Obama plans three fights to "test Republican unity"

[justabubba]

business owners look to make the wisest decisions possible; they absolutely look to see if doing those things will benefit them.

absolutely
which is why a modest tax increase is not going to cause a rational business owner to deprive himself of profits only bcause a larger share of them may be required to pay taxes. to do that deprives him of any resulting profits
which underscores my assertion that anyone who insists the prospect of higher taxes undermines economic growth does not know good **** from apple butter, much less basic economics
... in short that is a turd you are flinging

 

[cpwill]

pure foolishiness and misunderstanding of things economic
we have a consumer economy
where the consumers' ability to buy is now handicapped by a depressed economy
tax rates have little to nothing to do with the reluctance of business to now invest/expand
diminished demand is the present reason for business' hesitation to invest and spend
precipitated by the financial meltdown on the republican watch

:lamo :lamo :lamo





:fail:



ignoring the fact that the meltdown happened when Democrats owned both houses of Congress...

my wife's uncle is a small business-owner, a real up-from-your-bootstraps kinda guy. if his taxes go up, or cap-and-tax passes, he has to fire people. he's been saving the proceeds from the last year rather than reinvest them or hire new people hoping to stave this off.

 

[Wiseone]

again, exposing an ignorance of basic economics
business owners do NOT look for reasons to hoard cash
business owners do NOT look for reasons to limit investments

no, that was Justabubba.

Ok I was assuming you were asking me to defend his statements, my mistake.

 

[cpwill]

no prob.


no, i would never ask anyone to try to defend whatever comes out of justabubba; that's just plain unfair, like asking your opponent to fight you with both hands and feet tied together.

 

[justabubba]

no, that was Justabubba.

copy and paste my full post where i said that or be publicly found a liar

 

[cpwill]

happy to help.

[emphasis added by bubba]

so, you seem to think that the public is not opposed to the illegal hiring of illegal workers, who displace American citizens expecting to earn a fair wage, or that the public does not mind that its tax dollars are being spent foolishly, or that the man on the street has no objaction to giving tax breaks to billionaire$ while we saddle our kids with ever larger federal deficits

incidentally; you may want to study risk; namely, whether or not the incentive to invest is determined by the percieved potential return weighed against the possibility of loss of principle. lower the percieved potential return (through raising tax rates), and you lower the incentive to invest.

 

[justabubba]

happy to help.



incidentally; you may want to study risk; namely, whether or not the incentive to invest is determined by the percieved potential return weighed against the possibility of loss of principle. lower the percieved potential return (through raising tax rates), and you lower the incentive to invest.

nowhere were you able to find any post where i said small business owners are billionaires
proving yourself - publicly - to be a liar

Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
I never said small business owners were billionaires.

cpwill:

no, that was Justabubba.

so quit your damned lying cpwill

 

[Psychoclown]

this kind of stuff could only come from the kind of crowd who read the 2008 election as a mandate for a sweeping progressive takeover of the economy. doesn't he realize he will lose these fights?


The White House plans to test Republicans' unity and political resolve on three controversial issues: repealing the Bush tax cuts, implementing the deficit commission's findings, and pushing immigration reform. Obama's team says that these issues will make for good policy—and good politics, forcing Republicans elected in swing districts to choose between placating Democrats and independents and risking a possible Tea Party challenge in 2012.

The White House believes immigration reform may be the toughest test for the GOP—even tougher than tackling the deficit. "This will separate the reasonable Republicans from the pack running for president," said one senior Obama aide...



yeah. i'm sure they're going to lose alot of public support if they come out against amnesty, in favor of budget reduction, and against raising taxes. :roll:

I don't see how this will work out well for Democrats or how Democrats would even think this would work out well for them. LEt's look at each prong of this so called plan ...

Bush Tax Cuts. According a poll from September (first one I found after a quick google search) 51% of Americans favor extending all of the Bush tax cuts. So roughly the nation is split on the issue right now. Right now, Obama and the Republicans are talking about finding common ground to get things done. Obama has already proposed extending everything but the cuts for the highest bracket. If he stands firm and refuses to budge, he certainly doesn't appear to be someone who is searching for a reasonable compromise or common ground. And any compromise proposal he makes would have to involve extending cuts for the top bracket for at least a limited amount of time. I think I heard Huckabee last night on Fox suggest a compromise solution that would extend the lower and middle class cuts indefinately and extend the top bracket cuts for two years. Basically allowing both parties to say the preserved the cuts for the average American and Obama gets to punt on the issue of cuts for the top bracket until after the election. I think that makes sense, but who knows if it will actually happen. Anyway, at best Obama is going to go against half the nation on this issue if he stands firm and look like an uncompromising partisan in the process. I don't see that as a winning combo.

Source: 51% Favor Extending Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy - Rasmussen Reports™

Implementing the deficit commission's findings. Not sure what findings Obama and company are goign to push, but budget cuts have beena part of the Republican message and would be a win for the GOP, plus they'd have bipartisan cover for any backlash against cutting popular programs. If Obama tries to push for tax increases (or removing various tax breaks), it would be political suicide in this economic enviroment. I do genuinely hope Obama does pursue meaningful cuts to governmetn spending including entitlements. Republicans probably won't get too aggressive on their own, as entitlements are popular even with the Tea Party base, but a bipartisan effort to bring these things under control would be terrific. Best case scenario for Obama and the Democrats is its a win/win for them and the Republicans. They can take partial credit for delivering spending cuts. Still doesn't hurt the GOP in anyway.

Immigration. Do you remember the revolt we saw over the Bush-McCain proposal for immigration? People want to see real measures enacted to get a grip on the almost unchecked flow of illegal immigrants. The best way to do that in my mind is to remove access tothe social safety net, enact harsh penalties and active enforcement against employers that hire illegals, allow local authorities to detain illegals they come into contact with (think Arizona's law), and add cost effective border control measures. If the price of passing this through a Democratic Senate and President is including a reasonable pathway to citizenship for folks already here, I'm 100% on board with that (provided they meat the qualifications of being employed, speaking English, having a clearn record, and paying a reasonable fine). If the Dems try to push for some version Amnesty the Sequal without meaningful measures to combat the illegal immigrants, they'll get hammered. If the pathway to citizenship is tied to effective measures to reduce illegal immigration, it will be another win/win scenario for both parties.

 

[Moot]

this kind of stuff could only come from the kind of crowd who read the 2008 election as a mandate for a sweeping progressive takeover of the economy. doesn't he realize he will lose these fights?


The White House plans to test Republicans' unity and political resolve on three controversial issues: repealing the Bush tax cuts, implementing the deficit commission's findings, and pushing immigration reform. Obama's team says that these issues will make for good policy—and good politics, forcing Republicans elected in swing districts to choose between placating Democrats and independents and risking a possible Tea Party challenge in 2012.

The White House believes immigration reform may be the toughest test for the GOP—even tougher than tackling the deficit. "This will separate the reasonable Republicans from the pack running for president," said one senior Obama aide..

yeah. i'm sure they're going to lose alot of public support if they come out against amnesty, in favor of budget reduction, and against raising taxes. :roll:

It's one thing to be in "favor" of "it", but it's another to actually "have a plan" and then to fund and implement it and that is what Obama was talking about.

So how exactly do Republicans "plan" to reduce the deficit if they are going to extend or make permanent the Bush tax cuts? Because the CBO office says that if the Republicans extend the Bush tax cuts, it will add $3.3 TRILLION to the deficit and any cuts they make to domestic spending won't amount to a hill of beans.

Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on the Economy - TheFiscalTimes.com

 

[haymarket]

"RASMUSSEN REPORTS"

thats funny all by itself.

using it as an independent source of objective evidence is even funnier.

 

[Whovian]

"RASMUSSEN REPORTS"

thats funny all by itself.

using it as an independent source of objective evidence is even funnier.

Tell us... what is YOUR favorite independent source of objective evidence?

 

[cpwill]

nowhere were you able to find any post where i said small business owners are billionaires

didn't claim you did. you said Republicans opposed raising taxes on billionaires; i pointed out that the actual border was people making $250,000 a year, many of whom are small businessmen, and asked if you thought people making 250 grand a year were all billionaires (implictely pointing out that you were engaging in hyperbole)

 

[cpwill]

Tell us... what is YOUR favorite independent source of objective evidence?

MSNBC and Daily Kos


oh, and Media Matters.

 

[justabubba]

Originally Posted by justabubba
nowhere were you able to find any post where i said small business owners are billionaires

didn't claim you did. you said Republicans opposed raising taxes on billionaires; i pointed out that the actual border was people making $250,000 a year, many of whom are small businessmen, and asked if you thought people making 250 grand a year were all billionaires (implictely pointing out that you were engaging in hyperbole)

actually you did. you lied, and i called you out on it then and will do so every time you repeat it, as in this post

for all to see, here is where you have lied about me:

Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone
I never said small business owners were billionaires.

cpwill:
no, that was Justabubba.

cpwill, quit your lying

 

[cpwill]

:roll: whatever, i pointed out that i was replying to you, not wiseone, and you're now upset because your hyperbole got called. i said what i said and then reposted what i said; you are free to either address the substance of the bush tax cuts or try to avoid the discussion through endless 'debate-about-what-was-meant-by-what-was-said' :roll:

 

[justabubba]

:roll: whatever, i pointed out that i was replying to you, not wiseone, and you're now upset because your hyperbole got called.

nope. yet another in your string of misrepresentations
if your intent was to advise you were responding to me and not to another forum member, you would have said that
instead, your response was in the form of a lie, where you insisted i said something i did not. here it is again:

Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone
I never said small business owners were billionaires.

cpwill:
no, that was Justabubba.

i have no problem standing behind what i actually post. in contrast, you refuse to take responsibility for your repeated lie, despite my presenting that misrepresentation for you to be able to recognize that it was not true

i said what i said and then reposted what i said; you are free to either address the substance of the bush tax cuts or try to avoid the discussion through endless 'debate-about-what-was-meant-by-what-was-said' :roll:

and as can be seen above, again, is your post, attributing to me things i did not assert. so, quit lying cpwill

 

[cpwill]

you are free to either address the substance of the bush tax cuts or try to avoid the discussion through endless 'debate-about-what-was-meant-by-what-was-said

well, guess we know now what your abilities are when you are ready to discuss your mischaracterization of people who make more than 250K as "billionaires", then perhaps we can talk.

 

[cpwill]

an update of this thread:


Remember when part of the president’s big plan for dividing Republicans following the midterms was going to be to force them to vote on the fiscal commission’s recommendations?...

“The White House plans to test Republicans’ unity and political resolve on three controversial issues: repealing the Bush tax cuts, implementing the deficit commission’s findings, and pushing immigration reform.”

The Democrats have already more or less caved on item one, and item three seems pretty implausible. Now it turns out that the fiscal commission (at least its co-chairs) has defied expectations and put a set of serious cuts on the table. Yes, the tax hikes are pricey, and no one is ever going to like every single item on the menu. But it’s important to look at the ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes when gauging whether the commission has served up something conservatives can swallow, and by my (very rough) estimate it looks like about 75 percent of the deficit reduction comes from spending cuts. That’s about as good as we can get on a big budget compromise with a problem this large, and the fact that the commission is starting with that ratio probably accounts for the (cautiously) optimistic responses the proposals are getting from Republicans and moderate Democrats vs. the exploding heads on the left. Compare and contrast:

Republicans:
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg: “The proposal that the Co-Chairmen of the Commission have put forward is an aggressive and comprehensive plan for getting federal spending, deficits and the debt under control. I look forward to reviewing it in depth and hopefully improving on it.”

House Budget Committee ranking member (and future chairman) Paul Ryan: “This is a serious and impressive effort. . . . It’s a good start.”

Reps. Ryan, Hensarling, and Camp: “This is a provocative proposal, and while we have concerns with some of their specifics, we commend the co-chairs for advancing the debate.”

Moderate Democrats:
Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad: “. . . a good beginning.”

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus: “It’s a lot to digest. I support the goal. . . . [We're] at the early stages.”

Liberal Democrats:
Senate majority whip Dick Durbin: “I told them that there are things in there that inspire me, and there are things in there that I hate like the devil hates holy water. I’m not going to vote for this thing.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: “. . . not a proposal that I could support right now.”

Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “. . . simply unacceptable.”

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: (Head explodes)

 

[Paschendale]

So wait... Obama is going to try and force Republicans and Democrats to compromise and hopefully come up with middle of the road solutions that will best benefit the American people!? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!

Actually, I thought that was the plan two years ago...

 

[cpwill]

no; the plan two years ago was to use Democrats overwhelming majorities to ram through a far - left agenda that they've been wanting for decades but the American people (ungrateful bastards that they are) weren't interested in.

now, the plan (apparently) is to try to push through a series of wedge issues to try to split the Republican caucaus against itself. :lol: except these issues appear to be two-edged; and they are cutting in reverse.

 

[cpwill]

AAAAANnnnd it looks like Obama will cave on Issue Number One: the tax cuts.

 

[Moot]

AAAAANnnnd it looks like Obama will cave on Issue Number One: the tax cuts.

You are confused......
Obama says he's not caving on tax cuts - CNN.com

Axelrod: An About Face on Extending Bush Tax Cuts for All?

Axelrod should resign.

 

[cpwill]

they are tring to appeal to two groups; make the tax cuts permanent for those under 250K, extend them a few years for those making more.

Message To The Left: we're keeping the bush tax cuts for the wealthy temporary, and giving the middle class and poor a permanent cut!

Message To The Center: we're not going to raise taxes on anybody!



and, in both cases, they are telling the truth. or, in laymans terms, 'lying'