willing is not a synomym for allowed to.
Ignorance fought.
Actually, it’s about how obstructionism hurts the children!
Well, however they did it, it is now a mandate of the electorate!
This illustrates very well why the GOP lost and why they are likely to continue to lose.
Obama didn’t reveal anything particularly new in his speech this afternoon, but he emphasized (again) that he’s willing to make concessions on Medicare and other programs in return for tax cuts, but that cutting social programs without tax cuts for the wealth is simply not an option. He added that everybody agrees about extending the Bush tax cuts for people who make less than $250,000 a year, so that should be done immediately so taxes don’t go up on Jan. 1 and uncertainty for consumers and businesses can go down.
I dont foresee gridlock going away. Obama’s speech today had the same basic, I won - you lost, so that means you do what I say approach he had in his first term.
Please explain how “I’ve put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. I want to be clear: I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise. I’m open to new ideas. I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges.” = “Do what I say.”
They both agree on middle class tax cuts. Everyone supports middle class tax cuts. Why not pass those? Easy stuff, and everyone’s happy, and then they can talk about the things they don’t agree on.
I agree 100% but neither side will let it go with just that. Both side want to tie something else to it, whether it be spending cuts or tax increases or you pick an add on.
Do they ever do just one thing at a time? Every bill that ever gets put through ends up with so many amendments and earmarks that the original intent is totally lost. I believe that if congress had to put together a declaration that the sky is blue by the time it was finished the sky would no longer be blue and a bridge somewhere would need to be built.
You might be right- maybe the President is bluffing. But if so, Boehner and the Republicans should call his bluff- just pass the Senate’s middle class tax cut, with no earmarks or amendments, and dare the President NOT to sign it.
“I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced, …and on Tuesday night, we found out that a majority of Americans agree with my approach.”
I hope he is “open to compromise” but actions speak louder that words for me. He’s never shown to be open to compromise in the past. And while it’s true that he got the majority of the vote it’s less of a majority than in 2008.
It has to get out of the senate first. That’s been the presidents firewall to contend that it’s a do nothing congress. The house has passed many bills and none have ever come up for a vote in the senate. The sentate is the house of obstruction.
That’s how compromise works. That’s what compromise is. Doing otherwise would be sort of extremely stupid, wouldn’t it? In any case the issues are related in this case. They’re talking about dealing with the federal deficit, and common sense would indicate that if you want to reduce a deficit, you want to take in more money and spend less.
For the second straight election. He said in 2008 that these tax rates needed to go back up, and he won. He said it again in 2012 and won again. Seems pretty clear that most voters agree or don’t object to the idea, doesn’t it? Last I checked, polls said the same thing.
He’s compromised on plenty of things. It takes two, and of course the Republicans have refused to work with him on anything. Conservative versions of health care reform were unacceptable. Deals of 2 or 3 or 4-for-1 spending cuts and tax increases were unacceptable. You can’t stomp your foot and say “No!” over and over and then credibly accuse the other person of refusing to compromise.
And in this context, that means precisely squat. In any context, really.
The converse is also true. Obama noted in his speech that the Senate passed a bill extending the lower-income tax rates and the House didn’t do anything with it.
Sure. Additional revenues by lowering taxes and eliminating loopholes.
I eagerly await specifics of president-elect Romney’s plan.
We are not necessarily disagreeing, I too agree compromise is a must but it also must be a two way street. You hit the nail on the head with “Doing otherwise would be sort of extremely stupid, wouldn’t it?” We are talking about politicians in Washington.
If you and I wanted to come to a compromise on a shade of red, you want scarlet I want maroon a compromise would be that we agree on rose.
If we were politicians and were working on a compromise under the same scenerio you would agree to maroon if I cut your lawn, which is a deal breaker for me. And I counter with, I would agree to scarlet if you were to do my dishes, which is a deal breaker for you. We then start arguing about lawns and dishes and forget all about a shade of red.
That’s not uncommon, but it is not the case here.
“For the second straight election. He said in 2008 that these tax rates needed to go back up, and he won. He said it again in 2012 and won again. Seems pretty clear that most voters agree or don’t object to the idea, doesn’t it? Last I checked, polls said the same thing.”
In 2008 he had all the votes he needed to pass anything he wanted, ACA is proof of that. If tax rates needed to go up and were so vital to his “economic plan” why didn’t they do it then?
I know the stock answer at the time was “you don’t raise taxes in a bad economy”. Well is the economy any better?
Bottomline, the tax code needs to be simplified. As it stands it cheaper for a large company to pay an army of tax attorneys to exploit every loophole, loopholes that the average joe would never find let alone be able to take adavantage of, than to pay their taxes.
Lower rates with few deductions would increase revenue.
Gotta go, It’s been fun.