HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Look at the Offers. Look... » Reply #19

Response to woo me with science (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:04 PM

19. More attempts

Of course they don't. But they set the terms for the debate.

Look at the numbers, from a Democratic President, following a landslide Democratic victory. Look at what is on the table, look at how insanely the numbers are skewed to benefit the wealthy and punish the poor, and, more importantly, look at what is not even mentioned.


...to distort where the negotiations started:

Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787

You're constantly trying to keep the focus on things that are no longer relevant. Here's the reality:

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

No one knows President Obama's negotiating style.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022058579

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 OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
woo me with science Dec 2012 OP
Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2012 #1
leftstreet Dec 2012 #2
KansDem Dec 2012 #36
woo me with science Dec 2012 #8
ProSense Dec 2012 #9
woo me with science Dec 2012 #24
PufPuf23 Dec 2012 #50
TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #34
woo me with science Dec 2012 #37
TreasonousBastard Dec 2012 #39
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #59
Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2012 #60
woo me with science Dec 2012 #61
ProSense Dec 2012 #62
woo me with science Dec 2012 #63
ProSense Dec 2012 #64
woo me with science Dec 2012 #65
ProSense Dec 2012 #66
Skittles Dec 2012 #69
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #56
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #76
ProSense Dec 2012 #3
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #5
ProSense Dec 2012 #6
woo me with science Dec 2012 #11
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #13
woo me with science Dec 2012 #15
ProSense Dec 2012 #16
woo me with science Dec 2012 #40
ProSense Dec 2012 #17
woo me with science Dec 2012 #41
ProSense Dec 2012 #42
woo me with science Dec 2012 #43
ProSense Dec 2012 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #21
indepat Dec 2012 #68
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #31
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #35
byeya Dec 2012 #20
ProSense Dec 2012 #22
byeya Dec 2012 #23
ProSense Dec 2012 #27
Skraxx Dec 2012 #72
OffWithTheirHeads Dec 2012 #4
woo me with science Dec 2012 #14
LineReply .
ProSense Dec 2012 #7
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #10
woo me with science Dec 2012 #12
LineLineLineReply More attempts
ProSense Dec 2012 #19
byeya Dec 2012 #18
woo me with science Dec 2012 #44
JEB Dec 2012 #25
woo me with science Dec 2012 #51
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #26
woo me with science Dec 2012 #49
zeemike Dec 2012 #28
woo me with science Dec 2012 #47
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #29
woo me with science Dec 2012 #46
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #48
woo me with science Dec 2012 #54
byeya Dec 2012 #30
ProSense Dec 2012 #32
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #33
byeya Dec 2012 #38
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #70
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #52
stupidicus Dec 2012 #53
woo me with science Dec 2012 #58
Evergreen Emerald Dec 2012 #55
JEB Dec 2012 #57
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #67
byeya Dec 2012 #71
snot Dec 2012 #73
woo me with science Dec 2012 #74
Demeter Dec 2012 #75
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #77
woo me with science Dec 2012 #79
mgraveman Dec 2012 #80
mgraveman Dec 2012 #78
Please login to view edit histories.