Senator Corker (R-Tenn.) Signaling Republican Shift...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
It appears more rEpublicans are either A) acquiescing to the Obama and democrat push for an increase in the tax rate for those making over $250,000.00 per year, or B) the rEpublicans are actually learning how to effectively negotiate and perhaps out maneuver the democrats long term. We'll just have to wait and see.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
It appears more rEpublicans are either A) acquiescing to the Obama and democrat push for an increase in the tax rate for those making over $250,000.00 per year, or B) the rEpublicans are actually learning how to effectively negotiate and perhaps out maneuver the democrats long term. We'll just have to wait and see.
THE HILL - Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Sunday joined a growing chorus of Republicans who are open to higher tax rates for the richest Americans as part of a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”
Corker, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats have the upper hand following the election. He said he was optimistic Congress would strike a deal within the next 23 days, even if it means agreeing to President Obama's plan to increase the top rate on individuals making more than $250,000 a year.
But Corker said he expected Democrats to accept spending cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare.
“A lot of people are putting forth a theory – and I actually think it has merit – where you go and you give the president the 2 percent increase that he's talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent – and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements,” Corker said. “And all of a sudden, once you give him a top rate on the 2 percent it's actually a much lesser tax increase than what he's been talking about.
“I actually am beginning to believe that is the best route for us to take,” Corker said, “to again shift the focus to where it needs to be, which is entitlements.”
The Republican-led House, however, is reluctant to agree to Obama’s demand for higher tax rates on the wealthy. This past week, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) proposed raising $800 billion – half what the president wants – by limiting tax breaks, an offer the White House immediately dismissed.
Corker predicted that Republicans would gain the upper hand in future negotiations if they can prevent the tax hikes and spending cuts that are set to kick in on January 1. ... {Read More}
Via: Memeorandum
There's a small group of Republican Senators out there that the President could and SHOULD be working with and Senator Corker is clearly one of them (add also Coburn, Murkowski, Chambliss, and Crapo). My fear, though, is that the President is probably going to try and ram through his 1:4 ratio of cuts to tax increases and tell the Republicans to stuff it.
ReplyDeleteI also believe it' is likely. After all I'm sure he feels he has a mandate to do so.
DeleteThe thing is, I am willing to conceded that the Republicans were probably more recalcitrant from 2010 to 2012. But now, the President is starting to make Boehner look reasonable. I mean, the guy (Boehner) put for a counter-proposal that had $800 billion in revenue and was only 1.75:1 spending cuts to revenues (down from the 4:1 ratio of that almost deal of several years ago). And Obama didn't even bother to counter it. I can't wait for Shaw to defend him on this.
Delete"...are actually learning how to effectively negotiate..."
ReplyDeleteYou give them way too much credit. The Titanic is going down, and they are negotiating over whether to bail with buckets or dixie cups.
So, you're saying let er go down then?
DeleteI'm saying Obama won the election. Let him have his way. We've have a referendum on the results in four years.
DeleteAgreed. Then any explaining rests with the dEmocrats if things don't work out.
DeleteThere's no excuse for not proposing a budget right now that has $0 deficit in it. As opposed to this garbage of supposedly slowly reducing the massive deficit amount of each yearly budget over several planned years.
ReplyDeleteProposing a budget that lowers the deficit a little while keeping it massively high is like a wife-beater promising to beat his wife 6 days a week instead of 7. There's no good reason to keep doing it at all.
A possible strategy I have heard, and I'm sure you have as well, is to allow the Democrats to have their way with this Fiscal Cliff thing, washing our hands of it, and when it blows up and causes more distress, to simply look back and say, "But the Democrats own this. Remember, you voted for this. We did not sign-off on this nor did we support this."
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
Yes I've thought about this scenario a lot. Not going to get something that makes sense or a compromise, then I would ultimately support this approach by rEbublicans.
DeleteWhat is funny to me is that republicans are demanding entitlement cuts, yet they all raised hell at Obamacares 700 billion in Medicare "savings" "cuts" whatever you want to call them.
ReplyDeleteThe real solution is to just jump off the damn fiscal cliff and be done with it. America won't be destroyed. The dollar will still be the reserve currency. And the republicans will get their wish of spending cuts and broadening of the tax base since all our taxes will go back to pre Bush tax rates.
Something for everyone. Now if they'd just lift the Cuba embargo Les and I could enjoy a fine Cuban cigar with that bottle of wine if I ever get back to Massachusettes.
My ultimate choice Joe, figuring no deal will be struck that makes sense other than just kicking the can down the road would be to Give the "O" man precisely what he wants now and let the chips fall where they may in four years.
DeleteHoping that the dems plan works out just fine. Suspecting it just may not.
Anyway, here's to hoping they lift the embargo on Cuba. Give me a call if ever you make it back to MA.
Well, it's easy to cut taxes, but much harder to cut spending. But if you have a populace that is underrepresented, as are the working poor, it is much easier to raise their taxes and cut spending that would benefit them.
ReplyDeleteThat is what the GOP wants right now, and in that they have some leverage, because, as I mentioned, the working poor are underrepresented.
Hopefully Obama will be able to stand up for them and against the GOP's easy attacks on a vulnerable populace.
JMJ
That jml is just more emotional poppycock.
DeleteDo you know why conservatism is on the wain in America today, Les? Because you guys simply ignore reality.
DeleteJMJ
You might want to rethink jmj. To simplistic given what you know. But then again I understand the need to walk the progressive plank. Planks are in large supply these days... Toddles.
DeleteLes, I don't know what you're talking about. The GOP wants to raise taxes on the poor and cut "entitlements" that mainly benefit the common working family. You do get that, right?
DeleteJMJ
How is keeping the current tax rates for everybody raising taxes on the poor?
DeleteIf by entitlements you mean medicare and medicaid provide a workable LONG TERM solution that doesn't turn the USA into Greece. Or leave everyone poor or wards of the state.
Note Will's very apropos comment. Those numbers are real and should be a secret to no one.
WORKABLE COMPROMISE AND BALANCE is what is needed. You do get that don't you jmj?
Les, I would think you of all people would have been paying attention to the GOP lately.
DeleteWe have to raise taxes sometimes. That's life. The way things are today, the working poor and middle class simply can't afford more taxes. But our wealthy? They can easily afford it. We have the most wealth disparity in this country today than we've had in generations.
And we can reform our "entitlements" (a horrible and sleazy misnomer) without gutting them.
Speaking of... why is it every time you cons talk about "reforming" something, you actually mean destroying it?
Obama needs to stick to his guns, say F.U. to the GOP House, and wait two years. Hopefully, by then, we can get rid of the spoiled children in the House, put some grown-ups who actually actually care about their country and their fellow citizens in there, and then can make some responsible decisions for the advancement of our people.
JMJ
Forget it Les, it's hopeless. The faster Jersey's socialists run out of other people's money, the sooner we can get on with repairing the nation. Until then, fantasies of rainbows and unicorns will infest their fevered minds...
Deletelml, I have. You apparently have foggy glasses. I'll leave it at that. Oh by the way, while I would welcome a reasonable and effective compromise (see prior post comments for an idea of what I mean) but since the "O"-Man isn't in the mood given his delusion of a mandate I say rEpublicans GIVE EM WHAT THEY WANT. In four more years it will be referendum time, the dems will OWN IT ALL and they will get the credit, good of Bad.
Deleteget it yet jmj? Or should I draw a picture?
Silver, Yep,jmj and associates won't be happy until they have their way. I say give em four and let the chimes ring in 2016.
I'm not chiding you Les, simply agreeing with you by way of pointing out how studiously people like Jersey avoid reality. You have a very clear-eyed view of what is going on. Maddening, isn't it?
DeleteOk, Silver, what "reality" am I avoiding? This is have to hear! "Reality" coming from a conservative! LOL!
DeleteJMJ
The average person puts $114,000 into Medicare and takes $355,000 out. It doesn't take a CPA to figure out that this sucker isn't working.
ReplyDeleteI am not a CPA. And even I see that Will has spoken truth.
DeleteThat is all.
Simple math and accounting. Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Toc...
DeleteSeems inevitable health insurance will have to end up a social program, with all paying in.
ReplyDeletePrivate insures won't/don't insure those with expensive medical needs.
I make more than enough money to buy health insurance, but because I'm diabetic, I'm forced to by State insurance because no private company will insure me. It's simple, I submit 3 turn down notices from private companies and I'm eligible for State insurance. Since I have income I'm charged a high rate, but if I did not have income, insurance would be provided to me at no cost. By the way, my State insurance has better coverage (for my premium payment) than any private insurer I've heard about from many friends. If not for my State insurance I don't know what I would do, even though I have money to pay high premiums. Free market doesn't work for me, even though I'm one of the few that can afford it.
It's times like this that I am glad Obama won. His victory will be the biggest help for small government Conservatism could ask for, since he will flippantly and arrogantly press forward with his Socialist agenda. America is not half as stupid as he thinks they are and needs them to be.
ReplyDelete2016 will be....interesting.
I doubt Republicans will solve all their problems by 2016. Americans aren't swallowing anything. They just correctly judge the Republicans as a failed political party with no realistic leadership and proven failures of past and current policies.
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound as though the dEmocrats bear no responsibility for past errors. Which of course is poppycock.
DeleteAs to 2016, we will have the pleasure of watching what is sure too be amusing if not interesting.
Time for Obama and the Dems to get the green light if they won't negotiate in good faith. Give em what they want, sit back and watch the results. The judgement as to performance and results will come in 2016. The responsibility WILL then rest ENTIRELY with the dEmocrats. Win or lose, you guys will get all the credit,... or, be despised every bit as much as you despise rEpublicans and Libertarians.
Obviously you think Republicans have done just fine, which shows you too live in idiotic denial. Good faith? What did the people just vote for? Your party's, Republican failures. Good faith would be to listen to the people, not your failed policies of the last b40 years
ReplyDeleteBoth parties have failed the USA. I did not vote rEpublican this time around and I will not vote rEpublican next time around. Unless the party makes some very significant changes. Which I have serious doubt will happen.
DeleteI see no need to respond much further. Other than the rEpublicans are not conservative in the real fiscal sense (certainly they are in the social sense {socons, they are in fact big Keynesian advocates by their example. The party is not inclusive enough, and they can't seem to understand DoD spending should not be the sacred cow.
Now, have yourself a fine evening.