eraser8: Tigger: You are a farking crazy person.Which is exactly why you shouldn't be responding to him.
SlothB77: Obama wants us to go over the fiscal cliff. He wants those large cuts to defense to go into effect. He wants the economy to crash again. When it does, he can introduce new reforms that will significantly expand the reach and power of the federal government.
gilgigamesh: Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement programs beyond what was on the table last year. Until Republicans offer their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his.Sounds like Obama has finally learned Rule #1 of negotiating: Don't negotiate against yourself.About time.
TimonC346: And negotiations with him isn't going to put them out of a job.
Arkanaut: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.From his Op-Ed of this morning:"So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that's a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things - raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it's not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position - and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn't work."Sounds like the same complaint from the rest of the Democratic camp.
The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.
eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growthDo you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?
Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary periodSo it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.
Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary periodSo it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.
un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: eraser8: Debeo Summa Credo: About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years)CBO report #43694. There was a whole thread about it about a month ago with a link from think progress.If extending tax cuts for the wealthy would only increase GDP by 0.1%, then there is no legitimate reason to extend them. They don't need it, they don't deserve it, and the American people don't support it. Saving the money would be better overall. Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not. But if the Republicans want to defend the interests of 1% of the population against those of 99% of us, then they'll suffer for that decision.Either the wealthy give up their tax cuts, or we all give them up. They've been coddled for way too long.
verbaltoxin: Hmm, that makes me wonder if Norquist and the House GOP are running cross messages here.
aug3: Fartbongo hasn't passed a budget in 4 years, but is responsible for reckless spending?
Brubold: JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.
Debeo Summa Credo: When the GOP proposes extending the status quo to avoid the fiscal cliff, as they will of negotiations fail, will the Dems then be the "party of no", subby?Or will they be justified in stomping their feet because the GOP wont let them have their pound of flesh ransom for avoiding the supposedly horrible repercussions of the fiscal prudence otherwise known as the "cliff"?
Brubold: Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.
Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of RepresentativesShouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?
Corvus: CorporatePerson: I'm not so sure the Democrats will be able to pass a new set of Obama tax cuts for only the poor/middle class if we go over the cliff. What's to stop the Republicans from simply reintroducing the exact same Bush Tax Cuts for everyone including the top 2%, slapping a new name on it, and holding their breath and doing nothing until the dems agree to pass it?Because they have less to lose than the Republicans. More Democrats don't give a shiat about all tax rates going up and they want the defense cuts.Many Democrats I know want none of the cuts over the additional tax cuts.
too-old: Corvus: I am not saying anyone can't do it. But who's RESPONSIBILITY is it?The House, and nobody is arguing that.Everyone does have a voice in it though.The last Debt negotiations the Senate proposed quite a few budgets. Then the House took it and did whatever they wanted to it
SlothB77: For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.
Philip Francis Queeg: Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the makingGOP: How bout no?Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?I have the GOP plan right here.[blogs.kansas.com image 431x438]Counter that Libtard!
too-old: Corvus: Why do you and Republicans hate the constitution and want Obama to ignore it?Anyone can come up with a budget, it just has to be introduce in the House. Obama has put out tons of budgets, the Republicans just mention he hasn't because they haven't seen one they like
too-old: tenpoundsofcheese: Besides 0bama has never said how his proposed tax cuts are going to create jobs or what he is going to do to deal with the other 90% of his reckless spending.He never said he was cutting taxes. I think you need more coffee. Come back when you wake up
tenpoundsofcheese: No subby is wrong with her headline.The article says: " his answer boils down to this: you first." so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.Besides 0bama has never said how his proposed tax cuts are going to create jobs or what he is going to do to deal with the other 90% of his reckless spending.
cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?
tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.
Rattlehead: Where's that farking weasel Paul Ryan, their supposed numbers guy?
Weaver95: they don't have a plan for Obama getting re-elected.
Muta: Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?
bwilson27: So... No budget then?
kmmontandon: RexTalionis: Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.Yeah, but how many of those were from^white people making $50,000/yr. or more? You know, Real People.
whistleridge: Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for the wealthy, though not by raising rates.Oh, well since they've expressed willingness, it's all good then. I mean, how can you possible expect them to go all the way to doing something, after using up all that goodwill and energy to express willingness? Why does Obama refuse to work with them, when they're trying so hard to help the ri- er, the country?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 22 2017 20:23:20
Runtime: 0.523 sec (523 ms)