B-Man Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 A Third Option Changes The Negotiation. “This doesn’t mean Republicans want to go with option C, or that they like option C. It instead means their negotiator now has the ability to walk away from a really terrible deal with the President, and that he can therefore demand a bit more from the President in exchange for cooperation on a deal. Option C is useful to Republicans even if their strong preference, for non-policy reasons, is to negotiate a deal with the President. I think option C is S. 3412, a bill passed by the Senate in July. On July 25th S. 3412 passed the Senate on a 51-48 near party line vote, in which Senators Lieberman and Webb joined all Republicans in voting no. This Senate vote is critical to my argument. Senate Democrats have already passed this bill, so it is rhetorically infeasible for them to now say no to it. If there is no Obama-Boehner deal, the Speaker has the ability to bring this bill to the House floor and present it as a take-it-or-go-off-the-cliff offer to Congressional Democrats. Many (most?) House Republicans would oppose it, but enough of them would join with Democrats to pass the bill and avert the cliff scenario.
Koko78 Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket...
3rdnlng Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket... Dimes.
B-Man Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket... Well, if we are going down this path................. at this point in my life its more like "paper currency" .
3rdnlng Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Well, if we are going down this path................. at this point in my life its more like "paper currency" . It's an inflationary topic. A roll of dimes can be turned into a roll of silver dollars with the stroke of a hand.
/dev/null Posted December 14, 2012 Posted December 14, 2012 Dimes. Dimes are kept in a bag, not a roll. Contents of the dime bag will be rolled later
B-Man Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 WaPo editors: Golly, Obama’s fiscal-cliff approach is unbalanced Barack Obama keeps claiming that he wants a “balanced” approach to deficit reform, but the editors of the Washington Post have a little difficulty trying to figure out what he means by “balanced” — since his proposals have had a 4:1 ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts. The Post also notes that Obama has backed away from even the inadequate entitlement reforms he’s previously embraced. Why, the Post’s editors suggest, Obama may not really be serious about this whole deficit-reform idea.............................You think? Since the election last month, a few modest proposals have been floated to slow the growth in entitlement spending. None of these would fix the problem, but they would at least acknowledge that a problem exists. One by one, the ostensible advocates of balance have shot them down, portraying each in turn as a mortal threat to the poor or the aged. Nudging the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, which President Obama supported last year? Unconscionable. Changing the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated, which Mr. Obama also supported? Brutally unfair to veterans and seniors. Reform of Medicaid provider taxes, which liberal Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) only days ago described as a “charade” used by states to jack up funding from Washington? Unthinkable,the White House now says:In fact, with the Supreme Court having struck down a facet of Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Actinvolving Medicaid, nothing in that program can be touched. And, while they’re at it, put Social Security off the table, too. We’re asked to accept the mythology that, though the pension and disability program is facing ever-widening shortfalls, it isn’t contributing to the overall deficit. … There are better and worse ways to bend the entitlement curve. Raise the Medicare age, but shield the neediest seniors. If you think Republicans are proposing the wrong way to adjust the cost-of-living index, finance expert Robert C. Pozen has proposed a progressive alternative. But there’s no way to fix America’s problem without doing something on entitlements. If the Democrats — and Mr. Obama, in particular — don’t get more seriously into that discussion, they have no standing to complain about the Republicans’ lack of balance. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/14/wapo-editors-golly-obamas-fiscal-cliff-approach-is-unbalanced/
B-Man Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Not really about the "fiscal cliff" talks directly, but certainly an indictment of our government spending and how horribly they work. Obama Sandy aid bill filled with holiday goodies unrelated to storm damage Vics suffer as $60B aid plan gets porked up Washington - President Obama’s $60.4 billion request for Hurricane Sandy relief has morphed into a huge Christmas stocking of goodies for federal agencies and even the state of Alaska, The Post has learned. The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms. Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries. Budget watchdogs have dubbed the 94-page emergency-spending bill “Sandy Scam.” Raise taxes in the fiscal cliff talks to help stabilize our economy ?........................my azz! Raise more to spend more................but we deserve it, we keep re-electing them .
Chef Jim Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 I was interviewed in the SF Chronicle regarding them potentially eliminating or reducing the mortgage tax deduction. http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Mortgage-interest-deduction-in-jeopardy-4122021.php#photo-3899203
B-Man Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Does the President really want a compromise solution (for which he would be rightly hailed) or does he still just want to campaign instead of administrate ? ? Washington Post confirms Obama’s unwillingness to “be drawn to the level” of serious negotiations Buried deep in the latest Washington Post report about fiscal cliff talks (or the lack thereof) is this item which helps explain, albeit misleadingly, the “impasse.” Two senior White House officials said that David Plouffe, Obama’s top political adviser, crafted a plan to keep the president from getting sucked into a long, public negotiation like the one that unfolded over the debt ceiling. They said that Obama’s lowest moments in his first term came in a six-month stretch of 2011 when he acted as negotiator-in-chief on the annual federal spending bills and the effort to lift the Treasury’s borrowing authority, becoming part of the image a dysfunctional Washington. “The last thing we want is another month of images of the two of them negotiating,” one senior official said. The White House is determined that Obama “not be drawn to that level.” Yeah, we noticed. But the public image of a “dysfunctional Washington” is founded on the inability or unwillingness of the two political parties to work together to reach compromises. When President Obama declines to engage in intense negotiations, he only reinforces that image — or would if the press made his desire not to “be drawn to that level” more widely known. The Post is correct, about Obama’s unwillingness seriously to negotiate. As it points out, he won’t even talk about entitlements until Republicans agreed to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of income. But for the reasons set forth above, I doubt that his unwilling has anything to do with a desire to avoid the appearance of being part of “dysfunctional Washington.” Instead, it has everything to do with his desire to force Republicans to fold or, if they don’t, to gain political mileage at their expense. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/washington-post-confirms-obamas-unwillingness-to-be-drawn-to-the-level-of-serious-negoitations.php
BillsFanM.D. Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I was interviewed in the SF Chronicle regarding them potentially eliminating or reducing the mortgage tax deduction. http://www.sfgate.co...p#photo-3899203 That's cool. Your comments were spot on as well.
erynthered Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I was interviewed in the SF Chronicle regarding them potentially eliminating or reducing the mortgage tax deduction. http://www.sfgate.co...p#photo-3899203 Looks like you've put on some weight my friend. I keed, I keed.
TPS Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 The Post is correct, about Obama’s unwillingness seriously to negotiate. As it points out, he won’t even talk about entitlements until Republicans agreed to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of income. But for the reasons set forth above, I doubt that his unwilling has anything to do with a desire to avoid the appearance of being part of “dysfunctional Washington.” Instead, it has everything to do with his desire to force Republicans to fold or, if they don’t, to gain political mileage at their expense. http://www.powerline...egoitations.php So is this a criticism? Isn't that part of political negotiation? There is no reason for BO to cut a deal before the year is out, and, in fact, it will probably give him more clout to get an even better deal to his liking if he doesn't.
3rdnlng Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 So is this a criticism? Isn't that part of political negotiation? There is no reason for BO to cut a deal before the year is out, and, in fact, it will probably give him more clout to get an even better deal to his liking if he doesn't. Sure, this is a political negotiation at the expense of real negotiations with the good of the country in mind. Obama is not a statesman but a political hack, and he proves it every day.
TPS Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Sure, this is a political negotiation at the expense of real negotiations with the good of the country in mind. Obama is not a statesman but a political hack, and he proves it every day. Oh, and the republicans are different how?
B-Man Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Oh, and the republicans are different how? Really ??? that's your response ? Mr Obama is the President of the entire United States. He has been elected twice. Would it be too much to ask him to be a leader and fight for all sides to reach a conclusion ? That was rhetorical....it is too much.......we don't expect a community organizer to do anything but push the left side of the dem party position. Nice."they do it too" response though. .
keepthefaith Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 The Jackass should have his left hand on a printing press.
TPS Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Really ??? that's your response ? Mr Obama is the President of the entire United States. He has been elected twice. Would it be too much to ask him to be a leader and fight for all sides to reach a conclusion ? That was rhetorical....it is too much.......we don't expect a community organizer to do anything but push the left side of the dem party position. Nice."they do it too" response though. Yes, I'm choosing the typical PPP response. Aren't you being a bit melodramatic? Fight for all sides to reach a conclusion? He wasn't elected by the republicans. These are divisive economic issues between the parties. What does it mean to fight for the entire US? Is that what Romney would've done? What is the best economic policy for the entire US? Maintaining tax cuts for the rich? Maintaining the largest military budget in the world? Maybe the majority thinks he IS trying to do what's best for the majority of the country. Income continues to get more and more concentrated at the top, so, yeah, the folks at the bottom will vote for someone who will hopefully maintain the crumbs that they get. That's what the long term fight is about. If we want to maintain some minimum standard of life for the majority of people in this country into retirement, then, starting about 2020, more resources will be needed to meet those needs. That most likely will mean less funding for military and more taxes for the 20% who have 50% of the income. So, yes, my response that "the other guys do it too" was done to make the point that you're being hypocritical. I hope BO does play it political and makes the republicans take the fall. I hope he gets everything he asks for too, because the working class has been given the shaft for too long. Now, all this said, and pay attention here, I doubt it will happen. I will bet a pitcher of beer that BO will cut entitlements as part of a grand bargain. The good cop-bad cop routine is done to make us think that one party really tries to protect the majority.
Recommended Posts