Election 2012- Post Mortem

[The Evil Genius]

As an aside, continuing resolutions do work pretty well, absent a true budget.

[mikered30]

One more thing:

I didn't hear this from anyone...just my thought. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a government shutdown in this environment. The debt ceiling, whenever hit, would be the trigger. It really seemed to me at least from yesterdays talks that R's will make Obama put his plans out there. No more implications about the right's positions behind closed doors. If O really wants to reform taxes, or Medicare, or pass a budget or whatever, he'll have to lead with real ideas on paper for the public to see. This was implied, but not stated.

It was a depressing day. I really hope this is day-after-the-election stuff, but I was expecting hopeful feedback and all I got was pessimism. At least I wasn't talking to members of Congress or leaders in the executive branch. It was just plugged-in consultants, so take this for what it's worth.

We run out of money next month while the new Congress is not in session. Note the use of "certain extraordinary measures". 15 months ago the debt celing was raised 2.4 trillion.

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center...es/tg1753.aspx

[Ellis]

Victory Dinner last night at my house...


Question 6 passed.
My wife voted for Obama. I voted for Jill Stein.

[Btubes18]

So, your first question is "How can you say insurance rates would have risen without Obama?"

(I will observe that the obvious answer is "100 years of history?")

And your second is "Insurance rates always go up"?

Is it really necessary for me to point out that you've answered your own question?[COLOR="Gold"]

No, my first question was, "How do you know that insurance rates would have risen MORE without Obamacare?"

My second point, was to his statement saying "Obamacare is just making them rise more slowly, and hopefully they will stop rising".

Is it really necessary for you to reiterate what I did not say?

[JimboDaMan]

One more thing:

I didn't hear this from anyone...just my thought. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a government shutdown in this environment. The debt ceiling, whenever hit, would be the trigger. It really seemed to me at least from yesterdays talks that R's will make Obama put his plans out there. No more implications about the right's positions behind closed doors. If O really wants to reform taxes, or Medicare, or pass a budget or whatever, he'll have to lead with real ideas on paper for the public to see. This was implied, but not stated.

It was a depressing day. I really hope this is day-after-the-election stuff, but I was expecting hopeful feedback and all I got was pessimism. At least I wasn't talking to members of Congress or leaders in the executive branch. It was just plugged-in consultants, so take this for what it's worth.

WD, in the aggregate what I get from these posts is an angry, frustrated refusal to deal on the part of Republicans. Controlling only the House, they might not have the strength to force what they want onto the Democrats, but instead can make damn sure to inflict the maximum political damage on them. Not to mention significant economic damage to the country in the hopes the country will view this as Obama's fault.

I, like you, expect the President to lead on the impending fiscal issues. He needs to work with his guys in Congress and come up with a plan. But I expect the Republicans to work with him, including swallowing the bitter pill that they lost and that the proper response is not to simply dig in even more determinedly.

[Predicto]

Rather than spending, Medicare or tax deals, the R's would just let the sequester go through. According to hill staff, they see no incentive to help because they think they'll be blamed as obstructionists and radicals no matter what happens. Unless Obama really comes to the table and makes major concessions, they'll just let him own the sequestration, tax hikes and health reform failures.

So, what you are saying is that the GOP will refuse to cooperate at all, and that somehow will make Obama the one who will politically "own" the mess that will result.

[Jumbo]

I see no early indications of any change in tone or inclinations, either in the forum or on the national scene. The right/left/libertarian partisans (whether they deny or claim such labels) simply dig in and prepare to justify and do the same ole same old. Nonetheless, I have hope that some things and some people will actually will start to be adjusted for the better, even if ugly and grudgingly enough.

[Corcaigh]

4. R's have almost no incentive to make other deals with Obama on his terms. The word I'm getting is the atmosphere on the Hill is absolutely poisonous right now. Rather than spending, Medicare or tax deals, the R's would just let the sequester go through. According to hill staff, they see no incentive to help because they think they'll be blamed as obstructionists and radicals no matter what happens. Unless Obama really comes to the table and makes major concessions, they'll just let him own the sequestration, tax hikes and health reform failures.

I think this PoV is from before the election.

Now with Obama being around for another 4 years and the GoP very likely leading Congress for that time there's more political risk in not getting something done. There's significant evidence that voters blamed Congress as much as Obama for the poor recovery, and some GoP figures have acknowledged that. Sequestration will make arbitrary across-the-board cuts to defense spending. The GoP do not want that and have stated as much. Deep is one thing, arbitrary and deep is another.

I think something will get done.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If the Repubs had made inroads in the Seante or increased their lead in the House, I could see them sticking to simple obstructionism. But there is no evidence it has helped them electorally. And fighting a rearguard action in politics leaves you with nothing to talk about when you run for re-election. It's not like being a stalwart Tea Partier helped Joe Walsh or Allen West or even Michelle Bachmann.

The funny thing about second terms is that there is typically far less at stake so you can make a little progress at least in the first 18 months.

After the mid-terms, they either ignore you or impeach you however.

[mistertim]

I'm curious how Boehner handles the Tea Partiers in the House now that they have lost some clout (and pretty much directly caused the loss of Senate and House seats by pushing through their own candidates that the majority of the voting population didn't like). Remember it was the Tea Party that essentially led him around by a dog collar last term. He was sitting with Obama and apparently they had some solid agreements in place for taxes and the debt ceiling but then the Tea Party found out he had given up the tiniest of concessions and went into a frenzy, essentially forcing Boehner to backtrack on a reasonable deal. I think it was something like 10:1 spending cut to tax increase ratio and they still refused it.

If the Tea Party has lost clout and the more moderate or establishment Republicans are more willing to stand up to them then I think there is a much better chance for some reasonable bipartisan agreements on taxes, etc. However, if Boehner doesn't grow a pair then I foresee the Tea Partiers just doubling down and forcing the same gridlock unless they get absolutely 100% of what they want while giving up absolutely 0% to the other side.

[Brixtion_skin]

We only employ 6 people,The Realestate bust & zero rate of new construction & the employer paid taxes will be too high for the company to pay, employees will be forced to pay ALL own their health care costs or pay fedreral fines to be uninsured & we can't afford to pay higher saleries to pay their own health care or fines. We have been losing $$ the past 2 years, the owner hasn't drawn a paycheck in a month & the end is near
Kinda ironic that the Gov. is taxing us out of business,just like King George in the 1700's

That does seem harsh and a bit daft. Over here we have what we call National Insurance contributions. All businesses have to pay it, but you only have to pay if the business earnings are over a certain amount. It seems insane to make people pay this tax if they have no earnings. You have my sympathies. Hope you make it through.

[PeterMP]

That does seem harsh and a bit daft. Over here we have what we call National Insurance contributions. All businesses have to pay it, but you only have to pay if the business earnings are over a certain amount. It seems insane to make people pay this tax if they have no earnings. You have my sympathies. Hope you make it through.

The business he has will be exempt, or they can get a tax credit for offering insurance.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...1_Tevsao209702

"Individuals are not exempt. They will either have to find insurance or pay the fine (as he stated).

Although small employers are exempt from the tax penalties for not providing health insurance, some of them are eligible for tax benefits if they do provide health insurance.

Companies with up to 25 workers and average annual wages below $50,000 qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent if they give their workers qualified health insurance benefits. In 2014, the tax credit goes up to 50 percent.

Small employers are exempt from the insurance mandate, but their employees are not.

Starting in 2014, Americans will have to report on their tax returns if they have qualified health insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund. If they don't, they have to pay $95 or 1 percent of their taxable income, whichever is higher. In 2015, the tax rises to $325 or 2 percent of taxable income. In 2016, the tax rises again, to $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income. The maximum penalty is $2,085 per family, and there are several exceptions to the tax."

[alexey]

...
If the Tea Party has lost clout and the more moderate or establishment Republicans are more willing to stand up to them then I think there is a much better chance for some reasonable bipartisan agreements on taxes, etc. However, if Boehner doesn't grow a pair then I foresee the Tea Partiers just doubling down and forcing the same gridlock unless they get absolutely 100% of what they want while giving up absolutely 0% to the other side.

The Tea Party represents the GOP narrative as told by GOP's media leadership arm. Nobody is going to stand up to the Tea Party. At best they may try to evolve some aspects of its narrative.

[Wrong Direction]

But the lobbyists will be okay, won't they? Please tell me the lobbyists will be okay.

As long as government has their hands in everything, lobbyists will be gainfully employed.

Does Obama have some unknown constitutional power of passing budgets now?

I thought that was Congress's job.

The House has passed budgets. The Senate hasn't. I'm wondering what CRs and other appropriations the house passes through now. I think they'll force Reid/President into real budget negotiations or risk a shut down.

You write that R's have little or no incentive to cooperate... does Obama have control over that? Because you then write about Obama having the ability to change things by changing himself.

I write that they have little incentive to cooperate because that's how I'm told they feel. I think they felt burned by past failed negotiations, but beyond that I think there really is a huge debt/tax/entitlement/health reform challenge in the next 12 months and they see no reason to help the president get out of those problems. If he can't give a little in negotiations, they won't cooperate.

[Monte51Coleman]

As long as government has their hands in everything, lobbyists will be gainfully employed.

As long as our elected officials consider their positions with their hands out, they will be, too.