Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Look at the Offers. Look at what was never on the table. Real change cannot happen [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)19. More attempts
Of course they don't. But they set the terms for the debate.
Look at the numbers, from a Democratic President, following a landslide Democratic victory. Look at what is on the table, look at how insanely the numbers are skewed to benefit the wealthy and punish the poor, and, more importantly, look at what is not even mentioned.
Look at the numbers, from a Democratic President, following a landslide Democratic victory. Look at what is on the table, look at how insanely the numbers are skewed to benefit the wealthy and punish the poor, and, more importantly, look at what is not even mentioned.
...to distort where the negotiations started:
Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787
You're constantly trying to keep the focus on things that are no longer relevant. Here's the reality:
In January, it only gets worse for Republicans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054555
No one knows President Obama's negotiating style.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022058579
Obamas small deal could lead to bigger tax increases
Posted by Ezra Klein
<...>
But the most important insight into the White Houses strategic thinking comes when Boehner says to the president, I put $800 billion (in tax revenue) on the table. What do I get for that? Obamas response is cold and telling. You get nothing, the president said. I get that for free.
That, right there, is the central fact of negotiations for the Democrats and the central problem for the Republicans....The White House already has some $700 billion in the bank, as they see it. The reason to negotiate with Boehner is that an agreement with him could, in theory, push that number well above $1 trillion while stabilizing the debt and avoiding the economic pain of falling off the fiscal cliff. But theres no reason to cut a deal with Boehner in which the White House gives up spending cuts in order to get a tax increase they can have anyway.
<...>
The talk in Washington now is about a small deal. That would likely include the Senate tax bill, some policy to turn off at least the defense side of the sequester and a handful of other policies to blunt or delay various parts of the fiscal cliff...Some time in the next month or so, the small deal would pass and the White House would pocket that $700-plus billion in tax revenue...But pressure would quickly mount to strike a larger deal, both because there would be another fiscal cliff coming and because the debt ceiling would need to be raised...The White House would insist that the next deal includes a 1:1 ratio of tax increases all of which could come through Republican-friendly tax reform to spending cuts. So a subsequent deal that included $600 billion or $700 billion in spending cuts would also include $600 billion or $700 billion in tax increases, leading to total new revenue in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion.
<...>
All of which is to say, if Boehner had taken the White Houses deal in 2011, he couldve stopped the tax increase at $800 billion. If he took their most recent deal, he could stop it at $1.2 trillion. But if he insists on adding another round to the negotiations one that will likely come after the White House pockets $700 billion in tax increases then any deal in which gets the entitlement cuts he wants is going to mean a deal in which he accepts even more tax increases than the White House is currently demanding.
Today, Boehner wishes hed taken the deal the president offered him in 2011. A year from now, he might wish hed taken the deal the president offered him in 2012.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/22/obamas-small-deal-could-lead-to-bigger-tax-increases/
Posted by Ezra Klein
<...>
But the most important insight into the White Houses strategic thinking comes when Boehner says to the president, I put $800 billion (in tax revenue) on the table. What do I get for that? Obamas response is cold and telling. You get nothing, the president said. I get that for free.
That, right there, is the central fact of negotiations for the Democrats and the central problem for the Republicans....The White House already has some $700 billion in the bank, as they see it. The reason to negotiate with Boehner is that an agreement with him could, in theory, push that number well above $1 trillion while stabilizing the debt and avoiding the economic pain of falling off the fiscal cliff. But theres no reason to cut a deal with Boehner in which the White House gives up spending cuts in order to get a tax increase they can have anyway.
<...>
The talk in Washington now is about a small deal. That would likely include the Senate tax bill, some policy to turn off at least the defense side of the sequester and a handful of other policies to blunt or delay various parts of the fiscal cliff...Some time in the next month or so, the small deal would pass and the White House would pocket that $700-plus billion in tax revenue...But pressure would quickly mount to strike a larger deal, both because there would be another fiscal cliff coming and because the debt ceiling would need to be raised...The White House would insist that the next deal includes a 1:1 ratio of tax increases all of which could come through Republican-friendly tax reform to spending cuts. So a subsequent deal that included $600 billion or $700 billion in spending cuts would also include $600 billion or $700 billion in tax increases, leading to total new revenue in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion.
<...>
All of which is to say, if Boehner had taken the White Houses deal in 2011, he couldve stopped the tax increase at $800 billion. If he took their most recent deal, he could stop it at $1.2 trillion. But if he insists on adding another round to the negotiations one that will likely come after the White House pockets $700 billion in tax increases then any deal in which gets the entitlement cuts he wants is going to mean a deal in which he accepts even more tax increases than the White House is currently demanding.
Today, Boehner wishes hed taken the deal the president offered him in 2011. A year from now, he might wish hed taken the deal the president offered him in 2012.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/22/obamas-small-deal-could-lead-to-bigger-tax-increases/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Look at the Offers. Look at what was never on the table. Real change cannot happen [View all]
woo me with science
Dec 2012
OP
POTUS Obama stated Obama'My Policies Are So Mainstream' I'd Be A 'Moderate Republican of the 1980s"
PufPuf23
Dec 2012
#50
Your claims have been debunked many times and in many threads, so I see
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2012
#13
You are right, of course, "until we are honest about what we are being fed here" real
AnotherMcIntosh
Dec 2012
#21
You are right on and have wooed me with science and overwhelming logic. We have
indepat
Dec 2012
#68
Please point me to the official word that chained CPI is still not on the table
MotherPetrie
Dec 2012
#31
Austerity is the agenda item for both parties. It'll cause pain among workers but the untra wealthy
byeya
Dec 2012
#23
Yes, It Is Panicking, It Is Realizing There Will Never, Ever Be The Cuts It's Been Predicting Since
Skraxx
Dec 2012
#72
Well said. That's why we need to keep saying, "Look at the Offers."
woo me with science
Dec 2012
#14
Very important post. People in other nations have already seen how austerity kills.
woo me with science
Dec 2012
#44
"The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." Voltaire
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2012
#26
Under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment the president has an independent constitutional obligation not
byeya
Dec 2012
#30
it's the product of the same good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly, janus-like condition in DC
stupidicus
Dec 2012
#53
"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938" BHO - 2006
woo me with science
Dec 2012
#58
"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years,
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2012
#67
Perhaps it's not so much a lack of intelligence as it is working 2 or 3 part time jobs;
byeya
Dec 2012
#71
Why is Social Security in ALL of Obama's offers, when it ADDS NOTHING to the deficit???
grahamhgreen
Dec 2012
#77