Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to GOP: Your move (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i'm not going to speculate (20+ / 0-)

    on whether or not he gets it. i'm just going to stick with what he must do.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:19:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know that I've seen the president (12+ / 0-)

      so resolute as he is on this point. There is no equivocation in his position on this one, and with good reason.
         This one is a no-brainer. Congress is simply obliged to authorize the government to pay its bills. The president stands on rock-solid ground on this one. The Republicans on the other hand are on some pretty thin ice here, and the weather is only going to get warmer.

         No, Obama's got their number on the debt-ceiling nonsense. That he won't give on this one seems apparent.
          What I do worry about is what he might give away on the debt-reduction side. He can play it very tough because the R's are bumbling and fumbling all over the place, looking like inept blowhards. And what they want is not popular.
          But the president tends to soften up when he doesn't have to, hoping to ultimately get co-operation from people who do not co-operate.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:02:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP's play with the "our kids future" card (5+ / 0-)

        is disingenuous.  The have already stacked the cards against them with cuts to food stamps and welfare, school lunches, cuts in education both at the local and national level, the push for non-standardized education in voucher schools, fighting every step of keeping the air and water clean, sending fathers and mothers to war to die, unnecessarily I might add, then cutting or delaying benefits for survivors.  The don't want to clean up after disasters, the won't stimulate the economy so their parents have jobs, they don't want them to have health care or a college education and they don't want to put any effort into them once they leave the uterus, unless they are in religious homes.

        Now I ask what kind of future has the GOP set up for them and what are they saving them from?  

        Oh and now they want them to daily be exposed to guns in their schools.

        Just don't buy that the GOP give a sh$$ about our children or their futures, unless it is the children and grandchildren of the GOP and their wealthy supporters.

      •   He may find ignoring their crap = bipartisanship (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Neocons and their Frankenstein teabagger spawn only compromise when backed into a corner with no escape. At that point you might squeeze some reason out of them. Then with luck he'll mostly take strong positions when negotiating and show them who's the Daddy.

    •  Yep. I don't know if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the President "caves" in negotiations,
      or if
      he's a "bad negotiator",
      or if
      he arranges things to get exactly what he wants and make it look like he was "forced to do it".  (Still don't know why he took the 14th amend and platinum coin off the table.)

      Doesn't matter.
      I watch what he does.

      •  He took them of the table (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kat68, aitchdee

        because it would put the onus on him at the end and the pressures would not be there on the GOP before the ceiling is reached because folks assume there is a presidential escape valve. There is not.

      •  You don't leave money on the table. But seriously, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... the Magic Coin is frivolous chicanery. A gimmick. We can't prevent the House from looking petty, small and delusional, but the President shouldn't be.

        The 14th Amendment, however, is different and although its use would be controversial, it is a constitutional provision and that clearly trumps an act of stupidity Congress.

        I think Obama took the direct approach because (1) it is correct and (2) it puts the politics on this issue where it belongs.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:38:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh horsesh*t. The Platinum Coin is quite valid. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Most ALL  of our currency is magic, a fiat currency. You do know that, don't you?

          But did you know about the
          Sacagawea dollar - Wikipedia, the free Sacagawea dollar (also known as the "golden dollar") is a United States dollar coin that has been minted every year since 2000, although not released for ...

          We were researching traveling to Ecuador recently and discovered that they are in circulation as valid currency there.  Panama uses our money, calls it the Balboa.

          Our government does all kinds of magic shift with our money. But I digress.

          On this part you may be correct:

          I think Obama took the direct approach because (1) it is correct and (2) it puts the politics on this issue where it belongs.
          Or you may be wrong.   He took them off so that he will be able to negotiate at the last minute for the cuts he has been saying he wants to make.
          Establishes a foundation for additional balanced, pro-growth deficit reduction through tax and entitlement reform:The agreement leaves substantial scope for reducing tax expenditures for high-income households, reforming corporate taxes to broaden the base and cut the rate to make America more competitive,and to take further steps to reform entitlements.
          We can argue what that means, but right now, its all opinion......

          Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

          by divineorder on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:15:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  With respect, hogwash. (0+ / 0-)

            You put the Magic Coin in the same category as the currency of the US? That is delusional.

            I don't know where you got that second block quoted section ... but it wasn't from me. Attribute, please, before someone else thinks you are quoting me on that stuff.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 03:49:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  From the WH website (0+ / 0-)


              Last paragraph in the list of items.
              Glad you distance yourself from it.

              •  Thanks! And Yup, no one's ever claimed I'm a ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... shill for this administration.

                That said, I am very much in favor of "additional balanced, pro-growth deficit reduction through tax and entitlement reform ..."

                And, who among us is against reducing tax expenditures for high-income households? Reforming corporate taxes?

                As for "cut the rate to make America more competitive", I want to know more. If there's a stronger minimum corporate AMT or other threshold below which corporations who make a profit must pay taxes on it, I could see cutting the top rate.

                As for "further steps to reform entitlements," I'd certainly like to know what "entitlements" they're talking about and - with precision - what "steps" they'd take to "reform" them. If that means increasing the contribution rate or the cap on incomes to fund the bundle of SS, Medicare and Medicaid, or some kind of means testing, I'd sure consider it.

                Wouldn't you?

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:53:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, lets see... (0+ / 0-)

                  "pro-growth deficit reduction".  We need more stimulus, not austerity.  Deficit reduction, reduced govt spending,  is part of austerity not stimulus.

                  "reducing tax expenditures for high-income households"
                  i.e. cutting taxes for high-income households.

                  "reforming corporate taxes" and "cut the rate"
                  i.e. cut corporate taxes.

                  "reform entitlements" i.e. cut SS/MM benefits.  

                  It reads like  stimulus-for-high-wealth-people

                  So I'm guessing your post is a snark.

                  •  No snark intended. To take your points ... (0+ / 0-)

                    1. We agree that we need stimulus such as infrastructure spending that boosts economic growth. Like you, I'd like it without any more austerity measures, but that's very likely. You don't agree that the cost of getting stimulus spending through an obdurate GOP-controlled house may be reduced spending in other areas. If we have to give up spending on things like the military budget and subsidies that are unwarranted (like for oil exploration), I'm willing. I'm wary as hell, but I'm willing. Not all government spending is good. Agree?

                    2. You're wrong on your decoding of the phrase "tax expenditures". That is the term used for deductions, credits, preferences and flat-out gimmicks that grant certain activities a break through the tax-code, as opposed to outright Congressional spending like subsidy payments. So "reducing tax expenditures for high-income households" means decreasing the availability of those gimmicks (like "carried interest" and the rates on dividends and capital gains), thereby raising the effective rate paid by those who take advantage of those "tax expenditures." That's not an opinion; it's a fact. Ask someone else if you doubt.

                    3. If Congress really does "reform" corporate taxes, I'd be willing to reduce the overall rate ... so long as there are real reductions and they don't return in other guises. (I am very skeptical of tax reform generally. I don't think it will happen because of all the special interests that will protect each provision.) But the White House statement addresses the key problem - the accumulation of those gimmicks means GE et al doesn't pay much, if anything, in taxes and the rate has nothing to do with that. If reducing the rate is the carrot that will drive reform, I'd go with the strategy but wait to implement rate cuts until I see the reform.

                    4. "Reform entitlements" bothers me, too, just as I wrote before. I'm dead set against SS cuts (unnecessary for many, many years) and very wary of M&M cuts, but I am willing to explore other ways to address the growing funding crisis for Medicaid. Many Progressives I read accept that and are proposing workable political alternatives to the things we don't like. Just saying No won't cut it.

                    You see these things as pure. Being unwilling to consider compromise makes us no more realistic than the Tea Party zealots. Some Progressives seem to believe that we can get all 'er nothing. Much as we'd like to be pure, laws don't get through sharply divided Congresses with that attitude.

                    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:01:39 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, give the GOP rope to hang themselves (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aitchdee, TRPChicago

          This is a rare instance when the best thing Obama and our party can do is sit back, break out the popcorn, and watch the show.

          Default is a catastrophe that awaits the GOP if they try this stupid stunt. Their economic and political ignorance would be exposed for all the world to see.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site