Dems rejected short-term GOP offer. Dems offer $2.7T in cuts without any revenues.

[Parker CA]

@LisaDCNN DEBT DEAL: Reid just put out statement. Dems rejected short-term GOP offer. Dems offer $2.7 T deal that cuts spending, dsn't raise revenues.
3 minutes ago

No more details right now. Reid statement should be popping up somewhere soon, if not already.

More...

@LisaDCNN DEBT - WHERE ARE WE?: Dems now offering $2.7 T in deficit cuts (10yrs), details TBA. H. GOP to offer a bill tomorrow, details TBA.
2 minutes ago

@LisaDCNN So, we're in same spot as past weeks? Well, almost @RVAREGal. Big diff here is looks like a 2-yr+ deal and Dems dropped demand for revenue.
1 minute ago

@LisaDCNN DEAL DETAILS: Not clear yet when we'll get details from Dems. GOP says they'll brief members tomorrow 2p ET. (@MarkP21)
4 minutes ago

@LisaDCNN DEAL - WHY DEMS CAVING?: Early thought is they want to claim the high road. Make GOP look combative, dogmatic, unreasonable.
less than a minute ago

@LisaDCNN BIG QUESTIONS: What are the cuts in each plan - the Reid plan vs. the GOP bill coming out tomorrow? When do those cuts occur?
1 minute ago

[peacebird]

1. so the Dems folded and sold us out? Massive cuts with no revenue raises?

:grr:

Color me surprised - NOT.

on edit: Whoever it was who wanted me to eat crow (because clearly Obama was kicking Repub ass), please - don't choke on the feathers and bones as you dine.

[Fearless]

3. +1

[adhd_what_huh]

5. When the Rethugs vote for the bill it will be their death nail.

They are making the Dems produce a cut bill, with no revenue. The Rethugs don't have the courage to put the cuts on paper. In the end the Rethugs will be responsible for making the weakest among us fund the corporate tax loop holes. The Rethugs will never live this down.

[Donnachaidh]

10. and the Dems will also suffer the backlash

At this point, both parties are selling the middle class out.

[Doctor_J]

11. Ah, yes, the 11-D chess again

I guess there are still a few of you believers out there

[adhd_what_huh]

22. all I know is that a black dude with a name like (Obama)

beat a Clinton and won the Presidency. I'll trust his political instincts over anyone at DU.

[abelenkpe]

12. No it won't. Nt

[Parker CA]

13. The GOP base will eat this up and it will be considered a huge win for them. It's going to take some

insanely crafty messaging for the Dems to spin this one into a win based on being reasonable, if in fact the deal ends in the direction these bits of info suggest it's heading.

[AlabamaLibrul]

8. +1

Remember how all the "Professional Leftists" were told they'd have to run away en masse when the 14-dimensional chess board was revealed?

Despite what the New Democrats would like, my ass ain't going anywhere. I get the feeling the silence will be from them.

[Donnachaidh]

9. [phone] n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

2. Without revenues?! Woo-hoo, what a deal!!!

[robinlynne]

4. wtf. Aren't they supposed to represent us? no deal. no cuts.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

6. You're KILLING people to "make the GOP look combative, dogmatic, unreasonable.?

:wtf:

[adhd_what_huh]

24. that is just ridiculous!

[hairyHans]

7. RICH DON`T WANT TO PAY? POLITICIANS NEITHER!!

BUT DOES ANYONE WANT TO PUT MONEY THEIR WHERE MOUTHS ARE!
 Why do Americans not insist(RALLY, RANT & RAGE) that the
first cuts to ANY taxpayer-supported wages/benefits are those
of ALL the politicians... President, congressmen,senators,
upper political civil servants!  
 If this were to happens you would have NO problem coming up
with PRAGMATIC not rhetorical solutions. 
 WHY do AMERICANS NOT JOIN TOGETHER EN MASSE AND INSIST
" POLITICIANS FIRST!" . 
 Don't forget: they put themselves first on EVERYTHING ELSE: 
Best benefits, best expense accounts, best health care, best
working environment .... all at taxpayers' expense.`
  
Will you allow them, by dithering, to further reduce your
common American's well-being?
 

[abelenkpe]

14. Great deal.

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Great! Another Glorious Victory to add to THE LIST!

I can't wait for the Third Way to tell us how grateful we should be for getting screwed...again.

[Telly Savalas]

16. Can we see Reid's statement rather than the Twitter ramblings of some tweener

The way this whole farce has been playing out, I'm sure the deal proposed by Reid sucks, but I'd really like to see his actual statement. Twitter isn't fucking journalism.

[BzaDem]

17. That article is misleading. Most of those cuts are phony cuts that don't actually lower spending

at all.

There is 1.2 trillion from discretionary spending, that Obama already agreed to. This isn't actually a cut -- it is just a slower increase over 10 years than the CBO predicted. The CBO scores that as a 1.2 trillion dollar cut. Furthermore, it isn't actually binding. Future Congresses are going to pass whatever appropriations bill they please. Past Congresses can't bind future Congresses on discretionary spending.

There is over a trillion from ending the wars over a 10 year period. The CBO scores that as a trillion dollar cut, relative to a mythical baseline where we stay in Afghanistan/Iraq at full strength indefinitely. This isn't anything other than what was going to happen originally, so this is really a phony cut Reid put in their for political purposes. (It allows Reid to make the cut amount look huge, even though it really isn't. This is a good thing.)

Most of the rest comes from interest savings on the two items above.

So in reality, we are only talking about a 1.2 trillion dollar cut (which is actually just a non-binding reduction in the projected increase of spending), that Obama agreed to long ago, in exchange for a 2.5 trillion debt limit increase. This would be a great deal for us, which is why Republicans aren't going to accept it. This is just political positioning.

[JoePhilly]

18. Can't you just let the outrage machine run!!!!

Geeeze ... all of this mumbo jumbo about stuff that was already cut ... it dampens the whole hair on fire thing.

[99 Percent Sure]

23. Ha Ha Ha Ha! Thanks, JoePhilly.

The Rs are so repugnant, Reed's so sorry a leader and the congressional Dems are such poor representatives that many suffer from a kind of Stockholm/Chicken Little Syndrome. Pile on the mess that tweeting creates with the 140-character limit among other things and whatcha get is a lot of nail-biting nervousness. We've been through a lot starting with Shrub the Terrible's reign of terror so it's natural for folk to get up in arms with our lousy politicos at the drop of a few tweets. Yeah, we need to get that Twitter ain't good reporting. Not to say that we don't suffer from a dearth in real journalism, but we must remember that Twitter ain't it either.

We need to take deep breaths--breathe in, breathe out ...

[JoePhilly]

26. DU has become a great place to find out the "outrage of the day".

It usually goes like this ... some web site no one has every heard of posts a story in which ..... "an unnamed source close to some one who was close to the the person who held a glass up to the wall so they could hear the deliberations on the other side, is pretty sure they heard Obama call all liberals babies, right before he offered to give the social security money of everyone still alive to the 2 Koch brothers and the Bush twins, in exchange for some magic beans."

Then FDL and Huffpo pick up the story, referencing each other. Their articles then quote angry liberals who are angry that Obama called them babies, and almost as angry that the all of the social security money if going to only 4 people.

Then DU explodes, and the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments begins.

[Parker CA]

19. Thanks for the breakdown. I didn't post an article, just the tweets from CNN reporter. What

article are you getting the info from? Based on your breakdown, I agree that the GOP wouldn't go for this, but they're coming out with their own plan tomorrow apparently, so the carousel just continues to spin.

[BzaDem]

20. Oh I'm not blaming you. The articles themselves leave a lot of important info out.

Here's one source I saw:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/duel-or-duet-reid-and-boehner-poised-to-introduce-different-bills-to-avoid-default.php?ref=fpa

"Reid will counter this with legislation modeled on a plan first articulated by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). It's a cuts-only bill (no tax revenue) that Dems believe will score $2.7 trillion in savings. But it will likely rely on a projected "peace dividend" -- the expected drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and Republicans have indicated in the past they don't support counting reduced war expenditures as savings.

"In an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, we are putting together a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that meets Republicans' two major criteria," Reid said. "t will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues. We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines."

Democrats don't currently have GOP buy-in on the plan, and House GOP aides were conspicuously silent about the proposal Sunday evening. But a highly placed Senate Democratic aide says the hope is that GOPers in both bodies feel pressed to support it on the grounds, more or less, that it's everything they've asked for from the beginning.

"It's $2.5 trillion in cuts and no revenue," the source said, before Reid's statement claiming a higher figure. "We think Republicans will have a hard time opposing it."

[99 Percent Sure]

25. BzaDem, thanks for breaking it down.

I really appreciate it.