Enemies, not Opponents

[fskimospy]

I found this blog entry to be very illuminating when you look at what Obama is dealing with in attempting to negotiate with Republicans:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

The money quote:

Murphy’s initial view was that to unlock GOP votes for a budget deal, Obama just needed to endorse chained CPI and more means-testing in Medicare. Then it was pointed out that Obama has endorsed means-testing in Medicare, so Murphy wondered why he didn’t endorse chained CPI as part of a deal. Then it was pointed out that Obama did endorse chained CPI, at which point Murphy called chained CPI “a gimmick,” and said Obama had to endorse raising the Medicare age, drop his demands for more revenue as part of a deal and earn back the GOP’s trust.

Long story short: They won't take yes for an answer.

While that's only one guy, you hear this exact same style of argumentation across the board. They say 'If Obama would only do X, then we could deal'. When it is pointed out to them that he has offered X, they say 'well now he needs to do X and Y.' When it's pointed out that he has offered both they say 'well that's small beans anyway'.

So when people argue that Obama needs to show 'leadership' to make a deal or something they are just not looking at reality. There is no deal to be made because Republicans flat out refuse to bargain.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That is more than the missing 100 days between our two sets of numbers unless days in session do not included time the Senate was off. But then, who was filibustering

Arguing about the exact number as if it is the point is straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Even if it was "only" 163 days or whatever, that's still months of delays for someone the GOP actually had no problem with or he wouldn't have gotten nearly all of their votes.

Bottom line: he was nominated in January 2012, and not confirmed until February 2013. That's not only more than 263 days, it's more than *3*63 days. All for a guy that the GOP didn't actually oppose. They were, as usual, just being assholes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Arguing about the exact number as if it is the point is straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Even if it was "only" 163 days or whatever, that's still months of delays for someone the GOP actually had no problem with or he wouldn't have gotten nearly all of their votes.

Bottom line: he was nominated in January 2012, and not confirmed until February 2013. That's not only more than 263 days, it's more than *3*63 days. All for a guy that the GOP didn't actually oppose. They were, as usual, just being assholes.

They were pissed off. Apparently (according to the justification for the filibuster) the presentation was to late in the session for a election cycle (per Senate tradition).

That seems to be a lousy reason in terms of time of submission; but the Senate has it's own way of doing things that are expected to be followed.

We have seen that actions of the senate do not always make sense from either side.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They were pissed off. Apparently (according to the justification for the filibuster) the presentation was to late in the session for a election cycle (per Senate tradition).

Source?

That seems to be a lousy reason in terms of time of submission; but the Senate has it's own way of doing things that are expected to be followed.

We have seen that actions of the senate do not always make sense from either side.

That's a pretty weak counterargument. If the Dems do something inappropriate, I'm happy to call them out on that. But it doesn't justify blatantly acting in bad faith, which it appears the GOP did here.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I found this blog entry to be very illuminating when you look at what Obama is dealing with in attempting to negotiate with Republicans:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

The money quote:


Long story short: They won't take yes for an answer.

While that's only one guy, you hear this exact same style of argumentation across the board. They say 'If Obama would only do X, then we could deal'. When it is pointed out to them that he has offered X, they say 'well now he needs to do X and Y.' When it's pointed out that he has offered both they say 'well that's small beans anyway'.

So when people argue that Obama needs to show 'leadership' to make a deal or something they are just not looking at reality. There is no deal to be made because Republicans flat out refuse to bargain.

If Republicans stopped the stalling, blocking, and outright sabotage and actually participated in a properly functioning government the jig would be up. They'd undermine their central philosophy that government inherently can't work and prove themselves irrelevant.

 

[werepossum]

I found this blog entry to be very illuminating when you look at what Obama is dealing with in attempting to negotiate with Republicans:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

The money quote:


Long story short: They won't take yes for an answer.

While that's only one guy, you hear this exact same style of argumentation across the board. They say 'If Obama would only do X, then we could deal'. When it is pointed out to them that he has offered X, they say 'well now he needs to do X and Y.' When it's pointed out that he has offered both they say 'well that's small beans anyway'.

So when people argue that Obama needs to show 'leadership' to make a deal or something they are just not looking at reality. There is no deal to be made because Republicans flat out refuse to bargain.

Perhaps the best solution to bargaining with Congressional Republicans would be to talk WITH Congressional Republicans. I only point this out because the Obama method of finding an unemployed Republican consultant who agrees with what he's already doing doesn't seem to be working all that well.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps the best solution to bargaining with Congressional Republicans would be to talk WITH Congressional Republicans. I only point this out because the Obama method of finding an unemployed Republican consultant who agrees with what he's already doing doesn't seem to be working all that well.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here; Obama has spent lord-only-knows how many hours negotiating with House Republicans on these matters.

Congressional Republicans are painted into a corner. They don't want to tell people that they won't negotiate at all on raising revenues through tax reform because doing that is extremely popular. Instead, they rely on ever shifting demands that can never be satisfied.

If you don't think this is the case I encourage you to outline to me a single situation where you think Republicans will agree to higher revenues as part of a deficit cutting deal.

 

[Craig234]

They were pissed off. Apparently (according to the justification for the filibuster) the presentation was to late in the session for a election cycle (per Senate tradition).

That seems to be a lousy reason in terms of time of submission; but the Senate has it's own way of doing things that are expected to be followed.

We have seen that actions of the senate do not always make sense from either side.

"From either side." Gotta get the mindless false equivalency plug in!

This wasn't a unique situation, it was an example. Others took longer.

A report noted as I recall that at this point in their terms Bush appellate nominees took an average of 35 days for a vote while Obama's have been an average of over 140 days.

Of course Republicans screamed murder about Bush's being held up, because out of Bush's often outrageous radical hundreds of appointments, four were blocked by Democrats.

In fact, that's where the 'nuclear option' threat from Republicans to get rid of the filibuster came from - if you dare block a Bush nominee, they'll get rid of the filibuster.

Show me any credible support for the claim a Jan 2012 nomination is 'out of cycle'.

 

[werepossum]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here; Obama has spent lord-only-knows how many hours negotiating with House Republicans on these matters.

Congressional Republicans are painted into a corner. They don't want to tell people that they won't negotiate at all on raising revenues through tax reform because doing that is extremely popular. Instead, they rely on ever shifting demands that can never be satisfied.

If you don't think this is the case I encourage you to outline to me a single situation where you think Republicans will agree to higher revenues as part of a deficit cutting deal.

I've several times made the point that although we cannot know what goes on behind closed doors, the Republicans have been consistent in saying no higher taxes (read: revenue - government has no revenue it doesn't take in taxes), control spending now. Not tax more now, spend more now, with the promise that in some mystical future today's increased spending will mean we spend less. The federal government NEVER spends less, ever, and everyone knows it.

And honestly, would it really hurt you guys that much to simply say raising taxes? Absolutely no one is fooled when you say "raising revenue"; we all know what you mean. You claim that Congressional Republicans are painted into a corner because they want to pretend that they are open to raising taxes, yet those same politicians have been adamant that the federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You're asking me to outline a single situation where I think Congressional Republicans will agree to "higher revenues" as part of a deficit cutting deal, yet YOU are the one claiming that Congressional Republicans keep agreeing to higher tax rates and then moving the goal posts. Congressional Republicans have said over and over and over again that they are NOT open to higher tax rates or to higher taxes or to closing loopholes except by lowering rates to be revenue-neutral, yet you seem to be truly unable to hear that honest message, instead acting as though Congressional Republicans have agreed to higher tax rates yet secretly fight against it. It's truly baffling to me; you're accusing them of secretly believing what they are trumpeting at every opportunity.

Team Obama has repeatedly made the claim that Republicans make deals, then break them and shift the goal posts. Team Obama is asking us to believe them when they say that Republicans agree with them in private, then break their deals. The Republicans claim they have been consistent all along; no new taxes. Who you believe depends entirely on who you WANT to believe. In this case, Team Obama offers as evidence statements made not by any Congressional Republicans - even as reported by a progressive reporter - but instead, the progressive reporter's version of an unemployed consultant's statements. Even if you believe that this reporter's version is 100% accurate, it is reflective of that unemployed consultant's beliefs, NOT necessarily of the Congressional Republicans's positions.

If you honestly have no idea of what I'm trying to say, perhaps someone else can help you get past that mental block in recognizing a different viewpoint. I daresay whether or not they agree with me, virtually everyone else here understands what I am trying to say. It's an incredibly simple point: On a given subject, the beliefs of 'A' are not necessarily the beliefs of 'B' even if 'A' sometimes advises 'B'. If I "catch" Jack Quinn and George Mitchell saying we shouldn't be raising corporate tax rates, have I secretly proven that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama do not really want to raise corporate taxes but are just saying that for the low information voters? Quinn has advised Clinton; Mitchell has advised Obama. Neither speaks for their principle. Yet somehow because this fits your agenda, you want us to believe that you honestly think this is some sort of proof of Congressional Republicans' duplicity.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Team Obama has repeatedly made the claim that Republicans make deals, then break them and shift the goal posts. Team Obama is asking us to believe them when they say that Republicans agree with them in private, then break their deals. The Republicans claim they have been consistent all along; no new taxes. Who you believe depends entirely on who you WANT to believe. In this case, Team Obama offers as evidence statements made not by any Congressional Republicans - even as reported by a progressive reporter - but instead, the progressive reporter's version of an unemployed consultant's statements. Even if you believe that this reporter's version is 100% accurate, it is reflective of that unemployed consultant's beliefs, NOT necessarily of the Congressional Republicans's positions.

And Boehner and other Repubs have consistently claimed it was Obama who's been agreeing then 'changing the goalposts'.

Woodward has been backing the Repub claim.

Otherwise, Boehner is negotiating on behalf of a very large group. Obama can agree to something and doesn't have to go out and round up support for his position.

I find it quite likely that Boehner could sincerely tentatively agree to something, then be unable to muster the support he needs for votes. In fact the opposite would be virtually impossible. Anybody who has ever been in a position of negotiating in business will understand this immediately. You always want to negotiate with the person who has authority to make the deal. Otherwise, it is one tentative agreement after another, as the person must shuttle between you and others in his/her firm who actually have the power to approve something. Too often those 'others' have some counter-offer they want proposed.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

And Boehner and other Repubs have consistently claimed it was Obama who's been agreeing then 'changing the goalposts'.

Woodward has been backing the Repub claim.

Otherwise, Boehner is negotiating on behalf of a very large group. Obama can agree to something and doesn't have to go out and round up support for his position.

I find it quite likely that Boehner could sincerely tentatively agree to something, then be unable to muster the support he needs for votes. In fact the opposite would be virtually impossible. Anybody who has ever been in a position of negotiating in business will understand this immediately. You always want to negotiate with the person who has authority to make the deal. Otherwise, it is one tentative agreement after another, as the person must shuttle between you and others in his/her firm who actually have the power to approve something. Too often those 'others' have some counter-offer they want proposed.

Fern

Good points. Part of the problem for the Pubbies, as I pointed out in my original post, is that while they have things they are against - higher taxes, more government - they haven't been able to find anything to want that a majority or Congressional Republicans will support and that has the public support to make it a viable major party position. That makes it difficult to negotiate with them since as a group they have nothing major they want that could lead them to partially abandon opposition to what they don't want. Congressional Republicans have all the government spending they ever want, which makes it difficult for Obama to pick off enough to move his agenda forward.

 

[Craig234]

Woodward has been backing the Repub claim.

And Woodward has been pretty questionable on some credibility issues for a long time, with a pretty clear Republican bias.

It's rare to get a chance to really test him on his reporting since so much is anonymous sources, but we go that chance recently.

He went on the talk shows to claim that he'd been threatened by a senior White House official that if he kept saying what he was saying he would regret it, and saying how he didn't like being threatened by the White House and how wrong it was for reporters to face threats like that.

Until the actual e-mail exchange came out and while it had some bare literal truth on the three quoted words, he had completely misrepresented the issue.

What had actually happened was that his 'friend' the White House official had spoken to him in an angrey tone on the phone about his claims the official said were not true, and followed up with an e-mail to apologize for his tone and mentioned that as his friend he wanted to say he felt Woodward would regret if he put his name on those claims because they were not correct. Woodward responded showing nothing about a threat saying there was no need to apologize.

Then came the talk shows and the phony but serious accusations.

 

[fskimospy]

I've several times made the point that although we cannot know what goes on behind closed doors, the Republicans have been consistent in saying no higher taxes (read: revenue - government has no revenue it doesn't take in taxes), control spending now. Not tax more now, spend more now, with the promise that in some mystical future today's increased spending will mean we spend less. The federal government NEVER spends less, ever, and everyone knows it.

And honestly, would it really hurt you guys that much to simply say raising taxes? Absolutely no one is fooled when you say "raising revenue"; we all know what you mean. You claim that Congressional Republicans are painted into a corner because they want to pretend that they are open to raising taxes, yet those same politicians have been adamant that the federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You're asking me to outline a single situation where I think Congressional Republicans will agree to "higher revenues" as part of a deficit cutting deal, yet YOU are the one claiming that Congressional Republicans keep agreeing to higher tax rates and then moving the goal posts. Congressional Republicans have said over and over and over again that they are NOT open to higher tax rates or to higher taxes or to closing loopholes except by lowering rates to be revenue-neutral, yet you seem to be truly unable to hear that honest message, instead acting as though Congressional Republicans have agreed to higher tax rates yet secretly fight against it. It's truly baffling to me; you're accusing them of secretly believing what they are trumpeting at every opportunity.

Team Obama has repeatedly made the claim that Republicans make deals, then break them and shift the goal posts. Team Obama is asking us to believe them when they say that Republicans agree with them in private, then break their deals. The Republicans claim they have been consistent all along; no new taxes. Who you believe depends entirely on who you WANT to believe. In this case, Team Obama offers as evidence statements made not by any Congressional Republicans - even as reported by a progressive reporter - but instead, the progressive reporter's version of an unemployed consultant's statements. Even if you believe that this reporter's version is 100% accurate, it is reflective of that unemployed consultant's beliefs, NOT necessarily of the Congressional Republicans's positions.

If you honestly have no idea of what I'm trying to say, perhaps someone else can help you get past that mental block in recognizing a different viewpoint. I daresay whether or not they agree with me, virtually everyone else here understands what I am trying to say. It's an incredibly simple point: On a given subject, the beliefs of 'A' are not necessarily the beliefs of 'B' even if 'A' sometimes advises 'B'. If I "catch" Jack Quinn and George Mitchell saying we shouldn't be raising corporate tax rates, have I secretly proven that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama do not really want to raise corporate taxes but are just saying that for the low information voters? Quinn has advised Clinton; Mitchell has advised Obama. Neither speaks for their principle. Yet somehow because this fits your agenda, you want us to believe that you honestly think this is some sort of proof of Congressional Republicans' duplicity.

That was a very long way of saying "I can't think of a situation where Republicans will agree to higher revenues."

Democrats want higher revenue, and will trade spending cuts for them.
Republicans want spending cuts and will not trade higher revenues for them.

Until Republicans become willing to negotiate, no deal can be had. It is impossible to negotiate with crazies.

 

[Craig234]

That was a very long way of saying "I can't think of a situation where Republicans will agree to higher revenues."

Democrats want higher revenue, and will trade spending cuts for them.
Republicans want spending cuts and will not trade higher revenues for them.

Until Republicans become willing to negotiate, no deal can be had. It is impossible to negotiate with crazies.

I think the whole 'trade' thing is crappy. Who's to say that what's correct isn't only cuts or only taxes or a 90/10 ratio either way?

This 'trade' approach has nothing to do with that is good policy, and everything to do with the politics of 'you have to get something to make a deal, right or wrong'.

Unfortunately, it kind of works this way, but helps cause crap policy.

 

[Fern]

And Woodward has been pretty questionable on some credibility issues for a long time, with a pretty clear Republican bias.

That's absurd.

Woodward is no Repub.

However, he does criticize Obama's methods. E.g., he thinks the WH is not well organized or run, and other Dems are said to have privately said the same. He does not think Obama is a particularly effective negotiator and never had the Capital Hill relationships when he entered office, and has not developed them yet. Not even in his own party.

None of that - none - is any indication that Woodward prefers Repub-type policies, or has a Repub bias.

And why is it when someone has criticism for Obama you Progressives automatically claim a Repub "bias"? In doing so you merely reinforce the appearance of your own bias: That Obama can do no wrong and is above criticism, or if your opinion is different from mine it's Repub bias.

It's rare to get a chance to really test him on his reporting since so much is anonymous sources,..

I've seen him identify plenty of his sources. He named names in the WH.

but we go that chance recently.

He went on the talk shows to claim that he'd been threatened by a senior White House official that if he kept saying what he was saying he would regret it, and saying how he didn't like being threatened by the White House and how wrong it was for reporters to face threats like that.

Until the actual e-mail exchange came out and while it had some bare literal truth on the three quoted words, he had completely misrepresented the issue.

What had actually happened was that his 'friend' the White House official had spoken to him in an angrey tone on the phone about his claims the official said were not true, and followed up with an e-mail to apologize for his tone and mentioned that as his friend he wanted to say he felt Woodward would regret if he put his name on those claims because they were not correct. Woodward responded showing nothing about a threat saying there was no need to apologize.

Then came the talk shows and the phony but serious accusations.

You seemed to have altered the quote. I did not see the italicized words in the email I saw.

I've also seen reports that verify Woodward's claim that he never used the word "threat" in describing the email, yet you claim otherwise.

But I too think it was mostly overblown. (But may have been clever on Woodward's part. This Admin is known for highly limiting access to the President unless they're sure it's going to be a guaranteed softball type thing like the TV show the View. Woodward had unprecedented access to the WH for his book. Given the current climate he may suspect that will end. If so, he can point back to this episode and say "Aha, it was a threat". I.e., he's moving to thwart a black-ball he fears may be coming. Just speculation, but who knows?)

Lanny Davis's claim of being threatened seems more substantial.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Democrats want higher revenue, and will trade spending cuts for them.
Republicans want spending cuts and will not trade higher revenues for them.

Until Republicans become willing to negotiate, no deal can be had. It is impossible to negotiate with crazies.

Taxes have already been raised. $1 trillion in ObamaCare and $633 billion earlier this years.

I cannot find support anywhere that says govt spending has been cut. And, no, I don't find that a smaller planned future increase is a cut. An increase is an increase.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Taxes have already been raised. $1 trillion in ObamaCare and $633 billion earlier this years.

I cannot find support anywhere that says govt spending has been cut. And, no, I don't find that a smaller planned future increase is a cut. An increase is an increase.

Fern

And spending cuts have already happened. More than $2 trillion of them.

If you choose not to count those cuts...well then you're simply not abiding by the accounting rules of public policy accounting as they are generally agreed upon by experts across the ideological spectrum. That's your choice. This will make debating this issue with me or really anyone very difficult for you, however. Government spending cuts are accounted for as deviations from what is currently budgeted.

What you are basically trying to argue is that if I was legally obligated to spend $100 this year and $200 next year, that if I instead had the law changed to spend $101 the next year that no cuts were made. Strangely enough however, under this logic were I to cut $2 more... THEN we're talking cuts. So really it wasn't the first $99, it was the next $2 that really mattered. That's moon logic.

What's also funny is that you're trying to count what happened at the beginning of this year as a tax increase when it was actually a massive tax cut. The Bush tax cuts were expiring, they were never written as permanent. What Obama did was sign an enormous tax cut for everyone making under $450,000, but you want to argue that it was a tax increase. If you have a problem with that tax increase I suggest you take it up with the Republicans who wrote the law because they specifically designed your taxes to go up. You should also pen a thank you to Obama for saving you so much money.

I keep asking people, but nobody can seem to answer. You also dodged it again here. Democrats have repeatedly offered to take on part of the Republicans' position for spending cuts. Can you offer me a single scenario where Republicans will do the same? If you can't, then you must accept that they are unwilling to compromise.

 

[Fern]

And spending cuts have already happened. More than $2 trillion of them.

If you choose not to count those cuts...well then you're simply not abiding by the accounting rules of public policy accounting as they are generally agreed upon by experts across the ideological spectrum. That's your choice. This will make debating this issue with me or really anyone very difficult for you, however. Government spending cuts are accounted for as deviations from what is currently budgeted.

I'm not interested in Washington double-speak, neither are many people.

"Budget"? What freaking budget?

And when Washington builds in an automatic increase - the so-called baseline budgeting - that whole argument is as disingenuous as it gets

What you are basically trying to argue is that if I was legally obligated to spend $100 this year and $200 next year, that if I instead had the law changed to spend $101 the next year that no cuts were made. Strangely enough however, under this logic were I to cut $2 more... THEN we're talking cuts. So really it wasn't the first $99, it was the next $2 that really mattered. That's moon logic.

No, moon logic is what goes on in Washington. And you seem perfectly adept at it.

"Legally obligates"? That whole argument loses any credibility when the guys who are making the budget are the ones who making the laws as well. Try that line of argument in the real world. "I can't do so-n-so because there is a law against". "What law"? "The one I made up myself". Incredulity and laughter would ensue.

What's also funny is that you're trying to count what happened at the beginning of this year as a tax increase when it was actually a massive tax cut. The Bush tax cuts were expiring, they were never written as permanent. What Obama did was sign an enormous tax cut for everyone making under $450,000, but you want to argue that it was a tax increase. If you have a problem with that tax increase I suggest you take it up with the Republicans who wrote the law because they specifically designed your taxes to go up. You should also pen a thank you to Obama for saving you so much money.

More Washington double speak. It was a tax increase.

It expired after 10 yrs because of the Budget Reconciliation rules. It's that simple. Nothing was "designed". We got to this point because, as usual, in the ten or so intervening yrs Washington could only manage to kick the can down the road, again and again.

I keep asking people, but nobody can seem to answer. You also dodged it again here. Democrats have repeatedly offered to take on part of the Republicans' position for spending cuts. Can you offer me a single scenario where Republicans will do the same? If you can't, then you must accept that they are unwilling to compromise.

IMO, a tax increase has already occurred.

I see no spending cuts. Year after year we've had a spending increase (and that increase has been understated because the payback from the bank and auto bailouts are counted as negative spending thus reducing the total) and increased debt.

Some want to cut the debt, some want to increase it by additional spending. What say you we split the difference and freeze the debt at current levels?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

And when Washington builds in an automatic increase - the so-called baseline budgeting - that whole argument is as disingenuous as it gets

No, NOT including the growth is what's disnengenous.

Oh, there are millions more people now? And inflation has increased costs? And there are new expensive treatments to pay for?

Too bad, you get the same dollars, and that's no decrease!

No, moon logic is what goes on in Washington. And you seem perfectly adept at it.

I think it's very likely making the next point is wasting my time, but let's try it.

The problem is that you have a partial point, but you don't understand it's partial.

Let's use an example that you WOULD have a valid point on.

The military has 10 ships. Without the situation changing much, it's going to add 5 ships every year the next several years. That's 'growth', increased spending.

Now, if that were lowered to two more ships a year, it's still 'growth', increased spending. You'd have a point to say that it's not a real 'cut' but a cut to growth.

But in my example above, that's legitimate growth just to maintain the program. If you get millions more people and spend the same, less per person, it's a real cut.

If you ignore inflation and spend the same, so you can get less, that's a real cut.

More Washington double speak. It was a tax increase.

It expired after 10 yrs because of the Budget Reconciliation rules. It's that simple. Nothing was "designed". We got to this point because, as usual, in the ten or so intervening yrs Washington could only manage to kick the can down the road, again and again.



IMO, a tax increase has already occurred.

That's incorrect. You can throw out attacks all you like that it's a subtle issue, but the fact is, there's a right and wrong to it.

There was no tax increase passed, but taxes increased. How is that?

A tax increase is for example saying 'the tax rate is x%, we'll choose to increase it to y%'.

What happened in January had no one agreeing to increase anything. TEMPORARY tax cuts expired on schedule. Doing nothing meant taxes increased to the previous rates.

No one voted for anything that increase taxes. That goes back to the original bill and vote then the cuts were made temporary.

Why did that happen? Because of politics - hardline Republicans insisted there was a limit to how much they'd increase the deficit by borrowing to pay for the 'tax cuts'.

If they were permanent, the increase to the deficit, already massive, would far exceed their limit - but by making them temporary, they could keep them just under the limit.

They chose to do that. No new tax increases were passed now.

In fact, Obama has been a massive tax cutter. Not only did he agree to new tax cuts to extend those borrowed tax cuts for 99% of people, he has cut all kinds of taxes, previously agreeing to what has been called 'the biggest middle class tax cut ever', to suspending the payroll taxes paid by workers, and more.

I see no spending cuts. Year after year we've had a spending increase (and that increase has been understated because the payback from the bank and auto bailouts are counted as negative spending thus reducing the total) and increased debt.

Some want to cut the debt, some want to increase it by additional spending. What say you we split the difference and freeze the debt at current levels?

Fern

Everyone can cut spending if they get to pick the cuts. Thing is, there's gridlock so that no one can do that. Pass my cuts? You refuse. Your cuts? No way.

That leaves 'both' as an option which is quite problematic also. Sure, let's cut all kinds of spending that benefits the economy and provides a critical safety net, just to get some other justified cuts - and in so doing hurt the economy reducing revenues so we don't really help reduce the deficit anyway, if not make it worse.

Elect Democratic super-majorities and you'll see more deficit reduction. Elect Republicans who will compromise on a 'balanced approach' and you'll see more defict reduction.

Keep this gridlock with radical Republicans able to veto everything, and you're less likely to see anything but problems.

Now I say that not agreeing we SHOULD see many cuts in the short term - though like I said I can find plenty with a supermajority - but I think that's our situation.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not interested in Washington double-speak, neither are many people.

"Budget"? What freaking budget?

And when Washington builds in an automatic increase - the so-called baseline budgeting - that whole argument is as disingenuous as it gets

So disingenuous that every budget expert ever uses it. If you think you have a different system that more accurately assesses the impact of legislation I would LOVE to hear about it. Be very specific. If you can't (and you won't be able to), then logic dictates you use this one.

No, moon logic is what goes on in Washington. And you seem perfectly adept at it.

"Legally obligates"? That whole argument loses any credibility when the guys who are making the budget are the ones who making the laws as well. Try that line of argument in the real world. "I can't do so-n-so because there is a law against". "What law"? "The one I made up myself". Incredulity and laughter would ensue.

Except of course the government isn't a monolithic entity. Try treating it as one when talking about budget negotiations to people; incredulity and laughter will ensue. So no, the government can't change legal obligations on a whim, clearly in evidence from recent events.

So once again I will ask you, why does the first $99 mean nothing to you and the following $2 mean something to you? You never answered the question. It clearly illustrates why baseline budgeting is the most accurate way to describe legislation along with why not considering something a cut until there is a decrease in absolute numbers is foolish and naive.

More Washington double speak. It was a tax increase.

It expired after 10 yrs because of the Budget Reconciliation rules. It's that simple. Nothing was "designed". We got to this point because, as usual, in the ten or so intervening yrs Washington could only manage to kick the can down the road, again and again.

It's interesting to me that you consider it 'Washington double speak' when I accurately describe the legislation and what happened. You are also contradicting yourself within adjacent sentences. It expired after 10 years because it was passed under reconciliation rules... something it was explicitly designed to do because it couldn't pass otherwise. So no, that was exactly how it was designed. Like.... exactly.

Had no one passed a single law or done a single thing a much bigger tax increase would have happened... exactly as designed by the makers of the law. What's odd is that you think that Obama passing legislation that majorly lowered taxes as compared to current law is a tax increase. What if Obama and Congress had done nothing and let the legislation expire as designed? Would you go after them for raising taxes on you even though they passed exactly zero legislation to the effect? If so, why would you blame Obama for the designed consequences of Bush's legislation?

IMO, a tax increase has already occurred.

I see no spending cuts. Year after year we've had a spending increase (and that increase has been understated because the payback from the bank and auto bailouts are counted as negative spending thus reducing the total) and increased debt.

Some want to cut the debt, some want to increase it by additional spending. What say you we split the difference and freeze the debt at current levels?

Fern

Whether you want to close your eyes and plug your ears is up to you. I'm aware of no credible budget analyst that says no spending cuts have been enacted, and you continuing to repeat the same thing over and over again won't change reality. Also, of course I would reject your offer. Not only is it a dishonest portrayal of the situation, but it would be economically catastrophic. No sane person would sign on to such a foolish idea.

All that aside, I will ask again because you continue to refuse to answer. Can you describe ANY situation in which Republicans will accept any form of Democrats' negotiating position for higher revenues? I can see many aspects of the Republican negotiating position that the Democrats are willing to accept. Please include an answer to this in your response if you make one.

 

[chucky2]

LOL @ Spenders:

Year 1: Spend $100k.

Year 2: Spend $150k; inflation is at 2%.

Tell someone in Year 3 that you spent less in year 2 than you did in year 1.

And we wonder why we're so F'd...

Chuck

 

[Fern]

So disingenuous that every budget expert ever uses it. If you think you have a different system that more accurately assesses the impact of legislation I would LOVE to hear about it. Be very specific. If you can't (and you won't be able to), then logic dictates you use this one.

Yes, I have one: it's called accounting.

The federal govt uses what is referred as "governmental accounting ("GA"). I passed that section of the CPA the first time I took (as with the other sections).

In GA, $102 is MORE than $100. So, no matter what 'budget speak' you wish to use, when an expense goes from $100 to $102 it is an increase in expenditures.

Matters of the budget aren't relevant here. I suspect you're resorting to it so that you can use budget speak to mislead (e.g., claim an increase is a cut etc.)

The proof in the financial numbers. That's what I have been looking to see if have had any cuts. The answer is a clear 'no'. Govt spending has been increasing. The numbers are a bit deceptive because TARP under Bush was reported as an expense even though they were expected to be repaid. I.e., Bush was deceptively shown to have spent more than he actually did. Conversely, Obama is shown to spend less than he has actually because those repayments of TARP etc are accounted for as a negative expense (thus reducing the overall total of expenditures.)

So once again I will ask you, why does the first $99 mean nothing to you and the following $2 mean something to you? You never answered the question. It clearly illustrates why baseline budgeting is the most accurate way to describe legislation along with why not considering something a cut until there is a decrease in absolute numbers is foolish and naive.

See above. I.e., governmental accounting.

And a budget is irrelevant. First, we haven't had one in years. Second a budget, while a necessary and useful management tool, is an estimate. E.g., we cannot know how many people will decide to retire early on SS. We can estimate it. We cannot know how many natural disasters we may have and how much FEMA etc will need to pay out in the next year. We estimate it and Congress will pass an additional spending bill if necessary.

So, the budget is not the data to look at, it's the financial results.

It's interesting to me that you consider it 'Washington double speak' when I accurately describe the legislation and what happened. You are also contradicting yourself within adjacent sentences. It expired after 10 years because it was passed under reconciliation rules... something it was explicitly designed to do because it couldn't pass otherwise. So no, that was exactly how it was designed. Like.... exactly.

I don't believe Congress back then foresaw that we'd have this current mess and expected additional tax legislation to have been enacted prior to Budget Reconciliation Acts' expiration. In that sense it was not "designed" that way.

Had no one passed a single law or done a single thing a much bigger tax increase would have happened... exactly as designed by the makers of the law. What's odd is that you think that Obama passing legislation that majorly lowered taxes as compared to current law is a tax increase.

Yup.

Under governmental accounting rules we have an increase in revenue, tax revenue. I.e., a tax increase.

What if Obama and Congress had done nothing and let the legislation expire as designed? Would you go after them for raising taxes on you even though they passed exactly zero legislation to the effect? If so, why would you blame Obama for the designed consequences of Bush's legislation?

We would have had an even larger tax increase.

Yes, I would blame (or credit, depends on which side you're on, some want tax increases) Obama and Congress if they allowed it to fully expire.

Whether you want to close your eyes and plug your ears is up to you. I'm aware of no credible budget analyst that says no spending cuts have been enacted, and you continuing to repeat the same thing over and over again won't change reality. Also, of course I would reject your offer. Not only is it a dishonest portrayal of the situation, but it would be economically catastrophic. No sane person would sign on to such a foolish idea.

For reasons already explained, I don't give a damn about budgets and budget analysts.

All that aside, I will ask again because you continue to refuse to answer. Can you describe ANY situation in which Republicans will accept any form of Democrats' negotiating position for higher revenues? I can see many aspects of the Republican negotiating position that the Democrats are willing to accept. Please include an answer to this in your response if you make one.

Not sure how what I see them doing is in any way important. They sure as heck won't be asking me for advice etc.

Currently, I think the outlook is doubtful. I suspect that, like me, the Repub leaders aren't fooled by Washington budget double-speak. Sure, they employ it when it's to their advantage, but they know the difference. So, they know that govt spending hasn't been cut, and they know that revenue (i.e., taxes) has been increased. Assuming they wanted cuts in trade for tax increases, they got nothing on their side yet even after giving up (even though not likely voluntarily) on tax increases. That would argue for cuts and no more tax increases.

But I have no idea what the House Repubs position is. I have no idea what Boehner's is, nor Cantor's.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Assuming they wanted cuts in trade for tax increases, they got nothing on their side yet even after giving up (even though not likely voluntarily) on tax increases.

This hasn't been getting through to you, but the Republicans did not trade 'tax increases'. They did not 'give up and give them'.

The law was to change the tax rates. The law was in place. The Republicans did not vote for changing the rates, since the law was passed over a decade ago.

So they didn't 'give anything'. If they were totally stubborn and refused to agree to anything, the rates would still change the same.

The idea of actually raising revenues was not really in play, past some negotiating offers by Boehner in secret that got killed when Eric Cantor learned of them.

Your argument is like Obama demanding a concession for offering to not run in 2016. He's already not going to run, because it's the law that he can't.

He can run around whining about 'he got nothing for "giving up" a 2016 run, like you are about the Republicans not getting anything for "giving up" on the tax changes.

But he doesn't get anything for it - he simply doesn't have the power to do it, and Republicans did not have the power to change the law on the tax rate changes.

Now in fact, Republicans got a massive 'victory', by getting the tax rates lowered AGAIN for 99% of Americans, this time permanently - because Obama is a moderate Republican.

Republicans had nothing to 'negotiate' that with, but Obama was able to do what he wanted by pretending he had to 'negotiate' with Republicans on the issue.

Obama might say, 'oh, you Republicans are such tough negotiators, I have to give up single-payer and the public option, I have to start with an offer of borrowing for lowering tax rates for 98% of the American people, and you're such good negotiatiors that'll go to 99%. Twist my arm.' Meanwhile, oops, turns out Obama was in secret negotiations with big healthcare corporations before any negotiations making concessions to make the changes in their interest in exchange for getting their support.

That's a powerful position for a politician - get the support of the left with talking like a liberal, and get a lot of support of the corporations by giving them policies. Who can beat that? The also-talks-liberal guy who means it and has no corporate support? The guy who is honest and open about being a corporate shill so he's not very attractive to the people? (We saw that guy, caught on tape talking about the 47%, and his running mate strong-arming his way into a soup kitchen to try to look 'compassionate'.)

Republicans did not give Obama one vote for 'tax increases' with the changes - instead they got the changes reversed for 99% of people, in exchange for nothing from Dems.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I have one: it's called accounting.

The federal govt uses what is referred as "governmental accounting ("GA"). I passed that section of the CPA the first time I took (as with the other sections).

In GA, $102 is MORE than $100. So, no matter what 'budget speak' you wish to use, when an expense goes from $100 to $102 it is an increase in expenditures.

Matters of the budget aren't relevant here. I suspect you're resorting to it so that you can use budget speak to mislead (e.g., claim an increase is a cut etc.)

The proof in the financial numbers. That's what I have been looking to see if have had any cuts. The answer is a clear 'no'. Govt spending has been increasing. The numbers are a bit deceptive because TARP under Bush was reported as an expense even though they were expected to be repaid. I.e., Bush was deceptively shown to have spent more than he actually did. Conversely, Obama is shown to spend less than he has actually because those repayments of TARP etc are accounted for as a negative expense (thus reducing the overall total of expenditures.)

So your 'better' solution is to use a accounting designed to inform a system designed around achieving income in order to evaluate a system designed around achieving service distribution. Why you would want to use the same accounting to inform two vastly different priorities is baffling.

I do find it curious however that you consider my desire to use the accounting method used by basically every governmental entity and policy analyst on earth as an attempt to mislead as opposed to say... stick to generally accepted practices. Does this mean that all public policy analysts also are attempting to mislead? Are they now also part of the anti-Republican conspiracy, joining science, colleges, statisticians (remember how you fell for the polling nonsense?), and the media? We really are forming quite a cabal here.

The reason to use governmental accounting is incredibly easy to see. Take education for example. Say a school has 100 kids to educate this year and they spend $100 on doing it. The following year they have 200 kids to educate. Originally they budgeted $200 for that, but after much hand wringing instead decide to only spend $101 to educate twice as many people. You would say that's not a cut, that's an increase. Needless to say, I find that argument unconvincing.

I don't believe Congress back then foresaw that we'd have this current mess and expected additional tax legislation to have been enacted prior to Budget Reconciliation Acts' expiration. In that sense it was not "designed" that way.

This is incorrect. It was explicitly designed that way because they lacked the votes to pass it under normal rules and had to resort to budget reconciliation. It was designed to expire in 10 years because they couldn't have passed it at all otherwise.

Yup.

Under governmental accounting rules we have an increase in revenue, tax revenue. I.e., a tax increase.

We would have had an even larger tax increase.

Yes, I would blame (or credit, depends on which side you're on, some want tax increases) Obama and Congress if they allowed it to fully expire.

This is a pretty novel way of looking at things. Bush signs a bill that says he will cut taxes the day he signs it and then raise taxes 10 years from now. Obama signs legislation that removes most of Bush's legislated tax hikes, but not all of them. You believe that Obama removing most of Bush's tax hikes is actually Obama raising taxes. There is no other way to read the text of each law to say anything otherwise.

That's quite an intellectual pretzel you've twisted yourself into.

For reasons already explained, I don't give a damn about budgets and budget analysts.

As evidenced above you might want to start giving more of a damn about them as they might have a thing or two to teach you.

Not sure how what I see them doing is in any way important. They sure as heck won't be asking me for advice etc.

Currently, I think the outlook is doubtful. I suspect that, like me, the Repub leaders aren't fooled by Washington budget double-speak. Sure, they employ it when it's to their advantage, but they know the difference. So, they know that govt spending hasn't been cut, and they know that revenue (i.e., taxes) has been increased. Assuming they wanted cuts in trade for tax increases, they got nothing on their side yet even after giving up (even though not likely voluntarily) on tax increases. That would argue for cuts and no more tax increases.

But I have no idea what the House Repubs position is. I have no idea what Boehner's is, nor Cantor's.

Fern

I sincerely hope you are wrong here because by your description the actions of the Republicans have been almost criminally negligent. You are basically saying that in 2011 the Republicans threatened the worldwide financial system in order to get nothing that they wanted anyway. That is not only baffling, but bordering on mustache twirling super villainy.

By your logic the Republicans either do not view those cuts in the same way that you do or they are insane and evil.

 

[Fern]

So your 'better' solution is to use a accounting designed to inform a system designed around achieving income in order to evaluate a system designed around achieving service distribution. Why you would want to use the same accounting to inform two vastly different priorities is baffling.

You're clearly misunderstanding. The system I recommended be used is governmental accounting, it's designed specifically for governments.

Washington budgeting practices =/= Governmental accounting principals.

I do find it curious however that you consider my desire to use the accounting method used by basically every governmental entity and policy analyst on earth as an attempt to mislead as opposed to say... stick to generally accepted practices.

No, you've been continually referring to Washington budget practices. In GAAP, you do not have spending cut when spending actually increases, even if not increased to a previously desire level.

I do think it clearly misleading to call and increase a cut. Do you have a special term for use when an actual cut has occurred? If not that's terribly confusing. Only in Washington can a "cut" be both an increase and a decrease in spending. The term loses it's meaning when abused this way.

This is incorrect. It was explicitly designed that way because they lacked the votes to pass it under normal rules and had to resort to budget reconciliation. It was designed to expire in 10 years because they couldn't have passed it at all otherwise.

The Congress that passed the Bush tax cuts did not design the Budget Reconciliation process. It (the Bryd rule rule) had long existed.

Congress merely dealt with the limitations they had. I find it disingenuous to claim that they designed the tax cuts to expire. It was in fact a limitation imposed on them by a prior Congress (1985 IIRC) and the circumstances at the time.

Originally Posted by Fern
Yes, I would blame (or credit, depends on which side you're on, some want tax increases) Obama and Congress if they allowed it to fully expire.

This is a pretty novel way of looking at things. Bush signs a bill that says he will cut taxes the day he signs it and then raise taxes 10 years from now. Obama signs legislation that removes most of Bush's legislated tax hikes, but not all of them. You believe that Obama removing most of Bush's tax hikes is actually Obama raising taxes. There is no other way to read the text of each law to say anything otherwise.

There's nothing novel about it.

Congress and the President are the only ones who can pass/sign legislation. Whether through action or inaction taxes increase it's on them.

That's quite an intellectual pretzel you've twisted yourself into.

I would say that applies to you. In fact, I'd say you have a tendency of applying different 'standards' to politicians etc as it suits your ideological bent.

According to you here, Obama's inaction in response to looming tax increases absolves him of any responsibility for said increase. It's not his fault because he didn't pass/sign the legislation to begin with.

Now, in the case of who is responsible for fiscal meltdown you guys blame Bush. The repeal of Glass Steagell Act is widely blamed as the cause for the melt down. But Bush didn't pass/sign the repeal, Clinton did. However, unlike with Obama, Bush is blamed for his inaction in preventing the consequences of legislation passed/sign by previous a previous President/Congress.

You are applying different standards, favorable ones to Dems, and unfavorable ones to Repubs.

My position is the consistent one. I place some blame on on those in charge, Bush and that Congress, for their inaction, just as I would blame this Congress and Obama for their inaction regarding tax increases.

I sincerely hope you are wrong here because by your description the actions of the Republicans have been almost criminally negligent. You are basically saying that in 2011 the Republicans threatened the worldwide financial system in order to get nothing that they wanted anyway. That is not only baffling, but bordering on mustache twirling super villainy.

By your logic the Republicans either do not view those cuts in the same way that you do or they are insane and evil.

No, you're the one "saying that in 2011 the Republicans threatened the worldwide financial system". My position is that Obama caused that by nixing the deal Reid and Boehner had and instead forcing sequestration on us, as has been amply reported.

Had the Reid/Boehner deal been allowed to proceed by Obama we wouldn't have had our bond rating lowered either (not that it mattered all that much). That's on Obama too.

Fern