Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Republican Negotiation Does Not Include Compromise (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Republican Negotiation Does Not Include Compromise
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Senator Jon Kyl said on Meet the Press
quote:
And I think it tells you a lot, and that is that in Washington, there's a group of folks that will not cut a dollar unless we also raise taxes.
I think a fair paraphrase is that Republicans expect Democrats to cut spending even if there are no tax increases. That means Republicans will negotiate, as long as it does not involve compromise on their part.

Can you draw any other conclusion from the text?

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read him as saying that Republicans are willing (on paper) to eliminate some itemized deductions. They don't add up to much, so it's not plausible to say that he is willing to raise revenue (aka taxes) in any meaningful way. More interesting to me is that almost all of his answers are attacks on Democrats. If you read on you see that Kerry rebutted a lot of that. He basically called Kyl a liar.

But it doesn't matter. The supercommittee will fail spectacularly and Congress's rating will drop to about where the prime rate is. Everyone will attack each other and the Republican candidates will claim that it is all Obama's fault. They'll weasel out of the mandatory cuts, too. This is where Obama can actually do something by stepping in and forcing them to live up to the bargain or give them the option of trying again.

It's a clown act, and not very funny.

Posts: 7520 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I watched Meet The Press yesterday. Both Senators Kyl and Kerry were in partisan mode. (read pre-election mode).

And Kerry also basically called the host Gregory a liar or at least his sources.

quote:

MR. GREGORY: Senator, my reporting tells me that, in fact, Republicans offered Democrats to means test Social Security and Medicare as part of this discussion that would actually hit the rich, and Democrats said, "We don't want to do that."

SEN. KERRY: Not true. Not true. We accepted.


Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meanwhile in the congressional meeting…
Hey everyone throw in five bucks and we’ll order a pizza for lunch.
No way! I’d rather keep my money and buy lunch myself?
But unless we all chip in we can’t leverage our money and get more value to get a decent meal. You can’t get near as much to eat with your five bucks if you don’t throw in with us!
Umm, I make tons of cash and I planned on spending more than five bucks. So do you idiots...
We didn’t wana eat with you anyway. [Razz]

Posts: 3462 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

Do you have another conclusion from the text?

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or to put it more clearly, you should consider that there is an equally plausible conclusion from the text.
Posts: 3695 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, you guys are delightful. [Cool]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And Kerry also basically called the host Gregory a liar or at least his sources.
Given the nature of the assertion that he was citing, it not at all surprising that his source was lying.

At least the Democrats can than Republican obstinacy for saving them from selling out completely, since means testing is completely irrelevant as anything but an attempt to undercut middle class income.

The pointer to the real answer on not just Medicare and Social Security, but all programs lies right in the Trustee's report for SS and Medicaid:
quote:
Part B of Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays for doctors' bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future <b>because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year's expected costs.</b>
Eliminate the nonsense about means testing and instead put all programs on the same indefinite basis, based on what's needed to provide adequate income and services, and eliminate all of the meaningless posturing around the issue.
Posts: 10157 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And then there is this:

Toomey: Dems Rejected Compromise, Demanded $1 Trillion Tax Hike

quote:

On November 7, Republican senator Pat Toomey proposed a compromise on taxes to members of the supercommittee tasked with cutting the deficit. “There was a moment there, a 24-hour period, when several Democrats expressed a great deal of interest in the framework I laid out,” Toomey tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Dick Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, called Toomey's proposal a "breakthrough."

As part of a broader plan to rein in entitlement spending and reform the tax code, Toomey had offered to raise tax revenues $250 billion over 10 years. “What I said was, we should set a goal of getting all the tax rates lower by 20 percent--across the board... And then let’s find the combination of deductions that we would diminish, and exclusions that we would treat as taxable income," Toomey recalls. "I was willing to accept that the $250 billion ... revenue increase would come from the top two [tax] brackets, which was another huge concession to the Democrats. That by definition makes the tax code more progressive."

The $250 billion in higher taxes really was no small concession for Toomey, the conservative stalwart who had chased liberal Republican Arlen Specter from the GOP. Toomey says some fellow Republicans were "genuinely concerned" about his plan. And anti-tax activist Grover Norquist called Toomey's plan "poison." Toomey acknowledges it's a plan he wouldn't propose as a free-standing measure. But he thought it was worth it to get lower, pro-growth tax rates and entitlement reform.

In the end, Toomey didn't have to worry about allaying the concerns of some conservative Republicans. Democrats squelched the plan, saying the $250 billion in higher taxes wasn't enough. Although "several of our Democratic colleagues had repeatedly spoken about the virtues of tax simplification and tax reform," Toomey says, "they couldn’t budge from the idea of a trillion dollar tax increase." The Democrats also “never once throughout the entire process were willing to propose or accept our proposals about any type of structural reforms to the big health care entitlement programs,” according to Toomey.
...

“We thought we were making real progress," Toomey says. "Then the [Democratic] committee members, I think, checked in with some of their Senate colleagues and really allowed themselves to be swayed by the left-wing of their caucus. They backed off, retreated, from the progress we made that night. And from that moment on, it never felt like we were close.”
...

Toomey thinks that the White House wasn't interested in the supercommittee succeeding. “Had we been successful, it would have totally stepped on the president's campaign theme--the only campaign theme he has," Toomey says. "He certainly can’t run on his own job performance. He’s trying to run against a do-nothing Congress."

TWS
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As part of a broader plan to rein in entitlement spending and reform the tax code, Toomey had offered to raise tax revenues $250 billion over 10 years. “What I said was, we should set a goal of getting all the tax rates lower by 20 percent--across the board... And then let’s find the combination of deductions that we would diminish, and exclusions that we would treat as taxable income," Toomey recalls. "I was willing to accept that the $250 billion ... revenue increase would come from the top two [tax] brackets, which was another huge concession to the Democrats. That by definition makes the tax code more progressive."
You realize that this is a Trojan horse, right? That what he's proposed is a tax reduction with the hypothetical promise of reduced deductions? His theoretical $250 billion is hardly much of an olive branch. The dude led off with a 20% across-the-board reduction in the tax rate. That's like telling someone, "Okay, let's start this fight by cutting off your knees. But if you insist, I'll try to refrain from kicking you, so that'll be fair."

[ November 22, 2011, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 21374 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the deficit over $1 trillion per year, offering to increase taxes by $25 billion per year seems a bit paltry. It's telling that Republicans consider this a major concession.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, I suspect that most of the Republicans don't. They are attempting to spin it that way, however, because it better fits their narrative. I'm sure Toomey personally thinks any tax "increase" -- following a 20% rate reduction -- is a bad thing, though.
Posts: 21374 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
As part of a broader plan to rein in entitlement spending and reform the tax code, Toomey had offered to raise tax revenues $250 billion over 10 years. “What I said was, we should set a goal of getting all the tax rates lower by 20 percent--across the board... And then let’s find the combination of deductions that we would diminish, and exclusions that we would treat as taxable income," Toomey recalls. "I was willing to accept that the $250 billion ... revenue increase would come from the top two [tax] brackets, which was another huge concession to the Democrats. That by definition makes the tax code more progressive."
You realize that this is a Trojan horse, right? That what he's proposed is a tax reduction with the hypothetical promise of reduced deductions? His theoretical $250 billion is hardly much of an olive branch. The dude led off with a 20% across-the-board reduction in the tax rate. That's like telling someone, "Okay, let's start this fight by cutting off your knees. But if you insist, I'll try to refrain from kicking you, so that'll be fair."
No you misinterpreted it. Read it again. He's saying reduce the rates, then eliminate deductions and that he's ok if the net result is $250 billion in increased revenues. For revenues to increase the eliminated deductions have to be worth $250 billion more than the drop in marginal rates reduces taxes. Furthermore, he's willing to give into the Left's sacred cow and shift the tax burden towards the wealthy.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
William Cohen (R) blames Republicans for supercommitte failure.

NYTimes OpEd

quote:
Republicans needed to go much farther to avert the possibility of disastrous cuts to our military strength. Their failure to do so is directly responsible for Monday’s failure of the “supercommittee,” created by Congress as part of the debt-limit deal.
As far as Toomey, he thinks the Democrats " checked in with some of their Senate colleagues and really allowed themselves to be swayed by the left-wing of their caucus.

He can think whatever he wants. More likely the Democrats looked at the potential $25B a year revenue increase, compared to an annual $100B spending cut, on top of the $100B annual cut agreed to earlier, and realized it was nowhere near the balanced approach that 70% of Americans want Or maybe it was because of
quote:
an analysis of Toomey's plan from the U.S. Congress's Joint Tax Committee which they say rendered the proposal unacceptable, because it would have represented "the largest percentage tax cuts for multimillionaires since Calvin Coolidge was president," in the early 1920s.
What was that big event that happened in the late 20's again?

JWatts,

I am now assuming you are unable to come up with an alternative conclusion from Kyl's quote.

As far as sacred cows, do you think the tax burden should be shifted away from the wealthy right now?

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It depends on what you consider to be the baseline for cutting the deficit going forward. Toomey's plan uses extending all of the Bush tax cuts as a baseline. That amounts to a 3.7 trillion dollar tax decrease over 10 years as the baseline for his plan. Then he cuts the rates further but gives back the lost revenue + 250 billion with eliminating deductions. The plan results in a net 3.45 trillion tax decrease over 10 years. The rich do better under Toomey's plan than they would if Congress does nothing (i.e. let the Bush tax cuts expire). So it is a bit of a stretch to say he is significantly shifting the burden onto the wealthy.

To be fair Democrats support keeping the Bush tax cuts for all incomes under 250k so the gap isn't as large as it seems. The cost of extending those taxes is 3 trillion. The difference in the perspective on extending the Bush era tax cuts is basically the difference on tax revenues in the final proposals ~700 billion in tax revenue.

Posts: 1004 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,

I am now assuming you are unable to come up with an alternative conclusion from Kyl's quote.

Wow, what a logic fail there.

First your conclusion from Kyl's quote:

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
I think a fair paraphrase is that Republicans expect Democrats to cut spending even if there are no tax increases. That means Republicans will negotiate, as long as it does not involve compromise on their part.

Then above:

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
He can think whatever he wants. More likely the Democrats looked at the potential $25B a year revenue increase, compared to an annual $100B spending cut, on top of the $100B annual cut agreed to earlier, and realized it was nowhere near the balanced approach that 70% of Americans want

See first you state that Republican's refused to consider any tax increases nor any compromise.

Then you say that the Democrats didn't think the Republican compromise tax increase wasn't enough of a tax increase.

Do you not see that your own comments are in conflict? It's perfectly fair to say that the Republicans weren't willing to go far enough in Tax increases. However, it's ridiculous to claim they weren't willing to consider a tax increase when they obviously did.

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
As far as sacred cows, do you think the tax burden should be shifted away from the wealthy right now?

No, as I've stated many times, I'm in favor of repealing the Bush Era tax cuts.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cutting rates and eliminating deductions does move more of the tax burden towards the "wealthy". Although it really shifts more of the burden onto upper middle class families who benefit the most from the mortgage interest deduction, deductions from charitable gifts, and family expense (i.e. child care) related deductions. The burden would shift away from the ultra rich who earn millions a year. It's fair to argue the upper middle class families should pay more but there is no reason to shift the burden from the poor and the ultra rich onto the upper middle class. Toomey's proposal would exacerbate the income inequality between the 99% and the 1% (particularly the 0.1%).
Posts: 1004 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts said:
quote:
It's perfectly fair to say that the Republicans weren't willing to go far enough in Tax increases. However, it's ridiculous to claim they weren't willing to consider a tax increase when they obviously did.
Well, one Republican claims he was willing to as part of the great blame game. Almost all Republicans in Congress and all the Republican candidates for president have clearly, explicitly, unequivocally said that increasing taxes by any amount is unacceptable. You want us to believe that claim is just for show, and that they're actually a reasonable group of guys who are perfectly willing to compromise. I'll believe it when I see it.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
Almost all Republicans in Congress and all the Republican candidates for president have clearly, explicitly, unequivocally said that increasing taxes by any amount is unacceptable. You want us to believe that claim is just for show, and that they're actually a reasonable group of guys who are perfectly willing to compromise. I'll believe it when I see it.

That's fair enough. Actions always speak louder than words.

[ November 22, 2011, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

I asked a question, twice. You didn't answer. (Still haven't).

My conclusion: you have no answer.

No logic fail there.

Toomey proposed a miniscule removal of deductions, on top of two huge rate decreases (Bush's and his own) and you call that a tax increase. For sake of argument, let's say Toomey actually proposed a tax increase. Kyl didn't. Every other Republican in the Committee didn't. 33 Republican Senators wrote a letter forbidding it. In the House, the Republican Study Committee circulated a letter insisting that “repeal of any tax credit or deduction must be offset with an equal or greater tax credit.” But all of this is tangential.

Kyl blamed Democrats because they would not give a concession (certain spending cuts) without a corresponding concession from Republicans (tax increases). First of all, that statement is independent of whether Republicans made a concession. It only says if-then, so Toomey is irrelevant for that reason. But more important, if Toomey had made an credible tax increase proposal, Kyl would never have made his statement. He would have said "we offered tax increases, and Democrats did not offer any spending cuts". His statement strongly implies no real tax increases were offered.

I will lay out my logic again: I asked you for an alternative conclusion given Kyl's statement. If you do not answer, I will assume you have no answer.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro, I've mentioned this before, but apparently you weren't paying attention. You don't get to dictate what I do.

If you post in a civil manner with logical points I will gladly respond, as I have many times in the past to many different posters. But your belligerent badgering is not something I'm ever going to feel the need to respond to. Posting statements like, 'If you do not answer, I will assume you have no answer.' shows an immature attitude.

Furthermore, I generally never respond to posts like: 'Can you draw any other conclusion from the text?'.

It's much to vague and open ended for me to care one wit about. Make your point, if I disagree I'll say so. But I have no obligation to get drawn into a specific line of thought. And I refuse to let someone else goad me into specific responses.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't dictate what you do. I draw conclusions from facts. I asked a question, and gave you opportunity to answer it. When you did not even acknowledge the question, I drew the conclusion that you had no answer. It is not an immature attitude. It is a rational conclusion based on reasoning and experience.

If you somehow find that to be offensive, that is not my problem. If you think that by my asking a question, I am dictating to you, that is not my problem. If you think asking a simple question is goading you into specific responses, that is not my problem. Other than repeating a relevant question that you refuse to even acknowledge, I do nothing even approaching belligerent badgering. Now if I were to repeatedly accuse you of falsifying a source despited incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, and refusing to acknowledge my error, that would be belligerent badgering, comma.

I made my point, several times, "but apparently you weren't paying attention. " Here's my point, again.

Kyl's statement indicates that he expects Democrats to make concessions, but Republicans don't need to.

There, I made my point. If you disagree, you'll say so, hopefully using some sort of valid reasoning or sourced quotations. Hopefully you will address the actual quote instead of using weak examples of one other Republican indicating a possibility of making a concession that is more than cancelled out by other demands. Just to be clear, these are hopes, not something I am dictating.

I think it is evident that in order for you to have a meaningful opposing viewpoint, you will have to have a meaningful alternate interpretation of Kyl's statement. Which is exactly the question I asked.

And JWatts, if you don't answer, I, and most readers will assume, quite confidently, and despite your protestations, that you don't have an answer.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro, your original post contains a basic logical fallacy. I've already pointed that out, but apparently you didn't understand the implications of what I wrote.

To state it again more clearly, you make the Generalized conclusion that:

a) Republican Negotiation Does Not Include Compromise
B) You assume that a Compromise must include tax increases.
B) You then point to Senator Kyle's one statement against tax increases as proof.

This is a classic 'Hasty generalization' as well as a faulty assumption.

I then pointed out that Republican senator Pat Toomey proposed a plan involving tax increases, so even given the assumption your hypothesis is proven wrong. You took one Republican's statement and concluded it applied to all Republicans. The statement by Toomey clearly indicates at least 1 Republican on the committee offered a tax increase as part of a potential deal.

There is a clear example of a Republican placing modest tax increases on the table.

"Kyl's statement indicates that he expects Democrats to make concessions, but Republicans don't need to."

That is a horrid misstatement of position. It is a Democratic meme that any kind of compromise must include tax increases. That is simply not the case unless Democrats insist on tax increases as part of any compromise. If Democrats insist on tax increases and Republicans insist on no tax increases, that creates an impasse, but it is not a case of Republicans refusing to make any concessions. Clearly the Super Committee could have met it's $1.2T in deficit reduction by spending cuts alone. In that case, both sides would have decided on what to cut and there would have probably been some Defense cutting (a Republican concession) and some Entitlement cutting (a Democratic concession).

Tax increases are not a fundamental requirement of the process, merely a Democratic desire. It is a Republican desire to not increase taxes. It is patently untrue to claim that because Republicans have largely refused to agree to tax increases, that they then therefore are not willing to make any concessions.

[ November 23, 2011, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pat Toomey proposed a plan involving tax increases
Only in the sense that Reagan later "increased taxes," of course. Promising to someday implement some reduced deductions is not the same thing as actually proposing an increased tax rate, especially not when it's part of a proposal that immediately cuts the actual tax rate.

quote:
Clearly the Super Committee could have met it's $1.2T in deficit reduction by spending cuts alone
And fundamentally damaged the country. Do you grant this? If not, are you willing to briefly entertain some basic lessons in economics?
Posts: 21374 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice explanation JWatts. While I can’t disagree more on the Republican position against any tax increases, it helped explain how they can legitimately claim willingness to compromise while refusing to budge on the tax issue.

I think the only problem with that viewpoint is a lot of items the Republicans are willing to make concessions on, aren’t necessarily things the Democrats passionately want to see cut. They just know the Republicans want to see those items cut even less than they do.

Posts: 3462 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did not assume Republican negotiation does not include compromise, I concluded that directly from Kyl's statement. Toomey's actions are irrelevant.

Compromise is each side making concessions. Concessions are something the other side wants you to grant, that you don't want to grant.
If you grant something that the other side doesn't really want, it is not a concession, and you can not legitimately claim you are compromising. You are grandstanding.

D.W.,
Lets say my wife and I are negotiating on what car to buy together. I want to keep the Saturn we have, but she wants a new red Ferrari. Is she compromising if she agrees to buy a yellow Ferrari? She can claim she gave up something, but not anything I want, and certainly nothing substantial.

The Democrats said "We will cut spending (what you want) if you raise taxes (what we want)"
Kyl said "We expect you to give us some of what we want, but we will not give you anything of what you want"

One more thing about Kyl's statement. It ignores the $1Trillion dollar spending cuts Democrats already agreed to as part of the debt ceiling negotiation.

JWatts,
I will turn your argument around. Spending cuts are not a fundamental requirement of the process, merely a Republican desire. If both sides could just agree on which taxes to raise, the problem would be solved. This is just as correct as your statement.

On a personal note, I would like to apologize to JWatts. To a certain personality type, in a certain state of mind, my single request to him specifically for an answer could be seen as goading.

However, I think that my initial post provides strong evidence that Republicans in general, and Kyl in particular, will not compromise (i.e. give the other side something they actually want) while expecting Democrats to compromise. If JWatts does not address that specific quote but dances around it or ignores it, I certainly have the right to point out that lack of response, and consider that deficiency as evidence of the weakness of any counterargument. Any such observation should not be deemed offensive.

So I will point out that neither JWatts or anyone else has addressed the initial post asking for an alternative interpretation. Regardless of who claimed to concede what, Kyl's statement says he expects that Democrats should compromise (concede what Republicans actually want) without a Republican compromise (concession of what Democrats actually want.)

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,
I will turn your argument around. Spending cuts are not a fundamental requirement of the process, merely a Republican desire. If both sides could just agree on which taxes to raise, the problem would be solved. This is just as correct as your statement.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. You'll also notice that I'm not accusing the Democrats of refusing to compromise. Nor would I if that were their stance.

I would argue that is was the wrong stance, but I would not claim that their stance was the same as a refusal to compromise under any circumstances. It's just refusing to compromise under the circumstances I would prefer.

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
On a personal note, I would like to apologize to JWatts. To a certain personality type, in a certain state of mind, my single request to him specifically for an answer could be seen as goading.

It was not a single request.

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,
I asked a question, twice. You didn't answer. (Still haven't).

that being said. Thank you, apology accepted.

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
However, I think that my initial post provides strong evidence that Republicans in general, and Kyl in particular, will not compromise (i.e. give the other side something they actually want) while expecting Democrats to compromise. If JWatts does not address that specific quote but dances around it or ignores it, I certainly have the right to point out that lack of response, and consider that deficiency as evidence of the weakness of any counterargument. Any such observation should not be deemed offensive.

Velcro, I have specifically addressed his comment above. You keep insisting that a 'compromise position' must include tax increases. That's your opinion. It's a widely held Democratic opinion. That doesn't make it a fact.

Kyl merely stated that some Democrats were refusing to consider any deficit reduction, no matter how small, unless it included tax increases. There is nothing exceptional about the statement. It's pretty much a statement of fact.

If the Democrats refuse to reduce the deficit by cutting Federal spending are they not then, in your own words refusing to "give the other side something they actually want"?

[ November 23, 2011, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the Democrats refuse to reduce the deficit by cutting Federal spending are they not then, in your own words refusing to "give the other side something they actually want"?

Except that they've shown themselves more than willing to support spending cuts, never mind, up front, offering the huge concession of even talking about the deficit at all when unemployment, private debt, and inadequate economic growth are the real problems that should be on the table. Republicans should be offering concessions just to get their manufactured issue of the deficit on the agenda in the first place.

[ November 23, 2011, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 10157 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts wrote
quote:
Kyl merely stated that some Democrats were refusing to consider any deficit reduction, no matter how small, unless it included tax increases.
If you substitute "spending cuts" for "deficit reduction", it is accurate. But given the $1Trillion in spending cuts Democrats have already approved, this is closer to the truth.

Those Democrats, they refuse to give us more of what we want unless we start to give them something they want! What nerve!

Feel free to point out the inaccuracy of that paraphrasing.

Again, by definition, compromise is granting the other side something they want, not just something you are willing to give up. Democrats, as a party, want tax increases. Republicans, as a party, refuse to grant them. Therefore, Republicans, as a party, are not compromising. Democrats already have.


JWatts,

Thank you for accepting my apology. For the record, I asked twice, but only made a single request to you specifically, in the fifth post. The first time I asked was to the general audience in the original post.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe if they yell at each other some more one side will admit how wrong they are and capitulate. It didn't work the last 100 times, but maybe the 101st time will be the charm.

Seriously, these assclowns need to be locked in a dungeon and waterboarded until they compromise.

Posts: 7190 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those on the right with sincere, deep and unshakable philosophical beliefs are the front line troops sent by the generals whose objective is to win the War To Free The Economy. It's an odd war that strategically requires the country to be destroyed in order to save it and will be won when the collateral damage votes to give the Generals greater power in praise of their efforts. The Constitution separates church and state, but not economy and state.

[ November 25, 2011, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 7520 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seriously, these assclowns need to be locked in a dungeon and waterboarded until they compromise.
One side has compromised, the other side hasn't. I assume you are talking about waterboarding only the side that will not offer any concessions.
Posts: 2015 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I’m right there with you Velcro. I agree with your opinion that the Republicans are uncompromising on the issue of revenue increase through additional taxes.

I was only thanking JWatts for his explanation of a Republican viewpoint that compromise was not only possible but permissible in budgetary concerns while still drawing that line in the sand. I, and it seems yourself, agree that unwillingness to compromise on that issue is functionally the same as being uncompromising in general.

If you can’t figure out how the other side rationalizes their actions and positions compromise IS impossible.

Posts: 3462 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW said
quote:
unwillingness to compromise on that issue is functionally the same as being uncompromising in general
Yes, I agree. Giving someone something they don't really want and expecting something you really want is not compromise.

I think I was pushing back on your statement that Republicans "can legitimately claim willingness to compromise while refusing to budge on the tax issue." They can claim it is compromise, but it is not a legitimate claim.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One side has compromised, the other side hasn't. I assume you are talking about waterboarding only the side that will not offer any concessions.
Sure, whatever. [LOL]
Posts: 7190 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Democrats have offered a trillion dollars of spending cuts that republicans want. Where have republicans offered something democrats want? Specifics, please.

[ November 25, 2011, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2015 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here are the current proposals:

1) The $4 trillion, 10-year plan offered by President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Simpson-Bowles committee. Proposed in December 2010, it failed to get the 14-vote super majority to get to a vote in Congress.

2) A $6 trillion, 10-year plan plan proposed by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan passed the House in mid-April but it stopped dead in the Senate after Democrats complained it cut too much from Medicare.

3) The "Gang of Six" group of senators proposed nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. That fell apart in July after it received criticism for not doing enough to cut entitlement growth while proposing too much in tax hikes.

4) Panel Republicans offered a program dubbed the Toomey plan that backers said raised plenty of revenue without raising tax rates.

5) Senate Democrats countered that their plan exceeded entitlement savings proposed by the president's Simpson-Bowles committee and increased taxes by $1 trillion over 10 years, similar to the gang's hikes.


FoxNews

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,

Thank you for accepting my apology. For the record, I asked twice, but only made a single request to you specifically, in the fifth post. The first time I asked was to the general audience in the original post.

No, that's still an incorrect statement. You repeatedly asked me directly or alluded to me not addressing the original topic post.

First post (not directed to anyone in particular):
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Can you draw any other conclusion from the text?

First time addressed specifically to me:
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,

Do you have another conclusion from the text?

Second time specifically to me:
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,

I am now assuming you are unable to come up with an alternative conclusion from Kyl's quote.

Third time specifically to me:
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
JWatts,

I asked a question, twice. You didn't answer. (Still haven't).

My conclusion: you have no answer.

I suppose one could pedantically insist the last two weren't actual questions, but they were clearly statements meant to goad me into a response.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One could truthfully say that I asked a general question, asked you specifically once, and then observed the lack of an answer. The final observation was in response to your "Wow, what a logic fail there" comment, which was far more goading than anything I have said.

Can we get back to the actual discussion? I hate getting distracted when a pertinent question is raised, but never addressed. Where were we? Oh, yes...

Those Democrats, they refuse to give us more of what we want unless we start to give them something they want! What nerve!

Ignore whether or not the Republicans actually gave Democrats something they want (They didn't). The sentiment is the same regardless.

Feel free to point out the inaccuracy of that paraphrasing.

Posts: 1989 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no need to paraphrase. We have his actual words that everyone can read and interpret for themselves.

Senator Kyle
quote:
And I think it tells you a lot, and that is that in Washington, there's a group of folks that will not cut a dollar unless we also raise taxes.
Kyl stated that some Democrats were refusing to consider any deficit reduction, no matter how small, unless it included tax increases. It is hardly unusual for a Senator to go on TV and complain about the demands of the other side.

The conclusion you draw from the quote:

"That means Republicans will negotiate, as long as it does not involve compromise on their part." is speculative at best. As I've already stated before; You assume that a Compromise must include tax increases. That's a partisan assumption, not an immutable fact of life. To say that a deficit bill that only included cuts is not an actual compromise, even though it included cuts that both sides found painful, is an opinion not a fact.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1