Why Republicans claim they can't make a deal with Obama

[Fern]

The only thing this boils down to is this.

Republicans can choose one of the following.

A) Total Economic collapse

Really? I think it just more F.U.D.

But if true then I guess everybody will just have to come live with me. Since I receive exactly zero $'s from Uncle Sam I expect no change whatsoever in my economic position. Maybe the 10 or so federal employees in my county will suffer (or maybe not since they work in a SS office).

B) Boo hoo... some super rich people may get additional taxes and only net 5.5 billion this year instead of 5.0 billion. BOO HOO. Their money is worthless if our country turns into mad max.
-snip-

I'm kind of curious what exactly is in Obama's tax proposal. Guess I'll have to wait until a deal is worked out and the details become available.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Should Boehner call Obama's "bluff"...put his deal to a vote and then say I told you so when it doesn't pass because the tea party faction has their heels so deeply dug in?

IMO it appears that he's trying to get a deal that actually has a chance of passing...tough spot though, he's between a rock and a hard place.

 

[senseamp]

Should Boehner call Obama's "bluff"...put his deal to a vote and then say I told you so when it doesn't pass because the tea party faction has their heels so deeply dug in?

IMO it appears that he's trying to get a deal that actually has a chance of passing...tough spot though, being between a rock and a hard place.

Tea party faction is not voting for any deal short of a balanced budget amendment, which won't happen. So why should they even be considered in the negotiations? Boehner needs a bill that a group of moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will vote for. Otherwise he'll be in position of explaining why a GOP controlled house failed to pass ANY debt ceiling increase.

 

[ayabe]

Should Boehner call Obama's "bluff"...put his deal to a vote and then say I told you so when it doesn't pass because the tea party faction has their heels so deeply dug in?

IMO it appears that he's trying to get a deal that actually has a chance of passing...tough spot though, he's between a rock and a hard place.

It was pretty easy to predict that this would happen eventually but it's doubtful many thought it would be this soon.

Boehner has lost control of his caucus and it might force some sane Republicans to come out of the woodworks and label the Baggers for what they are - unrealistic ideologues.

 

[fskimospy]

Increasing the debt limit would be a concession.


As sensamp points out many of them want a balanced budget amendment to be part of the deal. They want a long term solution that does not require us to come back and ask for more money in another 2 years.

No it wouldn't. The Republican negotiators are all on record saying they want to raise the debt ceiling. By the very same logic you used in your initial post their 'concession' is something they wanted to do anyway, just like Obama's. Therefore according to you, it's no concession at all.

(I'll completely leave aside the insane idea that you appear to believe that the Republicans' preferred position is a worldwide financial crisis)

 

[Dulanic]

The reason republicans can't make a deal with Obama is because they made a pact. That pact is protect the wealth of the rich who fund their campaigns at all costs.

 

[Lithium381]

The only thing this boils down to is this.

Republicans can choose one of the following.

A) Total Economic collapse

B) Boo hoo... some super rich people may get additional taxes and only net 5.5 billion this year instead of 5.0 billion. BOO HOO. Their money is worthless if our country turns into mad max.

They would rather make a political point than to just shut the fuck up and do the right thing. Any elected official standing in the way of progress should be out of a job.

The only thing this boils down to is this.
Democrats can choose one of the following.
A) Increased debt for future generations to deal with, pushing responsibility back and back for dealing with the root cause
B) Continuing to increase taxes and unsustainable spending that is ruining our middle class because they pay 60% of their income in taxes and can no longer afford to stimulate the economy in any meaningful way

They would rather tax the working class American people to death and give it to the poor so eventually everyone is on the government teat for life than shut the fuck up and do the right thing. Any elected official standing in the way of [a sustainable future] should be out of a job.

 

[Dulanic]

The only thing this boils down to is this.
Democrats can choose one of the following.
A) Increased debt for future generations to deal with, pushing responsibility back and back for dealing with the root cause
B) Continuing to increase taxes and unsustainable spending that is ruining our middle class because they pay 60% of their income in taxes and can no longer afford to stimulate the economy in any meaningful way

They would rather tax the working class American people to death and give it to the poor so eventually everyone is on the government teat for life than shut the fuck up and do the right thing. Any elected official standing in the way of [a sustainable future] should be out of a job.

We can't get out of 14T w/o tax increases, we can't get out of 14T w/o spending cuts. It needs to come from BOTH areas. You can't just grab all of the social programs from the middle class and call it a day. If the rich do that, the USA is done. The middle class buy products, without the middle class there is no rich. So go ahead, kill off the middle class.

 

[Lithium381]

where did that 14T come from? deficits year after year, why? Spending more than we take in.
You've explained that it has to be a mix of solutions to close the gap. I agree it would help to fix our issue in the short term, but the long term problem is too much spending. That's why the GOP is refusing tax increases and a faction is demanding a Balanced Budget Amendment. Long term vision. We will eventually raise taxes to cover and raise taxes to cover and then spend more and raise taxes. Where does that leave the American citizen? Living in a socialist country with no choice.

 

[First]

Yawn, stop posted dishonest partisan hackery.

 

[Bowfinger]

What I am saying is that Obama's deal is not a deal. It is only giving Obama what he already wants.

Bipartisan means that both sides give a little and get a little. In this case Obama only gives up what he already wants to give up. There is nothing bipartisan about that.

The fallacy in your latest obashing is Obama doesn't want those cuts. He is willing to concede to those cuts as part of a compromise proposal. You're confused because you've swallowed the imaginary definition for "compromise" the RNC invented to make the talking point for its flock.

 

[jhu]

 

[Dulanic]

where did that 14T come from? deficits year after year, why? Spending more than we take in.
You've explained that it has to be a mix of solutions to close the gap. I agree it would help to fix our issue in the short term, but the long term problem is too much spending. That's why the GOP is refusing tax increases and a faction is demanding a Balanced Budget Amendment. Long term vision. We will eventually raise taxes to cover and raise taxes to cover and then spend more and raise taxes. Where does that leave the American citizen? Living in a socialist country with no choice.

Total debt is what the 14T was in reference to. The fix needs to be both for both short term and long term.

 

[thraashman]

Increasing the debt limit would be a concession.


As sensamp points out many of them want a balanced budget amendment to be part of the deal. They want a long term solution that does not require us to come back and ask for more money in another 2 years.

That may be the single biggest load of bullshit you've ever posted, which is saying something considering you may soon hold the Guinness world record for posts filled with bullshit.

 

[a777pilot]

Shut it down!

Let's really see if the world will end.

 

[BigDH01]

Really? I think it just more F.U.D.

But if true then I guess everybody will just have to come live with me. Since I receive exactly zero $'s from Uncle Sam I expect no change whatsoever in my economic position. Maybe the 10 or so federal employees in my county will suffer (or maybe not since they work in a SS office).

Why do people think that only those receiving money from Uncle Sam will be affected? The deficit represents about 12% of GDP. The people that receive federal dollars use those dollars to buy things. If they can no longer buy things, that represents an actual decrease in demand. Which is going to affect those that receive government money and those who don't alike.

I live in a town pretty much dependent on three employers, the DOT, a university, and the USDA. Do you think if students don't get their loans next semester, the DOT's and USDA's budget is slashed by 50%+, and the federal research dollars stop coming in that only federal employees are going to be affected? It'll pretty much annihilate this town, and probably hundreds of others around the country. And as towns like mine start having massive defaults on their own debt, we're looking at another banking crisis (which will be worsened by the fact that banks will be holding onto billions or trillions of T-bills that aren't worth as much today as they were yesterday).

Yeah, this scenario plays out swimmingly well. So, IMO, to say that you won't be affected because there aren't many federal employees in your county is the height of arrogance.

 

[Balt]

Increasing the debt limit would be a concession.

Laff. Horse hockey.

 

[LumbergTech]

Shut it down!

Let's really see if the world will end.

basically you are an anarchist..is your point

 

[Balt]

Shut it down!

Let's really see if the world will end.

Are you prior/active military? Are you ready to 'shut down' your paycheck/pension/VA benefits/etc.?

 

[HendrixFan]

Are you prior/active military? Are you ready to 'shut down' your paycheck/pension/VA benefits/etc.?

I seem to recall he double dipped with his military retirement and a government job pension.

 

[artikk]

So, ProfJohn, you don't see anything wrong with citing sources from a conservative site to support your views? Biased information comes from biased sources.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Almost every single GOP member of Congress signed a "no new tax" pledge. There is no need to search for additional explanations when the simplist and most obvious is staring you right in the face.

PJ, you're a liar.

- wolf

Republicans are the conservative party, what's good for Grandad should be good enough for them, right? Let's do the 1950s' tax rate 90% on the rich. Got the country out of debt then did it not? Can't say it is not tried and true?

 

[Lithium381]

Total debt is what out was many for. The long term is still both.

wut?

 

[trenchfoot]

Yes, I know of term limits and all, but I think what we really needed was for Bush to remain in office after his second term with the Dems controlling both houses by a large margin so they could punish him by bringing into harsh investigative light his disasterous polices and the results of the long running rubber stamping party that was going on between him and the repub legislators that controlled both houses at the time.

It seems the repubs feel that the only time we can run deficits is when the monies and credit drained out of the treasury that creates those deficits goes directly into the pockets of the very rich, and ONLY the very rich.

 

[Balt]

I seem to recall he double dipped with his military retirement and a government job pension.

Well he didn't respond so I guess he's willing to give it all up for the good of the country. Surely he wouldn't suggest that everything get cut except the things that personally matter to him.