They lost what they thought was a "lock" of an election (thanks to watching Fox) and now they're just going to blow off the rest of the convention, drink the mini-fridge and walk around naked in their own filth while eating cold pizza...AKA "Full Elvis"
The events of tonight have made me reconsider my impression of how the Grand Bargain fell apart last summer and who was more to blame. I had read articles that placed equal responsibility with Obama and Boehner. But seeing how little ability Boehner has to whip his caucus in line makes me think that Obama's version of events were probably closer to reality. How can anyone expect the President to negotiate when the supposed "leader" of the House Republicans can not deliver on any negotiated deal?
People tell me that Obama is a bad negotiator. You try to negotiate with that. I was just telling my wife last night, of course Obama cancelled his holiday vacation. He can't fly out now, that would look awful. So the GOP House is ... flying out now. Great move, fellas. So the cliff will be triggered, nothing much will happen economically (the recessionary effects lag the action), much panicked talk, and I guess in January or February a deal gets inked. Seems to me that Obama will have a stronger hand as of January 1st, because now the Republicans will be demanding that every single tax rate be lowered, rather than merely maintained.
Actually, Boehner held out on $250,000ers. The rest of his party went home for the millionaires. Which is what I predicted at the start of this thread. The GOP can talk all it wants about the deficit, the middle class, good jobs, social issues. Push come to shove, it will fold on all of them. The GOP exists to take care of the Kochs. Everything else is a nice to have, or sometimes even less, just words used to win elections.
Right because only taxing millionaires will get us out of this mess. Going over the cliff is ok, let’s see what happens with the economy if the economy does not collapse then maybe come back for another round of tax hikes and spending cuts. The AMT also goes up right.
The reality of this mess is that for your typical low-middle class American, your taxes will go up next year. If you are lucky enough to have a job, that means you'll have less money. When the current tax rates increase (as the law requires), there is no incentive on Obama's part to try and lower them, even for those making less than $250K. And when Boehner is ousted as Speaker -- which is a near-certainty -- the GOP will likely refuse any bargain just to make Obama look bad and let him own it all.
Aren't Low middle class people part of the 47%? If Obama and the Democrats do propose a tax cut on just people making less than say 250K and the Republicans vote it down, who would look bad? I think Obama is enough of a populist (on this tax issue) that he may try, Karl Rove style.
Pretty sure he will, he campaigned promising that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. I don't think that's the responsible fiscal move, but it's what he promised. It's what American wants. Most of 'em don't really give a crap about the deficit, not if it means they have to pay more in taxes, or give up on a spending program that they like. I can't see the GOP walking away from a deal to lower taxes. That would be death to the brand. I think this situation is perfect for Obama. The GOP gets blamed for this deal not occurring, he has the good hand starting January 1st, and if the GOP doesn't deal then he can credibly tell Americans that the GOP is responsible for their tax increase.
Can we start speculating which loon will challenge for the speakership? Can it be the crazy lady from Minnesota with the gay husband?
This particular GOP brand is well past it's sell-by date. I can only imagine what sort of mess we'll have when the Long Knives come out for Boehner. He's toast. And nothing will get done until his successor is named, and the likely replacement won't be able to do any better -- and will likely do far worse -- intentionally. Sucks to be them.
I don't see the cure. The more the GOP fails, the angrier and more obstructionist the GOP voters become, and the more loudly they urge GOP Reps to fail.
The only way I can personally see the Reps playing defense on this issue, is a senate filibuster. (At least that is what I would do). Even if the house takes a vote on cutting some taxes, and some republicans in the House vote for it, the deal would die in the Senate. I would even bring back some of Nancy Pelosi’s balanced budget initiative language on why I do not want to cut taxes with out matching spending cuts.
The progressive's take, as articulated by Krugman - It really is remarkable. No income tax increase for 99.9% of the population, no corporate tax increase, cuts on the Dem program of Social Security, no cuts on the GOP program of the military, and that's not good enough for the party that lost the election? It's holding out for more? More is not happening. Not a chance.
There was never a chance. They will end up with a short-gap fix and punt, and we'll have more of the same a few months down the road.
Maybe not, the guy in my avatar may not be caving this time - at least according to the WSJ today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html Legend. The Journal's objective in this is to show how unreasonable Obama is. But after 4 years of Obama seemingly caving in major negotiations with Republicans, all the Democratic sites I've checked are loving this article.
That is why the cliff is the best option, we get the tax revenue that Republicans would never agree with other wise, we get cuts in Military that republicans do not want and we get cuts in social programs that Democrats would never vote for otherwise.
Because of the two party duopoly, one thing I do know is we will certainly not get real accountability for the Decider. It would be nice if someone would ask Mr. Obama how can he as a Christian man ask for more money from anyone while he spends money on programs like the War on Drugs? Shouldn't he be made to say that he has cut the budget to the bone before he asks for greater sacrifice? If you want to talk about revenue-neutral proposals to re-arrange the tax burden, fine, but that's really outside the scope of the latest crisis du jour.
http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/Sec Geithner LETTER 12-26-2012 Debt Limit.pdf http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/
Revenues are too low, thinking revenue neutral approach will work is crazy, and we need to increase revenues and to cut spending. I can understand the argument to cut Spending 2 or 3 times more than revenue increases, but to say we should not increase revenues is just dumb. Maybe 1 option is to end the war on drugs and tax the shit out of Cocaine/weed sales (like say Alcohol and Tobacco), which would be both a revenue increase and spending cut.
Important to remember this scrap is about paying existing obligations. It's not about approving higher spending in the future. Not raising the debt ceiling means breaking past commitments. So fighting over the debt ceiling is not an honorable battle. Fighting over the budget and tax code is, but not the debt ceiling.
It is also important to remember that when the two sides are debating spending “cuts” they are really arguing about reductions in future increases.
Revenues have and always will be a fairly static % of GDP no matter what the income tax policy or the top marginal rates. That is an historical fact. Therefore we need to grow the economy and reduce spending.