I said the grand bargain was never written down. He did write down a budget, it just got rejected unanimously, which is actually a lot worse than what he was doing before 2010.
By the way, here’s another plan. This was the White House proposal sent to the Supercommittee to lower the deficit by $3 trillion.
If click on the link you will notice words on your computer screen. Those words are the indication that this plan is indeed written down.
So if Democrats lose, it’s because they aren’t conservative enough. When Republicans lose, it’s because they aren’t conservative enough. You don’t think there’s a little bias in that theory?
By the way, I’m anxiously awaiting adaher’s criticism that Obama is being too flexible because he has too many plans written down; standing in contrast to his earlier criticism that Obama is inflexible because he has no plan written down.
adaher: Flip Flopper supreme.
Meh… that’s just a bunch o’ pixels. Doesn’t count unless it’s on paper. 
I think you are right and I have come to that view too.
This holds true for the stimulus where the republicans demanded that it contain 40% tax cuts.
The healthcare bill ws practically ruined by republican amendments. Then not one republican voted for the bill.
The republicans set a record for filibusters in the 09, 10 congress when the democrates had the majority.
In the last two years they have had majority in the house so no bill they dislike gets voted on.
So, no actual defense of Romney’s quantum waffling?
Let’s use words correctly, shall we? It should be galactic waffling. Quanta are small.
However I do like flip-flop. Flip-flops, for those of you not in the biz, can go from 0 (anti) to 1 (pro) in a few nanoseconds. Sounds exactly like Mitt.
I dunno, I could see quantum waffling as in his opinion is not defined until it is determined which observer it will be viewed by.
But when it collapses it stays collapsed one way or another - which is not the way Romney works.
That is also not the grand bargain and it falls well short of sustainability, which at minimum requires the saving of $4 trillion over 10 years. The Ryan budget meets this standard. In addition, the Ryan budget has been scored by the CBO. Obama’s plan has not. Therefore, the numbers are not supportable, or otherwise known as having emerged from the President’s gluteous area.
The only scored, specific plan the President has presented is his budget, and we all know how serious that is.
Oh, wait, Here’s another written plan! Plus the Simpson-Bowles commission was created by Obama… that’s not really “his” plan, but he should get a little bit of credit, so I’m calling it three and one-quarter written plans that Obama is responsible for.
But I understand your point: you are talking exclusively about the negotiations last summer. In effect, you’re criticizing the White House for not having come up with four and a quarter written plans.
How did those goal posts end up all the way in the bleachers? Just yesterday you were outraged that the President had never written down a plan, and now you’re upset that Congressional Budget Office didn’t score three written plans proposed by the White House?
And by the way, it is not fair to criticize the White House for not compromising by moving toward Republican views and then hold up the Ryan budget as a solid plan. The Ryan budget makes no effort to move toward Democratic views, because the Ryan budget not only violates the bipartisan Budget Control Act spending caps (such as by INCREASING defense spending over what was agreed upon and enacted into law) but also includes cuts that every single person knows were unacceptable to Democrats. In fact, the Ryan budget cuts social programs so far that certain leaders in the Catholic Church have called it unconscionable.
Long story short: you can’t in good faith criticize the White House for not compromising and then regard the Ryan budget with a shred of respect.
Not scored, and no, the president does not get credit for a commission’s plan that he rejected.
The only official plan the President has is his budget.
I absolutely think that the Republicans should meet the Democrats and the President halfway. But first, the Democrats have to pass a budget, then we can begin the reconciliation process.
Do you even realize that you said this on the previous page of this thread: “Name one thing the President has proposed, WRITTEN DOWN, that is different from what he was proposing before the 2010 elections and is closer to the GOP position than before.” Now you’re using all sorts of tactics to weasel out of your challenge: now, the plans have to be CBO-scored in order to count.
Do you acknowledge that you’ve moved the goalposts?
Again, you are moving the goalposts. This debate used to be about what Obama had proposed. You criticized Obama for “not changing course” in making proposals to Republican leaders to bring the sides closer to agreement. And the Ryan budget did exactly the opposite of what you said Obama should do: it went back on previous budget agreements, undid them, and then went further to propose things that were even more unacceptable… and Republicans knew it.
Your dishonest debating tactics are clearly obvious to everyone reading this thread. If you can’t even acknowledge that you have shifted the goalposts, used double standards to evaluate compromise, and were proven wrong on Obama never writing down any budget plan, there’s really no point in continuing this debate.
Dude… you were wrong.
Did Obama throw Simpson-Bowles in the garbage can? Click the link and find out!
Romney who? This thread is about Obama the flipflopper. It’s right there in the SP (Second Post, which determines the subject at hand).
This has got to be the derailing of the week. adaher, you are awesome. (Feel free to respond with the traditional “I know you are, but what am I”!)