Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

Looking for honest takes.....

Considering we haven't had a budget in his administration along with the sequestration, fiscal cliff and all the other self imposed dilmenas; at what point do democrats says this goes behind Republicans are being difficult and acknowledging that Obama isn't a very good leader?

A. We've had budgets. If we didn't then how is stuff being paid? This is misleading talking point by the GOP.

B. The Fiscal Cliff was put in by Bush, not Obama.

C. This "leadership claim" is horseshit. What is meant by "leadership" is "completely cave." The GOP is completely unwilling to compromise. They outright refuse to accept new revenues to deal with the sequester, something the majority of Americans want. Obama has put entitlement reform on the table which most of his party hates. He's put on the table to reduce defense cuts. He's moved so fucking far already and all he wants is basically one concession from the GOP in that they close tax loopholes and ensure the wealthy pay a higher effective tax rates than the middle class. But apparently there is no "leadership."

Obama has the support on nearly every issue from the majority of voters and despite this he has still compromised to the GOP side and they refuse to move a fucking inch.

The only way Obama can fulfill this claim of "leadership" would be to give the GOP what it wants. In which case, what the fuck was the point of the election if almost the entire policy comes from the losing party?

 

[Oblivion]

This sequester thing is pretty fascinating. It shows how the Republicans keep going off the deep end. They just agreed to turn their back on one of their sacred cows, all in the hopes of bringing about some short term pain for Obama. Seriously, what's left after this? Tax cuts for the rich?

What was the joke?

Obama said he has no idea how money works.

 

[kehs]

It's true, he does. But:



That means he has mountains of data showing that higher spending spurs growth.

touché

 

[Hitokage]

Please get rid of that avatar now.

My next av is probably going to be anime related.

 

[The Librarian]

Hito, that avatar is really fucking creepy!

 

[B-Dubs]

Hito, that avatar is really fucking creepy!

Come on it's not like there isn't worse out there. It's really not that bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean have you seen some of DTL's avatars?

A. We've had budgets. If we didn't then how is stuff being paid? This is misleading talking point by the GOP.

B. The Fiscal Cliff was put in by Bush, not Obama.

C. This "leadership claim" is horseshit. What is meant by "leadership" is "completely cave." The GOP is completely unwilling to compromise. They outright refuse to accept new revenues to deal with the sequester, something the majority of Americans want. Obama has put entitlement reform on the table which most of his party hates. He's put on the table to reduce defense cuts. He's moved so fucking far already and all he wants is basically one concession from the GOP in that they close tax loopholes and ensure the wealthy pay a higher effective tax rates than the middle class. But apparently there is no "leadership."

Obama has the support on nearly every issue from the majority of voters and despite this he has still compromised to the GOP side and they refuse to move a fucking inch.

The only way Obama can fulfill this claim of "leadership" would be to give the GOP what it wants. In which case, what the fuck was the point of the election if almost the entire policy comes from the losing party?

Pretty much. The GOP is never going to give Obama anything, ever. Ever. This whole thing has long surpassed The Onion in terms of insanity.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

My facebook feed is getting flooded with AIPAC stuff....

Ugh. Cornyn is now saying Iran is going to annex Iraq

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Republicans have tried to push the narrative that they already accepted revenue increases with the fiscal cliff. Yet somehow they also thought it was okay to try and push the narrative that the deal increased spending/ddficit/debt. I heard boehner say the former just the other day. These people are disgusting.

 

[Hitokage]

Republicans have tried to push the narrative that they already accepted revenue increases with the fiscal cliff. Yet somehow they also thought it was okay to try and push the narrative that the deal increased spending/ddficit/debt. I heard boehner say the former just the other day. These people are disgusting.

More taxes -> more spending -> more deficit, because only spending causes deficits!

 

[Oblivion]

More taxes -> more spending -> more deficit, because only spending causes deficits!

I really hate the fact that almost no Democrat has pointed out that when you have millions of people out of work, that means millions of people aren't paying taxes, which makes the deficit bigger, which therefore means it's fucking stupid to say we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem as well.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I love how Republicans say Obama is the biggest cause behind the sequester, mainly because they've proposed a bill that he's said he won't pass. Their defense is that "Within this bill are some of the Presidents very own ideas outlined in his plan".

And that's true. Those similar ideas are his attempts to compromise with Republicans. That's how negotiation works. Each side gives up something.

In the Republican world of insanity they compromise by pushing their bill, with no concessions to President Obama, then come out and say "See, he won't even pass bills containing his own ideas!".

Well, no shit. They're really not his ideas. They're his attempts to try and compromise with you ignorant jackasses.

You can't take his concessions, put them in your bill, then shove it through the House claiming the President won't even sign off on ideas that weren't really his. They're yours, he's just trying to work with you asshats.

 

[Hitokage]

"We have a spending problem" is repeated as an article of faith. At no point do people actually look at trends in discretionary and nondiscretionary spending to unwrap just how spending got to where it is now. They just repeat it over and over mindlessly just like "government is inefficient" or "government can't do anything right".

Which leads to how Republicans talk about cutting programs that are "inefficient" when they really should outright say that ALL of them are!

 

[adamsappel]

Never, although if he had lost in November the knives would have been out in seconds. The major problem is that republicans will not compromise an inch, that can't be ignored. But it should also be noted that Obama simply is not a leader, isn't good at the inside game, and still doesn't know how to play Washington.

Consider the sequestration. John McCain and Lindsy Graham are on record saying they would support tax revenue in exchange for "entitlement" cuts to replace the sequester; basically they want a grand bargain. Instead of working with them, the WH spends 100% of its time appealing to the GOP leadership (McConnell and Boehner) who have no interest in a deal. A big senate bill with McCain's stamp of approval would pass the senate easily. Boehner would then be forced to put it up for a vote, and with dem support plus less than 20 republican votes it would pass.

I am not saying I support cutting benefits, just acknowledging the political reality that both sides are obsessed with a big deal that cuts the deficit. But it won't happen unless Obama calls up McCain, Graham, and some moderate house republicans to strike a deal. Instead his staff meets with the GOP leadership's staff, they fight, and nothing gets done. Bill Clinton or even Joe Biden could get this done.

750k people will lose their jobs over this shit, for nothing. Given Obama's obsession with history, you'd think he would realize that creating jobs and avoiding a double dip recession look good on a president's resume.

Just to be sure, this is you still not trolling us? Obama not working with McCain and Graham?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

My next av is probably going to be anime related.

Traitor.

 

[Black Mamba]

BOEHNER: Now listen, we've known about this for 16 months. And yet even today, there's no plan from Senate Democrats or the White House to replace the sequester. And over the last 10 months, House Republicans have acted twice to replace the sequester. There are smarter ways to cut spending than these automatic across the board...

DAVID GREGORY:
GREGORY: But Mr. Speaker, that's just not true. They've made it very clear, as the President just did, that he has a plan that he's put forward that involves entitlement cuts, that involves spending cuts, that you've made a choice as have Republicans to leave tax loopholes in place. And you'd rather have those and live with all these arbitrary cuts...

BOEHNER: Well, David that's just nonsense. If he had a plan, why wouldn't Senate Democrats go ahead and pass it? The House has acted twice over the last ten months to replace the sequester. If we’re going to — the president got his tax hikes on January the first. If we're going to get rid of loopholes, let's lower rates and make the tax code fair for all Americans.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/sequ...d-gregory-meet-the-press-2013-3#ixzz2MWQWavOw

2 things.

1. Apparently Obama putting forward a plan isn't a plan until the Senate passes it (WTF)

2. LOWER TAX RATES. Literally the same shit as always. This is always the fucking answer.

revenues too small - cut rates
revenues too big - cut rates
spending too big - cut rates
spending too small - cut rates

 

[speculawyer]

That bill was definitely split.

I love that movie, by the way. It's also better than the book.

Ugh. The whole love story was TERRIBLE. And the cool scientific theology of the book was taken out.

 

[Hitokage]

Watching Boehner run around ignoring how the Constitution sets up the process where the House must introduce the bill in question and then have it be acted upon before the current Congress ends is pretty frustrating.

Ugh. The whole love story was TERRIBLE. And the cool scientific theology of the book was taken out.

The points that actually mattered were far weaker in the book. Setting watches? Come on, now.

 

[speculawyer]

I love how Republicans say Obama is the biggest cause behind the sequester, mainly because they've proposed a bill that he's said he won't pass.

Isn't their bill pretty much the same as sequester except that it cuts social programs more and defense less?

 

[B-Dubs]

Isn't their bill pretty much the same as sequester except that it cuts social programs more and defense less?

Pretty much.

 

[pigeon]

Looking for honest takes.....

Considering we haven't had a budget in his administration

With government shutdowns now seeming to loom at every budget deadline, Washington seems more dysfunctional than ever. But let’s keep it in perspective: Congress almost never manages to pass the entire federal budget by the scheduled deadline of Sept. 30. Over the past 30 years, it’s happened only four times — in 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997. Every other year, Congress has depended on short-term stopgaps and omnibus bills to keep the government running. In 2001 alone, Congress relied on a record 21 Continuing Resolutions before a full budget could be passed, as tensions over the 1997 Balanced Budget Act boiled over.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...p-gap-budgets/2011/09/30/gIQAXa1dAL_blog.html

along with the sequestration, fiscal cliff and all the other self imposed dilmenas; at what point do democrats says this goes behind Republicans are being difficult and acknowledging that Obama isn't a very good leader?

What does this even mean? What would effective leadership look like, in your mind?

 

[Baraka in the White House]

The fuck is he supposed to do with a Congress like this? Considering how half of them are political suicide bombers I think he's done about as good as one guy can do.

 

[Oblivion]

2 things.

1. Apparently Obama putting forward a plan isn't a plan until the Senate passes it (WTF)

2. LOWER TAX RATES. Literally the same shit as always. This is always the fucking answer.

3. The budget the House passed (even if they did it twice) doesn't matter because those were from the last session and don't apply now. And AFAIK the House hasn't passed any budget bills this year.

 

[kehs]

I really hate the fact that almost no Democrat has pointed out that when you have millions of people out of work, that means millions of people aren't paying taxes, which makes the deficit bigger, which therefore means it's fucking stupid to say we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem as well.

Yeah, they've given up on the broadening the base angle.

I'm guessing its because theyd have to start talking about spending.

 

[Chichikov]

The fuck is he supposed to do with a Congress like this? Considering how half of them are political suicide bombers I think he's done about as good as one guy can do.

He could've used his Klingon force choke on them.

 

[sc0la]

He could've used his Klingon force choke on them.

Romulan Mind Trick might work in this case too.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The fuck is he supposed to do with a Congress like this? Considering how half of them are political suicide bombers I think he's done about as good as one guy can do.

Murder Someone (stupid reason to put a link to an onion piece)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Just to be sure, this is you still not trolling us? Obama not working with McCain and Graham?

Honest post. McCain and Graham were at the WH last week to discuss immigration, and briefly discussed sequestration. Can someone explain why it wouldn't make sense to get them in a room and craft the general principles of a major deal? Throw in Collins, Kirk, and Murkowski and you have 60 votes (although I believe such a deal would garner even more votes than that). Call up some House republicans and further chalk out a deal. Hell throw a corporate tax cut in there too.

Boehner's message all year has been to allow the senate to act first on a host of things. Anyone think he'd refuse to bring a bill to the floor that would save 750k jobs, cut taxes, and "reform" entitlements?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Honest post. McCain and Graham were at the WH last week to discuss immigration, and briefly discussed sequestration. Can someone explain why it wouldn't make sense to get them in a room and craft the general principles of a major deal? Throw in Collins, Kirk, and Murkowski and you have 60 votes (although I believe such a deal would garner even more votes than that). Call up some House republicans and further chalk out a deal. Hell throw a corporate tax cut in there too.

Boehner's message all year has been to allow the senate to act first on a host of things. Anyone think he'd refuse to bring a bill to the floor that would save 750k jobs, cut taxes, and "reform" entitlements?

Because McCain, Graham and Collins are not actually interested in a major deal. Nothing in their legislative history with Obama makes me think they have any intent to work in good faith with him.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Because McCain, Graham and Collins are not actually interested in a major deal. Nothing in their legislative history with Obama makes me think they have any intent to work in good faith with him.

Both are on record supporting tax revenue for cuts. Both are defense spending/welfare supporters of the highest caliber. It follows that both want the sequester ended more than most senators regardless of party.

Both are also currently working on immigration reform with the WH so this wouldn't be new.

 

[Link]

McCain was also on record saying he wouldn't block Hagel's nomination. Until he had to.

 

[PhoenixDark]

McCain was also on record saying he wouldn't block Hagel's nomination. Until he had to.

Hagel still got confirmed in the end, what's your point. He doesn't have a personal vendetta to address when it comes to military spending.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Both are on record supporting tax revenue for cuts. Both are defense spending/welfare supporters of the highest caliber. It follows that both want the sequester ended more than most senators regardless of party.

Both are also currently working on immigration reform with the WH so this wouldn't be new.

You can follow this cadence through other major legislative efforts, from the stimulus to healthcare to financial regulation reform. The cast of GOP characters shifts a bit each time, but it's a small circle that seems to rotate.

I'll believe it when I see it. Lucy's pulled the football often enough for me to be dubious as fuck about their sincerity.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You can follow this cadence through other major legislative efforts, from the stimulus to healthcare to financial regulation reform. The cast of GOP characters shifts a bit each time, but it's a small circle that seems to rotate.

I'll believe it when I see it. Lucy's pulled the football often enough for me to be dubious as fuck about their sincerity.

It's not an issue of sincerity to me. They are the biggest war hawks in the country and have already made apocalyptic statements about the defense cuts. They want to end this thing ASAP and are willing to craft a big deal to do so. The problem is that Obama tends to think the only two republicans he has to talk to are Boehner and McConnell.

McCain, Graham, etc had no skin in the game with health care whereas this is up their alley. The same applies to Eric Cantor, whose state will get reamed by sequestration. There is a sense of urgency among these players, whereas Boehner seems content to wait for Obama to cave regardless of the damage done.

 

[pigeon]

McCain, Graham, etc had no skin in the game with health care whereas this is up their alley. The same applies to Eric Cantor, whose state will get reamed by sequestration.

I thought you might have been being a tiny bit serious until you suggested that Cantor might be open to compromise over Boehner.

 

[Jooney]

I'm sure that in whatever hypothetical sequester deal that could be struck with McCain / Graham, part of the Grand Bargain would be to finally get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

I don't share your optimism about a deal with those two, PD. They have showed time and again they are more interested in grandstanding than working with the President.

 

[Link]

Hagel still got confirmed in the end, what's your point. He doesn't have a personal vendetta to address when it comes to military spending.

My point is that their word is meaningless. They'll say they are willing to work across the aisle until that road actually has to be travelled.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I thought you might have been being a tiny bit serious until you suggested that Cantor might be open to compromise over Boehner.

Why not? Lizza's profile of him showed he expects Obama to cave too, but if that doesn't happen he'll be stuck with very hurt constituents.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Double post but just saw this

Seeking Compromise, President Reaches Out to the Rank and File

WASHINGTON — With few avenues left for winning a comprehensive budget deal that can reverse the across-the-board spending cuts that took effect over the weekend, President Obama has begun reaching out to senators in a bid to isolate Republican leaders in Congress and force a compromise.

In conversations last week with Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, both Republicans, and in a wider outreach to rank-and-file members of Congress that a top White House official said began this weekend, Mr. Obama hopes to build a broad consensus on deficit reduction that includes new revenue, despite the uncompromising stance of Republican leaders in the House and the Senate.

“Our hope is that as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, that they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” Gene Sperling, the director of the president’s National Economic Council, said Sunday on the NBC program “Meet the Press.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/u...ml?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0

There we go. Let's see where this goes.

I will point out I don't personally support what will likely be in any grand bargain - ie benefit cuts. My point has simply been that Obama can get this done by ignoring GOP leadership and passing something bipartisan in the senate.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I was wondering what the follow up would look like. At the briefing last week where Obama spoke to the press, he said he was going to spend time reaching out to individual lawmakers. Looks like that's underway now.

Glad he's doing it, but good luck with that.

 

[kehs]

Queen of the crazy squad just remembered she has a job to do.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-keeps-door-open-for-big-agreement-on-budget/

 

[adamsappel]

I thought you might have been being a tiny bit serious until you suggested that Cantor might be open to compromise over Boehner.

Don't you know, Eric Cantor would love to work with Obama.

It's not an issue of sincerity to me. They are the biggest war hawks in the country and have already made apocalyptic statements about the defense cuts. They want to end this thing ASAP and are willing to craft a big deal to do so. The problem is that Obama tends to think the only two republicans he has to talk to are Boehner and McConnell.

McCain, Graham, etc had no skin in the game with health care whereas this is up their alley. The same applies to Eric Cantor, whose state will get reamed by sequestration. There is a sense of urgency among these players, whereas Boehner seems content to wait for Obama to cave regardless of the damage done.

So, you think McCain and Graham are going to work with Obama by compromising on defense cuts, or getting Obama to agree to even more entitlement cuts?

But it should also be noted that Obama simply is not a leader, isn't good at the inside game, and still doesn't know how to play Washington.

Consider the sequestration. John McCain and Lindsy Graham are on record saying they would support tax revenue in exchange for "entitlement" cuts to replace the sequester; basically they want a grand bargain. Instead of working with them, the WH spends 100% of its time appealing to the GOP leadership (McConnell and Boehner) who have no interest in a deal. A big senate bill with McCain's stamp of approval would pass the senate easily. Boehner would then be forced to put it up for a vote, and with dem support plus less than 20 republican votes it would pass.

I am not saying I support cutting benefits, just acknowledging the political reality that both sides are obsessed with a big deal that cuts the deficit. But it won't happen unless Obama calls up McCain, Graham, and some moderate house republicans to strike a deal. Instead his staff meets with the GOP leadership's staff, they fight, and nothing gets done. Bill Clinton or even Joe Biden could get this done.

So, do you now think Obama is a leader, is good at the inside game, and knows how to play Washington? Just trying to figure out what you want to claim later.

 

[RustyNails]

Obama simply read PD's post and decided to reach out to McCain and his gf.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Man, I love having PD on ignore and then having multiple people quote him.

 

[Oblivion]

Question for you econ guys: can I get some examples of the government "crowding' out private investments?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Man, I love having PD on ignore and then having multiple people quote him.

I never put anyone on ignore.

Someone may say something asinine in one thread and say something that blows your mind in another.

 

[Averon]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/graham-i-wont-vote-on-cia-director-until

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI

 

[Aaron Strife]

Double post but just saw this


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/u...ml?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0

There we go. Let's see where this goes.

I will point out I don't personally support what will likely be in any grand bargain - ie benefit cuts. My point has simply been that Obama can get this done by ignoring GOP leadership and passing something bipartisan in the senate.

Boehner would just bitch about the Senate not being "serious" about averting the sequester and continue being an asshat and not let anything come up to a vote.

Obama deals with Boehner because he literally has to. There might be enough moderate Republicans in the House to get a deal passed but they're not going to mutiny to do it.

 

[Jooney]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/graham-i-wont-vote-on-cia-director-until

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI

Alternate headline could read "Graham: I Won’t Vote On CIA Director Until I Get No Tax Increase as part of Sequester Deal"

Obama will cave and PD will lament lack of leadership.

 

[Byakuya769]

Man, I love having PD on ignore and then having multiple people quote him.

Who are you?

Edit - actually that was mean. But when people try to draw attention to who they have on their ignore list, it just annoys me. Like, who cares?

 

[speculawyer]

Question for you econ guys: can I get some examples of the government "crowding' out private investments?

I'm sure you can find plenty in the minds of people that hate government. In real life? . . . not gonna find many.