|
Post by boxcar on Dec 10, 2012 16:59:05 GMT -5
Byron York
In subsequent days, Obama has not only flatly rejected a Republican proposal that, unlike Obama's, made concessions on tax revenue. He has also ratcheted up his demands -- he now says there will be no fiscal cliff deal without a deal on the debt ceiling as well, which he has demanded unilateral authority to control. And he has, in public, addressed Republicans as if they were unruly children in need of discipline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2012 9:59:35 GMT -5
Every bit of that last post was true, especially the last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 11, 2012 14:54:35 GMT -5
So much for compromise.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2012 17:20:44 GMT -5
So much for compromise..... I don't like it either, but I guess I don't blame him. He has the bully pulpit and there can be no doubt that the GOP refused to deal with him before the election. We lost now we have to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 11, 2012 18:58:44 GMT -5
D:>>there can be no doubt that the GOP refused to deal with him before the election.<<
As has been stated before, the House submitted a bill on the budget to the Senate in August and it was Dead-on-Arrival at the Senate. What more can you ask of the House?
During the elections, the subject was ignored by both Obama and Romney. Then we go to post elections…
Obama, he went to Pennsylvania to preach to the choir and then dropped the haggling on Geithner, who proclaimed there should be no limit to the debt ceiling…..
When Obama finally did put in an appearance, he demanded sole power to set the debt limit.
How can you say the GOP refused to deal with him? It first has to deal with the Senate.
Also, Oama still does not understand the rules of the game. The Executive branch can only suggest a budget. They can not demand. Yes, they do have the privilege of a pocket veto. It is the House that is required to initialize the budget proposal.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 30, 2012 17:37:07 GMT -5
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KENTUCKY): My office submitted our latest offer to the Majority Leader last night at 7:10 p.m. and offered to work through the night to find common ground. The Majority Leader's staff informed us they would be getting back to us this morning at 10:00 a.m., despite the obvious time crunch we all have. It's now 2:00 p.m., and we have yet to receive a response to our good-faith offer.
Sen. Reid To GOP: "At This Stage We're Not Able To Make A Counteroffer"
Denny, speak to the Dems about compromise and all that good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 30, 2012 18:21:18 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 19:07:01 GMT -5
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KENTUCKY): My office submitted our latest offer to the Majority Leader last night at 7:10 p.m. and offered to work through the night to find common ground. The Majority Leader's staff informed us they would be getting back to us this morning at 10:00 a.m., despite the obvious time crunch we all have. It's now 2:00 p.m., and we have yet to receive a response to our good-faith offer. Sen. Reid To GOP: "At This Stage We're Not Able To Make A Counteroffer" Denny, speak to the Dems about compromise and all that good stuff. It's a classic case of "my dick is bigger than yours". Both sides suck!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 19:11:13 GMT -5
The Pentagon doesn't have anywhere near 800,000 employees. If you mean that the DoD is going to do that, I'd understand. I also think that this is the same thing as getting off your nose to spite your face. It's simply one more reason why I advocate that every single member of Congress should resign and be replaced by totally unaligned people who would vote for what is best for the country and not merely to themselves. This is as close as I've ever felt about overthrowing the government. Something must be done.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 30, 2012 23:57:26 GMT -5
Unfortunately we just voted the problem in for another four years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 10:47:46 GMT -5
Unfortunately we just voted the problem in for another four years. Well, at least for two and six (House of Reps and the Senate). With an unaligned Congress that believed in working for the American people rather than their own agenda, it wouldn't make any difference what Obama thought.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Dec 31, 2012 16:10:07 GMT -5
They're still fighting over spending cuts, but they've reached an agreement to hike taxes for those making more than $450,000 a year as well as the middle class. I'll presume there'll be a deal in time for everyone to party. I'm a Reagan Republican, so I don't like hiking taxes, but I am also a Reagan Republican, which means I don't like deficits either. So I'm ambivalent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 16:24:14 GMT -5
They're still fighting over spending cuts, but they've reached an agreement to hike taxes for those making more than $450,000 a year as well as the middle class. I'll presume there'll be a deal in time for everyone to party. I'm a Reagan Republican, so I don't like hiking taxes, but I am also a Reagan Republican, which means I don't like deficits either. So I'm ambivalent. Be careful, Swampy, or your fellow forumites will lump you in the same category as me!
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Dec 31, 2012 16:35:49 GMT -5
But it has been demonstrated (arithmatically) that raising taxes will do nothing (or very little) about the deficit - depending on how much of the increased spending that Abama wants he is able to actually get through....
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Dec 31, 2012 16:39:58 GMT -5
The problem with Osama’s “balanced budget” is he wants spending hikes NOW and spending cuts to be phased in over a ten year period. Next year, he will ask for the same thing. As a result we wind up with more spending and little or no cuts. “Obamanomics” at its best.
|
|