Harry Reid, Feb. 3, 2011, on Paul Ryan’s initial offer of $32 billion in spending cuts:
The chairman of the Budget Committee today, today sent us something even more draconian than we originally anticipated…So this isn’t some game that people have been playing. The House of Representatives [is] actually sending us some of these unworkable plans.
Harry Reid, April 9, 2011, on a deal to cut $38.5 billion:
This is historic, what we’ve done.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo lemme get this straight, Harry:
You were AGAINST the bill before you were FOR it?
ROTFL!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo as the government careened toward a shutdown, Dems offered serious compromises while Republicans reneged on their original offer. Sounds right to me, nice to see someone here finally admit it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, the $38.5 billion cut is about 2.5% from a $1.5 trillion deficit.
That's like you charging $4000 a month on a credit card, and then saying you're going to cut that by 2.5%, and only charge $3900.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBacking the Dems off by a measly 1% on a budget that outspends revenues by 72% is historic? Laudable? Something other than a joke?
Get real.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have always been at war with Eastasia.
redstate:
WTH? The GOP offered $32 billon in cuts and got almost $40 billion. How is that "reneging" on their initial offer? And what is NRO "admitting" to by pointing this out?
Regards,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseredfate,
"Careened" toward a shutdown? Exactly what disaster ensues from the "shutdown" of any government? Do wars suddenly appear? Famine? Does the economy stop?
The reality is the people who should fear a government shutdown are government employees. People wouldn't see much of a difference in their lives and the utter lack of urgency to "do" something about a shutdown would become apparent pretty quickly.
And "a serious compromise" by Democrats? They've been saying nothing could possibly be cut from what I've read. Why they finally agreed to anything is completely at odds with their rhetoric so to imagine this was "serious" behavior on their part is fanciful. Some data told them they'd lose in a shutdown this time around and they, frankly, took the Republicans to the cleaners with this pitiful level of cuts.
Whatever the reason, YOU can't be serious using the word "serious" in conjunction with the behavior of Democrats on this subject. They were playing a game, with no regard to the consequences, of simply trying to salvage any and all spending they could, with no regard to its value. That, in this weak economy, is NOT serious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJag, while your reply has many words in it, none of them address my point. Per original post, Republicans demanded $32b in cuts. Dems agreed to that number days ago. Republicans declined and re-demanded even more, piling on more demands right up to the 11th hour. Which party is compromising in this scenario?
Re Lack of consequences of a shutdown. My challenge to you: go say what you just wrote to the families of five enlisted soldiers whose pay would have been frozen during a shutdown. Make sure you include the bit about "utter lack of urgency." Then come back here and let's see how smug you look.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRedfate,
I've already spoken to an active duty soldier in Iraq about the government shut down - my son. We (he included) know whom is to blame for the "negotiating" point about not paying active duty military.
I also spoke with my daughter, the attorney. If I make an negotiation offer (e.g., buy a house) and you turn it down, I am not bound to my original offer. Did the original offer include "Planned Parenthood" defunding? Anything else? If yes, then why are you suggesting that the Repubs must maintain that original offer?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseredfate, the Repubs demanded $32b in cuts and got........
$38.5 in cuts.
Right - tell me again, who went backwards?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRedfate,
While it's true that when Reid spoke on Feb 3, the Republicans were talking about $32B, by Feb 19, the House had passed H.R. 1, which raised the Republican cuts to $61B:
External Link
Regarding HR 1, ABC reported Harry Reid as saying:
“Now that House Republicans have gotten this vote out of their system, I hope they will drop the threats of shutting down the government and work with the Senate on responsible cuts that allow our nation’s economic recovery to continue”
External Link
Ryan's "unofficial" Republican offer of $32B was superseded by the "official" $61B stake in the ground provided by HR 1.
Republicans compromised down from $61B, Dems came up from essentially zero.
Remember too, that in his State of the Union speech on Jan 25, 2011, Obama was only calling for a spending freeze.
External Link
Big win for Boehner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReno, I can't argue with your chronology. Well cited. I concede the point - both sides compromised.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewell obama could have ignored these stupid demands and let the government shut down for months/years until the republicans died of old age/stupidity like a stubborn 5 year old. or he could have come to a compromise like an rational adult. i think it was a pretty reasonable decision considering who he was dealing with.
sidebar - we couldn't just take a couple hundred billion out of the army could we? that would have been so silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse