Obama: Conceder in Chief

JC29856

oh by gosh by golly, Obama has conceded yet again for the sake of "compromise"...wow Im so surprised!!

He is now offering a new threshold of $400,000 and lowering his 10-year tax revenue goals from the $1.6 trillion he had argued for a few weeks ago.
Obama is proposing lower cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries, employing an inflation index that would have far-reaching consequences, including pushing more people into higher income tax brackets.
Those changes, as well as Obama's decision not to seek an extension of a temporary payroll tax cut, would force higher tax payments on the middle class, a wide swath of the population that Obama has repeatedly said he wanted to protect from tax increases.

The only president in history to allow the opposing party to hold the "debt ceiling" over his head.

If only he had one (1) ounce of courage those students and teachers in Newtown Ct have/had.

Unlike he and his fellow Democrats that took just about everything Bush and Co rammed down their throats.....
"I understand that I don't expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget," he said during his post-election news conference last month. "That's not realistic. So, I recognize we're going to have to compromise."

know1

You're bashing a politician for compromising?

redrock

What would he have gotten without this 'compromise'?

cincybearcat

JC29856 wrote:

If only he had one (1) ounce of courage those students and teachers in Newtown Ct have/had.

Really?

BinFrog

Compromise: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

At least he's willing to.






(Worst thread I have seen in a long time)

ledvedderman

This isn't even facepalm worthy

Jason P

The guy's only platform in 2012 was that he was going to raise taxes. Why act surprised that everyones taxes are going to go up?

Let's see ... everyone's taxes go up ... madatory spending cuts suspended ... debt ceiling to be increased ...

My Magic 8-Ball has foreseen the future!



:fp:

MotoDC

JC29856 wrote:

oh by gosh by golly, Obama has conceded yet again for the sake of "compromise"...wow Im so surprised!!

He is now offering a new threshold of $400,000 and lowering his 10-year tax revenue goals from the $1.6 trillion he had argued for a few weeks ago.
Obama is proposing lower cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries, employing an inflation index that would have far-reaching consequences, including pushing more people into higher income tax brackets.
Those changes, as well as Obama's decision not to seek an extension of a temporary payroll tax cut, would force higher tax payments on the middle class, a wide swath of the population that Obama has repeatedly said he wanted to protect from tax increases.

The only president in history to allow the opposing party to hold the "debt ceiling" over his head.

If only he had one (1) ounce of courage those students and teachers in Newtown Ct have/had.

Unlike he and his fellow Democrats that took just about everything Bush and Co rammed down their throats.....
"I understand that I don't expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget," he said during his post-election news conference last month. "That's not realistic. So, I recognize we're going to have to compromise."

Not compromising is exactly what all the liberals on this site have been bashing Republicans for for 4 years. You only want compromise when it's the other guys doing it?

Also, not extending the payroll tax cut isn't compromising with the Republicans, unless I'm missing something. Repubs would want to extend it.

JC29856

how come no "compromise" on war spending??

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

If only he had one (1) ounce of courage those students and teachers in Newtown Ct have/had.

Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?

JC29856

http://www.bigfatwhale.com/archives/bfw_493.htm

JimmyV

I like these posts because they are a healthy reminder that the Left can be every bit as close minded as the Right.

JC29856

republicans get the democrats to do their dirty work...cut social security, medicare and medicaid

if someone was assigned the job to evaluate a for profit company and cut spending/expenses, would they start by evaluating the most expensive expenditure or would they ignore it?

JimmyV

JimmyV wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

If only he had one (1) ounce of courage those students and teachers in Newtown Ct have/had.

Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?

So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?

EdsonNascimento

JC29856 wrote:

republicans get the democrats to do their dirty work...cut social security, medicare and medicaid

if someone was assigned the job to evaluate a for profit company and cut spending/expenses, would they start by evaluating the most expensive expenditure or would they ignore it?

These so called cuts are just "resets" on what the benefits were intended to be. When Medicare was implemented, the average longevity was about 72 years. So, you would be on Medicare 7 years (on average). It was meant to cover end of life. Our average longevity is now 81 with no corresponding adjustment in the benefit provided. So, in fact, as with most gov't programs - once implemented, they only INCREASE (As it will continue to do.)

The fact is, Medicare is a simple fix that should fly through. Make the Medicare age 70 phased in over the next 10 years. You would still be providing FAR greater benefit than originally intended or expected (i.e. covering 11+ years at end of life instead of 7 or so), but at least you would mitigate the growth trend. The fact that the libs balk at moving the age to 67 is not only pure lunacy it is irresponsible (And to be fair ONLY recommending 2 years is irresponsible on the Republicans' side, though I guess compromise is better than nothing).

Social Security is the same thing. Quite frankly, the liberals should just keep their mouths shut and their constituency would automatically grow. However, it's these tough decisions that we need our leaders to pay attention to.

EdsonNascimento

JC29856 wrote:

how come no "compromise" on war spending??

They just did. Not as low as you or I might like, but the current bill recommended by committee is a cut, or "compromise."

gimmesometruth27

i say we go over the cliff. it is the only way we will get real and meaningful cuts to the military budget.

JC29856

JimmyV wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

If only he had one (1) ounce of courage those students and teachers in Newtown Ct have/had.

Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?

So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?

since you're begging... what thoughts and rethoughts would you like me to expound upon? are you saying that the students and teachers werent courageous? or are you saying that "croc tears" obama is courageous?

168 children
231 children
921 children

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

since you're begging... what thoughts and rethoughts would you like me to expound upon? are you saying that the students and teachers werent courageous? or are you saying that "croc tears" obama is courageous?

168 children
231 children
921 children

Begging am I? You sure do live in your own world.

JC29856

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1480


During his first term, we watched him inexplicably water down his health reform program before it even got started, removing the option of a Canadian-style state-run insurance program known as “single-payer” from consideration, and then cutting deals with the insurance industry, the hospital industry and the pharmaceutical industry, before going to Congress with a plan that ended up being a gift to all three.

We watched him cave early on in negotiations over a crisis economic stimulus plan in 2009, giving Republicans a $425-billion tax cut that did nothing to boost jobs in return for getting a measly $425-billion in stimulus funding approved. He caved quickly too on the plan to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the newly created Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The list of Obama premature cave-ins is long and ugly.

Now, when he is almost by accident in an unassailable position to have the hugely unfair and damaging Bush tax cuts for the rich finally expire on December 31, leaving Republicans stuck in January with having to pass Democratic legislation restoring tax cuts for just the middle class, he is giving it away, offering gratis an undermining of Social Security benefits for all Americans by way of a subtle change in the way inflation adjustments are made in future benefits.

There is, as the president surely knows, no real crisis in letting the country go “over” the so-called fiscal cliff. Every expert and every politician knows that when that happens, it is not, despite what the scare-mongering talking heads in the media say, going to raise everyone’s taxes. No politician in Washington would dare to let that happen. They will simply pass a tax bill restoring the Bush tax cuts for people with incomes under $250,000.

There would be no majority vote for restoring tax cuts for the rich, though, which have been costing the US Treasury over $70 billion a year for the past decade -- an amount of revenue more than enough, if applied to the Social Security program, to keep it fully funded into the indefinite future.
As strong as the president’s bargaining position is today, it would be ten times stronger after December 31, because Republicans could no longer hold middle class tax cuts hostage in order to cut taxes for the rich.

JimmyV

Best President since Clinton.