View Single Post
Unread 2011-07-23, 8:11   #1
b0rg9's Avatar
b0rg9
Mecha+ Member

Jan 6 2004
9,863 posts
Age 54
Male
clearwater, FL
 



For Immediate Release
July 22, 2011

Remarks by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

6:06 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling. I just got a call about a half hour ago from Speaker Boehner who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations that we’ve been engaged in here at the White House for a big deficit reduction and debt reduction package. And I thought it would be useful for me to just give you some insight into where we were and why I think that we should have moved forward with a big deal.

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.

In addition, what we sought was revenues that were actually less than what the Gang of Six signed off on. So you had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they’ve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally while broadening the base.

So let me reiterate what we were offering. We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary savings as the Gang of Six. We were calling for taxes that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed. And we were calling for modifications to entitlement programs, would have saved just as much over the 10-year window. In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair deal. If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.

But in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, I was willing to take a lot of heat from my party -- and I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from a lot of interest groups around the country, in order to make sure that we actually dealt with this problem.

It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this kind of deal. And, frankly, if you look at commentary out there, there are a lot of Republicans that are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done. In fact, there are a lot of Republican voters out there who are puzzled as to why it couldn’t get done. Because the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the American people believe we should have a balanced approach.

continued... http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of...arks-president



This whole thing is disgusting, and the fact that some will continue to defend the ignorant-right is sad. But what should we expect from a political ideology that appears to be, in essence, "Scream 'no!', make everything stop, fight against any suggestion, fillibuster anything the other guys want while lying bald-facedly whenever convenient... then turn around and bitch about a lack of results while trying to blame the other guy for it"?

Empathy-less selfishness. Willful ignorance, and unrepentantly misinformed about the remaining. Sociopathologically hypocritical. Blindly dogmatic to beliefs in fairy tales about a country that never was. And yet, they'll keep winning elections because the ability to create fear of the unknown and/or different will always be powerful for some small, but significant and vocal, part of our society.

But, yeah, "both sides are bad." Right.
Reply With Quote