Doctor Fate wrote:He should have been doing this for the last four years.

Again, so what? He's in a position to do it, and if he is making an approach, does it matter?

Watch what happens. We're going to see the "pragmatic" Obama appear. He's already calling for a "balanced solution." What does that mean?

It means Republicans should violate their principles and he should get a victory lap. He wants tax increases.

And this attitude, if repeated in Congress, is no different to what you accuse the Democrats of. He uses the word 'balanced solution' and you assume the worst, without even waiting to see what it is, preparing to oppose it.

And yes, I think the Democrats like Reid and Pelosi have been intransigent. Both leaderships have been, in both houses.

Dwelling on the past is not going to help you deal with the very near future.

Here's the thing. This situation strikes me as being a bit like one of those cop movies. You know the set-up. Two cops are forced by their captain to work together, even though they have different methods and a personal beef. At some point, in order to solve the crime and deal with the big bad, one of them starts a conversation like this:

"Look, I don't like you, and you don't like me. I think you are irresponsible and dangerous, and your methods don't sit well with me. But the Cap has put us on this case, and so we have to work together. Shake?"

Later on, the maverick realises that he needs to work within the rules, and the by-the-book guy learns that he has to loosen up a bit in order to get things done. They solve the crime and there's a big shoot-out, bad guy dies, cops are best of buddies, end credits...

The 'Captain' is the US electorate. They've put the President, Senate and House together, and they have a job to do. It doesn't matter who makes the first move to reconcile, or what they did in the past. What matters is that someone makes the move. And then that the other guy(s) receive that move and don't just reject it.

Because in the analogy, it results in a really bad cop movie, but in the real world, it results in the US hitting the 'fiscal cliff' and a whole bunch of bad repercussions on the economy.

Sheesh.

[quote="danivon"And this attitude, if repeated in Congress, is no different to what you accuse the Democrats of. He uses the word 'balanced solution' and you assume the worst, without even waiting to see what it is, preparing to oppose it.[/quote]

I hate to be Captain Obvious, but words have meanings. He has used that exact terminology for more than a year. To use it again means . . . his approach has not changed.

And yes, I think the Democrats like Reid and Pelosi have been intransigent. Both leaderships have been, in both houses.

Dwelling on the past is not going to help you deal with the very near future.

And, proposing the same things over and over won't move things forward either. Boehner at least used different language. He talked about "tax rates." So . . . revenue is possible if it does not change the "rates."

Here's the thing. This situation strikes me as being a bit like one of those cop movies. You know the set-up. Two cops are forced by their captain to work together, even though they have different methods and a personal beef. At some point, in order to solve the crime and deal with the big bad, one of them starts a conversation like this:

"Look, I don't like you, and you don't like me. I think you are irresponsible and dangerous, and your methods don't sit well with me. But the Cap has put us on this case, and so we have to work together. Shake?"

Later on, the maverick realises that he needs to work within the rules, and the by-the-book guy learns that he has to loosen up a bit in order to get things done. They solve the crime and there's a big shoot-out, bad guy dies, cops are best of buddies, end credits...

The 'Captain' is the US electorate. They've put the President, Senate and House together, and they have a job to do. It doesn't matter who makes the first move to reconcile, or what they did in the past. What matters is that someone makes the move. And then that the other guy(s) receive that move and don't just reject it.

Because in the analogy, it results in a really bad cop movie, but in the real world, it results in the US hitting the 'fiscal cliff' and a whole bunch of bad repercussions on the economy.

Sheesh.

I tweeted something similar last night:

America: "We hate gridlock, so we'll send the same guys back and demand different results."

Now, could it work? Sure.

On the other hand, Reid has already moved to rough up the Republicans. The President, who has been verbally slamming them for 3.8 years, is suddenly going to "reach out" with the same deal he has been offering?

Doctor Fate wrote:I hate to be Captain Obvious, but words have meanings. He has used that exact terminology for more than a year. To use it again means . . . his approach has not changed.

Really? So what terminology does he have to use for you to believe it's honest. If 'balanced solution' is so insidious, are there other terms that are also signifiers of dishonesty? Are the following OK:

'bipartisan'
'compromise'
'joint'

???

And, proposing the same things over and over won't move things forward either. Boehner at least used different language. He talked about "tax rates." So . . . revenue is possible if it does not change the "rates."

Good gravy. This really is all about semantics and code-words.

I tweeted something similar last night:

America: "We hate gridlock, so we'll send the same guys back and demand different results."

Now, could it work? Sure.

It could. Of course, the ball is in their court. Not that this is actually similar to what I was saying. I was saying that the politicians of all parties don't have the luxury of widdling about for a few more years and flashing their egos about, refusing to compromise with each other.

They have until the New Year to decide how to deal with looming fiscal changes that will come in if nothing is agreed.

On the other hand, Reid has already moved to rough up the Republicans. The President, who has been verbally slamming them for 3.8 years, is suddenly going to "reach out" with the same deal he has been offering?

How do you know it's the same deal? If they haven't met yet, and haven't discussed it, why are you moving to reject straight away?

Basically you are making an assumption. An assumption that whatever Obama offers is in bad faith, if it's not total surrender.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I hate to be Captain Obvious, but words have meanings. He has used that exact terminology for more than a year. To use it again means . . . his approach has not changed.

Really? So what terminology does he have to use for you to believe it's honest. If 'balanced solution' is so insidious, are there other terms that are also signifiers of dishonesty? Are the following OK:

'bipartisan'
'compromise'
'joint'

???

C'mon. If you and I are in negotiations and I continually reject what you call "Plan A" and then you say, "Well, what about Plan A?"

Am I going to think, "Hmm, I think Danivon is proposing something new?"

On the other hand, if you say, "Look, what we've said before has not worked, so let's start from scratch." That's a whole other game.

It could. Of course, the ball is in their court. Not that this is actually similar to what I was saying. I was saying that the politicians of all parties don't have the luxury of widdling about for a few more years and flashing their egos about, refusing to compromise with each other.

Right, except you put a "boss" in the picture to force them to work together. That's what the voters did--and what I said.

They have until the New Year to decide how to deal with looming fiscal changes that will come in if nothing is agreed.

Previously, Obama used the cliff as a hammer. We'll see what he does now.

Basically you are making an assumption. An assumption that whatever Obama offers is in bad faith, if it's not total surrender.

Because of his history AND the fact that he's using the same language. Why would you presume he means something new?

fate

It means Republicans should violate their principles and he should get a victory lap. He wants tax increases

He campaigned on tax increases for those over $250,000 . Exit surveys showed that as very popular.
Is it a republican principle that they protect the wealthy from a small tax increase no matter the risk ? No matter the effect on budgets ot on services for the poor?
Just asking.

rickyp wrote:fate

It means Republicans should violate their principles and he should get a victory lap. He wants tax increases

He campaigned on tax increases for those over $250,000 . Exit surveys showed that as very popular.
Is it a republican principle that they protect the wealthy from a small tax increase no matter the risk ? No matter the effect on budgets ot on services for the poor?
Just asking.

Go ahead. Prove that this will raise sufficient revenue to close the gap.

What will actually happen is an increase on incomes of $500K or a million.

It will not help the economy. It will not help the poor. It will not cover the oncoming tsunami of debt that Obamacare will usher in.

Why do I think Obama will stifle a recovery? Because his policies are job killers:

The layoffs at the West Ridge Mine are effective immediately, according to UtahAmerican Energy Inc., a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp. They were announced in a short statement made public Thursday, two days after Obama won re-election.

The layoffs are necessary because of the president’s “war on coal,” the statement said. The slogan is one used frequently during the election by Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, who was an ardent supporter of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down “204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014″ and for drastically reducing the market for coal.

“There is nowhere to sell our coal, and when we can, the market prices are far lower,” the statement said. “Without markets, there can be no coal mines and no coal jobs.”

The economy is shaky. Nothing President Obama plans on doing is going to strengthen it.

Hmm. Murray is certainly vexed at the result of the election. I guess he had to follow through on his threats from before the election, or it would look like he'd been blowing hot air.

Still, from that link:

It’s not just the regulatory policies in play here. The sudden discovery of vast amounts of natural gas and the relative ease in accessing it has made the cleaner fuel more cost-effective.

The world market is changing. Not only is coal inefficient and dirty as a fuel, and dangerous to extract, it is also expensive, and that will affect demand.

I also see from looking up the company, that there was a mine collapse at one Utah facility in 2007 (which the company claimed was caused by an earthquake, but seismologists suggest actually caused a small tremor itself), and a large fine for safety violations at another in 2008.

Coal company fined $420K for 'flagrant' violations (CNN)

At West Ridge itself, violations are common, and the company racks up hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines a year. It has had a higher rate of injury than the average mine of it's type for every year since 2006 (when it went to UtahAmerican) that I can find figures for.

Coal Diver Mine stats for West Ridge

Maybe the sacked miners are better off not working for a company that values profit over their safety. Maybe the combination of the surge in gas and the cost of operations due to safety violations means that it would have to lay people off anyway.

When a less... partisan... company owner lays people off and ties it to the election result or the government's policies, be sure to let us know..

danivon wrote:When a less... partisan... company owner lays people off and ties it to the election result or the government's policies, be sure to let us know..

You're funny.

When people put their capital at risk, you want to tax them if they succeed.

When they make a profit, you (and your ilk) presume they are evil and care nothing about anyone--just their bottom line.

You have no evidence that he fired them for anything other than what he said, yet you feel free to characterize it as a temper tantrum.

Obama is the one, while he was campaigning in 2008, who vowed to put an end to coal.

So, you have no problem with the poor suffering from higher energy costs. As you and the President see it, it's just another opportunity to expand the Food Stamp program. After all, if they have to pay more to heat their homes, they probably can't afford food, so the rich will just "have to pay their fair share."

Beautiful. Let me wipe a tear from my eye.

Then we have Toby Keith, country music star.

And while nearly everything he touches turns to gold, making him consistently one of Forbes magazine’s top-earning musicians, Keith reveals that there’s one business he hasn’t yet been able to get off the ground.

“I tried to do everyday wear jeans and Ts and button-downs for the everyday joe, all made in America,” he tells One Country. “We investigated that for about a year and found a factory where we could put 200-300 people back to work.” But Keith says the economic factors have so far derailed his plans.

“Problem is, if you’re going off the base rate in the U.S. of what you can pay somebody, [at the] end of the day it costs me x amount to make a pair of jeans,” he explains. “I take them to Pennys or Sears or somewhere and they put them in the store and mark them up what they have to mark up, and I’m $5 higher than the cheapest jeans made overseas. [Even] if I just do it for free, do it non-profit and just put these people back to work, I’m still too high. So you can’t do it.

“I’ve been trying for three or four years,” he adds about his attempts to get the apparel business off the ground. “I’ve still got a guy working on it on his nickel. He says he’s going to figure out a way, but it’s been three years and he hasn’t busted the seal on it yet.”

So, even for no profit, he can't make a go of it. I'm sure that has nothing to do with taxes, Obamacare, minimum wages, or anything of the like.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:When a less... partisan... company owner lays people off and ties it to the election result or the government's policies, be sure to let us know..

You're funny.

Cheers, I try my best.

When people put their capital at risk, you want to tax them if they succeed.

When they make a profit, you (and your ilk) presume they are evil and care nothing about anyone--just their bottom line.

My views are not the point, let alone your caricature of them.

You have no evidence that he fired them for anything other than what he said, yet you feel free to characterize it as a temper tantrum.

The article you linked to has evidence that it was not just the election of Obama and his plans. It mentions the emergence of large reserves of natural gas. Gas is:

1) cheaper to extract
2) safer to extract
3) cleaner to burn
4) more efficient to burn
5) thus, in greater demand

than coal.

Additionally, I mentioned a new reason he might want to downsize at that mine - since his company took it over, it's incurred large fines and has gone from a below average injury rate to an above average one.

Obama is the one, while he was campaigning in 2008, who vowed to put an end to coal.

Coal will likely decline anyway, but I tried to find where he said he'd eliminate coal. This video alleges that's what he is saying - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Px4ccLQ-w but in it he starts off being asked about having supported coal (and been criticised for 'boosting' for coal). He talks about being in favour of 'clean coal' - non polluting. When he talks about coal power stations going bankrupt, it comes after describing limiting and sequestering the pollution from coal, and then says "if we can't", before talking about the effects of cap and trade. So those are the effect of cap and trade on dirty coal. He then goes on to say, that "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way we should pursue it".

I know how you hate it when people take a line out of context and use it to make it mean the opposite of what it means in that context...

So, you have no problem with the poor suffering from higher energy costs. As you and the President see it, it's just another opportunity to expand the Food Stamp program. After all, if they have to pay more to heat their homes, they probably can't afford food, so the rich will just "have to pay their fair share."

I have no problem with making the market account for the externalities that producers would like to ignore. The issue is the cost of the pollution that is created by energy production, and how that is paid for. Ultimately, it either falls to others to pay to deal with it (which would usually mean the government from taxes, and private citizens for their own means), or for the people who create it.

Energy efficiency is also something that Obama mentioned, meaning that while energy may be more costly per unit, unit use per person should (and already is going down - it has been for about 2-3 decades)

Beautiful. Let me wipe a tear from my eye.

So, even for no profit, he can't make a go of it. I'm sure that has nothing to do with taxes, Obamacare, minimum wages, or anything of the like.

Do you know how much his competitors are paying kids to make jeans in countries like Vietnam? Even with no minimum wage, he'd be hard pressed to pay enough to attract any employees and still compete on price. What kind of daily rate do you think would be the market minimum in the USA? anything like $10?

If it were, can you imagine what that would do for disposable income and the market for good in America?

The real issue in a globalised market with a lot of people in poor developing countries, is that human intensive work, of low-medium skill, can be done a lot cheaper overseas. In order to make a decent profit and to be able to employ people in the first world, you need to have a business that adds significant value or cannot be easily provided from a long distance.

This is not a new trend, it's been going on for decades. It's why Bain and it's partners made so much from exporting jobs.

Boilerplate liberal dogma.

Good to see that you can come back with a detailed and considered response.

If I din't know better I'd guess you were still bitter at having lost the election

I read an article on Friday suggesting that the Republicans should walk away from the table on the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations and let everything that is going to happen Jan 1, 2013 happen. The premise was that both sides will get what they want, Democrats will get their tax increases and Republicans will get their real spending cuts. The author was basing it off a recent CBO report.

Apparently, the CBO says that if everything happens there will be a net .5% GDP reduction and unemployment would be 9.1% in 2013. The economy would rebound and starting in 2014 with annual 4% GDP increases and unemployment down around 5% by 2018. However, if either some kind of tax increases and spending cuts are not implemented we are looking at 2% annual increases for the next decade.

The author's premise was wouldn't it be better to deal with one year of hurt and a good turn around or a decade of pain?

Archduke, can you find that article? Quite curious, thanks.

Dag, There were two articles by the same author. The first is here and the second is here

However, if it burns your computer when you bring it up, don't blame me. It is from Redstate.