Reply With Quote
Wonderful idea. I'm sure the republicans who still hold the House and can filibuster in the Senate would be so intimidated by Obama's bravado that they would just roll over.
It is
and it's a ridiculous offer.
As I've said previously I'd be fine with a 5/1 ratio of cuts/tax increases.
Obama is offering the opposite.
Wonderful idea. I'm sure the republicans who still hold the House and can filibuster in the Senate would be so intimidated by Obama's bravado that they would just roll over.
I would say go back to 4 to 1 but yeah, I am generally right next to ya here.
the stimulus is new, I like it, but for how long and give me specific ing spending goals on that (I want new bridges, or an upgraded grid, not short term load shooting or tax breaks)
However I agree with the above that 50 b is a little low to achieve those goals, but I understand that we are trying to cut the deficit, so I guess take what you can get.
Do not do away with the debt ceiling.
The deficit isn't a problem.
(good) jobs, housing, student debt bubble/costs, economic stimulus are the 99% priorities.
It's the 1%/VRWC talking point (Ryan's twice-approved budget INCREASED the deficit by $5T) to "broaden the tax base", ie, reduce taxes on the 1% and increase taxes on the 99%.
The 1%/VRWC and their Repug shills don't a give a flying about about the deficit.
Thanks Cheney, we appreciate your input, but you are no longer in power.
Cmon CC, when you try to talk down the price of the car, do you try the price you want, or a few thousand under the price you want so both parties "win" when you get to an agreed upon price?
I'm pretty sure that by the time this is finished, spending cuts will be at least equal to new revenue, probably more.
Well, I don't walk in and offer them 5K for a new crew cab Z71...I start at something I think is reasonable and work from there.
How is the Repug position of NO RISE INCOME TAX RATES (esp for the 1%) while ing about the deficit nothing but posturing?
A modest proposal:
Go back to the Clinton-era tax rates AND SPENDING RATES.
I know --- too extremist
EDIT> And probably somehow racist, too
http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/...with-the-401k/
They'd better keep their greedy mits off my retirement plan.
Well, you do have a good point there.Still, the President has a bit more pull than a normal car buyer
what's red team's opening bid?
Good question. Revenue!!!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...el-foster?pg=1First, the bad news: There’s roughly a trillion in new revenue in Corker’s plan. About $250 billion comes from reforming the way Social Security benefits are calculated. The other $750 billion comes from a $50,000 cap on itemized deductions, which would increase the tax bills of some Americans — most of them higher earners. There’s some bad news on the spending side, too: It counts scheduled cuts from the debt-limit deal and war spending that wasn’t going to happen anyway in its $3.528 trillion in cuts.
But it also contains real meat, including $400 billion in belt-tightening in the federal work force (expanding the current hiring freeze and reining in federal-employee benefits) and, most significantly, more than $700 billion in savings obtained from full-spectrum en lement reform: enrollment-age increases, tighter growth formulae, means-testing, and a strong, market-driven alternative to fee-for-service Medicare that alone is expected to save $290 billion over ten years.
Any of this sound familiar? As I put it in the Corner, it looks like Romney’s tax plan made flesh and dwelling among us. But, as Ross Douthat pointed out, that’s not exactly right, since Romney’s tax plan also came with across-the-board 20 percent rate cuts. So it’s probably more accurate to say Corker’s plan is Romney’s plan made flesh with more plausible math and greater respect for political constraints.
Five Overreactions To Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Proposal
Worse than surrender in the Civil War: Leading conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer likened Obama’s proposal to the terms of surrender offered to Confederates in the Civil War, only the president’s deal was worse. “It’s not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal… Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox and he lost the Civil War,” said Krauthammer.
Out of a fairytale: Writing in her Wall Street Journal column, Kimberley Strassel lambasted the plan as “something out of Wonderland and Oz combined.” She went on to argue that Obama wasn’t negotiating in good faith. “The most frightening aspect of the White House proposal is that it wasn’t an error.”
“Nothing good can come of negotiating further”: RedState editor Erick Erickson, whose counsel congressional Republicans regularly seek, advised the GOP to pack up, go home, and take the country over the cliff. “Nothing good can come of negotiating further,” Erickson wrote. “The GOP should pass what they want and promptly go home. Let the Democrats stay and sort things out. Dive.”
“I’d walk out”: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, said that his Party ought to walk out of negotiations, saying Obama’s proposal was solely meant to “provoke” House Republicans. Speaking on his morning show, Scarborough detailed what his reaction would have been had he been in negotiations: “I would have said, ‘We’re all busy people, this is a critical time, if you’re going to come over here and insult us and intentionally try to provoke us, you can do that but I’m going back to work now.’ And I’d walk out.”
“Congress should dive headlong off fiscal cliff”: After a lengthy column detailing how going over the fiscal cliff “would shock the economy,” Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson advised GOPers to “dive headlong off fiscal cliff” following Obama’s proposal. “Republicans don’t have a lot of good choices right now,” Tucker wrote. “They might as well try it.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...-overreaction/
The 99% wasn't screwed enough for these assholes.
Jonathan Cohn with a counterintuitive gloss of Obama's unbalanced proposal:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...crease-boehnerBut let’s focus on this claim, from Republicans, that Obama only wants to raise taxes and isn’t serious about spending cuts. Here’s an analysis from one senior Republican aide, as relayed to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:
The White House keeps saying it wants a ‘balanced approach’ but this offer is completely unbalanced and unrealistic. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – all of that upfront – in exchange for only $400 billion in spending cuts that come later. Plus, the only en lement changes they proposed come from the exact proposals in the President’s budget.The trouble with this analysis is that it ignores history: As part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, Obama agreed to spending reductions of about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. If you count the interest, the savings is actually $1.7 trillion. Boehner should have no problem remembering the details of that deal: As Greg Sargent points out, Boehner at the time actually gloated about the fact that the deal was "all spending cuts."
And now, with this latest offer, Obama is proposing yet more spending reductions, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Add it up and it’s more than $2 trillion in spending cuts Obama has either signed into law or is endorsing now. That’s obviously greater than the $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue he’s seeking. (And that doesn't even take into account automatic cuts from the 2011 budget sequester, which Obama has proposed to defer, or savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.) So, yes, Obama’s proposal is unbalanced—but not in the way Republicans seem to think. If Obama were proposing a truly balanced plan, he’d be calling for even more tax revenue or even less spending reduction.
LOL sounds like Boutons thinks Obama's proposal was fair.
allowing the Bush/Obama tax cuts to expire (and the prospect of a recession in 2013 if no deal is done) is a gun pointed at everyone's head. poking the GOP in the eye might not have been the most astute opening move, but negotiations have to start somewhere. whining about the unfairness of it all hardly inspires confidence in GOP leadership.
boutons thinks whatever he's told to think.
True...but calling that an opening offer is a bit of a stretch.
It's a positioning statement, not an offer.
on the PR front, GOP is playing catch up. the tactic of letting the President "own" both major elements of the deal -- revenue and spending changes, with the attendant political liabilities -- has the strategic disadvantage of allowing Obama to set the terms, which Obama has done in a way probably calculated to provoke hurt feelings and intransigence. Obama, the GOP and the country are all on perilous ground here.
how is it not one?
at this point in the talks, everything is a positioning statement, so I guess I can see that.
TB!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions