HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No one knows President Ob...

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:56 AM

No one knows President Obama's negotiating style.

At least no one can know it from the media reports, which are creating caricatures based on anecdotes and leaks (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022028137).

There's Mr. Sellout, the guy negotiating with himself, and the shrewd negotiator who says: You get nothing! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054533)

The fact is that if President Obama negotiated with himself the last time, he got Boehner to own the defense cuts Republicans are desperately trying to avoid.

Everyone gloated with Boehner when he claimed he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Now, everyone but Boehner wants sequestration, with its $500 billion, which is half the entire package, to go through.

In January, it only gets worse for Republicans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022054555





36 replies, 2267 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply No one knows President Obama's negotiating style. (Original post)
ProSense Dec 2012 OP
ProSense Dec 2012 #1
Ruba Dec 2012 #2
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #3
Ruba Dec 2012 #7
uppityperson Dec 2012 #9
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #10
joshcryer Dec 2012 #11
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #14
Cha Dec 2012 #4
MADem Dec 2012 #6
joshcryer Dec 2012 #12
woo me with science Dec 2012 #20
ProSense Dec 2012 #22
MADem Dec 2012 #5
ReRe Dec 2012 #8
davidpdx Dec 2012 #13
woo me with science Dec 2012 #15
ProSense Dec 2012 #16
woo me with science Dec 2012 #17
ProSense Dec 2012 #18
ProSense Dec 2012 #19
woo me with science Dec 2012 #21
ProSense Dec 2012 #23
ProSense Dec 2012 #24
JEB Dec 2012 #28
ProSense Dec 2012 #29
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #32
ProSense Dec 2012 #25
ann--- Dec 2012 #26
ProSense Dec 2012 #27
Scurrilous Dec 2012 #30
DJ13 Dec 2012 #31
ProSense Dec 2012 #33
leftstreet Dec 2012 #34
ProSense Dec 2012 #35
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #36

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:27 AM

1. Kick! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:41 AM

2. He made it clear and we pretended he didn't say it.

 

Obama him self before inauguration at a famous dinner with George will. He said that he will make entitlements cuts several times and there are direct quotes by him to support it. To a bunch of republicans he stated that when the economy stabilizes he will try to make social security cuts. Democrats need to stop being surprised now, Obama is far from a liberal in every sense and the very proof is in his domestic and foreign policies. An argument can be made that he has supported republican polices. As democrats we can "hope"he makes progressive polices but we have been hoping and giving excuses for 4 years. Mandate has been given after this election so now he has ignored that very mandate and moving right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruba (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:46 AM

3. Got a link to any of those quotes you mention in your post? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ruba (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:33 AM

9. There are no Obama direct quotes there

Yves Smith and Bruce Bartlett are giving hearsay. And you are no longer with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruba (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:51 AM

10. So, where are the direct quotes in the article you linked? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:59 AM

11. Obama's been saying this since at least 2007.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:10 AM

14. Basically, the President can give his opinion on any subject he desires....

...but technically speaking, he simply cannot "give concessions" to anyone. Congress has to cobble together the actual legislation on any issue, and then the President may or may not sign it. The President is counting on the Senate Democrats to counter any bill brought forward from the House GOP extremists.

Stating that "everything should be on the table" is a far cry from giving any concrete concessions to the GOP and the Tea-Nazis. Both the President and the Democratically controlled Senate understand that the House GOP will NEVER agree to any plan that involves publicly eliminating the massive tax cuts for people earning $250,000 and above on an annual basis.

We have to remember that the Top 2% are the REAL constituents of the GOP, not the folks back home who voted them into office. If any member of the House GOP agrees to ANY plan eliminating the massive tax cuts for people earning $250,000 and above on an annual basis, he or she can count on losing financial support from the Top 2% and being STRONGLY opposed in the next election by someone much more protective of the wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruba (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:01 AM

4. Yeah yeah.. excuse if I don't

believe you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruba (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:13 AM

6. Yes, a link to assertions....please. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:00 AM

12. Check out post #11.

This is one position Obama has not wavered from, not even a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruba (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:54 AM

20. And don't forget that this entire process was rigged from the outset

to give us austerity.

That is how it BEGAN...to ensure that austerity and budget slashing are guaranteed as an outcome of this process. That was the purpose of the faux Kabuki Theater debt ceiling Shock Doctrine "crisis" in the first place: to set up a faux crisis and closed door meetings to create a chain of events in which massive budget slashing, or a trigger with slightly less massive budget slashing, were the only possible outcomes.

The ONLY possible outcomes.

It is the stale, familiar, old "lesser of two evils" game by corporatists who own both parties now. Corporate Democrats will ostentatiously withhold a threatened assault on some portion of Social Security or Medicare so that they can point to it and claim to be working hard for us, but the goal all along was to force austerity on America, and they have already guaranteed that.

Look again at the offers from the DEMOCRATIC side, even after we won this election. They are ABSURD. This is not representation.

We live in a corporate illusion of representative government. Look at the NUMBERS, and tell us that these offers make any sense at all from a party that supposedly won this election by a landslide and that pretends to be representing the people. And in a country where Americans overwhelmingly oppose austerity and favor protecting Social Security and Medicare.

It is a travesty. Look at the Offers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2055232

$160 billion a year in tax cuts for the top 20%
$42 billion a year in tax cuts for the bottom 40%

clearly a plan that favors the rich







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:00 AM

22. I got your

"And don't forget that this entire process was rigged from the outset to give us austerity."

..."austery" right here:

And don't forget that this entire process was rigged from the outset

Increasing Medicaid Primary Care Fees for Certain Physicians in 2013 and 2014...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

Making programs more efficient means savings and spending money wisely helps reduce inefficiency. That is why the President's original proposal included $425 billion in stimulus.

Common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:12 AM

5. It seems to me that every time people think he's on the ropes, he comes back with a haymaker.

It's more than the whole chess/checkers thing--he just doesn't show his hand until right before he's raking in the pot.

Obama went on holiday to his childhood home to rest before an historic 2nd inauguration, and Bonehead went home worrying if he'll be able to keep his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:29 AM

8. I heard someone compare....

.... PO's negotiating style to LBJ's. Don't ask me who said it, because I don't remember. Didn't mean anything to me at the moment, so I didn't write it down. We will see come New Year's Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:54 AM

13. It's funny how often people write him off

Tell us he's caved, he's acting like a Republican, blah blah blah. I believe in sports the term is "fair weather fan".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:12 AM

15. Of course we do:

Of course we do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2055232

$160 billion a year in tax cuts for the top 20%
$42 billion a year in tax cuts for the bottom 40%

clearly a plan that favors the rich




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:31 AM

16. No, you don't.

You have no clue.


Obama's first offer was strong (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787). He should have stuck with that.

His third offer sucks, and the problem is he is negotiating with Republicans.

Any, and I mean any, deal out of this Congress is going to suck in some ways. You don't have to be happy, but don't pretend there is an alternative.

I mean, you can close your eyes and pretend that Republicans don't exist and that they're not the majority in the House. You can also play a game in your head where you envision them doing anything to make you happy.

There are only three things coming out of this Congress: a half-bad (or half-good, depending on your perspective) deal, a bad deal or nothing.

You can push for nothing if it's bad, but for the rest you have to decide what's good enough to accept. If that's unacceptable, go back to pushing for nothing.

That's the reality.

An offer is not a deal, which means both sides agree.

The first offer was a really good one that was never going be accepted by Boehner. Anything Boehner accepts that's not out desperation is going to suck, and that's why going over the cliff is seen as the better path.

We can go on all day about the logic behind the President's third offer, but the end result is: no deal. Boehner rejected it.

The President knows something you obviously can't wrap your head around: Boehner can't accept any deal that raises taxes on the rich. He doesn't have the votes.

Report: White House Considers Smaller Fiscal Cliff Deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022049743

After a dramatic week, Social Security is again off the table
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022052075

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2055558

P is for propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:38 AM

17. Well, your last sentence was correct.



Those were some offers, huh, from a winning party! Just LOOK at those numbers!

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

Those graphs clearly show that corporate Democrats are working hard to increase the chocolate ration!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2055232

$160 billion a year in tax cuts for the top 20%
$42 billion a year in tax cuts for the bottom 40%

clearly a plan that favors the rich



We are bought and sold. Time to get corporate money out of our elections.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:46 AM

18. You should know. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:51 AM

19. FYI:

Ending the tax cuts above $250,000 means a slight increase for the top one percent beyond returning to Clinton era rates because there are also tax increases built into the health care law.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3210&DocTypeID=2



In fact, it's a very slight increase even without the health care law.

<...>



Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.

Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obama’s proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)

It’s true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes — and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:58 AM

21. Don't drag the health INSURANCE law into this.

They are entirely separate pieces of legislation. And we can (and have) had entire threads about how the ACA was originally a Heritage Foundation plan and will profit the one percent in stunning ways.

That you feel a need to do this underscores your awareness of how transparent and obscene these offers, by the numbers, really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:05 AM

23. Don't pretend you

"Don't drag the health INSURANCE law into this."

...you didn't see this point: In fact, it's a very slight increase even without the health care law.

"They are entirely separate pieces of legislation. And we can (andhave) had entire threads about how the ACA was originally a Heritage Foudation plan and will profit the one percent in stunning ways. "

So the "Heritage Foudation plan" was to increase taxes on the top one percent?

SP is for silly propaganda





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:06 PM

24. So the "Heritage Foudation plan" was to increase taxes on the top one percent?

Just wanted to ask that again.



Oh, was this part of the plan:

Increasing Medicaid Primary Care Fees for Certain Physicians in 2013 and 2014...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:47 PM

28. The Heritage Foundation plan

channels all the people's money through the private for profit insurance industry without even a Public Option. The 1% are doing just fine. I doubt they will feel austerity at all. I know they won't be cutting back on the heat or cutting their doses in half.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:51 PM

29. The President's health care law:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:06 PM

32. Your despair is noted. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:06 PM

25. Kick for

we'll see.

Obama’s “small deal” could lead to bigger tax increases

Posted by Ezra Klein

<...>

But the most important insight into the White House’s strategic thinking comes when Boehner says to the president, ”I put $800 billion (in tax revenue) on the table. What do I get for that?” Obama’s response is cold and telling. ”You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

That, right there, is the central fact of negotiations for the Democrats and the central problem for the Republicans....The White House already has some $700 billion in the bank, as they see it. The reason to negotiate with Boehner is that an agreement with him could, in theory, push that number well above $1 trillion while stabilizing the debt and avoiding the economic pain of falling off the fiscal cliff. But there’s no reason to cut a deal with Boehner in which the White House gives up spending cuts in order to get a tax increase they can have anyway.

<...>

The talk in Washington now is about a “small deal.” That would likely include the Senate tax bill, some policy to turn off at least the defense side of the sequester and a handful of other policies to blunt or delay various parts of the fiscal cliff...Some time in the next month or so, the small deal would pass and the White House would pocket that $700-plus billion in tax revenue...But pressure would quickly mount to strike a larger deal, both because there would be another fiscal cliff coming and because the debt ceiling would need to be raised...The White House would insist that the next deal includes a 1:1 ratio of tax increases — all of which could come through Republican-friendly tax reform — to spending cuts. So a subsequent deal that included $600 billion or $700 billion in spending cuts would also include $600 billion or $700 billion in tax increases, leading to total new revenue in the range of $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion.

<...>

All of which is to say, if Boehner had taken the White House’s deal in 2011, he could’ve stopped the tax increase at $800 billion. If he took their most recent deal, he could stop it at $1.2 trillion. But if he insists on adding another round to the negotiations — one that will likely come after the White House pockets $700 billion in tax increases — then any deal in which gets the entitlement cuts he wants is going to mean a deal in which he accepts even more tax increases than the White House is currently demanding.

Today, Boehner wishes he’d taken the deal the president offered him in 2011. A year from now, he might wish he’d taken the deal the president offered him in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/22/obamas-small-deal-could-lead-to-bigger-tax-increases/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)


Response to ann--- (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:20 PM

27. Does

"Oh, well, maybe it's to kiss gop butt hoping they'll come around. It hasn't worked in over 4 years - it won't work now. When will Obama learn."

...that mean that you think the Republicans are too stupid to recognize a good thing when they see it?

Congressman DeFazio: If we do nothing, seniors are safe and Lloyd Blankfein's taxes go up!http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022040837

January!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:57 PM

30. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:04 PM

31. There are times I think this represents his style



Yeah, makes no sense to me, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:06 PM

33. Hey,

he keeps getting lucky.

When Congress returns from holiday, Boehner has four days to accept the President's offer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022060906

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:25 PM

34. He negotiates GREAT deals for banks and insurance companies!

For us? Nada

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:31 PM

35. Really? I mean

"For us? Nada"

...tens of millions of people would disagree.

The President's health care law:

  • Expands Medicaid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

  • Increases taxes on the rich: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2059710

  • Includes a federal-control clause: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021978966


  • That doesn't include eliminating the middle man from federal student loans, expanding Pell Grants and strengthening Medicare, to name a few.



    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


    Response to ProSense (Original post)

    Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:37 PM

    36. Worse no-one knows his negotiating positions, since his promises to be transparent, failed.

    Reply to this post

    Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

    Reply to this thread