Kinda sick of Boehner's PCs. The election is over. Obama ran on tax increases and won rather easily, so I don't think trying publicly bargain via comments about "no revenue except tax reform" is going to get him anywhere. Every time he goes on and the markets immediately tank...and this comes after those optimistic comments after the Obama-CEO meetings (where the CEOs seemed confident that he's willing to address entitlements)

Julia's mother - Why a single mom is better off making $29,000 than $69,000

Better off probably isn't the right description entirely because the person earning $40,000 more would have more after tax income to spend as she wished, but most of it would probably go to the stuff the gov't provides the person making considerably less. Social welfare benefits with hard cut points sure do create some bizarre incentive structures though.

joe table wrote:Kinda sick of Boehner's PCs. The election is over. Obama ran on tax increases and won rather easily, so I don't think trying publicly bargain via comments about "no revenue except tax reform" is going to get him anywhere. Every time he goes on and the markets immediately tank...and this comes after those optimistic comments after the Obama-CEO meetings (where the CEOs seemed confident that he's willing to address entitlements)

Boehner ran on no tax increases and won rather easily.

Lol ok. You know well it's impossible to execute these tax reforms in the 30+ days before year's end, whether or not they are a good idea (some I've heard make sense in theory). So lets by all means keep up the public pissing contest right till the brink of this thing. Really gonna help economic growth

joe table wrote:Lol ok. You know well it's impossible to execute these tax reforms in the 30+ days before year's end, whether or not they are a good idea (some I've heard make sense in theory). So lets by all means keep up the public pissing contest right till the brink of this thing. Really gonna help economic growth

He shouldn't give in on tax rates until the Democrats are willing to give in on entitlements. What does he have to gain by folding first? If the issue is time to hammer out tax reform they can pass a band aid to buy them 6 months or whatever.

"entitlements" is the most obnoxious labeling.

Youseff wrote:"entitlements" is the most obnoxious labeling.

They're entitlements because recipients are entitled to the program generally because they paid into it throughout their lives. It's something they have a right to receive.

pacino wrote:Iran and China and plenty of others nations have and have used drones. Hezbollah used one to spy on a nuclear facility to see if it could reach it.

YAY DRONES, welcome to new warfare.
.

We're slowly moving towards the type of war in that old Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armegeddon" where the wars are fought on computers and the people the computer deemed to have died were shuffled off to a killing machine. War became so sterile that there was no incentive to stop it. The people on the business end of these drones still feel the pain, but those using the drone no longer do. It's sterile and clinical and brutally effective and we end up with nary a scratch (except in our pocketbook). There's no way it will stop.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:"entitlements" is the most obnoxious labeling.

They're entitlements because recipients are entitled to the program generally because they paid into it throughout their lives. It's something they have a right to receive.

Except that many of the programs that the average person thinks about when they hear that term don't fit your definition.

jerseyhoya wrote:

joe table wrote:Lol ok. You know well it's impossible to execute these tax reforms in the 30+ days before year's end, whether or not they are a good idea (some I've heard make sense in theory). So lets by all means keep up the public pissing contest right till the brink of this thing. Really gonna help economic growth

He shouldn't give in on tax rates until the Democrats are willing to give in on entitlements. What does he have to gain by folding first? If the issue is time to hammer out tax reform they can pass a band aid to buy them 6 months or whatever.

My issue is the continued public, adversarial nature of the comments. It's as if he's still campaigning. And there are clear negative externalities (ie, what the market does whenever one of these PCs happens, and maybe less tangible but certainly plausible, eroding public confidence in all these assholes on both sides of the aisle to get someting done). I don't see the upside to calling a PC to make sure and throw cold water on what were reportedly positive reactions from the CEO summit thing

I'd be pretty shocked if the Reps agreed to anything. This is just posturing so that they can drag this out long enough that people will kinda forget the reps just got their asses handed to them. Of course JH wants another 6 months. Drag this out long enough the prez will start to get the blame, to hell with the economy or the country as long as they score political points. The last time this happened, the reps moved back and forth giving the impression on several occasions that they were willing to deal. They weren't then and they aren't now. It's not in their blood.

jerseyhoya wrote:

joe table wrote:Kinda sick of Boehner's PCs. The election is over. Obama ran on tax increases and won rather easily, so I don't think trying publicly bargain via comments about "no revenue except tax reform" is going to get him anywhere. Every time he goes on and the markets immediately tank...and this comes after those optimistic comments after the Obama-CEO meetings (where the CEOs seemed confident that he's willing to address entitlements)

Boehner ran on no tax increases and won rather easily.

Who did Boehner run against?

joe table wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

joe table wrote:Lol ok. You know well it's impossible to execute these tax reforms in the 30+ days before year's end, whether or not they are a good idea (some I've heard make sense in theory). So lets by all means keep up the public pissing contest right till the brink of this thing. Really gonna help economic growth

He shouldn't give in on tax rates until the Democrats are willing to give in on entitlements. What does he have to gain by folding first? If the issue is time to hammer out tax reform they can pass a band aid to buy them 6 months or whatever.

My issue is the continued public, adversarial nature of the comments. It's as if he's still campaigning. And there are clear negative externalities (ie, what the market does whenever one of these PCs happens, and maybe less tangible but certainly plausible, eroding public confidence in all these assholes on both sides of the aisle to get someting done). I don't see the upside to calling a PC to make sure and throw cold water on what were reportedly positive reactions from the CEO summit thing

Obama and the Democrats are going around saying tax rates must go up as a part of a deal and that Social Security is off limits. Boehner is saying entitlement reform must be part of a deal and tax rates are off limits. They're both being adversarial while campaigning/trying to drive public opinion. They're both necessary to the outcome. Why should Boehner cede the floor to Obama?

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

joe table wrote:Kinda sick of Boehner's PCs. The election is over. Obama ran on tax increases and won rather easily, so I don't think trying publicly bargain via comments about "no revenue except tax reform" is going to get him anywhere. Every time he goes on and the markets immediately tank...and this comes after those optimistic comments after the Obama-CEO meetings (where the CEOs seemed confident that he's willing to address entitlements)

Boehner ran on no tax increases and won rather easily.

Who did Boehner run against?

Boehner's GOP caucus has 33 more seats than Pelosi's Democratic caucus in the upcoming Congress.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama and the Democrats are going around saying tax rates must go up as a part of a deal and that Social Security is off limits. Boehner is saying entitlement reform must be part of a deal and tax rates are off limits. They're both being adversarial while campaigning/trying to drive public opinion. They're both necessary to the outcome. Why should Boehner cede the floor to Obama?

Because Obama won the election and a central part of his campaign was raising taxes.

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama and the Democrats are going around saying tax rates must go up as a part of a deal and that Social Security is off limits. Boehner is saying entitlement reform must be part of a deal and tax rates are off limits. They're both being adversarial while campaigning/trying to drive public opinion. They're both necessary to the outcome. Why should Boehner cede the floor to Obama?

Because Obama won the election and a central part of his campaign was raising taxes.

234 House Republicans won elections and a central part of their campaign was not raising taxes.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

joe table wrote:Kinda sick of Boehner's PCs. The election is over. Obama ran on tax increases and won rather easily, so I don't think trying publicly bargain via comments about "no revenue except tax reform" is going to get him anywhere. Every time he goes on and the markets immediately tank...and this comes after those optimistic comments after the Obama-CEO meetings (where the CEOs seemed confident that he's willing to address entitlements)

Boehner ran on no tax increases and won rather easily.

Who did Boehner run against?

Boehner's GOP caucus has 33 more seats than Pelosi's Democratic caucus in the upcoming Congress.

That wasn't my question. You said Boehner ran on no tax increases and won. Against whom?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:"entitlements" is the most obnoxious labeling.

They're entitlements because recipients are entitled to the program generally because they paid into it throughout their lives. It's something they have a right to receive.

that's a creative contextualization but it's how it's conveyed or perceived by many

more people voted for a Democrat for the House than a Republican. What's your point jh?

Democrats won. Get over it.

pacino wrote:more people voted for a Democrat for the House than a Republican. What's your point jh?

Democrats won. Get over it.

I laugh every time a Republican claims or implies that they have a mandate simply because they held on to the House. It's desperate and pathetic.