Why no counter offer from Republicans that includes immediate entitlement cuts?

• sleeper

  

  derek bomar;1336222 wrote: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.

  Agreed. It's not complicated at all but Obama has to play his games and blame the Republicans for everything. This isn't about the fiscal cliff, this is simply about Obama scoring political points for his party.
• wkfan

  sleeper;1336237 wrote:Agreed. It's not complicated at all but Obama has to play his games and blame the Republicans for everything. This isn't about the fiscal cliff, this is simply about Obama scoring political points for his party.

  What should happen here is a joint session with both sides represented....negotiations take place with give and take from both sides until an agreement is completed that is in the best interests of the American people as a whole.
  
  Alas, that won't happen since this county is devoid of leadership at the top. All BHO is concerned about is advancing his personal agenda, not that of the American people.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1335700 wrote: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.

  :laugh:
• BoatShoes

  Not much of an offer from the pubs. No specifics just numbers with no real plan how to get there. Pretty much just the Romney framework but it is a start.
  
  But, I am interested in why the deficit hawks don't want us to go "over the cliff" in the first place. In the graph below the red is what happens if we go over the cliff.
  
  The blue is what happens if we extend all the bush tax cuts, etc. The blue is supposed to be bad we're told.
  
  
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1335700 wrote: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.

  Also interesting that you think I'm the "rude" one as you insult me (which is what you usually do). Party on, Wayne! :thumbup:
• HitsRus

  

  I don't understand how going back to rates we had in the 90s

  But that is not what is proposed here.....what BHO and his ilk have proposed is to let the Bush cuts expire for the top 2% only( NOT the rest of Americans who paid higher rates under Clinton)....a move which is not sufficient to balance the Trillion dollar deficit, but is a winner politically.
  IF the middle class actually had to shoulder what was considered 'their fair share' under the Clinton Administration, then they might have a different viewpoint on how bloated, big government spends their money. That would not be so good for the 'buy your vote' party. While BHO's proposal make good political sense for the Democratic Party, it makes lousy economic sense for the country as a whole.
  
  This kind of operation is what we as a country have , unfortunately, re-upped for.
  
  Another thing different from Clinton times is ObamaKare and the plethora of hidden taxes that it brings. A lot of it is balanced on the backs of the upper 2%....but will effect all of us to some extent. This is what happens when you ram thru a bill that no one read. Again, this is the kind of operation that we re-upped for.
• derek bomar

  

  HitsRus;1336277 wrote:While BHO's proposal make good political sense for the Democratic Party, it makes lousy economic sense for the country as a whole.

  Why?
• HitsRus

  

  Well, for one it's not going back to the Clinton era taxes unless the cuts expire for everyone....so it will only take care of about 8% ofthe deficit. You need to raise taxes across the board, or implement spending cuts.
• gut

  Interesting that Obama appears so dug-in wrt higher rates, as opposed to elimination of deductions. If you want to talk fairness, then why should two tax payers in the same bracket be treated differently based on their consumption choices?
  
  And, technically, voters DID prefer Romney's vision for the economy and his plan. It wasn't enough to win him the election, but surely we can come up with $1T in revenues from eliminating deductions and loopholes without harming the middle class.
  
  The problem as I see it is it potentially exposes the fraud in Obama's campaign (but that gives the voters too much credit). The bigger issue, I think, is he needs to satiate the bloodlust by sticking the rich with a rate increase.
  
  There isn't an intellectually honest economist that wouldn't agree eliminating deductions is superior to raising marginal rates. Obama really should be indifferent between rate increases and elimination of deductions/loopholes so long as other requirements are met.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1336259 wrote:Also interesting that you think I'm the "rude" one as you insult me (which is what you usually do). Party on, Wayne! :thumbup:

  Where I'm from, when someone asks you a direct question, you answer the question asked directly. To do otherwise is indeed considered rude. And it was a sincere and on-topic question.
  
  
  The other comment was out of line in reponse to your out of line reply to me, and I apologize for it.
• queencitybuckeye

  gut;1336329 wrote: There isn't an intellectually honest economist that wouldn't agree eliminating deductions is superior to raising marginal rates. Obama really should be indifferent between rate increases and elimination of deductions/loopholes so long as other requirements are met.

  Not intellectually, just easier to sell to the lemmings that he "got" those evil wealthy to finally pay their share.
• sleeper

  

  queencitybuckeye;1336335 wrote:Not intellectually, just easier to sell to the lemmings that he "got" those evil wealthy to finally pay their share.

  $10 says Obama will use the "fair share" argument again in the future when the economy collapses again; even if he gets his way now.
• derek bomar

  

  HitsRus;1336322 wrote:Well, for one it's not going back to the Clinton era taxes unless the cuts expire for everyone....so it will only take care of about 8% ofthe deficit. You need to raise taxes across the board, or implement spending cuts.

  
  
  so it doesn't necessarily make lousy sense, it's just not enough?
• HitsRus

  

  I

  so it doesn't necessarily make lousy sense, it's just not enough?

  I think it is lousy sense and disingenuous to propose something for political gain alone
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1336331 wrote:Where I'm from, when someone asks you a direct question, you answer the question asked directly. To do otherwise is indeed considered rude. And it was a sincere and on-topic question.
  
  
  The other comment was out of line in reponse to your out of line reply to me, and I apologize for it.

  Let's see. You asked if I was being "intentionally being obtuse" or if I didn't learn the alleged first rule of negotiation in my allegedly shitty law program. I can reasonably assume you are suggesting what you guess to be my education to be unworthy/shitty due to your having denigrated it previously, i.e. "the third tier law grad" which was contained within a similarly condescending post. This intuition appears to have been confirmed by your subsequent post.
  
  Considering that "obtuse" means "dull, imperceptive, not sharp, not quick in perception or intellect, mentally slow."
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse?s=t
  
  You might as well have just asked; "Are you fucking stupid because of your shitty education or are you acting that way intentionally"?
  
  These types of responses/questions from you to my posts are pretty much par for the course and, funny enough, probably "out of line" based upon your using of the phrase in the post I'm quoting here and hardly worth a sincere reply even if they are indeed "sincere and on-topic."
  
  Where I'm from, if it matters, it's not likely that a sincere, on-topic, asshole question is going to receive a sincere, on-topic reply that does not also contain the faint aroma of asshole.
  
  So, I'd rather just be a "rude little man" (lol) on this anonymous forum and get a few laughs as opposed to answering your asshole questions considering that t3h int3rnetz R seri0u5 bizne55 and all
  
  But, if it makes you happy, I'm not a good negotiator, I'm a man of average stature who is probably ruder than I ought to be and also both intentionally and unintentionally obtuse in most of my affairs. Maybe one day, Lord willing, I'll be worthy of your approval. :laugh:
• BoatShoes

  gut;1336329 wrote:Interesting that Obama appears so dug-in wrt higher rates, as opposed to elimination of deductions. If you want to talk fairness, then why should two tax payers in the same bracket be treated differently based on their consumption choices?
  
  And, technically, voters DID prefer Romney's vision for the economy and his plan. It wasn't enough to win him the election, but surely we can come up with $1T in revenues from eliminating deductions and loopholes without harming the middle class.
  
  The problem as I see it is it potentially exposes the fraud in Obama's campaign (but that gives the voters too much credit). The bigger issue, I think, is he needs to satiate the bloodlust by sticking the rich with a rate increase.
  
  There isn't an intellectually honest economist that wouldn't agree eliminating deductions is superior to raising marginal rates. Obama really should be indifferent between rate increases and elimination of deductions/loopholes so long as other requirements are met.

  I may end up being wrong...but I think Obama will cave on tax rates for loopholes. He caved on public option for individual mandate much to the disdain of liberals and I think he will again because I get the vibe that he cares more about end results than modus operandi.
• BoatShoes

  Apparently 47% of people believe that the deficit will Increaseif we go "over the cliff" when the opposite is true...
  
  Pretty staggering but I can imagine how one might think that considering the "fiscal cliff" phraseology being used.
  
  http://www.businessinsider.com/47-of-people-think-the-deficit-would-increase-if-we-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-12
• gut

  It still cracks me up....you'd think "cliff" implies some sort of harsh austerity when we are only talking about 2-3% of the budget and some 10% of the deficit.
  
  Nothing but drama for the media...and posturing for politicians. They play hot potato for a bit and then kick the can. Personally I'm leaning toward going over the cliff, since that would mark the first real progress in fiscal restraint in over 4 years.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1336457 wrote:Apparently 47% of people believe that the deficit will Increaseif we go "over the cliff" when the opposite is true...
  
  Pretty staggering but I can imagine how one might think that considering the "fiscal cliff" phraseology being used.
  
  http://www.businessinsider.com/47-of-people-think-the-deficit-would-increase-if-we-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-12

  Funny how "47%" keeps popping up all over the place. 47 is the new 42.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1336427 wrote:Let's see. You asked if I was being "intentionally being obtuse" or if I didn't learn the alleged first rule of negotiation in my allegedly shitty law program. I can reasonably assume you are suggesting what you guess to be my education to be unworthy/shitty due to your having denigrated it previously, i.e. "the third tier law grad" which was contained within a similarly condescending post. This intuition appears to have been confirmed by your subsequent post.

  Nothing "alleged" in my response regarding the rules of the road of negotiation. That the Republicans came back with a counter offer means that they either didn't really believe that the Obama proposal while absurd wasn't so disconnected from reality that they couldn't start from it, or they made a tactical error, or both.
  
  While admittedly a little snarky in tone, the question I asked was sincere. Do they teach negotiation tactics in law school? If not, it surely seems like a gaping hole in the curriculum. In the future, I'll attempt to word my responses as not to offend, as some can overlook style and concern themselves with content, while others can't.
  

  Where I'm from, if it matters, it's not likely that a sincere, on-topic, asshole question is going to receive a sincere, on-topic reply that does not also contain the faint aroma of asshole.

  If that was what I had received, that would be fine. However, you delivered the attitude but forgot to enclose the content.
  

  So, I'd rather just be a "rude little man" (lol) on this anonymous forum and get a few laughs as opposed to answering your asshole questions considering that t3h int3rnetz R seri0u5 bizne55 and all

  Your choice of course. Confirms much.
  

  But, if it makes you happy,

  Happiness is a byproduct, not a goal.
  

  I'm not a good negotiator,

  Too bad, it's a great skill to acquire for any number of contexts.
  

  I'm a man of average stature who is probably ruder than I ought to be and also both intentionally and unintentionally obtuse in most of my affairs. Maybe one day, Lord willing, I'll be worthy of your approval. :laugh:

  I'll certainly give it all the consideration it merits. Please return to your cut and paste posts devoid of any original thought.
• believer

  

  ccrunner609;1336522 wrote:taxing the rich isnt going to do shit. It raises revenue enough to run the government for 8 days. Obama is an idiot.

  Obama's no idiot. He knows quite well taxing the rich won't help.
  
  He's just happy that the idiots who sucked down the "tax the rich" Kool-Aid gave him 4 more years to feed us more bullshit.
• QuakerOats

  believer;1336534 wrote:Obama's no idiot. He knows quite well taxing the rich won't help.
  
  He's just happy that the idiots who sucked down the "tax the rich" Kool-Aid gave him 4 more years to feed us more bull****.

  
  Agree - not an idiot, but definitely lazy, and doesn't care whether we collapse now or later ..... just cruising around the neighborhood being cool and stoking divisiveness. Special
• gut

  believer;1336534 wrote:Obama's no idiot. He knows quite well taxing the rich won't help.

  Spending/cost/ROI has never registered with liberals. Even if they understood their agenda might bankrupt the country they wouldn't care. That's all it really boils down to.
• believer

  

  gut;1336650 wrote:Spending/cost/ROI has never registered with liberals. Even if they understood their agenda might bankrupt the country they wouldn't care. That's all it really boils down to.

  Definitely. To the lefties, Uncle Sugar has one purpose in life....print trillions in worthless money to insure mediocrity for all.
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies, the republican echo chamber continues on this site from the haters of our first African American President and the growing majority of voting Americans.