birdog1960 Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I love how whenever somebody on the right says something stupid, the lefties jump on it because in their mind it represents the entire opposing viewpoint. But when somebody on the left says something stupid, well they're not really affiliated with the Democrats But okay, how about Senators Casey, Harkin, and Sanders holding a recess hearing in 2010 http://www.humaneven...union-pensions/ first off, sanders is an independent. and up intil a few minutes ago i'd never heard of this economist. but i can't find anywhere other than far right sites that describe a seizure of private pensions. this site http://www.annuitydigest.com/blog/tom/why-teresa-ghilarducci-considered-most-dangerous-woman-america explicitly states that retirement accounts would remain the property of the individual (and i would think annuity companies would have plenty of incentive to attack her). seeing mark levins name in your reference doesn't add a lot of credibility.
B-Man Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Obama Fiscal-Cliff Posture Unserious And Dishonest President Obama is undeniably a shrewd tactician, so long as his tactics remain unscrutinized. Right now his approach to negotiations is as unbalanced as it is dishonest. Some presidents honorably seek great bipartisan accomplishments, hoping what they compromise away won't go too far. The 1986 tax reform act was a perfect example. Simplifying the U.S. tax system's 15 brackets into two marginal rates, the top one dropping to 28%, was an astonishing achievement by Ronald Reagan that many were sure was impossible. Most remarkably, prominent Democrats supported it. Among Reagan's major giveaways were appeasing Democrats' class warfare tenets by agreeing to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income; plus the 33% "bubble" rate some in the 28% range had to pay. This kind of honest bargaining is not what Barack Obama is currently up to. He and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are simultaneously trying to wreck the Republican Party politically by destroying its credibility as an enemy of high taxation. {snip} Even the liberal press is exposing Obama's disingenuousness. The New York Times noted on Wednesday that Obama "has barely discussed how he would pare back federal spending, focusing instead on the aspect of his plan that plays to his liberal base." The Los Angeles Times on Thursday observed Obama "hasn't said anything publicly about his targets for entitlement savings or cuts in discretionary spending. Instead, he's tacitly stuck with the proposals in his fiscal 2013 budget, which Congress has already rejected." Obama touts what he calls a "balanced approach" in which Republicans raise tax rates, and he promised during the campaign this year to "cut 2-1/2 dollars" in spending "for every dollar in increased revenue." But now, with signs that Republicans will agree to increase taxes, the L.A. Times reports that "Democrats seem to have become more entrenched in their resistance to the other half of Obama's formula." Extending the "middle class" part of the Bush tax cuts averts only a third of the coming tax increases, as the Brookings/Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center warns, and those at the middle and even lower incomes would still pay some of what's left. Hitting the top 2% also generates little more than $50 billion a year out of the $4 trillion over the decade needed to tackle the debt. It's time for the president's bad faith to be exposed: There is nothing "balanced" about not being http://news.investor...m#ixzz2DjqxMhLf .
Cugalabanza Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Obama Fiscal-Cliff Posture Unserious And Dishonest ...the other half of Obama's formula... . I agree. He does need to make some spending cut proposals. I think he will--I don't understand what the hell is taking him so long. The Republicans have a valid gripe here. Edited November 30, 2012 by gringo starr
meazza Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I agree. He does need to make some spending cut proposals. I think he will--I don't understand what the hell is taking him so long. The Republicans have a valid gripe here. The hardest thing for a politician to do is take away what was already given. People would rather see the ship sink in a sea of flames than make actual sacrifices. What you're seeing in Europe now is sacrifices being made when it's too late. The ship is beyond repair.
dayman Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I agree. He does need to make some spending cut proposals. I think he will--I don't understand what the hell is taking him so long. The Republicans have a valid gripe here. I haven't been following it that closely but I have yet to here of any type of counter....it makes sense the Dems will be more specific early on with their tax desires (politically acceptable to them) and the repubs with the cuts (likewise)...then you counterbalance the two and whala
B-Man Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I agree. He does need to make some spending cut proposals. I think he will--I don't understand what the hell is taking him so long. The Republicans have a valid gripe here. What kills me Mr. Starr, is that President Obama really has a chance here to solidify himself as as a great president (not just a "first African-American). He is done with all his campaigns, he has the power to move the democrat Left (even though they will hate it) to the center on this economic crisis and he has the GOP already conceding on tax increases. All he has to do is move to the middle, compromise position and help the country before his party..................................he would be rightly praised for such a move. Sadly, I just don't think that he has that leadership ability in him. Its still all "community activism" railing against the power.........when HE IS THE POWER . He's STILL out on the campaign stump, when all he has to do is tell his side to compromise also. He just can't bring himself, after a lifetime of promoting liberal tenets to compromise at all. We will all pay the price for his ineffective leadership. .
3rdnlng Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Obama is acting as if he was head of the bakery union at Hostess.
3rdnlng Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 "Dear Friend, How many times have you heard about the terrible, frightening, all-imposing "fiscal cliff" in the last few weeks? Now we have a constant media drumbeat that Republicans will have to cave to President Obama's demands or they will bear responsibility for going over the fiscal cliff. President Obama has increased his demands for more taxes and more spending. The Left, both the politicians and the news media, have created a mythical threat which can only be solved by Republicans surrendering their principles and abandoning their allies. Yet the fiscal cliff is entirely a manufactured threat. The same people who are now negotiating worked two years ago to create the mess which they say is such a threat. At any point they wanted to, the President and the Congress could reduce the "cliff" to a series of foothills by breaking the problem into ten or twenty component parts. They could then focus on solving each problem on its own merits and out in the open with public hearings, public understanding and public involvement. Public understanding, however, would limit the level of waste, favoritism, and special interests which could be funded. That is exactly the opposite of what the Washington establishment wants. To get a unique insight into the current psychological process of chanting "fiscal cliff," it is worth reading Tom Wolfe's essay, "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" (1970). Wolfe describes a San Francisco welfare office in which the senior management hides away on the second floor and hires young, underpaid people to catch the flak of the welfare recipients who show up angry and unhappy. It is the job of the junior staff to endure the hostility while protecting the calm and isolation of the senior leaders. The local Samoan community had figured out the game and decided to change it. As Wolfe vividly describes, they would send very large Samoans with war clubs into the office. The flak catcher would start explaining why they couldn't see the senior decision makers on the second floor. The Samoans would begin chanting and pounding their clubs on the color. After a couple minutes of threatening noises, the young welfare worker would decide they weren't getting paid enough to endure the tension and the sense of threat. They would let the Samoans go upstairs to make their demands to the senior welfare officials. This brief description does not do justice to the beautiful writing and keen insights Wolfe brings to this scene. But hopefully it does paint a picture of what we are living through. The political and news media Left have fashioned an artificial club called "the fiscal cliff". They are now standing on national television pounding their club and describing more and more horrifying outcomes if Republicans refuse to surrender their principles and appease the fiscal cliff Gods as defined by the Left. Their goal is to panic the country so the people will then apply pressure to panic the Republicans. Every time you hear “fiscal cliff” just remember it is an artificial invention of the Left. Every time you hear a dire warning about the coming crisis remember the Samoans pounding their war clubs and chanting. House Republicans should start legislating solutions they believe in, allow President Obama’s alternatives the honest chance to win a floor vote, and move forward. The current negotiations are phony, dishonest, and calculated to produce either a failure to be blamed on the Republicans or a success defined by the collapse of the Republican policy positions. Republicans would be far better off to refocus their energy on legislation, appropriation, oversight, and communication -- and relegate negotiation to being fifth on their priority list." Newt Gingrich "
Nanker Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 i'm guessing the schwartz center for economic whatever doesn't hold much sway with the white house or congress. geez, how long did you teabaggers have to look to find teresa ghiarducci? Oh, so now I'm a "teabagger". Thanks for the ad hominem attack you worthless piece of human excrement in shoes.
birdog1960 Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Oh, so now I'm a "teabagger". Thanks for the ad hominem attack you worthless piece of human excrement in shoes. I'm pm'ing the mods! Ok, I take back calling you a teabagger. Just refer to me as"progressive" no more " lib" labels. But seriously, no ones talking about taking away what's in our 401k's. Another huge distortion and straw man. In fact, as my citation points out, hher points are not novel but her approach is nd I kinda like it
Keukasmallies Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Republicans should lay out a reasoned position w/ a little wiggle room, send it up to the President, then stand back and pressure him to lead the government. IF Republicans think they can make an agreement w/o raising some taxes, don't even bother with planning--just cave now and take the well-deserved licks soon to come.
dayman Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 What kills me Mr. Starr, is that President Obama really has a chance here to solidify himself as as a great president (not just a "first African-American). He is done with all his campaigns, he has the power to move the democrat Left (even though they will hate it) to the center on this economic crisis and he has the GOP already conceding on tax increases. All he has to do is move to the middle, compromise position and help the country before his party..................................he would be rightly praised for such a move. Sadly, I just don't think that he has that leadership ability in him. Its still all "community activism" railing against the power.........when HE IS THE POWER . He's STILL out on the campaign stump, when all he has to do is tell his side to compromise also. He just can't bring himself, after a lifetime of promoting liberal tenets to compromise at all. We will all pay the price for his ineffective leadership. . Agreed generally although you act as if they're in the 11th hour of the negotiation and not the 1st....while it is technically the 11th hour of the sequester we all know it's the 1st hour of the negotiation
B-Man Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Republicans’ Ace in the Hole: Simpson-Bowles? Democrats appear to have the upper hand on the politics of the fiscal cliff, which might explain their brash pronouncements and mind-blowing conceptualization of "compromise." This morning I outlined three possible contingencies for Republicans, none of which is especially attractive. But is there a fourth way? The GOP's dilemma is a doozy. Their opponents, emboldened by the election, are pushing for counter-productive tax hikes on "the rich" -- a politically popular proposition at the moment -- while offering almost nothing meaningful in return. Meanwhile, Democrats' allies in the media have been crafting a 'Republicans-as-stubborn-obstructionists' narrative for years. To a large extent, they've been successful; Republicans are poised to bear the brunt of an irate public's blame if a fiscal cliff deal doesn't get cut. Voters either don't know or don't care about the details. As the story goes, Obama wants a "balanced" deal, and House Republicans are the only people standing in the way of averting economic disaster. Thus, Obama is holding the public relations high card. This is why he feels liberated to shoot for the moon by serving up absurd "deals;" as he sees it, if Republicans walk away, we all go over the cliff, and the media will beat Republicans to a pulp until they either (a) relent and give away the farm or (b) get crushed in 2014. Short on good options, here's one play GOP leaders might be able to make to regain some of the high ground and throw the White House back on its heels: Embrace Simpson/Bowles. President Obama established a bipartisan debt commission with great fanfare in 2010. Its leaders were Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator, and Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff. The panel was tasked with engineering a solution to right America's fiscal ship. In the end, they produced a set of recommendations that received the blessing of a majority of its members. The commission's blueprint drew a fair amount of criticism from conservatives, but was roundly blasted by liberals. Liberal malcontents like Paul Krugman torched the plan with noteworthy ferocity. The president shelved the recommendations, and they've been collecting dust ever since. What did the proposal actually look like? - The plan called for a 3-to-1 ratio of real spending reductions to tax increases. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was capped at 21 percent, substantially lower than the Obama average. - The spending cuts impacted multiple sectors of government, targeting everything from discretionary spending, to defense, to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Some modest reforms were suggested for these entitlement programs. - The plan raised taxes by limiting and eliminating many popular deductions, some of which disproportionately favor the wealthy. Some of these massively hiked revenues were offset by a major, pro-growth simplification of the tax code. The proposal established three relatively low marginal income tax brackets (12/22/28 percent). It also repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax and called for lowering the corporate tax. - Overall, Simpson Bowles projected $4 Trillion in deficit reduction over a ten year budget window
/dev/null Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 On top of the new taxes, we'll need stimulus to offset the negative economic impact of the tax hikes http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama-pushing-stimulus-fiscal-cliff-deal-video-033547060.html Forward!
B-Man Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 Opinion piece; Why Obama could lose this round as fiscal crisis grows President Obama, fresh off his victory lap, is about to overplay his hand. The most recent proposals from the White House aimed at averting the fiscal cliff included not only the president’s cherished tax hikes, but other demands that will strike any neutral observer as absurd. Even the liberal media couldn’t swallow the fantasy launched by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; the New York Times described the plan as “loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts.” Mr. Geithner, acting as the president’s missionary, proposed extending the payroll tax cut (something both parties earlier opposed), $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – way beyond previous demands -- extension of unemployment benefits that already exceed any previous coverage – and also a “permanent” ability to raise the debt ceiling, independent of Congress. There was no significant effort to rein in our bloated spending. The president is also demanding a new $50 billion stimulus program – a request that threatens to remind voters of just why it was they gave Republicans control of the House after Mr. Obama’s first two years in office. {snip} President Obama appears very confident that if the budget talks fail, Republicans in the House will attract most of the blame. That may be, but he should remember that his own approval ratings collapsed to an all-time low in the aftermath of the failed debt ceiling negotiations last year. Voters may hold GOP leaders responsible, but they won’t be happy with their president, either. If he hopes to follow through on his campaign promises -- including tackling immigration reform, for instance – he needs the backing of the people. Otherwise, his legacy will be trillions in new debt, and a failed recovery. Mr. Obama also seems to think that by reelecting him, voters gave a rousing thumbs-up to his fiscal choices, which so far have focused primarily on raising taxes on rich people. While polls show the latter to be popular, they also indicate that cutting spending and reining in our budget deficits remain a high priority for Americans. Indeed, recent (post-election) Gallup polling indicates that a growing number of Americans (45%, up from 32% last year) want to mend our fiscal wound through equal measures of tax hikes and spending cuts. The number that favor only raising taxes (which seems to be Mr. Obama’s main thrust) has stayed unchanged at just 11%. According to Gallup, some 99% of Americans think a strong economy and job market should be President Obama’s number one goal in his second term. The number two priority (88% of those polled) is taking “major steps” to ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare. Those necessary steps are, of course, opposed by Democrats. Most people (92%) consider “major cuts” to federal spending an important objective as well. On that front, they are likely to be disappointed. For October, the deficit soared 22% year-over-year, to $120 billion; spending increased 16% from the year-earlier period. Imagine; even as President Obama boasts of cutting spending, actually outlays are rising at 16%. Funny how the September report, released just before the election, showed a surprising $75 billion surplus. The September figure (mostly reflecting “shifts in the timing of certain payments” according to the CBO) was hailed by the left-leaning Daily Kos website with this headline: “Democrats, As Usual, Better at Deficit Reduction.” Not really. Another quite recent Gallup poll shows Americans want compromise – from both parties; eight in ten think that averting the fiscal cliff is very important. Astonishingly, given the ideological divide today, 68% of respondents say that both sides should “compromise equally.” That doesn’t sound like a mandate to steamroll the GOP. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/30/why-obama-could-lose-this-round-as-fiscal-crisis-grows/#ixzz2DuvT1aQm
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 If i were the republicans, I'd insist on a 1:1 tax to spending cut ratio. And refuse to budge. Expose Obama for the fraud he is. And, most importantly, call his bluff.
3rdnlng Posted December 2, 2012 Posted December 2, 2012 If i were the republicans, I'd insist on a 1:1 tax to spending cut ratio. And refuse to budge. Expose Obama for the fraud he is. And, most importantly, call his bluff. They already had an agreement until Obama backed away that was $3 in cuts to every new $1 in taxes.
/dev/null Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Grover Norquist, love him or hate him, has an idea: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/12/grover-put-cliff-talks-on-tv-150827.html?hp=r2
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Grover Norquist, love him or hate him, has an idea: http://www.politico....0827.html?hp=r2 Pre-empt American Idol for them. Then we'll really see how !@#$ed up American priorities are.
Cinga Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) They already had an agreement until Obama backed away that was $3 in cuts to every new $1 in taxes. but PBO is, once again trying to play the ending two wars as spending cuts. I think he needs to be called on that cause what's he gonna do? Go start 2 wars just to be able to say "I told ya so" ? Pre-empt American Idol for them. Then we'll really see how !@#$ed up American priorities are. with voting allowed by twitter, and texting your votes.... I like that idea!!! but most would prolly just switch to a different channel.... Edited December 3, 2012 by Cinga
Recommended Posts