, Mother Mags, marykk, Quantumlogic, Dallasdoc, Throw The Bums Out, leeleedee, TracieLynn, No one gets out alive, slowbutsure, Mentatmark, wilderness voice, thenekkidtruth, defluxion10, VTCC73, marina, millwood, cybersaur, figbash, Flint, LaFeminista, Odysseus, RiveroftheWest, newinfluence, Jim Riggs, Anne was here, nirbama, Russ Jarmusch, YucatanMan, elwior, MikePhoenix, HCKAD, quill, progressivevoice, RandomNonviolence, run around, gloriana, jck, rmonroe, T Maysle, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, gizmo59, peregrine kate, New Minas, shortgirl, texasteamster, DeminNewJ, CA Nana, davis90, Williston Barrett, commonscribe, starduster, glitterscale, filby, concernedamerican, debcoop, Laughing Vergil, missLotus, wader, roses, PinHole, Marihilda, NancyWH, Dem Beans, ModerateJosh, terabytes, a2nite, jnhobbs, valadon, jbsoul, zinger99, sunbro, TheMeansAreTheEnd, fugwb, Mr MadAsHell, alpaca farmer, Jim P, lippythelion69, Shrew in Shrewsbury, annan, Capt Crunch, Heart of the Rockies, 3rock, ratcityreprobate, this just in, qofdisks, Rick B, ZedMont, philbert, Warren Swil

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:43:46 AM PDT

  •  As in... (14+ / 0-)

    the sequester that they helped vote to pass?

    Thats the GOP win?  Keeping things as-is in light of a bipartisan, Obama-signed law?

    So in order to prevent a government shutdown and put the GOP crazy Train civil war in the spotlight of the national stage, we didn't try to push something that would have ZERO chance of passing in the house.

    ....and thats a loss?

    I dont underst---... oh wait.. this gives us a reason to call Harry Reid a douche?!??!  Oh well then.... why didnt you just say that!

    Harry Reid is a Douche!
    Sorry.. sometimes I forget our DKos traditions.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 09:56:15 AM PDT

  •  Given the state of the House, (25+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure what leverage the Democrats have ever had to tackle the sequester.  Like the threat of a shutdown, it will take some serious pain -- or the GOP to lose control of the House -- before there's a solution to the sequester.

    What a Senate deal would confirm, IMHO, is that the power structure in both parties have agreed that Ted Cruz needs his comeuppance.  That ain't much, but it's a start.

    Après le thé, le déluge. -- Glenn Beck, aka Napoleon XIV

    by mspicata on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:01:05 AM PDT

    •  The leverage is this: Being able to blame... (34+ / 0-)

      ...Repukes for the sluggish recovery.

      Do the education. Say there's not enough demand. Say that we've tried it their way and the only people who have done well are on Wall Street.

      Say they've had their turn and it's long past time for a Main Street recovery and propose a big package of measures that would help the middle class. Let the Repukes vote against it. Then crucify them for that in 2014.

      Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

      by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:35:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point still stands. (9+ / 0-)

        There's little chance the sequester can be reversed before the 2014 elections, because there's almost no chance the fraidy-cats in the House GOP will risk challenges from the right.

        Après le thé, le déluge. -- Glenn Beck, aka Napoleon XIV

        by mspicata on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:36:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your point is irrelevant. It does not matter... (15+ / 0-)

          ...what will or will not pass. What matters is holding the Repukes responsible for voting down measures that would put people back to work.

          What matters is having issues to run on to crucify their asses in 2014.

          Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

          by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  From the diary: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rainmanjr, duhban
            Instead, they'll accept the levels that the supposedly temporary sequester set. That means foregoing about $70 billion to help lessen the sequester pain.
            That's the point I'm responding to.  I don't argue with your point that we should use this in 2014 -- but in the current crisis we don't have the leverage; and it would matter, big time, if we did.

            Après le thé, le déluge. -- Glenn Beck, aka Napoleon XIV

            by mspicata on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:31:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We'll have plenty to crucify them with (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mspicata, duhban, a2nite, qofdisks

              We don't need a worthless fight to end a sequester that the House won't accept and risk becoming the one's shutting down govt for to crucify GOP in 2014.  We have plenty, already, and have won the ACA fight.  I'm okay with losing the sequester fight because it might bring out the poor, unfed, homeless and low-income wage earners to vote   Gerrymandering will keep those Rep's in office unless there's a mass voting rage against them and economic pain is the only thing that might bring that rage about.  

              "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

              by rainmanjr on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:28:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No one is suggesting beng the ones to shut down... (0+ / 0-)

                ...the government. Where the fuck did you get that idea?

                I'm OK with losing the sequester fight, too. But only AFTER we force the Repukes to vote down measures that would create more jobs.

                Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

                by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:46:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  But we are also not creating leverage (3+ / 0-)

              imo because we are not fighting for it.

              Hi NSA. I am doing constitutionally protected stuff - like free speech. Too bad you are not!

              by glitterscale on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:34:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                qofdisks, glitterscale

                Obviously, the Democrats in Washington are no more able to think one move ahead than mspicata.

                You don't just go for a winer. You set the opponent up, then you hit a winner.

                Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

                by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:38:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  My problem is with passively accepting... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              qofdisks

              ...the sequester instead of creating a high-profile confrontation over measures to end it and create jobs instead.

              In the end, the Repukes have the votes. Make them vote against jobs to get their way on the sequester.

              The Democrats in Washington stand for nothing except more of the same stagnation.

              Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

              by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:49:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  How very un-bipartisan of you! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            expatjourno
            What matters is having issues to run on to crucify their asses in 2014.
      •  If we say we tried it their way and its not workin (7+ / 0-)

        (the sequester and BCA)

        They'll just say that they tried it our way and it didn't work (the stimulus, ~$6 trillion in deficit spending in 4 years)

        The reality is that we here on the left have no authority in these arguments because people on the left agree with the right wingers.  They all think that the Govt's budget is the same as a household budget and that the Govt can run out of money or needs to have income or borrowing in order to get the money it spends.

        All of this is specious and 100% wrong.  The US Govt is the only institution in the world that can make US Dollars (bank deposits are essentially private currencies that are denominated in US dollars and are guaranteed by the US Govt).  Until the left starts to loudly trumpet the truth, that the US Dollar is a simple public monopoly and that we can never run out of our own national fiat currency invention.  We will never win the argument.  Govt deficit spending = the private sector surplus.  Not an argument you ever hear made by a democratic politician

        MMT = Reality

        "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

        by Auburn Parks on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:01:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the most important point (8+ / 0-)

          that is not being made. There is no budget crisis. There is a wealth distribution crisis. It's got everything to do with the dollar being the reserve currency.

          •  Sorry, but even though wealth distribution is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rbird, lippythelion69, annan, qofdisks

            a huge problem, it has nothing to do with the dollar being the so-called reserve currency.  It's actually a commonly held myth that the dollar is the world's reserve currency.  That ended in 1971 with the end of the 1946 enacted Bretton Woods international monetary agreement where dozens of countries pegged their currencies to the dollar which was in turned pegged to a fixed exchange rate with an ounce of gold.

            The only reason that the dollar is currently used to quote and exchange so many goods and services in the international market is simply because the world possesses many trillions of US dollars.  They got these dollars through our trade deficit (dollars for BMW's or DVD players etc).  No other currency can be used en masse for international trade because no other country is smart enough to run a large trade deficit every year.  The Chinese Yuan is relatively very hard to get since China is such a large net exporter.  Same thing with the Euro.  There is no international agreement any more, its just logistically easier to use dollars.

            MMT = Reality

            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

            by Auburn Parks on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:08:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  MMT = Reality ? (0+ / 0-)

              Can you elaborate. I don't understand and I think I would like to.

              "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

              by annan on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 05:45:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think wealth distribution is being made. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            starduster, rbird

            We call it income inequality because wealth distribution sounds a bit Socialistic.  We gain support with fighting inequality but lose lots of support with distributing wealth.  Yes, it's the same thing but that doesn't matter.  What matters is the talking points and we get rolled by them when defending distribution of wealth.  We do the rolling when talking about the economic gap between rich and working classes.  That's one of the major issues being driven home so I think we're good.

            "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

            by rainmanjr on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:37:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Another Golden Parachute for the GOPee. (0+ / 0-)
        •  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, FUCKING wrong. (0+ / 0-)
          The reality is that we here on the left have no authority in these arguments because people on the left agree with the right wingers. They all think that the Govt's budget is the same as a household budget and that the Govt can run out of money or needs to have income or borrowing in order to get the money it spends.
          Bullshit. NO ONE on the left agrees with the right wingers on this. The Obama Administration does. But NO ONE in the Obama Administration, least of all Obama, who famously and stupidly makes exactly that comparison, is on the left.

          Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

          by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:43:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But we GAVE them the sequester..... (16+ / 0-)

      ....and by caving in on that --thinking foolishly they would never resort to it--- we showed we can get pushed around.

      If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

      by Bensdad on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:03:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly and instead of having a message we have (10+ / 0-)

        a whine:  Republicans are mean!  

      •  Doesn't matter. We can still disown it. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiveroftheWest, Mr MadAsHell

        Simple enough to say that it looked like a good idea at the time but that the weakness in the economy means it is a bad idea now, as the data show.

        There is absolutely no reason why we should be saddled with a bad policy position. Circumstances change.

        Thanks to everyone, whether they agree with me or not, for making this such an outstanding community. I know we usually want to see the same things for the country even when we disagree over individual politicians.

        by expatjourno on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:44:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think we caved on sequester. (0+ / 0-)

        I think Dem's were okay with it because the deficit IS a big concern (even to Dem leaning voters) and the sequester is helping bring it down.  It has the added advantage of slowing down growth without stopping it and, as the GOP has successfully been tagged with being the Party that created the sequester, a good campaign issue for Dem's.  I've said earlier in this thread that I'm okay with the sequester for that reason...it stands to bring out a heavier vote for our side in 2014 and we need as large a turnout as we can get to override Gerrymandering.

        "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

        by rainmanjr on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:43:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah, it is bringing the deficit down (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PJEvans, Code Monkey

          and people's paychecks down and peoples pensions down and infrastructure down. Good work rainmanjr, you done good!

          Hi NSA. I am doing constitutionally protected stuff - like free speech. Too bad you are not!

          by glitterscale on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:37:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, that's what I said. (0+ / 0-)

            The sequester is slowing down growth through those methods.  I also said that I'm okay with it because it stands to bring us gains in The House in 2014.  Gains which will be hard to accomplish without a large GOTV.  I'm sorry it has to be through such a method but that's the reality of American voters.  Only pain might bring out enough of them to overturn what they've done.

            "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

            by rainmanjr on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 02:38:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  We Gave Them Obamacare (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rbird, Code Monkey

        Obamacare is a Republican insurance industry programme.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:10:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and they don't like it (0+ / 0-)

          even though it came straight out of their own think tanks.

          (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

          by PJEvans on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:53:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They don't like it because Obama DOES. (0+ / 0-)

            It has little to do with actual policy, it is just their native racism and hatred for all things non-white selfish middle-class.

            "There's no ideology [t]here [on the right]. It's just about being a dick." Bill Maher, June 22, 2012.

            by caseynm on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 05:34:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  They Want More (0+ / 0-)

            Their think tanks factored in a meaningful Democratic opposition, which existed for 45 years in the majority when the think tanks minted the plan. Now, without meaningful opposition, they want more because they can get it. And they probably will.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 07:07:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  gosh, you're right, that house is unbeatable (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale, starduster

      I mean, we only have the senate and the white house. . .what possible leverage could we have against those mean ol republicans in the house.  .  . oh well! I guess we will just have to let them dictate our negotiating positions for us. . .maybe if we concede our position and start by proposing the middle ground they will just accept our position and everything will be hunky dory!

  •  This is just a CR (19+ / 0-)

    The continuing resolution will just be funding the government temporarily until the final budget is enacted. True, it is based on sequestration amounts, but it is only a stop gap budget. Reid's idea of making it only cover 45 days instead of two and half month's is actually a pretty good one.

    Both houses have already passed real budget legislation and they just need to be reconciled. That's where we will see if congress finally decides to make more surgical spending decisions or stay with the axe. Now if only Boehner will appoint representatives to a reconciliation conference committee. . . .

    The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions. James Russell Lowell

    by Serendipity on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:01:24 AM PDT

    •  they are never going to pass a budget again (32+ / 0-)

      budgeting by emergency resolution is the new normal.

      That way they can have an excuse to "negotiate" every few months and keep making small cuts to momentarily appease the Republicans.

      Then a few months later, the Republicans, like the good little terrorists they are, will be emboldened and issue a fresh list of demands, along with threats to shut down the government or otherwise do something disastrous, which will again be met with small cuts after a suitable period of Democratic cringing and hand-wringing.

      Bit by bit, they will cut and cut until finally the only things left to cut are SS and Medicare. Then Obama can seal his Grand Bargain and do his victory lap, and all the austerity fetishists in Congress can celebrate this joyous day.

      Until then, expect pain.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:21:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh here we go with SS and Medicare cuts scare (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, rainmanjr, a2nite

        again. I love how it's always used in tones that make it seem like either the cuts have already happened or are ABOUT TO HAPPEN ANY MOMENT NOW - for the past X years.

        If I knew it was going to be that kind of party, I'd have stuck my ---- in the mashed potatoes! - Paul's Boutique

        by DoctorWho on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:18:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wonder if that's because Obama has consistently... (9+ / 0-)

          said that he likes the idea of tamping down SS, has basically the same positions as Romney on SS, embraces deficit fetishism and purposefully painted himself into a corner on the sequester?

          Nah! It's just a bunch of wild-eyed hippies being mean to Obama just cuz.

          I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

          by teknofyl on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:47:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see it's zombie lie time again (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            starduster
            •  Your Cue (1+ / 0-)

              Welcome, zombie liar!

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What was the lie? (0+ / 0-)

              I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

              by teknofyl on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 05:23:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  wow so much information in so little space (0+ / 0-)

                1. I am pretty sure any reasonable, informed person would understand that Obama misspoke and badly at that. That supposed progressives who supposedly want democratic majorities and another 20 years (or more hopefully) of democratic rule so we can undo the last 50 years want to beat Obama over the head with that just baffles me. Have you ever done public speaking? Ever done a debate style competition? I have and I've more then once said some really dumb things including once forgetting my entire line of  argument and ceding the debate to my opposition. (no that was far from my best day)

                2. As to the sequester, yeah Obama missbet on the collective sanity of the GOP but again why are you beating on the democrats and not the GOP?!?!?

                Really this what baffles me about your contingent here. You would think you should be happy to beat the GOP silly over the sequester, SNAP, a looming government shut down and using the debt as a political foot ball. But you're not and I just simply don't understand it and instead you persue this zombie lie (and it is a lie) that Obama is trying to kill SS and medicare.

                Even if you were able to argue that Obama couldn't  do it before now because he wanted a second term he has the votes now.

                Good fucking gods just how many circular firing squads are you going to form till you learn? Just how many times do we need to sabotage ourselves?

                I really don't understand people with your mindset.

                •  It's not about "beating" someone or another. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bryduck

                  Why do you want to fool yourself? Obama has consistently said (not just that one time) said that he thinks SS cuts (or reductions in it's rate of growth, if you think that's a meaningful distinction, which I don't) are fine, he's repeatedly put them "on the table" in negotiations. I'm not playing 'gotcha" here. He's really prepared to offer that as a part of deficit reduction, which he prioritizes very highly. That's why the makeup of Simpson-Bowles was as it was. The sequester was an effort to pin conservatives and progressives into a corner on the budget, because he (a) expected  SS cuts to be in the deal and knew progressives would revolt and (b) believes very much in deficit reduction and reduced government spending as a laudable goal. He has that in common with Republicans, albeit not to the same extent or with the same rationale.

                  I never said he's trying to kill SS and Medicare, I said he's willing and enthusiastic to cut them (or means test them, or whatever - it is malleable and at times vague, but he's clearly willing to adjust them in a negative way), which he is.

                  You seem to think I'm picking a team like we're playing dodgeball. I'm not. I'm making a statement about what anyone can observe if they aren't willing to look past an inconvenient fact for the sake backing the home team.

                  I don't hate the President, but I don't agree with him on a several issues, including deficit fetishism. I don't care if he's bought into it because he thinks it's good policy or good politics or both, I think it's bad policy and step one in winning a fight is knowing who your allies are and who your enemies are. While President Obama and senate Democrats are less odious than Congressional Republicans, they are not friends in this fight. The sequester was a clear effort (by Obama and co.) to force a lot of people, including progressives, to accept Simpson-Bowles or face a budgetary crisis. He was way more adept and clever than the shutdown-the-gubmint crowd, but it was a power play and people like me (it sounds like you are not with me on this one) were on the business end of that tactic. There's no way in hell I'm going to forget that.

                  I have plenty of complaining to go around. The GOP isn't getting shorted because I happen to recognize that teh Obama administration festishizes deficit/budget reductions.

                  While I do understand people with your mindset (concern trolls are quite common), I don't really find the you-can-only-complain-about-the-GOP argument convincing at all.

                  I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

                  by teknofyl on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  utterly disingenuous and misleading (0+ / 0-)

                    and that's the kindest thing I can say about that wall of text.

                    •  Please, rather than "kind," be specific. (2+ / 0-)

                      It is neither misleading nor disingenuous. You are a troll.

                      The president has offered future cuts to SS. Here's a blog post from today about Republican Senators acknowledging that and considering the implications of that fact regarding their strategy in the debt ceiling fight.

                      You keep trying to dismiss what I'm saying as if I'm being dishonest or trollish, but you are simply wrong on the facts of the matter. I don't know if you just haven't been paying attention the last couple of years or so, but it seems like you kind of make up your mind about something and then just paste together some random thoughts around that and call anything that doesn't fit in your little reality-bubble a lie.

                      I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

                      by teknofyl on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 06:30:05 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Truer words never spoken... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        teknofyl
                        You are a troll.

                        'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                        by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Thu Sep 26, 2013 at 11:29:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                        Fine you want honesty? Then here you go.

                        What you don't seem to get is that even if the allegations are true, namely that in private negotiations  the president has offered up cuts to SS or medicare in the past couple years are true that still isn't the full story. Politics isn't some straight forward game where you can just announce to the world what you are doing.  

                        You seem to think that allegation is enough, me I look at the results and the actions to date and frankly your claim doesn't hold water. If Obama truly wanted to cut either he could have by now. Fucking hell even if you argue that he couldn't do it the first term because he knew he wouldn't be reelected what is he waiting for now? See that is reality based thinking where as yours well not even close.

                        See that's the problem with  the paranoid theories being offered about how Obama is somehow trying to double triple secret ninja fake us out is they lack any basis in reality.

                        You can call me all the names you want if it makes you feel better, frankly you're nobody to me so it's no skin off my back what you call me or think of me. You've certainly not earned my respect and the way you are headed well you very likely never will.

                        The moment Obama announces his intention to cut a deal with the GOP on SS I'll be just as pissed off as you but frankly the fact that some here can't seem to exist without being pissed off and emotionally set to level 20 (out of 10) is a turn off.

                        I really don't get the people like you here that are so irrationally and paranoidly convinced that their own party is out to screw them. The lot of you remind me almost like the tea party. Never mind how often the lot of you are absolutely convinced that you alone are so 'special' you see 'the truth' and anyone  that disagrees is a troll, a shill or whatever the current fad is. Can you even hear  yourself? I rather doubt it which is a fucking shame because you sound fairly intelligent and yet you are so deluded by your own zealotry that no room exists for any opinion or thought but yours.

                        Hoped you enjoyed me being specific if you have any further questions let me know and if not you have a good day.

                        •  Then why did the Administration put the Chained (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          teknofyl

                          CPI into their budget package earlier this year for the upcoming fiscal year?

                          •  I realize this isn't popular (0+ / 0-)

                            but chained CPI even if all the criticisms about it are true is not a cut in SS and it's dishonest to frame it as such.

                            That said with a divided government you are going to have to offer something to get anything you want. I would think that a simple lesson everyone should have learned around 3 years old. If you think chained cpi is too much for not enough back that I can respect. But I won't respect magical thinking that pretends the president can dictate his terms and fully get them because that would be a dictatorship.

                          •  The chained cpi is a very, very bad deal for those (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            teknofyl

                            that depend upon SS (and disability) for survival.  SS doesn't keep up with the real inflation faced by those on SS as it is now.  Those on SS spend differently than those in the 'normal' public.  To lower the rate of growth, even if it's only $10 a month less, can mean the difference between having medicine or food that month.  Also, the majority of Americans have polled as to not wanting ANY type of 'cut' in SS at all.  So much so that it's polled that we're willing to pay more taxes to improve it.

                            Find something else to get rid of, not the survival of our weakest members.  To say that 'we' can go back and fix it won't work because that has NEVER happened.  Sacrificing our weakest members (and a solidly funded program) for a few million more dollars in taxes that can be reversed isn't sufficient.  The chained cpi will also affect the tax brackets that currently exist in that one can end up in a higher bracket without having had any real increase in income, hurting the poor more than any other.

                          •  and you don't really address the main point (0+ / 0-)

                            I was making.

                            Would you like to?

                          •  Well that's just a disagreement. (0+ / 0-)

                            I call the Chained CPI a cut (that was clear from my above comments. I certainly don't accept your definition of it as not-a-cut. I think it's dishonest to try to frame what is clearly a reduction in services as something other than a cut (the fact that the GOP would frame it in the same way you would is the icing on the cake for me, in terms of certainty that my framing is the more honest one).

                            So yes, Obama wants to cut SS (via the Chained CPI). The fact that you want to call it not-a-cut when we are talking about the same thing is fine, but we both agree that he wants to implement chained CPI.

                            So whatever - for me that's a betrayal, for you that's just peachy fine. That's really the end of the discussion. We agree on that fact, but apparently disagree on the implications of it. There you go, discussion played out.

                            I'm against Chained CPI. Cut, not a cut, whatever. I'm not for it and when Obama and company propose it, I howl. I'll denounce them as viciously as, even more viciously than, the GOP allies they have in that cause.

                            That's all there is to that.

                            I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

                            by teknofyl on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 07:45:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you don't have to accept my definition (0+ / 0-)

                            but then neither do I have to accept yours. However if you want to have a conversation you are going to have acknowledge it just as I acknowledge you consider it a cut.

                            There's nothing dishonest about that just people disagreeing.

                            That said don't distort my words, I never said Chained CPI is "peachy fine". It's not but I do accept that in a divided government you do have to compromise if you are going to accomplish anything. Maybe you think that's a dirty word, it certainly sounds like that's what you think. Or maybe you just think gridlock is fine for the next couple of years.

                            I don't know but you're position is not absolute nor is it absolutely perfect and that's all there is to that.

                          •  Compromise isn't a dirty word. (0+ / 0-)

                            But chained CPI is.

                            I agree that it's not particularly courageous to solve a problem on the backs of people who are poor, or people who are powerless, or don't have lobbyists, or don't have clout.

                            by teknofyl on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 08:16:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  It's only because the POTUS keeps trying for it (8+ / 0-)

          just because he hasn't gotten it doesn't mean you can act like he's never tried for it.

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:47:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I like how those that do that (0+ / 0-)

          continually can not explain why it hasn't happened yet.

          The way those folks tell it Obama and the Senate are some cliched mustached twirling villain just waiting to kill the last 80 years of progress.

      •  except that GOP has been losing. (0+ / 0-)

        Your argument doesn't work because Obama/Reid have actually gotten a lot of stuff done and most of it has been good for Dem values.  So these little skirmishes are not working to chip away at us.

        "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

        by rainmanjr on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:48:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  BUDGETS DO NOT FUND THE GOVERNMENT (8+ / 0-)

      Appropriation bills do -- and NONE of the appropriation bills have passed this year. Didn't you read about the Farm Bill failing, about the Transportation bill being pulled from the floor? And that's 2 out of 13...

      Has anyone heard a peep about Defense? Treasury?

      Get it through your heads, the so-called budget bills are empty fluff -- the real decisions are made in committee (or used to be). So having "passed" a budget means nothing.

      And letting it wait for an omnibus spending bill means that there will be much more wasteful spending, because few will actually know what is in that bill.

      •  But (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rainmanjr

        I could be wrong, but don't budget agreements set the parameters for appropriations?

        The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions. James Russell Lowell

        by Serendipity on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:24:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They do IF (0+ / 0-)

          The budget passed by the House and the budget passed by the Senate is reconciled and agreed on by both parties. That hasn't happened for YEARS.

          So that's when the House and Senate end up setting the spending bill by bill in the appropriations process. That's one of the reasons the Senate hasn't bothered with budgets in the last few years, instead they've gone straight to making changes in the appropriation bills the House has sent them.

          The Republicans have turned routine processes into battlegrounds -- we don't really have even a hope of a rational budget process anymore.

      •  Budgets are required by law. (0+ / 0-)

        Appropriations are not.  Therefore, most of the politicking that's going to shape appropriations occur during the budgetary battles.  That's the one nobody can get around (at least, not forever).

        "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

        by rainmanjr on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 01:52:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Appropriations ARE law as well. (0+ / 0-)

          Why do you think it's required that they be passed by September 30th each year?

          The budgets are supposed to set the limits for the appropriations...but as I said above, the Repubs have pretty much derailed this. And the Democrats did not behave this way under Bush II.

  •  whatever media meme happens, it must = a 2014 FAIL (8+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:01:51 AM PDT

  •  The Democratic Playbook (42+ / 0-)

    If the two parties were playing strip poker:

    The Republicans sit down wearing three topcoats, 2 shirts, one undershirt, 2 pairs of pants, 2 jockey shorts, and 4 pairs of socks.

    The Democrats sit down naked under a bathrobe.

    If the Democrats succeed in getting more than one of the topcoats and a single pair of socks off the Republicans before they are completely naked themselves, it is a great, compromisy, bi-partisan victory.

    I have no idea why they do things this way, except it makes me very cynical about both their skill and motivation.

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:09:13 AM PDT

  •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

    My Democratic Congressman has been making quite a lot of hay over the shutdown, but at the exact same time is running meetings today for Pete Peterson's Fix the Debt. The few of us arguing that these events are corrupt and just wrong are being drown out by the battle cry that Brad has stood up against the defunding and shutdown. They don't get, or don't care, that what he supports is meaningless if he's going to spend the political capital he gains on general austerity. As usual, Republicans play the log game and Democrats fold and wonder why we don't see them as middle class heroes.

    Using my free speech while I still have it. http://www.ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

    by ebgill on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 10:27:56 AM PDT

  •  I hate watching the same movie twice. (5+ / 0-)

    Especially when it is a bad one that doesn't end well.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:02:09 AM PDT

  •  backdoor austerity (8+ / 0-)

    it was obvious last new year's that this was what the fiscal fiasco would give us.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:02:25 AM PDT

  •  What they win is the destruction of... (9+ / 0-)

    ...America as we know it.

    The Southern white racists in the GOP get revenge and start a path to a new Confederacy.

    The Ayn Randists get closer to their Atlas Shrugged mountain dystopia.

    The theocrats get closer to their eschatological fantasies.

    We are dealing with suicide bombers rather than kamikazes.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:15:24 AM PDT

  •  Government in constant crisis. (8+ / 0-)

    All we have left is jails and wars.

  •  But those levels also affect DoD (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rainmanjr

    And so I would not exactly say the Republicans are "winning" that since they are getting one of their sacred cows knocked down, budget-wise, as well....

    Courtesy of the Weekly Standard: "Early on, we received this missive from a bright young conservative: 'I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!'"

    by Steve In DC on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:20:04 AM PDT

    •  That cow isn't as sacred as we believe (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, glitterscale, bryduck

      Sure, You've got people like McCain and Graham, but the Tea Party Libertarians like Paul actually want a smaller military.  They don't want the U.S. to play policeman to the world.  These crazies will take an across the board cut in government spending any day over preserving military spending.  They could have refunded the military at any time if they accepted just a little refunding for non discretionary spending, but they didn't.

  •  Your final questions imply... (3+ / 0-)

    you do not yet realize that its Kabuki?

    Dem leadership wants what Repubs want but has to play it off like they don't. The party for the masses you remember the Dems to be is only alive in individuals, the party is just as bought and sold as the Repubs.

    This isn't 2 sides battling its just a game to keep the illusion of democracy alive...

    The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function [Albert A. Bartlett]

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:46:13 AM PDT

  •  Good Cop / Bad Cop (10+ / 0-)

    Notice how when the sequester happened, they made sure the FFA was funded to keep that business class air travel moving.   Fuck the poor, that's what we had to cover.  

    Now we're making the cuts to social programs permanent, and keeping the white collar welfare intact.  

    This is our Big Tent Party.   Anyone getting sick of this shit yet?

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 11:48:24 AM PDT

  •  Live Now Sen Ted Cruz (0+ / 0-)

    Scary that Americans will fall for him.

    http://www.c-span.org/...

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:07:35 PM PDT

    •  They won't. Rand Paul is a bigger threat. (0+ / 0-)

      Cruz is Paul Ryan 2.0. A lock for a veep position but nothing more.

      If I knew it was going to be that kind of party, I'd have stuck my ---- in the mashed potatoes! - Paul's Boutique

      by DoctorWho on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:22:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Montego? A Mercury Montclair? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro

    Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper!

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:09:10 PM PDT

  •  Austerity (9+ / 0-)

    The Democrats lost this battle from the minute the President bought into the "grand bargain" fantasy.  The economic record of this Administration and this and the prior Congresses is to the right of Herbert Hoover.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:21:44 PM PDT

    •  Some days I think the only result of our (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anne was here, sfbob, glitterscale, a2nite

      being in the party is that it's harder for us to organize and advocate for the things we care about.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:39:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Military funding (0+ / 0-)

    It was my understanding that the republicans got more of the cuts in miltiary spending pushed over to the next year, if they go off the sequester amounts the miltary will be taking a bigger hit in this budget over the last ... I wonder how the republicans are going to sell that.

  •  So the sequester, (6+ / 0-)

    which was created purely to ensure it would never actually be implemented, is now in talks to be implemented permanently?

    That's some solid fuckin' 11D Chess.

    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

    by Boogalord on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 12:56:43 PM PDT

  •  meh I look at it as politics (0+ / 0-)

    if Reid monkeys with the CR it gives the GOP an out, a 'see we couldn't work with the democrats' line.

    Would a funding increase be better? Of course but this way the pressure is on the House.

    •  Why must the dems do anything? (7+ / 0-)

      The correct response, and one that Obama said himself, is the debt ceiling shouldn't be held hostage by anything.  Until the TGOP, it never was.  And that's because it shouldn't be.  These clowns voted to spend the money, now they have have to authorize paying for what they spent.  

      Anyone who ever tries to place the banner of fiscal responsibility over the republican party ever again should be laughed out of the room.  Not that this every was true, but at this point it should be obvious to everyone.

      Sadly, it isn't.

      The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

      by Back In Blue on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:16:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Coward of the County (0+ / 0-)

    For some reason, that Kenny Rogers song is coming to my  mind right now

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 02:13:37 PM PDT

  •  "rolled over" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PJEvans

    Just once I would like to see a story about Democratic options that didn't include that phrase!

    (And that's a not a knock on the author of this fine diary either, but rather on the elected Democrats!)

    Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
    Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

    by BentLiberal on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 03:38:29 PM PDT

  •  Permanent Sequester (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PJEvans

    The Democrats are making the Sequester permanent upon request from the Republican minority. After they made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent upon request from the Republican minority.

    It's a double-decker shit sandwich.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:09:06 PM PDT

  •  Whatever they want nt (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:16:12 PM PDT

  •  I know it's here somewhere...not here...nope.. (0+ / 0-)

    not here either.

    I could swear I put my spine in here somewhere. Maybe one of my kids moved it.

    Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

    by Spud1 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:21:52 PM PDT

  •  Harry Reid....Is as weak a Majority leader in (0+ / 0-)

    the Senate as Boner is in the House. What an amoeba!

    If voting made any difference it would be illegal- Philip Berrigan

    by Mighty Ike on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:25:48 PM PDT

    •  He's doing what the Majority wants. (0+ / 0-)

      If he wasn't, you'd be hearing about it (and he wouldn't keep getting elected Leader . . .)

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 12:24:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why let them save face? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PJEvans

    Why not just toss out the entire bill's language, insert a senate version with "it's funding levels" then send it back for them to "take it or leave it"?

    That may seem like hardball, but that is what the House has been playing all this time. It's time Reid stepped up and responded in kind.

    The House is a rancid group of egotistical extremists without a care for the people's needs. Let them scream and howl in anger. No one will pity them.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:27:01 PM PDT

  •  It never fails. Democrats cannot accept (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PJEvans

    victory. People are hurting out there. I don't know many more times we can be screwed by these bipartisan agreements without being dismembered.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:32:21 PM PDT

  •  Are the food stamp cuts in this bill? (0+ / 0-)

    Or whatever the program is called.

    Or is that a separate bill separated from the farm bill?

  •  I like the Dec 15th date better... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poopdogcomedy

    Let the Repubs fight for harsh cuts in the height of the Christmas season.  Let them block any spending and shutdown government in the middle of December, or have to stick around in Washington rather than being at home for Christmas break to solve the next CR.

    But in truth Dems are perfectly fine with the sequester level spending - they just want to pin it on the GOP is all, and GOP is perfectly fine with that as it suits both very well politically to have both Dem and GOP voter thinking exactly that.  

    Glenn Greenwald promotes far-right fringe extremist group The Oath Keepers - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/377787818619064320

    by Jacoby Jonze on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:44:34 PM PDT

  •  The sequester is a huge win for Democrats. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poopdogcomedy, a2nite

    I'll take the sequester until we have a Democratic majority. It doesn't cut as much as Republicans would like, and it cuts the One Big Thing they love, which is defense.

    Republicans are entitled, frankly, to win the austerity war because they control one house of Congress and austerity is a more central cause for them than non-austerity is for Democrats.  If you don't like it, replace Republicans with Democrats.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:47:12 PM PDT

  •  another win for invisible unchallenged RW radio (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    when people minimize the effect of RW radio all one has to do is look at the compromise it gets on a regular basis merely because the 'left' gives it a free speech free ride to create the false realities and the made-to-order constituencies that enable the obstruction and stupidity.

    the last 25 years is one after another of such wins for the right, as they kick internet ass.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:53:45 PM PDT

  •  Does Reid have (0+ / 0-)

    a spine in there, or is it just one of those shock-cord things that need tightening up?
    WTF do they think they're in DC for, cocktail parties with the media?

    (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

    by PJEvans on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:57:03 PM PDT

  •  if onlygrownups ran Congress (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe we wouldn't have one side totally unwilling to compromise and the other deluded into believing giving up the house to save a couple of rooms is "compromise."

    If the Dems had any balls, they would hold hard and let the GOP inherit the wind.

  •  not good but didn't we set ourselves (0+ / 0-)

    up for this by voting for the sequester in the first place.  i think we are going have fight area by area to restore funding.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 06:06:58 PM PDT

  •  How can Democrats be so dumb? (0+ / 0-)

    How to get what you want out of Obama and Reid:

    1) Demand something ridiculous, like defunding Obamacare.
    2) Pass a CR with everything you really want, and one ridiculous extortion.
    3) Wait until imminent deadline approaches
    4) Agree reluctantly to strip ridiculous proposal.
    5) Pretend you are upset that you lost the only thing you care about.
    6) High 5 that you got to write the entire 2014 budget without giving in one single item to the President and his 55 Senators.

    If you want to know why Republicans keep pushing this "extremism", it's because Reid is so eager to hand over the keys in exchange for the big, horrible thing Republicans knew would never happen.

    How can a party that won 51% of the vote twice be so pathetic?

  •  The reason (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not too bright but I just read 115 comments and I didn't see anybody point to the obvious. The to me most important line in the diary:

    Budget Control Act, the law that supposedly set iron-clad spending limits.
     WE are being manipulated by poverty oppression. The pain going on to poor people, old people, disadvantaged people, is real. The objective is the same as troops TIRED in the 12 tears unbelievable war waste.
       Keep US worn down so "they" win in 2014. Get US used used used to absurdity!

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 06:23:29 PM PDT

  •  It is getting hard for me that this shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3rock

    doesn't have a script writer.

    An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second..Jefferson's Letter to Peter Carr

    by JugOPunch on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 06:44:07 PM PDT

  •  Highly unfortunate (0+ / 0-)

    The Ds should have given nothing to these Rs.  Let them shut down the government.

    Hopefully Pelosi refuses to provide any Democratic votes for this kind of a deal in the House.  She should force Boehner to get the votes himself (which he won't because there are 50-80 teabaggers who won't vote for any deal that doesn't defund.), and cave on the sequester to get D votes.

  •  God help us Reid and the spineless ones (0+ / 0-)

    have caved even before the bill is debated.

    Dear pathetic ones, this not the way to get your asphyxiated base to fire their engines for the 2014 elections.

    When the major reason to vote for you is that you aren't them, then you really have lost.

    Instead of riding the wave of the ACA for the next 20 years, you are still in the dressing room with both feet down one side of you trunks,staring at that big hole on the other side and wondering what it is for.

  •  As always, pathetic, just pathetic. (0+ / 0-)

    The Dems never have the upper hand because they choose not to.  Beyond pathetic.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 08:13:51 PM PDT

  •  Article (0+ / 0-)

    Don't negotiate anything with them. The healthcare reform is just fine and if the Pubs want to shut down the government; then let them shut it down.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site