First read on the agreed upon budget deal

[5412]

Hi,

I am not quite sure how to handle this one.  I know that we do not want to violate any copywright laws and there have been some issues.  I am asking the mod to let me know if I can name, but not quote my source.  If it is OK, I will amend this to do so.

With that being said, I subscribe to several different daily and monthly services.  One which I hold in very high regards had some observations on the apparently agreed upon deal to raise the debt cieling.  The author indicated that there was little, if any real information in the news outlets, so the next place to check was the CBO website which had the detail.

The author reached some conclusions.  First was that none of the real cuts took place until after the 2012 election.   The real gains from the plan take place in the last five years.  This is now me talking, sounds like once again our leaders continue to kick the can down the road.

The author also suggested that congress could easily change the deal very quietly with another vote so the idea of real spending cuts is questionable. 

Now this is me again.  This should not surprise anyone.  Will be interesting to see if the deal passes the house. 

If these observations are correct, it would appear to me that no one in Washington is taking the public and tea party seriously.  Sounds more like how can we make it appear that we are listening but still continue to spend like we have in the past.  This could lead to some real challenges down the road.  Wonder who, like Marco Rubio perhaps, will see fit to blow the whistle?

Regards,
5412

[redwhit]

I don't see the deal itself as being all that important.  What's more interesting is the three ring circus that erupted out of what everyone thought was going to be a simple procedure, maybe a little posturing but of course the debt ceiling is going to get raised.

Instead, we got absolute pandemonium.  And it was great.  Now the deficit is in focus.  So is the debt.  We are seriously talking about a balanced budget amendment for the first time in years.  Social Security's insolvency has been put front and center.  Reid's parliamentary parlor tricks have been put on the front pages (and for those with a memory, his hypocrisy since he spent his time as a minority leader whining about the lack of up and down votes).  People are really upset at the way government works.

I don't think either party wanted it to go down like this.  This was really pushed by the new people, primarily tea-partiers.  This fracas isn't going to solve problems once and for all but it is going to put them in high relief.

One of the new memes I've seen on the talking head shows is the Democrat saying something like, "Why is a balanced budget amendment on the table?  We don't need that as part of this legislation!  We can take that up afterwards."  Well, it looks like afterwards is here.  Let's bring it up and keep it on the burner with their own words as primary focus.  After all, they just said they wanted to discuss it once the debt ceiling had been settled.

The deal most likely will turn out to be a completely sugar coated Satan sammich but, in the long run, that's okay so long as more people are turned off by the way the Federal Government does business.  Washington's tentacles have been expanding for a very long time and it will take quite a bit of effort to tame that beast.  Exposing the sausage making for what it is will only help the cause of those who believe that there is no problem so horrible that a bureaucracy can't make it worse.

I'll be writing some thank you notes today.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The author also suggested that congress could easily change the deal very quietly with another vote so the idea of real spending cuts is questionable. 

That's kind of thunderingly obvious.  Congress can change anything it's already passed at any time.  They could decide the Air Force belongs back in the Army tomorrow and make it happen, the only past Congressional action they can't revisit is 'unspend' money that has already been spent.   

Of course it would require enough of them in both houses to actually agree to do that, and agreement seems to be getting dodgy for even getting it through the first time.  On top of that, if it was going to be 'quietly,' then everyone opposed would have to just shut up, so seriously what does that passage tell us that isn't abundantly clear already?

[5412]

That's kind of thunderingly obvious.  Congress can change anything it's already passed at any time.  They could decide the Air Force belongs back in the Army tomorrow and make it happen, the only past Congressional action they can't revisit is 'unspend' money that has already been spent.   

Of course it would require enough of them in both houses to actually agree to do that, and agreement seems to be getting dodgy for even getting it through the first time.  On top of that, if it was going to be 'quietly,' then everyone opposed would have to just shut up, so seriously what does that passage tell us that isn't abundantly clear already?

Hi,

That was the point that was being made, that the deal had no real substance to it. 

I have already received four emails this morning from Tea Party folks in FL and IL (where I have my summer home) urging me to contact my congressional representatives and vote NO and hang tough.  If there was ever a day to let your representatives know how you feel it is today.

regards,
5412

[JohnnyReb]

Bonnie Fwank is smiling and singing, "Love is a long and slender thing...." So you know it's really a bad deal.

Seriously, now is the time to stand tough and demand a change in the way the government has been doing business. Most people that I know that don't bother say, "Why waste my time? There ain't a damn dimes worth of difference between any of them. They all tax the hell out of me and then waste my money."

[DumbAss Tanker]

That was the point that was being made, that the deal had no real substance to it. 

Point is, that same exact thing is true of ANY deal, from your worst nightmare deal to your best wet dream deal, so it really doesn't mean a damn' thing to raise it as an objection.

[5412]

Point is, that same exact thing is true of ANY deal, from your worst nightmare deal to your best wet dream deal, so it really doesn't mean a damn' thing to raise it as an objection.

Hi,

What a damn shame that I know you are right.  I taught negotiations and wrote books on the subject.  In business, when one hammers out a deal, then the parties shake hands on it, for the most part it is a done deal and you can take it to the bank.  If a party does not honor his/her deals, word gets around and from that point forward most people extract premiums from a deal for putting up with their BS.

Good example, and one that surprises a lot of people is GE.  GE capital at one time was their most profitable division.  They came up with the idea of ranking their vendors and those who were 'least essential" would not be paid for as long as 90-120 days.  Did not take long before those vendors ended up with two tiered pricing, even in a competitive market, because all bidders knew the game.  They had one price and then the GE price which was higher or the heck with it. 

Unfortunately, a deal is a deal, except when it comes to our government.  I guess Congressional leaders, and Political integrity are two of the bigger oxymorons known to man.....

regards,
5412