The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare

Dickieboy said:

Spiking MY blood pressure???? Never!!!! I don't take DP serious enough for that to happen. I mean really, posting here won't pay my bills, feed my family, provide me salvation so why get all riled up? But it is fun.

Click to expand...

then why would it be any different for the rest of us ... including haymarket

Dickieboy said:

It seems quite disingenuous to open the thread with a misleading title then quote selectively from the source article. Unfortunately, most on here do not seem to take the time to read the article fully. Note other excerpts:

“Republicans to avoid this dual-trigger nightmare is to somehow convince Democrats to bail them out. And for that, they have two points of leverage.

The first is political: Democrats don't want to raise $3.8 trillions in taxes, much of which will fall on middle-class households…

The second is that this particular deficit-reduction plan could be devastating for the economy. Rather than phasing in slowly over the course of the next decade, it would all hit at once…So the GOP is not without options…

Talk to the White House, and you'll hear that they fiercely oppose permitting the Bush tax cuts to expire, and that they would prefer to see the spending trigger replaced with a bigger, more thoughtful deficit-reduction plan….
Letting the Bush tax cuts expires is not a popular policy. Nor do crowds cheer for automatic sequestration. If they happen due to Republican obstruction, that's one thing. If they happen because Democrats don't want to make an alternative deal, that's quite another.”

So it would appear, if taken on the whole, both sides have leverage AND exposure. We’ll see how this plays out.

Click to expand...

Might want to read the rules before griping about "a misleading title ".As for as this lame ass bit..."quote selectively from the source article. "THATS WHAT THE FRIGGEN LINK IS FOR.:2wave:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ogs-guidelines-10-29-09-a.html#post1058155573

justabubba said:

then why would it be any different for the rest of us ... including haymarket

Click to expand...

What.......

Dickieboy said:

You mean this rule "17. Starting a Thread - When starting a thread it is best to express your own thoughts in your own words. Threads w/o original content may be summarily closed."

If not please re-direct me.

The thread was not 'your own thoughts in your own words' but rather copy/paste from the article. As to the 'quote selectively' remark it was merely my contention that there were other points in the article. IOW, if you posted the link (as 'THATS WHAT THE FRIGGEN LINK IS FOR) why copy/paste only a portion of it?

Click to expand...

Ahh...look Little dickey still has his shorts in a wad for my slamming him for his cut and paste post when REPLYING to a post.:lamo

Hey its kinda short but its accurate.:2wave:

Looks like dilemma time coming up for the party of Koch/Grover. Looks like a trick bag to me.

Click to expand...

The Tea Party's concern is the budget. I doubt you would find many that would oppose all attempts at raising revenue as long as those are going to the debt. Even Norquist said that he didn't consider ending the Bush tax cuts as a problem.

The "bargain" as it was, was a win for the Tea Party. Obama wanted a "clean" debt ceiling. An ability to spend all he wanted. He lost that battle.

haymarket said:

You could be right.... I hope you are right.... sadly, I have watched him cave twice already in the past year on taxes and budgets and a third strike is not something I look forward to.. I really think that Obama is not a street fighter and actually loathes that part of the process. He wants to convince people and charm people. I have said it before and I will say it again, he is in a bar fight with a motorcycle gang in side a steel cage and he wants to fight with boxing gloves and Marquis of Queensbury rules. He should be reaching for a baseball bat with a nine inch nail drive through it and aiming for the forehead.

Click to expand...

President Obama is a pragmatic man. No doubt about it. He has tried to give both sides a chance to find common ground and compromise alittle in their ideological positions. But as we both know from watching the health care reform debates, both budget processes and the debt limit negotiations, he has tried to pull both sides closer to the middle but one side has remained far more resolute in their anti-tax/revenue position than the other side has been in giving in to some entitlement cuts.

My take on the triggers from the BCA, specifically where defense spending is concerned, is that Republicans knew defense spending would decrease not only because the country has become war-weary but because they were aware that both wars would start to drawdown soon. Moreover, the President has been far more aggressive in going after Al-Quaida and Taliban members than they thought he'd be. And so that caught most Republicans off guard (I think). I really don't think most Republicans believed this President would work so much on the side of our military as he has so far. So, the combination of the nation being war-weary and an aggressive President in military affairs have combined to work against Republicans here.

As for the Bush tax cuts, Republicans believed they painted the President in a corner during the 2010 mid-terms by making a strong argument of not increasing taxes in the middle of a recession (or while the economy is recovering from such). The People have been paying extremely close attention to the "low taxation" montra that is "trickle-down economics" and they're no longer buying the kool-aide. As I'm fond of saying, "filter out the white noise of politics" and what do you get here?

Low taxes create jobs. Well, where are they?

Too many regulations stiffle job creation. Yet, before TARP, the Stimulus and health care reform, our nation's economic policies have remained relatively the same.

So, after the housing bubble burst the latest conservative rallying cry became "a lack of invester/consumer confidence in the markets" followed closely by "more deregulation". But it was exactly deregulation - coupled with the lack of regulatory oversight - that got us in this situation in the first place. The Occupy Wall Street, as dysfunctional as the movement seems, helped to bring some of these things to the public's attention. This is why conservatives denounce it so much. I agree that a large segment of the movement is truly dysfunctional, but alot of what they say does make sense if you can get through much of the foolishness.

Bottom line is this: Tax reform will be the main thrust of 2012, as well as, how to preserve the strength and integrity of our military while weeding through defense spending. Make no mistake, they won't be protected! But the military won't be gutted either. President Obama has spent too much energy rebuilding the image of liberals being soft on the military. However, the not-so-obvious will start to shake out, i.e., reserve units which make up a large part of the "surge" forces will come home and civilian-soldiers will return to their "normal" lives. Ron Paul had it right: some of the so-called (defense) spending cuts will merely be reclassified under a different heading, i.e., defense spending to humanitarian aid or nation building or CT funding...something. But the draconian cuts in defense so many are nearly panicking over won't happen in the ways most people think they will. But one thing is for certain: the Bush tax cuts will expire one way or another. Either Democrats will win more seats in the House in 2012 or President Obama, if re-elected - and at the rate things are going now, he will be - will veto any extension to same.

And that's my five-cents worth.

treedancer said:

Ahh...look Little dickey still has his shorts in a wad for my slamming him for his cut and paste post when REPLYING to a post.:lamo

Hey its kinda short but its accurate.:2wave:

Click to expand...

.................:lamo