WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Tensions over the so-called fiscal cliff reached a boiling point today as House Speaker John Boehner accused President Obama of acting like he won the November election....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/12...

He may have won, but not by much. Therefore, Boehner is correct in calling Owebama's "offer" what it is: BS.

Boehner is correct in calling Owebama's "offer" what it is: BS.

As opposed to the Republican "offer" which is non-existent.

Obama is doing the right thing . . . finally. You can't negotiate with "no". Republicans have offered nothing but opposition to progress. Let them make a counter offer that they will actually pass. Until they do, Obama's proposal is the only one on the table. And until they offer something other than, "no", then Obama should not offer anything else. Why negotiate with yourself? Why try to guess what the Republicans might actually support? The Republicans have proved that they can't pass anything. Boehner is leader in name only.

The truth of the matter is that Boehner can't offer anything because the Republicans don't agree on anything. They are out of control. The only thing Boehner can guarantee he can get a majority to vote for is "no". As long the the Republicans can't offer an actual proposal that they can pass, they are irrelevant.

He may have won, but not by much. Therefore, Boehner is correct in calling Owebama's "offer" what it is: BS.

The "He won, but not by much" argument cannot be found in the Constitution.

"He may have won, but not by much."

1. He won

2. By much - over 3 million votes; 332 ECVs vs 206.

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

"Therefore, Boehner is correct in calling Owebama's "offer" what it is: BS."

Let's hear the Republican specifics on their proposal.

Ken

That Obama is a Cheeky Ba%$ard
===============================

I think you are beginning to see the light grasshopper. Yet, you still have miles to go before you sleep.

Why negotiate with yourself? Why try to guess what the Republicans might actually support?

To give them the political cover to make a counter-offer.

There is a reason why "third-rail" political issues rarely get addressed. Proposals that might affect the entitlements of millions and millions of people are politically dangerous. They can only happen if both parties are sufficiently invested in the proposals, such that neither party is going to get clobbered at the next election. Equally, these types of issues also require the parties to take positions that their base opposes - which also carries enormous political risk.

So the GOP floats the idea of increasing taxes (if not tax rates) - which is contrary to their base's position. Obama's initial offer contains nothing that gives them any cover in response to that. Indeed, as many have pointed out, it creates a context where there is a risk of enormous political damage to the GOP if they make any response at all. It's a very clever political move - the GOP will lose whatever they do, which is why the President's supporters love it.

There are thus two possible scenarios. The first is that the President does believe that the end result of the fiscal cliff negotiations would have to include significant entitlement reforms - but he is putting up sufficiently large political obstacles to further negotiations that he prefers a breakdown. The second is that the President believes that the end agreement will not include significant entitlement reforms.

Unfortunately, under either scenario, the GOP cannot (and should not) pursue these negotiations - because they both indicate that the President doesn't want to reach an agreement before the fiscal cliff has been reached. The President has to know that this offer ties the hands of the GOP - which means that's probably the intended outcome.

Again, a very smart move - but not one that leads to continued negotiations.

Albaby

As opposed to the Republican "offer" which is non-existent.

Obama is doing the right thing . . . finally. You can't negotiate with "no". Republicans have offered nothing but opposition to progress. Let them make a counter offer that they will actually pass. Until they do, Obama's proposal is the only one on the table. And until they offer something other than, "no", then Obama should not offer anything else. Why negotiate with yourself? Why try to guess what the Republicans might actually support? The Republicans have proved that they can't pass anything. Boehner is leader in name only.

The truth of the matter is that Boehner can't offer anything because the Republicans don't agree on anything. They are out of control. The only thing Boehner can guarantee he can get a majority to vote for is "no". As long the the Republicans can't offer an actual proposal that they can pass, they are irrelevant.

____________________

As if the "other party" cares about progress of any sort except political points.

So here we are, both parties, pretty much agreeing that "over the cliff we shall go", both hoping the other party gets blamed for it, but taxes and hidden taxes will go up, salaries and benefits will go down (except for government workers of course who will thrown under the bus later when their cities and states go bankrupt, if there is no one left to tax), big corporations be they Democrat or Republican supporters will still have their preferred loopholes and the rest of us can go to hell while they move on to exploit the next third world country, so we call all have cheap iphones.

So what am I voting for? Best actor(ress) or best supporting actor(ress).

Next.

There is a reason why "third-rail" political issues rarely get addressed. Proposals that might affect the entitlements of millions and millions of people are politically dangerous. They can only happen if both parties are sufficiently invested in the proposals, such that neither party is going to get clobbered at the next election. Equally, these types of issues also require the parties to take positions that their base opposes - which also carries enormous political risk.

So the GOP floats the idea of increasing taxes (if not tax rates) - which is contrary to their base's position. Obama's initial offer contains nothing that gives them any cover in response to that. Indeed, as many have pointed out, it creates a context where there is a risk of enormous political damage to the GOP if they make any response at all. It's a very clever political move - the GOP will lose whatever they do, which is why the President's supporters love it.

There are thus two possible scenarios. The first is that the President does believe that the end result of the fiscal cliff negotiations would have to include significant entitlement reforms - but he is putting up sufficiently large political obstacles to further negotiations that he prefers a breakdown. The second is that the President believes that the end agreement will not include significant entitlement reforms.

Unfortunately, under either scenario, the GOP cannot (and should not) pursue these negotiations - because they both indicate that the President doesn't want to reach an agreement before the fiscal cliff has been reached. The President has to know that this offer ties the hands of the GOP - which means that's probably the intended outcome.

I was going to say something like that, but it was too complicated for me :)

Y'all know the Borowitz Report is a satirical news report like The Onion, right? I really hope so.

Ken:

"Let's hear the Republican specifics on their proposal."

Amen!

Vermonter

Y'all know the Borowitz Report is a satirical news report like The Onion, right? I really hope so.

The genius of Borowitz is his ability to present satire that sounds like it could actually be true.

.... sorta like the piece I linked in the OP.... ;-)


Bill Z

kenm wrote: By much - over 3 million votes; 332 ECVs vs 206.

I don't consider the electoral votes an indicator of popularity, and 3 million votes represents a minuscule percentage of 235,940,406 voting age Americans.

I don't consider the electoral votes an indicator of popularity, and 3 million votes represents a minuscule percentage of 235,940,406 voting age Americans.

And, please remind me, what was George W. Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote in 2000?

To give them the political cover to make a counter-offer.

LOL. Let me get this straight . . . You are saying that Obama should negotiate with himself and keep reducing his proposal from what he actually wants in order to provide Republicans with political cover. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had been in a coma during the past 4 years. That is exactly the tactic the Republicans have used against him over and over again. Perhaps during your comatose slumber you missed the number of times Obama tried to make his own proposals more palatable to the Republican congress only to have them reject their own proposals and move further to the reactionary realm.

All past indications are that this Republican congress will accept any concessions from Obama as a sign of weakness and move further to the right. This election indicates that the Republicans are already too far right to win a majority vote nationally. The best long-term strategy for Obama is to let them posture and pout where they are. The demographics that support their extreme agenda are a shrinking piece of the pie. Let them marginalize themselves into oblivion over the next couple of years so that we can finally make progress in this country.

LOL. Let me get this straight . . . You are saying that Obama should negotiate with himself and keep reducing his proposal from what he actually wants in order to provide Republicans with political cover. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had been in a coma during the past 4 years. That is exactly the tactic the Republicans have used against him over and over again. Perhaps during your comatose slumber you missed the number of times Obama tried to make his own proposals more palatable to the Republican congress only to have them reject their own proposals and move further to the reactionary realm.

Your insults notwithstanding, my post was addressing a possible motivation for Obama starting with something that provided something other than the Democratic wish list after Republicans had expressed willingness to raise taxes, not rates. The reason you would do it is to make a final deal that avoided the fiscal cliff more likely. Despite your disparaging remarks, in each of the instances where Obama did make proposals more palatable to Republicans, that ended up resulting in an eventual agreement.

You can certainly argue against doing that in this instance, on the grounds that reducing the risk of a stalemate isn't worth the bargaining position you give up by not being a hardliner from the start. Clearly, that's where the Administration ended up. However, my answer to your question is still correct - the reason you would start with something that might be the basis of an eventual agreement is because it gives the other party enough cover to enter into serious negotiations.

As it happens, the GOP simply responded with a counterproposal that has just as little chance of getting adopted as the President's. Thus, a week ends up being wasted, with no movement towards an agreement.

So no, I haven't been in a coma. I'm well aware of how much more satisfying it is to take a political hardline against your opponents, rather than offer any appearance of being conciliatory and getting hammered by your own base. But if that drops the country into another recession, it's going to be a terrible outcome - which is why the Administration might plausibly have chosen another route.

Albaby