NJ5 said:
I see! Why does the media not regularly say the same things? I haven't seen many (any?) articles calling the spending "cuts" what they really are. |
I'd guess because the "news" is the deal, not so much the specifics behind it so to speak.
Got me, the closest they tend to get is why the deals were stalled.
Essentially Republicans didn't want to raise the debt ceiling past the obama presidency without actual "cuts" specified.
While the Democrats wanted to put it past the deadline with the vague promise of "cuts" so it wouldn't be an election issue and presumibly the "hard" cuts can be put off if Obama wins which would also likely mean house and senate gains...
or be forced to be done under the republican president ensuring he's a 1 term president.
I think the fact that most of the cuts (and indeed i believe ALL of them in the current plans) aren't really cuts is generally only brought up by senators like Coburn when interviewed on CNBC and presumibly fox news... but I don't watch fox news.
CNBC tends to deal a bit more with the reality of the situation because instead of being a news station... they're a buisness news station.
Paul Ryan puts it in a funnier way.
Paul Ryan was the guy everyone hated for his spending cuts idea a while back... to the point where democrats made a commercial where he literally threw an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.
I think his plan was for about 5 trillion... which is only 1 trillion more then what is said is possibly the bare minium needed to avoid a downgrade.
People who think the debt ceiling issue really had anything to do with this are fooling themselves.
If the debt ceiling would of been passed and this never been an argument, we STILL would be downgraded.
The only difference is the democrats would of just ignored the situation.
