U.S. economy growing faster than forecast

[CBWx2]

These numbers dont matter. The Republicans will just sandbag the economy again by letting us go over the fiscal cliff so they can try and blame Obama. Just like how they destroyed our credit rating last year.

Correct:


A growing number of Democrats say they are willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if a deal cannot be reached by Jan. 1 that raises taxes on the top two percent of earners while protecting costly entitlement programs.

Their theory in this game of chicken with Republicans is that it will be easier in January to lower taxes for 98 percent of the country while finding the best possible parts of the federal budget to cut — in line with long-held goals of the nation's liberal party. They also think they'll be in a better position to save most, if not all, of massive entitlements like Medicare as well as pet projects.

Read more: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/democrats-fiscal-cliff-murray/2012/11/26/id/465395#ixzz2Dj6CZGHm

So wouldn't this mean that Republicans are also willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if they cannot secure lower taxes for the remaining 2 percent? You can't play a game of chicken by yourself.

[Morgan]

Biggest hospital in my area just fired 32 people.

Biggest mill just laid off 58.

Box stores are reducing hours so they can get out of paying for healthcare. They'll hire more part timers to make up for the hours lost and it'll be viewed as a win as the jobless rate will go down.

Can't you just feel the recovery?

If you're going to make working in box stores a career choice, you might have to have two part time jobs to earn a living.

Nothing wrong w/ that. The times change and you have to improvise - or educate yourself to a profession where you're not working in box stores or paper mills.

[JavaRay]

Somebody has to work making those boxes.   There's nothing wrong with having that job.   What's the difference between that and working at GM putting a tire on a car?   Or working at Hostess making cupcakes?

[spartan]

These numbers dont matter. The Republicans will just sandbag the economy again by letting us go over the fiscal cliff so they can try and blame Obama. Just like how they destroyed our credit rating last year.

Correct:


A growing number of Democrats say they are willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if a deal cannot be reached by Jan. 1 that raises taxes on the top two percent of earners while protecting costly entitlement programs.

Their theory in this game of chicken with Republicans is that it will be easier in January to lower taxes for 98 percent of the country while finding the best possible parts of the federal budget to cut — in line with long-held goals of the nation's liberal party. They also think they'll be in a better position to save most, if not all, of massive entitlements like Medicare as well as pet projects.

Read more: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/democrats-fiscal-cliff-murray/2012/11/26/id/465395#ixzz2Dj6CZGHm

So wouldn't this mean that Republicans are also willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if they cannot secure lower taxes for the remaining 2 percent? You can't play a game of chicken by yourself.

Raising the taxes on the remaining 2 percent will pay for a grand total o f 8 days of Govt operations. It is obvious therefore that this has zero to do with deficit reduction. I can only surmise therefore that Obama is willing for the country to go over the fiscal cliff because of spite.

[CBWx2]

These numbers dont matter. The Republicans will just sandbag the economy again by letting us go over the fiscal cliff so they can try and blame Obama. Just like how they destroyed our credit rating last year.

Correct:


A growing number of Democrats say they are willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if a deal cannot be reached by Jan. 1 that raises taxes on the top two percent of earners while protecting costly entitlement programs.

Their theory in this game of chicken with Republicans is that it will be easier in January to lower taxes for 98 percent of the country while finding the best possible parts of the federal budget to cut — in line with long-held goals of the nation's liberal party. They also think they'll be in a better position to save most, if not all, of massive entitlements like Medicare as well as pet projects.

Read more: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/democrats-fiscal-cliff-murray/2012/11/26/id/465395#ixzz2Dj6CZGHm

So wouldn't this mean that Republicans are also willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if they cannot secure lower taxes for the remaining 2 percent? You can't play a game of chicken by yourself.

Raising the taxes on the remaining 2 percent will pay for a grand total o f 8 days of Govt operations. It is obvious therefore that this has zero to do with deficit reduction. I can only surmise therefore that Obama is willing for the country to go over the fiscal cliff because of spite.

What will raising taxes on 100% of the population do to the economy? Because that's the alternative Republicans are willing to risk in order to save that 2%. In other words, give us our tax cuts for the rich or we will make the middle class pay more and cripple the economy. No spite there, huh?

[CBWx2]

It's about priorities. The argument is about 2% of the population's tax rate. Supposedly, R's and D's agree that rates for the remaining 98% should stay low. So why not just pass the 98% that they agree on and haggle over the 2% later? Because the R's want to hold the 98% hostage in order to ensure low rates for the 2%. Spin it however you want, but that's essentially the gist of it.

[spartan]

It's about priorities. The argument is about 2% of the population's tax rate. Supposedly, R's and D's agree that rates for the remaining 98% should stay low. So why not just pass the 98% that they agree on and haggle over the 2% later? Because the R's want to hold the 98% hostage in order to ensure low rates for the 2%. Spin it however you want, but that's essentially the gist of it.

The President is willing to increase taxes on 100% of Americans and tank the economy just so he screw the "rich." He is not willing to listen to any alternatives and has presented no plan to address the deficit. It is obvious it is not about raising additional revenue because plans have been put forward to do that and they have been immediately dismissed. So is he vindictive, stupid or heartless?

[wreck ship]

I know, I know but...

[John Galt?]

Somebody has to work making those boxes.   There's nothing wrong with having that job.   What's the difference between that and working at GM putting a tire on a car?   Or working at Hostess making cupcakes?

Well the box store and GM are still up and running, Hostess isn't and all the cupcake makers are now unemployed

[Chief Joseph]

Is GM still up and running? Looks to me like the union killed them even before they squeezed the Twinkie dry.

[John Galt?]

Yes "Government Motors" is still up and running.

Why I don't get is why didn't the Govt. bailout Hostess? A Twinkie has a far longer shelf life than most GM cars

[kevabuc]

It's about priorities. The argument is about 2% of the population's tax rate. Supposedly, R's and D's agree that rates for the remaining 98% should stay low. So why not just pass the 98% that they agree on and haggle over the 2% later? Because the R's want to hold the 98% hostage in order to ensure low rates for the 2%. Spin it however you want, but that's essentially the gist of it.

Suppose you want to buy a car. You want them to throw in a free sunroof, pinstriping, the fancy wheels, undercoating and two free annual services. The dealer says that they can agree with you on 98% of what you want but the two free services they just can't agree to now. Now would you buy that car hoping to haggle over the two free services later or would you just hold out with your leverage of buying the car hanging over the dealers head? Which is the better option? 

[Durango 95]

If you enter a negotiation w/o asking for a lot more than 2% of what you actually want....then I would recommend a third option.

 Learn how to negotiate.

[wreck ship]

If you enter a negotiation w/o asking for a lot more than 2% of what you actually want....then I would recommend a third option.

 Learn how to negotiate.

+1

[kevabuc]

If you enter a negotiation w/o asking for a lot more than 2% of what you actually want....then I would recommend a third option.

 Learn how to negotiate.

Depends on who and what you are negotiating for. If you are in Tijuana and bartering for baskets this tactic always works but not so much when other competitors were involved in the process. 

I learned the hard way earlier in my career when negotiating for new restaurant locations that an unreasonable offer could lose you the entire deal at worse or just lengthened th time of the negotions at best. I then decided to do my homework, find out exactly how far a company would and could go through talking to other tenants and past leases then putting an offer on the table that we could both live with. It saved time, won me more properties that others lost out on with unreasonable offers that they thought they could negotiate on and made for a good relationship from the get go.