danivon wrote:There is a fourth option, but I suspect the appetite is not there:

4. Engage and compromise, thus allowing some things they don't want, but acting in time to stop the worst of the changes due in a few weeks.

I agree with RJ, abstention would not look good. It means not stopping the worst, not backing the best, not being seen to engage in debate, and not exerting influence on behalf of their electors.

Individual members of Congress do have a mandate. But do the caucuses as a whole, (and by extension, their leadership)?

The House should debate the issue, and try to dissuade to a more conservative side. Barring that, as it would not be possible with the current administration, as a gentleman/woman step aside.

America needs to see what works. Obviously a majority of people wanted to see the Democrat's view of America. I think they need to see what that becomes.

As for me, I feel like Ellis Wyatt...

danivon wrote:A compromise would mean that Obama gets some of what he wants, and not all of it, but that the opposition get some of what they want and not all of that.

I understand. However, for the President to bring out a bunch of middle-class props and take the same position he held during the last negotiation (as he did today) might not have been the best. If he is going to broker a compromise, he would have been better advised to take Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and McConnell to Camp David for a few days of negotiation. He has now set the bar and told the GOP he's going to force them to limbo under it.

I foresee difficulty, not compromise.

Anyway, As RJ says, he was speaking today. As well as laying out a position similar to that of before - that says he's open to compromise, but does still insist on some tax rises for the rich - he is inviting all four leaders in Congress to a White House meeting.

I would expect that all would want that to happen early next week, well before the Asian trip. If so, that meeting, and what follows it, will be very important.

We'll see. I think there may be some flexibility with the GOP, but my guess is that Obama will expect more than they can give. Pelosi will say she can't sell whatever Biden offers to her members and Reid will suggest they punt.

Past is prologue.

bbauska wrote: .

As for me, I feel like Ellis Wyatt...

I had to Google that. He obtained petroleum from shale ... what a great idea.

As the good doctor said, past is prologue.

If Republicans want a deal, they have to agree for higher taxes for the rich while not increasing taxes on the middle-class. That is what Obama campaigned on and to the extent he has a mandate it is that. If voters did not like this central platform of his campaign, they would not have voted for him. Reasonable cuts, having the rich pay a little more, don't hurt the middle-class--that is Obama's program for the second term.

So what is it the Republicans want in return for that? Reduction in corporate tax rates? Reduction in regulation? Cuts in certain programs they don't like? Increases in military spending? Some more control of the states over certain programs?

You make deals by trading something the other guy wants for something you want. What the heck is it? If you're saying that you will not trade ANYTHING for the modest tax increases on the wealthiest 2%, then we know who the electorate will blame for that.

RJ talks about leadership, but I am not sure what Obama can do if Republicans are simply going to refuse to trade tax increases for anything. Let the fiscal cliff hit--we will get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, military spending will decrease and the deficit will be reduced. I don't think we are going to do better than that, honestly And we can blame middle-class tax increases on the Republicans

Obama can craft solutions but at the end of the day tax increases on the top 2% are non-negotiable and the question is are the Republicans willing to make a good bargain out of it by getting some things they want. I don't think it is good politically or economically for Republicans to refuse to negotiate over this.

freeman2 wrote:RJ talks about leadership, but I am not sure what Obama can do if Republicans are simply going to refuse to trade tax increases for anything. Let the fiscal cliff hit--we will get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, military spending will decrease and the deficit will be reduced. I don't think we are going to do better than that, honestly And we can blame middle-class tax increases on the Republicans

Read Woodward. Sorry, but you'll find out it was Obama's intransigence that caused the negotiations to fall apart. And, he's not doing much now. He's back into "leading from behind."

Honestly, if Biden were left alone, I think HE might get a deal. Again, read the book. Biden knows how to trade horses. Obama is clueless. It's his way or the highway. He thought he could wear down Boehner. That was his plan.

As for your "so what, we'll blame the Republicans."

From your favorite site:

A new Congressional Budget Office report on Thursday predicted that the economy would fall into recession if there is a protracted impasse in Washington and the government falls off the fiscal cliff for the entire year. Though most Capitol-watchers think that long deadlock is unlikely, the analysts say such a scenario would cause a spike in the jobless rate to 9.1 percent by next fall.

The analysis says that the cliff – a combination of automatic tax increases and spending cuts – would cut the deficit by $503 billion through next September, but that the fiscal austerity also would cause the economy to shrink by 0.5 percent next year and cost millions of jobs.

The new study estimates that the nation's gross domestic product would grow by 2.2 percent next year if all Bush-era tax rates were extended and would expand by almost 3 percent if Obama's 2 percentage point payroll tax cut and current jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended as well.

All sides say they want a deal – and that now that the election is over everyone can show more flexibility than in the heat of the campaign.

If you think Obama and the Democrats skate, I think you're wrong.

Obama can craft solutions but at the end of the day tax increases on the top 2% are non-negotiable and the question is are the Republicans willing to make a good bargain out of it by getting some things they want. I don't think it is good politically or economically for Republicans to refuse to negotiate over this.

I think a compromise can/will be reached, but not at $250K. It's too low. If you live in/near a big city on either coast, that's not more than middle class.

Freeman brings the point I was making to front and center.

"We can blame middle-class tax increases on Republicans"

This is the main focus of the Democratic party. Find another to blame. This is EXACTLY why I want to let the Dems have it THEIR way. They have no one to blame but themselves. What then?

I am sure that it is the fault of the EU and Greece...

I am not saying I want the fiscal cliff to hit, but Republicans have to negotiate. Surely, there are things that they want to do in Washington--do they get elected just to go to Washington and say no to tax increases on the wealthy? Get a laundry list of things they want to get accomplished, talk to Biden if he is the man who can talk turkey, and get something done.
With regard to 250K I would say we can probably work on giving higher deductions for families who make that amount (and who may have some difficulty paying for housing, educational and other costs). I think 250K for an individual is not too bad...

bbauska wrote:Freeman brings the point I was making to front and center.

"We can blame middle-class tax increases on Republicans"

This is the main focus of the Democratic party. Find another to blame. This is EXACTLY why I want to let the Dems have it THEIR way. They have no one to blame but themselves. What then?

I am sure that it is the fault of the EU and Greece...

I agree. I would give the tax increase to Obama, stand back and watch the economy decline.

However, Republicans in Congress apparently have some principles.

The reason they SHOULD let Obama have his way is so that it can be seen what a JOKE the "policy" is. I think the estimates range from $70-100B a year in revenue.

1. Tax increases rarely bring in all that is promised.
2. It will have an impact in the job market.
3. The government will spend it and more--it's not like Obama actually cares about the deficit. His last two budget proposals have received zero Democratic votes because they were so blatantly nonsensical.

Yeah, you should allow Democrats to get their policies passed. After all, we let you get your tax cuts and deregulation passed with the result that we got huge deficits and a Financial Crisis. . Of course, after your policies fail you just deny that they failed.

freeman2 wrote:Yeah, you should allow Democrats to get their policies passed. After all, we let you get your tax cuts and deregulation passed with the result that we got huge deficits and a Financial Crisis. . Of course, after your policies fail you just deny that they failed.

Tax cuts led to the meltdown?

Deregulation was the problem? By Bush?

Prove it.

Meanwhile, why not tell us how raising taxes will solve the problem.

First of all I did not say tax cuts led to the meltdown--I said they led to higher deficits. There is no doubt about that. As for deregulation leading to the Financial Crisis, I think we have litigated that issue too many times already on this site.

We need a mixture of tax increases and budget cuts to get our deficits under control which will eventually lead to a better economy long-term.

Then let the Dems propose them. Better yet, let the POTUS lead the way.

freeman2 wrote:First of all I did not say tax cuts led to the meltdown--I said they led to higher deficits. There is no doubt about that. As for deregulation leading to the Financial Crisis, I think we have litigated that issue too many times already on this site.

We need a mixture of tax increases and budget cuts to get our deficits under control which will eventually lead to a better economy long-term.

Again, the tax increases Obama is proposing do next to nothing to the deficit. It may take some money out of the investment pool, but it is not sufficient to do more than about 7 or 8% to the overall deficit. That's if he gets what he says he wants.

So, that's not a serious deficit-reduction proposal. Additionally, he has promised a lot of "investment." Where is that money coming from? Money for 100K new teacher? Money to reduce the amount of loans college students must repay? Money to build new infrastructure? Money for (fill in the blank because, honestly, who could possibly keep track of all the pots he promised to put a chicken in) . . . ?

ray

Do you ask these sorts of questions because you actually think you are smarter than Dr. Fate or is it because you think Americans are idiots?

Mostly just trying to figure put where he is on the "stages of grief".
In the past Fate has said that far too may people who vote,are uninformed and in their ignorance make poor decisions... Having listened to American talk radio after the election whist driving, I know this was a popular sentiment,
I don't know if I'm smarter than Fate, I do know that my powers of prognostication are a lot better. Like many on the right he has deeply held views that no manner of evidence are sufficient to dissuade.
For instance:
Fate

Deregulation was the problem? By Bush?

There aren't many left who still challenge the idea that a central cause of the 2008 meltdown was loosened regulation on the finanaical industry... (And additionally most understand that deficits were caused by tax decreases as well as over spending. )
Anyway the point is that, otehr than battling with Liberals on this board (which I give him major point for...) I think his core beliefs are rarely challenged...so he has to (as the right wing radio anchors were doing) is find away to blame reults on something other than the failure of the ideas proposed..

Republicans are faced with two problems in the fiscal cliff debate. Most are still committed to Grover Norquist and under the thumb of the tea party activists (threats in primaries). Therefore they worry most about reelection at the primary stage...
They are entering into a crucial decision with some house members (Allan West and 3 or 4 other TPs) still in the House but on the way out...
There isn't a single commentator out there suggsting that the Fiscal Cliff is something that should occur. If there isn't a compromise, blame may go all round, but there are lots of clues out there to tell you that Obama will absorb less. First, he's mor popular in the Polls than Congress. Second he won the election. Third, specifc issue polling (exit polls) tend to favour his positions . (Taxes on wealthy)
Since republicans have yet to figure out that its their policies that are less popular, and they are still finding blame for their losses on absolutely anything else....
If no compromise is reached ... it will appear that republicans are defending tax cuts for the rich over doing what everyone else (exit polls say 75%) say makes sense. When that happens the economy stops being Obamas problem and starts being the Republican's fault.
A poor economy was suppossed to be the republicans chief weapon in this past election. Romney and Republicans were suppossed to be ablt to convince voters that they had the best ideas and were the best to shepherd the economy. Didn't work out that way, as Obama became level with Romney on polling on that aspect.
So if a new recession brought on by going over the fiscal cliff starts being seen as a result of their actions .... what do their hang their hat on in future elections? Social conservatism is officially dead at the Federal level.
Economic responsibility would be killed if they don't compromise.
The Tea Party extreme won't understand this, but hopefully for Boehner he'll find enough who are capable of analyzing the results of the election that he'll be able to make some compromises that will satisfy the Democrats... If not, the resulting recession will kill off the chances for a republican resurgence for years. Because it will be their recession.

Optimally, a growing economy is the best cure for the deficit. For the most part, I think if we keep the status quo for the most part our deficit won't be as much of a problem. At the same, we don't know that the economy will grow at 3 or 4 percent, so we need to take some steps to reduce the deficit. I think our economy could handle cuts of 100-200 billion with the same amount in tax increases So 75-100 billion coming from ending the bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent could work.. We might even drop it from 250 to 125k. Draconian cuts in spending with large tax increases with an economy still in a weak recovery would not be wise. Remember, Clinton did not have draconian cuts and huge tax increases to balance the budget--- His cuts in spending and tax increases were moderate, but after he took moderate steps the economy took off. If Ross Perot had become president he would have( in his simple-minded way) insisted that the budge deficit go to zero right away which undoubtedly have killed the economy. Why don't we follow Clinton's precedent which we know worked out pretty well. ?