|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2013 06:15 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:58 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 05:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker. Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is utterly bereft of specifics; in my experience, "this is how politics works" tends to follow or precede gross oversimplification. It does not take a genius to look at Boehner's position and actions in Congress and see just how unpopular "moderation" is amongst Republicans. Democrats, while certainly not without some degree of blame in this mess, are at least upholding a facade of solidarity; as far as I know, no Democrats have bullied the likes of Reid or Pelosi with threats to their leadership positions or future elections, and if you think the cuts to entitlements that come along with the sequester are not a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, you have another thing coming. My point is that there is far more at work in this debacle than the traditional "two party mess". You, and the poster above you, are making judgement calls about "what is reasonable" and applying it to both positions as if it is established fact. In actuality, it is true that both sides got what they wanted more than the other. If Obama didnt' really want sequester at all costs, he could have taken the Republicans offer, but he would rather have sequester than that. Conversely, if the Republicans didn't want sequester at all costs, they could have taken the Democrats proposals, but they would rather have sequester than that. So both sides agreed that they would rather have the sequester than what the other side was offering. Which means neither sides offer was acceptable to the other side. (Since you seem pro-Obama I'll make a point against him: If he really didn't want sequester, he could have capitulated a lot less overall, but left out tax increases and probably have got what he wanted, it's not just about how much you capitulate, but what you capitulate on. It's all politics to capitulate on everything EXCEPT the opposites side's main issue and then act wounded when they don't accept.)
I've made no objective judgement calls in regards to "what is reasonable"; if you'd like to reference where I specifically do so, I'd appreciate it. And your entire frame of reference is still fundamentally flawed. You continue to refer to "Democrats" and "Republicans" as discrete beings with uniform desires and wishes in very much the same way an Austrian economist is liable to assume an individual can be considered a "rational" agent. This notion ignores a number of recent developments, most noteworthy being the recent Presidential election, but let's not also forget the Tea Party ridiculing of Karl Rove, Rove's determination to help establishment Republicans fight off Tea Party challengers, and the insanity that is the possibility that Ashley Judd will sweep in and capitalize on Senator Mitch McConnell's inability to become as conservative as his state of Kentucky (shocking I know). Even Obama's State of the Union address provided us with a peek into how conflicted the Republican Party is; Rand Paul's response got almost as much lip service as Marco Rubio's. If only he too had made a hilarious drink of water.
That there are "two sides" to mainstream US politics is an ok starting point. Unfortunately, things get more complicated than that if one wants to really understand what is going on.
|
On March 02 2013 06:15 LaughingTulkas wrote[\b]
You, and the poster above you, are making judgement calls about "what is reasonable" and applying it to both positions as if it is established fact.
fweeeeeeep! Meaningless relativism, ten yard penalty
[b]User was warned for this post
|
On March 02 2013 05:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker. Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me.
You're missing the point: it's a three-sided game, not a two-sided one. We are talking about a group of reactionary Republicans who thought that the Rand Paul budget was too left-wing. The issue is that the conservative Republicans are hamstrung by the reactionaries, in part because they rely on reactionary rhetoric themselves. Look at how the filibuster-happy Senate hasn't been the issue here, but the House, where Boehner has to deal with true believers willing to reject policies even if it means bad news for actual rich people.
|
On March 02 2013 06:15 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:58 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 05:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker. Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is utterly bereft of specifics; in my experience, "this is how politics works" tends to follow or precede gross oversimplification. It does not take a genius to look at Boehner's position and actions in Congress and see just how unpopular "moderation" is amongst Republicans. Democrats, while certainly not without some degree of blame in this mess, are at least upholding a facade of solidarity; as far as I know, no Democrats have bullied the likes of Reid or Pelosi with threats to their leadership positions or future elections, and if you think the cuts to entitlements that come along with the sequester are not a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, you have another thing coming. My point is that there is far more at work in this debacle than the traditional "two party mess". You, and the poster above you, are making judgement calls about "what is reasonable" and applying it to both positions as if it is established fact. In actuality, it is true that both sides got what they wanted more than the other. If Obama didnt' really want sequester at all costs, he could have taken the Republicans offer, but he would rather have sequester than that. Conversely, if the Republicans didn't want sequester at all costs, they could have taken the Democrats proposals, but they would rather have sequester than that.
You are ignoring things like the last debt ceiling debacle, where Obama accepted the Republican offer, and the Republicans rejected it.
|
To put it another way, the Sequester was like setting up a game of chicken. The problem is that while the majority of Republicans and Democrats are reasonable, and want to avoid a crash, the Tea Partiers already decided they wanted to crash head-on, game of chicken or not.
|
I'd assume a compromise on the sequester would amount to something along the lines of future cuts or calling off the whole thing as a failed experiment.
Instead, we had a semi-serious proposal from Democrats (raising more revenue in lieu of some of the cuts), and a completely stupid, bullshit proposal (replacing the military cuts with domestic cuts). Republicans can't expect to go to the negotiating table asking for complete surrender and not expect blame when you just got your ass handed to you 3 months ago. Any pundit or follower of politics that treats this as a mutual fault is trying too hard to be centrist and is just justifying the shit we've had to put up with for 2 years already.
|
2 years? I don't know how much you've decided to block out from the first 2 years of obamas presidency. "Blue dog democrats" bring anything to mind?
Its not like democrats are happy about anything resembling cuts on the entitlements that are increasingly swallowing up the entire budget. People who treat this as a mutual fault are trying too hard to be centrist? More like some people don't like the hyper partisan bullshit that's ruining the country.
|
What the federal government needs to do is cut military and healthcare spending*. Everything else is political hooey.
*Healthcare spending should be reduced through cost saving measures, not reductions in coverage or care.
|
Conservative advocacy group Club For Growth shows no signs of slowing down its efforts to purge the GOP of alleged moderates, launching a new campaign targeting Republican members of the 113th Congress.
The group’s new site, PrimaryMyCongressman.com, is designed “to raise awareness of Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who are currently serving in safe Republican seats,” according to a press release announcing its debut this week.
The first round of targets are Reps. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Steve Palazzo (R-MS), Martha Roby (R-AL), Larry Buchson (R-IN), Renee Ellmers, (R-NC), and Aaron Schock (R-IL).
“Big government liberals inhabit the Democratic Party, but they are far too common within the Republican Party as well,” Chris Chocola, president of Club For Growth, said in a statement on Wednesday. “The Republicans helped pass billions of dollars in tax increases and they have repeatedly voted against efforts by fiscal conservatives to limit government. PrimaryMyCongressman.com will serve as a tool to hold opponents of economic freedom and limited government accountable for their actions.”
Needless to say, the group’s new targets aren’t too pleased with their newfound label. Schock’s office said in a statement that “Club for Growth’s endgame is for Congress to become even more strident and gridlocked.” Chocola responded with a letter labeling him a a “pro-stimulus spending, pro-ObamaCare, pro-debt limit increase, pro-tax increase, pro-labor ‘Republican.’”
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him.
WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama.
Source
|
Boehner doesn't know how to lead, he just knows how to say no to things Obama wants to do.
|
On March 02 2013 14:13 Mohdoo wrote:
Boehner doesn't know how to lead, he just knows how to say no to things Obama wants to do.
That's about as insightful as my response: "Well, that's a pretty good start".
|
On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source
Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table?
Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people.
The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months.
|
On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months.
Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period.
|
On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months.
The original deal was for spending cuts exclusively.
Tax hikes were never on the table until there was an attempt at resolving both the Bush tax cut expiration and the sequester issues together - the grand bargain. That failed. Now it's back to the sequester or some other package of $1.2T+ in cuts.
Obama can try to change that, but it's an extremely hard sell as Republicans will (rightfully) see it as an attempt at reneging on the original deal (because it is).
|
On March 02 2013 16:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. The original deal was for spending cuts exclusively. Tax hikes were never on the table until there was an attempt at resolving both the Bush tax cut expiration and the sequester issues together - the grand bargain. That failed. Now it's back to the sequester or some other package of $1.2T+ in cuts. Obama can try to change that, but it's an extremely hard sell as Republicans will (rightfully) see it as an attempt at reneging on the original deal (because it is).
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/woodward_misses_the_mark.php
Firstly, there was no original deal, or original understanding that the sequester were to be replaced with spending cuts only. Secondly, even if there were, so what?
|
On March 02 2013 15:54 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period.
Besides the conspiracy theory of what Obama is planning as opposed to the theory that Republicans will do anything to oppose Obama...
1. There has been no "gang of six" proposal in 2013 to avert the sequestration. That was back in 2011 which was...
2. bipartisan in the sense that 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans forged it, but...
3. Democrats and Republicans both hated it
President Obama actually praised the plan and was in support of it, though the backlash from liberal Democrats would have it bittersweet: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59377.html
I would love to know where you got the idea that Obama rejected the proposal.
|
On March 02 2013 15:54 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period.
The sequester is not a ploy to destroy Republicans. The only reason it was brought into existence, the only reason why the White House thought up the sequester, was because Republicans forced them into this during the 2011 debt ceiling showdown. It was the only way they could agree to cuts and prevent the Republicans at the time threatening to default on the debt,
This is now a game of chicken. If Republicans refuse to budge and want to wreck the economy with the sequester, Obama is right to try to shift all blame. And if the side-effect is that it causes the demise of the GOP (which is highly unlikely), well, this is the game they're willingly playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
