|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Oh wow... The Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot worse than I first imagined.
Democrats push to connect CR, debt ceiling
I don't want to make any assumptions concerning this atm as I have no idea how it's going to play out, but this may be quite bad for the Republican party.
|
On October 04 2013 10:12 Souma wrote:Oh wow... The Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot worse than I first imagined. Democrats push to connect CR, debt ceilingI don't want to make any assumptions concerning this atm as I have no idea how it's going to play out, but this may be quite bad for the Republican party.
The CR and debt ceiling should have been tied together a while ago. Particularly now since the debt ceiling is so close. WP.
|
On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th.
That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
|
On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable.
Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling.
At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted.
Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right?
Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats....
![[image loading]](http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g4/lunarmonger/BVnKIMhCIAAFUI-.jpg)
|
|
|
Actually, some guy a few pages hit on an interesting idea. The Democrats could tell the Republicans that they would be willing to defund Obamacare in exchange for something (or a lot of somethings), like LGBT rights, increased funding for science and education and gun control. It's a completely ridiculous concept but it also highlights how crazy refusing to raise the debt ceiling because of Obamacare is.
|
On October 04 2013 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling. At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted. Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right? Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats....
lol @ 950 being the origin. Gotta love political graphs.
|
On October 04 2013 10:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Actually, some guy a few pages hit on an interesting idea. The Democrats could tell the Republicans that they would be willing to defund Obamacare in exchange for something (or a lot of somethings), like LGBT rights, increased funding for science and education and gun control. It's a completely ridiculous concept but it also highlights how crazy refusing to raise the debt ceiling because of Obamacare is.
This is exactly what I was suggesting that democrats do. Put other shit on the table. There's no reason why democrats can't demand a bunch of concessions from republicans in exchange for defunding Obamacare.
|
On October 04 2013 11:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling. At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted. Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right? Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats.... lol @ 950 being the origin. Gotta love political graphs.
Seriously. People need to clamp down on this kind of stuff regardless of which side they are on. It's almost as bad as factual lies.
|
On October 04 2013 11:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling. At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted. Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right? Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats.... lol @ 950 being the origin. Gotta love political graphs.
Yeah the overall bar size is not necessarily representative but it does clearly show that the offer on the table from Democrats is closer to the Ryan Budget than Obama's or the Senate's right?
|
On October 04 2013 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 11:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 04 2013 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling. At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted. Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right? Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats.... lol @ 950 being the origin. Gotta love political graphs. Yeah the overall bar size is not necessarily representative but it does clearly show that the offer on the table from Democrats is closer to the Ryan Budget than Obama's or the Senate's right?
This graph makes the Ryan budget look about 1/9 as large as Obama's, lol.
|
On October 04 2013 11:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 11:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 04 2013 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling. At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted. Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right? Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats.... lol @ 950 being the origin. Gotta love political graphs. Yeah the overall bar size is not necessarily representative but it does clearly show that the offer on the table from Democrats is closer to the Ryan Budget than Obama's or the Senate's right? This graph makes the Ryan budget look about 1/9 as large as Obama's, lol.
Really doesn't have a bearing on the fact that one is closer to the other, which is my point.
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 11:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 11:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 04 2013 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 08:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal.
If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I was referring to the tax changes at the start of 2013. A bill had to be passed that both sides agreed on otherwise the tax cuts would go away for everyone. Obama wasn't willing to preserve the status quo for everyone and then negotiate over just a portion (taxes on the rich). With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but seen as less import. In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government.
Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline. Yes, there's supposed to be a give and take. I want the Democrats to ask for something in return for modest changes to the ACA. A stimulus for ACA reforms or gun control for ACA reforms. Whatever. As long as each side is making a reasonable demand I'm fine with it. Republicans need to keep it reasonable and Democrats need to open up. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Now come talk to us when the republicans make a reasonable demand. Get rid of the ACA or else is not a reasonable demand by any standard. Well, I thought the 1 year individual mandate delay was reasonable. I agree that trying to get rid of the ACA entirely is unreasonable. Dems have made concession after concession to the Republican Party. Nothing in the ACA should be changed in conjunction with the CR or the debt ceiling. At the moment they are only asking them to put a vote a CR/Budget that is closer to Ryan's and the conservative plan than what Democrats wanted. Johnny you seem somewhat reasonable, so you can at least acknowledge Obama has been consistently giving concessions to the republican party for years right? Let's agree that they should put it to a vote and if it fails THEN we could look at even more concessions from the President and Democrats.... lol @ 950 being the origin. Gotta love political graphs. Yeah the overall bar size is not necessarily representative but it does clearly show that the offer on the table from Democrats is closer to the Ryan Budget than Obama's or the Senate's right? This graph makes the Ryan budget look about 1/9 as large as Obama's, lol.
Because in terms of "compromise," it is 9x closer to the Republican ideal than Democrat.
|
Any chart with those numbers will look like that so long as you start the graph at around 900+ (starting at 0 would make it look more visually accurate and representative, but you'd have a lot of wasted space)
Either way, it does show that the CR is significantly closer to Ryan's budget than Obama's original budget.
|
Casey Mulligan: How ObamaCare Wrecks the Work Ethic The health-care law, starting Jan. 1, will begin driving up marginal tax rates—well above 50% for many. ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IPH7h3BsEI4/Uk0cigkb2EI/AAAAAAAABlY/2hETH85ABY0/s400/marginal+tax+rate+under+obamacare.jpg)
WSJ op-ed. Note the asterisk. Link
I suppose one remedy would be to tweak payroll taxes.
|
On October 04 2013 13:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Casey Mulligan: How ObamaCare Wrecks the Work Ethic The health-care law, starting Jan. 1, will begin driving up marginal tax rates—well above 50% for many. WSJ op-ed. Note the asterisk. LinkI suppose one remedy would be to tweak payroll taxes.
Tax rates include forgone subsidies? WTF is that? Mulligan is god-tier for dishonest economists. From a more honest source that doesn't magic asterisk away his whole argument check out tax policy center. We can see that the federal tax take, as a function of GDP, was at its lowest in decades in 2009 at 15.1% of GDP. (see bottom right of chart) There is just no way to say that tax rates jumped when the actual tax take as a percentage of GDP had fallen that low. Mulligan is just talking out his ass trying to bring in forgoing cash-for-clunkers as a marginal tax rate increase.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
|
United States5955 Posts
On October 04 2013 10:45 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th. That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass.
If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
|
On October 04 2013 13:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Casey Mulligan: How ObamaCare Wrecks the Work Ethic The health-care law, starting Jan. 1, will begin driving up marginal tax rates—well above 50% for many. WSJ op-ed. Note the asterisk. LinkI suppose one remedy would be to tweak payroll taxes.
So do the same people have the same problems with this graph?
Or do we presume that if you can't figure out a graph like that, putting the information in text form isn't going to make you any more likely to understand?
Not to mention the vast majority of people that are in the brackets that are supposedly paying 50% taxes, pay people to make sure they don't i.e. Mitt Romney and many of his supporters.
|
On October 04 2013 14:10 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:45 aksfjh wrote:On October 04 2013 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just like to point out that Ted Cruz has vanished after Sept 30th. That's because everybody hates him, inside his party, outside his party, and that strange border of the party where the Tea Party lay. He's been throwing people and small groups under the bus for months and it's finally coming around to bite him in that ass. If there is to be a silver lining to this cloud it is that Cruz got his retarded face kicked in. He might be able to survive re-election, given he's from Texas and all but he ain't ever coming back. Sure, he's now got his place in the history book but it's going to be as that asswipe who pissed everyone off for personal gain.
I just wonder with Cruz all but already declaring his intention to run for President, are they going to make the Republican primary debates PPV? Because I'm pretty sure it's going to be priceless
Also Republican Presidential candidates already said they would turn down a deal for $10 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in spending why would there be any reason to believe that the rest of the party would be any more reasonable? Or that they would have lesser expectations for any other negotiations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
