HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Will President Obama cave...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:00 PM

Will President Obama cave in?

Fiscal Cliff Talks Go Through Night With Deal Still Uncertain

Discussions faltered over the weekend after Republicans sought to include some cuts to Social Security through a changed measure of inflation. They withdrew that demand under Democratic pressure, and the focus shifted back to tax rates.

Republicans on Sunday said they were looking for a deal that preserved tax cuts for incomes below $400,000 to $500,000, as well as keeping estate taxes at Bush-era levels.

Reports emerged Monday morning that Democrats might be willing to embrace a freeze of rates below $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/fiscal-cliff-mcconnell-biden_n_2387924.html

31 replies, 2786 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Will President Obama cave in? (Original post)
UCmeNdc Dec 2012 OP
ann--- Dec 2012 #1
bunnies Dec 2012 #2
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #3
bunnies Dec 2012 #5
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #6
bunnies Dec 2012 #10
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #15
greatauntoftriplets Dec 2012 #9
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #7
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #8
Dawgs Dec 2012 #14
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #16
Dawgs Dec 2012 #17
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #22
Dawgs Dec 2012 #29
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #31
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #4
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #11
julian09 Dec 2012 #13
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #20
Dawgs Dec 2012 #12
Jennicut Dec 2012 #18
Dawgs Dec 2012 #19
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #21
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #23
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #24
Dawgs Dec 2012 #27
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #25
budkin Dec 2012 #26
bowens43 Dec 2012 #28
MassedPole Dec 2012 #30

Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)


Response to ann--- (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:05 PM

2. This is like the 400th time Ive seen you call the President a "wuss"

Whats your deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:05 PM

3. What's today's definition of Cave?

For the last few weeks the definition had been that Obama would (a) extend all of the Bsh taxes cuts (b), raise the Medicare age, and (c) cut social security.

Now its clear that "b" and "c" aren't going to happen.

So what's today's definition? Is raising the # from 250k to 400k a cave? What if by doing so Obama gets an extension of UE benefits?

So again, that's the question ... what is today's definition of Cave?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:06 PM

5. Obamas breathing!!!

He caved! He caved!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:08 PM

6. I heard he caved when he put mustard on a burger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:10 PM

10. He did WHAT?!

Turned his back on ketchup?! Thats it. I can no longer support this man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:34 PM

15. And I heard it was "French" mustard to boot.

Obama Sucks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:10 PM

9. LOL.

Nail, meet head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:08 PM

7. Compromise = Cave to some.

But government is built on compromise. If the founding fathers felt that any compromise was a cave, they'd still be in Philly arguing over the final draft of the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:09 PM

8. Agree completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:21 PM

14. Compromise is both sides giving up something.

If Obama gives and the GOP gives nothing then it's NOT a compromise, it's a cave.

Nice try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:41 PM

16. If the GOP reduces their demand from $1 mil, and the POTUS raises his from $250k, and.....

they meet at $450k, that's not a "compromise"? In what universe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:00 PM

17. It's still a cave if the Republicans get most of what they want while just giving a little.

And there is no deal yet. We have no idea how much Obama will give. That's the point of this thread and the article.

Now, if you're a center-right person, like Obama, then you'll probably see anything he does as a compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:59 PM

22. Compared to you, I'd suggest that Bernie Sanders might be considered "center-right".

And perhaps you should study up on just what "divided government" means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:22 PM

29. According to you "divided government" means Democrats start from the center and move right.

No thanks.

And, you can't get any better than Bernie. Unfortunately, there's only one like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:38 PM

31. Of course "there's only one like him". No other state is brave enough to elect an actual...

self described Socialist to national office. Whether you like it or not, America is not Vermont, and the American people chose the House, The Senate, and the President. They chose "divided goverment". They are of different parties, and therefore of different ideologies. Given those circumstances, meeting somewhere in "the center" is quite appropriate. No one is going to get 100% of what they want.

You're welcome to your own opinions, but your grasp of the facts and reality seem a bit muddled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:05 PM

4. $400,000 is a cave? Republicans cave on the principle, on the rate level, and on additional rates!

I'd prefer $388,500 to be the line in the sand on rate increases.

But the increased rate on dividends (conveniently left out of your account) really does offset that a bit - drawing additional revenues from the top 2% of the population where the rate line at $450,000 or $500,000 and no other revenues would not. Obviously would like to have estate as well, but both these features maintain the principle that the very wealthy should pay more.

If we review the Republican position, we see how eroded their defense is:

1) They insisted on no tax RATE increase PERIOD. They would find revenue other ways. They abandoned this position.

2) Having abandoned the "No rate Increase" position, they tried to set the rate at $1,000,000 or greater in income, and no other changes. This position, too, has fallen.

3) There was a HuffPo story this weekend that suggested the new Republican position was $500,000. Apparently, it is $550,000, but they might accept a capital gains increase alongside that.

When you look at where they started, you really see how far they've fallen. meanwhile, the Dem position started at yes on rates, and Rate at $250,000, and has apparently moved up to $450,000. That means no tax rate increases on the middle class, and only a slight movement up in brackets. Moreover, when a capital gains rate is included in the rate changes, you draw revenue from top incomes at roughly the level you would if the rate was something like $350,000, so the actual uptick is even more slight. The rate is a way for GOPers to save face. The capital gains increase may actually offset the income rate completely back down to $250,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:17 PM

11. And the last I saw, the big money doesn't kick in until you get above $5M.

The top 2% isn't evenly distributed. The big money from a tax break perspective is in the top .05%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:20 PM

13. I would like to have two tax increases if threshold is raised to $450,000

 

2% increase for $250,000 to $450,000
4.6% increase above $450,000 back to Clinton tax level.
The more we get in tax cuts, the less we will need to cut entitlements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:47 PM

20. Good post

I wasn't opposed going over the cliff. But this isn't a bad compromise either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:19 PM

12. My prediction is that he caves on ALL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS and extends them for two years. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:18 PM

18. It pretty much rests on what Biden and McConnell

agree on. Looks like it will be increasing tax rates. On those earning $450,00 or more. Either that or we go over the cliff. It is not looking like all tax rates will be extended. Not sure where that is coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennicut (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:26 PM

19. It's coming from my mind. I might be wrong, but I'm allowed to have an opinion. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:57 PM

21. OK, banked

We'll see soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:01 PM

23. Don't expect a retraction. He's setting himself up to claim that whatever deal is arrived at....

will be a "cave" by the president. It's called "covering all the bases".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:05 PM

24. Of course...he's allowed his "opinion"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:18 PM

27. Exactly. A prediction (opinion) is different than a guarantee. No retraction needed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:15 PM

25. I hope not but based on preliminary

reports some of the tax cuts will not be extended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:16 PM

26. Now people are saying 450k and no estate tax

Unbelievable. Why why why? *smh*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:22 PM

28. Do you have to ask?Of course the spelunker-in-chief will cave....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:31 PM

30. Obama better not Cave Ill be pissed.

 

If he does. Obama is worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread