Getty Images
Obama to Republicans; Your move.
President Obama had to endure some deeply unpleasant experiences with Congress over the last couple of years, but the result of the incidents taught him valuable lessons. It's clear, especially after last year's debt-ceiling crisis, that the president now knows exactly how to negotiate with reckless, radicalized Republicans.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.
The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.
For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor.
Fine, the president is now saying. Let's start with an ambitious plan designed to make Democrats happy, and see how that works out. The days of preemptive concessions and negotiating from a defensive crouch are over.
Republicans seemed stunned late yesterday while condemning Obama's offer, as if the president shouldn't have the audacity to present a plan he knows they won't like. But I'd remind GOP lawmakers that everything in Obama's proposal is consistent with his previous budget plans and the policies he presented to the public during the recent national campaign (which he won fairly easily).
Indeed, Obama is acting like a confident, re-elected president who expects congressional Republicans to start moving in his direction, not the other way around. GOP leaders aren't accustomed to this dynamic, but it's probably time they adapt to their new surroundings.
For the left, if there must be a focus on debt reduction, the White House proposal is the right way to do it. The plan roughly meets the broad outline House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says he wants, but does so in the most progressive way possible. Indeed, Obama's offer -- which was leaked by Republicans, not formally presented to the public by the administration -- even includes additional economic stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending, extended jobless aid, and an extension of the payroll tax break.
And did I mention it calls for the elimination of the debt-ceiling law altogether? It does that, too.
Republicans, not surprisingly, absolutely hate everything about the president's proposal, and that was the expected reaction. But the point of an offer like this is to set the parameters of the debate -- Obama will no longer make GOP satisfaction his primary goal -- and press Republicans to put on their big-boy pants for a change.
Throughout the recent negotiations, Republicans have said they want entitlement cuts, but they won't say which ones. Republicans have said they'll accept new revenue, but they won't say how or where the revenue would come from. Republicans have said they'll make concessions on deductions, but they won't say which ones. Republicans have said they expect deep spending cuts, but they've offered no specifics.
As of this morning, there's one plan on the table, and it's Obama's. Boehner & Co. don't like it? Fine. Where's their competing plan?
Republicans desperately want the president to negotiate with himself -- keep presenting increasingly conservative ideas until GOP leaders say they're satisfied. Obama clearly isn't willing to play that game anymore.
Leave a Comment:
Excellent. I like that Reid said the Democrats aren't willing to negotiate with themselves rather than the GOP. If the Republicans believe spending cuts are the answer, then the onus is on them to offer specific items to be cut to start the negotiations in that area.
They haven't taken the class on it yet, Negotiating 101.
Oh and you should have heard the caterwauling, knashing of teeth and rending of fabric on Mourning Joe .
Ya dummys, negotiation 101 . You don't start from the middle (Like they did with the ACA)
Kick them in the nuts and then start
OK folks, if that's the way you feel about it, we'll see you next year. Merry Christmas.
Well it's about time!
Put up or shut up GOTP.
Here we go again. Tax and Spend
Everyone should open their eyes to the fact that ANY tax increases will eventually be burdened by the middle class either through higher costs of goods and services or lower payrolls and employee benefits. Effectively shooting ourselves in the foot.
Case in point: My son works for a small HVAC company here in our economically very hard hit city. As an A/C tech my son enjoys a decent hourly wage, sales commissions and health insurance. He really loves working for this employee conscious company claiming the owners, due to their religious back ground, truly believe in providing all they can for those that work for them and treat them as an extended family.
Yesterday he was put on notice by the owners that they are considering closing the company that grosses between 10-15 million a year due to future tax increases and immediately their health insurance contributions will be increased by 100.00 per pay period due to cost increases that they attribute to Obamacare. You see the owners don't need the shop because they have other income through property and other investments and the estimated tax increases will make it too difficult to make money in the industry without passing on the costs to their employees and customers.
Our hard hit state, run by a Republican governor has decided not only to increase business taxes (we have no payroll taxes in our state) but they have increased fees and licencing dramatically to cover the State's deficit. I didn't know this but in the A/C industry you pay a yearly licence fee to the state for every type of building you work in. I believe he said there are 4 commercial licenses from small to very large buildings, and like 6 or more for residences like multi-dwelling apartments, condos, individual homes, and mobile homes. (ridiculous in my view) Due to the large fees increase this company has decided not to re-up their licenses in fields that don't make them money like mobile homes which mostly low income families reside. What are these people to do if all businesses decide that doing business in their homes doesn't pay and those companies left will charge outrageous rates with no competition and to cover cost increases.
My point is there is a line where companies will just not exist anymore due to higher taxes and cost of doing business and they will ALWAYS pass on these increases to their consumers and employees. The hardest hit people from ANY tax increase will ALWAYS be the low and middle income families.
God save us all
OH OH reality is depressing our young friend Poor Shooty ...you lost :
Seats in the House
Seats in the Senate
The Presidency
Just a reminder
Yes, Morning Joe was a blast yet again. Richard Wolffe has far more patience than I would after hearing the ridiculous assertions by the guest from the National Review, not to mention those by Harold Ford and Joe himself. I especially got perturbed when Joe said there needed to be a proposal that got all the dems just as upset as Grover Norquist. Last I heard, the dems he was referring to had been elected to their offices by the voters. Grover? Not so much. I could care less if his feelings are hurt, or that repubs may ditch the pledge they signed to him. Imagine the outrage on the right if the dems signed a pledge to Al Gore that they would never, ever, under any circumstances sign any bill that would increase greenhouse gas emissions. I fully expect the heads of every Fox News talking head would explode simultanously!
Ah Blankman - our guy that WE voted for showed up & showed out, and I for one am proud of him! Your side needs to "put on their big boy underwear, come to the table with suggestions other than "tax cuts for the job creators" - it's no longer going to be the GOTP way or nothing!
So you've had good results from trickle down, and are worried that if the people at the top keep only 80% instead of 85% they'll go Galt and throw away the piddling 80% because it's just not worth bothering for such a piddling pittance?
Shooter - I actually like that idea. Go over the cliff and THEN make a deal.
BTW - Who would get blamed for it now that the President proposed a plan BEFORE the cliff and Republicans walked away without offering their own plan? NOTE: a plan is not a plan without numbers and specifics - it is a blueprint.
@FromDownHere - That is the free market at work. Individuals who own companies can choose to keep their business or close up shop. They can renew or not renew their licenses. If they really make 10-15 million from this HVAC company, then they would be stupid to close the shop because they may have to pay an extra 3% in federal taxes. It sounds like because of the federal austerity that the state has had to increase taxes to accommodate the loss of revenue - making the LOCAL government foot a bill that had previously been picked up by the feds. This is why you don't cut federal spending in a recession.
Just ignore the failed wingnut, folks. All of them, actually. The lack of attention, which he hasn't been getting, takes ALL the fun out of it for him, and it clues him in to his increasing irrelevance. Let him wallow in his irrelevance. And the same for the rest of them. Discussing anything with them is a waste of time; they don't want to understand; they WILL NOT understand. That is the way of the conservative authoritarian mind.
The HVAC company doesn't make 10-15 million a year they gross that amount and the profit margins are thin compared to the work that goes into sustaining a profitable business. They fall under the 50 minimum employee threshold for mandated employee insurance coverage but insist to offer it to their employees and choose not to exist if they cannot provide properly for their employees.
May the "free market" and tax increases never affect you directly by job or service losses or increases in costs of living with lower income.
So if they're not making much profit, why are they worried about high-end taxes? Sounds like they'd be better off increasing their business rather than throwing a tantrum -- and the business away.
It would be less profitable for them to CLOSE it. The fees you're describing are not at the federal level, but wielded by your REPUBLICAN representation. I believe the massive rising of fees happened in Mass. when Romney was governor there too. See what happens when Republicans get their hands on power?
The way you describe this company, makes it seem as if they are somehow "so altruistic" in being a "christian" entity that takes care of its employees. They PROFIT and will STILL profit, even with higher taxes, yet they THREATEN their employees with shut down of the company if taxes are raised or they have to pay for Obamacare. This is the same WORN OUT argument we've been hearing from very WEALTHY folks, who are throwing what amounts to tantrums because the world will end if they pay more taxes. Sorry, FREE. RIDE. OVER. There is NOTHING altruistic about LYING to your employees in an effort to FRIGHTEN them. I'm not buying it and I'm not crying in my coffee FOR them either. If your son loses his job, it's because THEY are filled with GREED, as well as pathological with their extreme exploitation and manipulation of their employees. That is anything but "Christian" but it's same tactics we've been seeing out of WEALTHY businesses and CEO's. It is OUTRAGEOUS behavior. Please remember that it is YOUR republican politicians that are raising fees on everything they can get their hands on. Count your BLESSINGS that we did not elect a Republican President who merely would have FINISHED the job. Good luck to your son
I guess fromdownhere believes that government's only function is to guarantee that all businesses are able to make a big profit, and if that means making sure that their employees don't get healthcare, that the roads, bridges, schools, utilities, police, fire and ambulance services those businesses can't survive without simply have to crumble to make that happen, well that's what has to happen. In other words, this is libertarianism/fascism--government in the service to business. I've seen other businesses use the old Obamacare for far too long. They are complaining that they can't afford to offer health insurance to their employees because the PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT insurance companies don't offer it at a price they want to pay, forcing those employees to go to emergency rooms for healthcare, which is absolutely the most expensive form of healthcare. The government is taking a position that repubs have touted for years....that individuals should take responsibility for themselves, which is what the individual mandate is all about. Yet business screams that they can't afford to support a system that would save money for everyone, even as it provides those PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT insurance companies tens of millions of new customers. Of course, it they TRULY wanted to get out of providing healthcare for their employees, they should support a single-payer system, thus alleviating them entirely of that burden. But that would be socialist! The idea of everyone paying taxes to support something that benefits everyone is so totally foreign to our experience...except that is how we fund schools, roads, bridges, police, fire, ambulance, defense, scientific research....the list goes on and on. My advice to business---stop whining and start acting like you are part of the community, instead of acting as if the community should be on its knees to serve you.
To FromDownHere: First of all, I'm sorry you're getting "piled on" for your posting, which I acknowledge was written out of pain and frustration and is just as honest as anybody else's.
You bring up a point that makes me want to chime in, not at you but at this idea. Your son, you say, has enjoyed a job with a decent compensation and health insurance and now, because of Obamacare or whatever, he's about to lose it and you aren't happy about that. Welcome to the real world.
This is something I've been trying to say for some time. People who have jobs with benefits are fortunate. Lots of people can't say the same. And in fact, many people who've been laid off due to the poor economy have found ways to make money without having an employer. (Freelancing, odd jobs, whatever.) The catch is that their insurance would cost them anywhere from $5K a year for the cheapest individual plan to upwards of $15K to $20K a year for a family and decent coverage. That's before they pay for housing, food, clothing, transportation, etc. Doing without insurance means hoping that no catastrophic illness or accident catches them unprotected, because the consequences are dire.
Why should individuals, who are doing the right thing in making do in a very difficult employment climate, be penalized like this? Perhaps we should end ALL health insurance from employers and let everyone be on a level playing field. No?
FDH you are aware that the company can write off the cost of every employee's health insurance thanks to Obamacare as a tax deductible expense, that insurance companies annually raise their insurance premiums anywhere from 15-60% (which Obamacare is in the process of combating), and that companies can deduct the cost of payroll and everything else from their expenses, yeah? The only money they would be paying taxes on is the money left over after expenses. Let's say that the company only makes 300,000$ after all deductions are taken into account. That currently means that they are likely being left over with anywhere from 200,000$-225,000$. This will change it to anywhere from 180,000$-200,000$. The company is going to go broke over that small of a change? It sounds to me like they either have a terrible accountant who is costing them money (and yeah sometimes that does happen- as a business owner myself I got frustrated dealing with CPA's who didn't know a damn thing about the tax code and now I file our business taxes myself) OR they are making a bigger deal out of this situation than what is actually existent. But I get that you are talking about this from what your son has heard so I doubt that he knows exactly what it is that the company is bringing home after expenses or why it is that they feel this need. There seems to be a piece missing from the puzzle that you're giving- I have a feeling the owners aren't telling your son the whole truth, but I wouldn't know what exactly unless I knew them and their particular situation.
If there is a demand, someone will fill it. If they are already providing decent insurance, I am not sure why their costs would go up 100.00 per payperiod. I think they are blowing smoke, or you don't have the whole story.
If they are under the 50 employee limit, they are considered a small business and may be eligible for a tax credit. After doing a bit more research, I definitely think either you are fibbing, or the owners are fibbing to your son.
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/small-business.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/07/nfib_is_wrong_on_obamacare_the_aca_should_actually_help_small_business.html
Just heard Barry speak,
He's out there making sure we know who to blame if and when taxes go up on 98% of us.
In short, this is a no win situation for the Republican.
Have to admit, watching the Republican spin, twist and squirm trying to get the 80% of this nation that knows better to believe otherwise is sort of fun.
.
@Tam
I've ran into a lot of businesses who are pretending like Obamacare has cost them an undue burden in terms of prices and I think, quite honestly, it's all politics and very little substance. What I think is happening here is that businesses are using the scare of Obamacare (hey that rhymes!) to push business expenses that they otherwise would be responsible for onto their employees. This reminds me of the credit agencies, after hearing that there was going to be a new credit bureau to stop them from price gouging their customers, who then jacked up the interest rates on their credit cards to 30% or more in order to make as much money as they possibly could before the bureau went into effect. Then the Republicans filibustered it and magically the interest rate went back to 10% or below. If they didn't need the higher rate to begin with then that means they were simply jacking up rates as a red herring to get as much cash as they could and then using the bad effect to say "see this is why you shouldn't regulate us!" It's a smoke and mirrors way of scamming people who you really shouldn't be scamming into doing what you them to do. Make them so afraid of corporate retaliation and setback that they won't touch you so you can continue to suck the wealth out of people like the vampire you actually are.
The hate mongers this blog attracts is absolutely astounding. When something comes your way that doesn't agree with your ideology you attack it as inaccurate or question it's existence. This process suggests a need to be "right" instead of compassion and being compelled to assist your fellow man, truly disgusting.
What I have talked about is not a lie, not exaggerated, not hypothetical and no matter the intention of business owners is happening to many people due to the actions of our government. Say you like it or not but it IS happening NOW.
I pray it affects as few people as possible.
Many comments in this exchange both informative and interesting to read...
The statement 'Tax and Spend' is routinely applied to the democrats. The irony is this is NOT a bad thing. At least this party realizes that if spending is to occur, then revenue is required. Republicans have been operating under the assumption we can reduce taxes but continue spending at the same level because the reduced rates will be offset dollar for dollar with stimulus to the economy. A good theory but does not adequately provide for unforeseen and unbudgeted issues. Such as war, extreme weather or the regular cycles of the market. Hopefully this new tone from the President will enable a serious discussion as to the role of government...and then figure a balanced means to pay for it. I only hope republicans join the conversation rather than arbitrarily oppose and campaign against it.
I own a small business...so small the ACA does not impact it. It is frustrating to hear these larger companies in a twist making threats of lay-offs, cuts and the like. In my view, I would happily pay 12 cents more for a Papa John's pizza if I knew that money was providing better benefits to the folks that make and deliver my dinner. After all, they are my neighbors, family, friends and fellow Americans who ARE trying to make ends meet on minimum wage. As it stands now, I no longer buy their product.
My friends father is now experiencing a cut to his civil service retirement benefits which will require more out of pocket costs for insurance. A bummer but this decision was made and implemented at the state level because the revenue cuts implemented by the Republican controlled legislation and is exactly what my friend voted for...the end to entitlements. Yet he blames the ACA and democrats!?!
It is utterly fascinating watching the liberals revision history right before their own eyes... and they believe it.
The most well documented book on the 2010 negotiations was done by Woodward, quotes, backed up interview tapes, etc.
Everything stated in this article, that the failure in 2010 was the GOPs fault is basically a total revisionist lie. Complete lie. One only the liberals tell themselves to dissolve themselves of any responsibility.
Boehner and Obama had a deal. Obama changed it in the last minute forcing Boehner to not respond. Obama did that.
GOP wanted to work with the DNC on the Stimulus, the were told two things:
Obama "Elections have consequences, I won" and Rahm "@!$%# them, we have the votes". From day 1 it was the liberals who shut down talks with the GOP, not the GOP who shut down talks. This is documented.
What's amazing is that according to Woodward Obama was utterly shocked when he got zero GOP votes after saying and acting in the manner he did. Obama is a clueless leader. He is nothing more than a campaign face; but liberals love their cult of personality.
Stop revising history, there is enough documentation and recorded interviews to show you are lying.
Jesse-AZ, there's one major flaw in your argument that it was all Obama's fault for not getting GOP votes. It's called the filibuster and the Republicans in the Senate used it a record number of times in the past four years. In other words, they killed all those bills before they could be considered for a vote. And remember when some guy named McConnell pledged that his party would do whatever it needed to do to make Obama a one-term President? No? You and Woodward forgot that? Well, those of us who voted for Obama have not forgotten it.
If you refuse to take these well-documented facts into consideration, you're the one who's revising history, sir.
@owen...
So because Obama changed the terms on the agreed deal and the republicans did not agree with the changes... its the republicans fault
So when McConnell said in 2010 that he wants obama to be a 1 term president after democrats had super majorities in congress and senate up until 2010 for a full 4 years and refused to focus on jobs but rather focused on spending more money.... its the republicans fault
So when there are 10+ GOP jobs bills sitting stagnant on Harry Reids desk because he refuses to allow the bill to be brought up for a vote... its republicans fault
Just want to make sure that i am reading you correct. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you can't be serious... are you?
proves the liberal IQ is that of a rock...
A couple days ago I read an article on Yahoo identifying the 10 best countries to live (the US didn't crack the top ten). The top countries were arguably the most socialist on the planet, Switzerland, Australia, Norway and Denmark. What I found most different from these citizens and our own was the trust in their governments, something that has totally alluded the US.
Every time I see another regulation, tax hike, spending project, or government agency formed I think, like most, there is an alternative motive that a congressman or congresswoman will benefit either through personal gain or pandering to their constituents or party for votes, as proved in the past. If Obamacare was truly created to help the people it would have regulated the costs of health care so all could afford it and not funnel taxpayer's money to the 1% through insurance payments.
Knowing we will all eventually pay to get out of this mess I personally believe just rip the bandaid off quickly and get it over with. Calculate a tax percentage for every income group that the government can only spend within it's balanced budget and in return promise to never ask another penny from it's citizens. Instant certainty and security.
First Democrats never had a super majority in the Senate (the only place it counts, there is no fillibustering in the house)
Second, Boehner is the one that walked. Obama was offering more than what the gang of six recommended. So that is the democrats fault? I don't think so.
When was it ever the Presidents' job to beg to Congress and the Senate to start getting things done. In my day men were men, they weren't a bunch of cowards like we have today.They are acting as if this were a reality T.V. show, it's pathetic. They need to get off the pot and start helping our elected President, stop being such sore losers and get to work. If you don't know how to roll up your sleeves and do some manual work then you might as well get a job as a vacuum salesman. We need big strong men, who will defend the children and the women in this Country. Not a bunch of frat boys. Stand up to these juvenile delinquents. They oughta be finished with puberty by now.
It is. Bear in mind that they really don't have any personal stake in the outcome other than through various lobbyists. They main players are all from safe districts, the House is gerrymandered to the hilt, they're not going to personally miss any mortgage payments (nor is anyone they know), etc.
All that's left is a Game of Thrones. Palace politics, with no beheadings.
The problem is that our President is Black.
Ms Lewis, that is a hateful racist comment.
Think that was snark... it's obvious that a lot of objections to whatever the President does are really euphemisms for "but the President's black". Usually real racists begin the comment with "I'm not racist but..."
Poor Pooper242...
In response to Kathryn's snark, poor pooper replies "I'm not racist and it is a hateful, racist thing for you to call racists racist!"
Before the elections, I stated that when Republicans turned down Obama's offer for a grand bargain, they were gambling on the elections. They lost and now they want the grand bargain, but Obama pulled it off the table. The present offer for a deal is heavily weighted in favor of Dem priorities. Republicans played at the poker table and lost--big time. We would hope that they learned the lesson about gambling, but my guess is not.
So there is nothing that can be cut from the federal budget. There are no duplicate agencies or waste anywhere to be found. We have to wait ten years to get any cutting. That is nuts and not leadership.
And a lovely, lovely poison pill it is, too. Every single item on it tests very well in polls, but the House doesn't dare touch it with a twelve-foot Lithuanian -- because their own base will crucify them for "consorting with the enemy."
And meanwhile, to answer Rachel's question about why Obama is going on the road to build support, I'll ask a question in return:
Is it to build support and put pressure on Congress -- or is it to define, in advance, the meaning of the events about to unfold so that in 2014, 2016, 2020 ... the Republicans will be the party that crashed the US economy because they insisted on sacrificing Social Security and Medicare to spare the very richest and the defense contractors?
To maybe go along with that , imlo , every dem I know was irritated when The President disappeared while the ACA was being negotiated , it felt like his handlers thought it best he keep a low profile back then , which was really weird , a lot of people around here lost faith real fast
Obama going on the road takes him away from DC , getting above the mud , and putting obama in an element where he really is more effective , HAMMER TIME BABY , community organization !!!!
The only thing I see troubling is the call for $400 billion in Medicare "savings." I don't think that was necessary. I'm sure the White House is calling it "savings" instead of "cuts" for at least two reasons: 1) it would send liberals into orbit, 2) it can be used to actually decrease wasteful payments to parts of the system that are overcharging. But Republicans will use it for nefarious purposes.
One really, really cool thing: permanent end to the debt ceiling. WHOA! Now that would be something.
Carbon tax: IF ONLY!
How would you feel about letting Medicare negotiate drug purchases? That's about $400 billion.
That'd be great! It's the way it should be anyway. It's beyond hypocritical to hear Republicans cry about Medicare costs when they voted to prohibit it from negotiating drug prices.
But it seems like that would lead to a lot more than $400 billion in savings. Unfortunately, I don't have any real numbers on hand, but the patent protections on pharmaceuticals is about $270 billion per YEAR. I'm presuming the proposal by the Administration is for 10 years, so the proposed "savings" for Medicare is something like $40 billion per year. I'm too lazy right now to look up what drug costs are to Medicare right now.
My guess is that Republicans won't allow negotiations of that sort and will demand to get the reduced costs to Medicare as simply cuts. That's the danger I see.
WOW!!! What a great post. I couldn't agree more!
Wow!!! What a great thumbnail - beautiful smile! -Kevo
So this is where you get your information for your show. Hmmmm... No wonder I love it!
Now , don't blink dems , and double down when the gop start acting crazy
Since this was leaked by the gop , I will not put to much faith in the numbers , dems cut enough the last 2 years ...Now Raise revenues and jump start the economy again , the simple fact is , if we had not been forced into austerity , the unemployment rate would be near normal , revenues would be up even more , and the world economy would be reacting more favorably at this point , so stick to your guns dems
Write and call your reps and support them folks , I got a vibe from obama at the end of his campaign that he really came to realized who his friends are , who the people are who put him in office , and who he is suppose to represent the next 4 years
With apologies to that little girl, I am NOT tired of THIS Bronco Bama!!
Whatever got Harry Reid going on the election cycle must be catching!
Regards that last paragraph--You might want to wait and see how much Obama is willing to give away to the Republicans before you make such bold statements. He's looked like he was willing to stand and fight the bullies before, and all he's done so far is run.
After the GOP spent an entire campaign misrepresenting Pres. Obama's medicare savings as cutting peoples' benefits, it is time that they are on record for trying to screw the average person. No mercy has been earned, none should be given. They have no skin in the game yet. It is time to pay to play. Norquist be damned.
Republicans also say they want ice cream for breakfast, but refuse to say what flavor.
I sent Senator Toomey an email this morning, telling him to try representing ALL of us in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for a change.
I sent Toomey a similar email yesterday. I don't think he cares about what the middle class wants and needs.
I'm loving Obama 2.0 so far. He'll never have more leverage than he does now. Go get 'em Mr. President!
Greetings! Rachel
I believe it would be better for the country if all the Bush tax cuts expired which would exceed or increase President Obama's leverage over the republicans come January 1. I look forward to America going off the fiscal cliff as in the case of Thelma and Louise. (This should be interesting and exciting!)
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
Based on the whining I've heard so from the Right, this was a good start. ANd now let's hear some real proposals from them, not just "lower taxes" - let's see if they are prepared to govern responsibly. Country first.
Richard Wolfe on Morning Joe made a good point - Obama doesn't need to do Boehner's job for him.
It's not just "Boehner's job." What's really happening here is the Republicans want President Obama to say which cuts he would entertain. And then when the public is unhappy about the final deal, they can say, "Well, this was all Obama's idea, not ours."
In other words, as long as he says it first, they're off the hook. Bunch of whiners and chickens, if you ask me.
I'm an Obama supporter (let's get that out of the way up front). The most disappointing thing about the guy is that he didn't act this way four years ago after the election. We gave the Democrats the presidency and the entire congress. After Bush, we basically gave them a blank check to do whatever the hell they wanted... and the congressional Democrats were too scared to get anything significant done right away. And Barack was too nice - trying to concede to the GOP rather than starting from a position of strength. Well, now he has one term to be the president we knew he could be in 2008. I hope he pulls it off.
Damn what tripe! President Obama did NOT have the 60 votes in the Senate that he needed without getting some GOP votes. Please recall, if you can, and if you can't, do some research, Dems did NOT have Arlen Specter 'til he jumped ship or Al Franken 'til July 4. Both Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were incapacitated and unable to participate in day to day business, including voting. Joe Lieberman was seriously POed at Dems and intent on screwing up any and everything. Bernie Sanders touts his independence and as a new guy on the block could only be trusted so far (voting against closing Guantanamo ring a bell?) Now count the votes and note that even after July 4, there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate with 2 independents (including Joe L) and that only lasted 3 weeks before Scott Brown's election became possible.
President Obama worked with what he had, not a fantasy. In light of what he had to work with, he did very, very well.
He won't. That's why he's left Washington again. He can't handle the truth.
Wow! Now this is what I've been waiting for! Stand strong, President and all other Dems!
Go for it, Mr. President. You won the election, you're the man at the top. Tell Boehner he'll be gone in two years - or sooner, with a recall - if he doesn't step up and compromise FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Now this is what I've been waiting for! Go, Mr. President and all Dems! You have the support of the country.
raising taxes on the wealthy may not be the complete answer. with all the loopholes available to them, raising their" income tax rate " may not produce as much revenue as projected.....also if they are the big job creators....where have all the jobs been hiding for over 4 plus years. they haven't created jack____. no one seems to bring up that fact..
No, they haven't created jack. Have you ever heard the phrase going Galt?
Have you ever put your hand into a bucket of water?
Have you ever heard the phrase "promote the GENERAL welfare"?
Did they "Go Galt" under GWB too, when we were losing 400,000 jobs a month?
I thought oyu just said "see you next year". You were teasing weren't you?
It's called a "flounce."
Ignore it, folks. It will die.
re Pooper242...
We have had 30+ years of repuknican Supply Side 'Trickle Down' economics. For the duration of this, the middle income class has slower moved towards being a part of the lower income class. Trickle down economics has never worked, is not working now, and will never work. Go f*** your troll self pooper!
Oh, yes, Blanks admires all rich people, they are the salt of the earth and make everything run smoothly. I wonder how he justifies Paris Hilton or the two sisters of Formula One fame who work so hard to create jobs? Poor little rich girls. Such great Americans that have contributed much to this nation, we should allow them their due.
Apparently, that would be the Galt of the earth. (Of all the unmitigated Galt...)
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Good god. Learn to win, people.
Obama shouldn't give the Republiturds anything. They have done absolutely nothing to make life in America better and their sole drive to keep Obama from "looking good" or getting re-elected was a complete failure, just like all their lies to bring prosperity that the poor "little people" who voted for them were to believe. I am sure that even if the Republiturds were to dig in their heels and let everything come crashing down like they did earlier this year it would be the best thing for them. If a few billionaires lose lots of money because of their insanity.. more power to the Republiturd plan of poverty for everyone.
I am glad that the president is finally putting his foot down. I think it was good that he was willing to negotiate in the beginning. However when the little bratty spoiled republicans refused to even budge until they got their way, it was time he put his foot down. I like what the president is doing!
The Crybaby republicans need to get through their heads that the people voted for Obama, and they are elected to represent the people, not to push their own personal agenda.
At 31 years old, I have seen so much lack of maturity in Washington. I can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch a child go hungry or someone not be able to afford health care all because little poopy diaper babies trapped in bodies of grown men can't "get their way."
I do have a problem with putting so called "entitlements" on the table. That is just one more way to funnel money away from most of us and let the uberwealthy off the hook. If anything we should be removing the annual cap on payments into Social Security, not looking for ways to cut it even a little bit. Lets face it Corporate America has been looking for ways to get out of pensions for the last 40 years so the CEOs can keep the money. Look at what happened at Hostess. We should not be letting them off the hook with Social Security too or the rest of us will be working until we are in the ground while they laugh all the way to the bank.
The amount that the Administration floated (with no guarantees) for Medicare is about what will be saved through allowing it to negotiate for drug prices using its (massive) purchasing power. Which is an unalloyed Good Thing, and also coincidentally totally unacceptable to the Republicans.
I've called this proposal a poison pill, and I stand by that -- it's just full of sensible, popular things that the Republicans can't afford to accept.
...Amen, yea, and verily!
DCS:
Um, that's not a coincidence. The ’Pubs oppose it because those billions would come out of the profits of the pharmaceutical lobby. (Not that any of that is news to you, I’m sure, DCS.)
I believe this falls into the category of "It's about f&%$ing time!"
RACHEL - Please put up the numbers showing SS and Medicare do not affect the deficit; they have a surplus and we pay for them directly. Put Bernie Sanders on every night if necessary. Also, charts help a lot out here in the public.
The unfunded liabilities, something left wing socialists would rarely understand exceed 80 TRILLION dollars for medicare and social security combined. SS share is about 25 trillion. All of this data is available in the annual report released by the Trustees every April and if you bothered to look you would find it. Bernie Sanders is a senile old fool who should just go away. Social Security is in fact adding to the deficit because the surplus accumulated over it's lifetime were spent by big govenment plutocrats. Whats left are non marketable securities which cound for nothing on a balance sheet. Since it is running a cash deficit the fund redeems the securities to the Treasury, who of course issues debt to cover it. Get your facts right. The nation is bankrupt and the Nazi Obama's plan is a farce, has no hope of curing any issues (not that it was the intention) and is essentially released by a man so stupid, its frightening. But fear not, the economic abyss is upon us and we'll see how Lord Obama deals with a Depression.
Latest headline from Fox: "Democrats playing chicken, says GOP."
And, yes, the comments write themselves.
And for Faux, the chickens are coming home to roost as they now have to deal with Reality World.
No matter what Obama proposed, the GOP would have rejected it without even countering. Been there done that. So he might as well propose what he wants and let the Republicans deal with the fallout after Jan 1 and then again in 2014.
You have that right ...they have not moved one step away from the party of NO.
By gum they're going to make sure he's a 2 term president.
From a game-theory standpoint, I think that's the best part of this move. If the Republicans fail to come up with a counter-offer, it will be entirely clear who is to blame for failing to reach agreement before the end of the year. (Meanwhile, if they do come up with a counter-offer, it's hard to see how it could avoid being a political disaster in and of itself, on both the no-taxing-the-rich and let's-gut-entitlements sides.)
Lots of win in this move.
Sick, I know you're joking (and, good one, btw) but, in case you didn't realize, this actually is the latest conspiracy meme of the rwnj's (as usual, emphasis decidedly on "nut jobs"). Some say the President is actually going to try to finagle a third term. This all seems to have originated with a bit of alarmist propaganda by a whackaloon named Porter Stansberry, but it seems to be catching on in some of the less-sane corners of our polity.
a Daily Kos diary on the subject
Mother Jones reporting about this
An interesting thread of meta-analysis of the Stansberry "ad" focused less on the accuracy of the claims than on the effectiveness of the presentation
And, if you're in the mood to follow an actual rw link or two:
The Stansberry presentation
A story from the all-too-aptly named "Before It's News"
From The Libertarian Republic
Nothing's too crazy for some folks.
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Pretzelogic... I don't believe this guy Stansberry is really that crazy. I think he's more guilty of underestimating the collective American IQ and counting on most people being as easily swayed as the people of the Tea Party. But then again, I could be overly optimistic.
Yeah, being concerned that our federal government has been borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends from our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren is really "crazy."