fate

Conversely, planning to spend less than what you will have in revenue

.

But you get that whats been happening since 1980. And especially between 2000 and 2008?
You're probably right that the Dems are reluctant to cut budgets when they get to specifics. But I'd guess thats true of Republicans too. especially with the military budget....
Its a tough call to have to make when you are out of practice with living within one's means ...


bbauska

RickyP,
If the Republicans abstain and give the Dems everything they want, and the fiscal cliff happens who is at fault?

If the Republicans abstain and give the Dems everything they want, and the fiscal cliff is avoided who gets the credit?

Can you explain how your first scenario happens?
But generally, abstention is the avoidance of taking responsibility.

fate

There is nothing democratic about the EPA, the implementation of Obamacare, or any number of dictates coming out of the White House. In fact, the responsibility of citizens is to try and restrain the Administration because it recognizes no bounds on its authority.

well, if the citizens trying to restrain the Administration are in the minority, as woul be apparent from the last election, then their failure to do so would be a reflection of democracy. The will of the people.
ever considered that the majority of people like the idea of the EPA protecting the enviroment from the Massey Enegies and BP's ? That the majority of people like the idea of universal health care and social security?
They seem to have voted for the administration that supported policeis that support them?

Abstention would let the Democrats have their policies. In this case, I would think that it would not be avoidance of responsibility. The Dems are just being given their way.

To answer your dynamics of abstention happening:
A Democratic plan is put forth. (it would be from the Senate, not that a budget has come out of there for 1200 days...)
No Senate Republican votes for it. They all abstain.
It goes to the House. Boehner brings it up for a vote, and all Republicans vote present. All Dems vote for.
Bill then goes to the President, and I assume Obama signs it.

Seems pretty simple to me how that happens.

Care to answer my two questions now that I explained how it can occur?

Doctor Fate wrote:Conversely, planning to spend less than what you will have in revenue. Democrats don't want to hear about that.

Because, as we all know, there were never any such deficits before 2006.

rickyp wrote:fate

Conversely, planning to spend less than what you will have in revenue

.

But you get that whats been happening since 1980. And especially between 2000 and 2008?
You're probably right that the Dems are reluctant to cut budgets when they get to specifics. But I'd guess thats true of Republicans too. especially with the military budget....
Its a tough call to have to make when you are out of practice with living within one's means ...

I know there are some Republicans, including Rand Paul, who are willing to cut the military.

I know of no Democrats who are willing to put forth any serious entitlement reforms. In fact, the laughable claim is that they "already did that" with the passage of Obamacare.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Conversely, planning to spend less than what you will have in revenue. Democrats don't want to hear about that.

Because, as we all know, there were never any such deficits before 2006.

Again, we can fight about who was more irresponsible historically. However, what does that have to do with solving the problem right now?

Democrats: "We're not going to be responsible because you guys spent too much under Bush."

Republicans: "Okay, but shouldn't we start now?"

Democrats: "No."

And, while I may not be the best negotiator the world has ever seen, I pretty much know this approach won't work:

House Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, was likely to meet strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other entitlements, to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.

He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details. And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might well be outnumbered by upfront spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare.

“The Democrats have yet to get serious about real spending cuts,” Mr. Boehner said after the meeting. “No substantive progress has been made in the talks between the White House and the House over the last two weeks.”

Beneath the outward shows of frustration and rancor, Democrats said a deal could still come before hundreds of billions of dollars in automatic tax increases and spending cuts threaten the fragile economy next year. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, pointed to conservative Republicans who have publicly suggested that the House quickly pass Senate Democratic legislation extending the expiring tax cuts for income below $250,000.

“All you have to do is just listen to what’s happening out there, and you realize there is progress,” he said.

But publicly, the leaders of neither side were giving an inch. And Republican aides said the details of the White House proposal pointed to a re-elected president who believes he can bully Congress.

“They took a step backward, moving away from consensus and significantly closer to the cliff,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

So, Obama campaigned on $800B in tax increases and now "offers" twice that.

He also wants:

* Unlimited (by Congress) authority to continuously borrow.

* More Stimulus spending.

* More money for more housing programs (that will work unlike the three or four he's already tried).

* Unspecified cuts to farm subsidies.

But, certainly, the President proposed significant cuts, right? Well, not exactly:

In total, Mr. Geithner presented the package as a $4 trillion reduction in future deficits, but that too was disputed. The figure includes cuts to domestic programs agreed to last year that the White House put at $1.2 trillion but Republicans say is about $300 billion less. And it counts savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though no one has proposed maintaining war spending over the next decade at the current rate.

I don't know that "up yours" is a good start.

I have participated in hundreds of mediations in my legal career. Of corse, each side in a mediation postures for a while, but the most important thing is initial positios get staked outthat give a little to other side. Then the mediator goes back and forgo moving things along until a compromise is reached. The problem here is the no-tax pledge by Republicans, meaning they cannot stake out a position that gives anything to the Democrats. This thing will not get resolved until Republicans say, ok, we will agree to allow Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2 percent to expire in return for x amount of spending cuts. But what Republicans want to do is not put tax increases on the table until Obama proposes what they think are reasonable cuts in spending. You don't get successful mediations when one side refuses to move until the other side has moved its position to something they can agree to. In other words, if a case was worth $50K and Democrats started their demand at $100K, the Republicans are staying at $0 until Demicrats go to $50K
Stop complaining about Obama's offer, realize that the election means that the Bush Tax Cuts will not be extended under any circumstances for the top 2 percent and make an offer that includes giving up the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2 percent. If Republicans don't do that they will be deservedly be blamed for not reaching a settlement

geojanes wrote:

georgeatkins wrote:When I was an active investor (as opposed to an inactive retirement fund investor), I spent loads of time pouring over information, newspapers, books, etc. I didn't just dump money into a fund and wait for the good times to roll in.

Why exactly was that hard? Learning is exploring, and is for most intellectuals a joy. Kinda like going to school but getting paid for it. Factory work? Yeah, not so much. ... The way the American right revere the investor class is just so bizarre to me.

Well, I don't think putting your brains on the line has to be any less stressful than welding a jackhammer, though the jackhammer is probably going to do a real bad job on your body if you run it for too long. I also don't think manual labor (if this is the dichotomy you are presenting) is necessarily hard or less pleasing. I've done both and enjoy both. I admire people who know how to make things, how to build and fix things. So I try to follow the old Greek maxim of sound mind and sound body. As for learning being a joy, sure it is, but that doesn't necessarily make it easy. I love learning, but mastering Latin, for example, is not a simple task, and not always a joy. Factory work is not really physical, so much as it is wasteful. Dull, repetitive motions, sometimes in dreary or dangerous situations is a waste of human initiative and spirit. I worked for some time in a television factory, both on the line and in the warehouse. I much preferred the warehouse, though I spent 50-60 hrs a week loading tv sets into large semi-trailers. It was repetitive and often dull, sometimes noxious (as when the truck had just finished running a load of frozen fish). But I was moving all the time and I enjoyed the simplicity of the work.

And I think you are mistaken about the American's so-called love for investors or the investor class. In fact, I think we distrust them, in spite of what you see in movies and reality tv. We look at them as something akin to the financial version of politicians and tv evangelists, living in gold palaces while begging money from Mrs Humble. Maybe that is one reason they are often portrayed on tv and movies. They are often pictured as venal, corrupt, conniving, and shallow. I'm sure that the reality is usually different. They live in their own "reality", as many of us do in ours. They work within the rules that their profession supports, just as college professors do in their sheltered world and actors do in their totally unrealistic world. Some people have the mistaken notion that getting rich through investing (or just being a successful investor) is not really hard. Actually, we Americans tend to disparage wealth based on investments, calling it "unearned" income. You're not building cars, designing computer games, or running a company. True. But investments help make those things happen. I digress.

What Americans may "love" about the investor class is watching them to see how much they correspond to our stereotypes, smugly sneering at their superficial, crass display of wealth and privilege. And we know, from our own obviously superior sense of morality and ethics, that "they'll get theirs!" in good time. And if that doesn't happen real soon, we nod and realize that, in the Real World crime, slime, and corruption often DO pay. If we're religious, we'll hope God consigns them to Dante's 4th circle of hell.

I am wondering GA if you would have enjoyed loading those TV sets on to trailers for 10-20 years? While being a craftsman might be rewarding, business does not like to pay high labor costs for a craftsman and tries to break down what a craftsman does into simple, dull repetitive tasks. Generally speaking high-paying jobs are also much more satisfying than low-wage jobs. Your dabbling in manual labor doesn't change that reality. I drew satisfaction from doing those kinds of jobs in college, but it would have been quite a different thing if it was my life's work.
GJ was not talking about the average American's impression of the investor class, he was talking about YOUR view (as a fairly typical right-winger). It would thus seem more pertinent to discuss why right-wingers are so protective of Wall Street, rather than discuss the average person's view.

freeman2 wrote:I have participated in hundreds of mediations in my legal career. Of corse, each side in a mediation postures for a while, but the most important thing is initial positios get staked outthat give a little to other side. Then the mediator goes back and forgo moving things along until a compromise is reached. The problem here is the no-tax pledge by Republicans, meaning they cannot stake out a position that gives anything to the Democrats. This thing will not get resolved until Republicans say, ok, we will agree to allow Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2 percent to expire in return for x amount of spending cuts. But what Republicans want to do is not put tax increases on the table until Obama proposes what they think are reasonable cuts in spending. You don't get successful mediations when one side refuses to move until the other side has moved its position to something they can agree to. In other words, if a case was worth $50K and Democrats started their demand at $100K, the Republicans are staying at $0 until Demicrats go to $50K
Stop complaining about Obama's offer, realize that the election means that the Bush Tax Cuts will not be extended under any circumstances for the top 2 percent and make an offer that includes giving up the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2 percent. If Republicans don't do that they will be deservedly be blamed for not reaching a settlement

Okay, Mr. Expert, when did you start a negotiation by asking for far more than your stated public position? That's what the President did.

bbauska

To answer your dynamics of abstention happening

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking how, if the democrats get what they want, the country then goes over the fiscal cliff.

I was asking what your perspective would be if the dems get what they want, and we go financially downhill. You think we won't, but it is possible you could be wrong.

I wanted you to consider that possibility, and who you would blame.

I am not sure what you are referring to DF, but in any case the election has changed the relative bargaining power of Obama and the Republicans. Also the president has a huge ally in this fight--The US Chamber of Commerce. The Republicans will be blamed if a deal is not struck, no matter how much they posture. The public wants, by a large margin, the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the top 2 percent.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman2 wrote:I have participated in hundreds of mediations in my legal career. Of corse, each side in a mediation postures for a while, but the most important thing is initial positios get staked outthat give a little to other side. Then the mediator goes back and forgo moving things along until a compromise is reached. The problem here is the no-tax pledge by Republicans, meaning they cannot stake out a position that gives anything to the Democrats. This thing will not get resolved until Republicans say, ok, we will agree to allow Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2 percent to expire in return for x amount of spending cuts. But what Republicans want to do is not put tax increases on the table until Obama proposes what they think are reasonable cuts in spending. You don't get successful mediations when one side refuses to move until the other side has moved its position to something they can agree to. In other words, if a case was worth $50K and Democrats started their demand at $100K, the Republicans are staying at $0 until Demicrats go to $50K
Stop complaining about Obama's offer, realize that the election means that the Bush Tax Cuts will not be extended under any circumstances for the top 2 percent and make an offer that includes giving up the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2 percent. If Republicans don't do that they will be deservedly be blamed for not reaching a settlement

Okay, Mr. Expert, when did you start a negotiation by asking for far more than your stated public position? That's what the President did.

I will expand my remarks by responding to this portion of your comment in particular:

. . . if a case was worth $50K and Democrats started their demand at $100K, the Republicans are staying at $0 until Demicrats go to $50K

Here's the actual situation: the Democrats said it was worth $50K and are now beginning "negotiations" by asking for $100K. THAT is the problem.

Obama ran on $800B in tax increases. He is now asking for $1.6T, plus stimulus spending, plus permanent (and only modestly restrained) power to increase the National Debt, while he has, essentially, removed all meaningful spending cuts.

That is no way to negotiate.

freeman2 wrote:I am not sure what you are referring to DF, but in any case the election has changed the relative bargaining power of Obama and the Republicans. Also the president has a huge ally in this fight--The US Chamber of Commerce. The Republicans will be blamed if a deal is not struck, no matter how much they posture. The public wants, by a large margin, the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the top 2 percent.

See my expanded remarks--the President is not "just" demanding that. Of course, if you read the excerpts I cited from the NYT, you'd know that.

He doesn't want to "win," he wants to stomp the Republicans. Get ready for the cliff.