Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Nov '12 05:29
    Seems to me the idea is that Obama, while he won, won with no mandate. In addition, House Republicans are doing what they were elected to do: govern responsibly, and provide checks and balances, as the loyal opposition. Sounds like Democrat overreach...but I started this to engage a discussion.


    GOP dismisses White House initial offer as 'unbalanced,' 'unreasonable'

    By NBC’s Luke Russert

    November 29, 2012, 9:20 pm


    NBCNews.com





    The gulf between Republicans and Democrats on the “fiscal cliff” grew larger today as the GOP dismissed the White House’s opening offer as “unbalanced” and “unreasonable.”

    Late this afternoon, details of the President Obama’s first proposal in dealing with the fiscal cliff were leaked by GOP aides upset that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner presented an offer they believed was one-sided and illogical.

    Geithner’s offer included a $1.6 trillion tax increase, an extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, as well as a request for $50 billion dollars in new stimulus spending for fiscal year 2013.

    “We’ve offered a ‘balanced’ approach to deal with the fiscal cliff: raising revenue in a way that protects jobs while cutting spending,” a congressional Republican, familiar with the talks, contended. “But, after two weeks of discussions, the offer the White House made today is completely unbalanced and unreasonable, and amounts to little more than reiterating the president’s budget request – which failed to get a single vote in the House or Senate.”

    The aide then laid out the GOP’s problem with the proposal:


    1) Earlier this year, the Senate passed a tax bill with 51 votes, after a full-bore lobbying campaign by the White House. That bill – which the White House has constantly been calling on Congress to pass – would raise approximately $800 billion in additional tax revenue. The White House offer today called for nearly twice that amount of tax revenue, including plenty of rate hikes. While $1.6 trillion is the White House’s public position, it is ridiculous to offer that amount two weeks after negotiations began - and less than a month before we must have a solution. Why on Earth would the White House think the Senate would or could pass a bill with DOUBLE that amount in tax hikes? (let alone the House?)

    2) The White House keeps saying it wants a ‘balanced approach’ but this offer is completely unbalanced and unrealistic. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – all of that upfront – in exchange for only $400 billion in spending cuts that come later. Plus, the only entitlement changes they proposed come from the exact proposals in the President’s budget.

    3) They also want a permanent, unlimited debt limit increase – for free. No additional cuts or reforms. Not to mention a host of other, unrelated White House proposals – including even more ‘stimulus’ spending.

    The conservative publication The National Review reported that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “burst into laughter” when Geithner offered the plan, because it was so “one-sided and vague on spending cuts.”

    The flat-out rejection could mark a significant turning point in the negotiations between the White House and congressional Republicans. No longer is there post-election optimism for a large, bipartisan deal.

    “With this opening offer, we’ve essentially wasted three weeks," another GOP aide told NBC News.

    Significant breakdowns were part of the 2011 “Grand Bargain” debt talks in the summer of 2011, but they did not occur this early in the process.

    This could also, however, be just the opening salvo in what will be long, intensive negotiations. It signals that the White House is not about to start negotiations with major concessions after winning reelection, something the president has previously been criticized for from the left.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    30 Nov '12 05:47
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Seems to me the idea is that Obama, while he won, won with no mandate. In addition, House Republicans are doing what they were elected to do: govern responsibly, and provide checks and balances, as the loyal opposition. Sounds like Democrat overreach...but I started this to engage a discussion.


    GOP dismisses White House initial offer as 'unbalan ...[text shortened]... nning reelection, something the president has previously been criticized for from the left.
    Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “burst into laughter” when heard about the plan offered.
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Nov '12 05:58
    Originally posted by FMF
    Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell [b]“burst into laughter” when heard about the plan offered.[/b]
    My friend, I'm not sure what it is about us, but we seem determined to make things interesting.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    30 Nov '12 05:59
    It seems that members of the GOP are the ones that are being unreasonable.

    They don't like the tax increase on 250,000 + earners, which is around three percent (or possibly less). So instead, they'll fight this, and risk the "cliff", which will affect 100 percent of Americans earning income. That's stupid.
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Nov '12 06:04
    Originally posted by vivify
    It seems that members of the GOP are the ones that are being unreasonable.

    They don't like the tax increase on 250,000 + earners, which is around three percent (or possibly less). So instead, they'll fight this, and risk the "cliff", which will affect 100 percent of Americans earning income. That's stupid.
    You're not paying attention. The GOP is willing to talk about higher rates, removing the mortgage interest deduction, and shedding other deductions that primarily benefit Obama's "wealthy".

    Obama's proposal is just not serious.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    30 Nov '12 06:13
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Obama Offer "Unbalanced, Unreasonable"
    GOP supporter: "Obama's proposal is just not serious."

    GOP say it's "one-sided and illogical."

    GOP dismissed the White House’s opening offer as “unbalanced” and “unreasonable.”

    The evidence that Obama's opponents oppose Obama's policies is starting to mount up.
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Nov '12 06:21
    Originally posted by FMF
    GOP supporter: "Obama's proposal is just not serious."

    GOP say it's "one-sided and illogical."

    GOP dismissed the White House’s opening offer as “unbalanced” and “unreasonable.”

    The evidence that Obama's opponents oppose Obama's policies is starting to mount up.
    That might be the clearest, most concise analysis of any issue offered yet.


  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Nov '12 14:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Seems to me the idea is that Obama, while he won, won with no mandate. In addition, House Republicans are doing what they were elected to do: govern responsibly, and provide checks and balances, as the loyal opposition. Sounds like Democrat overreach...but I started this to engage a discussion.


    GOP dismisses White House initial offer as 'unbalan nning reelection, something the president has previously been criticized for from the left.
    While I think that the spending cuts need to be deeper and more concrete, I don't see this as being a ridiculous first offer. $50B in stimulus is almost like saying there's no stimulus at all.

    But such is negotiation. John Grisham always writes that it's almost required that you reject and even laugh at the first offer.

    Personally, I think Obama's best strategy is to let January 1 pass and then trade tax cuts from the then existing (Clinton) rates for the goodies that he wants such as the unemployment cut and entitlement $$.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Nov '12 14:55
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Seems to me the idea is that Obama, while he won, won with no mandate. In addition, House Republicans are doing what they were elected to do: govern responsibly, and provide checks and balances, as the loyal opposition. Sounds like Democrat overreach...but I started this to engage a discussion.


    GOP dismisses White House initial offer as 'unbalan ...[text shortened]... nning reelection, something the president has previously been criticized for from the left.
    Every poll says the voters support pretty much everything in Obama's offer. Are the people "unbalanced, unreasonable"?

    Have you ever taken part in a negotiation, Sas?
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Nov '12 14:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    While I think that the spending cuts need to be deeper and more concrete, I don't see this as being a ridiculous first offer. $50B in stimulus is almost like saying there's no stimulus at all.

    But such is negotiation. John Grisham always writes that it's almost required that you reject and even laugh at the first offer.

    Personally, I think Obama's best st ...[text shortened]... linton) rates for the goodies that he wants such as the unemployment cut and entitlement $$.
    $50 billion, if used properly, could put a good portion of the unemployed construction workers back to work. Of course, it would have to be directly spent by the feds on necessary infrastructure repair and not filtered through the States' bureaucracies as the first stimulus was (I'd put the Army Corps of Engineers in charge of the program).
  11. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Nov '12 15:32
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Every poll says the voters support pretty much everything in Obama's offer. Are the people "unbalanced, unreasonable"?

    Have you ever taken part in a negotiation, Sas?
    I don't doubt that the polls say that. I do think it clever that the Republicans won't give Democrats talking points for 2014, and are asking Democrats to define both sides of the deal.

    Yes, in fact, I have. I negotiate contracts all the time, it's part of my job, and I understand why you asked that question. Obama hasn't negotiated before.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    30 Nov '12 20:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    $50 billion, if used properly, could put a good portion of the unemployed construction workers back to work. Of course, it would have to be directly spent by the feds on necessary infrastructure repair and not filtered through the States' bureaucracies as the first stimulus was (I'd put the Army Corps of Engineers in charge of the program).
    I thought we didn't want the Army doing nation building anymore.
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    30 Nov '12 20:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I thought we didn't want the Army doing nation building anymore.
    You need to get out more.

    The Army Corps of Engineers would be the perfect agency for the job, and they are not the Army.