• 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!

Obama to GOP: I’m done negotiating with myself

Well, there was a Romney-Ryan budget proposal which was more than we have had from Obama in 4 years.

Wait a minute..... didn't Romney-Ryan just lose an election? Now you want to adopt their proposals? Why bother with elections?
 
Wait a minute..... didn't Romney-Ryan just lose an election? Now you want to adopt their proposals? Why bother with elections?

So the left demands a GOP plan, and one is pointed out, and the left still doesn't have a plan to counter with. I did not say I agreed or disagreed. Just pointing out there is a GOP budget proposal and there is no DNC budget proposal to start with.
 
Kinda looks like BO's learned from past mistakes.About time.:thumbs:


Posted by Ezra Klein on November 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm


<Republican aides are circulating their summary of the White House’s opening bid on the fiscal cliff. They’re circulating it because they believe it fleshes out Speaker John Boehner’scomplaint that “the White House has to get serious.” Above all, they’re circulating it because the president isn’t offering them anything in his opening bid.>


<We’re seeing two things here. One is that the negotiations aren’t going well. When one side begins leaking the other side’s proposals, that’s typically a bad sign. The other is that Republicans are frustrated at the new Obama they’re facing: The Obama who refuses to negotiate with himself.>


<If Republicans want to cut Medicare, let them propose the cuts. If they want to raise revenue through tax reform, let them identify the deductions. If they want deeper cuts in discretionary spending, let them settle on a number. And, above all, if they don’t like the White House’s preferred policies, let them propose their own.>

Obama to GOP: I’m done negotiating with myself

Certainly Michelle had enough of his late-night fillibusters...
 
Wait a minute..... didn't Romney-Ryan just lose an election? Now you want to adopt their proposals? Why bother with elections?

Look what we have here. Another Democrat saying elections have consequences. How many times do you have to say it before you're happy?
 
Look what we have here. Another Democrat saying elections have consequences. How many times do you have to say it before you're happy?

If the consequences are a improving economy and better outcomes for all, why do you care how many times I say it?
GDP growth is already near 3% and rising steadily. The GOP budget proposals will send us into recession or worse.
 
It's really time for the bull**** to end. Obama knows that we need to cut entitlement spending (among others) and the GOP knows that raising the tax rate for the wealthiest (by 3 %, OH MY) will bring in some much needed revenue. That happens and lookie here, both were right, and we can finally end this nonsense.

Bravo!
 
Also from the article...

" If Republicans want to cut Medicare, let them propose the cuts. If they want to raise revenue through tax reform, let them identify the deductions. If they want deeper cuts in discretionary spending, let them settle on a number. And, above all, if they don’t like the White House’s preferred policies, let them propose their own. "
‘Also’? Thanks for reposting precisely the passage included in the OP. That will help…

Where is the GOP proposal?
Considering this:
Wait a minute..... didn't Romney-Ryan just lose an election? Now you want to adopt their proposals? Why bother with elections?
Why would the GOP be offering a proposal?...they lost, as you stated. Does it seem logical for the loser to dictate his terms for loss?

You won…own it!
 
Mark my words, whatever "solution/compromise" they come up with will only temporarily delay the inevitable. No real solutions will be considered by either side as it would cut into their supported projects. So they will continue to kick the can down the road for as long as possible and eventually our country will pay the price in a big big way. I would bet everything I own that in 10 years we are further in debt then we are today and the trend will continue.
 
Republicans want Obama to propose both the tax increase and the entitlement cuts. That doesn't make sense. Republicans should come to the table with the entitlement and other spending cuts they want, and Obama should propose the tax increases he wants. It's not the responsibility of a President of either Party to shoulder the proposals of both his Party and the defeated opposition.

Why not? In 2011 during the debt ceiling negotiations the GOP had (or thought they had) based on the mid-term election enough political capital to 'demand' proposals. Now after the latest election the majority of this capital has evaporated. They are not in a very powerful position to leverage much...as the President has said 'elections have consequences'...
 
Republicans want Obama to propose both the tax increase and the entitlement cuts. That doesn't make sense. Republicans should come to the table with the entitlement and other spending cuts they want, and Obama should propose the tax increases he wants. It's not the responsibility of a President of either Party to shoulder the proposals of both his Party and the defeated opposition.

Exactly right. It appears that Obama has finally learned not to prenegotiate with himself as he did with ACA, the stimulus, and so many other issues. He has always come to the table with proposals that he figures should garner some support from Republicans, on a substantive basis, but the Republicans never support his proposals because they are ... his proposals.

The effect is that Obama has started negotiations pretty close to where they should end, so he ends up giving away more than he should, AND he gets battered from both sides. Now he is doing the right thing. Democrats are more focused on the revenue side and stimulus, so that is what he proposes. Republicans are all about the spending cuts so that is what they should propose.
 
My only problem with this is that I believe Obama and the Dems are using this as an attack platform against the GOP. Any cuts the GOP comes up with are quickly attacked and the GOP is then painted as "evil people against Big Bird" as one example.

I don't believe Obama and the Dems are serious about cuts in spending to their sacred cows. Much like I don't think the GOP is interested in cutting spending with their sacred cows.

Tax increases and cuts in spending BOTH need to happen, but I don't see that happening with this president or congress.
 
Why not? In 2011 during the debt ceiling negotiations the GOP had (or thought they had) based on the mid-term election enough political capital to 'demand' proposals. Now after the latest election the majority of this capital has evaporated. They are not in a very powerful position to leverage much...as the President has said 'elections have consequences'...

Because it's not his responsibility to do the work of the Republicans for them. Let Boehner propose the cuts if he wants them so badly.
 
Because it's not his responsibility to do the work of the Republicans for them. Let Boehner propose the cuts if he wants them so badly.

Each side has their sacred cows. The Dems should provide what they feel should be cut from the GOP sacred cows and the GOP should provide what they feel should be cut from the Dems sacred cows.

It's quite clear that spending cuts HAVE to happen, so why shouldn't BOTH sides be in on the process? Whatever happened to BOTH sides working to solve problems together?
 
Because it's not his responsibility to do the work of the Republicans for them. Let Boehner propose the cuts if he wants them so badly.

Confused...so the President is only the president when it's what he wants to do but if it's not he has no responsibility...? Also didn't the President campaign on 'balanced approach'? Why now does he have no responsibility to explain what he campaigned on?
 
Each side has their sacred cows. The Dems should provide what they feel should be cut from the GOP sacred cows and the GOP should provide what they feel should be cut from the Dems sacred cows.

It's quite clear that spending cuts HAVE to happen, so why shouldn't BOTH sides be in on the process? Whatever happened to BOTH sides working to solve problems?

The Republicans will not propose a tax increase. It simply won't happen; not a single Republican Congressman will go so far as to suggest that taxes ought actually be raised on anyone. Consequentially, the Democrats are under no obligation to propose a single cut, even if they want cuts in e.g. military spending. Let them only propose the tax increases they want and negotiate from there.
 
Confused...so the President is only the president when it's what he wants to do but if it's not he has no responsibility...? Also didn't the President campaign on 'balanced approach'? Why now does he have no responsibility to explain what he campaigned on?

Obama never campaigned on cuts to anything. He campaigned on tax increases and called it balanced. He'll unoubtedly sign off on cuts, which he recognizes are essential. At the same time, unless the Republicans are willing to put up a tax increase - not "tax reform", but an increase - he is under no obligation to propose cuts of any kind, quid pro quo.
 
Republicans want Obama to propose both the tax increase and the entitlement cuts. That doesn't make sense. Republicans should come to the table with the entitlement and other spending cuts they want, and Obama should propose the tax increases he wants. It's not the responsibility of a President of either Party to shoulder the proposals of both his Party and the defeated opposition.

well in his last SOTU address Obunny claimed that everyone was going to sacrifice-the rich by paying more taxes and everyone else by not getting as many government goodies. This means two things-Obama wanted to make everyone "Pay" for the deficit reduction and second-he doesn't believe the rich benefit from government spending
 
The Republicans will not propose a tax increase. It simply won't happen; not a single Republican Congressman will go so far as to suggest that taxes ought actually be raised on anyone. Consequentially, the Democrats are under no obligation to propose a single cut, even if they want cuts in e.g. military spending. Let them only propose the tax increases they want and negotiate from there.

This is the type of thinking that has gotten us into this partisan mess to begin with. BOTH sides are obligated to work together to provide tax increases AND cuts in spending which is what is needed.

The reality is that our debt is out of control and needs to be reeled in. Both sides have an obligation to make that happen.
 
This is the type of thinking that has gotten us into this partisan mess to begin with. BOTH sides are obligated to work together to provide tax increases AND cuts in spending which is what is needed.

The reality is that our debt is out of control and needs to be reeled in. Both sides have an obligation to make that happen.

If one side refuses to give a single inch, the other has absolutely no moral obligation to take the 'high ground' and pull double-duty makeup work. In fact, getting the Republicans off the hook for the mess they've gotten themselves into with the Norquist pledge isn't even the high ground.

Partisanship isn't inherently a bad thing, the Beltway cult of fake bipartisanship be damned.
 
It's really time for the bull**** to end. Obama knows that we need to cut entitlement spending (among others) and the GOP knows that raising the tax rate for the wealthiest (by 3 %, OH MY) will bring in some much needed revenue. That happens and lookie here, both were right, and we can finally end this nonsense.

I think we need to remember that the "entitlement spending" being referred to is entitled because we've paid it. The real entitlements are subsidies and preferential tax treatment. Those "entitlements" were not specifically paid for in the past and present. The only reason the debt is impacted by social security is because Congress borrowed from the social security trust and now us it (us) its money back.
 
If one side refuses to give a single inch, the other has absolutely no moral obligation to take the 'high ground' and pull double-duty makeup work. In fact, getting the Republicans off the hook for the mess they've gotten themselves into with the Norquist pledge isn't even the high ground.

Partisanship isn't inherently a bad thing, the Beltway cult of fake bipartisanship be damned.

Actually, in this case, partisanship is sending us barreling into horrendous debt. So yeah, that's a bad thing. I'm not blaming one side, I'm blaming BOTH sides for not working together to solve this problem.
 
Actually, in this case, partisanship is sending us barreling into horrendous debt. So yeah, that's a bad thing. I'm not blaming one side, I'm blaming BOTH sides for not working together to solve this problem.

Again: it is a fait accompli that the Republicans will neither propose nor accept a tax increase. The Democrats can either go along like suckers and propose the politically harmful cuts that the Republicans want but don't want to be seen as putting on the table, or they can stand pat. And they ought to stand pat. If the Republicans continue to bitch like broodmares, they'll get cuts anyway after January 1st.
 
Obama never campaigned on cuts to anything. He campaigned on tax increases and called it balanced. He'll unoubtedly sign off on cuts, which he recognizes are essential. At the same time, unless the Republicans are willing to put up a tax increase - not "tax reform", but an increase - he is under no obligation to propose cuts of any kind, quid pro quo.

Check that:

The President has put forward a specific, balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases that reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade

Issues - An economy built to last — Barack Obama
 
If one side refuses to give a single inch, the other has absolutely no moral obligation to take the 'high ground' and pull double-duty makeup work. In fact, getting the Republicans off the hook for the mess they've gotten themselves into with the Norquist pledge isn't even the high ground.

Partisanship isn't inherently a bad thing, the Beltway cult of fake bipartisanship be damned.

I think partisanship is confused with common sense. Isn't it the policy of the US not to negotiate with terrorists? What do you call a person (or group of people) who want to gut the US government, threaten secession, and cheer "Let him die" about people without insurance, and want to encourage theocratic policies in a nation whose founding document specifies the separation of church and state?
 
Back
Top Bottom