Lame Duck Obama Invites Gridlock

[Taco John]

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/

[TEX]

Originally Posted by donkhater

....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.

Yep, and the reality is it's NOT just,"Taxing the rich". My taxes are going up and I'm not "rich." Same for most Americans with jobs making over $40K NOT the often quoted $250K mark.

[ChiTown]

Is anyone actually surprised by any of this?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by ChiTown

Is anyone actually surprised by any of this?

Nope, yet it will be the R's fault.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Taco John

The majority of Americans didn't vote.

They had a chance to vote, to voice their opinion. Those who decided to get off their couch voted. The majority of those said raise the taxers on the rich. It's a done deal.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by donkhater

....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.

opening offer. What have the R's offered as a plan?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

opening offer. What have the R's offered as a plan?

I bet the first time the word 'entitlements' came out of Boehner's mouth the secret service tazed him.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I7 %bet the first time the word 'entitlements' came out of Boehner's mouth the secret service tazed him.

Where's the R's plan?

You know as well as I do why they haven't put forward a plan, the American people will hate it and provide fodder in the next elections.

But, everyone knows medicare needs to be reformed. Obama is the best President to reform entitlements. But nothing is going to happen until Grover Norquist loses his power. And the tax rates on the rich go up to the Clinton era. He is not elected official. No one elected him. Republicans need to kick him to the curb and remember who they swore alligiance to, who they really work for.

The Republicans get to keep 98% of the Bush tax cuts. Thats a friggin victory for the R's for crissakes.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Where's the R's plan?

You know as well as I do why they haven't put forward a plan, the American people will hate it and provide fodder in the next elections.

But, everyone knows medicare needs to be reformed. Obama is the best President to reform entitlements. But nothing is going to happen until Grover Norquist loses his power. And the tax rates on the rich go up to the Clinton era. He is not elected official. No one elected him. Republicans need to kick him to the curb and remember who they swore alligiance to, who they really work for.

Do you think if Obama thew true entitlement reform into the discussions the republicans would consider raising taxes?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Do you think if Obama thew true entitlement reform into the discussions the republicans would consider raising taxes?

I think Social Security is off the table for this rounds. It's sound for another 25 years and it doesn't contribute to the deficit.

But, yes I do see Obama doing entitlement reform before he leaves office. The r's will make the best deal possible and sign off on the deal. The R's know they could never lead on entitlement reform.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I think Social Security is off the table for this rounds. It's sound for another 25 years and it doesn't contribute to the deficit.

But, yes I do see Obama doing entitlement reform before he leaves office. The r's will make the best deal possible and sign off on the deal. The R's know they could never lead on entitlement reform.

Fine, but maybe the republicans know this might be their best chance to force Obama to actually do something about entitlements.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Fine, but maybe the republicans know this might be their best chance to force Obama to actually do something about entitlements.

They would be very wrong. If Republicans deny 98% of Americans a tax cut and cause America to fall off the fiscal cliff because they wanted tax cuts for the top 2% they will get clobbered as a party.

We had an election, the people voted. The tax cuts are gone for the top 2%. Thats just the initial step. The r's need to take their permanent tax cut for 98% of Americans and declare victory.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

They would be very wrong. If Republicans deny 98% of Americans a tax cut and cause America to fall off the fiscal cliff because they wanted tax cuts for the top 2% they will get clobbered as a party.

We had an election, the people voted. The tax cuts are gone for the top 2%. Thats just the initial step. The r's need to take their permanent tax cut for 98% of Americans and declare victory.

Yeah, **** the spending cuts and what not.....

[petegz28]

This whole thing is so typical of why I can't vote for democrats. Their idea of compromise is "do what we want you to do". They have no interest in compromise, they never have.

The plain fact is the Dems want to keep spending. They won't pass a budget, they won't talk about spending cuts, etc., etc. They just want to tax the rich more, which won't do shit, and keep on spending money they don't have and then blame it on the R's and stupid people will buy it.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Where's the R's plan?

You know as well as I do why they haven't put forward a plan, the American people will hate it and provide fodder in the next elections.

But, everyone knows medicare needs to be reformed. Obama is the best President to reform entitlements. But nothing is going to happen until Grover Norquist loses his power. And the tax rates on the rich go up to the Clinton era. He is not elected official. No one elected him. Republicans need to kick him to the curb and remember who they swore alligiance to, who they really work for.

The Republicans get to keep 98% of the Bush tax cuts. Thats a friggin victory for the R's for crissakes.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Why is it up to the GOP? Didn't the Democrats seek and get the opportunity to lead the country for the next four years? Shouldn't the American public have the expectation that THEY provide a serious solution for our 'crisis'?

The proposal that has been put forth by the White House is essentially what they proposed in their last budget which NO ONE, democrat or republican, voted for in the Senate.

Why is it unreasonable to have the expectation that the party in the position of leadership lead? Scant spending cuts when it is obvious to anyone with a brain that nothing will change without serious spending reform is absolutely ridiculous. The GOP will counter with unpopular, yet needed, spending suggestions (which undoubtedly will still be not enough) and be demagogued like hell for it. You know and I know this is the Chicago way. That is not leadership.

[donkhater]

When Paul Ryan's plan, which wouldn't balance the budget for around 20 years, gets roundly criticized as a 'throw grandma over the cliff' budget, it is clear as day that the current leadership has absolutely no stomach to do what's necessary.

Going over the fiscal cliff will hurt, but what does anyone expect for the blatant irresponsible spending that has occurred over the last couple decades? Any real solution is going to hurt. It's time to take our medicine.