So now that Obama 'Won' will he come to the table?

[Attic]

I don't think Obama needs to come to the table. He's effectively framed a lot of the significant issues the country has faced and is facing as not his problem. The problems are because of those nasty republicans, recent rhetoric used such as "ransom" and "hostage" indicates Obama views repubs as terrorists. Why work with such people? It's great political capital for Obama to blame others instead of taking responsibility. It confirms that things won't really change, aside form perhaps rhetoric. Obama is not going to change now.

Repubs unfortunately have significantly played right into a lot of these traps. The latest fiasco I think we can agree was Repubs being out maneuvered and then throwing a tantrum. I'm not a fan of political maneuvering (manipulation/deceit for the most part) for politics sake, but it is what it is and with the help of a complicit media, the dems have brainwashed a lot of the nation regarding the scope and blueprint of issues facing the nation. Not to say repubs have the right answer, it's just that no, the dems don't have the right answer. Obviously they are both wrong if you look at where the nation stands.


For my money the main issue the country faces is how to get efficient production back up and stop free trade's detrimental effects on the middle and lower classes. As a nation we also need to conserve our purchasing habits, a bit of a nasty catch 22 for the economy. I think that solution is in more equal pay for folks hurt most over the last three decades, middle and lower classes. Repubs dont have a clue about this, the larger concern for me is that while Dems seem to have a clue they don't know how to get results. Intentions rule the roost of our political theatre and everybody knows what they say about intentions.


Cliffs: Obama is is own worst enemy.

 

[glenn1]

No, it's tribal when you express your view on policy based on whether it will help or harm groups you view as your opponents as opposed to whether you think it's a good idea or not.

Again, you're making a distinction where there isn't one. You support higher taxes on the wealthy and think "they're a good idea" mainly because you're not one of them, because "they can afford it," and for reasons of "fairness." As in, "it's not fair that the rich should make that much while everyone else is suffering."

I'm not opposed to higher taxes and think they're neither good or bad in the abstract, since I'm more concerned with spending. I don't have strong feelings about tax rates either way, and certainly won't stand in your way in implementing something when the majority of people subjected to it support the party you belong to. Standing up for your own interests is not my concern.

 

[dank69]

Obama will come to the table offering lots of things in exchange for some tax increases. Republicans will refuse even minimal tax increases and blame Obama/Dems for not negotiating.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, you're making a distinction where there isn't one. You support higher taxes on the wealthy and think "they're a good idea" mainly because you're not one of them, because "they can afford it," and for reasons of "fairness." As in, "it's not fair that the rich should make that much while everyone else is suffering."

I most certainly do not support higher taxes for those reasons. I support higher taxes on the rich because under our current system they are rewarded in excess of what they produce and because high levels of income inequality are associated with social instability and poor economic growth. I've made no secret of why I support higher taxes on the wealthy.

Additionally, assuming my fiance and I get married our household income will fall significantly above the level at which I believe taxes should be raised. On what possible basis did you make basically every statement you had in that paragraph?

I'm not opposed to higher taxes and think they're neither good or bad in the abstract, since I'm more concerned with spending. I don't have strong feelings about tax rates either way, and certainly won't stand in your way in implementing something when the majority of people subjected to it support the party you belong to. Standing up for your own interests is not my concern.

Meh, that's not really accurate. If you look at the overall demographics the people actually affected split pretty evenly, party ID wise.

 

[dank69]

I most certainly do not support higher taxes for those reasons. I support higher taxes on the rich because under our current system they are rewarded in excess of what they produce and because high levels of income inequality are associated with social instability and poor economic growth. I've made no secret of why I support higher taxes on the wealthy.

Additionally, assuming my fiance and I get married our household income will fall significantly above the level at which I believe taxes should be raised. On what possible basis did you make basically every statement you had in that paragraph?



Meh, that's not really accurate. If you look at the overall demographics the people actually affected split pretty evenly, party ID wise.

Demands that you pay extra tax voluntarily incoming.

 

[fskimospy]

Demands that you pay extra tax voluntarily incoming.

then /facepalm is also incoming. haha.

 

[glenn1]

I most certainly do not support higher taxes for those reasons. I support higher taxes on the rich because under our current system they are rewarded in excess of what they produce and because high levels of income inequality are associated with social instability and poor economic growth. I've made no secret of why I support higher taxes on the wealthy..

You realize you just validated my assertion about "it's not fair the rich make so much"?

And I'm interested in hearing about all the extra rewards. I'm pretty well-off, where do I queue up to get them? Do I get my own private Post Office? A dedicated sewer line?

And of course income inequality has nothing to do with the people involved or their personal choices. If only we had higher taxes on the wealthy, the illiterate drug dealer wouldn't have dropped out of school and would even now be inventing the cure for cancer.

 

[dank69]

You realize you just validated my assertion about "it's not fair the rich make so much"?

And I'm interested in hearing about all the extra rewards. I'm pretty well-off, where do I queue up to get them? Do I get my own private Post Office? A dedicated sewer line?

And of course income inequality has nothing to do with the people involved or their personal choices. If only we had higher taxes on the wealthy, the illiterate drug dealer wouldn't have dropped out of school and would even now be inventing the cure for cancer.

He said right in his post that the reward is earning much more than they produce.

 

[fskimospy]

You realize you just validated my assertion about "it's not fair the rich make so much"?

No, it has nothing to do with fairness; it has to do with economic efficiency. When markets are failing to accurately price productivity that's a problem for the economy as a whole.

And I'm interested in hearing about all the extra rewards. I'm pretty well-off, where do I queue up to get them? Do I get my own private Post Office? A dedicated sewer line?

And of course income inequality has nothing to do with the people involved or their personal choices. If only we had higher taxes on the wealthy, the illiterate drug dealer wouldn't have dropped out of school and would even now be inventing the cure for cancer.

As per the CBO, since 1979 the top income earners in the US saw their income increase at a vastly quicker rate than the rest of the country as a whole. Unless the ultra rich suddenly developed a new sense of get-up-and-go right around then there are clearly other forces at work.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

If you're in that group, you've already gotten your extra rewards. You probably think that it's all due to your incredible talent, peerless work ethic, etc, etc. People don't like to think that structural elements are contributing to their success.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Government should punish those who receive rewards in excess of what they produce so the money can be given to people who don't produce anything at all, possibly haven't in their entire lives.

 

[glenn1]

He said right in his post that the reward is earning much more than they produce.

Protip, the Labor Theory of Value has been discredited for more than 100 years. One of the biggest advantages of a capitalist system it can allow individuals to create economic value in excess of their own pesonal production, and thus be paid accordingly.

 

[dank69]

Protip, the Labor Theory of Value has been discredited for more than 100 years. One of the biggest advantages of a capitalist system it can allow individuals to create economic value in excess of their own pesonal production, and thus be paid accordingly.

What if they are earning more than they contribute in economic value? Not just a little more, but orders of magnitude more? What if they are actually sucking economic value out of the economy?

 

[Oldgamer]

Obama will come to the table offering lots of things in exchange for some tax increases. Republicans will refuse even minimal tax increases and blame Obama/Dems for not negotiating.

That is the nutshell right there.

There is room to negotiate, on entitlements, and other issues, if Repubs are willing to work on the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.

I am willing to bet POTUS will work with them on entitlements too.

But there constituents are the wealthy and the corporations so they most likely will not negotiate.


It has been nothing but nasty and seditious from the get go with these Republicans, (particularly the teaparty) especially since the first secret meeting they had to sabotage this country and it's newly elected President.

These Republicans were willing to destroy our countries economy and cost us billions by doing this, not to mention lost jobs and a loss of confidence by our allies and other countries watching these debacles. It was all for nothing too, cause in the end they got squat.

They are traitorous to the founders of this country, to it's people and to what this country really stands for. They are determined to tear down our democratic processes.

As we all know, elections do have consequences and a reckoning is at hand.

I cannot wait for the Gubernatorial races, I really can't. Because these Repubs will do the same things all over again, living in their echo chamber and bubbles, and will be shocked when they see how many seats they lose in the house and in the different states. Just watch, they will be dumb founded just like on the day they were listening to FAUX news the day President Obama won his second term.

I remember those shocked faces...lmao

 

[trenchfoot]

The filthy rich don't have to be taxed more. They just need to get relieved of all of those tax loopholes and give-aways they bought for themselves via those politicians they corrupted since waaaay back when.

Fair is fair. Get rid of that plethora of loopholes the super rich prosper from and give those monies back to the middle class and the poor from whence it came.

 

[cubby1223]

Well, Obama started off today back on the PR campaign to convince the public that Republicans are stupid.

Pretty much how all negotiations and compromises go between the two parties.

Hooray for leadership!

 

[TerryMathews]

The filthy rich don't have to be taxed more. They just need to get relieved of all of those tax loopholes and give-aways they bought for themselves via those politicians they corrupted since waaaay back when.

Fair is fair. Get rid of that plethora of loopholes the super rich prosper from and give those monies back to the middle class and the poor from whence it came.

Sure. Let's do away with EITC as a refundable tax credit too.

 

[trenchfoot]

That is the nutshell right there.

There is room to negotiate, on entitlements, and other issues, if Repubs are willing to work on the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.

I am willing to bet POTUS will work with them on entitlements too.

But there constituents are the wealthy and the corporations so they most likely will not negotiate.


It has been nothing but nasty and seditious from the get go with these Republicans, (particularly the teaparty) especially since the first secret meeting they had to sabotage this country and it's newly elected President.

These Republicans were willing to destroy our countries economy and cost us billions by doing this, not to mention lost jobs and a loss of confidence by our allies and other countries watching these debacles. It was all for nothing too, cause in the end they got squat.

They are traitorous to the founders of this country, to it's people and to what this country really stands for. They are determined to tear down our democratic processes.

As we all know, elections do have consequences and a reckoning is at hand.

I cannot wait for the Gubernatorial races, I really can't. Because these Repubs will do the same things all over again, living in their echo chamber and bubbles, and will be shocked when they see how many seats they lose in the house and in the different states. Just watch, they will be dumb founded just like on the day they were listening to FAUX news the day President Obama won his second term.

I remember those shocked faces...lmao

What needs to happen is for the duped and stupefied middle class and poor members of the Repub Party who are the vast majority of such to have a moment of clarity and see how they have been single-issued and scammed by their leaders into supporting economic policies that are anathema to their own best interests. I'm always awe-struck at how these folks will put the interests of the very rich over their own concerns, especially when many of them DO need and receive federal assistance to maintain at best a modest lifestyle. To have to champion those who don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves and then get stabbed in the back for a pat on the head is, well.......curiously amazing to say the least.

 

[chowderhead]

That is the nutshell right there.

There is room to negotiate, on entitlements, and other issues, if Repubs are willing to work on the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.

I am willing to bet POTUS will work with them on entitlements too.

But there constituents are the wealthy and the corporations so they most likely will not negotiate.


It has been nothing but nasty and seditious from the get go with these Republicans, (particularly the teaparty) especially since the first secret meeting they had to sabotage this country and it's newly elected President.

These Republicans were willing to destroy our countries economy and cost us billions by doing this, not to mention lost jobs and a loss of confidence by our allies and other countries watching these debacles. It was all for nothing too, cause in the end they got squat.

They are traitorous to the founders of this country, to it's people and to what this country really stands for. They are determined to tear down our democratic processes.

As we all know, elections do have consequences and a reckoning is at hand.

I cannot wait for the Gubernatorial races, I really can't. Because these Repubs will do the same things all over again, living in their echo chamber and bubbles, and will be shocked when they see how many seats they lose in the house and in the different states. Just watch, they will be dumb founded just like on the day they were listening to FAUX news the day President Obama won his second term.

I remember those shocked faces...lmao

$10 spending cuts for every $1 dollar in new revenue ... the Republicans refused. Clinton handed Bush budget surpluses and Bush and the Republicans decide to give tax cuts for everyone and spend trillions on 2 unfunded wars. This is the Republican party.

 

[trenchfoot]

Sure. Let's do away with EITC as a refundable tax credit too.

By all means let's. I'm sure what the middle class and the poor get back from the closing of those generous loopholes to the rich will more than offset the paltry amount the EITC currently gives them.

 

[glenn1]

That is the nutshell right there.

There is room to negotiate, on entitlements, and other issues, if Repubs are willing to work on the tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.

I am willing to bet POTUS will work with them on entitlements too.

Sequester is already cutting 2% annually from Medicare for the next few years. And again, 7.2% cut in non-defense discretionary spending is automatic with sequester this year. Plus medicare is due to be insolvent in 2026 so why should Republicans expend their political capital fixing entitlements? Let Obama negotiate for the fixes if he cares for them.

 

[TerryMathews]

By all means let's. I'm sure what the middle class and the poor get back from the closing of those generous loopholes to the rich will more than offset the paltry amount the EITC currently gives them.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/eitc.cfm

$11+ billion in fraudulent claims. $60+ billion total.

How much exactly do you think closing these "tax loopholes" will net?

Since $60 billion is "paltry", you must think there's trillions of dollars at stake? I think you might be off by an order of magnitude.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

$10 spending cuts for every $1 dollar in new revenue ... the Republicans refused. Clinton handed Bush budget surpluses and Bush and the Republicans decide to give tax cuts for everyone and spend trillions on 2 unfunded wars. This is the Republican party.

Didn't Republican spending cuts negotiated during the Clinton administration help significantly to help drive those surpluses that Clinton so generously handed Bush? Didn't Democrats overwhemingly vote to enter those 2 unfunded wars?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Gotta love teaparty republicans

While holding a gun to their own head they scream "will you negotiate now mother f***ker"

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't Republican spending cuts negotiated during the Clinton administration help significantly to help drive those surpluses that Clinton so generously handed Bush? Didn't Democrats overwhemingly vote to enter those 2 unfunded wars?

They did, and the Republicans should be given due credit for that. Bush's tax cuts were deeply irresponsible from a budgetary standpoint, though.

And while Democrats displayed some pretty craven political cowardice in the run-up to the war in Iraq, I think most people would agree that had Al Gore been president we probably would not have invaded. Both parties share some responsibility for that, but the blame is not equal.

 

[sm625]

Republicans want to barter with burning down the house Democrats just want to keep making additions to the house with no way to pay for it. Who's winning here?

Both parties have and will continue to tack on crap to the proverbial house. There is no party of fiscal responsibility.