Welcome to the Fringe

[lawgator1]

So you don't think a sticking point in the senate and WH is the length of the extension?

One more.

Would Obama pass the Reid bill if it got there?

Of course the length of the extension is a political issue. As are the absence of any revenue increases via the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the top incomes. The former the public cares about only because they are bored with this and think everyone is being childish. The latter the public OVERWHELMINGLY supports Obama and the Dems on. That's what the TPers don't yet seme to grasp.

I think Obama has said he would sign the Reid bill.




On related matters, heard last night that the thought was to add into the Boehner bill a constitutional amendment vote on a balanced budget a la the earlier House bill (or something similar). The reason I thought that report was likely true is the speech by McCain on the floor a few days ago.

Some time back, the GOP and the TPers demanded that any increase in the debt ceiling be tied to long term budget reform. Obama said he wanted a clean increase. They said no.

Flash forward to 4 days before the deadline, and the House cannot pass their own leader's own bill without some sort of pie-in-the-sky condition that has no prayer of passing the Senate.

And this, incidentally, is why a lot of the TP members are having trouble with it. They say, why should I vote for the Boehner bill when it cannot pass the Senate anyway and I'll look like I am backing off of the big cut/balanced budget amendment approach of the original TP product from a few weeks ago?

That's a valid political concern.

 

[BeecherVol]

Of course the length of the extension is a political issue. As are the absence of any revenue increases via the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the top incomes. The former the public cares about only because they are bored with this and think everyone is being childish. The latter the public OVERWHELMINGLY supports Obama and the Dems on. That's what the TPers don't yet seme to grasp.

I think Obama has said he would sign the Reid bill.




On related matters, heard last night that the thought was to add into the Boehner bill a constitutional amendment vote on a balanced budget a la the earlier House bill (or something similar). The reason I thought that report was likely true is the speech by McCain on the floor a few days ago.

Some time back, the GOP and the TPers demanded that any increase in the debt ceiling be tied to long term budget reform. Obama said he wanted a clean increase. They said no.

Flash forward to 4 days before the deadline, and the House cannot pass their own leader's own bill without some sort of pie-in-the-sky condition that has no prayer of passing the Senate.

And this, incidentally, is why a lot of the TP members are having trouble with it. They say, why should I vote for the Boehner bill when it cannot pass the Senate anyway and I'll look like I am backing off of the big cut/balanced budget amendment approach of the original TP product from a few weeks ago?

That's a valid political concern.

Something we agree on.

Basically.
1. Obama wants the issue to go away for the next 18 mnths, doesn't matter if the real issue (which is overspending) is addressed or not.

2. He doesn't want anything that holds his feet to fire in making cuts. In other words we can talk about cuts in general because it sounds "balanced" then when the time comes to "talk turkey" not much happens.

In regards to "balanced" IIRC his speech on Monday mentioned tax increases on 250k and up being a must. Would he not have an issue here with Reid? Or is his plan so crappy when it comes to real cuts that he could let it slide as long as the ceiling is removed?

 

[lawgator1]

Something we agree on.

Basically.
1. Obama wants the issue to go away for the next 18 mnths, doesn't matter if the real issue (which is overspending) is addressed or not.

False. He will cut up to $3 trillion in spending if the Repubs will give up just $1 trillion in Bush tax cuts and loopholes. But they won't.

2. He doesn't want anything that holds his feet to fire in making cuts. In other words we can talk about cuts in general because it sounds "balanced" then when the time comes to "talk turkey" not much happens.

False. He will sign a bill as above. He won't sign one that is pure cuts, and then demands more cuts, with no increase in the taxes on the very wealthiest Americans. I honestly don't know why people act surprised by that. He's a Democrat. Taking that kind of position is why people voted for him in the first place.


In regards to "balanced" IIRC his speech on Monday mentioned tax increases on 250k and up being a must. Would he not have an issue here with Reid? Or is his plan so crappy when it comes to real cuts that he could let it slide as long as the ceiling is removed?

He wants the tax increase but said he would sign the Reid bill in the interim to get past the current crisis. The Boehner bill or the TP bill from a few weeks ago do nothing but cut and or lock in further cuts with balanced budget amendments and other unworkable type solutions.

The GOP bill and the TP bill are fine in my mind in terms of cuts. At least theoretically. The disconnect remains that Obama wants either 1) a clean increase in the debt limit; or 2) if it is to be congintenton cuts, then he makes that contingent on increased taxes on the wealthy.

The House has two camps right now. Boehner would like to do some cuts to satisfy the far right and with the promise of more, figuring it will be a good issue for them next November. The TP wants to just cut entitlement spending and "reform" the tax code to lighten taxes on the wealthy and impose them on the poorest increase them on the lower middle class.

Both sides are engaging in class warfare.

 

[sjt18]

Of course the length of the extension is a political issue. As are the absence of any revenue increases via the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the top incomes. The former the public cares about only because they are bored with this and think everyone is being childish. The latter the public OVERWHELMINGLY supports Obama and the Dems on. That's what the TPers don't yet seme to grasp.

You can look at poll after poll that says the public believes spending, not taxes, is the problem. Polls also show that people are worried that cuts will be smoke and mirrors while the tax increases will be real.

You can think as you like but Americans do not believe that they as a people are undertaxed. They do believe by a fairly wide majority that gov't spending is out of control.

I think Obama has said he would sign the Reid bill.

Really? The Reid bill was overwhelmingly rejected by the Dem controlled Senate. That clearly shows who is really "fringe" and out of touch.

Some time back, the GOP and the TPers demanded that any increase in the debt ceiling be tied to long term budget reform. Obama said he wanted a clean increase. They said no.

Right. He wants any excuse he can find to once again kick the can down the road. "Give me a clean bill that increases taxes now and promises to cut spending sometime later." He knows those cuts will never happen.

Flash forward to 4 days before the deadline, and the House cannot pass their own leader's own bill without some sort of pie-in-the-sky condition that has no prayer of passing the Senate.

And this, incidentally, is why a lot of the TP members are having trouble with it. They say, why should I vote for the Boehner bill when it cannot pass the Senate anyway and I'll look like I am backing off of the big cut/balanced budget amendment approach of the original TP product from a few weeks ago?

That's a valid political concern.

Over 70% of the American people want a balanced budget amendment. The House should pass it. Pass it again. Pass it again... they should actually go back to their original proposal and pass it every day until Obama actually puts something on the table that can be scored and voted on... then there will be a basis for negotiation.

 

[sjt18]

Increasing taxes is not "balanced". Conservatives want taxes to be lower. He wants them to be higher. "COMPROMISE" is leaving them as they are.

He wants gov't to grow at least $10 trillion over the next 10 years. Conservatives actually want it to shrink in real terms so that the budget 10 years ago is less than $3.8 trillion in inflation adjusted dollars. It is very much a compromise to let gov't grow at no more than $5 trillion.

The proposal the GOP already passed is VERY balanced. In fact, it splits right down the middle of the two poles. The GOP strategic error is that they should have started with a bill that had tax reform (simplification, elimination of loopholes, lower rates) AND a growth rate limited to half the prior year's GDP growth. Then maybe they could have negotiated back to their "balanced" proposal and had this done by now.

 

[sjt18]

The TP wants to just cut entitlement spending and "reform" the tax code to lighten taxes on the wealthy and impose them on the poorest increase them on the lower middle class.

Both sides are engaging in class warfare.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? You now know it is a lie. You have now been clearly shown that conservatives DO NOT want to tax the poor or middle class more. You have been shown that they want everyone's rate to go down and for revenues to increase based on a robust economic expansion.

Again, why do you keep repeating something as blatantly false as this? Please show where the TP or any conservative has proposed a tax on the poor or middle class.

 

[utvolpj]

1. Obama wants the issue to go away for the next 18 mnths, doesn't matter if the real issue (which is overspending) is addressed or not.

False. He will cut up to $3 trillion in spending if the Repubs will give up just $1 trillion in Bush tax cuts and loopholes. But they won't.

link to this well known plan?

 

[sjt18]

False. He will cut up to $3 trillion in spending if the Repubs will give up just $1 trillion in Bush tax cuts and loopholes. But they won't.

False. He is not willing to propose nor sign spending cuts that occur immediately. He's made that clear. He's playing the same double speak political games that they've played for years while getting us into this mess.

 

[sjt18]

When Obama invited Common, what did you have to say about that?

Nothing here. I thought it was very poor judgment on his part.

In this case, Perry is inviting these loons to be speakers at his big shin dig. I'd say he thoroughly endorses what they say if he invited them.

OK so we can look up everyone who has spoken for a liberal politician and hold them responsible for every "looney" viewpoint, right?

 

[lawgator1]

You can look at poll after poll that says the public believes spending, not taxes, is the problem. Polls also show that people are worried that cuts will be smoke and mirrors while the tax increases will be real.


They think both are the solution. That is where the GOP is making its biggest mistake. People are hurting. No job, underpaying job, expenses going up. And now the GOP wants to cut programs that are their safety net while corporations have record earnings and give out bonuses so large as to be incomprehensible to the average man.

You keep singing that tune and the Dems will soon have a supermajority in both houses.



You can think as you like but Americans do not believe that they as a people are undertaxed. They do believe by a fairly wide majority that gov't spending is out of control.


They think the wealthy are undertaxed.


Really? The Reid bill was overwhelmingly rejected by the Dem controlled Senate. That clearly shows who is really "fringe" and out of touch.
Right. He wants any excuse he can find to once again kick the can down the road. "Give me a clean bill that increases taxes now and promises to cut spending sometime later." He knows those cuts will never happen.


What? When did the current Reid bill get voted on?


Over 70% of the American people want a balanced budget amendment. The House should pass it. Pass it again. Pass it again... they should actually go back to their original proposal and pass it every day until Obama actually puts something on the table that can be scored and voted on... then there will be a basis for negotiation.

This is not the right circumstance for a balanced budget amendment to be debated. It has significant consequences and deserves close and deliberate consideration, not panicked acceptance.

See above.

 

[therealUT]

SJT, if a liberal wanted SS benefits increased right now, would you say that liberal was compromising by demanding no cuts?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

No, Reid and Obama agree on how to move forward.

I would actually say that is true. They have decided to let the GOP House keep doing all the work while they sit on the sideline and demagogue and yell "NO".

Obama has yet to have a proposal scored or written into legislation. Reid's proposal was so bad that it got smashed by the Dem Senate.

Difference is, TP insists on that which cannot be done and its Boehner's job to get passed something which can be done -- or at least something that, if it didn't get done, could be used to damage the Dems in the next elections.

Difference is, the House is doing its job while the Prez and Senate are playing politics as usual.

Boehner realizes his plan will not pass the Senate. The whole point of passing it in the House is to set up that the Dems wouldn't go for something reasonable, and so its the Dems' fault we defaulted/lost rating/suffered more, etc.

It is the Dems fault if they fail to pass his legislation and fail to offer any of their own.

But if Boehner has to put into too much junk too satisfy the TP members just to get it out of the House, it weakens the argument that the Dems rejected a reasonable compromise.

I have no doubt that the left and MSM will spin it that way. Truth is more than likely going to be a casualty here...

There is no way that the House and Senate will send to Obama a bill. The House has to go too far right in order to do that. The TPers have it in their head that they can simultaneously weaken Boehner and hurt Obama by sticking to their guns.

NO. The TP and real conservatives have it in their head that they should stick up for principles and force their elected officials to do the same for once.

The gamble they take is in believing the American people are too stupid to see what they are doing. The media is trying to get the word out. But it will take some time to see if the strategy paid off.

Nope. The gamble they take is that leftists like you will be effective in pinning the blame on the only ones to actually propose and pass a bill. That somehow they will not be able to get the important point out that the Dems resisted because they hate the Balanced Budget Amendment which over 70% of the public supports.

The certainly risk that the public will never know that the reason they would not and could not back off is that they shared the public's concern that the cuts would not be real while the tax increases were.

Their risk here is that demagogury will be an effective club to beat them with for trying to actually do something that can resolve the problem.

 

[sjt18]

LG, if compromise is what Obama is all about then why can't he just come out and say, "I would rather have tax increases now but since we can't... we're going to take the spending cuts we can agree on"?

The American people already rejected a lapse of the Bush tax cuts through their reps when both houses were still held by Dems... Remember that? Now he's trying to use this crisis to backdoor that issue in with Reps sharing the blame. They are absolutely right to say no... and you are WAY overestimating the depth of support for Obama on that idea. Remember, as a stand alone issue, it already failed to pass.

 

[sjt18]

SJT, if a liberal wanted SS benefits increased right now, would you say that liberal was compromising by demanding no cuts?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Why do you say "if"? The increases are already built in to the "baseline" that they are supposedly cutting from.

The answer to your question is actually yes with that fact in mind. If someone was proposing to cut them in inflation adjusted dollars and the liberal wanted to increase them in inflation adjusted dollars, it would be a "compromise" to adjust them only at inflation.

 

[NEO]

if you don't slow down, you're going to start using phrases like "behind the woodshed", "real world outside your back door", and "game, set, match"

seriously, dude, you're dangerously close to becoming a gibbsian troll.

i used the term fringe because that is what we have been labeled as.

Volinbham also said we will be easily forgotten. I like you bham but you are wrong on this scenerio ... and I very rarely think you are wrong.

If we actually get a debt balancing amendment passed in the House and it goes to the Senate we have achieved alot. It will come back down from the Senate with it removed but as long as we stick together they will eventually have to pass the amendment.

This will be in the history books forever and it will be down because the TP stuck to its guns.

 

[NEO]

But yes, we are taking the POTUS behind the woodshed right now.

It is not game set match though.

The whole thing could easily crumble.

 

[therealUT]

Why do you say "if"? The increases are already built in to the "baseline" that they are supposedly cutting from.

The answer to your question is actually yes with that fact in mind. If someone was proposing to cut them in inflation adjusted dollars and the liberal wanted to increase them in inflation adjusted dollars, it would be a "compromise" to adjust them only at inflation.

What if the liberal wanted it increased ten times as much s the rate it is set to increase? Would you say said liberal was compromising if he stood firm at a five fold increase?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

LG, the vote on the BBA would not make it law. It would simply begin the Amendment process.

 

[sjt18]

What if the liberal wanted it increased ten times as much s the rate it is set to increase? Would you say said liberal was compromising if he stood firm at a five fold increase?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Have you ever negotiated the price of anything?

Two part answer:

One, there is a point at which you just have to say, "We can't do business".

Two, if you know that the other guy is trying to pull you then you move your offer as well.

If this political business is done well and explained well (and even handedly) then the public is the arbitor of where the "compromise" should fall.

Do you think that average person answering polls about this debate is aware that the cuts aren't really cuts? Do you think they are aware that the "cuts" the GOP have proposed would STILL increase gov't spending by a rate greater than GDP growth? Do you think the average person knows that the cuts that have been proposed by the Dems would not really kick in for years while the tax increases would be immediate? When most people hear "cut", they think next year if not this year. That's the way they do it at home.

 

[NEO]

if the general public is the arbitor we are screwed.

I heard about 8 employees talking and they are brain waished obama fans.

 

[sjt18]

if the general public is the arbitor we are screwed.

I heard about 8 employees talking and they are brain waished obama fans.

IF both sides can get their story out on equal terms, I respect and believe in the American people to make the call. The problem is that over 80% of the paid media operates from a leftwing worldview while most of them really do believe they are objective... Those are the most dangerous ones.

I believe if the positions of the two sides had been clearly laid out in front of the American people, the GOP bill would have already passed. The people DO want a BBA. I think most would see gov't growth of over 4% more than a sufficient compromise on the part of the GOP.

Yes. The GOP bears part of the blame but they know from experience that what they say will not be reported "cleanly".

I have been somewhat disappointed that none of the TP groups have run commercials clearly spelling out their position or demanding that the Prez produce a proposal that can be scored and voted on.

 

[NEO]

Can't get it out in equal terms.

Most people don't even follow the news and have their beliefs based on 3rd party friend info.

 

[sjt18]

Can't get it out in equal terms.

Most people don't even follow the news and have their beliefs based on 3rd party friend info.

That's reason for hope if TPer's will make it a point for their members to talk policy with their neighbors in a benign, non-pushy way.

I talk to people frequently who end up saying, "Oh, I didn't know that" or "Oh, I had never really thought about that".

Yes LG... I have converted more than one "moderate" or uninformed Dem to the "dark side".

 

[NEO]

I have converted about 20 of my staff so far. I have fox on in the break room. A few appear to be finally waking up.

 

[sjt18]

In a clear example of his "leadership ability", Obama today told Congress to "get it done"... while he of course did absolutely nothing but take shots at the GOP for trying to "get it done". How even someone as blindly liberal as LG can't see that this guy is an empty suit is beyond me.