Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama torpedos Biden/McConnell deal??? (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We Get MORE Revenues and NO CUTS And (29+ / 0-)

    and extension of US and you're complaining?

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:21:16 AM PST

    •  They want all the Bush tax cuts to expire. (7+ / 0-)

      Not a necessarily logical point of view.

    •  not to mention a slew of tax credits (16+ / 0-)

      i think BBB buried the lede, where he said Clinton rates across the board as a good thing.  The economy is too fragile for that at the moment.  But I like it -- anyone endorsing going over the cliff should explain what they support about it and why.  Could it be that Obama's a better negotiator precisely because one doesn't catch the goal?  Funny, after all the talk about how weak he is, now he's too tough.  I think he sees a deal in reach but if the GOP was going to back away, better make sure they get 100% of the blame, so round two is extremely unpleasant for them.  To say that this scuttled anything gets it backwards.  The GOP aides don't try to blame Obama for anything unless they're already playing defense.

      I also assume from Obama's comments and other reports there's some delay in the sequestering -- Obama was certainly talking aso though spending cuts were not a done deal -- and that alone would be significant.  At least, I hope that's the case.  

      Could do without large narratives about Presidential leadership based on self-serving counterfactuals.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:29:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, when you put it that way... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012, Deep Texan, Sylv

      I can see the logic for our side of going over the cliff, but what I don't understand is the progressive fantasy that a deal after the New Year will be all pleasure and no pain.

      Won't any deal still have to include some suckitude to get passed in the House?

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:39:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher
        but what I don't understand is the progressive fantasy that a deal after the New Year will be all pleasure and no pain.
        What if we go over the cliff and there is no new deal?  

        With Republicans holding the house like they do, possibly for the next 6 years, I don't think really give a shit.

        They see the writing on the wall.  Taxes have to go up.  They want to inflict pain and punish us lower classes before they go.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:51:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps you're not familiar with basic math... (14+ / 0-)

      Under currently law, we get $4 trillion in new revenues and $1 trillion in cuts...all in discretionary spending.

      So, combine that with the $1 trillion the government has already cut, and you've got your $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Done deal. Fiscal problem solved.

      Now, by your reasning, giving away that $4 trillion revenue in return for $700 billion in revenue and zero cuts gets us $700 billion in deficit reduction. Problem is, it still leaves us with $3.3 trillion worth of deficit. Fiscal problem not solved.

      With me so far?

      So now come the new year, this problem will still be here because House Republicans want it to be. But guess what...now deficit hawks from both parties will say we need $3.3 trillion in spending cuts. Because hey...the tax increaes part is already done!

      So you can throw out "we want a balanced deal" because we already got our end of the balance. So what you get is a situation where we give up a bunch of revenue and will probably end up taking a bunch cuts...on both counts MORE than if we had simply gone over the cliff.

      •  Yeah, Fuck The Unemplyed, They Don't "Get" Math (7+ / 0-)

        Either.

        Here's your math, jeenyus: UI runs out tomorrow+People don't eat+ Your ok with that=Cold hearted.

        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

        by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:52:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  this is one of the reasons why they have an (4+ / 0-)

          edge on us.  they are willing to do things like this and we aren't.

          they are like terrorists.

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:53:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The real problem is the Dems don't have the guts (5+ / 0-)

            to call the Repubs' bluff on UI benefits.  It's very bad politics for the Repubs to block them and if they do, let them take the heat.  My guess is they won't.  But, then, the Dems are largely gutless and this is why they get punked by the Repubs repeatedly.  The same is the case for the thresholds.  It's simply pathetic.  The Repubs remain in control.

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:06:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it isn't about guts (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Vote4Obamain2012, Beetwasher

              the republicans aren't being logical.  they don't care about politics.

              they don't care about america.  i don't think they even care about their own party.

              -You want to change the system, run for office.

              by Deep Texan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:11:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure it is. It takes guts to take on illogical, (3+ / 0-)

                nihilist lunatics for what they are instead of treating them like rationale, caring , sane human beings.  What is wrong with being the one who says the emperor has no clothes ... or the repubs are insane, illogical and selfish people.

                The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                by accumbens on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:15:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  to be more precise, it's about money (0+ / 0-)

                  not guts, balls or logic.

                  -You want to change the system, run for office.

                  by Deep Texan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:17:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  they know they are well gerrymanderred into (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan

                  their current seats. They will win reelection. Their seats are safe. So, they could not care less what their national reputation is (ie your "bad politics"). So, that does not motivate them. Sure nationally their reputation may go to crap (if they even become famous due to this - infamous among us and heroes to tea party members everywhere), but they will win reelection. On the other hand, people missing out on meals will go hungry without unemployment benefits.  

                  So, how is it worth it for some politicians to retain their seats and simply have their national reputation sullied among some at the expense of those who rely upon unemployment compensation to live ?

                  How does that make sense ? I know you are a smart scientist, so please Help out this mathematician here. thanks .

                  •  I understand your point, but (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon

                    the work around to the static gerrymandered districts is that the vote in the House will need to be all the Dems and some, less fixed repubs.  If that's the case, then there's room for pressure.

                    Also, I believe that taking a strong stand serves to educate the people.  That's worth a lot in the long term.  I just don't get why the Dems are averse to causing some short term pain for long term gain even if those getting screwed are the most vulnerable.  After all, they will be getting screwed long term otherwise.  

                    The Repubs keep winning negotiations because they know the Dems are soft.  As callous as this all sounds, there's really only one way to deal with and that is to be ruthless as well.  WHen you're holding all the cards - like now - is the best time to be callous.

                    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                    by accumbens on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 02:00:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  most people aren't paying attention (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Vote4Obamain2012

                  their followers happily eat up the bullshit.

                  with politics being like sports, it doesn't matter how wrong or how bad they hurt their own constituents.

                  plenty will still vote for them over the dems.

                  -You want to change the system, run for office.

                  by Deep Texan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:34:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  The Democrats would not let To Big to Fail, Fail. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            The GOP was willing to let the American Banking system die under a GOP President with their TARP vote. Democrats put country first, which is a blessing for the American people.

        •  Here's your math: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Willa Rogers, joanneleon

          Keep the unemployed in food--for a year---and crucify Granny and disabled soldiers beginning next year and lasting for the foreseeable future.  Then, next year, the unemployed get held hostage again, and you dig around for someone else to hurt in the long term so that you can get the Republicans to give up their short-term hostage. Then repeat again. Then repeat again.

          We could solve all of this by, I don't know, CREATING SOME JOBS, but that would require going outside the holy boundaries of debate that our betters in Washington have carried down from the mountain engraved on stone tablets.

          if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 01:37:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So the increased leverage with the new senate/Hous (3+ / 0-)

        That will help us if we go over the cliff won't help us in the sequester?

        I dont like everything about the deal but I feel like there is some severe magical thinking here.  

        •  agreed, we don't gain much (0+ / 0-)

          it seems republicans really want us to go over the cliff.

          remember they created it.  they will get something or we will get nothing.

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:02:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The nature of the problem changes. (11+ / 0-)

          Again, once you go over the cliff, the CBO projects wipe the deficit right on out.

          Seriously. You just don't have a deficit problem anymore. You don't need to cut social security. You need to make a few minor changes in Medicare and Medicaid. But you don't need to drastically cut anything else because the revenues are there. See what I mean?

          But what you have then is an economic slowdown. So you deal with that how? By passing a tax cut coupled with some spending...spending that you can now put through because you've GOT THE REVENUE. So if I had to gamble on the GOP...i'd be gambling on them voting for a tax cut rather than a tax increase as you all seem to be cheering for.

          So, if you just love president obama more than anything on gods green earth, then yes, support him in whatever he does without question.

          But if you want growth and protection for entitlements, well...you go over the cliff obviously.

          •  Well I would argue (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vote4Obamain2012, MRA NY

            Actually we will have a deficit problem because if the cliff starts to send us into a recession we will again have an issue with decreased revenue with the need for increased spending.  So we will be right there again.

            I do'nt just love him more than God's Green Earth. I just don't necessarily see that the deal is that much better on either side and I think that messaging is on our side a heck of a lot more now than it will be later. You can disagree with which side has more leverage that doesn't mean you're an Obama hater anymore than I blindly agree with him.

            •  leverage (0+ / 0-)

              the republicans would not be in that much worse shape after the tax cuts expire. They can simply put forward a bill to cut taxes on everybody making less than $500K and dare Democrats to vote against it. Revenue bills must originate in the House unless the Speaker chooses to take steps to alleviate that necessity.

              President Obama and Democrats may actually do what they say- not pass (or in the President's case - veto) bills that are not balanced. He would say we got those tax cuts for free. That was the middle class. Or were you really opposed to those tax cuts for the middle class and only supported tax cuts for the wealthy. So, the President and Congressional Dems can stop any bills that simply cut spending without raising new revenue. And they can win that battle politically as well.

              Therefore, BBB's position (which simply assumes the contrary) is probably incorrect. Not saying that his view should not be considered, but simply that in my estimation it is far from conclusive.

          •  Great comment (0+ / 0-)

            I wish we could see it laid out like this more often.  

            Tomorrow, the nature of the problem changes, can be reframed -- if the Democrats allow it to.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:44:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site