[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
I think the GOP needs to really fuck Barry in congress and let us go over the fiscal cliff in 55 days time. Then it will finally hit home how hard he’s shit the bed over the economy.
[/quote]
The stupidest post of the week and one of the most un-American I’ve ever seen on this website. “My people lost so I think we should fuck the country?” This kind of bitter idiocy is a disgrace to democracy. If you can’t take losses at the polls, move to China.
[/quote]
So you’re suggesting the House which is obligated by the Constitution to initiate all federal spending bills MUST sacrifice its conservative principles and give Bam what he wants, i.e., more spending and more taxes?[/quote]
First of all, it’s very likely that the deal (if it’s struck) will include both spending cuts and revenue increases, as it did in 2011 before falling through. Because politics is about, you know, compromise (especially after one side just won another four years in office).
More importantly: I’m not talking about “giving Bam what he wants,” I’m talking about the idea that the Republicans should actively subvert American interests out of partisan bitterness.
Thank God, Boehner is not anything like as stupid as the (unelected) people who are calling for this out of distaste for yesterday’s results.
Every time I see some spark, ends up FUBAR or false flash.
I would say we are sluggishly stagnating. I mean 3 rounds of QE in 3 years and inflation isn’t outrageous. That would lead me to believe we are actually in a deflationary period…
Every time I see some spark, ends up FUBAR or false flash.
I would say we are sluggishly stagnating. I mean 3 rounds of QE in 3 years and inflation isn’t outrageous. That would lead me to believe we are actually in a deflationary period… [/quote]
The logic here makes sense to me, but the dictionary definition of the term “recession” has not applied to US economic indicators for years now.
Re: the larger point–you, Push, me, we all should be hoping that this anemic recovery is not sucker-punched by a round of simultaneous income and payroll tax hikes. I don’t care all that much about sequestration, but a collection of huge tax hikes could shove this thing back into a real recession.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in me trying to sell you two on the notion that a bunch of tax hikes should be avoided at all costs?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Come on Push you know he didn’t say that. I’m quite certain taht you can infer that he means everyone needs to compromise.
[/quote]
Where and how do you propose each side concede?[/quote]
I’m grateful I’m not in the position to address that, because I really don’t know.
I haven’t seen you offer your thoughts on the subject…care to share them?
Both sides should be able to take responsibility by taking a look at and cutting all entitlement programs for their voters. They should compromise on health care. They should be willing to raise taxes a bit when the economy is strong to pay off the debt and cut them afterwards. That’s assuming the debt is a major problem and not simply being used as a political vehicle. I still remember Cheney saying “Deficits don’t really matter.”
I’m sure it’s quite a bit different on the outside looking in than it is on the inside. You can make all the promises you want, but once you get the job, you realize you have very little actual room to make any change.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in me trying to sell you two on the notion that a bunch of tax hikes should be avoided at all costs?[/quote]
I’m fine with tax rates staying where they are. I was also fine with Romney’s plan, because his plan would have stripped some power from special interest groups in Washington and been a huge advantage for seniors and those young people being smart with their money.
Raising taxes, on anyone, is going to hurt the economy as a whole. You can’t “eat the rich”. The fact so many people are totally okay with tax rates on people making more than X amount of money shows a total lack of understanding of our favorite speech from Bam that you and I love to bicker about…
That being said, for love of my country I would be willing to give up 3-5% more of my money, and deal with the economic hit, if my government could actually slash 5-10% of spending for every 1% I give up.
I love American, and I’ll eat a shit sandwhich so my kids doesn’t have to.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
Both sides should be able to take responsibility by taking a look at and cutting all entitlement programs for their voters. They should compromise on health care. They should be willing to raise taxes a bit when the economy is strong to pay off the debt and cut them afterwards. That’s assuming the debt is a major problem and not simply being used as a political vehicle. I still remember Cheney saying “Deficits don’t really matter.”
I’m sure it’s quite a bit different on the outside looking in than it is on the inside. You can make all the promises you want, but once you get the job, you realize you have very little actual room to make any change.[/quote]
All reasonable suggestions that will most likely be ignored by our government.
Compromise is step one. But go big. Go Bowles-Simpson big (though it isn’t perfect) or Gang of Six (far from perfect). If the GOP wants to gain ground with the electorate and gain quickly, step into the silence and propose to go with a huge but compromising bill that addresses the deficit.
And that bill should include something that everyone can hate - including raising revenue. And here is the key - have it raise lots of revenue. But have it cut immensely, too.
It’s the right thing to do, right now. There is appetite for it on both sides of the aisle. Build it big, make sure to include Democrats.
Negotiate it within the House and Senate, don’t worry about the President. The GOP would lay the foundation that they are (1) fiscally serious, (2) interested in bi-partisan solutions, and (3) being the proactive actors instead of being in a defensive crouch.
If it is comprehensive enough, Democrats won’t choose to be on the wrong side of it. Force Obama to sign it or veto it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Compromise is step one. But go big. Go Bowles-Simpson big (though it isn’t perfect) or Gang of Six (far from perfect). If the GOP wants to gain ground with the electorate and gain quickly, step into the silence and propose to go with a huge but compromising bill that addresses the deficit.
And that bill should include something that everyone can hate - including raising revenue. And here is the key - have it raise lots of revenue. But have it cut immensely, too.
It’s the right thing to do, right now. There is appetite for it on both sides of the aisle. Build it big, make sure to include Democrats.
Negotiate it within the House and Senate, don’t worry about the President. The GOP would lay the foundation that they are (1) fiscally serious, (2) interested in bi-partisan solutions, and (3) being the proactive actors instead of being in a defensive crouch.
If it is comprehensive enough, Democrats won’t choose to be on the wrong side of it. Force Obama to sign it or veto it.[/quote]
As a citizen I’m for this.
As a political strategist, totally bad move. Case in point: Clinton gets credit for budget surplus, not the republican congress…
So, that is part of the reason I think the reasonable approach presented above will be abandoned. Well that and lobbys.
As a political strategist, totally bad move. Case in point: Clinton gets credit for budget surplus, not the republican congress…[/quote]
I disagree, mainly because that’s apples and oranges - economic boom times aren’t the product of the politicians in a direct way that negotiations on a budget bill are, and people get that.
One other aspect - from a purely Machiavellian point of view, do you think that Obama would sign it if it had huge cuts, especially to Medicare, which is the main thing that needs to be cut? His base just delivered him a victory despite 4 years of a bad record and a loss of American independents - he’d be between a rock and a hard place.
That’s what makes the election so interesting - for Obama to reverse his presidency and deal with the most pressing issue of the day, he needs to do things that will make his base quite angry - a base that just delivered him the White House.
And one more thing - the GOP just got spanked: what do they have left to lose? Why try the same things that didn’t win? No need to be reckless, but the idea that the GOP will just hunker down for 4 years and try it again is a bad idea.
The times demand bold action, and the GOP could lead, and shouldn’t worry about who gets the credit. Elecotorally, they won’t suffer for doing the right thing, even if Obama gets disproportionate credit.
I like TB’s plan. I personally would vote for a bold plan that included entitlement reform/benefit reductions, equal cuts to military spending, and modest revenue increases across the board (not just on those making over $250k).