Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Republicans pulled the fiscal emergency brakeFollow

#27 Jan 02 2013 at 11:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
The dems wanted a tax increase for the top 1% and without spending cuts. They got exactly that. The dems won this round. Anything else is a figment of your self-delusional imagination.

The Democrats had been fighting to pass a bill cleanly making the tax cuts for everyone under $250k permanent so acting as though "we got the Democrats to make those taxes permanent!" is a coup is pretty funny but we all need our coping mechanisms.

The deal moved the ceiling up to $400/$450k instead of $250k which is a "win" in that it wasn't as bad as it could have been. On the other hand, Obama was previously negotiating a rate of 37% with Boehner but the Senate version set the rate at 39.6% instead which is an obvious loss for the GOP.

The real loss (Part A) is that the Democrats gained tax increases while giving up virtually nothing. When the next spending battle comes in a month or two, the Democrats will press for the GOP to compromise starting from nothing. GOP apologists who were saying "now the GOP will say 'You got yours so you have to give us this'" can't honestly be that naive.

Real loss (Part B) was the continued showing of Boehner as an inept and largely impotent Speaker. Failed to negotiate with Obama, tried to pull his "Plan B" stunt while blew up in his face, threw a little hissy fit and tried to shift blame onto the Senate Democrats only to have the Senate pass a bill that greatly benefited the Democrats and the House was forced to pass (breaking the Hastert Rule to put it on the floor) with a 2:1 ratio of Republicans siding against Boehner in the vote. He's still the odds-on favorite to win the gavel this week but there was nothing about this event that made him look like anything but a clown.

That's not even counting the cherry on top of the failure sundae: the Sandy Relief bill that was abandoned and Congress adjourned despite a clear majority of members voting "Aye" to stay in session. When Peter King says he's "done with the GOP" and hints at flipping parties (he won't), you've done a great job of making yourself look incompetent to everyone.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2013 11:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jan 03 2013 at 5:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Real loss (Part B) was the continued showing of Boehner as an inept and largely impotent Speaker. Failed to negotiate with Obama, tried to pull his "Plan B" stunt while blew up in his face, threw a little hissy fit and tried to shift blame onto the Senate Democrats only to have the Senate pass a bill that greatly benefited the Democrats and the House was forced to pass (breaking the Hastert Rule to put it on the floor) with a 2:1 ratio of Republicans siding against Boehner in the vote. He's still the odds-on favorite to win the gavel this week but there was nothing about this event that made him look like anything but a clown.

To be fair though, him getting caught by reporters telling Harry Reid to "shut the f*ck up" was pretty hilarious. I wonder if he's under a bit of pressure? Smiley: smile
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#29 Jan 03 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Real loss (Part B) was the continued showing of Boehner as an inept and largely impotent Speaker. Failed to negotiate with Obama, tried to pull his "Plan B" stunt while blew up in his face, threw a little hissy fit and tried to shift blame onto the Senate Democrats only to have the Senate pass a bill that greatly benefited the Democrats and the House was forced to pass (breaking the Hastert Rule to put it on the floor) with a 2:1 ratio of Republicans siding against Boehner in the vote. He's still the odds-on favorite to win the gavel this week but there was nothing about this event that made him look like anything but a clown.

To be fair though, him getting caught by reporters telling Harry Reid to "shut the f*ck up" was pretty hilarious. I wonder if he's under a bit of pressure? Smiley: smile

Chris Christie's Boehner rant was pretty good.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#30 Jan 03 2013 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
In other news, Boehner was reelected as House speaker in a landslide of 220 votes, so we can hopefully expect more compromise in the new Congress Smiley: nod

Allen West (R-FL, just lost his seat) got two votes for the position Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 2:59pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#31 Jan 03 2013 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I am going to start keeping count of the number of times Gbaji say's "You do understand..."
We could make an Alma & Gbaji drinking game.
____________________________
Banh
#32 Jan 03 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,758 posts
I liked Christie's speach too, but I guess the goofs weren't enough to replace him. Can't say I'm surprised.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#33 Jan 07 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,667 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I am going to start keeping count of the number of times Gbaji say's "You do understand..."
We could make an Alma & Gbaji drinking game.
We can call it "Liver Failure."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Jan 07 2013 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
So basically, they just procrastinated for 2 months with little actual happening aside from a tax increase for the top 1%?


Well, they did kick the can a little further down the road. That's something right?

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#35 Jan 07 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
So... they wanted "no taxes at all," got tax increases, and it's their victory? Well, as long as it makes you happy, keep saying that.


They want taxes to be as low as possible. You need to look at this from a larger historical perspective to understand what I'm talking about.


Weird, I thought most GOPers wanted no taxes at all. I mean, you just wrote that, and it's what they campaigned on (and lost).


I didn't write that, Locke wrote that. I wrote that the GOP want's taxes as low as possible. You don't keep taxes as low as possible by starting with a position of "well, we can raise taxes, but just some". You start with "no taxes at all. Ever. No way. No how", then you make the other side struggle to get even the tiniest tax increase.

Quote:
And the Dems wanted taxes on the rich - which they did get. Which they got. So it seems everybody wins?


The Dems want (need really) to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the social spending they believe is needed by the people. How they raise that is really irrelevant, but that's their real long term goal. How many times have we had an economic discussion on this forum where I mention how spending as a percentage of GDP has risen to 25% and the response by several people is that 25% isn't high enough? To pay for that the Dems have to raise taxes.

Given the economic situation and the control the Dems have, the GOP literally got the best outcome they could possibly have hoped for. The Dems got about the worst outcome they could have hoped for. Both sides can point to some aspects of this as a "win", but the reality is that the Dems have lost any ability to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the spending they've already committed to, let alone what they'd like to do going forward. That significantly weakens their position in the next rounds. Since "raising taxes" is now off the table, balancing the budget (or even making some strides in that direction) will require spending cuts. We've already taken the other side of the equation off the table.

Quote:
Quote:
Only if you completely fail to grasp the fiscal objectives of the Right. And yes, there are a lot of stupid conservative pundits (radio talking heads really) who fail to grasp them as well.

Well goodie! They should keep it up; I would love to see more compromise, especially since it's both benefitting the country and tearing the conservative voting base in twain. I'd actually like the GOP a lot more if they kicked out the social cons and only had the fiscal ones willing to compromise left.


I think you grossly overestimate the degree to which the boogieman you've been told to be scared of (social conservatives) really influence conservative thought and GOP policies.

Quote:
Quote:
What part of "stocks plummet when Obama wins re-election" makes you think that markets respond favorably when liberals win?

Welllllll, they didn't. So... uh...


The largest single day loss in the Dow Jones average in a year occurred the day after election day this last year. It's kinda hard to read anything into that other than that the markets were not happy that he won.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jan 08 2013 at 1:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
The Dems want (need really) to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the social spending they believe is needed by the people.


Hate to be that guy but spending has been less under Dem control of the Senate and White House.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#37 Jan 08 2013 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:


I didn't write that, Locke wrote that.


gbaji wrote:
By holding to a "no taxes at all" position


Odd, looks like you wrote that, and I agree, many in the GOP had a "no taxes at all" position. Glad they held to a no taxes at all position like you said, and then gave in.

Quote:
I think you grossly overestimate the degree to which the boogieman you've been told to be scared of (social conservatives) really influence conservative thought and GOP policies.


See, that's the funny thing. I've never been told to be scared of the social conservative boogeyman. Instead I read what they say, look at how many people actually believe what they say, and go "Oh, sh*t, those folks are both nuts, and a large portion of the GOP's voters." I actually do get my information from somewhere; and my information on conservative views come from conservative websites. And those people be nuts. I don't need liberal hosts to tell me to be scared; I read what they think for myself and go "Oh **** no!"

You try to come off as a fiscal conservative most of the time; tell me, do YOU think the social conservatives are a good influence?

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
What part of "stocks plummet when Obama wins re-election" makes you think that markets respond favorably when liberals win?

Welllllll, they didn't. So... uh...


The largest single day loss in the Dow Jones average in a year occurred the day after election day this last year. It's kinda hard to read anything into that other than that the markets were not happy that he won.

THE HORROR! We spiraled into a terrible downward spin, right? The worst single day loss in a year! It could not possibly be all those Romney supporters getting angry and selling their stocks, right?... or even worse, firing their employees over Obamacare? The market's never going to recover...

Oh wait, no. Dow Jones Stocks 5 days ago had the highest gain since December 2011. The S&P is at its highest point since 2007.

Yeah, the stock market hates Obama all right Smiley: nod

Edited, Jan 8th 2013 9:29am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#38 Jan 08 2013 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The Dems want (need really) to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the social spending they believe is needed by the people.


Hate to be that guy but spending has been less under Dem control of the Senate and White House.

How are we supposed to raise taxes with the Norquist mentality still in place?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#39 Jan 08 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
The largest single day loss in the Dow Jones average in a year occurred the day after election day this last year. It's kinda hard to read anything into that other than that the markets were not happy that he won.

That makes sense. I guess the way we read the massive rally during Obama's first term is that he was astonishingly good for markets and they were amazingly happy about his presidency. Since we're correlating stock index pricing to job performance, right? Let's do that historically with various administrations and then judge which party is better for markets. I wonder how that will turn out.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Jan 08 2013 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:
The largest single day loss in the Dow Jones average in a year occurred the day after election day this last year. It's kinda hard to read anything into that other than that the markets were not happy that he won.

That makes sense. I guess the way we read the massive rally during Obama's first term is that he was astonishingly good for markets and they were amazingly happy about his presidency. Since we're correlating stock index pricing to job performance, right? Let's do that historically with various administrations and then judge which party is better for markets. I wonder how that will turn out.

Fantastic if you ignore all the years that don't count.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#41 Jan 08 2013 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Given the economic situation and the control the Dems have, the GOP literally got the best outcome they could possibly have hoped for. The Dems got about the worst outcome they could have hoped for. Both sides can point to some aspects of this as a "win", but the reality is that the Dems have lost any ability to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the spending they've already committed to, let alone what they'd like to do going forward. That significantly weakens their position in the next rounds. Since "raising taxes" is now off the table, balancing the budget (or even making some strides in that direction) will require spending cuts. We've already taken the other side of the equation off the table.

I suppose this is what conservatives tell themselves so they can still choke down their oatmeal in the morning.

The GOP suffered a great loss by allowing the tax rates to be unhooked from spending. There was no deal that we'd raise taxes now if we cut spending later or anything. We just legislated in some higher tax rates for the wealthiest folks. The GOP got essentially nothing out of it aside from looking stupid.

The Democrats will go into the next round of talks saying "We need to raise revenue. (via closing loopholes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes... anything but standard income taxes)" The GOP will say "Nuh uh, cuts only!". The Democrats will say "Well, some revenue and some cuts" and the GOP will stonewall and say no new taxes ever and we'll come to the brink of a government shutdown and the public will see the Democrats asking for a compromise and the GOP saying "Our way or it all burns!". Perception will be 60%+ saying if the government shuts down, the GOP is primarily to blame.

My cite: the last umpteen rounds of budget/debt talks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jan 08 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Given the economic situation and the control the Dems have, the GOP literally got the best outcome they could possibly have hoped for. The Dems got about the worst outcome they could have hoped for. Both sides can point to some aspects of this as a "win", but the reality is that the Dems have lost any ability to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the spending they've already committed to, let alone what they'd like to do going forward. That significantly weakens their position in the next rounds.

Nope. In the same way me paying under invoice for a car doesn't "strengthen" the dealer's position when I buy the next car. If anything, it weakens it. If you think the GOP is going to win significant spending cuts a the next debt ceiling vote, you're wrong. Also, using terms like "pay for" just makes people laugh out loud. It's an artifice created specifically to deceive idiots. There is no "pay for" in government spending, dramatically less so than ever in a rescission.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Jan 08 2013 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Quasi relevant link is quasi relevant.

____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#44gbaji, Posted: Jan 08 2013 at 4:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're kidding, right? So Romney supporters were so upset about Obama winning that they decided to decrease the value of their investments by a few percentage points? That makes a ton of sense. Oh wait! No, it doesn't at all.
#45 Jan 08 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The Dems want (need really) to raise sufficient tax revenue to pay for the social spending they believe is needed by the people.


Hate to be that guy but spending has been less under Dem control of the Senate and White House.


Is this like anti-reality day or something? Spending since Obama took office has increased by $620B/year. Revenue has decreased by $220B/year. You're correct that during the time period that the Dems only controlled the Senate and the White House the rate of spending increase has slowed (it's only gone up about $60B/year during that two year time period), but that's because the GOP has controlled the House and has prevented additional spending.

Way to make it abundantly obvious who's been doing the spending though.

And if we go back to when Dems took control of the Senate and House in 2006, spending has increased by about $950B/year. Again, most of that increase occurred between 2006 and 2010. It's hard to not see a direct correlation between the degree the Dems control the government (especially congress) and the degree to which spending increases.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Jan 08 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose this is what conservatives tell themselves so they can still choke down their oatmeal in the morning.

The GOP suffered a great loss by allowing the tax rates to be unhooked from spending.


And I'm sure that's what liberals tell themselves so they can choke down their oatmeal in the morning. If tax rates had been tied to spending (deficit reduction as a whole), it would have been much much harder to keep the increases to such a minimal amount. By disconnecting tax rates from the deficit calculation, the GOP was able to get through this round with a minimal amount of loss from their initial position.

Now, when deficit reduction comes to the table, the only thing left to balance deficit against is spending.

Quote:
There was no deal that we'd raise taxes now if we cut spending later or anything. We just legislated in some higher tax rates for the wealthiest folks. The GOP got essentially nothing out of it aside from looking stupid.


They got the tax rates "done" though, and with only about $60B/year in increases. I don't think you grasp what this means. Now instead of a trillion dollar deficit being balanced against potential tax increases and spending cuts. The deficit will be balanced solely against spending cuts. So instead of saying "we'll reduce the deficit by $500B/year by raising $250B/year in taxes and cut spending by $250B/year", it'll be "any dollar of deficit reduction comes as a result of a dollar of spending cuts".

That's a massive win for the GOP. If the Democrats attempt to put tax increases back on the table right after we just agreed to make a set of rates permanent (and the general perception that they won on that issue), they'll make themselves look ridiculous. They just sold this deal as them standing firm on not raising taxes on X% of the population. Their own rhetoric traps them in this regard.

Quote:
The Democrats will go into the next round of talks saying "We need to raise revenue. (via closing loopholes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes... anything but standard income taxes)" The GOP will say "Nuh uh, cuts only!". The Democrats will say "Well, some revenue and some cuts" and the GOP will stonewall and say no new taxes ever and we'll come to the brink of a government shutdown and the public will see the Democrats asking for a compromise and the GOP saying "Our way or it all burns!". Perception will be 60%+ saying if the government shuts down, the GOP is primarily to blame.


Again, if they try that, they'll be the ones who look like they're going back on their word. Now I'm sure they'll get lots of help in the media with this if they try it, but I suspect the public is getting tired of the Dems saying "we don't want to raise taxes", and then turning around and trying to raise taxes. The GOP will just say that a tax rate agreement was already reached. Given the massive public attention the Dems put on the agreement and the back slapping they're giving themselves in the media over the result, it's somewhat of a hard sell to then say "Oh wait! We didn't really get what we needed" and try to get the public on board with yet another round of tax increases.

The Dems own claims of victory over such a tiny amount of tax increase is going to be their own obstacle in this. But by all means, continue to shout from the rooftops how much of a victory this was for the Dems, and how they got what they wanted, and the GOP lost out big time. Public perception is a *****, isn't it?

Quote:
My cite: the last umpteen rounds of budget/debt talks.


Sure. Like I said, I don't doubt they'll try this. Given some of the ridiculous negotiating claims they've made in the past, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. But each time they do this sort of thing, they lose a bit more support from people who actually believed their claims of taking a balanced approach and all that. Folks like you don't care, but you're in the far left "tax and spend as much as possible" camp. The tipping point of support that the Dems require to do those things comes from people who don't view it that way. If it wasn't, then the Dems wouldn't bother to pretend that they're willing to make 10 dollars of cuts for every dollar of tax increase for example. That subterfuge is necessary for the Dems to retain sufficient support. They have to be very careful not to lose it by being too blatant with their agenda.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Jan 08 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But each time they do this sort of thing, they lose a bit more support from people who actually believed their claims of taking a balanced approach and all that.

This explains why the GOP keeps caving time after time Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jan 08 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But each time they do this sort of thing, they lose a bit more support from people who actually believed their claims of taking a balanced approach and all that.

This explains why the GOP keeps caving time after time Smiley: laugh


They aren't caving, they are winning. Smiley: schooled

Edit:
You didn't see that

Edited, Jan 8th 2013 6:19pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#49 Jan 08 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But each time they do this sort of thing, they lose a bit more support from people who actually believed their claims of taking a balanced approach and all that.

This explains why the GOP keeps caving time after time Smiley: laugh


They aren't caving, they are winning. Smiley: schooled

Edit:
You didn't see that

Edited, Jan 8th 2013 6:19pm by TirithRR

Surely he understood that!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#50 Jan 08 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I don't think you grasp what this means. Now instead of a trillion dollar deficit being balanced against potential tax increases and spending cuts. The deficit will be balanced solely against spending cuts.

I don't think you grasp that there's no "balancing" yet to occur. All done, now. The GOP will stare down the barrel of the Debt Ceiling gun and either shut the government down and lose the House in '14 or cave like pussies. I wonder which it will be. Do you think Cantor want's a shot at Minority Leader? If he does, he'll try to rally his whackos towards pushing for default. I highly doubt that will happen, he's actually extremely bright and a savvy politician, but you never know.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#51 Jan 08 2013 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't think you grasp what this means. Now instead of a trillion dollar deficit being balanced against potential tax increases and spending cuts. The deficit will be balanced solely against spending cuts.

I don't think you grasp that there's no "balancing" yet to occur. All done, now. The GOP will stare down the barrel of the Debt Ceiling gun and either shut the government down and lose the House in '14 or cave like pussies. I wonder which it will be.


Of course. They'll raise the debt ceiling. Why on earth would you think otherwise? There's no way to *not* raise the debt ceiling. This is all theater at this point and you darn well know it. The GOP will call for cuts in spending in return for raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats will refuse. GOP will make a big show of saying that if we don't do something about spending, our deficit will keep growing and the problem will get worse. Insert rhetoric about kicking the can down the road again. Dems will dismiss GOP demands as hostage holding over the debt ceiling and suggest that we should talk about deficit reduction as a separate issue. GOP then takes the high road, says they will "reluctantly" pass a debt ceiling increase, but promise to hold the Dems to deficit talks in coming months.

Sound about right? It's all about public perception Smash. The whole plan from the GOP side is to present their side as loudly and strongly as possible, then appear to give in (compromise if you will) but in as minimal a way as possible (it's not like the GOP actually loses anything by increasing the debt ceiling, they just gain the opportunity to repeat the need for spending cuts). And over time, the Dems will look more and more irrational and unreasonable when we get to the deficit reduction part of this and they continue to refuse to cut anything meaningful. You get that the debt ceiling is not the end of this, right? We still have the pushed back sequestration and whatnot coming down the pipeline.

And when that time comes, the GOP will be able to point to how they compromised on taxes, and they compromised on the debt ceiling, and then ask when the Dems are going to compromise on spending. They'll point to the still looming deficit. They'll make the argument that the GOP is willing to give ground for the good of the people, but not the Dems. Oh, I'm sure the left will do as much as they can in the media to blunt this message, but again, at some point that stops working. You can only claim you're doing something without actually doing it for so long before people stop believing you.

Quote:
Do you think Cantor want's a shot at Minority Leader? If he does, he'll try to rally his whackos towards pushing for default. I highly doubt that will happen, he's actually extremely bright and a savvy politician, but you never know.


There will be theater Smash. The sole purpose of which is to make the public aware of how "important" these things are, and then when the GOP allows the debt ceiling to increase, how much of a sacrifice it was (even though it's not really), and then tie that to calls for the Dems to do their part with regard to spending cuts. It's almost like you don't understand how minority party politics works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 81 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (81)