Skip to main content

View Diary: Early reports: House likely to kill fiscal cliff deal with amendments (675 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This leaves me (57+ / 0-)

    questioning what role Cantor had in the Plan B fiasco and whether he was setting up Boehner.

    Well, it'll be easier to reset to $250K, at least. We'll have to see what the backlash is with the Business Roundtable and the markets to know if this is going to backfire enough on them to get the rest we need.

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:39:42 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. $250k is totally worth it. (29+ / 0-)

      Totally worth losing the stimulus.
      Totally worth losing Unemployment Insurance.
      Totally worth higher taxes for the most vulnerable.
      totally worth getting ensared int he AMT.
      Totally worth losing the farm bill.

      Totally.

        •  You're joking, right? (20+ / 0-)

          Seriously?  Do you think we'll get a better deal for unemployment insurance or Medicare?  (Remember the 'Doc Fix'?  If those payment cuts go into place, Medicare...well, it basically folds; most physician will refuse to accept Medicare patients after a 27% cut in payment.)

          I understand wanting to win instead of wanting to win in part and lose in part.  I understand feeling like Obama and Biden said one thing, and then treated us like peons by not being willing to fight for what they'd said they'd fight for.  I get that.

          OTOH, it isn't just about taxes.  It's about a lot of other stuff, and that stuff matters.

          •  This n/t (6+ / 0-)

            "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

            by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:02:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  See, the point is that the House will agree to (5+ / 0-)

            an even better deal for unemployment, etc. in 2013, because . . . hope?

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:02:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course that stuff matters, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, vigilant meerkat, schnecke21

            but what about in two months, when Republicans still have their debt ceiling hostage?  What are you willing to give up then?  What leverage do Dems still have at that point?

            •  neither party has leverage then. nt. (0+ / 0-)
            •  Turn the question around (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elmo

              What will we lose if this deal doesn't go through?  A lot.  What extra leverage did the Republicans get by pushing off the sequester?  Virtually none -- we were ready to take that hit, so there was no leverage in isolation.  What would they conceivably gain on top of a dire threat like the debt ceiling threat from a threat which is meaningless?

              Nothing, that's what.

              Worse for them, the GOPers fear the sequester more than we do: they suddenly have military cuts on the table.  Their important (read: richer) constituents benefit directly from military spending.  They really don't want cuts there, both for symbolic and for political reasons.

              So this negotiation was never about the sequester.  It was only about tax cuts and the other benefits.  Those were worth preserving.  The sequester?  That's a sideshow.

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                The sequester means equal cuts from military and domestic spending.  So you're willing to take cuts in domestic spending from the sequester but are arguing against those of us who are willing to take them now.

                And if you think that Republicans have no leverage from the debt ceiling, then there's even less reason for Democrats to have made any concessions now.

                •  No (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm arguing against those of you who are willing to cut UI now.  Who are willing to cut Medicare payments now.  Who are willing to raise milk prices now.

                  None of those is affected by the sequester.  Those are separate from the sequester.

              •  Wishful thinking (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ferg, Mr Robert

                Actually, just wrong thinking.

                Taxes is what they care about.

                Dems in Congress care about defense spending just as much.

                And, they are crazy and we aren't.

                •  Evidence, please? (0+ / 0-)

                  I live in a defense-heavy district (WA-01).  I used to be a beltway bandit.  I have dealt with both blue defense districts and red defense districts.  Consistently, the blue defense districts have far more diverse economies -- they would be unhappy to lose the defense jobs, but they'd recover quickly.  The red districts have been far more deeply tied to the bases and the manufacturers.

                  But maybe I'm wrong.  If you have numbers which contradict me, I'd love to see them.

                  As to "They are crazy and we aren't" -- speak for yourself.  Legally, yes, I am crazy.

          •  Your comment assumes House cares about UI (11+ / 0-)

            They don't.

            You do.

            That means you don't have to get a "better deal" because its not the sticking point of the negotiation.

            Same with everything else on this list.

            This is basic negotiation. If neither side is particularly stuck on a point, why turn it into the point that is a make or break of a deal?

            My problem with someone of the Democratic supporters here is that some of this is basic to understanding how to negotiate.

            You are in a room- the other guy says okay, and you say "oh but this is really really really really impoertant to me so let's discuss it"

            Why wyould you do that if the other guy doesn't care.

            The isuses they care about are tax hikes and additional cuts to entitlements.

            Thats what this is about. I really don't understand why you dont get that.

            •  Been saying this all day. They still don't get it. (5+ / 0-)

              The GOP doesn't give a shit about UI. They just know Democrats do. Or at least pretend to.

              UI is small fish to them. They'd concede that all day long.

              •  I think this obtuseness is intentional. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pithy Cherub, Mr Robert, slinkerwink

                If you pretend this is about UI benefits that no one is claiming is a point of contention other than you then you have a ready made excuse to explain why "your side" set up the next hostage taking crisis. If you don't buy into the rationalization, what do you have left to explain it all?

                If you don't have these sorts of "but the UI benefits" excuses then it becomes "oh Democrats just caved."

                Its like the comments that I came home to last night that said "Oh Bernie Sanders supported it" so it must not have been a bad deal. Its surrendering one's own ability to think to another.

                IN other words, you can keep making these arguments but they are likely to fail because people have a vested interest here in deceiving themselves in situations like this.  "Oh we don't have a choice" feels a lot better t han "they screwed us"

                •  Clean UI bill will pass GOP controlled House ? ??? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Beetwasher, wishingwell
                  •  If Democrats stopped treating it like the Holy (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bruh1, ferg, Mr Robert, slinkerwink

                    Sepulcher and just make it a non negotiable requirement of any deal, then it will be conceded the way it always has since it was created.

                    Republicans don't talk about it because they really don't care about it because they know its mostly paid for by premiums on employers when unemployment is low. Plus, you have to work to earn the right to it. Again, its INSURANCE. They really don't give a shit about UI because UI isn't an entitlement program.

                    What they care about is cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid, Pell Grants, Food Stamps, Veterans benefits...etc. And they get that by starving the beast of revenue...that creates the justification.

                    So yeah, those of us with eyes on the big picture aren't going apeshit over UI because its small potatoes.

              •  Maybe we *do* get it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beetwasher

                Maybe we have friends who get UI.  Or have parents on Medicare.  Or have, in the course of our lives, gotten free cheese from the government.

                On what basis can the GOP not care about UI and all that rest?  Remember, those GOPers need to get elected -- and there are a lot of people who will be affected at second hand by this failure.  Those folks would still remember losing UI, Medicare, etc. two years from now.

                To believe your statement, you'd have to believe that the Rs from marginal GOP districts didn't care about their re-elections.  And that GOPers from Florida would be just thrilled to face their voters after this.  And, and, and...

                And that doesn't add up.

                •  You are making the argument for why UI (0+ / 0-)

                  was never an issue of contention like those who are trying to use it here claim.

                  •  No (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm making the argument that the GOP does care about UI.  I didn't make it before because, honestly, I couldn't imagine how anyone would seriously argue otherwise.

                    •  Because we are paying attention (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ferg, brooklynbadboy, Mr Robert

                      to how the GOP is behavaving on this issue while you are spouting your partisan belief about the GOP. The problem here is that you started with the assumptipon "this is important to them because its important to me" and from there you assume that it therefore means "I got to fight for this" Againt he problem with t hat logic is that you aren't paying attentnion to the other guy. Just yourself.

                    •  How about because they never do anything about it? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      slinkerwink

                      Don't you think that would be some sort of indication that they are against it?

                      Even in deep reed states they aren't getting rid of it and cutting it off. You don't get that?

                      They DONT CARE ABOUT IT.

                      They just take it as a hostage because they know Dems like you will freak out and go OOOH NOOOO!!! And then after you give up the farm, they'll hand it over. Because really, if that's all you're willing to fight for, they'll glady through the scrap of unemployment to cut your Social Security and Medicare.

              •  what wat - u think that they are going to pass a c (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beetwasher

                clean UI bill in the GOP controlled House of Representatives ?

                What are you smoking ?

                •  I am dealing in reality (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mr Robert

                  versus your partisan colored glasses.

                  Not all GOPers are faced with the same electoral situation just because some are highly gerrymandered.

                  I also undertand that legislatively, if this were a real issue that the democrats were concerned about,t hey would attach it to some other bill that the GOP cares about rather than waiting to a moment like this to try and pass it. But then, that would mean they would lose a fake reason to be "forced " here to vote for concessions that make no sense other wise.

            •  Please help me - (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rolfyboy6, winsock, Beetwasher, elmo

              understand the better deal for progressives that could have been achieved and that could have been passed in the House and Senate and how it could have been done.  This is a sincere question - because I don't understand where the votes will come from.  Thanks -

              •  Your negotiation reasoning skills are poort (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pithy Cherub, Willa Rogers, Mr Robert

                Here's the reality:

                1. Math. Next Congress you need fewer votes. Just on those numbers alone that makes a deal easier to achieve.

                2. You place the GOP into a position of having created a tax cut next Congress. This is something that the GOP rumor mill has said they have wanted to do. They are incentivized not to make a deal now.

                3. If you approch this from "there is now ay I can leave the talbe' you have already guranteed a bad deal for yourself. Despite the whining here what the GOP is doing makes perfect negotiation sense. You know the other guy is going to capitulate, why not go for that extra? i would. Its just basic negotiation skills.

                4. We have seen this play before. When these sorts of things happens, and the GOP gets blamed, the longer it goes on,t he more likely the deal will be what the Democrats want rather thanthe GOP. The advantage the GOP has is that theythink have you over a barrrel. In a few days, you will have them over one based on thier own logic- that logic being - we want tax  cuts.

                I co uld go on, but if you don't get that if the other guy doesn't care about UI, you aren't negotiating that, then I am not sure what to say.  I mean its like going to a car dealer who is throwing in a free accessory and haggling with him over how you really want that accessory. That's not the main contention of the deal once you know that he's neutral to support of the accessory.

                I don't get many of the statements here by the Democratic supporters from a basic "do you understand how deal making happens" stand point. For the record, you look at the other guys interests. If they weren't know here, you and hte others might have a point, but that's no the case here, so we can predict with some reasonableness what points may be points of contention: Tax cuts and entitlement cuts, Thats the whole point of this.

                As for the votes, they will come from understanding who youa re trying to appeal to. If you want 200 Democrats and only 18 Republicans, you change the dynamics. You keep Boemher rather than orchestrate a situation that his leadership will be changed by Cantor. You go over the cliff. You waith until after he's re elected speaker where he's not pressured to be the most radical speaker he has to be to keep his position. You then talk to him about horse trading. You then discuss many of the issues you are discussing now. You don't do it when you k now he will be forced to placate the radicals in his own party because he may need their vote.

                That's just one example of many about if you were thinking about the other guys intrest you would be taking into consideration rather than "i got to have a deal now!" approach.  Iwould also byt he way, if I were not trying to use UI as a prop, pass it with a separate needeed bill (like Defense spending) as a horse trade since its such a minor point that one cares about it. But to elevate it like this- just comes across as false to me. Its manufactured both here and by the leadership to terrorize people rather than address subsnative issues that are points of contentinon on the table.

                •  having trouble due to grammar spelling errors (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Beetwasher

                  but

                  we know people will now not get UI. These are people who depend upon their UI to eat. And a clean UI bill was never going to pass the GOP controlled House.

                  Boehner still decides what gets voted on. It looks like he still supports the majority of the majority crap.

                  How are we going to get a better deal again ? Debt Ceiling and sequester approaching.

                  Or do you now realize that you are wrong ?

                •  You assume the House wants something (0+ / 0-)

                  and is willing to negotiate to get it.  I'm thinking that there are a lot of House republicans that will not negotiate at all, even if they are surrounded--they would rather die for their cause.  It is an ideological stand and they will not compromise under any circumstances.  That is a hard concept for a thinking liberal to grasp.

                  •  (1) We don't need a lot (0+ / 0-)

                    (2) Nor does your argument if true make much sense for your position. If they are not willing to negotiate at all, then why make concessions to them at all?

                    This again isn't liberal versus conservative. This is basic "how do you negotiate" Some of you just seem to really lack the ability to understand what your positions, if true, means as far as what the Democrats should be doing. Its not an ideological statement I making at all. Its one of common sense if you have ever negotiated with anyone.

                    Let's put this in terms of numbers. You want to pay only 10 dollars. The other guy will not accept a deal for less than 20. What you just said if "the other guy will refuse" then means it makes little sense for you to go up to 15.

                    If one believes as you do, then there's no point to negotiating with them. That's assuming you needed to negotiate with him.  The problem here is you don't. The circumstances here matters. If you change those circumstances, you change your ability to negotiate with just the 18 you need rather than "all"

                •  He's right (0+ / 0-)

                  Your comments are difficult to read. The paragraph breaks cutoff words. I guess u typed this from a mobile device? oTH I see your point

                •  Sorry, but math doesn't help here (0+ / 0-)

                  It doesn't matter if a bill fails by a slightly smaller margin if it still fails. The last election did not change the bottom line balance of power in either house of Congress.

                  •  Actually it is a matter of simple math (0+ / 0-)

                    but when you are searching for reasons to explain why your partisans are doing things you don't like, I can see why you must pretend the math and strategies don't matter

              •  You think like a liberal (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Beetwasher

                The Senate, while ideological, is still pragmatic and negotiation is possible, and deals can be made.  The house baggers think like the Taliban.  As liberals, we would fund schools for girls, the Taliban will shoot them in the head for going to school.  As liberals, we actually negotiate, and do so from the perspective that all parties want what is best for the people.  The House baggers are "true believers", and their way is the only way.  Like the Taliban, they would shoot the hostages rather than compromise what they are certain is the "one true way".

                And they are shooting the hostages.

          •  I tipped the comment because I assume it was (0+ / 0-)

            sarcasm. Surely.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:15:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We can get ALL of the above plus (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pistolSO, Thomas Twinnings

            The debt ceiling if Dems remain steadfast and refuse to negotiate. Of course, the Dems will need to actually refuse to negotiate. I personally dont think Boehner is in any hurry to strike a deal before he is reelected as speaker.

            On thurs, Reid should present a 250k tax bill, then raise the debt ceiling...everything else can be negotiated in a larger bill.

          •  YES. Seriously. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ferg

            Unemployment insurance, the "doc fix", and Medicare should have never been part of the negotiations to begin with, and allowing Obama to put them into play was a huge mistake on the Democrats' part.

            If the deal does fall by noon Thursday, then we can simply reset to what should have been the original plan: $250K + UI + Doc Fix + exchange of limited social spending and defense cuts (replacing sequestration) for a permanent debt ceiling solution (using the McConnell model of Congress having to override the President's decision to raise the ceiling). It wouldn't be a bad idea as well to consider replacing the expired payroll tax cut with a standalone tax credit, paid for by either a more progressive income tax, restoring equity in taxing cap gains as ordinary income, or through a financial transaction tax. (Or, even, all three!!!)

            Plus, there's always the option of the $3T platinum coin...and how about a second $3T coin to fund infrastructure bonds as well??

            Let the GOTP stew in their own hatred and bile...for once, Democrats should act like they actually WON.

        •  Less than $90 B in revenue over 10 years (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, vigilant meerkat

          is worth it?

        •  You've obviously never needed it. (0+ / 0-)

          You remind me of the people who wanted to kill the healthcare bill because you didn't get, oh, who knows what, no matter how many lives would be lost.

          You're way out on a limb, here, BBB, and it's not a flattering place for you.

      •  Worth it in theory, as long as it's (11+ / 0-)

        somebody else's UI, somebody else's milk price, somebody else's AMT, etc.

        What I don't understand is why people think that going over the cliff is going to make Cantor and his gang of traitors suddenly become compliant.

        "Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand." ~ Atticus Finch, "To Kill a Mockingbird"

        by SottoVoce on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:57:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is UI really under threat or that you just (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Willa Rogers, Laconic Lib

          fear here? And do people know the difference between taking a risk where tehre is no real risk since UI won't be cut versus taking  a real chance such as with entitlement cuts in 2 months? I ask that because I see these comments and then I go to read the press coverage and teh fears that seem to have grown here have little connection to what seems to be the areas of contention with negotiation.

          Where is any of these deals - if you can point it out to me- the thread to UI?

          •  ok (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vote4Obamain2012, Beetwasher

            Here's one

            Emergency unemployment benefits were last extended at the end of 2011, along with an extension of payroll tax cuts that lowered the amount workers paid into the Social Security coffers from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

            Now those two program extensions are set to expire at year’s end along with the latest extension of income tax rate cuts, just as across-the-board government spending cuts are set to go into effect.

            and another
            It would prevent middle-class taxes from going up but would raise rates on higher incomes. It would also block spending cuts for two months, extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless, prevent a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients and prevent a spike in milk prices.

            "Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand." ~ Atticus Finch, "To Kill a Mockingbird"

            by SottoVoce on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:44:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  All those things were temporary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Willa Rogers

          while the tax cuts are permanent. What will we have to bargain for when time's up again? We're running out of pounds of flesh here...

          What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

          by kpelligra on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:39:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Right (6+ / 0-)

        We'll just tell those people on UI -- or who need the AMT, or whose farms are going to go under because nobody is going to buy milk at $9 a bottle -- to hold their breath until they turn blue. They'll be the right color, anyway! THAT'LL show Cantor!

        "If you're going to go down with the ship, make it a submarine." - Wayne Shorter

        by Oliver Tiger on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:59:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  if GOP gets the blame things are more worthwhile (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        to lose valuable programs and get nothing is a straight loss.

        to lose valuable programs while clearly hanging the loss on the GOP is another thing.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:00:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is about the long-term future of this country (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Willa Rogers

        What part of this do you not understand? Obama traded away TRILLIONS of dollars of revenue over the next few decades for one-year spending on UI and other pocket-change spending worth less than $100 billion overall.

        This "deal" starves the treasury and locks us into deficit-hysteria indefinitely, meaning we can forget any large new government expenditures for many Presidents to come. It was a wet dream for Norquist.

        (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

        by TrueBlueDem on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:38:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Republicans in the House kill this deal (0+ / 0-)

        there will be blowback against them. Is it worth all those things on your list to us? No, but that's not going to be our choice, but theirs.

    •  If it doesn't have a majority of the majority, (27+ / 0-)

      then Boehner is essentially risking his Speakership for....a future fight over the debt ceiling?

      The dynamics are changed though...If they can't get a bill through that passes the Senate by 89 to 8, then they wont get anything through. We will have to move on to an economic growth bill, and that is THE BEST thing for our side.

      •  Okay (5+ / 0-)

        And that has more chance getting past the Teahadists in the House... how?

        "If you're going to go down with the ship, make it a submarine." - Wayne Shorter

        by Oliver Tiger on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:00:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  By breaking the TeaBaggers off from the (7+ / 0-)

          old school corporate lackeys. Cantor has a majority of HIS CAUCUS, but not necessarily a majority of the House. If he successfully ousts Boner, he'll have a divided caucus (well, they're already splitting up anyway so..)
          There is a difference between the Koch/Adelson type billionaires and Big Business. The individual Billionaires have so much more money than they need that they can spend a billion on a failed political project and keep on partying.
          But Big Business and Wall Street need to do Business to stay in the chips. And this kind of obstruction for partisan political gain is getting in the way of PROFITS most holy.
          So a fraction of the House Republicans will cross over in order to get things moving in the next Congress. It only takes about 15 or 20 of them with all of the Democrats, to get around the fanatics. And that faction will have outsized influence because they can swing the House either direction.
          Keep an eye on Madame (ex)Speaker.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:23:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks for actually answering the question.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DRo

            not everyone around here is an inside baseball player - and I am trying to separate the bluster from the reality.  I think that your scenario is plausible - but still an uphill fight - not a slam dunk.

            •  Actually more like an outside chance at best (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CrissieP

              It relies on at least a few House Republicans having at least a modicum of sanity left and that's not something I'd put money on.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:48:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  A lot easier than this crap bill. nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ryvr
    •  It will be back to square one (21+ / 0-)

      The Senate almost certainly will not consider this new GOP nonsense.  So we are over the cliff and nothing more will be done until the new Congress comes in on Thursday.  Then we see who is Speaker.

      The refusal of the house to act gives the Dems more leverage in the filibuster reforms simply by virtue of showing the GOP to be obstructionist by nature.

      It also give the GOP the leverage of the debt limit.  I hope that Obama lets them make demand after demand, threat after threat, and then takes the Constitutional option of declaring that the entire debt limit law is unconstitutional and he will ignore it.  Let the Supreme Court issue a court order for a world-wide recession.  Won't happen.

      A new birth of freedom..

      by docterry on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:48:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Precisely (5+ / 0-)

      Cantor put up the good front, but you can't tell me he wasn't behind killing Plan B to undermine Boehner further.

    •  i don't see how that follows (6+ / 0-)

      what makes the House more likely to agree to that, after the fact?  As long as D's want movement on alleviating the worst of the sequestering spending cuts and the debt ceiling, the House will invariably push the tax cut limit back up.  

      This is bad in the short term, and it revives the strategy of holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in the long term.  Politically, the Republicans look bad, but I think they accept that risk given that they're gerrymandered.  This is bad for the country, especially the people - not just the markets - who'd benefit from the specifics.

      Not extending the doc fix is a big deal for new medicare patients, for example, and that and UI, 5 years of tax credits, and the AMT patch are probably worth the tax cuts for the $250-400 range.  This isn't the poor, but it's also not the type of superwealthy that represent the real upward skew.  

      There's also no guarantee this will be solved any time soon -- which was always the biggest risk of going over the cliff.  Each day over, I think makes a deal less likely.  

      Not your comment, but the "praise" for house R's for their irresponsibility is disgusting.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:55:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's her point (4+ / 0-)

        To get it back up then Dems can ask for spending concession.

        •  i don't think the house (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vote4Obamain2012

          starts at $250k and never did, which has nothing to do with past offers, btw.  Obama's offer was a reflection of where Congress was; a recognition is not a concession, and if the net effect is to bargain the lower bound up, why not do it to lock-in agreement and prevent taking a fair bit of money out of the economy from Jan. 2 to ---?

          Trading tax revenue for spending concessions is nice in theory but also ignores the whole deficit-reduction context.  I think we'd have been better off keeping the overall deficit numbers where they were, adjusting for lost revenue at the lower end but adding back the effect of potentially avoiding recession, and trying to be smarter about budget cuts than the sequester approach.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:29:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Did you see his huge grin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cany

      on exiting the Plan B meeting?

    •  That's part of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO

      Karoli's point at C&L.  Let the markets freak out and do a number to Republican portfolios (we can toss in Blue Dog portfolios too if you like).  Let them and their plutocrat backers tear their hair out over the bottom-line dividend consequences of their idiocy.  If there is an upside to losing the UI extension, it has to come in the form of unrelenting sucker punches and brick-bat-administered body blows to the bank balances of the plutocrats and their Republican lackeys.  Make them hurt as badly as the people they've just thrown off the bridge.  (It's very cold comfort though, if you're one of the longterm unemployed.)

      The real question is how fast can the new Congress tackle this mess and fix it?

      "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, v3, n18 (-8.50, -7.23)

      by Noor B on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:39:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site