Skip to main content

View Diary: The least bad option: Going over the artificial fiscal cliff (388 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The only deals Republicans want to make (14+ / 0-)

    are ones that screw over the poor and hand money to the rich.  Any deal made will be worse over the long term for anyone dependent on UI or likely to become so.

    •  You're an RN, correct? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SingularExistence

      Do you get your way all of the time? Do you expect to? Then why do we expect these things of others?

      Democrats will never be in a stronger position. They can pretty much just trade away some temporary extension of the estate tax, which no person outside of political junkies actually knows or cares about. And we'll have to go above 250 to about 400k. I'd take that deal any day if I were elected. It's a good deal.

      I'll take something that's okay but not entirely what I wanted over the fiscal cliff austerity.

      •  Define "ok" (9+ / 0-)

        You talk about one thing - UI.

        I think any deal seems "ok" to you as long as UI is extended on December 31.

        I disagree.

        Also, that would be bad negotiating anyway.

        •  You know that isn't what I'm talking about. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SingularExistence, condorcet

          But of course since I'm disagreeing with your position you're going to just cartoonishly straw man what I say.

          Most of what has been proposed is reasonable to me, save for chained CPI. The 400k threshold is cool with me and so is the estate tax temporary extension if UI can get passed in its favor. Estate tax isn't politically visible to most either way.

          Of course I talk about UI, Armando. It's one of the most important things. If you think it isn't, talk to the unemployed. Ask them what they think about your theories. They don't like the idea of being homeless.

          •  What are you talking about then? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JerryNA, slinkerwink, Laconic Lib

            BTW, where is that deal you described?

            PResident offered it and it was rejected.

            Hell, the House GOP rejected the 1 million cutoff.

            You are not dealign with reality imo.

            You would accept spomething no one has offered.

            •  User Pluto has posted a nice graphic (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness

              of the offers and counteroffers so far.

              I don't recall stating anything has been accepted yet. I simply shorten "offer a deal" to "deal". If this is getting so silly that you're using my phrasing as an excuse to argue against me, I don't know what to tell you. It's just the regional variation around here. Doesn't confuse most I talk to.

              •  Pluto has the offers and counteroffers (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink, Laconic Lib

                Great.

                FWIW, the president offered a deal. It was rejected.

                Reid offered a deal.

                It was rejected.

                Now what?

                Can you chart it for me?

                •  Are you seriously asking me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueness

                  to name things that are happening in real time behind closed doors? No I can't speak to future events. I speak to the events that happened most recently.

                  Seriously. How silly are you willing to make this discussion?

                  •  It's December 30 (0+ / 0-)

                    I was snarking you to illustrate the uselessness of "charts."

                    •  Charts aren't useless. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueness

                      It happened to show a nice timeline of the offers thus far. They're not useless just because they go against your arguments.

                      •  See how useless they are? (0+ / 0-)

                        You think they go against my arguments.

                        Hell, you don;t even know what my arguments are.

                        You could not connect those charts to my arguments if I gave you a year to try.

                        •  We both know the chart backed up what I said. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blueness

                          That there were many offers on the table, none of which fit into the false dichotomy that it's either the option cliff or complete concession.  Be mature, Armando.

                          •  You said there were many offers made? (0+ / 0-)

                            Wow! What insight!

                            I did not know that.

                            Were any of them accepted?

                            Hey I know, Obama can agree to Boehner's proposal, with a few changes!

                            Voila! No going over the cliff!

                            And you say be mature. You exhibit a child's understanding of negotiations.

                          •  I'm going to correct you here. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            1) Sarcastically calling bringing up the offers insightful because you can no longer deny that they exist ignores that you initially questioned their existence.

                            2) I never stated that they were accepted. I pointed to them as examples of reasonable offers. You demanded I show exactly what they were (which is odd, because it's common knowledge aroundhere) and Pluto beat me to the punch.

                            3) Ad hominems aren't necessary or mature. What possible motive do you have? It doesn't look good or win any arguments.

                          •  I questioned the existence of offers? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MKinTN, Nada Lemming

                            You're, erm, lying wrong.

                            As for 3, if you can identify any ad hominems I have directed at you, please so indicate.

                            I can do so for you BTW.

                            Finally, let me try to get you to focus on the point of my post:

                            "

                            There is an argument to be made for President Obama's proposed small bargain, but that postpones the major fight for later.

                            Beyond that, there is serious doubt that Republican will even agree to the 'Small Bargain." In any event, good public policy is not even on the table. In no small measure due to the stupidities and corruptions of groups like Fix the Debt.

                            At some point, 'No' must be the answer to Republicans, 'fiscal scold' Democrats AND the Very Serious People like Maya Macguineas and Alan Greenspan. No more quiet mistakes from these 'experts' please.

                            After there is realization that Democrats finally will say No, then, perhaps, a true 'balanced approach' -- one that recognizes that economic conditions, coupled with policies that favor the rich, are the problem, can emerge. Then, maybe, good public policy will be adopted.

                            But it appears going over the fiscal cliff must occur first. It is the least bad option."

                          •  When I mentioned them (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            you openly doubted that they existed, then switched to mocking the terminology I used. I'm not lying. I'm not misunderstanding. I'm not failing to comprehend. I'm not any of a thousand variations on the same tactic you're likely to use.

                            You're dismissing my arguments by saying I have a "child's understanding" of negotiations. Funny enough, had you just said it by itself it could have been deemed just insulting. But because you paired it as a response to a point I raised that you wised to debate, you turned a plain insult into an ad hominem. I fully expect you to take that information in your usual stride.

                          •  Seriously (0+ / 0-)

                            You are not being truthful.

                            Who on Gawd's Earth did not know there were offers?

                            For eff's sake, I mentioned the president's small bargian in the post you did not read.

                            As for my referencing your child like understanding of negotiations, and your umbrage, please recall that you, and you repeat it in THIs comment, call on me to be "mature."

                            So please, stop the effing sanctimony.

                             

                          •  I am entirely truthful (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            you asked what the offers were in a comment response. Funny that you would ask what offers weer being bandied around if you already knew what the offers were. You can not and will not accuse me of not reading when you yourself commented to the contrary. That just makes the conversation not only more in my favor, but hilarious.

                            "As for my referencing your child like understanding of negotiations, and your umbrage, please recall that you, and you repeat it in THIs comment, call on me to be "mature."

                            So please, stop the effing sanctimony"

                            I take no umbrage. The last 500 times you toss around that stuff and the next 500 it won't bother me one iota more. In case you're not following, you asked where the ad hominem was, probably entirely sure you could dispute it. That I showed a complete familiarity with the concept made you abandon that idea and instead you deflect.

                            No sanctimony. I know what an ad hominem was. That's why I found it so funny that you were so sure that it wasn't one. Next time I tell you one is, I recommend that you just accept it.

                            And no, calling someone childlike and telling them to be mature is not the same. Within the context I am telling you to act characteristically behaved. That is not the same as insulting your intelligence. Rather I am granting that you know the difference and are choosing the lesser mature response up until that point. .

                            I fully look forward to your reply where you address none of what I said and tell me "Why so serious-ahhh?"

                          •  No you are not truthful (0+ / 0-)

                            You were not truthful when you said I did not know there were offers. Indeed, that was so obviously untruthful that I knew then you were just being a dick.

                            No one who pags attnetion does NOT know there were offers.

                            I do not believe you thought I did not know there were offers.

                            Here's some more truth, you do not know what an ad hominem is.You may have familiarty with the concept, but you do not know what it is.

                            As for your telling someone to be mature is not the same as calling them childish - gammon.

                            That's more of your untruthfulness.

                            Did I miss anything?

                          •  Leave the insults out of it, Armando. (0+ / 0-)

                            This is the lack of maturity on your part I was speaking about on full display.

                            You questioned what the offers were. You later laughed at a chart that showed what the offers were. Now it is common knowledge according to you what the offers were. It's part of your ever evolving story because you're incapable of admitting you were wrong and intentionally misleading.

                            You know you're wrong. You just can't admit it. It's rather hilarious actually. You're stuck defending an indefensible set of positions.

                          •  There is the hypocritical sanctimony from you (0+ / 0-)

                            Maybe you can leave that out eh?

                            I know eveyr offer that has been made in detail and have known it.

                            I never questioned what the offer were ever.

                            My story has been consistent - you have been untruthful in this discussion.

                            You have been rude.

                            You have been ill informed.

                            You have been untruthful.

                            Did I miss anyhting?

      •  All of the time? I almost never 'get my way'. (7+ / 0-)

        So why should I expect Republicans to 'get their way' when they've 'gotten their way' for the last 30 years?  When do they finally stop 'getting their way'?

        •  You almost never get your way? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shigeru

          Must be a terrible negotiator. Or maybe you just live in the real world wherein nobody gets what they want most of the time.

          Believe it or not Republicans consider a million dollar threshold not getting their way. Yet we're hovering around 400k threshold. And it's not a game.  RedState was/is LIVID about the 1 million threshold as a loss of message and values.

          You think they're getting their way because we're not entirely getting what we want. This happens quite often. You have to look at the totality of the situation. You don't usually get your way but you do what you can and you score the victories that you can. Same should go in Washington. I'm just a person who doesn't see every concession in the worst possible light. I try to put myself in their position.

          •  Maybe he does not have bargaining power (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            My own view is your apprach dtrips the President and Democrats of their bargianing power and thus they will not get much their way if they follow your path.

            •  Then just say that to begin with. (0+ / 0-)

              That's not something I'll actually argue because it's just a difference of opinion. You unnecessarily straw manned the discussion. The post above this is basically agree to disagree.

              •  Excuse me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink

                I said THAT in my post.

                Why not read it?

                •  No, you immediately brought up (0+ / 0-)

                  that I might mean giving away the farm and all the various insinuations that come with it, which is absolutely untrue. It was clearly untrue. I agree with a good portion of what Obama is offering. I would consider those better options than the fiscal cliff.

                  I'm not the only person to disagree with you on your contention. Most people seem to consider the UI a big deal, as they should. Without it our economy suffers a big blow. UI is not only necessary for these people, but incredibly stimulative to our economy.

                  •  I'm pretty sure (0+ / 0-)

                    you did not come up in my post.

                    You might want to chart that.

                    •  I'm pretty sure the reply (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueness

                      you just posted has little to do with what I said, and that you put little effort into even trying. Just a little bit of history repeating.

                      •  You have not even read my post yet (0+ / 0-)

                        Talk about not trying.

                        •  I have (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blueness

                          if by "post" you mean your original diary. And it's indisputable that I read "posts" as in comments that I have directly replied to. If you feel this is in error then by all means see fit to try to cite why. I doubt that'll happen because I doubt you truly even believe what you just typed.

                          •  You have not read my post (0+ / 0-)

                            Or at least, you have not comprehended its argument.

                          •  I have (0+ / 0-)

                            cite your reasoning for why you think I didn't.

                          •  Because you have never adddressed (0+ / 0-)

                            its point:

                            "

                            There is an argument to be made for President Obama's proposed small bargain, but that postpones the major fight for later.

                            Beyond that, there is serious doubt that Republican will even agree to the 'Small Bargain." In any event, good public policy is not even on the table. In no small measure due to the stupidities and corruptions of groups like Fix the Debt.

                            At some point, 'No' must be the answer to Republicans, 'fiscal scold' Democrats AND the Very Serious People like Maya Macguineas and Alan Greenspan. No more quiet mistakes from these 'experts' please.

                            After there is realization that Democrats finally will say No, then, perhaps, a true 'balanced approach' -- one that recognizes that economic conditions, coupled with policies that favor the rich, are the problem, can emerge. Then, maybe, good public policy will be adopted.

                            But it appears going over the fiscal cliff must occur first. It is the least bad option."

                          •  Your arguments are based on "doubt" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            which is nothing concrete and therefore isn't the basis for any factual argument. The expiring UI is factual. The previous offers are factual. The least bad option is one of the ones already offered, not the fiscal cliff.

                            I have read your post and rejected it. You've thrown everything you can at me because you refuse to take any disagreement in stride. Whatever gets you through the day, Armando.

                          •  Uh what? (0+ / 0-)

                            IF an offer has been rejected, how is it still an option?

                            BTW, I will continue to respond to your replies.

                          •  It's called a concession (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            precisely because the one side concedes to something. Not because they insist upon it. Something can be rejected only to be later concluded.

                            "BTW, I will continue to respond to your replies."

                            You must be very proud of yourself.

                          •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            concluded was meant to be stated "included".

                          •  A rejection is a concession now? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coigue

                            So you are assuming somone will reverse their rejection and make a concession?

                            Hey, what was that about facts and stuff you wrote?

                            Now Tony, you can try and be serious and mature, and recognize that both of us are expresing our opinions.

                            Or you can pretend that you are just about the facts.

                            I can respect a well reasoned artgument that diverges from my own.

                            I have no respect for sanctimonious phonies who pretend to be civil, fail to recognize they they too are expressing opinions and asssume they are the only good people in a discussion.

                            I submit that your behavior in my thread has matched that description.

                          •  All things so far have been rejected. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            By its very nature anything other than the two extreme options of fiscal cliff and total one way surrender is a concession.

                            "So you are assuming somone will reverse their rejection and make a concession?"

                            Oh never! This would uh never uh happen in a negotiation. Nope. Never.

                            Hey, what was that about facts and stuff you wrote?
                            I have not stated that they would choose anything. The offers so far are the only offers to go by. So good luck spinning that.
                            Now Tony, you can try and be serious and mature, and recognize that both of us are expresing our opinions.
                            I am expressing my opinion. At times you have expressed an opinion. You have done yourself a great disservice of filling a lot of posts with ad hominems and irrelevant attempts at twisting what I said. I don't care but it seems to be a pattern with you and a great many posters who just happen to disagree with you.
                            I can respect a well reasoned artgument that diverges from my own.

                            I have no respect for sanctimonious phonies who pretend to be civil, fail to recognize they they too are expressing opinions and asssume they are the only good people in a discussion.

                            Textbook ad hominem. Well done.
                            I submit that your behavior in my thread has matched that description.
                            And I submit that you don't actually believe what you are saying there.
                          •  Ha (0+ / 0-)

                            That  is a description of your comments.

                            Show me your textbook. Because that is not an ad hominem.

                            I did not say you are ugly therefore you are wrong.

                            I said you behavior is X.

                            To be clear, I believe every word I wrote about your comments.

                            And your questining my sincerity is ad hominem, under your definiton.

                            I think it is just  arude oipinion, one of many you have expressed.

                          •  You do yourself no favors by going down this road (0+ / 0-)

                            Saying you can't accept my arguments because I'm a "sanctimonius phony" is textbook stuff. You are disregarding my arguments by attaching a negative characteristic to me. In this case a made up one.

                            Saying I don't believe you is not an ad hominem. It's not any fallacy. It's just me disregarding your assertion as knowingly false.

                          •  I never said that (0+ / 0-)

                            I said two things:

                            (1) You are a sanctimonious phony.

                            And indepndently

                            (2) I said you have not read the post.

                            I did not accept your argument on the substance of my post because you never have addressed the substance of my post. Indeed, I don't think you read my post.

                            You don't believe I am being truthful in telling you I knew the offers is not an attack on my honesty? (Which, FTR, is not an ad hominem attack)

                            No kidding.

                            Did I miss anything?

                          •  Factually false (0+ / 0-)

                            You called me that in conjunction with a comment of how you are happy to accept arguments from people, but at the same time dismiss mine because I am a "sanctimonious phony".  A classic ad hominem. Even were you to somehow convince anyone otherwise, objectively also an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Whoops. Overlapping fallacies!

                            As to the other part. I have clearly read the post. I have proven I have read the post. You just have no hope to salvage your other slew of revolving arguments, so you're ridiculously trying to tell me to admit to something that isn't true so that you have a safe exit.

                            I believe you are all to happy to make dishonest arguments when the discussion doesn't go your way. It's something you'd only do in an online discussion and it's something you do repeatedly. Probably because you think it's a fun game. Bully for you if it is but don't expect me to play that game. It's just a sideshow to an actual argument, not an argument in itself.

                          •  That's false (0+ / 0-)

                            You've made no argument  ON THE SUBSTANCE OF MY POST that I have had to accept or reject.

                            You have not read my post. You have not proven that you have read my post. You have not addressed my post.

                            And now you call me dishonest.

                            Well, maybe a lack of maturity is the cause.

                            You have been doing nothing but game playing this entire thread.

                            I repeat I have not rejected your arguments about my post because you have never made an argument about my post.

                            You have been nothing BUt a sideshow.

                            But I will continue to reply to you.

                          •  You are, again, factually wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            You think that is fiscal cliff is the least bad option. I disagree. Most of the discussion is you getting severely emotional that I disagree with your post, not that I didn't read it. Most posters would take that in stride, you seemingly can't.

                            Your quote

                            But I will continue to reply to you.
                            is very telling. It's all you've been doing. With increasing emotional attachment. You simple can not believe that I disagree with you and remain firm, fair, and unflappable about your repeated attempts to bait me.
                            You have been doing nothing but game playing this entire thread.
                            The lives of the uninsured are not a game. They are my primary concert. Not the difference between 250 and 400k. Not some penny ante estate tax rate that most don't even know exist, let alone will vote on. I have real passion. You're just keeping this going cause, as you said,
                            I will continue to reply to you.
                          •  Finally (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming

                            I'll ignore your childishness and respond to your substance, such as it is. You write:

                            "The lives of the uninsured are not a game. They are my primary concert. Not the difference between 250 and 400k. Not some penny ante estate tax rate that most don't even know exist, let alone will vote on."

                            This is shortsighted and wrong headed.

                            The differences are important because the money to pay things like UI comes from tax revenues. The amount brought in is a supremely important issue.

                            The fact that you or most "don;t know" that does not mean it is not criticial.

                            And that is just one mpving part of the fiscal cliff.

                            Yoiu need to look at the bigger picture.

                          •  Nothing I said is childish. So I reject that. (0+ / 0-)
                            The differences are important because the money to pay things like UI comes from tax revenues. The amount brought in is a supremely important issue.
                            Deficit spending on the short term is not nearly as important as keeping the UI, which is extremely stimulative. If the difference between UI or not is the estate rate (and it could very well be), then keep the current estate rate.
                            The fact that you or most "don;t know" that does not mean it is not criticial.

                            And that is just one mpving part of the fiscal cliff.

                            Yoiu need to look at the bigger picture.

                            A very corporate sounding point of view. The UI are not a moving part on a corporate balance sheet, Armando. They don't get it, they become homeless. They become homeless and the grocery stores and businesses they pay with their UI take a whack, cutting back jobs and hours further.

                            We refer to how you are thinking as "penny wise, pound foolish". And economically, the best time for such penny pinching measures is during a bull economy not a tenuous recovery. Don't all of a sudden pretend to be a deficit hawk just because it's convenient. Unless you actually do believe what you're saying, in which chase....no.

                          •  There is nothing if substnce to respond to (0+ / 0-)

                            in your comment.

                            Apparently, you believre that all will be well so long as UI is extended.

                            That is quite wrong.

                            It's not even penny wise.

                            I'm not sure where you get me advocating for "penny pinching measures" but it is of no import, you make it up as you go along.

                          •  Straw man fallacy on your part. (0+ / 0-)

                            I stated that UI is of greater importance than short term deficit spending and more important than short term raises in estate tax. That in no way means that I think all is well as long as UI is extended. Obvious OBVIOUS straw man fallacy on your part.

                            I'm not sure where you get me advocating for "penny pinching measures" but it is of no import, you make it up as you go along.
                            You're carping about funding the UI, which is not going to be there long term anyway and isn't going to harm us long term deficit wise. If you think the estate tax is anywhere near as important as UI, you're wrong.  
                          •  Straw man made of straw (0+ / 0-)

                            I made none of the arguents you seem to be addressing.

                            I think you have fallen into the wrong argument with the wrong person.

                            FTR, my favored "offer" was the President's opening offer.

                          •  Every time that you deny what you just said (0+ / 0-)

                            I smile. You clearly misrepresented my position and when I told you directly how wrong it was using straightforward logical concepts you just deny that you even said it.

                            FTR, my favored "offer" was the President's opening offer.
                            That's called an "opening offer" as they say in the business. Not a final one. It is the start of a negotiation and rarely the end of one, even more rarely the end of one in an outcome that involves an accord.
                          •  Quote me (0+ / 0-)

                            You do not because you can not.

                            You have a problem with the truth Tony Stark.

                          •  Easily done: (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            There is nothing if substnce to respond to (0+ / 0-)

                            in your comment.

                            Apparently, you believre that all will be well so long as UI is extended.

                            That is quite wrong.

                            It's not even penny wise.

                            I'm not sure where you get me advocating for "penny pinching measures" but it is of no import, you make it up as you go along.

                            by Armando on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:05:33 PM PST

                            The relevant straw man in bold. Ready to apologize? Nope. Onto the next deflection. Huzzah!
                          •  What does that quote prove (0+ / 0-)

                            in your mind?

                            What is it that you think needs to be done in this deal?

                            Picking a random quote og mine that is accurate based on your comments is not what you were asked to bring.

                            Ready to apologize?

                            Ah forget it, you simply do not comprehend the subject.

                          •  It proves the straw man. (0+ / 0-)

                            So to recap

                            I say you created a straw man

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            You denied it and insisted I quote you

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            I quote you

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            and you move right along without admitting your wrongness. In fact, you emptily admit  you were right because...no reason, just because.

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            What is it that you think needs to be done in this deal?
                            I've been over that pretty thoroughly. Taxes at about what the Dems are offering previously, sell out the estate tax if you have to for the UI, everything else is just delaying or retracting cuts, which is not my primary concern.
                            Picking a random quote og mine that is accurate based on your comments is not what you were asked to bring.
                            It was inaccurate and a straw man. You're wrong. Factually wrong. Quoted wrong. Now gave you the full story of being wrong. Play this game if you have to because you have nothing else but don't expect sympathy from me. Expect pity at best.
                            Ah forget it, you simply do not comprehend the subject.
                            Empty baiting. Remember, you're the front pager. I'm not. You actually represent the site, which is also true when you act ridiculous.
                          •  Provide the link to the thread (0+ / 0-)

                            Because I looked it up and it proves you to be an utterly dishonest person.

                            I dare you.

                          •  That's not a substantive argument. (0+ / 0-)

                            Now you're just going Twilight Zone again. I'm tolerant of your clear baiting but if you go incoherent, I can't help you.

                          •  I just put them in (0+ / 0-)

                            You're busted.

                          •  And with THAT (0+ / 0-)

                            I am now done with you.

                            Go pick up the pieces Tony Stark.

                          •  I have literally no idea what you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            Saying "I just put them in" is an incoherent statement that doesn't state what "them" refers to or what you put them "in".

                          •  This is a condition with you (0+ / 0-)

                            apparently.

                            I said Good Day sir!

                          •  You say good day, yet keep going. (0+ / 0-)

                            So were you lying when you said you'd keep replying? Or were you lying now that you said you're done based on a specious already debunked oddball semantic dismissal?

                            Makes no difference to me. Just caps off a really poor showing by you. All because you can't handle that I disagree with you on what is preferable.

                          •  The thread (0+ / 0-)

                            The fiscal cliff is not the least bad option.(5+ / 0-)

                            The unemployed and those just barely paying bills certainly don't think this is the least bad option. Being a political blogger might make one more receptive to the fiscal cliff chaos, but I'd rather the news be boring and full of snooze inducing fair compromise.

                            by Tony Stark on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:14:38 PM EST

                             [ Reply to This | RecommendHide

                            Define "ok"(8+ / 0-)

                            You talk about one thing - UI.

                            I think any deal seems "ok" to you as long as UI is extended on December 31.

                            I disagree.

                            Also, that would be bad negotiating anyway.

                            by Armando on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:29:10 PM EST

                             You know that isn't what I'm talking about.(2+ / 0-)

                            But of course since I'm disagreeing with your position you're going to just cartoonishly straw man what I say.

                            Most of what has been proposed is reasonable to me, save for chained CPI. The 400k threshold is cool with me and so is the estate tax temporary extension if UI can get passed in its favor. Estate tax isn't politically visible to most either way.

                            Of course I talk about UI, Armando. It's one of the most important things. If you think it isn't, talk to the unemployed. Ask them what they think about your theories. They don't like the idea of being homeless.

                            by Tony Stark on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:35:03

                            What are you talking about then?(3+ / 0-)

                            BTW, where is that deal you described?

                            PResident offered it and it was rejected.

                            Hell, the House GOP rejected the 1 million cutoff.

                            You are not dealign with reality imo.

                            You would accept spomething no one has offered.

                            by Armando on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:38:01 PM EST

                             [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                          •  Lots of untruths from you (0+ / 0-)
                          •  You are now going around in circles. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've already stated previously that I use the word deal as in "offer a deal". As in "let's make a deal". Are you drinking or something? That you think you have some killer argument in that you're just reiterating something I've already corrected? Which is really just a regional variation of a word.

                            This is just your weirdo way of having an out so you can say you're done. Whatever makes you happy Armando.

          •  If I got my way, I'd be an employed RN. (5+ / 0-)

            And not have spent the last few years living below the poverty line.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site