........Compromise........

[Pete]

We've had the issue of compromise brought up in a number of threads around here.

Some of us knew what the press and the D's thought about compromise.

And now the Prez puts it out in the open.

"Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ge-on-tax-cuts

"Days after Democrats received a self-described "shellacking" at the polls, President Obama called for an end to campaigning and an embrace of compromise.

But he signaled no willingness to bend on the first challenge likely to face him from a Republican House as he advocated the permanent extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year despite the GOP's resolve to extend the tax cuts for all income brackets.............."

So his position is $250,000 and the Republicans is everybody. Compromise? Why $250,000 of course. It will be that way on every issue folks. It's going to be a long two years.

And of course the press will blame the R's for not being willing to "Compromise".

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Pete

And of course the press will blame the R's for not being willing to "Compromise".

Pete, Sir...Very well surmised IMHO!

Am waiting for the rebuttle, that we know is comming...

Holly

[akv]

"Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts"

This is actually moderately encouraging since Barry lies like a rug.

We'll see...

[Ambush Master]

How can they even REMOTELY begin to think that the Rs need to Compromise, when they wouldn't even allow any Rs to be involved in the Healthcare or any other substantial Legislation for the past 2 years?!?!?!

Later
Martin

[The Reaper]

"I won, get over it."

Secret meetings, excluding one entire party from the writing of 2000+ page bills.

Calling the elected opposition, "the enemies".

Pursuit of a socialist, union driven agenda.

Arrogance, public posturing, and hubris beyond belief.

Prepare the bills, consider Dim proposals, modify as necessary, and pass the things. Defund Obamacare and any other lunacy which has already been passed. If the POTUS wants to veto a tax cut bill, or a real jobs bill, or a military funding bill, or improved health care legislation, of efforts to balance the budget, or a cap gains tax cut, let him do so and go on the record opposing them.

Compromise? Not on principles.

TR

[echoes]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

"I won, get over it."

Secret meetings, excluding one entire party from the writing of 2000+ page bills.

Calling the elected opposition, "the enemies".

Pursuit of a socialist, union driven agenda.

Arrogance, public posturing, and hubris beyond belief.

Prepare the bills, consider Dim proposals, modify as necessary, and pass the things. Defund Obamacare and any other lunacy which has already been passed. If the POTUS wants to veto a tax cut bill, or a real jobs bill, or a military funding bill, or improved health care legislation, of efforts to balance the budget, or a cap gains tax cut, let him do so and go on the record opposing them.

Compromise? Not on principles.

TR

Incredibly well said, TR Sir!

Holly

[Pete]

Pelosi move is a sign that Democrats intend to fight the GOP, not cut deals

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/12...-not-cut-deals

"........But making deals with the newly empowered Republicans isn't high on the priority list of liberal Democrats, who suddenly find themselves with a much louder voice following Tuesday's decimation of the conservative-leaning Blue Dogs, who tended to gravitate toward Hoyer.

Pelosi — a master vote-counter — and her liberal allies spent the latter part of the week taking the temperature of the Democratic caucus on questions of leadership. Her decision to throw her name into the ring is indication enough that the responses were favorable..........."

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pete

Pelosi move is a sign that Democrats intend to fight the GOP, not cut deals

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/12...-not-cut-deals

"........But making deals with the newly empowered Republicans isn't high on the priority list of liberal Democrats, who suddenly find themselves with a much louder voice following Tuesday's decimation of the conservative-leaning Blue Dogs, who tended to gravitate toward Hoyer.

Pelosi — a master vote-counter — and her liberal allies spent the latter part of the week taking the temperature of the Democratic caucus on questions of leadership. Her decision to throw her name into the ring is indication enough that the responses were favorable..........."

What is she going to do with the 100 or so lib Dims who support her socialist agenda?

They should lose at least 50-60 Dim votes who either agree with the Repubs, or who have seen what happens to those who defy the will of their constituents.

I see no reason that the Repubs cannot pass pretty much any legislation they want. The compromise will come when the House and the Senate conference occurs on the bills, or the POTUS vetos them.

Till then, Nancy's opinion and desires are irrelevant.

Plus she loses the free AF plane to haul her entourage home to San Francisco every weekend. Maybe she can get her broom fitted with a passenger extension.

TR

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

What is she going to do with the 100 or so lib Dims who support her socialist agenda?


TR

Lie, lie lie, bend the ear of the uber-liberal media, commit subterfuge and make accusations, create general mayhem.

The next two years will be spent using every ounce of energy they have to make the incoming House members look bad in preparation for the next round of elections.

My prognosis is that it gets worse. That screeching voice will be on every news show from here to forever. If she is elected as the minority leader, then that will be proof positive that there will be no attempts to compromise.

I believe that the Legislative Branch will stagnate and spend their time degrading one another. Meanwhile expect the rate of Executive Orders to increase along with legislation by the Judicial Branch.

[rdret1]

Pelosi will push too far. Independents are fed up with her. I think it is going to backfire on them. Again.

[cetheridge]

I agree with all of the above.

My intention is not to sound vindictive, but my hope for the sake of our country is that within the next two years Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Kerry, Lewis, et.al., will follow the path of Kennedy and Byrd.

[blacksmoke]

On 60 Minutes last night, Obama blamed the Repub's for not supporting and pushing away the healthcare bills sent to them. He claimed he has been "reaching out" for the past two years. The interviewer asked him if his campaign promises were too idealistic, Obama started to stutter, and an aswer was provided for him. Interesting interview.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

[H]ubris beyond belief.

TR--

With respect, I disagree. IIRC, a prerequisite of hubris is a capacity for greatness. The current president has demonstrated--time and again--that he's all too ordinary.

In regards to his position on 'compromise,' I think the president laid out his plan during his last press conference on 3 November 2010.*

Q Thank you, Mr. President. After your election two years ago, when you met with Republicans you said that, in discussing what policies might go forward, that elections have consequences, and that you pointed out that you had won. I wonder what consequences you think this election should have then, in terms of your policies. Are there areas that you’re willing -- can you name today areas that you would be willing to compromise on that you might not have been willing to compromise on in the past?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I’ve been willing to compromise in the past and I'm going to be willing to compromise going forward on a whole range of issues. Let me give you an example -- the issue of energy that I just mentioned.

I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after. But that doesn't mean there isn't agreement that we should have a better energy policy. And so let’s find those areas where we can agree.

We’ve got, I think, broad agreement that we’ve got terrific natural gas resources in this country. Are we doing everything we can to develop those? There's a lot of agreement around the need to make sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that we don't fall behind other countries. Are there things that we can do to encourage that? And there's already been bipartisan interest on those issues.

There's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. Is that an area where we can move forward?

We were able, over the last two years, to increase for the first time in 30 years fuel-efficiency standards on cars and trucks. We didn’t even need legislation. We just needed the cooperation of automakers and autoworkers and investors and other shareholders. And that's going to move us forward in a serious way.

So I think when it comes to something like energy, what we’re probably going to have to do is say here are some areas where there's just too much disagreement between Democrats and Republicans, we can’t get this done right now, but let’s not wait. Let’s go ahead and start making some progress on the things that we do agree on, and we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we don’t.

My take is that he plans to get legislation passed where he can and not commit himself if he doesn't think he can win.

This ostensibly pragmatic approach will allow him to say in 2012 that he made compromises with his political opponents, is 'making progress' on the tough choices, and will make those tougher decisions in his second term. It will be interesting to see if his political base will be satisfied with this approach or if some will point out that he's planning on doing what he said he wouldn't: kick the can down the hall.


________________________________________________
* Source is here.

[akv]

"Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts"

FWIW if you grew tired of watching the Cowboys ineptitude last night and switched over to 60 Minutes, Barry has already come around to leave himself some wiggle room on extending the Bush tax cuts.

When asked about a specific proposition from a Republican Senator on a way to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, his reply went something like " When someone proposes a specific plan like that, if we can figure out how to pay for it, it is a discussion I am open to."

Translation: "My party just got shelled in the midterms, the Republicans can at least propose sensible legislation going forward that I will have to go on record against, and that Hillary creature is just waiting for an opening, maybe I should move to the center a bit."

And a minor rant, No leader especially a POTUS in a recession with troops in harms way should ever admit to being discouraged on national TV. He is the Mr. Blutarsky of leadership GPA, 0.0...

[Pete]

Originally Posted by akv

... if we can figure out how to pay for it, it is a discussion I am open to..........

And that buys into the libs talking points. How do you pay for a tax cut? Is a tax cut an all or nothing "thing". 1 - 1 = 0?

Or does a "tax cut for the rich" keep money in small business hands allowing them to generate business, add jobs, stimulate the economy and producing much more tax revenue.

A tax cut works every time it's tried. The only problem is congress who can always spend it faster than it comes in.

How do you "pay" for an $1,800 tax refund going to someone who didn't pay any taxes? When you get down to zero it should stop.