Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 Next »
From	Message
dmaestro 02-Dec-12, 13:13	GOP Should Yield On Taxes Based on polls, the GOP must yield on taxing the rich or face public wrath for being responsible going over the cliff. Obama must hold firm, blame the GOP, and make the GOP cave in public or take all the blame for the results. Pelosi must force the GOP House to vote to preserve the tax cuts for the rich, thus humiliating Boehner. This time Obama should be tougher, and seek public surrender by the GOP so there is not doubt in the GOP's mind that elections have consequences and they lost this time. The success of the standard GOP strategy of offering no substantive ideas, only rhetoric, is unlikely if Obama hold firm, but their tactic must be exposed and attacked. Ratchet up the pressure and blame on the GOP...over and over...until they cave in public. If we must go over the cliff because of the GOP we will win in the court of public opinion just as we won the government shutdown battle. =================== Geithner predicts Republicans will yield on taxes By Aruna Viswanatha and Thomas Ferraro WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 2, 2012 (Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pushed Republicans on Sunday to offer specific ideas to cut the deficit, and predicted that they would agree to raise tax rates on the rich to obtain a year-end deal and avoid possible economic doom. But the top U.S. Republican, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner, stood firm and renewed his stand against increased tax rates, leaving talks at a stalemate. "Here's the problem," Boehner told "Fox News Sunday" as both sides took their battle to TV talks shows. "When you go and increase rates, you make it more difficult for our economy to grow," he said. Besides, Boehner said, if Republicans agreed to give President Barack Obama $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue, "He's going to spend it," not reduce the deficit. Geithner, Obama's top negotiator, said in a separate appearance on Fox that Republicans must step up. The treasury secretary said Republicans will be responsible if no deal is reached by the end of the month, triggering the "fiscal cliff," deep automatic spending cuts and across-the-board tax hikes that could plunge the country into a recession. "There's not going to be an agreement without rates heading up," Geithner said on CNN's "State of the Union." With polls showing most Americans favor raising tax rates on the wealthy and cracks starting to appear in what had been a solid wall of Republican opposition to such a move, the Obama administration figures it has the upper hand. But Boehner made it clear that the fight has only begun and he is interested in cutting a deal, not sounding fiscal alarms. "I don't want any part of going over the cliff. I'm going to do everything I can to avert that," Boehner said. He again refused to offer specific deficit reduction proposals, other than to repeat that one option would be to end a number of unspecified tax deductions. "The president has seen a lot of options from us. There are a lot of them on the table and I'm hopeful that the conversation will continue," Boehner said. Boehner also reaffirmed his party's opposition to Congress giving the president sole authority to increase the U.S. debt limit, a power both Democrats and Republicans value. "Silliness. Congress is never going to give up this power," Boehner said, explaining it provides lawmakers needed leverage in dealing with the White House. 'FLABBERGASTED' More talks are expected this week, at least at the staff level. But both sides have said it may be another week or so before negotiations get serious. A likely scenario is a possible short-term fix that would postpone the deadline for the fiscal cliff for six months to a year. Geithner's opening offer last week included raising tax revenues by $1.6 trillion, at least $50 billion in new economic stimulus spending and effectively giving the president the ability to raise the debt limit. Republicans promptly rejected the offer as unacceptable, even laughable. Boehner said he was "flabbergasted" and recalled telling Geithner, "You can't be serious." Also on Sunday, the top House Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, renewed her threat to force a vote on a Senate-passed plan to extend tax cuts for the middle class if Boehner does not schedule a vote "immediately." "The clock is ticking and stalemates are a luxury we cannot afford," she said in a written statement. If Congress does not act, the temporary tax cuts for all taxpayers enacted under former President George W. Bush will expire on December 31. Republicans want to extend those tax cuts for all taxpayers, while President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats want the tax cut extended only for those with incomes under $250,000. Republicans, who control the House but are the minority in the Senate, have expressed a willingness to raise revenues by such steps as limiting tax deductions, but most oppose increasing rates. The combination tax hikes and spending cuts set to take hold early next year would suck about $600 billion out of the economy.
softaire 02-Dec-12, 19:24	DM writes his opinion, which is extraordinary Left hate speech. (I repeat it just to emphasize the hate, vitriol, and lack of concern for the country.) It is not a statement that says let's fix our countries problems... it says "let's embarrass & humiliate those with an opposing view of how to fix the economy. And, let's not worry about fixing the economy... to hell with that. Let's destroy the country in order to further destroy the Republicans". Read again his words: "Based on polls, the GOP must yield on taxing the rich or face public wrath for being responsible going over the cliff. Obama must hold firm, blame the GOP, and make the GOP cave in public or take all the blame for the results. Pelosi must force the GOP House to vote to preserve the tax cuts for the rich, thus humiliating Boehner. This time Obama should be tougher, and seek public surrender by the GOP so there is not doubt in the GOP's mind that elections have consequences and they lost this time. The success of the standard GOP strategy of offering no substantive ideas, only rhetoric, is unlikely if Obama hold firm, but their tactic must be exposed and attacked. Ratchet up the pressure and blame on the GOP...over and over...until they cave in public." I see no redeeming value in a person so degenerate that he would destroy the country in order to embarrass & humiliate the "loyal opposition". But, it is Chicago style politics and we should expect it. As I have said before, America is Dead Man Walking, and this attitude is the reason why.
anomalocaris 02-Dec-12, 19:31	No softy You just wont compromise, you are too far right. Give the dems all they ask for and then you can be center. Resistance if futile. Dm's post (like many others) is disgusting.
chaz- 02-Dec-12, 20:00	... and both Stinky and Softy come up with zero ways to compromise ... just perpetuating the dialogue on this subject. Instead, it appears only cynicism prevails and both are just as far Right as Dm is left. Can't you guys do better?
thumper 02-Dec-12, 20:01	Hey that's just how he rolls. All in for the cause.
thumper 02-Dec-12, 20:06	Looks like Chaz is doing what he can too. Good to those two job guys, I hope they're successful.
anomalocaris 02-Dec-12, 20:08	and chaz just jumps right in with zero ways compromise merely maklng sure softy and I get our credit.
chaz- 02-Dec-12, 20:12	Stinky ... ... I'm looking for ways to compromise ... are you saying you have no suggestions?
anomalocaris 02-Dec-12, 20:15	What would compromise look like? Chaz, how would you compromise with a post like that? A post that says it will be done this way or you must be publicly embarrassed? How do you compromise with political blackmail? If they must go over the fiscal cliff (which we know if bad for American people) so be it. It matters not that the people suffer as long as we blame the republicans for it. After all its about political opportunity at every chance, even if people suffer.
chaz- 02-Dec-12, 20:25	Stinky ... ... again, trying to look at these things from my Centrist pov ... There are a lot of ways to compromise. My list? Leaving room for further negotiation, I would: 1. Increase social security threshold age by one year. Social Security is not in jeopardy, but this would go a long way to stabilizing it for decades to come. 2. Elevate the salary cap for paying Medicare premiums to, say, $200K or $300K. 3. Reduce defense spending by, say 8-12%. 4. Hire some better auditors to curtail fraud, corruption, and misuse within gov't programs; then, hold more of the more conspicuous offenders accountable publicly. 5. Return to the personal taxation levels of the 1990s. Remember how well we all were prospering under these tax codes? No need to jump off the cliff with the lemmings. What is unreasonable about these suggestions? And, do you believe these are loaded toward either the Dems or Reps? Finally, is there no merit from this Centrist pov?
anomalocaris 02-Dec-12, 20:32	chaz That is fine but you are missing the point. You and I cant actually do anything all we can do is discuss it with other posters. How do you suggest I compromise with DM on his desire to embarrass republicans? How do I compromise with a desire to hurt common Americans in order to blame republicans for political gain?
thumper 02-Dec-12, 20:48	Pelosi: Give Obama Power to Personally Lift Debt Limit to Infinity By Terence P. Jeffrey, November 30, 2012 (CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on Friday that Congress should hand over to President Barack Obama the power to unilateral increase the limit on the U.S. government's debt. In effect, under the plan Pelosi is endorsing, the only limit on the national debt would be President Obama's willingness to borrow money in the name of American taxpayers. At a Friday press conference, a reporter asked Pelosi if she agreed with a proposal made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that Congress give Obama the power to unilaterally increase the debt limit. "Yes," she said. The Constitution expressly gives the power to borrow money to Congress--not the president. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 says: "Congress shall have power ... To borrow money on the credit of the United States." When he met with members of Congress on Thursday to discuss a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff that is set to occur at the end of this year, Secretary Geithner suggested that Congress give Obama the personal power as president to lift the legal limit on the federal government's debt. In keeping with its constitutional power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, Congress periodically enacts legislation authorizing the president, through the Treasury, to borrow money up to a certain set limit. Pursuant to a deal negotiated by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in August 2011, Congress enacted legislation increasing the debt limit by $2.4 trillion to a maximum of $16.304 trillion In the 16 months since Congress gave the administration that $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing authority, the Treasury has almost exhausted all of it. As of the close of business Thursday, it had only another $110 billion left.
chaz- 02-Dec-12, 20:57	Stinky ... ... that is a much different question ... an interesting question that is parallel to how one might engage in a compromise-type conversation with you, Softy, or Thumper. And, obviously, I have an easier time discussing issues with Dm than you do ... prob'ly because I don't draw very many swords against him. Though you might say that I agree with Dm all the time, that's not true ... I just don't say he's wrong just because he has a different point to make. Have you ever considered that he may just be copying what he perceives as extremes from the right with just as much extremism from his left pov? There are things we can do, Stinky; and, you and I are doing one of them right now. This question is a "how" question more than it is a "what" question. Regarding your point about what we can do (versus what we can talk about), of course you're correct to point out that you and I have very little clout among those who can make a difference. But that's not our purpose here ... there are many purposes, true ... after all, some just like to clown around, some like to fence or to put someone down, some like to be right 100% of the time, on and on. For me, I try to seek out a variety of opinions, to ask hard questions, to being respectful to those who are respectful to me ... ultimately with the purpose of learning. I do not tell people what they 'should' believe ... I do ask them to consider stuff (as they do me, and I do consider lots of stuff) ... and finally, I'm human and make mistakes (just like in my chessgames). I hope you accept my words with the meanings that were intended.
softaire 02-Dec-12, 21:51	chaz In all that you wrote, I have not seen anything that even remotely resemble saying that DM has said something detrimental to the United States and that he would throw our country over the cliff simply in order to embarrass and humiliate the Republicans. You did not say that his idea was bad, or not the right attitude. Do you not understand the significance of what he wrote? He would throw the country into economic recession simply to embarrass the Republicans. And, you seem to be asking "how can Stinky and Softy compromise"? I'm not speaking for Stinky but if this weren't such a polite forum, I'd tell you how I'll compromise with that. You might want to consider, however, that when someone talks so unpatriotic about the USA, most Americans take offense at it. Americans are for the prosperity and betterment of American citizens, not for the destruction of America for their own benefit, amusement, or pleasure.
dmaestro 03-Dec-12, 06:54	We have won two elections on the principle that the tax cuts on the rich must be changed. We the support of a large majority of Americans. Yet the GOP refuses to let taxes on the rich rise. That is hostage taking. And the GOP should pay the price including eating crow for defying the will of the people. On that issue the GOP must cave. Chaz has excellent suggestions for compromise on other matters.
chaz- 03-Dec-12, 07:22	Softy ... ... I was responding to the question. I am not about to criticize someone's opinion (whether or not I agree with it) just because I was asked to do so or to take sides; but, I did talk about the issue, and I made a suggestion on how I might respond to Dm. Now, what is it that you're trying to do here?
softaire 03-Dec-12, 07:44	chaz Your suggestions were all fine. I might even go further than you there. My complaint is that you say we aren't willing to compromise and offer no suggestions and yet you offer NO complaint against your fellow leftist who will destroy the country in order to gratify himself that Republican or TEA Party people get humiliated. I'm merely pointing out that once again you aren't centrist. I'm also pointing out the selfish, vengeful and destructive nature of dm. (other than that I'm sure he is a fine fellow)
dmaestro 03-Dec-12, 08:39	I am on record as willing to accept the compromises Chaz has proposed. But the tea party has stalled long enough. Elections have consequences. The tea party ranted and raved that taxes would be raised only over their dead body. They have refused to accept the will of the voters even now. They need to learn there are public consequences to irrational extremism. That kind of humiliation is needed.
dmaestro 03-Dec-12, 10:22	There are sourced reports that Obama is willing to go over the cliff on taxes for the rich if necessary. But that is not being unrrasonable. The public wants the rich to pay more, and the GOP and tea party opposes the will of the people. Boehner talks tough with his game of chicken and bluff, but his hand is weak and his party divided. Obama has the upper hand with public support and needs to stay the course and ramp up the pressure even more on the tea party wing until the GOP fractures on behalf of the people. It is the tea party that is unwilling to compromise, not Obama. And the longer they stall the more of the people's anger they will face if we do have to go over the cliff. The GOP mocks Obama as someone that will always cave under pressure. Obama must be firm this time.
dmaestro 03-Dec-12, 12:18	GOP to cave, vote present in protest? It appears from GOP sources that their eventual plan is to vote present so technically they didn't vote for a tax increase on the rich, letting it pass in protest so they don't have to answer to Norquist or the tea party. Who do they think they are fooling?
softaire 03-Dec-12, 12:26	Leadership is the art of bringing people together to solve a common problem. We will go over the cliff because we have no leadership. We have children running the largest economy in the world. The country will be back in recession, with millions of lost jobs and closed companies. Our "leaders" do not have the sense to come in out of the rain, let alone get together and negotiate. But coming together and negotiating would be at the urging of the President, and he doesn't have the courtesy to even suggest it, let alone do it. That is NOT leadership. This President is a complete failure as a leader. But, that is because he has never been a leader or been put in that position before. With a history of voting "Present" on any notable bills that he had the opportunity to vote on, he showed the kind of leader he would become. Just nobody cared to notice.
dmaestro 03-Dec-12, 12:47	Obama has failings. But since the days when the right canned bush 41 for daring to compromise and raise taxes as part of a compromise, the right has shown itself to be like spoiled children, unwilling to compromise. The tea party refuses to accept the will of the people and holds them hostage. Blaming Obama is just what they do. But I am confident the people will blame the tea party for failure to work together, not Obama.
softaire 03-Dec-12, 13:02	dm You have NO idea what the TEA Party or the Republicans are willing to negotiate on because there have been NO negotiations. There is NO bi-partisan meetings going on to discuss and debate. There are only demands that the Republicans surrender and accept whatever BO thinks they should accept. (and you are of the same mind) We have entered the stage of the "Imperial Presidency" and King BO wants it his way, or the highway. He has told the Republicans what he wants, and that's it. He decrees that it be thus, and so it must! His ideas are so laughable that not even one Democrat would vote for his last budget. This will get very interesting as "President Failure" goes off on another vacation and lets the country slip down the tubes. As President he is responsible. It is happening on his watch. He has the power to make things happen. As the pain gets intense and people really begin to suffer and lose jobs, they will be blaming him, not an obscure Tea Party.
chaz- 03-Dec-12, 13:09	Softy ... ... what does my willingness to make suggestions and compromises and my unwillingness to criticize another poster's opinion have to do with anything ... you're trying to force me to do something that I don't wish to do. Is that some sort of tactic. That I do not criticize your opinion on something make me complicit with it? Of course not. I answered Stinky's questions and offered suggestion on topic. You said you agreed with them. Isn't that a point of compromise? Why must you seek such vengeance against Dm? Doesn't that say something about your intentions here?
softaire 03-Dec-12, 13:20	chaz I did say your suggesting were fine. Your point of compromise was not about my main gripe. I said what my gripe is. You can ignore it and continue your left leaning bias... that is your right and privilege. I'll respect that. You should not be pressured into saying, or not saying, anything that you don't want to... that's fine.
chaz- 03-Dec-12, 13:29	... again, you keep saying "left-leaning bias" because I don't openly criticize Dm (as you have done). That is incongruous. That I choose not to openly criticize a comment does not make me supportive of it ... heck, I have chosen not to criticize scores of your comments ... does that make me supportive of them? Consider your logic here, amigo.
dmaestro 03-Dec-12, 13:39	The people voted for a tax increase on the rich. We are simply demanding their will be implemented. That should be a given, not the basis for hostage taking. It is not negotiable, only the level at which rich is defined (the 2%?) Negotiate on the other stuff. We are willing. But you righties have protected the rich from being properly taxed for a decade. Enough is enough!
anomalocaris 03-Dec-12, 18:56	Chaz Sorry but in this particular thread your responses are horrible. I expect things from DM, not you. Then again you redefine the way I see you daily. Sometimes there are not ways to compromise when one poster makes insane statements. I cant fathom how DM can talk down his nose to people and you basically put me in the same category. Chaz you have your opinions and they are what they are, I don't really care about differences of opinions per say, however your refusal to or inability to see how rude DM is actually gets under my skin in the worst way. I don't buy your stance.
chaz- 03-Dec-12, 19:04	Stinky ... ... are you discounting your own previously-made dismissals of my posts ... or perhaps how rude you appear to be sometimes? Or, do you just self-justify these actions as being OK since you made them?
anomalocaris 03-Dec-12, 19:17	Chaz Here's the thing, We all from time to time say things we don't mean or cross the line. Do you not understand the difference in what DM does? Find me a single apology from DM in any post ever! I have seen softy apologize to you many times because thats what normal people do. DM is robotic and unapologetic. I don't know if you fear him or what but he is an a**hole. Things is, I expect him to be that way, hes not real to me almost like a character from a book. The fact you agree (a lot) with the most left person I have ever encountered blows my mind.
Pages:  1 2 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, free online chess games database, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.