January 03, 2013
— Ace This strikes me as an exercise in pure contrarianism but I suppose it's worth noting.
Those who think that opposing any deal would have somehow created the conditions for Republicans to insist on reinstating all the Bush tax rates after they expired have a far higher opinion of the backbone of Republican leaders than I do. But thatÂ’s a prudential debate about how, as the minority party in Washington focused on keeping taxes and spending down, to minimize the harm of a uniquely bad set of circumstances. Maybe Republicans did that, maybe they could have done a little better, but they probably couldnÂ’t have done much better.But the Democrats could have, and the story of their failure here has not yet gotten the notice it deserves. In the long run, when the dust has settled, I think that will be the real story of the fiscal cliff. For liberals, this was not a moment of danger to be minimized but by far their best opportunity in a generation for increasing tax rates (which is the only fiscal reform they seem to want) and for robbing Republicans of future leverage for spending and entitlement reforms. And it is likely the best one they will encounter for another generation. Many on the left have seemed convinced lately that the politics of taxes had changed dramatically in their favor, and that the opportunity presented by the cliff could result in the kind of surge in revenue that could put off the coming fiscal crunch for years (until, they seem to think, it will just magically go away at some point) and so could save our entitlement programs from the need for reform....
But that hasn’t happened here. This deal is projected to yield $620 billion in revenue over a decade — increasing projected federal revenue by about 1.7 percent over that time. And that’s about it. The Democrats have made the Bush tax rates permanent for 98 percent of the public, which Republicans couldn’t even do when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. They did not get to pick and throw away the low-hanging fruit that could be used in future rate-reducing tax reform (in fact, they retained some “extenders” of tax credits and deductions that could better enable such reform, and the new and more honest CBO baseline that results from this deal eases the way for it), they did not get to claim that they have reformed Medicare without touching its structure, and they now have to move immediately into a debt ceiling fight. Right after a tax-only deal, and just as people start to notice higher payroll taxes, they’re not in a great position to demand more rate increases in that fight, or others to come.
If even under the conditions of the past month — with a very liberal president just re-elected, Republicans in disarray, public opinion on taxes seemingly friendlier to them than it has been in decades, and higher tax rates automatically taking effect — the Democrats can’t get more than a tiny pittance of revenue and no chips to use later, then their basic approach to fiscal issues just won’t work.
Apparently a Democratic priority was getting Republicans to sign on to sham Medicare reform -- "reform" which only consists of the government paying doctors and hospitals less, rather than changing it structurally. Yuval Levin suggests the Democrats wanted that to forestall genuine reform and also to get the Republicans to sign on to the Democrats' favorite sort of reform, which is to say, no reform at all.
Well, the Democrats didn't get that, but I'm not sure that was really the high priority Levin thinks it is.
Some suggest that the Democrats no longer have much leverage in the coming debates over the debt ceiling. They have less leverage, but that's mostly because they already got their top priority. And given that the Republicans surrendered on the debt ceiling last time, I don't see why they'd suddenly have the backbone for a fight now.
Posted by: Ace at
10:08 AM
| Comments (277)
Post contains 687 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:10 AM (5DR1j)
Posted by: EC at January 03, 2013 10:10 AM (GQ8sn)
Paul Weyrich-1999
I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn't mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn't going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important.
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:12 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2013 10:12 AM (UK9cE)
I thought Obamacare was supposed to make medicaid and medicare moot. Those are expected to go away as soon as the medical insurance industry is destroyed.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 03, 2013 10:12 AM (69Mdf)
Posted by: Flounder at January 03, 2013 10:13 AM (Kkt/i)
Death by hammers and clubs far outnumbers deaths by rifle.
STOP!! Hammer control time!!!
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2013 10:13 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Penfold at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (Fbt5B)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (79ueO)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (wbmaj)
Is there any way that 98% figure can be guaranteed?
I can't find it now but there are reports that higher taxes are in order for those under the $450k level. BoBamacare has a host of taxes as well, so this 98% thing is smelling suspiciously like bovine fecal matter.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (KDq5l)
Posted by: M.C Hammer at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (XkWWK)
Redistribution.
And they achieved that. On top of it, the best chance we were going to have for entitlement reform was here. All we had to do was nothing and we would have achieved a goal we've been pursing for at least the last 20 years- cutting Medicare and Social Security. Indeed, for the first time in my lifetime (at least) there would have been real, significant cuts to Government Spending.
They prevented that.
No, this is a complete win for the Democrats.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (5DR1j)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 03, 2013 10:14 AM (jUytm)
Hey, you only got gang-raped by 3 dudes in the prison shower. The other 2 keeping watch didn't get a turn.
You're welcome.
Posted by: El Kabong at January 03, 2013 10:15 AM (M8skJ)
Posted by: Flounder at January 03, 2013 02:13 PM (Kkt/i)
Yeah, I'm looking for 75 Watt incandescents since they've successfully banned those.
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2013 10:15 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 03, 2013 10:15 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Jordan at January 03, 2013 10:15 AM (Hz1zc)
Some suggest that the Democrats no longer have much leverage in the coming debates over the debt ceiling.
Who cares about the next skirmish... What do they do without "TAX THE RICH!" in their platform? They just spent their single most potent weapon from the 2012 campaign.
Posted by: CJ at January 03, 2013 10:16 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 03, 2013 10:16 AM (79ueO)
Posted by: Jollyroger at January 03, 2013 10:17 AM (t06LC)
That's a tax increase on "the middle class."
Don't think the Democrats won't do everything they can to lay that one at the Republicans' doorstep.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:17 AM (5DR1j)
Hi Jordan. Is the Texas Legislature still in session?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 03, 2013 10:17 AM (KDq5l)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2013 10:17 AM (EitjN)
Posted by: mallfly at January 03, 2013 10:17 AM (bJm7W)
Between 250k and 450k there is loss of some deductions, so yes a tax increase.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 03, 2013 10:18 AM (69Mdf)
Posted by: Dan at January 03, 2013 10:18 AM (/7gN/)
Posted by: Jordan at January 03, 2013 02:15 PM (Hz1zc)
Welcome to the party, pal.
You voted for it.
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2013 10:18 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2013 10:18 AM (v6YdM)
have a large amount of computer drives and such to order, but they
probably are not listed in the AoSHQ Amazon Store. Any way that I can
get the credit to HQ for the purchase?
Posted by: Flounder at January 03, 2013 02:13 PM (Kkt/i)
I think as long as you go through the link on the main page here, any category you search will give ace credit.
Posted by: Tami at January 03, 2013 10:19 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:20 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Marmo at January 03, 2013 10:21 AM (QW+AD)
Posted by: Far Post at January 03, 2013 10:21 AM (V3pff)
Posted by: Some Ancient Greek Dude at January 03, 2013 10:21 AM (5DR1j)
Posted by: chrisnotrock at January 03, 2013 10:21 AM (dX5s2)
They got tax increases and no spending cuts. He is FOS.
Posted by: Vic at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (EitjN)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Army Spokesman, standing on Little Bighorn at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: The Light Brigade [/i] [/b] at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (KDq5l)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (5DR1j)
Posted by: CJ at January 03, 2013 02:16 PM (9KqcB)
Obastard has already said after the deal that "the rich still aren't paying their fair share".
He will continue with the class warfare until the middle class is paying alot more, because that is where the money is.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 03, 2013 10:23 AM (69Mdf)
Posted by: M.C Hammer at January 03, 2013 10:24 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: tubal at January 03, 2013 10:25 AM (BoE3Z)
"Someone should post something not depressing."
___ ____ ___ ___
Chavez is dead and Castro doesn't feel so good himself.
that's all I got
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 10:25 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:25 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Flounder at January 03, 2013 02:13 PM (Kkt/i)
It doesn't matter if it is in the "AOS store" or not, as long as you access Amazon through the AOS link Ace will get credit for any shopping at Amazon.
Posted by: Vic at January 03, 2013 10:25 AM (53z96)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:25 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: chrisnotrock at January 03, 2013 10:26 AM (dX5s2)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 03, 2013 10:26 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: RamonAllones at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (3lLli)
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (Vk2pI)
"Republicans"! Bwahahahaha GOP-toothed useless twaddle-sucker monkey vomit same-as-Dems One Party Uber Alles [dot com, morons]
/uterus cannon, wondering how long I can keep this up
Posted by: Libertrollian at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: Vic at January 03, 2013 02:23 PM (53z96)
I suspect it's a desperate attempt to keep the few remaining conservatives from committing mass suicide.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (4df7R)
"Many on the left have seemed convinced lately that the politics of taxes had changed dramatically in their favor, and that the opportunity presented by the cliff could result in the kind of surge in revenue that could put off the coming fiscal crunch for years"
-
No one could be that stupid. What the liberals want is the same thing that half of the republicans want - no change in the federal largesse, coupled with borrowing and taxes on the evil rich.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (KwMW2)
Posted by: Huey Long at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 03, 2013 10:27 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:28 AM (wbmaj)
@65
And truthfully, we're not. The only way we might have addressed spending issues is if Romney won in a landslide. 54% of our countrymen are assholes and said no dice.
We won't really address these major issues until they become crisis on their own right.
Posted by: Jollyroger at January 03, 2013 10:28 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 03, 2013 10:29 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Libertrollian
Needs more unearned smugness.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 03, 2013 10:29 AM (KDq5l)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 02:28 PM (wbmaj)
It's no big deal for Harry, his wife says that every night.
Posted by: Army Spokesman, standing on Little Bighorn at January 03, 2013 10:29 AM (RD7QR)
Also, anyone who thinks this rate increase will actually produce anywhere near $600 billion in new revenue in the next 10 years is an idiot, the only way that will happen is if economic growth suddenly perks up to 5%+ a year, which it won't.
So in a year we will have concrete proof that raising tax rates only on the top bracket does not produce much new revenue. Let the Democrats keep running on this, they will just look stupider and stupider.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:29 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 10:29 AM (fpSpD)
Posted by: ette at January 03, 2013 10:30 AM (nqBYe)
The new Republican Flag. A white elephant, in a blizzard, eating Altoids.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 03, 2013 10:30 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Deep Roy at January 03, 2013 10:30 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 03, 2013 10:30 AM (b1VIZ)
http://youtu.be/ed1Ucnvn08s
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 02:29 PM (fpSpD)
[Perks up] What kind of pie?
Posted by: joncelli at January 03, 2013 10:30 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:31 AM (5DR1j)
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at January 03, 2013 10:31 AM (VLifP)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 03, 2013 10:32 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: ette at January 03, 2013 10:32 AM (nqBYe)
It was a really crappy situation the GOP was in. There were 2 paths. Let it all expire, or make a deal. The GOP had almost no leverage.
I think they did pretty damned well, considering. And Barky got his Pyrrhic victory of a lousy $60 Billion in new revenues.. a pittance.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 03, 2013 10:32 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 03, 2013 10:33 AM (VtjlW)
77
Boehner should have done ait on the House floor-right after accusing Reid of not paying income taxes for the last ten years.
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:33 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: ette at January 03, 2013 10:33 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: negotiator's anonymous at January 03, 2013 10:33 AM (sofSX)
OT, but should we open a betting pool on whether Barack "Huey Long" Obama attends the funeral (may it be soon) of Hugo "Huey Long" Chavez?
I mean, the mask's well and truly off now, so what should stop him?
Posted by: RamonAllones at January 03, 2013 10:33 AM (3lLli)
I think they did pretty damned well, considering. And Barky got his Pyrrhic victory of a lousy $60 Billion in new revenues.. a pittance.
Err... you do realize we're all mocking and deriding this loser, too, right?
And I think you're wrong about who won a Pyrrhic victory.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:34 AM (5DR1j)
#70 Actually, all Democrats wanted was to force Republicans to vote for higher taxes and violate the Grover Norquist Pledge, which they have convinced themselves is the Root of All Evil In America. And they didn't even get that. Norquist said the vote wasn't a violation of the pledge, and all the Tea Partry conservatives were able to vote against it anyway.
So they failed in making Norquist the new bogeyman and making Republicans cross him, they got less than half the new revenue they wanted and not nearly enough to justify any new spending they want to do, and Obama didn't get what he demanded on the debt ceiling.
Sounds like a whole lotta FAIL by the Democrats to me.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:34 AM (qE3AR)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:34 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 10:35 AM (fpSpD)
Posted by: ette at January 03, 2013 02:33 PM (nqBYe)
Nah, the states won't be "United" by that point. Think of what happened to the Soviet Union when the money spigot went dry.
Posted by: Jollyroger at January 03, 2013 10:35 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 03, 2013 02:14 PM (XkWWK)
It's kinda toasty, but there is a way.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at January 03, 2013 10:35 AM (zpqa2)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 03, 2013 10:35 AM (IvVLN)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 03, 2013 10:35 AM (jUytm)
I'm sure he'll be invited to speak.
Over-under on the number of times he uses the word "I"?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 03, 2013 10:35 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 10:36 AM (fpSpD)
Over-under on the number of times he uses the word "I"?
"I was only 21 when Hugo Chavez nationalized his first industry!"
Posted by: EC at January 03, 2013 10:36 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (IvVLN)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (l86i3)
Obama only got 99.9% of what he wanted.
Begin tantrum....
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Jollyroger at January 03, 2013 02:35 PM (t06LC)
Although it might come to that, i guess one could hope for it as the best scenario.
now if only i could afford a cave in a red state.
Posted by: ette at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at January 03, 2013 10:37 AM (QF8uk)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:38 AM (5DR1j)
Paul Ryan: Gee, Wally, you told me we had a chance to win. I shoulda listened to Eddie. He said you were full a s**t.
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:38 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:38 AM (qE3AR)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 03, 2013 10:38 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: John Boehner at January 03, 2013 10:39 AM (UgFxe)
ADP is reporting over 200K jobs added in December
Clerks added for retail during Christmas shopping.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 03, 2013 10:39 AM (b1VIZ)
______________
HUH? The MFM told me Obama is a center right candidate, just to the left of Ronald Reagan.
Now he's a very liberal president? My oh my how quickly the meme changes.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:39 AM (HDgX3)
67 Obama and Reid let their hostages go. They can no longer threaten the Middle Class with higher tax rates or threaten the GOP with the blame.
Yep.
$1 Trillion in Obamacare taxes will be kicking in now.
This will be felt by the Middle Class, more than the 1%-ers.
Let's give it a few months.
As gas prices continue to go up...as well as all other consumer prices...and people will have less in their paychecks to buy anything with...those people will be looking for someone to blame.
All we should say is...."The Dems Won. This is what they wanted."
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2013 10:39 AM (K4wCe)
I've seen some folks asking for a funny post. From the last thread, here's the funniest one I've seen all day:
You far righties realize how irrelevant you are yet?
Come back to reality and let's do the hard work of fighting the upcoming debt limit talks. Stop listening to the loons.
Posted by: sanity at January 03, 2013 01:53 PM (RVjIg)
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 10:39 AM (1Y+hH)
How? What was the GOP leverage?
(I'm talking only about taxes here.. there was no time for spending talks - we'll have those soon)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 03, 2013 10:40 AM (f9c2L)
Clinton era good times are coming man. Party like its 1999.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 03, 2013 10:40 AM (hc3eM)
Posted by: #6 at January 03, 2013 10:40 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 03, 2013 02:15 PM (jUytm)
Speaking of Hewitt, is he fluffing Willard for a 2016 run?
Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at January 03, 2013 10:40 AM (OW/Yj)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 03, 2013 10:40 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (Vk2pI)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: low info voter at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (QF8uk)
no that ship has sailed. he's actually been pretty harsh on the house GOP
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, El Patron at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (fpSpD)
>>>All it would take is a miracle and we're due for a miracle.
Pfft. Maybe the GOP ought to adopt that as their motto - oh, wait, praying is doing something.
Posted by: Libertrollian at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 10:41 AM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 03, 2013 10:42 AM (IvVLN)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:42 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 03, 2013 10:42 AM (e0xKF)
Posted by: john b at January 03, 2013 10:42 AM (b6of5)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 03, 2013 10:42 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (feFL6)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (EitjN)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (IvVLN)
(I'm talking only about taxes here.. there was no time for spending talks - we'll have those soon)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 03, 2013 02:40 PM (f9c2L)
With all due respect, CTJ, I find it endearing that you think spending talks will ever be on the table.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 02:41 PM (Tt6ky)
Well, "permanent", that's a nuanced word, in Washington.
Posted by: tubal at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (BoE3Z)
Liberals need anger to continue their battles. Otherwise their base just smokes out and eats doritos. There must always be demons standing in the way of social progress. They must always be losing.
Do you not see it. Inundated with trolls, spewing bile and hate, totally immune to the very idea that they had won.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (0q2P7)
No.
The act of extending them was made permanent, meaning they don't have to come back after 5 or 10 years to have the fight again. Congress can raise the rates again if they want to.
Posted by: EC at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (GQ8sn)
But they can't hide the shit people WON'T be buying cuz they got less money. Consumer spending will suffer in direct proportion.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 03, 2013 10:43 AM (hc3eM)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:44 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2013 10:44 AM (QVmdM)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, El Patron at January 03, 2013 02:41 PM (yAor6)
I pretty much can't stand the guy but he's been very consistent on blasting the inability of the House GOP to follow through with the Tea Party gains in 2010 regarding the mandate on spending.
Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at January 03, 2013 10:44 AM (OW/Yj)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 03, 2013 10:44 AM (azHfB)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 03, 2013 10:44 AM (VtjlW)
As a matter of precedence, (because that's what we're all about these days), henceforth, all future dealings and negotiations with Harry Reid should begin and end with, "Go Fuck Yourself."
Posted by: Fritz at January 03, 2013 10:44 AM (w3+gB)
>>From moral majority to ambivalent minority. We are on one rudderless ship.
Scary thing is, I believe its all well-steered, not rudderless in the least.
Posted by: Libertrollian at January 03, 2013 10:45 AM (3ZtZW)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 02:42 PM (NYnoe)
__________
AMT fix? Please! That's a win for us?
He got 99% of what he wanted because he got a massive tax increase and ABSOLUTELY NO SPENDING CUTS. People on both the left and right were so focused on the definition of "rich". Will it be 250, 300, 400K? Who gives a shit? The number doesn't matter. The win for him was it is no established in the minds of the imecile voter that taxing the rich while not cutting spending is the "right way" of balancing the budget and it's bipartisan too!! Anyone who dares suggest we cut spending is now a far right lunatic. That's the big win Obama got.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:45 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Drider at January 03, 2013 10:46 AM (HaJD9)
Posted by: xuyee at January 03, 2013 10:46 AM (/QiO2)
Posted by: JDP at January 03, 2013 02:45 PM (60GaT)
__________
You're right. My bad. I thought this was from somewhere else.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:46 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: alexthechick -
You mean we become a famous 500 lbs. asshole? Doesn't sound that appealing.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 03, 2013 10:46 AM (KDq5l)
$2 trillion hike in exchange for abolishment of one federal dept of my choice. You want another $2 trillion hike 6 months from now? I get to raze another dept of my choice.
Posted by: EC at January 03, 2013 10:47 AM (GQ8sn)
#136 They failed in the Senate because Harry Reid massively overplayed his hand, so Mitch McConnell finally told him to fuck off and went and made a deal with Joe Biden. The fact that all but one Democrat in the Senate voted for it means that Harry Reid no longer control's the Democrats in the Senate. If he had any real power he could have queered that deal and stopped it from getting to the Senate floor, but he didn't.
This is also a huge deal that conservatives seem to be totally missing today, and I don't understand why. McConnell just made Joe Biden not only the functional President, but also the functional Senate Majority Leader. Harry Reid has been effectively castrated.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:47 AM (NYnoe)
None of it makes any difference when the numbers do not actually represent what they were originally designed to signal. Welcome to shadow economics.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at January 03, 2013 10:47 AM (zpqa2)
...and "the rich" metric is gonna come sliding back down around 100k at some point too.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 03, 2013 10:47 AM (hc3eM)
Let me remind you that the Democrats fought to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. What makes you think Congress is going to raise taxes?
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 10:47 AM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 03, 2013 10:47 AM (IvVLN)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 03, 2013 02:40 PM (evdj2)
____ ___ ___ __
It's like a science experiment now. Just observe.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 10:48 AM (1Y+hH)
Hmmmm; you're a no nonsense person who has put that in the most palatable way I've seen. Maybe I don't feel as bad as I thought I did...
Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny 2013 return tour?) at January 03, 2013 10:48 AM (OW/Yj)
It seems like it's a false construct applying the term "leverage" to negotiations like this.
Someone put me some knowledge here.
Posted by: Marmo at January 03, 2013 10:48 AM (QW+AD)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 10:48 AM (Tt6ky)
When they figure they can get away with it.
Posted by: EC at January 03, 2013 10:48 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 03, 2013 10:48 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:49 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: tubal at January 03, 2013 10:49 AM (BoE3Z)
Then I completely and summarily reject your premise. We already had spending cuts. All we had to do was... nothing. If we refuse to pass any bill, yes, there are tax rate hikes. Guess what, that's what the American People voted for. If we refuse to pass any bill we ALSO get spending cuts. The first real ones probably in my lifetime.
And you know what? Except for start of the year withholding, fixing the tax rates wasn't actually all that urgent. We could have passed a bill in late January or early February with no harm ultimately done.
Instead, Congressional Republicans gave in to the urge to do something! So now we all get tax hikes anyway (well, you do if you're not already self-employed and are working), we have nixed any spending cuts, and (worse) increased spending further.
Do you seriously think that we'll ever cut spending if we're not holding some other enormous cudgel? Well, we just put down the only one we had.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 03, 2013 10:49 AM (5DR1j)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 03, 2013 10:49 AM (GFM2b)
Obastard has already said after the deal that "the rich still aren't paying their fair share".
True. But it certainly loses some punch now.
Posted by: CJ at January 03, 2013 10:49 AM (9KqcB)
Biden IS the president of the Senate after all. A couple of days ago I suggested he kick Harry to the curb and stop abdicating the duty.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 03, 2013 10:50 AM (hc3eM)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 10:50 AM (fpSpD)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 02:47 PM (Tt6ky)
Because they're CONGRESS. That's what they do. It doesn't matter that the Dems fought to make Bush tax rates permanent. They were also fighting to get rid of them because the "Bush-era tax rates were only for the rich." Remember?
Congress likes money. They like to spend. They can't balance a budget -- they can't even MAKE a budget at this point -- so instead they just keep demanding more money.
As Obamacare and our massive entitlement spending sap the coffers dry, taxes will go up. They will always go up, and spending will never go down.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:50 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:51 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 03, 2013 10:51 AM (hc3eM)
Now if we can just score that kind of cultural victory with spending cuts.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 10:51 AM (Tt6ky)
You guys are delusional.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:51 AM (HDgX3)
It takes those issues off the table but sure as fuck doesn't address any of the spending issues that got us into this mess.
Voters. Don't. Want. Spending. Cut.
We need to get our heads around that. Until voters feel pain, the only folks holding out for real spending cuts are conservative bloggers.
Posted by: CJ at January 03, 2013 10:52 AM (9KqcB)
My eyes glaze over every time I hear that from people. I know I'm dealing with a sub-tard right there and then.
Posted by: EC at January 03, 2013 10:52 AM (GQ8sn)
"the rich still aren't paying their fair share"
Because dammit, those $250K a year millionaire households aren't paying enough!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:53 AM (4df7R)
It was all about politics and power.
Obama used the situation to weaken his opposition by deepening the divide between conservatives and moderates in the GOP while reinforcing the media narrative that Republicans only care about "The Rich" and in so doing he strengthened his grip on power.
Nothing else mattered.
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 03, 2013 10:53 AM (RSqz2)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 10:53 AM (fpSpD)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at January 03, 2013 10:53 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:54 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: #6 at January 03, 2013 10:54 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at January 03, 2013 02:53 PM (1hM1d)
You're implying they've stopped. Democrats will always talk about of both sides of their mouth with ridiculously contradictory premises, and yet force you to believe that what they're saying is the same on either side.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:54 AM (4df7R)
Democrats have staked out a position based on low or no taxes for 50% and relatively low taxes on income brackets up to $250. to an extent, this is an adoption of Republican low tax is good theory. but they can come back for special high taxes for the rich at any time, and indirect taxes on the not so rich through corporate taxes (actual rates or closing loopholes) at any time.
republican advocacy for low or no on 50% and relatively low up to $250 has distorted the tax system, so a smaller and smaller number of filers pay a larger and larger share.
fixes for entitlement spending that place an increasing burden on a few to fund a benefit for the many will face similar stress- benefits will have to be paid for, and benefits will be enlarged and expanded for the needy and deserving, with an ever increasing cost borne by a smaller number of payers. even republicans are calling the return to the flat tax withholding rate a tax increase on the middle class
Posted by: wm flip at January 03, 2013 10:54 AM (lB/5N)
What really happened was this:
The middle class paid no income tax in 2012 and the middle class will pay no income tax in 2013 and beyond either. The FSA isn't just the Obamaphone lady. It's a lot of "middle class" people who pay nothing or close to nothing and get all sorts of shit from the govt. They don't get welfare per se, but they get everything for free...airports, military, etc.
Let's call this for what it really is. The really rich people got a tax increase. Upper middle class people will pay the same rates. Middle and lower middle class people will continue paying nothing.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 10:55 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 03, 2013 10:55 AM (GFM2b)
#165 I don't agree, because this was portrayed by ALL the media as exclusively a fight over taxes, not spending. They thought they were helping Obama, but they didn't. Now the spending fight starts. I don't know how anyone could have thought Republicans had any serious chance of getting any spending cuts in this bill. They didn't. Conservatives are moving the goalposts here to deny Republicans any semblance of a victory, which is politically stupid. All you are doing is playing into Obama's hands by shooting at Republicans and not at him or at Harry Reid.
This was a tax bill. Obama wanted $1.2 trillion in new revenue out of it and he wanted to be able to spend all of that on new liberal shit and have no further fight on the debt ceiling. He got half of the revenue he wanted, not enough to spend on anything that matters, and that only on paper; and he did not get to avoid a separate fight on the debt ceiling. He doesn't just want no spending cuts; he wants to INCREASE spending, and he still can't. I just don't see any way you can spin that as he got 99% of what he wanted!
The more we tie Obama down with arcane legislative battles, the pissier and more unpopular he is going to be. He hates this shit, he doesn't want to lead or govern, he wants to agitate when he can and play golf and go on vacation the rest of the time.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 10:56 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 03, 2013 02:55 PM (GFM2b)
Oh, that's BAD. That's so bad even a pun aficionado like me almost has to pull the barooga horn and have you yanked off stage.
Almost.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:56 AM (4df7R)
NEXT: Democras will decry the rising deficits and demand more taxes on the rich.
And the media will assist and the people will agree.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 10:56 AM (1Y+hH)
The whole fiscal cliff thing about income tax increases is a side show.
The REALLY SERIOUS TAX is the hidden one - inflation. With the Federal Reserve handing out money to the Treasury and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac EVERY MONTH, the government is taking a bite via dilution of every single dollar in circulation. The Fed is issuing $100 billion a month - $1.2 trillion a year - about the total deficit spending.
The Federal Reserve is what is making the huge deficits work - not taxes.
Posted by: Whitehall at January 03, 2013 10:57 AM (FmPSC)
Either you have an odd concept of "significant", or you're assuming everyone with a decent job has lots of little deductions running around underfoot.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at January 03, 2013 10:57 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2013 10:58 AM (QVmdM)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 10:58 AM (Tt6ky)
NEXT: Democras will decry the rising deficits and demand more taxes on the rich.
That's next time on Headlines of the Future: 2013!
And 2014.
And 2021.
And 2200...
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 10:58 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 10:58 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at January 03, 2013 10:58 AM (feFL6)
________
Fair enough. I get what you're saying, I disagree. I think Obama didn't care about the actual numbers. 1.2T or 600B doesn't matter. He got a tax rate on "evil rich people". He demonized the rich to the point where anyone making $250K or more is seen as sub-human by the masses. And by extension he also demonized the GOP as defenders of these sub-humans. Even if taxes only went up on people making $10M or more, I still think Obama would have won the battle. It was a purely political battle and had nothing to do with spending or taxation.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 11:00 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 11:00 AM (NYnoe)
THERE IS NO MORE MONEY.
Tell me, when is the best time to start cutting spending? And what other tools do the GOP have to enforce it?
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2013 02:58 PM (QVmdM
__ ___ ___
Irrelevant. There's been no more money for years. Let me know when there's no more lenders.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 11:00 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2013 02:58 PM (QVmdM)
Tomorrow, always tomorrow. Right after I quit drinking.
Posted by: Heralder at January 03, 2013 11:00 AM (+xmn4)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 11:00 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 03, 2013 11:01 AM (IvVLN)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 03, 2013 11:02 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 03:00 PM (l86i3)
______________________________
Russia has a 13% flat tax. And lots of oil.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 11:02 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 11:02 AM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 02:58 PM (Tt6ky)
"Soon" doesn't matter. They'll do it. And I'd be willing to bet we'll start hearing rumblings to that effect before half the year is out.
We have no more money, and Washington WILL NOT cut spending to any significant degree. Don't you know that cutting PBS funding is akin to killing grandmothers and stabbing puppies, you soulless heathen? No, we must continue to pay for everything we've always* paid for, but we also need more money to cover X, Y, and Z. That means we'll have to have a "serious conversation" about raising taxes on "high income earners."
And round and round we go.
*"always" in this respect means "Anything established since Woodrow Wilson was in office."
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at January 03, 2013 11:03 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 03, 2013 11:03 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 02:53 PM (fpSpD)
Amen!
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 03, 2013 11:05 AM (RSqz2)
#220 But he didn't even completely win the political battle. Taxes will go up a little for a small number of people, most of whom voted for Obama anyway so why should we care? Republicans saved the much larger group of small business owners and suburban professionals who make $250-400k and are largely Republican voters. And he did NOT get anyone to break the Grover Norquist pledge, because Norquist himself blessed this bill. He did not get a bill passed with Republican votes, so he owns the results of this, which will be meager.
You act like we have never seen high tax rates like that which was just RE-imposed on the top bracket, but you know we have, and it wasn't the end of the world. Yes, I know it's class warfare and all that rot, but that's what the election was about and we lost. Low-info Obama voters now think "Obama won and the rich people are going to pay now." What's Obama going to do now for an encore when there still isn't enough money for all the new programs he promised?
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 11:06 AM (qE3AR)
http://tinyurl.com/avpfe9b
Posted by: chad98036 at January 03, 2013 11:06 AM (gYowz)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 03, 2013 02:58 PM (QVmdM)
Reality. It also has the benefit of not being GOP competence dependent. If (sorry when) the debt ceiling is raised, it will make the US debt look like a riskier investment. This will continue every time this happens until no one buys debt. When this occurs, we may (will) get our austerity.
Of government is of the people, by the people, and the people are largely disfunctional retards.
Posted by: Jollyroger at January 03, 2013 11:09 AM (t06LC)
Pulled from the shelves Paul Gillcrist's book on the F-14s. Has an appendix listing 592 airframes. And in 1945 we had 98 carriers from CVE to CV.
Chapter 32 briefly covers what Grumman called Tomcat 21 but not in technical terms. Just about the politics that killed it. Chapter 34 describes why the F/A-18E/F is junk.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 11:10 AM (fpSpD)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 03:02 PM (Tt6ky)
_____________
If you made $30K a year you'll get all of your income tax back. What you should do is decrease your withholding so you don't give the govt an interest free loan every year. And you probably also qualify for the EITC which should cover your payroll tax as well. or a good chunk of it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 11:11 AM (HDgX3)
Look.
Here is something that you keep waving away, that is just a REALITY, like ice ages and weather patterns and gravity: the Republicans have control of 1/2 of 1/3rd of the Federal government. And they are wildly unpopular with the American people. And the Democratic President was just reelected, with an increased Senate majority.
THIS IS THE TERRAIN. You seem to think that all things, all forms of maneuver, all varieties of wizardry, are available as options to the GOP right now. Realistically speaking, the GOP can do extremely little until and unless it takes one more branch of government -- either the Senate (uniting Congressional control under the GOP) or the Presidency.
Your argument is with the Constitution, not with "pussy Republicans." They have a shit hand to play.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2013 11:12 AM (/COnL)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 03, 2013 11:13 AM (fpSpD)
And Obama DID care about the actual number, he campaigned on $1.2 trillion in new revenue, he insisted that he needed all of it and he refused to back off of that number until Joe Biden made the deal with McConnell. And he planned to spend most of it and use a pittance for deficit reduction, so he could claim he reduced the deficit while still "investing" an all the liberal wish-list shit that he thinks will create jobs. He can't do that now with less than half the revenue he wanted. This is why liberals like Ezra Klein and Mark Halperin said it was a bad deal and are apoplectic. There isn't enough new revenue in this deal for Obama to do squat, but getting any more tax increases out of Congress will be close to impossible. Not only that, but the media are having a field day with the special-interest tax breaks that made it into this bill, and the Democrats in the Senate are getting 100% of the blame for those.
So if this was a political win for Obama, it was a damn small one, especially for the first battle after his supposedly smashing relection victory.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 11:14 AM (aBlZ1)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 03, 2013 11:17 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 03:06 PM (qE3AR)
______________________
I don't think you're getting my point. It's not about taxes. It's about spending. We have a spending problem. Obama didn't cut any spending. Therefore he didn't address the real problem and got away with it....again. He got $600B in new taxes, that's his bonus. His real win was not touching a dime of spending.And his encore will be of course to do it again. The rich are still not paying their fare share. Let's tax them some more. Hey they can afford it, you know? And the MFM will get their knee pads on again and go through the same cycle we just went through.
And the big KO comes when he raises taxes on everyone. That's because the meme of "we have a tax problem not a revenue problem" has been set in stone. And the dolts who are anxiously waiting on Kim/Kanye baby will nod and say, yep we need more taxes.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 11:17 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 11:17 AM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2013 11:17 AM (ZSnCv)
Posted by: Flounder at January 03, 2013 11:18 AM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: Fabio9000 at January 03, 2013 11:19 AM (nd/L2)
If you told me two terms of Obama and a Democrat Senate and 98% of us would still be paying the tax rates under Bush, I would call you a liar. We're paying FAR less in taxes than we are under the supposedly "centrist" Bill Clinton with the Class of '94 Congress when the nation was actually far more conservative.
The deficit problem is now squarely on the shoulders of spending and entitlements, any more "soak the rich" rhetoric with say cutting deductions on the top is going to laughed at as it won't be able to even fund the government for 24 hours.
Posted by: McAdams at January 03, 2013 11:21 AM (9o+8D)
#243 So you think there is any appetite left in either party for another tax bill? I think you are crazy.
Of course we have a spending problem. But THIS bill was never about that, it was about fixing the idiocy of tax rates with expiration dates and an out-of-control AMT. I don't know why conservatives thought Republicans had any leverage to cut spending in this bill. But they have plenty now to cut spending in some actual spending bills.
You are claiming a loss because the fight wasn't over what you wanted it to be over. But that fight is still left to be fought. And Obama did not get his automatic debt ceiling increase in this bill either, so that's another fight still to have with him.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 11:25 AM (aBlZ1)
And how are the supposed to stand and fight when anytime they draw a line in the sand their "base" deserts them because it isn't ideologically pure enough or the person proposing it once clapped during an Obama speech or any of the 18,000,000,000 other excuses that are given whenever any sort of effort at resistance collapses.
If you don't like the GOP and want a third party quit bitching about it and start the fucking third party.
Posted by: chad98036 at January 03, 2013 11:25 AM (gYowz)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 11:26 AM (Tt6ky)
Your argument is with the Constitution, not with "pussy Republicans." They have a shit hand to play.
This right here.
We as conservative voters and activists couldn't persuade more of our fellow citizens to support our side in the elections. Now we're shoving our outnumbered GOP politicians in the back, shouting at them to go fight the schoolyard bullies we couldn't beat.
Posted by: CJ at January 03, 2013 11:27 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 11:29 AM (Tt6ky)
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 03:26 PM (Tt6ky)
_______
False. Income taxes to pay for Obamacare will only affect the $250K+ earners.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 11:29 AM (HDgX3)
_____________
And in 2005, Democrats didn't control even that much yet the effectively blocked all of Bush's 2nd term agenda.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 11:30 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Dirks Strewn at January 03, 2013 11:31 AM (VLifP)
If we will all just calm down here, we have an opportunity to turn the tables on Obama and the liberals and make THEM have the civil war and not us. Now that Obama only got half the revenues he wanted, he isn't going to be able to do any grand new Krugmanesque public-works program to pump up the economy while still claiming to reduce the deficit. If liberals still want that shit they're gonna have to cut something else to get the money, or sell the country on more debt to pay for it. That's a hell of a lot harder than selling "let's get the money from the billionaires."
Obama was really counting on getting over a trillion new dollars to spend, and he isn't getting it. There are a lot of folks who were already assuming they were getting on that gravy train, and they still want on it. Let's start making THEM fight over the crumbs instead of us fighting over why we gave them crumbs instead of a full loaf.
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 11:32 AM (aBlZ1)
Posted by: Trevor (@tjexcite) at January 03, 2013 11:33 AM (Ea64Y)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 03, 2013 11:35 AM (evdj2)
And in 2005, Democrats didn't control even that much yet the effectively blocked all of Bush's 2nd term agenda.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 03, 2013 03:30 PM (HDgX3)
The only part of the agenda I recall is SS Reform, and the GOP was too chicken to pursue it. But I don't recall any of us on the Right making too much noise. We were still in the post-9/11 Defend W at All Cost mode.
Posted by: CJ at January 03, 2013 11:36 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: rockmom at January 03, 2013 11:39 AM (aBlZ1)
Posted by: I Work for Dick Jones at January 03, 2013 11:41 AM (MSrqi)
Posted by: Enby at January 03, 2013 11:42 AM (ptlfZ)
Posted by: Justamom at January 03, 2013 11:44 AM (m9GfP)
Posted by: JohnJ
But the debate was over federal income taxes, not other taxes like the payroll tax. If you wanted to be technical, Americans had lower taxes under Obama than they did Bush since he temporarily cut the payroll tax. So by in large, the Bush tax rates are still there for all but a small portion. And even those at the very top got a nice tax cut with the lower capital gains/dividends taxes, estate tax portions and moving the line on marginal rates.
But what I find really intellectually dishonest is when people say this bill raised taxes. It didn't, it was actually a massive tax cut.
I understand people being mad at the deal because it didn't include the 1% (I also a big believer in trickle down economics) but it's horseshit to say when a Congress actually lower taxes by trillions of dollars after an automatic tax hike that it's "raising taxes".
So any tax relief moving forward doesn't count because at one point in history it was lower, and instead is actually a tax hike? We need to be careful we don't slip into the fever swamps.
Posted by: McAdams at January 03, 2013 11:45 AM (9o+8D)
This is simply false. You either misremember history, or weren't paying attention at the time.
You know who blocked Bush's "second term agenda?" REPUBLICANS. That's right, it was the REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SENATE.
And are you upset about it? Do you even remember what Bush's big second term agenda item WAS? It was Amnesty. Which, as I said, was killed stone-dead not by the Democrats, but by the shrieks of hardcore conservatives (presumably like yourself) and their Congressional representatives. The other item was Social Security, which Democrats did indeed demagogue, but which received absolutely zero institutional support from the House or Senate GOP either.
And then Katrina hit in November of 2005, which well and truly erased Bush's popularity numbers, making him unable to move squat. Which wouldn't have mattered too much, practically speaking, because major legislation (the hot-button stuff, at least) is usually all passed through during the first year of a Congressional term, not the second (because that's too close to reelection, not enough time for things to die down). And after 2006, it was a Dem-controlled Congress.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2013 11:46 AM (/COnL)
I remember this well, and everyone here in DC could have told you (and in fact DID tell you at the time!) that this was the biggest, stupidest pipe dream on the face of the earth. All you needed to do was look at the Kyoto Treaty vote for a (more extreme, but neverthless on-point) example of how the Senate would treat cap & trade.
Which, incidentally, is one reason why you'll NEVER see a "carbon tax" successfully pass. The other reason, of course, is because American skepticism about global warming keeps increasing from year-to-year. For those who say that conservatives always lose the zeitgeist cultural battles because of malign media influence, take note: Global Warming is the anti-Gay Marriage in the U.S.A.: despite liberal media types believing every bit as much in it, it's LOSING ground, precipitously, instead of gaining. Probably because, unlike gay marriage, there is a transparently obvious financial bottom-line attached to any legislation.
Posted by: Jeff B. at January 03, 2013 11:51 AM (/COnL)
No, the debate was whether people paid at a higher tax rate under the Bush tax cuts or now in 2013 with ObamaCare being fully implemented, so the payroll tax cut isn't included.
Posted by: JohnJ at January 03, 2013 11:53 AM (Tt6ky)
Comic relief from HA:
Toomey: GOP should be willling to risk shutdown to cuts in debt ceiling deal.
Oh, the drama.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 11:59 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 03, 2013 12:01 PM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: GalosGann at January 03, 2013 12:11 PM (T3KlW)
167 136 I don't think it's that complicated. The Dems aren't as into soaking the rich as they say they are. They know quite well that they are the party of the yuppie classes who fall well into the 250K-400K household income range. They just talk a good talk to keep the minorities and unionists happy. Yuppies know how to read their 1040 form.
And that, IMHO is why the Dems won't go to the income tax well again anytime soon. Look at the county returns for 2012. Those blue suburbs in big electoral states are loaded with families in the 250k range. Those same voters are not going to get all worked up about serious spending cuts because those cuts don't affect them.
That gives the GOP an opportunity to actually do something. Whether they will remains to be seen.
Posted by: watchtheface at January 03, 2013 12:26 PM (ROdby)
Posted by: GalosGann at January 03, 2013 12:28 PM (T3KlW)
Posted by: aDub at January 03, 2013 01:14 PM (haGfu)
Look, I don't know what's so hard for the far righties to understand about this: Picking a fight that would have resulted in higher taxes for everyone was a loser. The fight to pick is the upcoming one on the debt ceiling.
Guys, take a break from diddling your sister-wives and think strategically.
Posted by: sanity at January 03, 2013 01:21 PM (RVjIg)
Very true. The more I see details and look at the potential consequences, the better I think this deal is given circumstances.
The focus will now be on spending, irrespective of what Obama says. He got his tax hikes. Good luck with getting more.
The only potential danger would be to discuss "tax reform" as part of spending. But Republicans should be in no mood to do this now and delinking is critical to success. Besides tax reform is a non-starter because the fundamental asks from Obama are too costly. Obama got his tax increase- now what? Is that his one trick pony? What happened to the "balanced approach" Obama went on about as nauseum. That need to be repeated like a mantra.
Oh and it is no small matter that Boehner said no more private talks. I am hoping Obama regurgitated a little of that mahi-mahi pate when he heard that.
Let's talk about spending. Period. That the other side of the scale Sparky.
Balance. It;s science.
Posted by: marcus at January 03, 2013 02:57 PM (ShZzd)
Howard Dean said it - everyone should pay more in taxes. Honestly I thought they would extend Bush rates for 98% for 2 some years, or some stupid thing like that.
Democrats wanted the fiscal cliff because it gave them their higher tax rates on everyone, and they could blame republicans for it.
They didn't get that, infac they didn't even get what I thought they would, which would easily be the $250,000 and more group, as well as just an extension on the Bush rates for everyone else... no
Instead Bush rates are permanent, and they got $400,000 as the "rich" line. Sure it sucks - they shouldn't get anything - but they won the election and since Boehner offered stuff for free calling them "revenue enhancements", I actually think this deal ended up being much better than it could have been.
Posted by: Reality_Man at January 03, 2013 06:12 PM (L2x1w)
Posted by: Chromoly Man at January 04, 2013 12:31 AM (ji3gO)
Posted by: jetty at January 04, 2013 03:55 AM (XPqEM)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2224 seconds, 405 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Flounder at January 03, 2013 10:08 AM (Kkt/i)