Author Topic: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...  (Read 956 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« on: December 15, 2012, 08:07:19 PM »
Apparently it takes more than 3 weeks to agree to something youve already agreed on...


"The Obama administration, in seeking $4 trillion in spending cuts in a debt limit deal, has put major changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table if Republicans agree to increased tax revenues."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-on-the-table/#ixzz2FBV2SW1r

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/president-obama-targets-p_n_969991.html

" President Obama wants to extract $320 billion in savings from the health care system in his push to trim the deficit, starting with cutting payments to Medicare and Medicaid providers and ending with making beneficiaries pay more."




Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2012, 08:36:31 PM »
The Great Renege: Boehner Backs Out of Debt-Limit Deal
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2012/03/the-great-renege-boehner-backs-out-of-debt-limit-deal.html

Weeper of the House John Boehner confirmed today that he is not a man of his word and, as he has demonstrated from the day he took the gavel in the House, that he is the weakest Speaker of the House in modern American history. As the Rachel Maddow Show has documented rather convincingly, John Boehner is really bad at his job.

Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler reports Boehner Backs Out Of Debt-Limit Deal:

House Speaker John Boehner lent his full support Thursday to undoing a key part of the debt-limit deal he struck with President Obama and the rest of the congressional leadership last summer.

Republicans in the House, Boehner confirmed, will advance legislation to replace automatic cuts to the defense budget from taking effect on Jan. 1. Those cuts are part of an enforcement mechanism he and a majority of his members agreed to accept, but that would only be triggered if Congress was unable to pass a significant deficit-reduction bill. They included the defense cuts, intended to force GOP cooperation and domestic-spending cuts, intended to force Democratic cooperation.

The GOP’s unwillingness to accept higher tax revenue doomed that effort, and so the automatic cuts — known technically as “sequestration” — are locked in. Now Boehner and the GOP are accelerating efforts to undo the one part of the deal that they don’t like.

“We should never have had the sequester,” Boehner told reporters at his weekly press availability Thursday. . . That’s why the House will act this spring to replace that [defense] sequester."

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2012, 08:38:19 PM »
Bait And Switch: GOP Leaders Renege On Debt Limit Deal Defense Cuts
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/bait-and-switch-gop-leaders-renege-on-debt-limit-deal-defense-cuts.php

Republican leaders in Congress have all but reneged on a key agreement they reached with the White House last summer rather than reconsider their unwavering stance against new tax revenue.

Relations between the Obama administration and the congressional GOP were already just about as bad as can be. But even so, this sets a precedent future Congresses and White Houses will remember when partisan mismatches force them to strike deals and govern.

“I’ve got concerns about the sequester,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters Thursday. “I’ve made that pretty clear. And replacing the sequester certainly has value. The defense portion of the sequester, in my view, would clearly hollow our military. The Secretary of Defense has said that, members of Congress have said it. But the question I would pose is, where’s the White House? Where’s the leadership that should be there to ensure that this sequester does not go into effect.”

“Sequester” is budget-speak for across-the-board cuts. But the cuts he’s talking about were part of a deal he recently claimed he’d honor. Here’s what he’s talking about.

In late July 2011, the federal government was nearly out of borrowing authority, marching toward default, and a deeply divided Congress couldn’t figure out how to raise the national debt limit.

The predicament was an outcome of the GOP’s strategy of using the threat of default as leverage to force Democrats to agree to deep cuts to federal aid programs. The GOP demanded a dollar-for-dollar match between guaranteed cuts and newly allotted borrowing authority. And they got most of what they wanted.

In the end they took about half the cuts up front, with the other half tied to the success or failure of the Super Committee, tasked with securing $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. The catch was that both parties needed an incentive to deal honestly — so GOP leaders and the White House agreed that if the Super Committee failed, it would result in $600 billion in automatic, across the board cuts to national security spending, and another $600 billion in domestic cuts, taken mostly from Medicare providers. With both Democratic and Republican sacred cows in line for slaughter, surely, the Super Committee members would reach a compromise.

They didn’t.

Immediately after the Super Committee failed in November, rank and file Republicans began a campaign to swap out only the defense cuts with other spending cuts — no tax increases.

For a time, that was a rogue effort. On November 3, 2011, Boehner told reporters, “Me, personally? Yes, I would feel bound. It was part of the agreement, and so either we succeed or we’re in the sequester. The sequester is ugly. Why? Because we didn’t want anybody to go there. That’s why we have to succeed.”

Boehner’s Thursday comments came moments after Senate Republicans unveiled their plan to partially phase out the enforcement mechanism by reducing the federal workforce and freezing federal pay. Both developments indicate Republican leaders no longer regard their own deal as sacrosanct.

Now Boehner’s pressuring the White House to let Republicans off the hook for the piece of the deficit enforcement mechanism that was designed to make them negotiate in good faith. And Democrats are furious.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2012, 08:41:25 PM »
First I dont know why your posting these things.

They dont take away from the fact that democrats and obama have already agreed on entitlement cuts.

Something you and your ilk LOL say will take more than 3 weeks to agree to.

So youre saying it would take more than 3 weeks for them to agree to something they have already agreed on?

LMFAO only in the delusion riddled liberal mind does that make any sort of sense

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2012, 08:43:31 PM »
me and you can post tit for tat Op Ed pieces on who was to blame for previous debt talks falling through.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON ENTITLEMENT CUTS...

Something you say will take more than 3 weeks to get now.

How does it take more than 3 weeks to agree to something you agreed on a year ago?

HAHAHHAHAHHAHA

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2012, 08:48:45 PM »
First I dont know why your posting these things.

They dont take away from the fact that democrats and obama have already agreed on entitlement cuts.

Something you and your ilk LOL say will take more than 3 weeks to agree to.

So youre saying it would take more than 3 weeks for them to agree to something they have already agreed on?

LMFAO only in the delusion riddled liberal mind does that make any sort of sense

As I said in a previous thread:

What entitlement cut agreements have dems renegged on??? Please post an article or link with some info on these broken promises. The biggest sticking points in these talks are things that Dems have NEVER agreed to. Oh, that's right, politicians don't make suggestions until deals have been finalized, signed and notarized.  Seriously, please post a link to some info about what the Dems have renegged on. Are you referring to things discussed in the debt ceiling talks? The ones Boehner backed out of?! Do you really not understand why the concessions made in those agreements aren't being thrown around?

Even YOU have to realize that if an opponent backs out of an agreement, those same terms aren't on the table when your opponent has  LESS leverage?!

You claimed that Democrats renegged on a deal and I asked you to post a news article showing this... I have posted two showing that the exact opposite is true.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2012, 08:50:21 PM »
me and you can post tit for tat Op Ed pieces on who was to blame for previous debt talks falling through.

Nooooo....you haven't posted any articles  showing that Dems are to blame for budget talks falling through. You keep claiming they exist, but you haven't provided any proof. I have been waiting for nearly a week.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2012, 08:53:55 PM »
As I said in a previous thread:

Even YOU have to realize that if an opponent backs out of an agreement, those same terms aren't on the table when your opponent has  LESS leverage?!

You claimed that Democrats renegged on a deal and I asked you to post a news article showing this... I have posted two showing that the exact opposite is true.
LMFAO your whole arguement for the reason entitlement cuts were not on the table was b/c it would take to long to negotiate

Now that Ive shown you that the dems and obama have already previously agreed to entitlement cuts you fall back on "well, i have Op Ed pieces that say it wasnt their fault"...LFMAO are you fuking serious?

so do you agree that it would take less than three weeks for obama and the dems to agree to something they have already agreed on now?

lets get that out of the way first, you can still stick by your assertion that they have more leverage now but quit using the tired it would take to long excuse ;)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2012, 08:58:06 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This article gives a very detailed account on the process and it seems that both were to blame for it.

Now i know I know its not what your liberal blog sites are saying but just give it a chance ;)

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2012, 09:29:19 PM »
LMFAO your whole arguement for the reason entitlement cuts were not on the table was b/c it would take to long to negotiate

Now that Ive shown you that the dems and obama have already previously agreed to entitlement cuts you fall back on "well, i have Op Ed pieces that say it wasnt their fault"...LFMAO are you fuking serious?

so do you agree that it would take less than three weeks for obama and the dems to agree to something they have already agreed on now?

lets get that out of the way first, you can still stick by your assertion that they have more leverage now but quit using the tired it would take to long excuse ;)

McTones, this is my original quote from that thread:

McTones, did you bother reading any of that article past the first paragraph? Firstly, the portion of the article that you quoted is not something that is on the table and it's not something that has even been suggested by the SoH. Secondly, the senator who made that quote specifically says that the reason Dems have been so intractable is because Repubs simply don't have much leverage. Thirdly, the entire point of his quote is that Boehner should re-consider his stance on the tax rate because then it allows for discussion on other fiscal issues.

Furthermore, the article addresses two MASSIVE problems with that quote: 1) there is no way such a huge undertaking would be worked out in three weeks and 2)CORKER'S PLAN DOES NOT  HAVE WIDESPREAD SUPPORT AMONG REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS!



Where in that quote do I suggest that entitlement cuts should even be on the table? You started a thread claiming that some quote from a loose lipped senator was a sign that Boehner was willing to compromise when the White House wasn't. I advised you to read the fucking article, then you'd see that you'd misinterpreted the whole thing. The length of time it would take to work those agreements out was the least of my concerns.

And McTones, you've proven yourself to be such a business genius in other threads, I've gotta ask you, do you really not understand that when you negotiate a deal and that deal falls through, those same terms AREN'T ON THE TABLE during subsequent negotiations? When an opponent's leverage declines, the savvy negotiator NEGOTIATES terms that are more favorable for them. They don't use the same terms from a failed deal from nearly a year earlier.

Also, the wall of text you linked from the NY Times is basically a more in depth story of what I linked: Boehner didn't like the terms of the deal and backed out. 

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2012, 09:31:45 PM »
both sides are trying to make a deal and compromise but neither side is willing to give enough so that a deal actually gets accomplished.

on this issue i do tend to side with the republicans more so than the democrats (mainly because i support reforming and cutting medicare and social security), i have to think that Obama has more political leverage on his side due to the election.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2012, 09:37:58 PM »
both sides are trying to make a deal and compromise but neither side is willing to give enough so that a deal actually gets accomplished.

on this issue i do tend to side with the republicans more so than the democrats (mainly because i support reforming and cutting medicare and social security), i have to think that Obama has more political leverage on his side due to the election.

It's pretty obvious you're out in the wild on what this thread is about, but I'm quoting the last line of your post for McTones.

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2012, 09:45:03 PM »
i didnt read all that shit you two posted, haha, thats for sure.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2012, 06:50:45 AM »
McTones, this is my original quote from that thread:



Where in that quote do I suggest that entitlement cuts should even be on the table? You started a thread claiming that some quote from a loose lipped senator was a sign that Boehner was willing to compromise when the White House wasn't. I advised you to read the fucking article, then you'd see that you'd misinterpreted the whole thing. The length of time it would take to work those agreements out was the least of my concerns.

And McTones, you've proven yourself to be such a business genius in other threads, I've gotta ask you, do you really not understand that when you negotiate a deal and that deal falls through, those same terms AREN'T ON THE TABLE during subsequent negotiations? When an opponent's leverage declines, the savvy negotiator NEGOTIATES terms that are more favorable for them. They don't use the same terms from a failed deal from nearly a year earlier.

Also, the wall of text you linked from the NY Times is basically a more in depth story of what I linked: Boehner didn't like the terms of the deal and backed out. 
Furthermore, the article addresses two MASSIVE problems with that quote: 1) there is no way such a huge undertaking would be worked out in three weeks
from a post prior to the one you linked...

LMFAO Albert I actually do have a business background and education, whats your business experience and education?

sorry hoss if terms have already been agreed upon in previous negotiations then that is generally a starting point for future negotiations. You keep wanting to say that obamas leverage has increased and I can agree with that but his leverage increased on increasing taxes for the "rich". This had no effect what so ever on the publics desire for spending cuts.

The desire for spending cuts is still there, just b/c he gained leverage on one aspect of the negotiations doesnt mean the reps lost leverage on the other part of the negotiation. His hand just got stronger on tax cuts. The reps still have a very strong hand on spending cuts, ESPECIALLY SINCE SPENDING CUTS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE AT CUTTING DEBT THEN REVENUE INCREASES!!!

No sir, you obviously didnt read the whole article, it states many things that obama and the dems did to kill the deal as well::)

The deal was already basically agreed on and obama went and changed it being one...

I love how your positions evolve overtime after they take a beating, just like your obama/gun control stance. At least you do change your positions though, I guess we should all commend you for not being completely ignorant.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2012, 08:34:05 AM »
sorry hoss if terms have already been agreed upon in previous negotiations then that is generally a starting point for future negotiations.

No, that isn't how negotiating works. I will try to lay it out for you in a simple way: Let's say you want to purchase a car and the salesman agrees to cut off a certain percentage and throw in free sound system and leather upgrades because it is the end of the year and he wants to clear his lot. If you walk away from that deal and you come back when the new year shipments arrive, you'd be a fool to expect the same price cuts and upgrades. When conditions change, terms change. When the car salesman has a more desirable stock and is not as anxious to get rid of it, his leverage has increased. Therefore, the terms of the agreement change. He will try to charge you closer to sticker price. He will not charge you year end clearance price. That is how all negotiations work: buying a home, Federal budget deals, etc.

 This is why when the Obama administration doesn't agree on the terms of a negotiation from a year earlier, it is not "renegging". This is why just because you came to an agreement a year ago on something, doesn't mean you will be able to come to the same agreement a year later. Those same terms aren't on the table because conditions have changed. Certain things are only on the table under certain conditions.


Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2012, 08:40:06 AM »
You keep wanting to say that obamas leverage has increased and I can agree with that but his leverage increased on increasing taxes for the "rich". This had no effect what so ever on the publics desire for spending cuts.

LOL- McTones, this whole line of debate is in regards to you misunderstanding a quote from a Republican Senator urging Boehner to agree to drop the Bush-era tax cuts. Read that again: a REPUBLICAN SENATOR URGING BOEHNER TO AGREE TO DROP BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS. Just for a refresher, I am going to repost a link to the article that YOU first posted.
http://news.yahoo.com/senator-gop-could-accept-tax-hikes-very-rich-174858342--finance.html

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee — a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker — puts new pressure on House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year.

Do you understand what that means?The entitlement cuts aren't on the table because Boehner was refusing to compromise, even at the advice of his own party.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2012, 08:53:25 AM »

No sir, you obviously didnt read the whole article, it states many things that obama and the dems did to kill the deal as well::)


You didn't read that article. You couldn't even get past the headline on the Corker article, so I know you didn't read the NYT piece. You're probably just assuming that because the title is 'Obama vs Boehner", it probably shows that Obummer was wrong, too. Which is too bad, because it had some  stuff in it that would be enlightening for you. I've done enough cutting and pasting, though.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: obama cant agree on entitlement cuts he has already agreed on...
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2012, 09:15:20 AM »
LOL- McTones, this whole line of debate is in regards to you misunderstanding a quote from a Republican Senator urging Boehner to agree to drop the Bush-era tax cuts. Read that again: a REPUBLICAN SENATOR URGING BOEHNER TO AGREE TO DROP BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS. Just for a refresher, I am going to repost a link to the article that YOU first posted.
http://news.yahoo.com/senator-gop-could-accept-tax-hikes-very-rich-174858342--finance.html

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The comments by Bob Corker of Tennessee — a fiscal conservative who has been gaining stature in the Senate as a pragmatic deal broker — puts new pressure on House Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders to rethink their long-held assertion that even the very rich shouldn't see their rates go up next year.

Do you understand what that means?The entitlement cuts aren't on the table because Boehner was refusing to compromise, even at the advice of his own party.

Boehner should have taken the deal.

The coward was/is afraid to stand up to his donors.