Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 192

Thread: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

  1. #121
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    He's never upset about Republicans doing anything. It's only evil if it's a Dem.
    Well, here's the deal - President Obama won reelection with 332 electoral votes over 206 for the opposition and by more than 4,400,000 popular vote margin. No one has won with those margins since Reagan's second term. When Bush barely squeaked by Kerry in 2004, he claimed a mandate. Sorry, GOP, but you can't have it both ways.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    More of the people want reduced federal spending than a tax increase (even if that tax increase is only on "rich people").
    Yeah, just as long as that 'federal spending' isn't on something that directly benefits them.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  3. #123
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    Yeah, just as long as that 'federal spending' isn't on something that directly benefits them.
    Of course! That is precisely the same attitude as for favoring increased taxation.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You seem lost.

    The point was republicans have over years also played my way or the highway. This requires not looking at the article, but the posters words in op. then measuring his words and mine against history.
    Again, what evidence supports your point?

    And yes, I have been following this kind of stuff for many years. When republicans had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, then, yes, they did not want to give concessions to Dems. Do you have any proof that the Dems acted any differently when they had all the control?

    Over the last two years, ever since this current battle began, the Reps have held out on Defense and Taxes. I have seen no other issue that they have stood firm on. They have compromised on depth and breath of cuts to entitlements. The Reps first relented and gave some compromise on Defense. Now they have Relented on Taxes also. First proposing changing tax code to eliminate some deductions/loopholes and then relenting on making tax increases apply across the board instead of targeted. The Dems/Obama have offered up some cuts, but mostly to Rep sponsored programs. They have not given much on entitlement reform or Taxes. The Reps have pretty much given compromises now on everything and the Dems/Obama have compromised pretty much on nothing. Have the Reps caved in on anything, not that I know of, but maybe, but they have compromised. Where is that spirit of compromise from the other side?

    Other than completely caving in and giving Obama and Dems everything they want, what other compromises do they have left to give? What concessions have Obama and the Dems given? How much compromise has been given on entitlement reforms? Obama is not only not giving in much on that issue, he is actually proposing another $200 Billion in entitlements. His only concession to cutting entitlements so far, from what has been published and that I have seen, is a $350 Billion cut to Medicare spread out over 10 years.

    Where is any plan from Obama or a Dem that is being proposed that will actually address reducing Deficit spending and the debt during a time period where they would actually have some control? Members of the House face elections every 2 years, the Senate every 6 years with 1/3 of them having to run during each election cycle and Presidents serve for 4 year terms. Any law passed by the current congress can be amended or completely thrown out, including budgets, by any future congress. How can he promise anything 10 years in the future when he only has Limited control of it for only the next 4 years? Yes, he can promise it, but any knowledgeable and reasonable person would quickly realize that it is a false promise, because he doesn't have control of the process for the time span given. He wants to spend what he wants to spend and tries to convince other to let him based upon promises that are nothing but suggestions to future Congresses and Presidents.

    I for one want to see plans to cut spending, develop revenue and control debt for the time span that he will have some control. I just don't see that from Obama or the Dems.

    The future tax burden that is being built up now can and will have economic impact into the future. I wonder, what would a bank tell me if I applied for a very large loan and line of credit with only the promise that my children and grand children would pay it back? That is what the Dems/Obama are doing.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Again, what evidence supports your point?

    And yes, I have been following this kind of stuff for many years. When republicans had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, then, yes, they did not want to give concessions to Dems. Do you have any proof that the Dems acted any differently when they had all the control?

    Over the last two years, ever since this current battle began, the Reps have held out on Defense and Taxes. I have seen no other issue that they have stood firm on. They have compromised on depth and breath of cuts to entitlements. The Reps first relented and gave some compromise on Defense. Now they have Relented on Taxes also. First proposing changing tax code to eliminate some deductions/loopholes and then relenting on making tax increases apply across the board instead of targeted. The Dems/Obama have offered up some cuts, but mostly to Rep sponsored programs. They have not given much on entitlement reform or Taxes. The Reps have pretty much given compromises now on everything and the Dems/Obama have compromised pretty much on nothing. Have the Reps caved in on anything, not that I know of, but maybe, but they have compromised. Where is that spirit of compromise from the other side?

    Other than completely caving in and giving Obama and Dems everything they want, what other compromises do they have left to give? What concessions have Obama and the Dems given? How much compromise has been given on entitlement reforms? Obama is not only not giving in much on that issue, he is actually proposing another $200 Billion in entitlements. His only concession to cutting entitlements so far, from what has been published and that I have seen, is a $350 Billion cut to Medicare spread out over 10 years.

    Where is any plan from Obama or a Dem that is being proposed that will actually address reducing Deficit spending and the debt during a time period where they would actually have some control? Members of the House face elections every 2 years, the Senate every 6 years with 1/3 of them having to run during each election cycle and Presidents serve for 4 year terms. Any law passed by the current congress can be amended or completely thrown out, including budgets, by any future congress. How can he promise anything 10 years in the future when he only has Limited control of it for only the next 4 years? Yes, he can promise it, but any knowledgeable and reasonable person would quickly realize that it is a false promise, because he doesn't have control of the process for the time span given. He wants to spend what he wants to spend and tries to convince other to let him based upon promises that are nothing but suggestions to future Congresses and Presidents.

    I for one want to see plans to cut spending, develop revenue and control debt for the time span that he will have some control. I just don't see that from Obama or the Dems.

    The future tax burden that is being built up now can and will have economic impact into the future. I wonder, what would a bank tell me if I applied for a very large loan and line of credit with only the promise that my children and grand children would pay it back? That is what the Dems/Obama are doing.
    I never said democrats acted differently. In fact, I'm saying they are the same.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    This is called political theater. Politicians works in two very separate worlds: the world of public relations, what they do in the open, what they present to their electorate; and the world behind closed doors, where frank discussions occur, lobbying takes place, teams of analysts determine the effects of certain policy, etc.

    Boehner and Obama are playing a political dance where in the former they are opposing compromise to pander to their base. They put a strong front up to maintain support of their base and prevent opposition on the grounds that they are betraying their fundamental principles. In reality, politicians are all opportunists. Behind closed doors they are having frank discussions with their teams. Each side has a small army of analysts who are crunching numbers on various different scenarios to see how they would play out economically. These reports are reviewed and most likely will be decided on based on how well they can sell the best one to their base.

    In the mean time, they must also come together and review these proposals behind closed doors to see which would be most realistically passed with minimal impact to their own political reputations. I imagine this is what Boehner and Obama are doing in their "frank" discussions behind closed doors.

    Now, with Boehner releasing his "concession" on increasing tax rates for earners over $1M (yet still disagreeing with Obama who wants the rate at $250,000), he is putting out feelers to see how his base and the American public will react to his compromising. Obama is doing the same thing with increasing his statements about spending cuts. They most likely have already settled on a plan on which they both agree but just do not think it is the appropriate time, politically, to sell to the public or to their base.

    In the mean time, we are seeing a shift to the center on the republican side in both houses of congress, which is paving the way for such a compromise. The tea party has lost considerable support, many either being voted out or outright quitting congress. All of this is for the purpose of passing a deal which compromises on both sides, that congress and the American public can stomach.

    So this really is all a smokescreen. We'll see a deal reached at the 11th hour.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  7. #127
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    First of all, this concession by boehner was no concession. Over 70% of americans said they wanted tax hikes and the majority said if theres no deal they will blame republicans. This was a move by boehner to try and wiggle out of the corner the GOP has put themselves..
    Second, no one knows what kind of cuts boehner will accept, they may be outrageous.
    Third and this is the big one, Obama has called for tax increases on anyone making 250,000 and up from the start, boehner wants a million and up...Obama has not changed his position at all...yet.

  8. #128
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Much of what is missing in your analysis, is that the debt can't realistically be paid off faster. Instead, we balance the budget. Continue to pay,and work our way down. It took a long tiem to get here, more than a few presidents, and will take a long time to get out of debt, if ever.

    Now, as to your proposal. I'm OK with republicans doing as you suggest. I suspect they don't because they don't believe it work as you believe it will. I think they poll poorly and are seen by the public as a larger part of the problem.

    Republicans losing blame game on fiscal cliff

    (snip)

    While 53 percent of those surveyed say the GOP would (and should) lose the fiscal cliff blame game, just 27 percent say President Obama would be deserving of more of the blame. Roughly one in 10 (12 percent) volunteer that both sides would be equally to blame.

    Republicans losing blame game on fiscal cliff

    I suggest this is one reason why republicans are reluctant to let out details as well. They were reluctant during the election as well. I don't think they are stupid, so I think they know better. But I could be wrong.
    You actually provide clear understandable support this time.

    Now. How many of those people polled actually have very much knowledge of the subject? Yes, I understand that politics can really be a popularity contest. However, I don't see how the most popular can be of any benefit to us if the solutions are not based upon sound principles and logic. I never doubted that real, working solutions would be unpopular. I believe that is one reason we rarely if ever see them, it would cost a politician re-election, and many, myself included, believe that that is the only or primary concern of a Politician.

    Few, if any, are actually knowledgeable in the various facets of Politics. Many here try to be knowledgeable, but few, if any, actually know all the facts relating to any particular issue. Even here on this forum, were everyone participating can be assumed to be at least interested in issues, we see very little "facts" and quite a bit of supposition and unwillingness to actually revue and consider what facts are presented. Almost everyone is entrenched their believes and are emotionally tied to them. No one likes to admit being wrong. This, perhaps, is the reason, despite all the debate, views and information passed in this forum we see very few who actually change their political outlook. And this is a very small, interested segment of society, not society as a whole.

    So your basing arguments on popular opinion really doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. Popular opinion can only affect who gets elected, and I for one, have seen very little evidence that the general public is even knowledgeable on issues nor that they have a very long memory of issues. In two years, unless this is still going on or resurfaces, it will likely not have much of an affect upon voting, other issues will arise that will supplant it. Public popularity of any political issue is a very fickle thing nor does it prove accuracy of a viewpoint on any issue.

    People once thought the universe and the sun revolved around the earth, the vast majority was wrong then. The majority of people once thought the world was flat, they were wrong. Just a couple of examples of just how wrong a popular opinion can be.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    You actually provide clear understandable support this time.

    Now. How many of those people polled actually have very much knowledge of the subject? Yes, I understand that politics can really be a popularity contest. However, I don't see how the most popular can be of any benefit to us if the solutions are not based upon sound principles and logic. I never doubted that real, working solutions would be unpopular. I believe that is one reason we rarely if ever see them, it would cost a politician re-election, and many, myself included, believe that that is the only or primary concern of a Politician.

    Few, if any, are actually knowledgeable in the various facets of Politics. Many here try to be knowledgeable, but few, if any, actually know all the facts relating to any particular issue. Even here on this forum, were everyone participating can be assumed to be at least interested in issues, we see very little "facts" and quite a bit of supposition and unwillingness to actually revue and consider what facts are presented. Almost everyone is entrenched their believes and are emotionally tied to them. No one likes to admit being wrong. This, perhaps, is the reason, despite all the debate, views and information passed in this forum we see very few who actually change their political outlook. And this is a very small, interested segment of society, not society as a whole.

    So your basing arguments on popular opinion really doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. Popular opinion can only affect who gets elected, and I for one, have seen very little evidence that the general public is even knowledgeable on issues nor that they have a very long memory of issues. In two years, unless this is still going on or resurfaces, it will likely not have much of an affect upon voting, other issues will arise that will supplant it. Public popularity of any political issue is a very fickle thing nor does it prove accuracy of a viewpoint on any issue.

    People once thought the universe and the sun revolved around the earth, the vast majority was wrong then. The majority of people once thought the world was flat, they were wrong. Just a couple of examples of just how wrong a popular opinion can be.
    Never Said it proved the right or wrong of anything. Only suggest this is why they are not transparent.

    BTW I told once I got to a computer, I could prove links on anything you needed. I just didn't understand why you need links on common knowledge and logic.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #130
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    BTW I told once I got to a computer, I could prove links on anything you needed. I just didn't understand why you need links on common knowledge and logic.
    Links are only need to give proper credit to those who generated the information presented. If a quote or information is from a Book/movie/TV broadcast., no link is required, however, Author and Title, as a minimum, should be given. Besides giving proper credit to originators of works, it also allows those who view your post, and desire to, to look up the full context that it was taken from.

    Because, as some have noticed, common knowledge and logic are even more rare than common sense. Also, what I believe to be common knowledge and logic may not be what you understand to be common knowledge and logic. Without knowing what facts are "common knowledge" to you, I cannot compare them to facts that may be considered "common knowledge" to me. No two people have the same total sum of knowledge. And no two people apply "logic" in exactly the same way on political issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Never Said it proved the right or wrong of anything. Only suggest this is why they are not transparent.
    Then why didn't you say that? I, for one, obviously, did not get that meaning from what you posted.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •