jmog;1334943 wrote:Oh...so your original post you say he is talking about no cuts, now you say "oh wait, he has offered $400B in medicare cuts".

Can't change your story now BS, just makes your posts look like your name (BS).

:laugh:

The point is you guys wouldn't call them "cuts" anyways...hence the lack of inclusion.

Why are you not upset that your boys aren't even fighting for your priorities...cuts to handouts to teh p00rz. They're just whining about meanie Obammy Boy not playing fair and acting like he won the election :laugh:

Play hard ball back. Show us a plan that's going to cause teh p00rz the pain we need to end this deficit!!

HitsRus;1334938 wrote:^^^Oh what a crock. The guy has been president for 4 years (oh,wait...maybe I should say he's been running for president for 4 years). And he doesn't know what the sticking points are? He expects bi-partisanship, then he proposes what he wanted ..and then more?. This is the part of the negotiation where the other sides walks out. That's why you don't have a counter proposal....he knows what he needs to do to get a compromise....and he continues to posture.

lol. Aren't you at all a bit disappointed that your team isn't even making an effort to fight for what you want?? Cuts to the dependency and welfare state??? They're just whining and crying about how big of a meanie Barry O is. "He's not playing fair and adopting Mitt Romney's campaign proposals!"

gut;1334836 wrote:Anyway, I'm somewhat shocked that so many economists are warning of a recession if we go over the "fiscal cliff". It's a combo of $100B in tax increases and spending cuts this year, an average of $150B a year over 10. That's a rounding error. If we can't absorb $100-$150B from cutting the fat on a $1T+ deficit, then we are in serious trouble.

It's all fungible, anyway. There's no balanced budget amendment - not like the $100B or so isn't going ot be offset with spending increases and tax cuts/deductions elsewhere.

Somewhat agree here. There's been a lot of hype about this being a "cliff"...Starting January 1st the spending cuts and tax raises will begin harming the economy but it'll only be a recession if they last for the course of the whole year. We could handle a couple of months without there being a recession and that's why we're gonna go over...because the democrats will get what they want without doing anything and then will come out as middle class champions fighting for tax cuts for the middle class while getting to blame republicans for holding them up when they didn't pass them in January.

Did everyone get load their freezers full of steak on the first of the month? Amazing how much steak fits into the truck of a Cadalliac. Nice to free up money for cigs, flat screens, ho-ho's, keystone light, DVDs, & boone's hill farm. Don't worry about buying actual food for the kids, the school will provide that. Good times had by all.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/12/03/Republicans-make-counter-offer-to-avoid-fiscal-cliff.html

House Speaker John Boehner today responded to President Obama’s deficit reduction plan – one Boehner has called “nonsense” – by offering a plan from Obama’s own deficit reduction commission.

Boehner himself had criticized a plan presented by Obama last week, saying it essentially was Obama’s own budget plan from last year, which neither passed the House nor the Senate. A senior House GOP aide said today that while Republicans could’ve countered with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s own budget plan.

“We’re not doing that,” the aide said. “Because we don’t have the time.”

BoatShoes;1334157 wrote:Even if we accept all of the points you're making...why are the Republicans not making these arguments in a counter-offer in these budget negotiations in response to Obama's apparently ridiculous offer?

One doesn't offer a counter proposal to an absurd offer. One of the basic rules of negotiation. Do they not teach that in law school, or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Obama is about campaigning, not leadership.

queencitybuckeye;1335675 wrote:One doesn't offer a counter proposal to an absurd offer. One of the basic rules of negotiation. Do they not teach that in law school, or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Well after the trail of tears, the Republicans make their proposal. I guess the plethora of lawyers in the Republican caucus must've missed that one too. :laugh:

As usual, you don't answer a direct question. You're a rude little man, aren't you?

Actually, they've made my point, not refuted it. Big surprise a 9th-tier doesn't understand that.

The Repubs are the only ones showing any leadership and willingness to compromise. The Dems, for quite some time, have chosen to pursue no agenda over a partial agenda. They can't get everything they want, so they are satisifed to play politics and simpy demonize and blame the Repubs for their own shortcomings. They appear willing to let the economy and American people suffer while they run the long-game.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4175c4b4-3d86-11e2-9f35-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2E1xjfb2o

Counter offer.

Why is Obama holding the middle class hostage over cuts for the top 2%? Seems Obama is more interested in sending Americans over the fiscal cliff rather than negotiating a real solution.

sleeper;1335713 wrote:Why is Obama holding the middle class hostage over cuts for the top 2%? Seems Obama is more interested in sending Americans over the fiscal cliff rather than negotiating a real solution.

Revenge. Obama believes that his supporters care more about soaking the rich. He may not be incorrect in that regard...not like his supporters understand the dynamics here - if they did, they wouldn't have voted for him.

gut;1335708 wrote:The Repubs are the only ones showing any leadership and willingness to compromise. The Dems, for quite some time, have chosen to pursue no agenda over a partial agenda. They can't get everything they want, so they are satisifed to play politics and simpy demonize and blame the Repubs for their own shortcomings. They appear willing to let the economy and American people suffer while they run the long-game.

Constitutionally all revenue generation originates in the House. The House republicans should just pass their plan and let Harry Reid drop a deuce on it. The Senate is going on four years now with out a budget which is utterly scandalous. But I guess Harry Reid is showing us budgets don't matter anymore.

gut;1335716 wrote:Revenge. Obama believes that his supporters care more about soaking the rich. He may not be incorrect in that regard...not like his supporters understand the dynamics here - if they did, they wouldn't have voted for him.

Exactly. Obama outright said so during the campaign. "Vote for revenge". "We're gonna punish our enemies and reward or friends." For once he was telling the truth.

The President ran on raising tax on top 2%. The American people by a large majority support raising taxes on the upper income group. The Republican Party, the bought servants of the 2% thwart that effort. Another of them working to follow the Federalist and Whigs into oblivion.

isadore;1335769 wrote:The President ran on raising tax on top 2%. The American people by a large majority support raising taxes on the upper income group. The Republican Party, the bought servants of the 2% thwart that effort. Another of them working to follow the Federalist and Whigs into oblivion.

How dare you not mention the race of our first AFRICAN AMERICAN President. Please refrain from being a bigot on your next post.

isadore;1335769 wrote:The President ran on raising tax on top 2%. The American people by a large majority support raising taxes on the upper income group. The Republican Party, the bought servants of the 2% thwart that effort. Another of them working to follow the Federalist and Whigs into oblivion.

Wait, you mean people want to raise taxes on people who make way more money than them? Well damn, that's a shocker! Doesn't make it right though.

Terry_Tate;1335791 wrote:Wait, you mean people want to raise taxes on people who make way more money than them? Well damn, that's a shocker! Doesn't make it right though.

Sad that the middle class are being duped on the outrageous lie that raising taxes on the rich will come remotely close to bridging the gap. If spending isn't reigned in, the middle class is next for tax hikes.

That could be why Obama and the Dems aren't afraid of going over the cliff if it requires compromising anything on their part. That thinking might be a little off the mark, but it doesn't lack merit. There may also be something to the fact they just won an election with a divide and conquer strategy, and are overconfident in doubling down on that to pin the fiscal cliff (and the coming debt ceiling re-debate) on the Repubs. They also need to raise taxes on the middles class (and then some), and I think they are manuevering to use the fiscal cliff to blame Repubs for that.

Either way, it goes back to the fact that the Dems don't seem remotely interested in practical solutions. Which is frustrating because what the Repubs are talking about is not sufficient, much less anywhere near austerity/tough choices.

isadore;1335769 wrote:The President ran on raising tax on top 2%. The American people by a large majority support raising taxes on the upper income group. The Republican Party, the bought servants of the 2% thwart that effort. Another of them working to follow the Federalist and Whigs into oblivion.

obama wants to raise taxes, and what does he do, he sends over his treasury secretary to deliver that message (again). Yes, you got that right, he wants more taxes from us, and he sends over the tax cheat to deliver the message.

fu@#$^ing twilight zone.

Change we can believe in .....

Terry_Tate;1335791 wrote:Wait, you mean people want to raise taxes on people who make way more money than them? Well damn, that's a shocker! Doesn't make it right though.

the large majority of the American people know ]increasing taxes on those who have been favored by tax policy for three decades is fair

isadore;1335823 wrote:the large majority of the American people know ]increasing taxes on those who have been favored by tax policy for three decades is fair

The large majority of Americans do not know that the top 10% already pay 70% of all income taxes --- FAR MORE than their 'fair share'. Instead, they drank the obama kool-aid, like you.

QuakerOats;1335822 wrote:obama wants to raise taxes, and what does he do, he sends over his treasury secretary to deliver that message (again). Yes, you got that right, he wants more taxes from us, and he sends over the tax cheat to deliver the message.

fu@#$^ing twilight zone.

Change we can believe in .....

don't be bitter, our first African American President has made our nation a better place.

QuakerOats;1335849 wrote:The large majority of Americans do not know that the top 10% already pay 70% of all income taxes --- FAR MORE than their 'fair share'. Instead, they drank the obama kool-aid, like you.

wrong, I know you would prefer those who have little money pay more taxes, but the rich can afford it.

I don't understand how going back to rates we had in the 90s (after all, the bush tax cuts had a sunset provision in them) is causing this big of a fight. The sky did not fall in the 90s. We all didn't turn into communists. The extra 4.6% isn't going to kill anyone.

What should be done though is make the 250k # 500k, and take the rates up to like 37.5 (split the difference - everyone wins). Everyone else has their rates stay the same.

As far as cuts go... DEFENSE. It is literally mind boggling that we can't touch defense, yet we spend 10x more than anyone else. Pull everyone out of Afghanistan right the fuck now. Drop R&D a little. Jesus H. Christ man, it's not that tough.