Boehner's Options
Is John Boehner just worried about his leadership position? Is he really putting his own re-election as Speaker of the House before all else?
Democrats are beginning to use this line of attack against Boehner, much to the delight of their base. If Boehner is seen as nothing more than self-serving in the fiscal cliff showdown, it's certainly not going to do either him or his party any good with the voting public. This won't immediately matter to Boehner (if the charge is true), because the election for the speakership doesn't involve the voters but rather the incoming House members.
Since nobody can see into the mind of Boehner but Boehner himself, it's kind of pointless to dwell on his inner motivations here. But it is worth taking a look at the options he has available to him, and consider whether any of these would help or hurt his chances of retaining control of his party in the House. Of course, this is all sheer speculation, and we're not even going to offer any odds, but here are Boehner's major possible routes out of the fiscal cliff discussions, in chronological order.
Cut a deal now; home for the holidays
This is not very likely, but Boehner and President Obama could agree on a plan in the next few days, and send it through the regular congressional process. This process normally takes about a week, so if this is going to happen, the news of it would break -- at the latest -- next Monday morning. But if the weekend ends without a plan, then there will likely be nothing done before Christmas. John Boehner has just warned Republicans not to make holiday plans, meaning Congress is going to have to work while everyone else is on holiday.
This sounds snide, and I suppose it is, but the one thing that both parties in Congress agree upon most is that they themselves absolutely require a full week (or two) off on vacation every single month. Harry Reid has used this leverage masterfully in the past four years or so, and there is always a possibility that Boehner and Obama will throw something together at the end of next week and votes will be held late on Christmas Eve. But it's not likely. If no plan emerges by Monday, then no plan will probably emerge until after Christmas.
Boehner wouldn't gain much from cutting a deal this early. The vacation schedule would be saved, but the Republican base will likely portray Boehner as not fighting hard enough for their issues, with weeks to build this resentment before the January 3rd vote for the speakership.
Cut a deal at the last minute; home for New Year's
The second point in the game that Boehner could relent will be the week between Christmas and New Year's. This will avoid the fiscal cliff, if the deal is passed and signed before the ball drops on New Year's Eve. Boehner can portray himself as fighting right up until the end, working right through Christmas even, but then having to get something done to avoid the impact of the fiscal cliff. He could sell this to his base -- "I fought as hard as I could, and I got the best deal possible!" -- especially since there will only be three days between the bill's passage and the speakership elections -- which probably isn't enough time to build a backlash against Boehner for whatever deal he cuts. This seems to be the heavy favorite among those betting on the outcome, at least at the moment.
Cut a deal in first three days of January
This option might indeed be attractive to Boehner. If he waits until after the cliff-jumping of the new year, then he can immediately pass either a "grand bargain" deal with Obama or just the bill that's already been approved by the Senate to lower income tax rates for 98 percent of American workers. By Republican logic, voting for this before the witching hour of the new year means "raising taxes" but voting for exactly the same thing right after the new year counts as "lowering taxes." This may sound silly, but the Republican base (and their high prophet Norquist) actually puts a lot of faith in such hair-splitting. If Boehner "goes over the cliff" but then immediately extends the Bush tax cuts for the 98 percent, he will be seen (by some, on the right) as "ideologically pure." If he moves fast enough, it will limit any impact on American workers' paychecks, although the media will certainly have a field day if we do go over the cliff.
Cut a deal right after he wins the gavel back
Holding a vote on whatever deal Boehner cuts will be done with the outgoing House if it happens any time before the third of January, but after this point the House members voting on any such deal will be the incoming House members. This could prove to be crucial.
Boehner may get stuck whipping votes in the old House. If enough of his outgoing membership blocks him, then he won't be able to pass anything -- even with Democratic votes -- and he won't be able to sell the deal. At some point, Boehner may decide he'll have better luck with the incoming class, in which case he will not cut a deal until after they are seated. Which, incidentally, means after they re-elect him Speaker of the House.
Awfully convenient, that.
Giving Boehner the benefit of the doubt, if his own members back him into this corner, then he's going to come out of it looking like the speakership vote was his primary concern all along. There won't be any plausible way for him to deny it, really. He'll be seen as a power-grasping Washington pol who put not just politics but his own career in front of getting something done before everyone's paychecks shrink.
If this is the route Boehner takes (whether forced or intentional), he's going to come out of it smelling not like a rose, but rather like rose fertilizer. The public is already ready to blame Republicans if we go over the fiscal cliff, and this will allow them to put a face on their blame in a very personal way. Boehner will emerge weaker, if this option plays out. Because Democrats will be out there making the case that Boehner is doing nothing but saving his own political skin, without a second thought to the consequences for anyone else in America.
Wait until the debt ceiling fight to cut any deal
Boehner could play hardball, however. He could decide that his own caucus is so bent on denying Obama a deal (any deal) that he just throws up his hands and says "OK, fine -- let's go over the cliff, and then we'll wait to have this fight again when we hit the debt ceiling." Republicans are convinced that they're going to have all the political leverage in a few months anyway, so why not just postpone the whole fight, and make their case stringently on Fox News (and wherever else will have them) that the whole thing was a plot for an "Obama tax hike" and that everything is Obama's fault, naturally.
This would be a gutsy game for Boehner to play. It would absolutely poison the atmosphere in Washington not only for the next two months, but for the next two years. The outcome to such scorched-earth tactics is anyone's guess, really, but it has to be seen at this point as a pretty low probability. Personally, I think Boehner will be moved to act before it gets to this point, by public outcry if by nothing else.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Since nobody can see into the mind of Boehner but Boehner himself ...
I've known John Boehner since 1986 and if no one can see into the mind of Boehner himself then no one can see into the mind of John Boehner.
-David
Chris,
Republicans are convinced that they're going to have all the political leverage in a few months anyway, so why not just postpone the whole fight, and make their case stringently on Fox News (and wherever else will have them) that the whole thing was a plot for an "Obama tax hike" and that everything is Obama's fault, naturally.
And wherever else will have them, indeed. Did you happen to see the PBS Newshour tonight? Grover Norquist was a guest. Judy Woodruff was the interviewer. Well, she certainly wasn't the journalist in residence. It was a disaster. But, I'm sure the speaker has already booked his appearance.
When faced with one of Norquist's usual bits of nonsense, how did she respond? She said, "Well, we can debate that another time. Heh."
Sure, they can debate that another time ... just as soon as Woodruff can learn about the issues she invites her guests to speak about. Which would be the other side of never.
Dangit ... version from the copy editors:
I've known John Boehner since 1986 and if no one can see into the mind of Boehner but Boehner himself then no one can see into the mind of John Boehner.
David,
I knew that. :)
Hey, are you watching the Hurricane Sandy concert?
Hey, are you watching the Hurricane Sandy concert?
No ... unfortunately up late working. I wish I was. Any notable performances?
-David
Oh, man ... unbelieveable!!!
The Who are on right now - they did every song that everyone there wanted them to do and they are all lovin' it! Me too!
Bon Jovi was exceptional, as always - they did my favourite Livin' on a Prayer ...
The Stones only did two song and seemed to leave prematurely ... egos hurt b/c they didn't close???
Paul McCartney is up next..
Haven't seen a concert that has been this great and emotional in a long time if not forever ...
The Who are still performing ... they don't want to leave!
The Who - See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me, Heal Me ...
Very, very powerful stuff ... with visons of the destruction of Sandy on screen in the background ...
Just for the record ... Roger Daltry has the body of an action hero! :)
The crowd won't let them leave - they are doing yet another song ...
Hearing all of the stories from the people most affected is heartbreaking ...
David,
I sure hope you were able to catch some of this concert which is just now in the process of winding down.
Every single performance was notable.
The phone lines are too busy to take any more calls for donations.
If I were Boehner, I would point out that taxing the rich has already been tried and has been a dismal failure..
In the UK, millionaires accounted for 9% of the taxes... Brit leaders got a wild hair up their arse and decided that the rich could be bled out more.
So, the British soaked the rich for more money..
Funny thing is, UK millionaires didn't stick around for the bath..
They LEFT the UK and took their money with them..
Get that? The Brits actually ended up LOSING tax revenue.
Now, after the Tax The Rich plan was enacted, British millionaires account for HALF of the total taxes that they used to..
A Tax The Rich plan has already been enacted..
And it was a dismal failure...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/12/millionaires-flee.html
Michale
0346
A couple of comments here as "the rich will leave us" was bound to become the latest scare tactic. Bought for and paid for by the rich.
Basically, the argument goes as such, give us what we want or we'll leave. At it's most basic level, the rich are in fact threatening us if we don't give them all the perks they want.
This is also the Laffer curve argument. That if taxes hit a certain rate, then revenues will decrease. And there's likely some measure of truth to this argument if taxes go too high.
There is, however, a significant difference between Britain & the U.S.
In Britain, rates on the wealthy were already comparatively high. They don't have the loopholes the U.S. wealth enjoy and they paid 40% in taxes on revenue.
Compare this in the U.S. where taxes on the wealthy are at historical lows. They've never paid less. And they enjoy tremendous loopholes.
What you also don't mention, Michale, is that in the Laffer Curve, if taxes are too low, we're not hitting optimal revenue. In other words, there is a point of optimal revenue somewhere between 0-100%.
Economists have argued that Britain's rate of 50% w/ no loopholes is too high. However, they've also argued that our rate is too low, think 15% on capital gains.
Remember, we've had these higher rates before w/ no mass exodus of rich leaving (under Clinton). And the proposals to raise taxes are extremely modest when compared to the U.K.
So don't believe it when the rich tell you they need more handouts :)
-David
Until this country get's spending under control, taking more money from successful people won't do diddley squat..
That's the point that ya'all seem to just NOT understand..
This country could take 100% of EVERY person making over $250K and it would keep this country solvent for about a month.. Maybe a bit longer..
We're back to the irresponsible teenage analogy again.. An analogy which NO ONE has been able to refute..
You don't give an irresponsible teenager MORE money when they are spending out of control..
You instill some fiscal discipline into them and THEN you talk about raising their allowance..
Democrats want the more money NOW and then maybe they might worry about the fiscal discipline later... Maybe...
That's simply ridiculous.
Democrats are turning this country into another PIIG...
Doing a heckuva job at it, too...
Michale
0347
David,
You offer nothing in the way of facts that would indicate that the Rich WON'T leave the US if taxes are raised..
We have already seen it happening..
How many mega-rich have changed their citizenship in the last few months to avoid the coming taxes?
Quite a few...
How many employers have said they are going to have to fire employees and cut back other employees' hours because of the new taxes and penalties that ObamaCare/Tax impose??
Quite a few..
That's the problem that ya'all just don't seem to get..
Employers aren't going to meekly hand over more money to the government that has PROVEN it can't handle money...
Employers are simply going to restructure their business so as to give the government LESS money..
And who is going to get slaughtered???
The Middle Class...
The rich are going to take their money OUT of the US economy and put it into another country's economy..
Your analysis is fine, but it relies solely and completely on THEORY..
There is factual anecdotal and empirical evidence that shows what happens to an economy when a Stick It To The Rich plan is enacted..
Michale
0348
Remember, we've had these higher rates before w/ no mass exodus of rich leaving (under Clinton).
That's because, under those HIGHER Rates, there was fiscal discipline and deregulation and smaller government..
There was also the DotCom bubble which skewed everything to hell and back..
But, if you want to return to Clinton Tax Rates, that's fine with me..
Return government size, entitlement expenditure, WELFARE reform, regulations and all of that other crap to Clinton Times too!
That's the problem with the position of the Democrats...
They want ALL the money, but don't want any of the discipline..
How utterly immature...
Michale
0349
That's because, under those HIGHER Rates, there was fiscal discipline and deregulation and smaller government..
In other words, businesses could pay those higher taxes, because other areas allowed them to increase their profits..
But, in the here and now, Democrats want the higher tax rates *AND* want to spend money out of control with NO fiscal discipline, want to heap regulation upon regulation upon regulation on businesses to cost the business MORE money to give MORE money to a government that has proven beyond ANY DOUBT that it doesn't have ANY fiscal discipline..
Now, if you were a business owner in THAT kind of environment, would YOU want to stick around???
Remember, we're not talking about the Adelsons or the Gateses or the Soroses or the Buffetts of the world..
They can afford to pay everything the government throws at them and still live a life of privilege..
We're talking the Small Business owner, the guy who owns a couple franchises, the small town hardware store or small town sports bar...
THOSE are the people who are going to suffer. Them *AND* their employees...
I thought it was THOSE people that Democrats are fighting for??
Why are Democrats screwing those people over??
Michale
0350
I have said it time and time again, that I don't know dick about economics..
But I DO know common sense..
And common sense tells me that, if a business owner can't make a profit with his business in the US, then they will simply close the business and fire the employees or they will move the business to a country where they CAN make a profit..
Either way, the middle class is screwed..
It doesn't take a degree in economics to see this..
It's just common sense...
Michale
0351
How many mega-rich have changed their citizenship in the last few months to avoid the coming taxes? Quite a few...
Oh really? Can you give me any examples?
How many employers have said they are going to have to fire employees and cut back other employees' hours because of the new taxes and penalties that ObamaCare/Tax impose?
Of course they're going to make threats. Wouldn't you? This is what they do when they don't get their way. And when they do get their way.
Employers aren't going to meekly hand over more money to the government that has PROVEN it can't handle money.
Obviously. They're going to look for every loophole possible.
Which is why we need to eliminate the loopholes. Of course it's going to be a fight.
In your words, Michale, what happens when you cave in to threats?
-David
BTW- Conservative lectures about spending discipline. Hilarious.
Oh really? Can you give me any examples?
If I can, will it make any difference in your argument?? :D
Of course they're going to make threats. Wouldn't you? This is what they do when they don't get their way. And when they do get their way.
So, you think they won't follow thru??
Are you willing to bet some middle class family their livelyhood??
What if your wrong??
Obviously. They're going to look for every loophole possible.
Which is why we need to eliminate the loopholes. Of course it's going to be a fight.
And if the Democrats "win" then the country loses..
Or are you going to advocate FORCING business owners to remain in the country and continue operating their business at a loss??
1984 anyone???
BTW- Conservative lectures about spending discipline. Hilarious.
Hay now.. Let's not resort to name-calling.. :D
Michale
0352
Let's see if we can find some common ground..
Is there ANYONE who thinks it is a smart idea to give an irresponsible teenager MORE money, when they have proven that they have no fiscal discipline??
Michale
0353
Is there ANYONE who thinks it is a smart idea to give an irresponsible teenager MORE money, when they have proven that they have no fiscal discipline?
That's just it though. The Democrats do have fiscal discipline. They are the only party who has actually cut spending.
They've wound down wars. They compromise and include spending cuts. Government spending has dropped under Democrats They've done a much better job of being fiscally responsible than ... ahem ... a certain other party.
The trouble I have with your argument Michale is that it's based on the mistaken premise that spending is out of control.
-David
BTW ... this is pretty awesome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1svF1Yyhnc
-David
I sure hope you were able to catch some of this concert which is just now in the process of winding down.
Liz, you didn't tell me that McCartney jammed with the folks from Nirvana!!!
That's just it though. The Democrats do have fiscal discipline.
Really??
One would never know it by the TRILLIONS of dollars they have spent in the last 4 years...
They've wound down wars.
Which won't add DICK to our coffers... It will just mean we borrow less..
I won't even bother going into the strategic military bind such winding down has put the US in..
The trouble I have with your argument Michale is that it's based on the mistaken premise that spending is out of control.
It's NOT a mistaken premise. It's a fact...
TRILLIONS spent... TRILLIONS we don't have..
If that is not the very definition of out of control spending, what is???
Michale
0354
We're Americans..
We shouldn't have to choose between doing what's best for our families and doing what's best for our country..
That is the EXACT choice that Democrats are FORCING on America's Small Businesses...
And THAT sucks....
Michale
0355
We shouldn't have to choose between doing what's best for our families and doing what's best for our country..
Of course, this pre-supposes that the Democrat's way IS what's best for this country.
This has all but been disproven in the last 4 years...
Michale
0356
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blue-shield-rates-20121213,0,6546740.story
I'm confused...
Wasn't ObamaCare/Tax supposed to bring Health Care costs down!????
Michale
0357
Which won't add DICK to our coffers... It will just mean we borrow less.
It ummm ... Means we spend less. Which seems to be what you're yelling about.
How come you didn't scream at all about any of this until Obama was elected President. Everything seems to come back to this one guy. Who you can't even give credit to when he does spend less. What's the obsession?
TRILLIONS spent... TRILLIONS we don't have..
Capital letter screaming ... lack of calm reasoned analysis ... emotions run rampant
Maybe we should have this conversation when you're not so yell-y?
Seriously, relax, Michale. It will be ok as it has for the past 4 years. We don't want you to have an aneurysm.
-David
It ummm ... Means we spend less. Which seems to be what you're yelling about.
It's simply another accounting trick that Democrats use...
Let me put it this way..
Let's say you borrow $20,000 a year for 4 years of college...
Now, in the 5th year, are you going to have an extra $20,000 to spend as you please??
No...
Not only are you NOT going to have $20,000 for which to spend on what you want, you are STILL in the hole for the previous $80,000...
So, while it is true you are spending LESS, the fact is, you are spending less of OTHER PEOPLE'S money..
Your more broke then when you started...
How come you didn't scream at all about any of this until Obama was elected President.
Simple.. Obama has spent more than ALL previous presidents combined..
Kinda puts it in perspective, don't it. :D
Capital letter screaming ... lack of calm reasoned analysis ... emotions run rampant
Naw, it's just emphasis... I am perfectly calm and rational.. :D
But if you want to emphasize my emphasis rather than address the TRILLIONS (emphasis added :D) that Obama and the Democrats have spent, and Americans are WORSE off now than before Obama took office...???
Well, I could have no better validation, eh? :D
Michale
0358
David,
You claimed above that the rich and the small business owners who are claiming that they will leave the US or shut down are just making threats..
Ignoring for the moment that I am sure the Labour Party thought the same thing in the UK, I have to ask you..
What if you are wrong?
Do you REALLY want to risk a recession, LESS tax revenue AND the livelyhood of MILLIONS of middle class Americans....
Solely on the basis of a Political agenda???
Is it worth the risk if you are wrong??
Michale
03659
What if you are wrong?
"If I'm wrong, nothing happens. We go to jail peacefully. Quietly. We'll enjoy it! But if I'm right.... And we CAN stop this thing. Lenny... YOU will have saved the lives of MILLIONS.... of registered voters."
-Peter Venkman, GHOSTBUSTERS
:D
Michale
03659
That was obviously a typo... :D
Michale
0360
David,
Heh. Sorry, I left out Nirvana...that was really something. I left out a lot, actually.
It was indeed a concert for the ages!
What if you are wrong?
"What if you are wrong?" is not a very valid form of argument.
Here watch .. what if you are wrong?
I could say things like ... if you're WRONG ... MILLIONS of people are going to make LESS money. And ... we are likely to have another financial crisis because people whose vested interest is in destroying our government will be in charge of the government. AND ... some kittens will die TOO.
It's an appeal to emotion.
A better comparison would be to look at a time when rates were similar. Such as under Clinton. And look to see if the end of the world really happened.
-David
"What if you are wrong?" is not a very valid form of argument.
On the contrary, it's a perfectly logical and rational argument..
It's the argument that SHOULD have been made before the UK tried the Millionaire's Tax.. They might not be in such financial straights right now..
The simple fact is, Democrats have a spending problem. They are addicted to spending. Worse, they refuse to even admit that the HAVE that problem..
And NOW the Democrats want MORE money w/o putting ANY spending cuts on the table...
Suddenly the "what if you're wrong" argument takes center stage...
Are you will to risk the livelyhood of MILLIONS of middle class Americans just to further the Democrats agenda??
A better comparison would be to look at a time when rates were similar. Such as under Clinton.
As I said, if you want to return to Clinton Tax Rates, you have to return the government to what it was during the Clinton Years..
But Democrats don't want to do that.. They want the big collassal government they have today w/o record number of people on entitlements *AND* want the higher tax rates..
Don't you think that something will give???
Michale
0361
But Democrats don't want to do that.. They want the big collassal government they have today w/o record number of people on entitlements *AND* want the higher tax rates..
WITH record number of people on entitlements..
"But I am SURE you already knew that. That's what I like about you. Your attention to detail..."
-Ace Ventura
:D
Michale
0362
Let me ask this...
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that any deal should have both higher taxes AND spending cuts???
Or, do ya'all think that it should just be all higher taxes....???
Michale
0363
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that any deal should have both higher taxes AND spending cuts?
You mean like the fiscal cliff?
The deal already in place ...
-David
OK, so yer on record as advocating going over the fiscal cliff...
I have a feeling I am going to get to remind you of this in the coming weeks... :D
But yer likely in "good" company. I am sure that's been Obama and the Democrat's plan all along..
Michale
0364
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/12/13/denver-drug-agent-our-problems-have-exploded-with-pot-legalization/
"Somehow.... 'I Told Ya So' just doesn't seem to cut it..."
-Will Smith, I ROBOT
:D
Michale
0365
Michale,
In the UK, millionaires accounted for 9% of the taxes... Brit leaders got a wild hair up their arse and decided that the rich could be bled out more.
Loooooooool amazing. Basically there were less people declaring >$1m in income AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION so this proves millionaires must have left!!
Have you looked at recent figures since the Great Recession? No, I'd guess not because they absolutely kill your argument. Oh wells.
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that any deal should have both higher taxes AND spending cuts???
Or, do ya'all think that it should just be all higher taxes....?
Me! I think the best way to reduce your deficit would be to LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED YOUR DEFICIT and then fix it. But hey, that's a crazy, maniacal plan - who in their right mind would ever agree to this when you can just shout about 'entitlement spending' instead!
Hence why I'm bored with the whole discussion - as I mentioned before it is an argument between ignorant people who are clueless to how the deficit was created (i.e. anyone using the phrase 'entitlement spending'), people who do actually know how the deficit was created who want to fix it and people who do actually know how the deficit was created but can't stomach military cuts (i.e. a bunch of spineless Democrats).
Anyway I came to post this :)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LNb1_owoDfU/UMpC_n3-QlI/AAAAAAAAKNM/0eTe0n4XKtI/s1600/a%2Bhostage.jpg
Loooooooool amazing. Basically there were less people declaring >$1m in income AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION so this proves millionaires must have left!!
Have you looked at recent figures since the Great Recession? No, I'd guess not because they absolutely kill your argument. Oh wells.
So, YOUR claim is that the millionaires didn't pack up and leave..
YOUR claim is that the lost all their money and were no longer millionaires..
Hmmmmmm
Well, I honestly don't believe that is a STRONGER argument, but let's run with it.
PROVE it.... :D
Me! I think the best way to reduce your deficit would be to LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED YOUR DEFICIT
Again, YOUR claim is that the debt was not caused by an orgasm of over-spending, but rather not collecting enough taxes...
Ummmmm.. Words come to mind.. Oh wait.. I know....
PROVE IT!!
:D
Michale
0366
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15888883-exclusive-susan-rice-drops-out-of-running-for-secretary-of-state-saddened-by-partisan-politics
"Boom Boom Boom... Another one bites the dust"
-QUEEN
:D
Michale
0367
Is there ANYONE here who thinks that any deal should have both higher taxes AND spending cuts?
A better question would be: why do Republicans not only want to go over the fiscal cliff but make it an extra 17% higher and even more painful?
Michale,
YOUR claim is that the lost all their money and were no longer millionaires..
Nope. Income changes year to year. Especially INVESTMENT INCOME when your entire country/the entire world goes down the shit-hole for 2 years. Not only this, but it means you can carry forward some losses too, making your income-adjusted for tax for the 2 or 3 years after a big recession much lower. Simple tax 101, ask any accountant.
Again, YOUR claim is that the debt was not caused by an orgasm of over-spending, but rather not collecting enough taxes...
Ummmmm.. Words come to mind.. Oh wait.. I know....
PROVE IT!!
Not exactly. The majority of the deficit from 2000 to present was caused by 3 things:
(1) Poorer than expected economic conditions
(2) Tax cuts
(3) Military spending (including wars).
I've already posted a video that I recommended you watch. Heck you can even read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Change_in_debt_position_since_2001
A better question would be: why do Republicans not only want to go over the fiscal cliff but make it an extra 17% higher and even more painful?
Now yer re-writing current events..
It's the Democrats (including our own akadjian) who are claiming that the Fiscal Cliff is the way to go...
Michale
0368
It's the Democrats (including our own akadjian) who are claiming that the Fiscal Cliff is the way to go...
Fiscal cliff = $1.2t in cuts
Republican plan = $1.4t in cuts
Difference = +$0.2t (17%).
Nope. You're ignoring reality once again.
(This is ignoring what the cuts are made up off, almost all the new Republican plan is entitlement spending hence why they want it to be not only higher but more painful)
Here you go Michale, video form with nice little graphs and images if you don't like the Wikipedia version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LcvLHHMC4iI
I think the best way to reduce your deficit would be to LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED YOUR DEFICIT and then fix it.
Hmmm ...
Nah. I'm sorry Michty but the odds of this actually happening in America ... not so good.
I mean ... have you read Ayn Rand?
If America swallows this pile of horseshit, we probably do deserve whatever fate becomes us.
-David
David,
Don't you know that America was operating a MASSIVE surplus before evil Obama came to town to wipe it out and create this massive deficit solely on entitlement spending?? Come on man, you need to watch more Fox!
Michty,
Here's what I think we need. A better scary marketing term.
Why don't we call the Republican plan the "Fiscal Abyss"?
Because it's bigger than a cliff. See?
Then, you start saying Republicans are going to take us into the Fiscal Abyss. Then it might start to take hold.
-David
Lolol very true! I was thinking myself 'what's higher than a cliff?' Abyss might be quite good. How about 'the Republicans offer makes the fiscal cliff look like a 'fiscal step ladder'!'
Don't you know that America was operating a MASSIVE surplus before evil Obama came to town to wipe it out and create this massive deficit solely on entitlement spending?
Look ... everyone here had there own UNICORNS before Obama came to town with his Gangsta union thugs and communist America-hating anti-corporate feminist homosexuals trying to take away our AK-47s and God-given rights to freedom of freedom.
You just don't understand America!!!
Freedom of FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!
-David
Why don't we call the Republican plan the "Fiscal Abyss"?
And yet, it's the DEMCORATS that are stonewalling and slow-walking things...
I know ya'all want to spin it to make it look like it's all the Republicans fault, that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
But most Americans have a LOT more common sense then that...
On the other hand, most Americans actually were moronic enough to vote Obama... AGAIN...
So, ya'all might have a point..
Michale
0369
I know ya'all want to spin it to make it look like it's all the Republicans fault, that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
Maybe you should actually READ my comment in [42] again before you accuse me of this. I, for one, don't see Democrats proposing military cuts (given it was one of the main 3 things to a cause your deficit). But on the other hand the Republican plan says 'we have an alcohol problem, let's cut down on cigarettes'. At least the Democrats are trying to address (part of) one of the 3 things that actually caused your deficit...
At least the Democrats are trying to address (part of) one of the 3 things that actually caused your deficit...
On 2nd thought I'm being a little harsh here. Their proposal kind of addresses 2 of the 3 things that caused your deficit (stimulus for (1) and ending tax cuts for millionaires for (2)). They seem to think that going over the cliff is the only way to get through any military cuts at all (as in number (3)) and they are probably right on this, but it's the wrong way to do it.
Yes, Michty....
It's ALL the Evil Republicans fault...
The Democrats are as pure as the driven snow...
Riiiggghhhttttt....... :^/
Michale
0370
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/13/why-obama-blinked-on-susan-rice-nomination/
Benghazi rears it's ugly head again..
Who WOULD have thunked that??
Oh wait.. I know.... :D
Michale
0371
And yet, it's the DEMCORATS that are stonewalling and slow-walking things.
See, michty, first you have the spin. Slow-walking. Boehner has said this same phrase several times.
(let me tell you a little something about Michale.)
I know ya'all want to spin it to make it look like it's all the Republicans fault, that Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.
Then you accuse your opponent of exactly what you're doing.
Michale is quite good at standard conservative propaganda tactics. I think he was in Psy-Ops or something.
Anyways, I don't think he really even believes in half of what he says. He just digs liberal baiting.
-David
Michale is quite good at standard conservative propaganda tactics. I think he was in Psy-Ops or something.
Shhhhh!!! That's spose to be a secret!! :D
Michale
0372
LizM [2] -
Oh, I saw that interview differently. PBS NewsHour has been having lots of people on to talk taxes (Paul Krugman was on an earlier segment of this series). But you could see Judy straining mightily not to have a look of incredulousness on her face the whole time. She was trying not to say something rude like "But surely you don't believe such nonsense!" the whole time. She has the look of a woman restraining herself from busting out a giant belly laugh in Norquist's face the entire time.
Maybe it's just me, but that's how I saw it. Judy was trying her hardest to be polite to Grover, ridiculous character though he is.
Michale -
Coming from a military background, as you do, what exactly would your opinion be of someone who tossed away their American citizenship for the sake of a few bucks? I'm interested.
I have another question for you too. What will happen to the deficit if we go over the fiscal cliff? An astounding number of people say "the deficit will go up if we go over the cliff," but that is 100% wrong and backward. The deficit will go down.
So, why are Republicans so afraid of it? After all, they're supposed to be all about bringing deficits down, right?
The hard truth of the matter is that both parties are arguing over HOW MUCH TO RAISE the deficit. From the baseline of what would happen if we went over the fiscal cliff, both parties are arguing for TRILLIONS in more spending over the next 10 years. The only difference is in how MANY trillions they're going to spend.
So any true deficit hawk should be happy to go over the fiscal cliff. Republicans are arguing both sides of an argument, once again. They're for cutting the deficit, and for hiking the deficit, at the same time.
-CW
Chris,
Yes, well I guess it's Judy's job to be polite to her guest as they disseminate false information.
Coming from a military background, as you do, what exactly would your opinion be of someone who tossed away their American citizenship for the sake of a few bucks? I'm interested.
The patriot in me is outraged...
The pragmatist in me realizes that we're not talking "a few bucks", we're talking someone's economic survival..
So, let me turn the question around and ask you.
What do YOU think about a government that forces Americans to choose between their country and their survival??
I have another question for you too. What will happen to the deficit if we go over the fiscal cliff? An astounding number of people say "the deficit will go up if we go over the cliff," but that is 100% wrong and backward. The deficit will go down.
I don't know a deficit from a doughnut.. My biggest concern in going over the fiscal cliff will be the gutting of our military.. Even more so that the Obama Administration has gutted and tainted our military already..
Michale
0373
Speaking of the Deficit...
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
-Barack Obama
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
-Barack Obama
Now, why on EARTH would ya'all want to argue with ya'alls lord and savior Oh Exalted Barack The First???
Michale
0376
I don't know a deficit from a doughnut.. My biggest concern in going over the fiscal cliff will be the gutting of our military..
Of course, historically speaking, the Left in general and Democrats in particular, have never had a problem with sticking it to the military...
Michale
0377
Well when military spending is ONE OF THE 3 MAJOR COSTS THAT CREATED THE DEFICIT and you have an insane sized lolololololol 50% of world military spending in your 1 country, I could very much sympathise with people who want to cut it.
But nooooooooooo let's look at how the last 10 years $11.7t of deficit was created:
(1) Poorer than expected economic conditions - $3.5t or 30%
(2) Tax cuts - $2t or 17%
(3) Military spending (including wars) - $2.9t or 25%
(Also (4) Interest payments - $1.4t or 12% - which are a collective fault of the above 3)
Hmmmm 84% of the deficit of the last 10 years was caused by these 3 things. The logical conclusion is simple: drastic cuts to entitlement spending!! Lololololol.
You've got to give it to Republicans though - even in the face of simple facts they find a way to blame it on the poor/veterans/elderly that are not so able to defend themselves...
Well when military spending is ONE OF THE 3 MAJOR COSTS THAT CREATED THE DEFICIT and you have an insane sized lolololololol 50% of world military spending in your 1 country, I could very much sympathise with people who want to cut it.
Imagine a moon colony has a fiscal problem...
A large part of their money goes towards maintaining the atmospheric domes...
Some ignoramus (no relation to anyone here :D) suggests they could save money by cutting WAY WAY back on Dome Expenditures..
Now, I axe ya...
Where is the logic in that??
Having said that, I am sure there is some fat that can be trimmed here and there from the military budget...
But you MUST use a scalpel and trim sparingly... Intelligent way..
Not go in with a battle axe and chop anything and everything..
Democrat way....
Michale
0384
Imagine a moon colony has a fiscal problem...
A large part of their money goes towards maintaining the atmospheric domes...
Some ignoramus (no relation to anyone here :D) suggests they could save money by cutting WAY WAY back on Dome Expenditures..
Now, I axe ya...
Where is the logic in that??
Sure I'll show you the logic. Let's take your analogy and apply it to America.
In your analogy's world, there are over 200 moons. All require atmospheric domes to survive.
One moon - Americamoon - decides to spend 100 times more than every other moon putting in the latest, greatest atmospheric dome with cutting edge technology. In fact, they spend so much on their 1 Dome they are spending more money on it than ALL THE OTHER MOONS SPEND ON THEIR DOMES COMBINED.
Then Americamoon runs into some fiscal problems and discovers they have been running up large debts. They look at their expenditure and see that the Moon Dome caused 30% of these debts. But they can't do anything about it because the Americamoon Republican party decides drastic cuts to the Dome are off the table and not even worth discussing. Instead the Americamoon Republican party have identified the problem is the poor/veterans/elderly living on the moon! The Americamoon Democratic party is full of people who are too scared to take on the lobbying powers of the Dome manufacturers, so they too are not willing to propose cuts or to put in a much more efficient and simple Dome system that meets their requirements.
I must say that is probably one of the most fun posts I've ever written :)
Your analogy assumes that a competent and effective military is not required for survival..
You are completely and unequivocally wrong in that regard...
Don't feel too bad.. Every Leftist and Democrat likely feels the same way...
Michale
0385
Your analogy assumes that a competent and effective military is not required for survival..
You are completely and unequivocally wrong in that regard...
Don't feel too bad.. Every Leftist and Democrat likely feels the same way...
Nope, read it again. Here I'll even quote and embolden you: All require atmospheric domes to survive.. At no point did I say in the analogy that an effective Dome was not required. This is what you can't understand - you think 'cuts to military' means 'no military' which couldn't be further from the truth.
What you seem to believe is that an 'effective military' means 'spending more than ever other country spends on their military combined' lol. Almost every country requires some sort of effective military. NO COUNTRY ON THE PLANET spends as much as the US either in terms of $ per person, absolute $, numbers of equipment, $ per square foot of land - pretty much ANY STATISTIC THERE IS shows how over-inflated and insane the US military size is. My analogy picks up on this...
This is what you can't understand - you think 'cuts to military' means 'no military' which couldn't be further from the truth.
With the cuts you and the rest of the Left/Democrats have in mind, cuts to the military IS no military. At least no EFFECTIVE military..
As I said, leave military matters to those who know military matters. You are WAY out of your league on this one... :D
Michale
0420