McConnell laughs at Obama's fiscal cliff plan

[justfollowingtheelections]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/mitch-mcconnell-fiscal-cliff_n_2218063.html?ir=Politics



GOP aides say Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an offer calling for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade, extending the 2 percentage point payroll tax deduction or something comparable to it and $50 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure projects.
The White House plan calls for $960 billion over the coming decade by increasing tax rates and taxes on investment income on upper-bracket earners and $600 billion in additional taxes. Republicans view the offer as a step backward with the fiscal cliff – an economy-rattling set of automatic spending cuts and tax increases – looming at years' end.

McConnell told the Weekly Standard that he "burst into laughter" as Geithner outlined the plan.

[Holmes]

Yes, he's unpleasant, to put it lightly. What else is new?

[Zioneer]

Yes, Senator Turtle is a thoroughly terrible person who laughs at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff. What else is new?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, Senator Turtle is a thoroughly terrible person who laughs at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff. What else is new?

McConnell wasn't laughing at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff, but that Geithner thought the BS he was peddling would solve it.  Problem is, no one wants to go on the record as proposing first the actual spending cuts that will be needed to solve the cliff, so both sides right now are engaged in a game of chicken, insisting that the other layout their spending cut plan first.

[Paul Kemp]

His resemblance to Gary Oldman in HANNIBAL is uncanny.

[anvi]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

I agree. It's this type of poor leadership that has already made my uncle regret not voting for Romney (am I sounding like Nasso?). David Gergen wrote a beautiful op-ed on this topic for CNN.com. And he's right. The Obama administration will run American off this cliff out of overzealous idealism and a desire to see the Republicans get blamed for being immovable. This thing is, the Republicans are willing to make concessions if Obama is willing to be fair and do the same. Unfortunately, Obama's trying to push his luck.

Obama the candidate is turning back into Obama the president. Obama the president is much more of an unsavory character, but voters were tricked out of remembering that because he's good at campaigning.

[opebo]

The Obama administration will run American off this cliff out of overzealous idealism and a desire to see the Republicans get blamed for being immovable. This thing is, the Republicans are willing to make concessions if Obama is willing to be fair and do the same. Unfortunately, Obama's trying to push his luck.

Obama the candidate is turning back into Obama the president. Obama the president is much more of an unsavory character, but voters were tricked out of remembering that because he's good at campaigning.

But this behavior is precisely what we like, guys.  We want him to play hard ball, as hard as he possible can.  Your side needs to be destroyed as much as possible, and it is worth it to run off the cliff for that.

[Sbane]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

[anvi]

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work.

But Democrats aren't "sticking their necks out" by proposing tax hikes--they ran promising to do it, and they won.  Similarly, Republicans aren't "sticking their necks out" to propose entitlement cuts, since that's precisely what they have told their constituents needs to be done.  No deal can be reached if all that's put on the table are all-or-nothing plans, and the Pubs will have a surprisingly easy time making a case for the midterms if taxes go up on everyone on January 1st, so the parties still have one another over a barrel.   And I don't think mere gamesmanship makes going over the fiscal cliff "worth it."  The across-the-board tax hikes and their large-scale immediate economic consequences aside, on the other side of January 1st, the trigger will also be pulled on a huge amount of discretionary cuts that would decimate lots of necessary public services.  If a second-term president doesn't have any room not just to do what makes his own party cheer, but what's best for the country as a whole, then what's the point of having a second term?     

[Sbane]

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work.

But Democrats aren't "sticking their necks out" by proposing tax hikes--they ran promising to do it, and they won.  Similarly, Republicans aren't "sticking their necks out" to propose entitlement cuts, since that's precisely what they have told their constituents needs to be done.  No deal can be reached if all that's put on the table are all-or-nothing plans, and the Pubs will have a surprisingly easy time making a case for the midterms if taxes go up on everyone on January 1st, so the parties still have one another over a barrel.   And I don't think mere gamesmanship makes going over the fiscal cliff "worth it."  The across-the-board tax hikes and their large-scale immediate economic consequences aside, on the other side of January 1st, the trigger will also be pulled on a huge amount of discretionary cuts that would decimate lots of necessary public services.  If a second-term president doesn't have any room not just to do what makes his own party cheer, but what's best for the country as a whole, then what's the point of having a second term?     

Have the Republican proposed any entitlement cuts? I don't mean just rhetoric, but actually putting down something on paper? Obama and the Democrats have done that with tax hikes but have the Republicans proposed anything?

[anvi]

I don't know what the GOP proposal said, so I'm not sure.  I suppose some variation of what they put out in 2011, but I don't know.  Anyway, I'm not in charge of anything, just throwing my lonely opinion out there.

[Sbane]

I don't know what the GOP proposal said, so I'm not sure.  I suppose some variation of what they put out in 2011, but I don't know.  Anyway, I'm not in charge of anything, just throwing my lonely opinion out there.

Look, I agree that a deal based more on tax reform than rate hikes is better, but the Republicans must be the ones proposing entitlement cuts. You have to realize that a good part of the Republican base (and old, white independents) don't want medicare cuts and instead wants cuts to spending that does not exist.

[memphis]

The GOP has proposed turning Medicare into a voucher program, but that saves NOTHING for many yeas because they would not apply it to current seniors and very little for many more years after that because most Medicare spending goes for people in the last years of life, not for those in their late 60s or early 70s. As for the tax side, the GOP wants to limit deductions because that takes the tax increase off the 2%, most of whom already have their deductions very limited by the AMT.

[Mr. Morden]

Ideally, both sides would lay out their maximalist positions, and then they would negotiate the differences.  What anvi is arguing here is that Obama should be willing to negotiate the differences if the GOP negotiates as well.  But what people are complaining about right now is a different problem, which is the apparent reluctance of the GOP leadership to detail their maximalist position (because entitlement cuts are unpopular).  So how do you start negotiating before you're clear about what you're negotiating over?

To be clear though, while the GOP leadership doesn't seem to be spelling out specifics, some individual members are going rogue, and offering their own entitlement reform proposals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-bob-corker-a-plan-to-dodge-the-fiscal-cliff/2012/11/25/0e237712-3586-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html

As Jan. 1 gets closer, perhaps the GOP leadership will adopt elements of that plan as their own position?  I don't know.  I guess we'll find out.

[Zioneer]

Yes, Senator Turtle is a thoroughly terrible person who laughs at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff. What else is new?

McConnell wasn't laughing at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff, but that Geithner thought the BS he was peddling would solve it.  Problem is, no one wants to go on the record as proposing first the actual spending cuts that will be needed to solve the cliff, so both sides right now are engaged in a game of chicken, insisting that the other layout their spending cut plan first.

Actually, 70% of the spending cuts in Simpson-Bowles have already been enacted.

[anvi]

Well, if the GOP really hasn't proposed specific details about their spending cut priorities in their proposals, but have only identified amount targets, then i certainly agree that Dems shouldn't do it for them.  I had assumed that proposals with specifics had been circulated in the course of negotiations from both sides that traded different versions of specifics.  If that's not the case, then that's definitely a different story.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, Senator Turtle is a thoroughly terrible person who laughs at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff. What else is new?

McConnell wasn't laughing at the idea of solving the fiscal cliff, but that Geithner thought the BS he was peddling would solve it.  Problem is, no one wants to go on the record as proposing first the actual spending cuts that will be needed to solve the cliff, so both sides right now are engaged in a game of chicken, insisting that the other layout their spending cut plan first.

Actually, 70% of the spending cuts in Simpson-Bowles have already been enacted.

Since they've already been enacted that means they can't be counted as cuts for the fiscal cliff negotiations, plus the 'discretionary' programs that have been cut were both low-hanging fruit politically and subjected to excessive indiscriminate pruning by Simpson-Bowles.  In order to solve the cliff and the long term deficit problem, we need to deal with entitlements and that will not be easy politically.

[hopper]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that.  

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

Childish? Obama goes out and campaigns even after he won the election. Does that make any sense?

Anyways when the Dems say the word "Stimulus" the GOP just runs for the hills. Thats a non-starter and the Dems know it. Why is Geithner even the deal-maker anyway? Where is President Obama at? Isn't the President supposed to be at the table but he is out campaigning for some odd reason.

Who cares who proposes the cuts or the tax increases? Its up to Obama and Boehner to make a deal and work the numbers out on the tax increases and spending cuts. Instead Obama is running out the clock so the deal goes to the last minute so he can get the best deal he can. I know it makes good politics but its not good leadership in my opinion.

[hopper]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

I agree. It's this type of poor leadership that has already made my uncle regret not voting for Romney (am I sounding like Nasso?). David Gergen wrote a beautiful op-ed on this topic for CNN.com. And he's right. The Obama administration will run American off this cliff out of overzealous idealism and a desire to see the Republicans get blamed for being immovable. This thing is, the Republicans are willing to make concessions if Obama is willing to be fair and do the same. Unfortunately, Obama's trying to push his luck.

Obama the candidate is turning back into Obama the president. Obama the president is much more of an unsavory character, but voters were tricked out of remembering that because he's good at campaigning.

He is good at speeches and I'm sure he was a good community orgainzer but not a good president in my opinion.

[Sbane]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

Childish? Obama goes out and campaigns even after he won the election. Does that make any sense?

Anyways when the Dems say the word "Stimulus" the GOP just runs for the hills. Thats a non-starter and the Dems know it. Why is Geithner even the deal-maker anyway? Where is President Obama at? Isn't the President supposed to be at the table but he is out campaigning for some odd reason.

Who cares who proposes the cuts or the tax increases? Its up to Obama and Boehner to make a deal and work the numbers out on the tax increases and spending cuts. Instead Obama is running out the clock so the deal goes to the last minute so he can get the best deal he can. I know it makes good politics but its not good leadership in my opinion.

Obama wants to make sure all the people who voted for him stay engaged and keep pressuring their congressmen and Senators. The Republicans did this during Obamacare. Instead of working with Obama, they went out on the road and fired up the masses into a frenzy. I'm not saying he shouldn't work with the Republicans, but he realizes getting a better deal requires keeping his base engaged.

The Republicans never say they want to cut Medicare or social security. They only say they want to cut "entitlements". Hmm...let them spell out what they want. Some Republicans have of course, but the Republicans should not be able to pin cutting Medicare on Obama (and yes the inverse is true too).

[badgate]

ugh that picture of him is just the worst

[King]

The Onion's humor is getting a little too dark these days.

[hopper]

My views on this are unpopular with Democrats on the forum, so I'll just put this out there and let it be.  I'm somewhat sympathetic to David Brooks' take on this so far.  I still think it would have been better for the White House to at least come out sort of half-sies on the revenue side and get part of their revenue targets from modest rate hikes on the very top tier (not the whole 2.5%) and then get the rest from capping deductions for the predominantly wealthy.  I don't know what gives with this fundamentalism about rate hikes when more revenue can be raised in other ways that might make more economic sense.  It would not be a disaster to couple this kind of offer with phased-in spending reductions in the style of Simpson-Bowles, since the latter recommendations were commissioned by the White House anyway.  The election itself moved the goal-posts for the GOP, and a number of them in the House were signaling a willingness to throw Grover overboard.  The my-way-or-the-highway "proposal" the White House released the other day makes it harder for the GOP to say "yes."  Dems are now expecting the Pubs to basically screw their constituencies, so you have to craft a deal that's both good for the country and helps the medicine go down easier.  The White House made this mistake a couple times in 2011, by first having Obama spit in Ryan's face in a speech right after Ryan released his "budget," and then having Obama jump at the Gang of Six outline without any consultation after weeks and weeks of negotiating a different deal with Boehner.  I don't understand why the White House is so apparently bad at the art of the deal.  But, like I said, I know few agree with any of the above, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Do you have the breakdown of the proposal?

Hopefully you don't think Obama and the Democrats should be responsible for outlining the spending cuts as well, especially entitlement cuts. Democrats stick their necks out by proposing tax hikes, and Republicans stick their necks out by proposing entitlement cuts. That's how it should work. I live in Tennessee, so I understand what the Republican plan is. They want to blame the Democrats for cutting Medicare, so they want the Democrats to propose those cuts as well. There are people out there who think Obama wants to cut Medicare because he is a muslim and he wants to give away money to n******. No way should Democrats be the ones proposing cuts to Medicare. Better to go over the cliff. I am a moderate, and I hope a deal gets cut, but I've had it with the childish Republican party that wants to appeal to the rubes.

Childish? Obama goes out and campaigns even after he won the election. Does that make any sense?

Anyways when the Dems say the word "Stimulus" the GOP just runs for the hills. Thats a non-starter and the Dems know it. Why is Geithner even the deal-maker anyway? Where is President Obama at? Isn't the President supposed to be at the table but he is out campaigning for some odd reason.

Who cares who proposes the cuts or the tax increases? Its up to Obama and Boehner to make a deal and work the numbers out on the tax increases and spending cuts. Instead Obama is running out the clock so the deal goes to the last minute so he can get the best deal he can. I know it makes good politics but its not good leadership in my opinion.

Obama wants to make sure all the people who voted for him stay engaged and keep pressuring their congressmen and Senators. The Republicans did this during Obamacare. Instead of working with Obama, they went out on the road and fired up the masses into a frenzy. I'm not saying he shouldn't work with the Republicans, but he realizes getting a better deal requires keeping his base engaged.

The Republicans never say they want to cut Medicare or social security. They only say they want to cut "entitlements". Hmm...let them spell out what they want. Some Republicans have of course, but the Republicans should not be able to pin cutting Medicare on Obama (and yes the inverse is true too).

The Healthcare Legislation only the Dem Base likes it. The Dems wanted to work with the Republicans on "Obamacare"? No they didn't. The Dems just ram rodded it through with 51 votes in the US Senate and special deals for states.

Just have a speech on late night TV if you want people to get behind you instead of campaiging.

Cutting Medicare? Who cares its always a game of "gotcha" of who cut Medicare or who is gonna cut Medicare. Its all a big game. Everybody knows the program has to be reformed one way or another. I agree though one party shouldn't pin cutting medicare on one party or the other though. Thats why I say its just a big game.

[stegosaurus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/mitch-mcconnell-fiscal-cliff_n_2218063.html?ir=Politics
Republicans view the offer as a step backward with the fiscal cliff...

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but wouldn't a step backward be desirable when standing on the edge of a cliff?