Is this really a fair statement to make? One side can dig in on a major issue and say "if this is included, we walk" and then we chide any proposal that includes that issue as just wasting time? I can just imagine nothing ever getting done in the future if a block is going to pick an issue and demand that it be solved their way or they won't let anything pass.
Haven't we already counted the afghan war savings three or four times already? Another budgetary trick used by both sides.
At the end of the day it is a meaningless proposal as Obama has included items that the repubs have said aren't negotiable. So we have a proposal that was made to be a political gesture not a real proposal. The cycle of incompentence continues in Washington as both sides would rather be utter a$$holes than do anything productive.
This seems like a pretty bipartisian pitch to me, 800 from tax revenues, 580 from spending cuts, 430 from interest saved that gets to 1.8t ignoring the war savings which covers the debt deal plus the jobs program. If you just look at taxes vs cuts and then compare the composition of our government (from a strictly blue v red perspective) this proposal is giving republicans more then their "share" of control. Rather then say "it's meaningless because republicans have forced themselves into an intractable position, maybe the onus should be on them to not make claims that give them no room to negotiate.
I think it's a good starting point, this is the basic framework that needs to be there with some room to push things around to get votes. If this isn't bipartisian, what is? I'd like to hear what other people would consider bipartisian.
Edited by squishyx, 19 September 2011 - 08:54 AM.