White House, Republicans Strike Tenative Deal To Raise Debt Ceiling

ABCNews ^ | July 30, 2011 | Jonathon Karl

[Beaten Valve]

ABC News has learned that Republicans and the White House have struck a tenative deal to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 deadline.

It's not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:

[Varsity Flight]

“The leverage the Republicans had over Obama with the debt ceiling issue will be gone at least for the next couple of years”

Just in time for Vampire-Care, the plan all along from Big D.C.

“Thou Shall Not Steal” Exodus 20:15

[God luvs America]

if you believe that is the case than how can dollar-for-dollar cut & raise for the debt ceiling, no new taxes and a vote on a BBA be a bad thing???

[Errant]

But, this is the one thing obama demanded. And he got it. Why do you think that is?

I don't like thinking what he can do with 2.8T in 1.5 years. We're screwed...

[EternalVigilance]

Hogwash. The court is awash in liberals. Even the ones picked by Republicans. The propaganda from Republicans on that score just doesn’t wash any more.

[Qbert]

“There was no chance whatsoever that actual reductions in expenditures would pass at this time.”

Then it’s utterly useless.

[Enchante]

a "vote" on a BBA is meaningless unless its passage out of Congress (to go to the states for ratification) is required in the deal:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution...."

The Demagogues can allow a "vote" anytime on a BBA, but unless 2/3 of each house of Congress votes for the proposed amendment never even gets to go before the states (3/4 of which must then ratify).

In general, no Demagogues (or few) will vote for the BBA unless that's a required part of this deal, so the BBA never will get "proposed" by Congress to the states.

[jeltz25]

I don’t get what the “if that doesn’t happen” means. If the Committee doesn’t get 7 votes then Congress must pass the BBA(which version of the the BBA?). But then it says if that doesn’t happen there are automatic cuts.

If what doesn’t happen?

[Perdogg]

I agree 100%. It would not bother me if this bill was killed as well.

[unkus]

I don’t like thinking what he can do with 2.8T in 1.5 years. We’re screwed...

---

Yep!

[Deo volente]

They're arguing over $2 trillion over the next ten years when we've got unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, etc. of $115 trillion.

This is what $115 trillion looks like. The little pallet by the truck represents $100 million, in $100 bills.

[EternalVigilance]

if you believe that is the case than how can dollar-for-dollar cut & raise for the debt ceiling, no new taxes and a vote on a BBA be a bad thing???

Because that is all total balderdash. They are raising taxes. There will be no real cuts. And there will be no "balanced budget amendment."

All there will be is another $2.8 TRILLION dollars in debt, with interest.

[Enchante]

quote above is excerpt from Article V of the US Constitution on process for amending the document....

[Clairity]

“Let this article sink in

If true then - well then I don’t know what happens. We sink.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardsalsman/2011/07/29/washingtons-budget-cuts-would-boost-spending-50/

I agree. Unfortunately people are so busy celebrating “a deal” that they don’t look at what the deal really is.

We are on a downward spiral and unless we elect a fiscally responsible president and Congress, who also have some courage, we may be passing the point of no return to become a third world country and nobody will bail us out, you can be sure of that.

[mlocher]

"I'll gladly pay you next Tuesday for a trillion dollar cheeseburger today."

LOL -- thanks for the levity, even if it is all too true!

[Perdogg]

If this bill is killed, I could care less, the debt ceiling is not raised.

[FARS]

I believe there is wording that indicates “except if the country is at war” somewhere which invalidates almost everything!

Also what effect will the deadline of the continuing budget resolution expiring in September 2011 have on the whole picture? If any?

And, what if we win the Senate in 2012 by partly losing now? Veto proof. Two majorities with veto proof margin of the third makes Obambi a hangover.

A gamble we could/might lose but if we win, then we have a solution - instead of a certainty of a total Obama created and led disaster if we cannot have a chance at the Senate majority.

[ncalburt]

exactly

this a phony PR release by the Soros Media machine and the All Barack Channel is a true Soros front group.

[Terry Mross]

No, the economy won’t turn around. But look at the polls. It shows 40% still love this guy? And I believe another 10%, at least, will vote for him when the time comes.

obama looked bad on this deal. It would have been nice if he would be looking bad in oct 2012.

[kabar]

The Reid bill will become the alternative to the Boehner bill. The alleged Obama-Rep deal will use it as the vehicle to replace the Boehner bill with the Senate’s version. If it is passed in the Senate, it will go to the House for approval. By the Constitution, any appropriations bill must be initiated in the House. That was the whole purpose of the Boehner bill, i.e., to give the Senate the vehicle to propose an alternative. The Senate has changed the vote on the bill from 1 AM to 1 PM on Sunday. I assume that the alleged deal will be reflected in the new Reid bill.

[TheShaz]

THIS SMELLS FISHY !

We have the Liberals and the President on the ropes. Obama is getting killed in the polls.

HOLD THE LINE !