djplaeskool
Member
Just watched the Christie video.
God. Damn.
God. Damn.
Boehner tells GOP hes through with one-on-one Obama talks
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/275295-boehner-tells-gop-hes-done-with-one-on-one-obama-talks
Remember that day everyone was talking about how likely a gun control push was before the SOTU? Yea, those were fun times.
How long are they going to ride that dead horse?
"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way," Brady said. "Giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles. It strengthens families and reinforces a key Republican value - that the law should treat all citizens equally."
I never understood why a true conservative wouldn't understand that allowing gay marriage is the only appropriate path for genuine small government values.
So just wondering, but why was Obama so interested in compromise? Reid was definitely the opposite and wanting what was originally proposed and I would think Obama and Reid were in lockstep of what the other wanted.
Anything I'm missing here?
Edit: Kind of related: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/harry-reid-fiscal-cliff-fireplace_n_2396606.html?ref=topbar
1) The White House is right, and they’ll be able to enforce a roughly 1:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts in the next deal;
2) The Republicans are right, and they’ll be able to get major spending cuts solely in return for raising the debt ceiling;
3) Both sides are wrong, and we breach the debt ceiling, unleashing economic havoc.
Of these three possibilities, I see #1 as the likeliest, #3 as the second-most likely, and #2 as vanishing unlikely. That is to say, I think it’s far more plausible that we breach the debt ceiling than that the White House agrees to raise the debt ceiling as part of a deal that includes huge spending cuts but no significant tax increases. But likelier than either outcome is that Republicans agree to a deal that includes revenue-generating tax reform. Here’s why.
First, Republicans make a big show of being unreasonable, but they’re not nearly as crazy as the tea party would have you believe. In the end, they weren’t even willing to go over the fiscal cliff. The debt ceiling would do far more damage to the economy than the fiscal cliff, and Republicans would receive far more of the blame. Many thought President Obama actually wanted to go over the fiscal cliff in order to raise taxes, and so it was possible Republicans could’ve portrayed the breakdown in negotiations as a Democratic strategy. No one thinks that the White House wants to breach the debt ceiling, and so Republicans will take all the blame.
Second, there’s no evidence yet that the Republicans will even be able to name their price on the debt ceiling. House Speaker John Boehner has his dollar-for-dollar principle, which implies more than a trillion dollars in cuts to raise the debt ceiling through 2014. But Republicans haven’t named anywhere near a trillion dollars of further cuts in any of the fiscal cliff negotiations. They’ve been afraid to take direct aim at Social Security and Medicare, and while they can call for deep cuts to Medicaid, everyone knows that’s a nonstarter for the White House in the age of Obamacare. Meanwhile, domestic discretionary spending has already been cut to the bone, and Republicans want to increase defense spending. So what’s their demand going to be, exactly? Will they force America into default on behalf of spending cuts they can’t name?
Third, a consequence of the 2012 presidential election, in which Mitt Romney argued for capping deductions and exclusions to pay for his tax cuts, and of the early fiscal cliff negotiations, in which Boehner argued for raising revenue through tax reform, is that Republican policy elites, in my experience, really don’t hate revenue-raising tax reform all that much. Raising any revenues is a bit of a problem for them as it permits the growth of government, but it’s really raising tax rates where they’ve talked themselves into hardline opposition. So they may be willing to strike a deal on this.
Fourth, I don’t think the White House has a shred of credibility when they say they won’t negotiate over the debt ceiling. They may not call what they’re about to do negotiating over the debt ceiling, but that’ll be what they’re doing. That said, I’m quite convinced that they don’t intend to be held hostage over the debt ceiling. As a former constitutional law professor, the president sees himself as a steward of the executive branch and is deeply hostile to setting the precedent that congressional minorities can hold presidents hostage through the debt ceiling. At some point in the coming talks, Boehner or McConnell or both are going to realize that the White House really, seriously will not accept a bargain in which what they “got” was an increase in the debt limit, and so they’re going to have to decide at that point whether to crash the global economy.
Fifth, the constellation of economic interest groups that converge on Washington understands the debt ceiling better than they did in 2011, are becoming more and more tired of congress’s tendency to negotiate by threatening to trigger economic catastrophes, and is getting better at knowing who to blame. It’s not a meaningless sign that John Engler, the former Republican Governor of Michigan who now leads the Business Roundtable, called for a five-year solution to the debt ceiling.
It’s worth keeping this in perspective: All it means is that the White House can potentially demand a perfectly reasonable compromise of one dollar in revenue-generating tax reform for every dollar in spending cuts. When you add in the fiscal cliff deal, and the 2011 Budget Control Act, that’ll still mean that the total deficit reduction enacted over the last few years tilts heavily towards spending, particularly once you account for reduced war costs.
But that is, arguably, another reason that the White House isn’t in such a bad position here: They’ve set up a definition of success that will sound reasonable to most people — a dollar in tax reform for a dollar in spending cuts — while the Republicans have a very unreasonable sounding definition, in which they get huge cuts to Medicare or they force the United States into default. So while it’s possible that the White House will crumble, rendering itself impotent in negotiations going forward, and while it’s possible that the we’ll breach the debt ceiling, both possibilities seem less likely than Republicans agreeing to a deal that pairs revenue-generating tax reform with spending cuts.
Because Obama is not an ideologue, and is also a horrible negotiator. Reid believed democrats were winning the issue, and could continue holding republicans feet to the fire until they got a better deal. Obama wanted to compromise because...that's who he is. I've seen some liberals blaming Biden for the deal, but the 400/450k rate was Obama's idea. Biden sold it to McConnell, and gave republicans some other stuff.
It's clear Reid wanted to fight, and does not trust Obama in the debt ceiling fight. He vehemently opposed the two month sequester delay because he has little faith in the White House's negotiation plan. We don't know where the country will be in two months. That was Reid's argument, and it's mine.
WTF, how did ClovingWestbrook get banned?
Post history says nothing. o.o
WTF, how did ClovingWestbrook get banned?
Post history says nothing. o.o
Obama already got at least $620 billion of his $800 billion goal for tax revenues. He's going to get the rest in the sequester negotiations through tax reform (capping more deductions/loopholes, moving carried interest to income I hope, etc).
And now, because he got the $620billion already, he can do a 1 for 1 which will be more like a 2 for 1 in reality but since it's 2 months from now it won't look that way. And it's up to the GOP to go on record with cuts this time since Obama is on the other side of the coin. He doesn't have to ask for tax reform, he doesn't have to initiate negotiations.
This doesn't seem true to me. There is still $1.2 trillion in spending cuts on the books. The Democrats definitely have something to ask for. It's not tax reform, to be sure, but avoidance of significant cuts to programs, including subsidies that are part of the ACA. These cuts are far more important, to me, than a small tax increase on income over 400k.
The worst mistake the Democrats made was negotiating over the debt ceiling in the first fucking place. There should be no spending cuts. In fact, spending should increase. Too bad Democrats are every bit infected by the deficit hysteria as Republicans are. If there are large spending cuts in two months time, another recession is practically guaranteed.
When you come at the king, you best not miss
Current TV was purchased by Al Jazeera!?
Will the channel not suck ass now!?
Just put Al jazeera english on plz. I hate having to watch it on my computer.
Looks like their looking to build a Al Jazeera America. I'll be watching. Suck it looks like Time Warner is going to drop them though they'll keep 60million households.
Current TV was purchased by Al Jazeera!?
Will the channel not suck ass now!?
Hopefully the up coming debate on spending cuts drives home the fact that our government isn't bloated or inefficient, well, outside of military spending of course.
Supposedly AJ English and standard AJ are two different beasts.Article about AJ and current
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...a-likely-500-million-deal-for-al-gore-and-co/
I'm excited. Screw what the crazies think, its a good news channel though like any it has its biases and stylistic differences which should be taken into account.
Not likely because people will always associate government with "long lines at the DMV".
We'll cut out the entire DMV.Not sure that's something g you could fix with cuts ;p
Not sure that's something g you could fix with cuts ;p
Supposedly AJ English and standard AJ are two different beasts.
I hear the same. AJ English got a buch of ex-BBC people and are modeled pretty closely on BBC News. Original AJ is something else.
Probably close to half the staff is ex-BBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English#Current
Calling out jamesinclair in the conspiracy but thread, maybe?Does anyone know what clovingwestbrook was banned for?
My guess is this post.Does anyone know what clovingwestbrook was banned for?
My guess is this post.
Man, Scullibundo is to making good posters banned what's James Cameron is to making shitty movies profitable.
Or something.
My guess is this post.
Man, Scullibundo is to making good posters banned what's James Cameron is to making shitty movies profitable.
Or something.
Article about AJ and current
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffber...a-likely-500-million-deal-for-al-gore-and-co/
I'm excited. Screw what the crazies think, its a good news channel though like any it has its biases and stylistic differences which should be taken into account.
My guess is this post.
Man, Scullibundo is to making good posters banned what's James Cameron is to making shitty movies profitable.
Or something.
Meh. I don't see the big deal about what he said.
Oh, well. He'll be back.
Meh. I don't see the big deal about what he said.
Oh, well. He'll be back.
It was basically threadshitting, which is frowned upon. (Incidentally, this entire conversation is as well.)
The Kwanzaa stuff was brought up earlier in this topic. Even if the guy was right about Kwanzaa, was a stupid fucking thing to bring up as a politician. Like, why pick a fight with Kwanzaa? Who cares if some people want to celebrate it? Does it hurt you that some people still do?
I hope they just put Al Jazeera there.Anyway, I hope they rebrand Current TV and that Blue Ridge Cable picks them up now that Al Jazeera is at the helm. Al Jazeera does some great stuff.
I hope they just put Al Jazeera there.
It's a fucking joke that I still can't get them on my TV (without using a computer that is).
Just connect a computer to your TV and never look back.that'd be fine by me too. I would so never have to watch CNN or MSNBC again ever in life
Oh, whoops. Nevermind then. Forget I even brought this up.
In other news, republican lawmaker declares war on kwanza.
Yeah man, this has been going on for a while.After reading about AJE I found the channel on Time Warner Cable in NY just in time to see a camel get shot in the head.
It was an interesting story though. Similar to the deer overpopulation problem the US is facing.