quote:

Is this not how "value added" works?

It's no surprise that Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, went out of their way to insult the president, but remarkably Democrats also went forward over the weekend with Capitol Hill debt talks that did not even include a symbolic emissary from the White House.

After a perfunctory meeting with Barack Obama on Saturday -- a session he had hurriedly called to maintain at least the appearance of leverage -- Democrats and Republicans returned to their caves on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for the real talks, without anyone from the White House included.

This served to reinforce Boehner's vow to exclude Obama from the discussions. The internal logic of Washington's byzantine protocol indicates a bipartisan snub of the president.

While the GOP obviously would savor a solution to the debt-ceiling crisis that gives Obama no credit, why are Democratic leaders so willing to cut him out?

The answer might be found in growing concerns among veteran Capitol Hill Democrats that their president is a lousy negotiator.

Although they see him as a talented public communicator, his short time as a senator and painfully slow learning curve as president leads congressional Democrats to think it best to take over and provide cover for him once the deal is done.

The negotiations about raising the debt ceiling remain extremely fluid, and it’s still too early to draw any definitive conclusions at this stage. But just a week away from the August 2 deadline, a few things do seem clear.

The first is the president’s angry and narcissistic press conference on Friday badly damaged the president, even with those, like David Brooks, who have  been sympathetic to Obama’s substantive position.

It’s been clear to some of us for a while that Barack Obama is a man of uncommon self-admiration, quite thin-skinned, and increasingly consumed by his grievances. Obama has masked these traits pretty well so far, but on Friday his mask slipped more than it ever has. And that is bound to hurt him.

Second, Democrats on Capitol Hill are rapidly losing confidence in the president’s competence as a negotiator. Obama’s conduct during the debt ceiling  negotiations – from his flip-flops to his irrelevant deadlines to his backtracking on his agreements with various parties – has been so erratic and uneven that  his own party has decided the best hope of reaching an agreement is to sideline him.

Yesterday there was a tentative agreement among Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senate Minority Leader McConnell on the outline of a bill to increase the debt limit and cut spending.

This tentative agreement would increase the debt limit by about $900 B to $1 T, enough to make it into the first quarter of next year, packaged with a bit more than $1 trillion of spending cuts, discretionary caps, and no tax increases. There would be a second debt limit extension next year that would go into 2013, upon action of a joint committee of Congress that would make recommendations for further deficit reduction.

While this is inconsistent with the President’s Election Day demand, a debt limit increase that lasted into next year would be routine based on historic practice.

Senate Majority Leader Reid took this to the White House yesterday and the President rejected it. Leader Reid left that meeting and said publicly that Senate Democrats would instead pursue a different plan that would increase the debt limit by $2.7 trillion, enough to get into 2013. Leader Reid says his plan would cut spending by at least $2.7 trillion (I am skeptical).

It appears the three key Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle reached a tentative agreement yesterday and the President blew it up.

The President and his advisors have said two things that are consistent but separable:

  1. the President opposes an extension that would not go past Election Day; and
  2. such an extension could not pass the Senate because of Democratic opposition.

Assuming that Leader Reid did not bring to the President yesterday a proposal that he opposed, the second no longer appears to be true.

Administration officials from the President on down continue to warn us of the grave consequences if Congress does not act before an August 2nd deadline. Last week the President increased his demands of Speaker Boehner on taxes, knowing that doing so would cause negotiations on a big deal to collapse. Yesterday the three key Congressional leaders tried to act on a bipartisan basis and the President stopped them.

quote:

The Democrats have spent the last 25 years getting all those below 40K a year (don't sue me....I know some of you earning that much pay something....but most of you don't...and with credits....you get money back) to pay nothing...or near it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

quote:

The Democrats have spent the last 25 years getting all those below 40K a year (don't sue me....I know some of you earning that much pay something....but most of you don't...and with credits....you get money back) to pay nothing...or near it.

Funny, I don't currently make anywhere near 40K a year and I sure as hell pay income tax, both federal and state.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

...

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Someone tell me how anyone lives and purchases in these United States of America without paying taxes.Even those who pay no income tax(due to not earning all that much) contribute on multiple levels...and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

quote:

I guess you just don't qualify.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well you sort of indirectly indicated it when you cited statistics for Federal income taxes....and bitching about those whose income qualifies them for a "payment" from the Fed...while not mentioning corps like GE receiving tax rebates is...as I said in an earlier post disingenuous at best......downright dishonest at worst.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

quote:

I guess you just don't qualify.

No, I don't. I'm single, didn't want sprogs, and don't own property. I make too much for the low income credits and not enough to have the things that give deductions. Before the economy went to shit, I was making nearly double what I am now but still didn't have the magic deductions, so I paid through the nose then.

That said, I posted in response to Lookie's assertion that practically no one making under $40,000 per year pays income tax. While that may be true if they are married and/ or have kids; single, childless people who rent pay income tax even when they make much less. A friend of mine made a bit better than $15,000 last year and still paid income tax for both federal and state.

It simply annoys me when some here (I am not referring to you) imply that everyone not making a middle-middle class or better income is getting a handout or not paying taxes. There are a whole lot of people who are in circumstances similar to mine, and I bet a large number of them do pay income tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well you sort of indirectly indicated it when you cited statistics for Federal income taxes....and bitching about those whose income qualifies them for a "payment" from the Fed...while not mentioning corps like GE receiving tax rebates is...as I said in an earlier post disingenuous at best......downright dishonest at worst.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Firm we all bring our biases to these discussions...even you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

and yes it is disengenuous to suggest that those who don't pay Federal Income Taxes are getting a free ride.Perhaps you have heard...there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.