The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But Obama gives them too much?

So The GOP blocks everything and yet Obama bend over for them?

I guess (if it were true) that the GOP strategy was a good one?

Yup. That is true, it is exactly what Obama has been doing. He gave away single payer for the health bill, that angered his base, and last week, when he proactively came out and said, before negotiations, that he'd extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, his base went crazy. Don't forget one of his biggest campaign promises was not to extend that. Period.

BTW, this "deal" Obama made with the Senate may yet fall apart. All tax bills must come first from the House, anyway. Pelosi told Obama that some of her members are definitely not on board. There are GOP senators starting to publically defect on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, in favor of deficit reduction. The progressive wing of the House wants to hold the line at 1 million for tax cut extensions, period.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yup. That is true, it is exactly what Obama has been doing. He gave away single payer for the health bill, that angered his base, and last week, when he proactively came out and said, before negotiations, that he'd extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, his base went crazy. Don't forget one of his biggest campaign promises was not to extend that. Period.

BTW, this "deal" Obama made with the Senate may yet fall apart. All tax bills must come first from the House, anyway. Pelosi told Obama that some of her members are definitely not on board. There are GOP senators starting to publically defect on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, in favor of deficit reduction. The progressive wing of the House wants to hold the line at 1 million for tax cut extensions, period.

He gave away single payer? LOL. I guess you forgot that the obamacare debacle passed by a slim margin after buying off the skeptical. Single payer had no chance. Zero.

He said he would pass all the Bush tax ententions last week? Really? Did you see this on a wikileaks cable?

He has broken a lot of campaign promises but that isnt anything new for any politician. They say things to get elected and then once in office do things to stay elected. Hardly a big deal. How is Guantanamo working out?

If this deal doesnt get done it will be squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats. The GOP compromised and there is a fair deal that helps everyone, at least for a little while. Pelosi is a gift to the GOP that keeps on giving. She gave them the last election and is poised to give them the next one too. All in the name of redistribution!!!

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He gave away single payer? LOL. I guess you forgot that the obamacare debacle passed by a slim margin after buying off the skeptical. Single payer had no chance. Zero.

He said he would pass all the Bush tax ententions last week? Really? Did you see this on a wikileaks cable?

He has broken a lot of campaign promises but that isnt anything new for any politician. They say things to get elected and then once in office do things to stay elected. Hardly a big deal. How is Guantanamo working out?

If this deal doesnt get done it will be squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats. The GOP compromised and there is a fair deal that helps everyone, at least for a little while. Pelosi is a gift to the GOP that keeps on giving. She gave them the last election and is poised to give them the next one too. All in the name of redistribution!!!

pelosi = free gop votes..instead of empowering her still[ gutsiest move ive ever seen mav]they should be acting like she was the problem and exile her to
the most limited access possible. but they dont and wont..more free votes for gop..keep up the good work!! lol

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

the jack booted thugs at the gop have done it again..you have to admit riot.your in deep trouble and it will only get worse as the jobs forcast thats not faked in some chart becomes more and more in view. people dont have 'hope' and they are sick of 1/2 'change'

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46019.html

i like this one..bush as the us was fed up with him still had more juice than
obama..hmm

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46019.html

i like this one..bush as the us was fed up with him still had more juice than
obama..hmm

Do you like "all" of the article you quote?

Still, Bush’s 51 percent disapproval rating means he’s only one of two U.S. presidents in the past 50 years whose disapproval exceeds approval. The other is Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace 36 years ago and whose approval rating stands at 29 percent.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

the jack booted thugs at the gop have done it again..you have to admit riot.your in deep trouble and it will only get worse as the jobs forcast thats not faked in some chart becomes more and more in view. people dont have 'hope' and they are sick of 1/2 'change'

I'm not happy at all Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich. What happened to all the deficit hawks on the right, too? The deficit, and the unemployed American, turns out to be far less important than supporting the wealthy for the GOP. Good luck with that in 2012. The left will run a progressive against Obama's weak centrist position in the primaries at this point.

I've watched and supported the GOP for decades. They have failed me again, and again, and again. And the current incarnation of the GOP is a joke of itself. The GOP now is what used to be just the far right crazy wing of the 1980's. They don't even accept social programs that Reagan or Nixon promoted at this point. And their fiscal irresponsibility reached unimaginable new heights during Bush II.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm not happy at all Obama caved on tax cuts for the rich. What happened to all the deficit hawks on the right, too? The deficit, and the unemployed American, turns out to be far less important than supporting the wealthy for the GOP. Good luck with that in 2012. The left will run a progressive against Obama's weak centrist position in the primaries at this point.

I've watched and supported the GOP for decades. They have failed me again, and again, and again. And the current incarnation of the GOP is a joke of itself. The GOP now is what used to be just the far right crazy wing of the 1980's. They don't even accept social programs that Reagan or Nixon promoted at this point. And their fiscal irresponsibility reached unimaginable new heights during Bush II.

wow did you read what you wrote..the unemployed american may get a new job now..even socalist need jobs at some point..we like to call it ..get off the couch economics.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

wow did you read what you wrote..the unemployed american may get a new job now..even socalist need jobs at some point..we like to call it ..get off the couch economics.

In what fantasy world do you think that extending tax cuts, the same tax cuts that have been present during the loss of 800,000 jobs since 2001 and 2003, will magically create jobs?

"Trickle down economics" didn't work for Reagan (his deficit deepened), they didn't work for Bush, and they are not magically going to work now.

As I said before, even Reagan's economic advisor, Mr. Trickle Down himself David Stockmann, says do NOT increase the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it's bad for the economy!

Let's hope there are tons of jobs suddenly created with the next 2 years, for the GOP's sake. Because the sunset on these tax cuts, if passed, will be right in the middle of the election. Actually, we need 4 million jobs right now, because that's who is losing their jobless benefits in December that this "deal" won't cover.

[Riot]

He gave away single payer? LOL. I guess you forgot that the obamacare debacle passed by a slim margin after buying off the skeptical. Single payer had no chance. Zero.

Single payer was overwhelmingly supported by 70% of the public at the start of the healthcare debate.

Then the lies started about "death panels".

He said he would pass all the Bush tax ententions last week? Really? Did you see this on a wikileaks cable?

You really don't pay much attention to politics on a daily basis, do you?

Actually it was well before that. Here's the quote from November 6th:

"The White House signaled Wednesday that President Barack Obama is ready to cut a deal on the Bush-era tax cuts — accepting a temporary extension of the cuts for the wealthiest Americans to win renewal of tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44990.html and elsewhere.

If this deal doesnt get done it will be squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats.

Not in the eyes of his base. We'll see.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Single payer was overwhelmingly supported by 70% of the public at the start of the healthcare debate.

Then the lies started about "death panels".



You really don't pay much attention to politics on a daily basis, do you?

Actually it was well before that. Here's the quote from November 6th:

"The White House signaled Wednesday that President Barack Obama is ready to cut a deal on the Bush-era tax cuts — accepting a temporary extension of the cuts for the wealthiest Americans to win renewal of tax breaks for middle-class taxpayers."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44990.html and elsewhere.



Not in the eyes of his base. We'll see.

While admitting that I doubt the accuracy of your 70% number, I didn't know that the public was going to be voting on the measure. They had a majority in the House, Senate and Presidency and single payer was never close except in the wet dreams of the huffington crowd.

Uh your quote says "is ready to cut a deal". It isnt as though he was passing them as a matter of policy. He was negotiating. You know like give and take? It is part of being a politician.

His base? He won the election because he captured (tricked?)disgruntled Republicans and independents. Does anyone seriously believe that the lefties are going to try to run some schmuck like Feinstein against him? Or that they will suddenly vote against him in the 2012 election?

He is finally making deals that can only benefit him. The left is voting for him anyway, he can claim that he is a compromiser which is what indy's want and he can claim victory if the economy moves in the right direction and can blame the GOP for forcing this policy on him if the economy tanks.

[Riot]

The point of the healthcare debate is that Obama started too far towards compromise. Just like he did before this, saying he's willing to extend tax cuts for the rich before negotiations even started.

Obama got a second massive stimulus bill out of this, which will certainly help the economy and jobs, but nothing here is paid for. Nothing. I think that is a huge mistake.

I hope the House progressives holds out for eliminating tax cuts for those over 1 million just to pay for half of it. Shoot, go for 2 million. That'll still pay for nearly half of it.

The small business community should be far more thrilled with what Obama did here for them, than what the GOP did for the minority of the richest (making sure millionaires and billionaires keep their extra $25,000 a year).

Here's a reasonable summation from YahooFinance (Greg somebody, their financial columnist)

It's taken two years, but President Obama and Congressional Republicans may finally have found something they can agree on. Over the weekend, the contours of a deal on taxes emerged, and Obama announced details of the compromise Monday evening. The existing tax rates on income and investments will stay where they are for the next two years, rather than rise on January 1. In return, President Obama won a bunch of concessions on short-term fiscal stimulus.

To a large degree, the deal represents a shift in strategy and tactics by the White House. But this isn't a sign of Obama tacking to the center, or even triangulating between Democrats and Republicans. It's a sign of Obama tacking toward reality. For the past two years, Obama & Co. had wagered that simply governing, proposing, and enacting solutions to long-term problems (health care, the bankruptcy of most of the domestic auto industry and financial sector) and presiding over incremental improvements from the horrible situation they inherited would be sufficient to maintain popularity and prospects for re-election. That theory came apart with the big losses in November.

Once the shock of the November election wore off, Obama recognized that the slow pace of recovery and jobs growth are the greatest threats to a second presidential term. And so he was eager to cut a deal on taxes. Never mind that the tax cuts were designed to expire at the end of this year. And never mind that keeping them intact on the highest earners would have little impact on overall economic growth. His problem is that he believes — and virtually every economist agrees — that the economy needs more stimulus. But throughout 2010, even with Democratic control of both Houses of Congress, the administration found that further fiscal stimulus was foreclosed. Tax credits for new jobs and extended unemployment benefits were stymied by the willingness of the Republican Senate caucus to hold once-routine measures hostage. That left the Federal Reserve, with its dwindling ammunition and credibility, as the sole stimulative force. And as recent experience has shown, allowing banks to borrow money more cheaply doesn't quickly filter into more hiring and more consumer spending.

Since January 2009, Republicans, time and again, have proven willing to vote against legislative items they once supported — on health care, on the environment, on weapons control — simply because they thought their passage would benefit Democrats politically. But there's one thing Republicans care about more than anything: lower taxes, especially for the wealthy. By caving to the Republicans on marginal income tax rates, Obama was able to extract the short-term, largely progressive stimulus he badly needs.

Republicans signed off on a payroll tax holiday, reducing the Social Security tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for 2011. Because the tax is regressive — it falls on the first $100,000 or so of all payroll income — this is a progressive tax cut. It puts money into the hands of all workers instantly, and could provide $120 billion in stimulus in 2011. As Charles Babington of the Associated Press noted: "More than three-fourths of all Americans pay more in these so-called payroll taxes than in federal income taxes."

Republicans also agreed to the payment of extended unemployment benefits through the end of 2011. This represents an important source of cash for people at lower income levels. More important, it takes an item of perpetual disagreement off the table for 12 months. Every time Republicans stonewalled extension, it made the White House look impotent.

Businesses were also given a sweetener — next year they can write off 100 percent of new investments in capital goods, up from 50 percent this year. Taken together, these three items should spur additional spending, investment, and — it's hoped — jobs in 2011.

(Aside from corporations, the only people who will have to make substantial changes in tax preparation in 2011 are the handful of folks who expect to leave estates valued at more than $5 million. The proposed deal would ward off a sharp increase in the estate tax, and have only the portion of estates worth more than $5 million be taxed at a 35 percent rate.)

At root, the willingness to deal illustrates a point the punditocracy largely misses. To a large degree, electoral success is a function of macroeconomic success. The work of political scientists like John Sides and Seth Masket convincingly shows a marked connection between economic performance and the degree to which voters are willing to reward incumbents. Economist Ray Fair of Yale University has models that predict, with a good deal of accuracy, the outcomes of presidential and Congressional elections based on a model that includes data on GDP growth, inflation, and unemployment. Simply put, when economic growth has been above trend in the quarters leading up to an election, and inflation is low, the incumbent usually wins.

So what would seem to be a new step toward bipartisanship is in fact partisanship by other means. Obama is gambling that the risk he takes by angering his own base is worth the reward of potentially higher growth in 2011 and 2012. Macroeconomic Advisers, one of the forecasters I trust the most, now projects growth of 3.7 percent for 2011 and 4.0 percent for 2012. Should that come good, it would boost President Obama's re-election prospects much more than if he were to go on an Outward Bound expedition with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

The deal will present a new set of problems. Republicans will take credit for stopping tax hikes, but pin responsibility for the much larger deficits on Obama. They'll continue to filibuster everything in Washington, including the buffet in the Senate dining room. That's just how they roll.

What's more, the extensions are for two years, meaning they will come up again in the fall of 2012 and early 2013. Obama's making a wager that this deal makes it more likely he'll be president when the time comes to cut the next deal on tax rates.

[dellinger63]

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

[dellinger63]

Maybe he simply needs to be told we need program cuts of 900 billion?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

the vast majority of that 900b is from not allowing the 250k and up tax cut to expire, but you knew that.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Please stop this guy from trying to save us money. He backs down from raising taxes on the rich (even though he said we could not afford to do so) and now robs from social security, lowers payroll taxes and a whole slew of other add on's at a cost of $900 Billion More?

Please go back to India.

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40545954

You simply can't raise or lower taxes when you are in a depression and carrying all this debt. Is it a desperate attempt to even have an iota of a chance of getting re-elcted?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The point of the healthcare debate is that Obama started too far towards compromise. Just like he did before this, saying he's willing to extend tax cuts for the rich before negotiations even started.

Obama got a second massive stimulus bill out of this, which will certainly help the economy and jobs, but nothing here is paid for. Nothing. I think that is a huge mistake.

I hope the House progressives holds out for eliminating tax cuts for those over 1 million just to pay for half of it. Shoot, go for 2 million. That'll still pay for nearly half of it.

The small business community should be far more thrilled with what Obama did here for them, than what the GOP did for the minority of the richest (making sure millionaires and billionaires keep their extra $25,000 a year).
Here's a reasonable summation from YahooFinance (Greg somebody, their financial columnist)

LOL

oh ok. Now it was all Obama's idea?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL

oh ok. Now it was all Obama's idea?

Holding like a brick wall on tax cuts for the wealthy is the GOP idea. The estate tax at 5 million (rather than 3) and at 35% (rather than 55%) was GOP. Yeah - the rest of the stuff for business was Obama.

Do you literally simply never pay attention to the news at all?