• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare

Donc

Donc

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,796
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Wonkbook: The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare

Posted by Ezra Klein at 06:39 AM ET, 11/23/2011

Looks like dilemma time coming up for the party of Koch/Grover. Looks like a trick bag to me.:2wave:

<In August, Republicans scored what they thought was a big win by persuading Democrats to accept a trigger that consisted only of spending cuts. The price they paid was 1) concentrating the cuts on the Pentagon while exempting Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare beneficiaries, and 2) delaying the cuts until January 1, 2013. That was, they figured, a win, as it eschewed taxes. Grover Norquist's pledge remained unbroken.>


<So now there are two triggers. One is an extremely progressive spending trigger worth $1.2 trillion that goes off on January 1, 2013.>

<The other is an extremely progressive tax trigger worth $3.8 trillion that goes off on...January 1, 2013.>


<It's distributed far more progressively than anything the Democrats have even considered proposing. And all that needs to happen for it to pass is, well, nothing.>


Wonkbook: The GOP's dual-trigger nightmare - The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
Except not really, because nothing I've seen being talked about with regards to the committee was suggesting that what the committee did was going to override the Bush Tax cuts completely, thus elminating their expiration, but rather it'd a portion of a part of it now and then the whole of it would still come for complete expiration in 2013 anyways. So regardless of whether or not Republicans agreed to raise taxes now, they were going to have to deal with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring in 2013.
 
Pull both triggers and let both happen. That will go a long way to solving out problem. This is one time where I hope and pray we get a "do nothing" Congress.
 
As Zyphlin pointed out, both the Republicans and the Democrats would be dealing with the Bush tax cut trigger regardless what the super-committee came up with...so that is a separate issue. When the time comes to deal with it, we'll see what happens, eh?

In regard to the failure of the super-committee to work something out, I think it's just as bad for the Democrats as for the Republicans...but for different reasons. The Democrats don't want ANY spending cuts...in fact, they want spending increases. Kind of sucks for them. I wonder how Obama is going to react when his Defense Department can't continue the war on terror? The Republicans don't really want Defense spending cuts...it's against their nature.

Both sides will continue to demagogue the other side and we'll ultimately find out what the People think come November 1012.

One thing is for sure: The Tea Party came out winners.
 
haymarket said:
Pull both triggers and let both happen. That will go a long way to solving out problem. This is one time where I hope and pray we get a "do nothing" Congress.
Click to expand...

Lets hope that Obama has had it with his lets cut a deal with the party of koch/grover.:(
 
treedancer said:
Lets hope that Obama has had it with his lets cut a deal with the party of koch/grover.:(
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you 100%.

And I am about 94% sure he will cave in and allow the right wing GOP to wriggle out of the corner they have painted themselves into and get precious little in return.

and I hate writing that. :(
 
haymarket said:
Oh I agree with you 100%.

And I am about 94% sure he will cave in and allow the right wing GOP to wriggle out of the corner they have painted themselves into and get precious little in return.

and I hate writing that. :(
Click to expand...



Hopefully the last go around with this group of wingers and the fact that he wont be worrying about anything besides his legacy will play into his decision.:(
 
treedancer said:
Hopefully the last go around with this group of wingers and the fact that he wont be worrying about anything besides his legacy will play into his decision.:(
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
haymarket said:
He should be reaching for a baseball bat with a nine inch nail drive through it and aiming for the forehead.
Click to expand...

But...but...but...didn't he chastise us for the use of violent rhetoric?
 
Mycroft said:
As Zyphlin pointed out, both the Republicans and the Democrats would be dealing with the Bush tax cut trigger regardless what the super-committee came up with...so that is a separate issue. When the time comes to deal with it, we'll see what happens, eh?

In regard to the failure of the super-committee to work something out, I think it's just as bad for the Democrats as for the Republicans...but for different reasons. The Democrats don't want ANY spending cuts...in fact, they want spending increases. Kind of sucks for them. I wonder how Obama is going to react when his Defense Department can't continue the war on terror? The Republicans don't really want Defense spending cuts...it's against their nature.

Both sides will continue to demagogue the other side and we'll ultimately find out what the People think come November 1012.

One thing is for sure: The Tea Party came out winners.
Click to expand...

that post marks the first time i became aware that the teabaggers were going to be thankful for $3 of added taxes for each $1 of spending cuts ... especially recognizing those spending cuts will be from DoD and not the social safety net



thanks to the OP for an interesting article. this is one of those times when we can actually hope an intransigent congress will do nothing
 
justabubba said:
that post marks the first time i became aware that the teabaggers were going to be thankful for $3 of added taxes for each $1 of spending cuts ... especially recognizing those spending cuts will be from DoD and not the social safety net



thanks to the OP for an interesting article. this is one of those times when we can actually hope an intransigent congress will do nothing
Click to expand...

The $3 in added taxes is not a done deal yet, so that doesn't enter into the picture. What does is the spending cuts. It's too bad the Republicans agreed to the bulk of them to come from Defense, but at least the government WILL be spending less. And that's what the Tea Party wants.
 
Dickieboy said:
But...but...but...didn't he chastise us for the use of violent rhetoric?
Click to expand...

Obviously President Obama is NOT in a bar fight. He is NOT fighting a motorcycle gang. He is NOT wearing boxing gloves. He is NOT asking for the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I was speaking metaphorically.

And the comparative comment about the baseball bat was also part of the same metaphor. He is NOT doing that either.
 
Dickieboy said:
But...but...but...didn't he chastise us for the use of violent rhetoric?
Click to expand...

Even better, Haymarket was far and away the most vocal person on this forum chastising people for "Violent Rhetoric" and blaming the Arizona shooter on hte "Violent rhetoric" of the "Tea Party, Rush Limbuagh, and Sarah Palin" so much as to suggest they were almost just as guilty due to their "violent rhetoric".

The irony of this ridiculous baseball bat analogy is so thick you'd need a machete.
 
haymarket said:
Obviously President Obama is NOT in a bar fight. He is NOT fighting a motorcycle gang. He is NOT wearing boxing gloves. He is NOT asking for the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I was speaking metaphorically.

And the comparative comment about the baseball bat was also part of the same metaphor. He is NOT doing that either.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that and understood it when you posted it. But let me remind you that you said 'he should'.
 
Zyphlin said:
Even better, Haymarket was far and away the most vocal person on this forum chastising people for "Violent Rhetoric" and blaming the Arizona shooter on hte "Violent rhetoric" of the "Tea Party, Rush Limbuagh, and Sarah Palin" so much as to suggest they were almost just as guilty due to their "violent rhetoric".

The irony of this ridiculous baseball bat analogy is so thick you'd need a machete.
Click to expand...

OH THE IRONY AND HYPOCRACY...I guess as I was not on DP at that time so I'll have to take your word on it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Even better, Haymarket was far and away the most vocal person on this forum chastising people for "Violent Rhetoric" and blaming the Arizona shooter on hte "Violent rhetoric" of the "Tea Party, Rush Limbuagh, and Sarah Palin" so much as to suggest they were almost just as guilty due to their "violent rhetoric".

The irony of this ridiculous baseball bat analogy is so thick you'd need a machete.
Click to expand...

There is something far thicker at work here and it is evident in your post.

Again

Obviously President Obama is NOT in a bar fight. He is NOT fighting a motorcycle gang. He is NOT wearing boxing gloves. He is NOT asking for the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I was speaking metaphorically.

And the comparative comment about the baseball bat was also part of the same metaphor. He is NOT doing that either.

What about that do you not comprehend?

Or do you have evidence Obama is in a bar fight with a motorcycle gang which then takes my words and changes them from metaphor to reality?

Here is the post that a few right wingers seem to be metaphorically challenged in interpretating

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.

Again, do you evidence that I was talking about an actual event here which changes the tone of it and finds me advocating violence?

from Dickieboy

OH THE IRONY AND HYPOCRACY...I guess as I was not on DP at that time so I'll have to take your word on it.
Click to expand...

And if you do you would be taken in the fraud and gross intellectual dishonesty. Did you notice the offending poster did NOT reproduce any actual quotes from me but only gave you his words?
 
Last edited:
With all their chest pounding and whining...the teaparty in the end WILL have tax hikes...
 
lpast said:
With all their chest pounding and whining...the teaparty in the end WILL have tax hikes...
Click to expand...

And who will you blame for the tax hikes?

The GOP who will fight against them?

Or the Democrats who will fight for them?
 
Zyphlin said:
Of course you were, that was obvious. However, based on previous statements by you metaphorical violent rhetoric is still "violent rhetoric".
Click to expand...

Did I miss the part in your post where you actually reproduced the offending posts from me?

Could you run them again please?

And just to show I am a reasonable and far guy, if somebody gets hit in the head by President Obama wielding a ball bat with a nine inch nail through it, feel free to blame me for it just like some pointed a finger at Sarah Palin and her target cross hairs on Gabby Giffords in Arizona - among others.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah...d-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434

In fact, I will accept any attack on the entire body - not just the head. It will be my fault and I will take blame for creating the environment for it.

Satisfied now?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And if you do you would be taken in the fraud and gross intellectual dishonesty. Did you notice the offending poster did NOT reproduce any actual quotes from me but only gave you his words?
Click to expand...

No, I did not...but seriously Hay, my original post "But...but...but..."was meant to be satirical. You need to lighten up a little, at your age, high strung as you seem…sounds like a prime candidate for a medical issue…regardless of our ideological differences I mean that with sincere consideration.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I did not...but seriously Hay, my original post "But...but...but..."was meant to be satirical. You need to lighten up a little, at your age, high strung as you seem…sounds like a prime candidate for a medical issue…regardless of our ideological differences I mean that with sincere consideration.
Click to expand...

yo, haymarket, accept his white flag of surrender; it is obvious your posts are spiking his blood pressure
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I did not...but seriously Hay, my original post "But...but...but..."was meant to be satirical. You need to lighten up a little, at your age, high strung as you seem…sounds like a prime candidate for a medical issue…regardless of our ideological differences I mean that with sincere consideration.
Click to expand...

that is why I run six mile every day -and have done so since 1976. Thanks for the concern. ;):2wave:
 
justabubba said:
yo, haymarket, accept his white flag of surrender; it is obvious your posts are spiking his blood pressure
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom