Skip to main content

View Diary: House GOP could do Obama and Democrats a huge favor (432 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's very misleading to say Obama's opening (22+ / 0-)

    offer was 1 trillion in revenue.

    That was as part of a grand bargain he was negotiating with Boehner. Grand bargain meaning chained CPI and $1 trillion spending cuts.

    Yeah, this deal only has 600 billion in revenue. But it also essentially $0 in spending cuts.

    I get the concern about the debt ceiling, but I dont really see how that showdown could be avoided by going over the cliff. To me, the only way it could be avoided was as part of a grand bargain, which again, would include more revenue, but also more thing liberals didnt like, such as chained CPI and spending cuts.

    •  It is misleading (7+ / 0-)

      It was 1.6T.

      And it was on the fiscal cliff deal, not the Grand Bargain.

      •  Here was Obama's opening offer (19+ / 0-)

        NYTimes:

        Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, provided a bit of good news this afternoon to those worried about painful compromises ahead in the negotiations over the fiscal cliff. President Obama, he said, still wants $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue (over a decade) in any package to reduce the deficit.

        That’s almost impossible to achieve without raising rates on high incomes. Reverting to Clinton-era rates on incomes greater than $250,000 would raise $1 trillion; the rest could come from capping deductions, the method Republicans prefer but which would be insufficient alone.

        Of course that’s just an opening position; the White House presumably is willing to come down from that number in talks with Republicans. But it’s more than the $1 trillion or so the president wanted in his talks with Speaker John Boehner in 2010, and sends a strong signal that the talks will have to yield far more than modest changes in the amount that rich people can deduct.

      •  A grand bargain to deal with the fiscal cliff (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chazz509

        When Boehner walked away from that, Obama publicly said that wont happen now, but maybe we can get the grand bargain done in stages, and that Congress should at least pass a small bill before the deadline. This is that "small bill."

        It's perfectly legitimate to question whether Obama can get more revenue in the future.

        But the comparison is disingenuous. Also, as I said, there are also essentially no spending cuts nor any cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.  

        And I dont quite see how the debt ceiling showdown could be avoided now, during the fiscal cliff, outside of a grand bargain.

        •  Uh no (4+ / 0-)

          You are just wrong on this, for some reason, stubbornly so.

          For example, the President's opening offer had no entitlement reform.

          •  Yeah, his opening offer (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chazz509

            is different than his final offer.

            I dont think anyone expected a first offer of 1.6 trillion in revenue, 400 billion in spending cuts and no entitlement reform to get through Congress. That's why it's a first offer.

            The final offer before Boehner walked away, from my understanding, based on news reports was around 1.2 trillion in revenue, 800 billion+ in spending cuts, along with chained CPI and a 400k rate threshold.

            When Boehner walked away, Obama said he wanted a smaller deal now and wanted to do that same grand bargain in steps.

          •  Funny, but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            I don't remember hearing about entitlement reform in the campaign rhetoric either.

            The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

            by Hillbilly Dem on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:20:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (4+ / 0-)

      There is no comparison This is 600 billions with NO CUTS.

      BOehner offered 800 but Kos forgets to say he asked for 3 time that in cuts.

      I don't think Obama is a great negotiator but here people are basically saying he is worse that an advanced Parkinson patient paying Operation or worse that he has a secret plan to destroy entitlements for fun

    •  That is the first cogent point (17+ / 0-)

      your side has made all day.

      Here's the thing though: that $0 in spending cuts? That's not final. That's not settled. That's still floating out there to be resolved.

      But the tax issue? That's permanent rates with no sunset provision.

      So you see what we are doing is cementing in place the vast majority of the Bush Tax Cuts, with no reciprocal cementing in place of what will happen with spending.

      That's not a good position to be in dealing with these guys.

      •  What's funny, is the GOP looks at the same thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KimD

        and sees a loss for their side.

        And I can see their point.

        They essentially conceded to Obama's position on the taxes, while getting nothing in return on spending.

        Obama, for better or worse, wanted a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts below 250k and he basically got that.

        Republicans fear they will never get spending cuts so they dont like the revenue only deal.

        Democrats fear the deal two months from now will be only spending cuts.

        •  Numerous articles "Tweeted" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          say that there is very little left in the "realm of Tax Reform" to negotiate, except for some of the "tax exemptions."

          That leaves "cuts."  And cuts, mean cuts to the social insurance programs.

          Tax reform (which will happen soon, when both parties agree to a tax overhaul, which "lowers the rates" (for the wealthy and corporations, and "broadens the base" (taxing the poor, working poor and middle classes).

          These are the two major goals of the President's own Fiscal Commission.

          Read The Moment of Truth (PDF).

          “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:09:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Of course it is. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          catfood

          They didn't get Democrats to cut spending and cut taxes for the rich. I mean, sure. But what could they have realistically expected having just lost an election? They can't expect to have their agenda implemented after having lost.

          But the problem is WE AREN"T GETTING OUR AGENDA either. Which sucks for us even worse because we actually did win our election.

          The bottom line is the President started these negotiations with a tough proposal and it was butressed by a lot of bluffing about how cool it would be to go over the cliff if he didn't get it.

          In the end, Republicans proved he was just bluffing because he conceded ground on every single point he demanded in that first offer. Except for the unemployment insurance which Republicans don't give a shit about.

          •  They control the House though (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wwjjd

            A lot of these "we won the election" comments should point the GOP still controls the House.

            It doesnt mean we should cave. But I'd like to know we get our agenda through a tea party controlled House.

            •  The same way (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Williston Barrett

              Clinton got his through a Contract With America house and Senate: you cut deals when you have maximum strength and extract the maximum price for any compromise. And when you don't have the strength to push through, you stand pat and hold firm no matter what.

              Clinton encountered just this sort of situation to the letter, but he outfoxed his much more nimble opponents. Yes, we took some blows but we also extracted maximum concessions when we needed to. Clinton got through those 6 years without a single change to his 1993 tax/economic plan. Not a ONE. That's negotiating skill.

              Part of the problem we have is that presidents come with different skill sets. President Obama is a great leader and he's a good administrator and diplomat. He's a great Commander in Chief. But when it comes to budget negotiations, he's just abysmal. I think it is because he's never been a Governor or a big city Mayor. You have to practice this sort of thing to be good at it. To know how to use a combination of carrots, sticks, pressure, and persuasion. You have to know the fake numbers, the real numbers, and the magic numbers. You have to be willing to lie, cheat, steal, and sometimes stab in the back.

              And the other side of it is he just doesn't have the passion for this sort of shit. He loves international affairs and social policy. But this kind of nitty gritty, in the mud, dirty grunt politics is not his forte. I've said it before and I'll say it again...he just doesn't LOVE politics.

            •  We DID NOT win the House election in 2012. (0+ / 0-)

              Every two years is a completely new House. We lost again in 2012, just not as badly as in 2010. Winning would be having a majority of all seats in the House.

    •  The Deal Has Cuts. (7+ / 0-)
      Yeah, this deal only has 600 billion in revenue. But it also essentially $0 in spending cuts.
      This deal was part one of a two-parter. This bill doesn't exist in isolation.

      You say this deal has $0 in cuts, that is absolutely not true. This bill has essentially $0 in cuts, the deal has an extraordinary amounts of cuts.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 02:37:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site