Boehner to take Obama up on his generous offer

[BigDave]

(You know the one ... "unconditional surrender, then we talk".)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10 ... e-meeting/

[133743Hokie]

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

[BigDave]

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Sure they can. They now know that Republicans will surrender.

I'm not saying that the Republicans should have played the game of chicken to the end ... but don't think that Obama's lesson from this is going to be "I should negotiate better". It's going to be "Republicans will cave".

[VoiceOfReason]

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Well, the Rs have not taken the first step yet. If they pass a short term extension... then yes, the Rs will have taken the first step and acted in good faith. The ball will be squarely in the Ds court to come to the table and begin negotiations in good faith. Which I fully expect will happen.

[VoiceOfReason]

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Sure they can. They now know that Republicans will surrender.

I'm not saying that the Republicans should have played the game of chicken to the end ... but don't think that Obama's lesson from this is going to be "I should negotiate better". It's going to be "Republicans will cave".

I think the country supports reducing the debt and expect this of both Ds and Rs. The only point the Ds will have won is that negotiations should not be conducted while one side is burning down the country.

The REAL discussion is what specific spending cuts the Ds are willing to support and what tax increases the Rs are willing to support. For this to be a true negotiation, both sides need to be willing to compromise. Just coming to the table is not enough. And if the Rs take the approach that just coming to the table without holding the economy hostage is their concession... and expect the Ds to just slash spending all over the place without any discussion of tax increases... then it will not be a true negotiation because the Rs will not have brought anything to the table.

[cwtcr hokie]

we don't have a taxing problem, a lot of taxes are paid, we have a spending problem. Again, how much tax is enough, for the contributors in this society the total take by all functions of gov. is around 50% of gross pay, how much is enough?

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Sure they can. They now know that Republicans will surrender.

I'm not saying that the Republicans should have played the game of chicken to the end ... but don't think that Obama's lesson from this is going to be "I should negotiate better". It's going to be "Republicans will cave".

I think the country supports reducing the debt and expect this of both Ds and Rs. The only point the Ds will have won is that negotiations should not be conducted while one side is burning down the country.

The REAL discussion is what specific spending cuts the Ds are willing to support and what tax increases the Rs are willing to support. For this to be a true negotiation, both sides need to be willing to compromise. Just coming to the table is not enough. And if the Rs take the approach that just coming to the table without holding the economy hostage is their concession... and expect the Ds to just slash spending all over the place without any discussion of tax increases... then it will not be a true negotiation because the Rs will not have brought anything to the table.

[VoiceOfReason]

we don't have a taxing problem, a lot of taxes are paid, we have a spending problem. Again, how much tax is enough, for the contributors in this society the total take by all functions of gov. is around 50% of gross pay, how much is enough?

WADR... you are missing the point. You have stated the conservative position. The Libs have a different position. Rs are asking for negotiation and compromise... which, by definition, MUST involve giving up something to get something else. Hopefully all for the greater good of the nation.

There is a middle ground here. Did Jesus Christ himself come down from heaven and declare the the tax rates in 2013 are the absolute highest morally possible? The tax rates of today were negotiated over generations. Historically, they have been raised and they have been lowered.

How much tax is enough? Tax is enough when it covers every penny of government spending that the majority of citizens deem necessary and are willing to pay for. The exact number... well, isn't that the point of these negotiations?

[BigDave]

How much tax is enough? Tax is enough when it covers every penny of government spending that the majority of citizens deem necessary and are willing to pay for. The exact number... well, isn't that the point of these negotiations?

No, taxation is enough when it covers things that are within the proper scope of government. A sizable chunk of the country doesn't pay for any of it.

[VoiceOfReason]

How much tax is enough? Tax is enough when it covers every penny of government spending that the majority of citizens deem necessary and are willing to pay for. The exact number... well, isn't that the point of these negotiations?

No, taxation is enough when it covers things that are within the proper scope of government. A sizable chunk of the country doesn't pay for any of it.

Everyone pays in... there are sales taxes, energy taxes, gas taxes, etc. If we are speaking specifically of income taxes, then yes... if you have no income or a very low income... the government cannot get blood from a stone.

Who decides what is within the proper scope of government? Shouldn't that be part of these negotiations?

[awesome guy]

How much tax is enough? Tax is enough when it covers every penny of government spending that the majority of citizens deem necessary and are willing to pay for. The exact number... well, isn't that the point of these negotiations?

No, taxation is enough when it covers things that are within the proper scope of government. A sizable chunk of the country doesn't pay for any of it.

Everyone pays in... there are sales taxes, energy taxes, gas taxes, etc. If we are speaking specifically of income taxes, then yes... if you have no income or a very low income... the government cannot get blood from a stone.

Who decides what is within the proper scope of government? Shouldn't that be part of these negotiations?

The po get a refund, more than compensating for sales taxes. They net more from the government than they contribute.

[HokieJoe]

"Burning down the country"


Wut?

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Sure they can. They now know that Republicans will surrender.

I'm not saying that the Republicans should have played the game of chicken to the end ... but don't think that Obama's lesson from this is going to be "I should negotiate better". It's going to be "Republicans will cave".

I think the country supports reducing the debt and expect this of both Ds and Rs. The only point the Ds will have won is that negotiations should not be conducted while one side is burning down the country.

The REAL discussion is what specific spending cuts the Ds are willing to support and what tax increases the Rs are willing to support. For this to be a true negotiation, both sides need to be willing to compromise. Just coming to the table is not enough. And if the Rs take the approach that just coming to the table without holding the economy hostage is their concession... and expect the Ds to just slash spending all over the place without any discussion of tax increases... then it will not be a true negotiation because the Rs will not have brought anything to the table.

[nolanvt]

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Sure they can. They now know that Republicans will surrender.

I'm not saying that the Republicans should have played the game of chicken to the end ... but don't think that Obama's lesson from this is going to be "I should negotiate better". It's going to be "Republicans will cave".

What threshold are we setting here for "Republicans will cave"?

[VoiceOfReason]

The po get a refund, more than compensating for sales taxes. They net more from the government than they contribute.

You certainly can look at that way... givers vs. takers right?

I was drawing a distinction that is also technically correct. Everyone pays in... and most everyone gets some type of services. If you want to reduce it to a strict money calculation... then, yes, many of the "po" experience a net "taking" effect.

One can make an argument that providing the "po" has benefit to the wealthy as well. How? If there was no social safety net, the "po" would have very few options in sustaining their lives. The human spirit is a powerful thing... even in the "po". I don't think I want to live in a country where the have-nots have truly nothing to lose and experience their Lord of the Flies moment. All of this also ignores the moral question as well.

Anyway... how is this relevant to the point of entering into REAL negotiations? Are you saying the Rs simply have nothing they should give up?

[VoiceOfReason]

"Burning down the country"


Wut?

I'm sorry... are only the conservative hard liners allowed to use hyperbole on this board? I didn't see the rules...

[awesome guy]

The po get a refund, more than compensating for sales taxes. They net more from the government than they contribute.

You certainly can look at that way... givers vs. takers right?

I was drawing a distinction that is also technically correct. Everyone pays in... and most everyone gets some type of services. If you want to reduce it to a strict money calculation... then, yes, many of the "po" experience a net "taking" effect.

One can make an argument that providing the "po" has benefit to the wealthy as well. How? If there was no social safety net, the "po" would have very few options in sustaining their lives. The human spirit is a powerful thing... even in the "po". I don't think I want to live in a country where the have-nots have truly nothing to lose and experience their Lord of the Flies moment. All of this also ignores the moral question as well.

Anyway... how is this relevant to the point of entering into REAL negotiations? Are you saying the Rs simply have nothing they should give up?

Not technically right. Income is redistributed from the producers to the takers. They aren't netting positive by having a road to beg on, they're netting positive by getting more cash back than they contribute.

[133743Hokie]

It's not unreasonable to get discussions moving. Repubs have taken the first step (again), and a very public one at that. The onus will now be on Obama and the Dems. The will have to negotiate. They can't continue to be obstinate

Sure they can. They now know that Republicans will surrender.

I'm not saying that the Republicans should have played the game of chicken to the end ... but don't think that Obama's lesson from this is going to be "I should negotiate better". It's going to be "Republicans will cave".

I think the country supports reducing the debt and expect this of both Ds and Rs. The only point the Ds will have won is that negotiations should not be conducted while one side is burning down the country.

The REAL discussion is what specific spending cuts the Ds are willing to support and what tax increases the Rs are willing to support. For this to be a true negotiation, both sides need to be willing to compromise. Just coming to the table is not enough. And if the Rs take the approach that just coming to the table without holding the economy hostage is their concession... and expect the Ds to just slash spending all over the place without any discussion of tax increases... then it will not be a true negotiation because the Rs will not have brought anything to the table.

The Ds got their tax increases last year with little reduction. It's time for them to step up to the plate.

[133743Hokie]

The po get a refund, more than compensating for sales taxes. They net more from the government than they contribute.

You certainly can look at that way... givers vs. takers right?

I was drawing a distinction that is also technically correct. Everyone pays in... and most everyone gets some type of services. If you want to reduce it to a strict money calculation... then, yes, many of the "po" experience a net "taking" effect.

One can make an argument that providing the "po" has benefit to the wealthy as well. How? If there was no social safety net, the "po" would have very few options in sustaining their lives. The human spirit is a powerful thing... even in the "po". I don't think I want to live in a country where the have-nots have truly nothing to lose and experience their Lord of the Flies moment. All of this also ignores the moral question as well.

Anyway... how is this relevant to the point of entering into REAL negotiations? Are you saying the Rs simply have nothing they should give up?

The Rs are giving a debt ceiling increase. So what are the Ds going to give?

[oaktonhokie]

Whenever republicans make a deal, it makes me nervous.

We will extend the debt ceiling for a couple weeks in exchange for our warrior king TALKING to us.

The Republicans will screw this up, it's a matter of time.

Really what is the urgency of opening the government? What are we losing, the PR battle...? Anything else?

Leave it closed. All 17% of it that is not open.

We'll survive.

(You know the one ... "unconditional surrender, then we talk".)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10 ... e-meeting/

[awesome guy]

Whenever republicans make a deal, it makes me nervous.

We will extend the debt ceiling for a couple weeks in exchange for our warrior king TALKING to us.

The Republicans will screw this up, it's a matter of time.

Really what is the urgency of opening the government? What are we losing, the PR battle...? Anything else?

Leave it closed. All 17% of it that is not open.

We'll survive.

(You know the one ... "unconditional surrender, then we talk".)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10 ... e-meeting/

Agree. Make Obama do his job and work with Congress instead of acting uppity and like a dictator. They have the high ground, no reason to give that up to an arrogant prick with a 37% approval rating.

[Cam Brady]

to Rainbow Land.

[VoiceOfReason]

The Rs are giving a debt ceiling increase. So what are the Ds going to give?

The debt ceiling increase is NOT a negotiating point. It's not the Ds that want the increase... it is all Americans who want it when the only alternative is defaulting on our debt.

Seriously, I hope the Rs are not thinking this way. If they are, they are coming to the table with nothing and nobody should be surprised if the Ds offer nothing in return. Not a good way to start...

[awesome guy]

The Rs are giving a debt ceiling increase. So what are the Ds going to give?

The debt ceiling increase is NOT a negotiating point. It's not the Ds that want the increase... it is all Americans who want it when the only alternative is defaulting on our debt.

Seriously, I hope the Rs are not thinking this way. If they are, they are coming to the table with nothing and nobody should be surprised if the Ds offer nothing in return. Not a good way to start...

We're immune to DNC nonsense here. Try again with truth, integrity, and reasonableness.

[VoiceOfReason]

The Rs are giving a debt ceiling increase. So what are the Ds going to give?

The debt ceiling increase is NOT a negotiating point. It's not the Ds that want the increase... it is all Americans who want it when the only alternative is defaulting on our debt.

Seriously, I hope the Rs are not thinking this way. If they are, they are coming to the table with nothing and nobody should be surprised if the Ds offer nothing in return. Not a good way to start...

We're immune to DNC nonsense here. Try again with truth, integrity, and reasonableness.

My post was all 3 of those things, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Most of the country sides with me on this... so I will leave you floating in your inner tube still spouting the GOP talking points that most of your leaders are already running away from today.

[awesome guy]

The Rs are giving a debt ceiling increase. So what are the Ds going to give?

The debt ceiling increase is NOT a negotiating point. It's not the Ds that want the increase... it is all Americans who want it when the only alternative is defaulting on our debt.

Seriously, I hope the Rs are not thinking this way. If they are, they are coming to the table with nothing and nobody should be surprised if the Ds offer nothing in return. Not a good way to start...

We're immune to DNC nonsense here. Try again with truth, integrity, and reasonableness.

My post was all 3 of those things, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Most of the country sides with me on this... so I will leave you floating in your inner tube still spouting the GOP talking points that most of your leaders are already running away from today.

None of the above. The nation doesn't agree with you. And even on the train wreck known as Obamacare, 75% want to delay or repeal it. So the DNC will agree to repeal what America doesn't want?

P.S. It's a hawg trough. It floats and scares off the Muslims

[VoiceOfReason]

None of the above. The nation doesn't agree with you. And even on the train wreck known as Obamacare, 75% want to delay or repeal it. So the DNC will agree to repeal what America doesn't want?

P.S. It's a hawg trough. It floats and scares off the Muslims

The nation has rightly held the Rs responsible for shutting down the government. Polls support this. Which is good because the truth supports this too.

The nation would like the Rs to knock off the nonsense now. Polls support this. And the fact that GOP leaders are beginning to scramble supports this too.

The nation likes Social Sec and Medicare/caid. Plenty of polls support this too.

The nation supports the idea of the Ds and Rs negotiating a solution to our debt crisis. And the nation supports the idea that Rs should stop using these stupid little milestones every three months as leverage. Polls support this too.

Why did you change the subject to the ACA? I never mention that in this thread. Polls have shown that the Nation has a more negative view of the ACA than a positive one. That is true. But the SAME polls also show the nation does not favor the repeal of the ACA. Seems contradictory I know. And I have my theories (for another time and place).

The bottom line is... if the ACA is such a disaster as the Rs claim, either the Ds will join you in repealing it or the Nation will send the Ds out on their asses. However, I think the Rs deep down know that the ACA will likely become popular... not because people are stupid... but because people's outcomes will be improved. And the Rs can't stand that thought... they MUST keep Christmas from coming? But how...