Shocker: President Obama's newest 'Grand Bargain', lands with a thud

[cali]

I mean who could have predicted this- other than just about everyone.

<snip>

But even with the dimensions of the new plan unknown, the idea landed with a thud on Capitol Hill as word spread Tuesday morning.

House Republicans have long opposed a tax overhaul that changes the code for corporations but not for individuals. Owners of small businesses who use the individual tax code would be at a disadvantage if only the corporate tax rate were cut, they say.

The GOP has also insisted that corporate tax reform be “revenue neutral,” not raising money for job creation or any other goal, said Brendan Buck, press secretary for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

“After offering us two things he knows we oppose, the president is asking for additional stimulus spending which, as you know, we also oppose,” Buck said in an email on Tuesday.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-new-grand-bargain-20130730,0,2137456.story

[The Magistrate]

1. Of Course, Ma'am: That Is Why These Are Floated In The First Place

Voters are getting tired of Republicans refusing to accept anything[i/], and the tireder they are of that, the better 2014 will be at the polls....

[cali]

5. I doubt that that's the intent, or at least the main gist of it

that's a broad rather useless statement. All offers of bargains by presidents to Congress are about winning the next election? got any evidence for that claim?

[The Magistrate]

9. You Are Turning Into A Parody Of Yourself, Ma'am

It is sad to see.

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. +1

I disagree about the sadness, though.

[LordGlenconner]

24. With a lot of spare time, apparently

[ljm2002]

36. Judging by their relative post counts...

...it would appear that both posters have roughly equal amounts of spare time.

IOW your little jab is completely meaningless.

[cali]

39. something you've been of yourself for years and years

the irony of you posting that is quite delicious, old boy.

[The Magistrate]

41. You Need To Write Your Own Lines, Ma'am, If You Want To Prevail In An Exercise Of That Sort

Simply parroting back what an opponent did first will never carry the day....

"For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."

[JaneyVee]

7. +1

[cthulu2016]

12. I agree that is the operating theory

I also happen to believe that it is a poor theory, in the context of circumstances. I think that the sense of futility engendered is not a net benefit.

[The Magistrate]

14. That, Sir, is Certainly An Arguable Point

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Republicans have not refused to accept anything. They accepted the jobs creating "free trade"

agreements which Obama signed. They will accept the next one, the TPP or NAFTA on steroids, after HRC is fininshed negotiating the terms in secret. That ought to help.

They've accepted all of Obama's appointments of Republicans to high-level positions in his Administration.

They've accepted the endless wars and occupations in the Middle-East.

They accepted the sequester which he proposed, and the cuts to essential programs that benefit Americans as a whole while substantially keeping the bloated budget items for the military-industrial complex. (Sure, sure, some military items have been cut but they will be brought back in.)

Although they initially indicated that they would reject his proposed cuts to Social Security, they will accept deeper cuts. It's just a matter of how deep his proposal has to be.

[babylonsister]

23. Why do you let rethugs off the hook so readily? Very puzzling for a Dem site.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/04/the-sequester-is-a-republican-inflicted-wound/

The Sequester Is a Republican-Inflicted Wound
The origin of this mess is absolutely clear. It was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the ransom Republican leaders received for agreeing to let the U.S. government pay its bills.
By Michael Grunwald @MikeGrunwaldMarch 04, 2013390 Comments


The sequester is here, with an initial $85 billion worth of haphazard and economically destructive spending cuts, a Washington wound almost universally described as “self-inflicted.” Let’s be clearer: It’s Republican-inflicted. It is a direct result of the insistence by GOP leaders in the summer of 2011 that they would not raise the federal debt ceiling unless President Obama agreed to dramatic spending cuts. One can argue that the growth of the debt or the size of the government justified that insistence; I’d disagree. But it’s simply a fact that every budget crisis of the last two years—the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, the failure of the “supercommittee,” the fiscal cliff, and now this—stems from Republican debt-limit brinksmanship.

This is what makes all the Beltway back-and-forth about who came up with the sequester, and who moved which goalposts, and what Gene Sperling said to Bob Woodward, so annoying. The origin of this mess is absolutely clear. It was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the ransom Republican leaders received for agreeing to let the U.S. government pay its bills.

more...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. Very puzzling that anyone would think that this is letting rethugs off the hook for anything.

It's also puzzling that after Obama has embraced Republicans for high-level positions in his Administration, and embraced Republican policies, that anyone would think that it's just the fault of the Republicans.

When I voted for Obama in 2008, I thought that I was voting for a Democrat. That's what he told us, or told us before the election. We did not elect him to put Republicans in his Administration, nor did we elect him to continue Republican policies.

In addition, it's puzzling that anyone would say that the Republicans will not work with Obama on anything. It's clear that they have. True, they haven't agreed to his chained-CPI proposal to cut Social Security. But if he sweetens the pot enough, they will.

[lyonn]

35. Exactly, the repubs are using the debt ceiling as...

blackmail. There are debts that must be paid, for instance, the military. Obama made a deal that was the best of the worst options to keep the govt. going. At this point I say close down the govt. before making another repub. bad deal. The sequester is the worst. What would happen to the stock market if the Dems put their foot down and said no more bad "deals" for the U.S. just to pay the debt that the repubs allowed to be accrued in the first place. This issue goes way back to the Bush era. Clinton left us with a surplus - Bush couldn't wait to spend it on his corp. buddies.......

[Auntie Bush]

45. That's it in a nut shell! Perfect!

[KoKo]

32. Nicely stated.

[n2doc]

15. I think that if that is the strategy they are pursuing, they aren't going about it in the right way

Sure, people are sick of Repubs saying no to everything, but this particular 'Grand Bargain" seems cooked up by DC wonks rather than by anyone who gets out of the beltway. I know of no one who cares about corporate tax rates needing reform.They want jobs, things fixed, the economy improved, and a lessening of the security state apparatus. The good things in Obama's plan were completely overshadowed by his corporate tax plan. The way this Bargain was rolled out, it seemed designed to just re-enforce cynicism about how no one in DC really understands what Americans need or want.

The best and most effective political messages are simple, and direct.

[matthews]

28. People are getting tired of the play acting and the pretense of caring

coming from BOTH.

[sheshe2]

17. +2

[Scuba]

47. "Not the Republican" is a losing strategy for 2014. If Democrats want to win in 2014, they ...

... should advocate for

... Living Wage

... Medicare for All

... Strengthen, expand Social Security

... Legalize weed

and

... Cut defense to pay for it all



Supporting such positions, Dems could gain tens of millions of votes from the 40% of the electorate who currently stay home because neither Party offers them squat.

Failure to adopt such stances just makes Democrats look like Repubican-lite, demotivates the base, does nothing to attract the currently disaffected and cedes the issues to the other side.

[think]

2. Republicans need to see what their PUG whore leaders really look like

anti America
anti worker
anti environment
anti free speech
anti civil rights
anti gay
anti law
anti women

PRO corporate ANYTHING.....

[DCBob]

3. I suspect this wasnt a shocker to the President either.

Im sure this just part of the WH strategy setting up for a showdown coming later this fall. I have a feeling President may not be willing to negotiate much this time. The economy is much more stable now and should be able to withstand a threat of shutdown or even a few days or weeks of shutdown. The GOP "shoot the hostage" threat may not work this time.

[morningfog]

6. We're still suffering under a sequester. I am not impressed with this "strategy."

[DCBob]

10. As I said the situation seems different this time.

Back then the economy was still very fragile. Its still fragile now but not as much. I think the WH may risk it this time and call their bluff.

[n2doc]

31. One big difference- Obama isn't running for re-election

If the repubs destroy the economy with their crap, guess who is next up for re-election? Congress. Guess who the voters will take their anger out on?

In 2011, 2012 Obama had to tread lightly lest things really blow up before his campaign. Not now. Of course, we shall see if he has the stomach for it.

[Broward]

4. Obama's concessions and the predictable Republican

response only serve to keep moving the debate further and further right.

[tridim]

34. If you were Obama, what would you do instead?

[JaneyVee]

8. American Taliban.

[mick063]

11. If a broken clock is right twice a day

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Then one can thank obstructioism for temporarily preventing the erosion of Social Security.

Never thought I would see the day where I was thankful that Congress shut down the President down albiet for all the wrong reasons.

[Octafish]

19. Who will help the poor billionaires?

Without government assistance, where would they be?

[lyonn]

38. Sad but true

The billionaires get to write what is presented to the Congress, not us........

[Myrina]

20. Since the Balloon crashed and burned, expect what he really proposes to lean even further Right ...

.... gotta make nice with the bullies, ya know. Never mind that the average Joes and Janes of America are getting their financial asses kicked on a dialy basis.

[forestpath]

27. +1000

[truedelphi]

33. Me too. n/t

[snooper2]

21. Actual Headline "Obama to offer new 'grand bargain' on taxes, infrastructure projects"

But cali hates the president so smear at any chance possible-


has anybody been clinically diagnosed with ODS yet?

[pnwmom]

22. So are you suggesting that Obama shouldn't even have tried?

Or perhaps you're acknowledging it's not his fault but Congress's that reform isn't happening.

[AgingAmerican]

29. He keeps getting burned

The Republicans keep gaining and we keep losing. No more 'grand' bargains.

[ljm2002]

37. Or maybe the suggestion is...

...that Obama is pursuing a strategy that is both futile and wrong.

[pnwmom]

40. Wrong in what way? Boehner's objecting because he thinks it might raise business taxes.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[ljm2002]

42. You asked, and I quote:

"So are you suggesting that Obama shouldn't even have tried?

Or perhaps you're acknowledging it's not his fault but Congress's that reform isn't happening."

I suggested another interpretation of the post in question, namely,

"Or maybe the suggestion is...

...that Obama is pursuing a strategy that is both futile and wrong."

Now you're trying to change the subject.

If you really care about this issue, I would suggest you engage the OP without putting words in her mouth. I wish somehow we all could take a chill pill -- yes I admit I need to include myself in this -- and start engaging again in sincere, issues-based discussion.

[pnwmom]

44. You said "futile and wrong." So how is it changing the subject to ask "wrong in what way"? n/t

[ljm2002]

46. I suggested a different interpretation...

...of the OP, without going into details, because your interpretation was absurd in my estimation. That is, you created a false either/or choice, where criticizing Obama's current attempt at a grand bargain is tantamount to saying he should do nothing.

So yes, you are changing the subject when you try to engage me on specifics. I was objecting to your characterization of the OP and suggested another more reasonable (IMO) interpretation.

But sure, I'll play. From the article:

"House Republicans have long opposed a tax overhaul that changes the code for corporations but not for individuals. Owners of small businesses who use the individual tax code would be at a disadvantage if only the corporate tax rate were cut, they say."

So this latest proposal seems to be to cut corporate tax rates; the Republicans are objecting because it doesn't go far enough -- they think we should also cut rates in the individual tax code.

The Republicans, seeing that corporate tax rates are on offer, will of course now insist that further rate cuts be offered. If Obama does offer such a thing, they will of course then insist that the cuts aren't big enough. And so on. That is why I say it is futile.

I am against cutting corporate tax rates in the first place; they should be raised, not lowered. That is why I say it is wrong.

What would not be futile and wrong, would be a full court press for a truly progressive agenda that would include a living wage, a guaranteed minimum income, massive spending on infrastructure, and many other things. Yes, of course it would be met with fury and outrage by the Republicans in Congress. So what! Get the people behind it first, push it, fight for it.

This constant chipping around the edges is ineffective to say the least. Furthermore, the only way to promote our own agenda is to actually propose and fight for our own agenda. What we see instead is olive branches offered to rabid jackals, who have no interest whatsoever in doing anything productive. So call them out on it directly, not by constantly offering them a bit of this and a bit of that, apparently thinking that the electorate will be impressed and will somehow connect the dots to see the Republicans as obstructionists.

Yes, the Republicans are obstructionists. The only way to fight it is to go on heavy offense. Instead we get "grand bargain" proposals, offering cuts to corporate tax rates for crying out loud. That is weak.

[OLDBRO]

26. Starve the beast

You all know that to make government smaller the only weapon in the rights arsenal is to strangle funding.

[99th_Monkey]

30. I don't know who could have seen that coming. ~nt

[Xyzse]

43. Problem with that new thing of his...

He gave away too much in his first salvo as a bargain.

Ugh, now the Republicans will ask for even more.

This frustrates me.