ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues Lame Duck Obama Invites Gridlock (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=267205)

Taco John 11-29-2012 08:22 PM

Lame Duck Obama Invites Gridlock
 
This is an awesome story. It's basically about how Obama plans to hard line the Republicans, and in essence invite gridlock for his second term. Cant blame him. He's a lame duck before his term begins. He has to at least show his base that he "tried" to make "progress." But for those of us who enjoy seeing Washington paralyzed, we might be in a golden age.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-with-myself/

Shaid 11-29-2012 08:59 PM

Obama holds all the cards. Do nothing and the Bush tax cuts expire and then just pass a tax cut on the lower income folks.

patteeu 11-29-2012 09:00 PM

He gets to claim he was swinging for the fence with his base and he gets a boogieman (the Republicans in the House who hopefully refuse to roll over) to blame for the next four years of bad economy.

I don't know who Peter Suderman is, but I thought his tweet about Obama's ridiculous "proposal" was funny:

Quote:

Republicans hear Obama's opening bid, counter with: Eliminate the federal government, except for defense.

BigRedChief 11-29-2012 09:07 PM

We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

patteeu 11-29-2012 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 9163251)
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

This isn't just about taxes. The proposal presented by Tim Geithner included increased taxes of $1.6 trillion, NEW SPENDING on pet democrat projects, minor unspecified upfront spending cuts, and a promise to talk about spending cuts in the future with no guarantees.

He absolutely refuses to make a serious proposal with specific, real spending cuts. He challenges Republicans to set their mark with specifcs, apparently thinking that Republicans won't remember the last time they took him up on such an offer (with the Ryan budget) and got nothing but demagoguery in return.

The guy is not a leader and our country will suffer for it. But at least no one has to worry about whether Sandra Fluke will get her post-coitus birth control.

patteeu 11-29-2012 09:27 PM

http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e....jpg.cms_.jpeg

Shaid 11-29-2012 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9163315)
This isn't just about taxes. The proposal presented by Tim Geithner included increased taxes of $1.6 trillion, NEW SPENDING on pet democrat projects, minor unspecified upfront spending cuts, and a promise to talk about spending cuts in the future with no guarantees.

He absolutely refuses to make a serious proposal with specific, real spending cuts. He challenges Republicans to set their mark with specifcs, apparently thinking that Republicans won't remember the last time they took him up on such an offer (with the Ryan budget) and got nothing but demagoguery in return.

The guy is not a leader and our country will suffer for it. But at least no one has to worry about whether Sandra Fluke will get her post-coitus birth control.

Apparently you are forgetting Obama made the "grand compromise" before and the repubs wouldn't budge. They should have taken the deal then instead of kicking the can. Now they have no choice on the tax increases so the only thing to really compromise on is where are the cuts going to happen? I expect some small cuts in Social Security on the areas that have no impact on end people, like some of the payouts to drug companies. The dems will ask for some military cuts. The only discussion on the table is spending cuts and they'll have to meet in the middle there and that might not happen until after the new year.

patteeu 11-29-2012 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 9163440)
Apparently you are forgetting Obama made the "grand compromise" before and the repubs wouldn't budge. They should have taken the deal then instead of kicking the can. Now they have no choice on the tax increases so the only thing to really compromise on is where are the cuts going to happen? I expect some small cuts in Social Security on the areas that have no impact on end people, like some of the payouts to drug companies. The dems will ask for some military cuts. The only discussion on the table is spending cuts and they'll have to meet in the middle there and that might not happen until after the new year.

Obama made no grand compromise.

Shaid 11-29-2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9163468)
Obama made no grand compromise.

2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

Taco John 11-29-2012 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 9163251)
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

The majority of Americans didn't vote.

And no, I"m not surprised by any of this. I expected Obama to be a lame duck. I just didn't think his strategy would play into it so harshly.

Taco John 11-29-2012 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 9163487)
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

Anything that includes revenue increases should be off the table until there is a new budget spending freeze. Freezing the budget and locking out new spending is a compromise. What good is it to cut if you're just piling more on the plate?

cosmo20002 11-29-2012 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 9163601)
The majority of Americans didn't vote.

And no, I"m not surprised by any of this. I expected Obama to be a lame duck. I just didn't think his strategy would play into it so harshly.

What tipped you off? The two-term limit? Can't get one past you.

patteeu 11-30-2012 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 9163487)
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

The movement Obama made was moving the finish line for a proposed deal making sure it wouldn't happen.

SNR 11-30-2012 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 9163251)
We just had an election. In every campaign stop he said I will return the tax rates for income above $250K to the rates under Clinton. The majority of Americans voted for him knowing that is what he wants to do. Now he is saying I'm going to do it........ yet you are surprised?

We really could have used you in Wisconsin during the winter of 2011.

donkhater 11-30-2012 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaid (Post 9163487)
2 for 1 ratio on spending cuts to revenue increases. He showed the most movement from either party with that offer. Apparently it's all Obama's fault now because he hasn't offered anything but he has the leverage so he's going to wait for the repubs to offer something. That'll be the starting point. That's just the reality.

....and he campaigned on a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases.

the latest White House proposal?

$1.6 trillion in 'revenue'
$400 billlion in spending cuts (not specific or immediate of, course)

so the 3:1 ratio he campaigned on to show himself that he believes in a balanced approach is actually 1:4....if that.

The other thing is how do the Dems get away with saying that it is up to the Republicans to offer up their cuts? (Actually we all know the answer to that). I thought THEY were in the leadership positions!!

Anyone can see what's going on. The White House proposes revenue increases based on taxing the rich (which BTW will never give $1.6 trillion over 10 years) and scant spending cut details. Then it says the Republicans should offer up the spending cuts, which will of course be unpopular and the Dems can demagouge the hell out of.

Boehner should absolutely not budget on revenue until the spending cuts are large and immediate.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.