SURPRISE! (Not really.....)

[CG6468]

Kyl: GOP Agrees to Up to $200B in New Revenues

Wednesday, 06 Jul 2011 06:00 PM

WASHINGTON - One day before a crucial U.S. budget meeting between the White House and congressional leaders, a high-ranking senator said Republicans have agreed to including significant revenue increases in a deficit-reduction framework.

"If you add up all of the revenues that we Republicans have agreed to, it's between $150 billion and $200 billion," said Senator Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

Kyl said two possible ways to bring additional revenue to the government would be through sales of government property and additional fees for government services.

Meanwhile, House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor floated a possible tax compromise, saying Republicans could agree to closing some tax breaks in a budget deal as long as they were offset with tax cuts elsewhere.

LINK: CAVE IN! CAVE IN!"

[RightCoast]

and Rome burns brighter.

[Ptarmigan]

Why keep raising the debt ceiling again and again. It is a vicious cycle. The government needs to default.

[true_blood]

Should we, as Americans worry?!? Debt? What debt?
Nah,...... Just the good ole' CPC, (Communist Party of China), buying up some land in America! This should frighten/sicken any red blooded American.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho

[rich_t]

LINK: CAVE IN! CAVE IN!"

The GOP leadership continues to exhibit a lack of spine.

[Eupher]

The GOP leadership continues to exhibit a lack of spine.

While I was on the elliptical yesterday afternoon and watching Bret Baier's "Fox News All-Star" panel, Bill Kristol talked toward the following, which is his article in TWS:

There is a possibility that Republican congressional leaders will capitulate Sunday to President Obama and the forces of the status quo, by agreeing to a deal in which 1) we take on trillions more debt without any guarantee of fundamental structural budget reforms; 2) our tax burden is increased, damaging prospects for employment and economic growth; 3) defense spending is recklessly slashed, endangering national security; 4) spending cuts are minor, vague, and pushed off into the speculative future; and 5) entitlements are squeezed a bit but not fundamentally reformed, thus resembling Obamacare's Medicare cuts rather than Paul Ryan's. Such a deal would also have been arived at in a manner Republicans have denounced; just last week, on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John Cornyn criticized deals arrived at in "secret closed-door negotiations" which are then sprung on the American people "at the last moment to say, you know what, it's this, take it or leave it, or else there's financial calamity."

If this happens, conservatives, Republicans--and others!--should oppose and seek to defeat such a deal. Such a deal wouldn't really solve the fiscal and economic problems it would claim to address, and so would be bad for the country. It would also be contrary to what Republicans said they stood for in 2010 and say they stand for today. A Sunday sell-out would turn the Republican party into the tax collectors for President Obama's debtor state. It would be the task of those who seek to lead the GOP in 2012, and the future, to oppose it and defeat it.

The Weekly Standard

[DumbAss Tanker]

Honestly, some sort of compromise with each side having to give up something contrary to their principles is inevitable.  The real question is how much.

[CG6468]

Honestly, some sort of compromise with each side having to give up something contrary to their principles is inevitable.  The real question is how much.

The wannabe 'Pubs will cave in to the King.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The wannabe 'Pubs will cave in to the King.

Basically only half the GOP Reps are connected to the Tea Party, which makes them a force, but not one which can actually stop something that has been negotiated by the leadership in both parties.  Also just to be coldly realistic about it, a very large majority of Congress does ultimately agree that default is unacceptable, not just economically, but in the political price they would have to pay for it with the Centrist voters.  Both left and right know they're out on their asses if their only backers are their hardcore base voters (Except for a few rare House districts that are completely dominated by the base).  The real question reduces to how little each can give up.