Fiscal Cliff

You do realize that when Boehner says 'new tax revenues,' he's talking about supply-side voodoo economics, right?

Obama simply isn't going to agree to a lowering of tax rates in the misbegotten hope that it will raise revenue. The whole this is a pipe dream on Boehner's part, and essentially nothing more than the Ryan tax plan. He's proposing that the Prez agrees to the Ryan tax plan. The odds of that happening are somewhere around zero.

Cycloptichorn

I think I'll wait and see what he's proposing but I agree that the Prez won't agree to the Ryan tax plan. Nor should he.

Yeah, if you take a look at the language he's using, it's the exact same as the language he's been using for the last two years - being 'open to new revenues' doesn't mean he's open to tax increases. Where does he think those 'new revenues' are going to come from??? Some magical revenue fairy??

Cycloptichorn

"We" should all know by now the the Ryan tax plan just doesn't "add up."

I think they're going to come up with something that's close to Simpson-Bowles (as they should have done when it came out).

Will - or should?

Will

I understand why it grew mold when it came out --- any proposal by the President was destined to grow mold. Now it can come out as a proposal and be the basis of the negotiations.

edit: My "should" above references the wasted time and political posturing that resulted in nothing being done on any matter of substance during the past year.

I need to get religion so I could pray for it.

I think that the conservatives are not looking to compromise. Mr Boner is saying the same things he has said since he became speaker.

I prefer to see the fiscal cliff than to give in to the "CONSERVATIVES."

Otherwise, they'll keeping playing games with our country - and a slow death.

Agree. Lets all hold hands as we go over.

Well, while you guys play Thelma and Louise, I'll be advocating for a compromise.

You expect Boner to compromise? LOL

Boehner and Cantor wouldn't even bring themselves to SAY the word 'compromise' for the last two years!!v I have no confidence that they will be able to swallow their pride and pass bills that represent actual compromise.

I fully expect the prez to refuse to negotiate anything serious during the next two months, and wait until he's at his moment of absolute strength - after the tax increases have taken place, and make the GOP fight to get them back one by one. The dems will never have a better chance to achieve decoupling of tax rates than they do right now.... It would be criminal for Obama to simply give up his advantages and pass something weak that will both do no good and piss off his own party.

Cycloptichorn

we'll see if he's the progressive the left has always hope for or the centrist that I've always thought he is.

That's one of the major reasons I didn't care for Obama; he bent when push came to shove. I'm still not sure he has enough backbone to stand by his own rhetoric.

One advantage for us is that he dosent have to run for reelection. But Boner and his ilk do.

Ha!

Those bastard Republicans better recognize that they were creamed on November 6th and fold...err, compromise.

Obama better not give an inch to those bastards. Better to go over the cliff holding hands, that will show the bastards!

And you attempt with straight faces to cast conservatives as ultra-partisan obstructionists.

Obama has zero negotiation skills and zero tolerance for the appearence of losing. This doesn't bode well for a compromise.

The best result in a negotiation is one where you get want you want and the other side thinks it won. To do this you have to have a personal sense of confidence and security that allows you to smile at the Loser telling you that you lost.

Obama can't do this.

What's the goal here?

There are two sets of opposing principles involved here, and a set of decisions that need to be made. The goal is to decide on a way forward that is good for the country and meets the values of Americans.

Negotiation is not the goal, nor is compromise. If the president and congress reach a compromise that is not good for the country or a deal that doesn't meet the values of Americans, then the process failed.

Of course I am not against compromise or negotiation. But it is a mistake to put them above the ultimate goal, which is a government that works for us.

Obama was elected by promising to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in a balanced approach. This what we voted for him to do, and it is he responsibility. If compromise will get him there, then he should compromise. If compromise won't let him keep his promise, than he shouldn't compromise. After all, negotiation and compromise are just two of the many tools available to a leader.

Let's look at the state of the fight (and let's not kid ourselves that it is a fight).

1. Obama was just elected in a campaign that featured raising taxes on the wealthy. People voted for him knowing that this is what he would do. Sixty percent of Americans said they wanted him to do this in exit polls.

2. Disagreements in politics are won by whoever has the support of the voters. This is how democracy is supposed to work, it is how government is held accountable.. When this fight heats up, Obama will make his case to the voters. Of course, Boehner et. al. will also get to address the voters. Obama has the upper hand (as Romney/Ryan proved).

3. Obama has a very nice lever. Republicans in the House will face re-election in two years. Obama won't.

4. The Bush tax cuts will expire by themselves if Congress and the President don't agree. The President will push for middle class tax cuts. The Republicans will try to argue that it is the Presidents fault the middle class taxes when up, but since the president will have a bill on the table that cuts middle class taxes, this will be a very difficult argument to make.

I don't see compromise as some magical, or sacred thing. Obama was elected to represent a set of principles for the good of the country. This is his duty.

Right now, Obama has a lot of tools he can use to fulfill his duty.