Skip to main content

John Boehner chokes up before being sworn for his second term as Speaker of the House.
If John Boehner keeps down this path, he'll be giving the gavel back to Nancy Pelosi
after the 2014 midterms. And then he'll really have something to cry about.
The Wall Street Journal doesn't come out and say it definitively, but this is a pretty clear sign that they think congressional Republicans are bluffing about demanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit:
We'll support efforts to cut spending and reform entitlements, but the political result will be far worse if Republicans start this fight only to cave in the end. You can't take a hostage you aren't prepared to shoot. Do the two GOP leaders have a better strategy today than they did in 2011, and do they have the backbench support to execute it?
Instead of threatening default, the WSJ editorial board suggests Boehner embrace a less ambitious policy agenda:
Mr. Boehner needs a plausible counter-strategy. Recognize that he can't govern from the House, but use the leverage of the spending sequester and power of the purse to see what few policy victories can be had. Find some programs and special interests to showcase and defund, in the manner of the Bridge to Nowhere. Take on corporate welfare. And unleash other Members in the House and Senate—the Toomeys, Hensarlings and Johnsons—to make the GOP's growth and reform case to the public. Mr. Boehner can't be the main party spokesman.

Push smaller reforms that are good policy but might also have a chance of picking up Democratic support.

The most amazing thing about this is that you've got The Wall Street Journal editorial page encouraging a Republican Speaker of the House to back off a hard-right agenda. It's not that they disagree with Boehner's objectives—it's just that they (like Newt Gingrich and Judd Gregg) don't think he can plausibly achieve them. Nonetheless, Boehner says he's plowing forward with the debt limit gambit. And as long as President Obama and congressional Democrats stand firm in their pledge against negotiating over the debt limit and to only consider spending cuts if Republicans are willing to raise revenues, Boehner and the House Republican Conference will be headed off the political cliff in November 2014.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:27 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But... (8+ / 0-)

    ... do we have the Congressional candidates at the ready to stand against them? Time is now to get cracking, I think.

    Evolution IS Intelligent Design!

    by msirt on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:39:31 AM PST

  •  This is probably the time for (18+ / 0-)

    phone calls, and lots of them, urging the WH NOT to cut SS or Medicare.

    The lines to the WH were totally clogged during the "fiscal cliff" negotiation we just had, and there's some evidence, at least, these calls made the difference.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:40:58 AM PST

    •  exactly (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karmsy, Possiamo, nicki37, arealniceguy

      it is shocking to me that, at least acc to WaPo, Pres Obama put SS (chained CPI) on the negotiating table..TWICE...Again, according to WaPo, Senator Reid had a stronger backbone (Reid had a stronger backbone?? think about that) and threw the proposal in the fire.

      Until I found that out, I was optimistic this term would be different (which makes me feel like Charlie Brown and the football). This makes me furious. The white house needs to hear from us very clearly that entitlements are never to be on the table.

      The only circumstance I can imagine where chained CPI could be on the table would be if a huge stimulus package was put in as exchange + income tax cap was removed + the rest of social security was stuck in a lockbox never to be borrowed from again + medicare was given more money to make seniors lives less expensive, with the hope that the economy would then roar back to life...

      Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list:

      by grrr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:38:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I know. It's ugly stuff. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tunk, grrr, tb mare

        It's even uglier if you idealize Barack Obama and think he is some kind of Messiah. You just want to shut out the bad news completely then, and not act on it. But act you must. You must dog him relentlessly, to meet YOUR needs as a leader, every last step of the way.

        Now, that said, what Obama just accomplished, isn't getting enough chops around these parts. So I am going to talk it up myself.

        In the last round of negotiations, what did President Obama just do? He just got the Republicans to sign on to a major tax increase. The first such in 20 years. On the top 2%. Back that one up, and let it replay: It's big.

        Obama just got a major tax increases through congress--not on little people, but on the wealthiest taxpayers.

        We have not achieved this in a very long time.  

        It is time for champagne.

        It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

        by karmsy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:01:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karmsy, tb mare

          really, I do agree with you - I was somewhat pleased with the fiscal cliff deal - it seems to me there will be some minor stimulative effect. Having siad that, I am baffled and horrified that PBO again offered SS (linky) The economic and political malpractice boggles me.

          Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list:

          by grrr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:10:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh yeah? Maybe YOU should be President! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Cuz you're so much tougher than he is!

        At least, that's what I was told in another thread when I dared mention what a terrific strong negotiator Obama isn't.

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          it's a good thing Senator Reid had the excellent judgment not to hand over chained CPI SS to the republicans. Events proved Reid to be absolutely correct too.

          The republicans knew quite well that the optics of triggering an economic downturn by going over the fiscal cliff rather than increasing taxes on people making >400K and leaving SS alone would have been disastrous. They predictably backed down.

          Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list:

          by grrr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:03:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  My understanding is that Obama (0+ / 0-)

        has leaked that he would only support chained CPI if the Republicans add lots of additional assistance to those at or below the poverty level so he would really not be giving up much to get more assistance for those who need it most.

        I am on SS and would give up a few dollars a month if I knew all of it and more were going to those below the federal poverty line. But.... that is about all I would give up.

        Raising the age when you qualify for SS should be a non starter since companies would have fewer older higher earning people leaving and letting younger people earning less take over there jobs.

        Of course they will probably have to  hire two younger employees for each older one since my generation was so productive. (Just joking!)

        Also the medical system would still have to deal with older patients still covered by  company insurance that could have higher deductables and less care for the money than medicare.

        Has anyone asked how much we could save the government if we quit all the freebies congress people get? What about if they all take a 50% cut in pay. Funny thing, I have not heard one thing in that direction from the teebags.

        Our money system is not what we have been led to believe. The creation of money has been "privatized," or taken over by private money lenders. Thomas Jefferson called them “bold and bankrupt adventurers just pretending to have money.” webofdebt

        by arealniceguy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:40:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
          Obama... would only support chained CPI if the Republicans add lots of additional assistance to those at or below the poverty level so he would really not be giving up much to get more assistance for those who need it most.
          You make a valid point, but still is austerity - even "middle class" retirees would be in a spot losing  money given the volatility of the stock market...and that would be bad for the economy. The republicans hastily backed off when Reid threatened to go public with their demands

          It's a critically important lesson I very much worry the dems - esp Pres Obama - won't apply - that the republicans wouldnt dare dismantle entitlements without a bipartisan fig leaf.

          Has anyone asked how much we could save the government if we quit all the freebies congress people get? What about if they all take a 50% cut in pay. Funny thing, I have not heard one thing in that direction from the teebags.
          On this point, I respectfully disagree. I would prefer a raise for congresspeople in return for a demand that they accept that they may not act as lobbyists until 3-5 years after leaving congress.... otherwise, the elected reps get weakened when corporate America buys our reps completely.

          Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list:

          by grrr on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:16:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  And maybe calls to ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN (10+ / 0-)

      demanding they not frame this as a routine political negotiation?
      The Republicans are counting on, and receiving, cover from the general media in how this is being presented.

    •  This is probably the time for our side to come (5+ / 0-)

      out and tell the public, their base, the voters etc that there is no possible way that the big 3 will be cut.....  Period.

       I want to hear it and I want to hear it now. I also want that promise kept.

      Again, it should have never been put on the table in the first place, especially by our side.

  •  I agree with you completely Jed. (9+ / 0-)

    POTUS has essentially worked to back the GOP into a corner of their own making.  He now has the (semi) allegiance of  Wall Street at least in this instance. If Dems end up on the losing end of this situation, it's because they WANTED it to happen. Not because they weren't in a strong enough position.

    •  Dominionists vs. Banksters (0+ / 0-)

      If The President just stands back, the religious billionaires (Koch's, de Vos', Simmons, Petersons, Scaifes, Waltons etc) will have to fight it out w/the banksters.  They'll expose themselves while screaming that the President has to do something bec. they're too insane.  Oh, and I'm sure the networks will be completely honest that this is really a battle between the religious right who want to subjugate all humanity and the banksters who don't give a crap about anything but being paid.

  •  We're going to have some loud voices (15+ / 0-)

    i.e. Elizabeth Warren on our side this time. Hopefully she can rally the liberal dems to stay strong and come up with better solutions than devastating cuts.

  •  "Take on corporate welfare. " (25+ / 0-)

    I will fall off my chair if the corporate-funded-and-lobbied GOP ever promotes -- or even permits -- reducing corporate welfare.

    As Winerev's diary said so well this morning, cutting real money out Federal spending is quite easy if you're willing to hurt corporations:

    we propose whacking $4Billion right off the bat by ENDING all oil and Gas and coal and nuclear subsidies, since we believe they are no longer infant industries in need of help or protection from foreign competitors.
            "We propose ending $3bill./year in cotton subsidies, $3.5 Billion/yr. in sugar subsidies, another $3billion in wheat subsidies.
    Authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies and medical equipment firms would save another substantial chunk.

    And then there's the Pentagon pork, spread carefully into every single Congressional district.

    If the WSJ will really join us in supporting these cuts, there is hope for a terrific deal. Somehow I'm skeptical.

  •  "Take on corporate welfare?" (12+ / 0-)

    What have they slipped into the water at the WSJ.

    Republicans: if they only had a heart.

    by leu2500 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:12:26 AM PST

  •  Cutting Corporate Welfare? (9+ / 0-)

    That would pretty much abolish the modern Republican Party's whole reason for being.

    Corporate welfare is to Republicans what Social Security and Medicare are to Democrats.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:47:32 AM PST

  •  Gosh I dont mind men crying but I just cant with (4+ / 0-)


    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:48:38 AM PST

  •  Wow thats a huge admissionby the WSJ (11+ / 0-)

    All democrats should ask Republicans/conservatives one question: who is the hostage?? Let these terrorists spell it out.

  •  Unfortunate metaphor for the WSJ at this point (6+ / 0-)

    in time, I'd say. "Hostages, shooting, etc."

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:02:14 AM PST

  •  Looking forward to help make Lemmingade in '14 out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of all the Tebaggists and fiscal consumptives who follow Boehner over the cliff.

    "I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! " -Pappy O'Daniel

    by jakewaters on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:24:21 AM PST

  •  On the Table: Corporate Welfare. (8+ / 0-)

    Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:27:20 AM PST

  •  Pet Toomey and Ron Johnson?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevenaxelrod, chicagoblueohio

    Yeah, those to are so bloody charismatic and everymen that people are drawn to them and their message.  

    President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:28:57 AM PST

    •  Toomey is probably history in 2016. He's up for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      reelection in a presidential year. And especially if Hillary, popular in Pa., runs he's probably toast. But don't worry. He'll have all kinds of soft landings available, Club for Growth, Heritage Foundation, etc.

      Delenda est filibuster!

      by TofG on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:55:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Take on corporate welfare" srsly u must b kidding (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, averageyoungman, RichM, tb mare

    The Republican party's purpose is to protect the defense establishment, fossil fuel corps and Wall Street.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:29:45 AM PST

  •  "Take on corporate welfare" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Doesn't that just create another mini civil war for them? Oh, I forgot. That's just the language they'll use.

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:30:23 AM PST

  •  Don't Take A Hostage Unless You Are Prepared (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jerrypw be shot in the face!

    This is a lucky hostage, because the lady with the gun looked like she did not aim and may have even closed her eyes when she shot.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:30:45 AM PST

  •  From your keyboard … (7+ / 0-)

    I wholeheartedly agree that, as it appears, Obama has all the leverage in the debt ceiling negotiations.

    I just wish I had more confidence that he'll use that leverage.

    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
    Code Monkey like you!

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    by Code Monkey on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:31:29 AM PST

  •  The best strategy for the House GOP (6+ / 0-)

    is not to play around with the debt limit but to quickly pass it without a lot of fuss.

    Where they should begin to define themselves by allocating the sequester cuts in ways that make Democrats hurt.

    That's what I would do if I were them.

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but can they allocate the cuts?

      Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list:

      by grrr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:40:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure. (0+ / 0-)

        Laws can be changed. That's they're there in the first place.

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          I meant as I understand it, how cuts are allocated in the current sequestration is not controlled by the congress... So, while there will be negotiation, we have some leverage to say no...whether PBO will do so...sigh...

          Dems in swing districts: INSIST your republican rep incr tax on the wealthy -gerrymandering makes rep vulnerable...swing district list:

          by grrr on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:07:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I think a shut down is probably their (0+ / 0-)

      best strategy.

      1. It's early in this Congressional session, so many voters will have largely forgotten the details by 2014.

      2. They are about as low in public opinion as they can go, anyway..

      3. It would fire up their base

      4. If presented right, they could make it a "stand on principles" type of action - if they could get someone better than Boehner or Ryan as spokesperson

      Eventually, Dems are going to have to deal with spending.. ignoring it will only work for so long.  You cannot go year after year spending $1.2 Trillion of borrowed money for the basic necessities of running a country.

      Obama was foolish settling for a mere $60 Billion in new revenues last week.  It's not enough, but the GOP gave him what he asked for.. tax the wealthy.  Now he has to come back to the American public with hat in hand and say "Well, that wasn't anywhere near enough".

      I personally think public sentiment will turn in favor of spending cuts this cycle.

      •  That's cold, hard headed clear minded reasoning. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bon Temps, splintersawry

        The kind in short supply around here.

        Of course $600 billion in revenue was foolish which is why the GOP is now turning his tax bill on him and saying " got your tax you want MORE!" That's when conservadems start getting jittery and splitting off.

        The public wont turn in favor of entitlement cuts though. They're just going to wonder why did Obama pass a $4 trillion tax cut in the first place if it meant cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

      •  The way to deal (0+ / 0-)

        with the deficit is to raise revenues, which are a fraction of what they ought to be, and a fraction of what they would be if tax rates from most of the 20th century were still in place.

        The Republicans spent a couple of decades deriding Democrats as "Tax and Spend" Democrats.  But at least the Democrats raised revenue for what they spent.  What the Republicans should have been called were the "Cut Taxes, But Spend Anyway" party.  They cut revenues, but increased spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

        •  Start with the dividend tax. (0+ / 0-)

          Why should dividends be taxed at 20% and my earned income be taxed at 39.6%?  For that matter interest is taxed at 39.6%.

          I could go along with 39.6% - CPI * the principle.  As inflation caused gains shouldn't be taxed.

          But maybe not.  

          The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

          by NCJim on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:57:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And a fraction of what they will be (0+ / 0-)

          if/when the economy recovers. There's been a lot less income to be taxed lately.

    •  The problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      for Republicans is that their propaganda walks 100 yards ahead of them.

      They made the debt ceiling a national tragedy, they sold to their base - who didn't even know such thing existed - that this will be the end of America if it was passed without at least the same amount in cuts and they have set them selves to make this the fight in which Obama will pay for everything.

      So this one is going to be a nose dive no matter what the WSJ or D Brooks or Newt or anyone else says, unless it comes directly from the Koch bros and the Limbaughs.


  •  WSJ on a fools errand (0+ / 0-)

    Does the WSJ seriously believe that Republicans would do anything about corporate welfare?  

  •  Hee hee hee...GOP makes me laugh (0+ / 0-)

    Isn't it great to not be a Republican these days?  Maybe that's why they've only got 27% of households (down from 35% in 2000).

    I heard a commentor on NPR say, "The problems with the Republican Party didn't happen overnight.  They made a decision to play a 'Southern Strategy' years ago (Nixon), and now they have the eventual results.  

    The party of "Love" vs. The party of "Hate".  A classic "Hope vs. Fear" issue.  Fear would have worked, but not in the modern world.  

    Hee hee, it's so fun to watch these medival Republicans try to figure out what they'll not do next.  Ha!

    The symbol for the Republican party shouldn't be an elephant -- it should be a unicorn.

    by Deadicated Marxist on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:36:22 AM PST

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, DianeNYS
    The most amazing thing about this is that you've got The Wall Street Journal editorial page encouraging a Republican Speaker of the House to back off a hard-right agenda.
    The most amazing thing is that said speaker's agenda is not hard right enough for the boneheads in his own party.
  •  well you can snark me later (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WB Reeves, winsock, Iberian, jay1c

    but frankly I don't see the same rhetoric happening this time as happened in 2011 the first time the GOP tried this.  I think Obama was in complete shock that they pulled the debt ceiling hostage crisis  on him.  He's been waiting ever since he blinked last time to hold the line now, which is why he has already hit the national stage demanding that they don't take the economy hostage this time.  The thing that sticks in every company's craw right now is the downgrading of US credit abroad; that left a mark.  The last thing they need is for Teabaggers to be trying to inflict another and more permanent wound on the national credit.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:37:04 AM PST

    •  Yea, I'm sure PBO has plans for each turn now. (0+ / 0-)

      And SJB is randomly stumbling around like a drunk.

      The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

      by NCJim on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:59:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm glad one person agrees with me at least (0+ / 0-)

        I may be wrong, but I do see President Obama as a man who LEARNS from his mistakes.

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:07:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  With the depth of planning for his campaign. (0+ / 0-)

          You have to imagine that he as at least half as good planning for this campaign against the house.

          The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

          by NCJim on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:38:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

            I would say he has had his hide chewed well and good now from the games the Republicans - particularly the House leadership - have pulled on him over the past couple of years - which is why they worked so darn hard to get him out of office and make him seem like a failure.  He's learned them now, and between that and the strengthened caucuses in both chambers, the Repubs and the Teabaggers stand a much smaller chance of success in the next four.

            "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

            by louisev on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:56:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  We all have the same problem: The Tea Party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And when I say "we all" I mean Boehner too.

    The problem is that the Tea Party is not only willing to shoot the hostage, but WANTS the hostage to be shot, and they have some say on the final decision.

  •  The WSJ is paywalled is there a name attached (0+ / 0-)

    or an anonymous editorial  

    As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

    by JML9999 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:40:39 AM PST

  •  Seems like they're ready to shoot. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, jay1c

    I'm more worried about Obama and the general news media.
    We can just assume the Republicans are ready to shut it down.
    Obama doesn't have a stellar record in these situations.
    The general media is portraying this as another routine negotiation.

    I wonder - should we be flooding ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN with emails letters and calls demanding that this not be portrayed in that light?

  •  The WSJ knows about criminal behavior (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, tb mare

    "You shouldn't take a hostage you're not prepared to shoot?"  Great guidance from the masters of the universe and the Minions of Murdoch.  No surprise, though: after all this time, we should know how we think.

    Obama's spent time talking up corporate leaders recently; I am 100 percent sure he's told them "I'm calling their bluff, and you don't want that..."  

    And the CEO has passed the word along to the GOP; the WSJ story is part of that.  At this point it's all Kabuki.  There may be a few rogue billionaires who want to bring it all down.  But the corporatists want stability, and they have spoken.

  •  Business is business (0+ / 0-)

    There won't be a [murder suicide] of the world economy by Republicans. And the idea of a debt ceiling resolution is stupid to begin with.

  •  Since 2010 GOP lradership has shown a lemming (0+ / 0-)

    mentality, leading their party off the electoral cliff. It's doubtful even gerrymandering can save them long term since:

    "Ils n'ont rien appris et rien oublié."

    Delenda est filibuster!

    by TofG on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:46:59 AM PST

    •  The thing is (0+ / 0-)

      GOP leadership does not control the party they sold if to the crazy libertarian multibillionares and to the group of con people that live of their cocoon media from selling permanent outrage and crisis.

      Romney's milk maid tale was only the tipping point of fabletown

  •  The classic GOP strategy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, jay1c

    is to coerce Democrats into "shooting" the hostage for them, and many Democrats are prone to oblige, claiming afterward that Republicans "made" them do it.

  •  Gee (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CrissieP, tb mare

    I guess their masters got a little bit burned in the stock market the last time around,  

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:49:29 AM PST

  •  When pigs sing opera! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, jay1c, Panama Pete
    Take on corporate welfare.
    I don't think a Republican has ever put those two words together in all of history. And here's something everybody will be seeing for the first time ever: "Pentagon Entitlements."

    Let's go after some of those, eh?

    And please let's stop using the word "reform" as it has one meaning to fair-minded people and another entirely in the Beltway.

    In DC "reform" means "less money/fewer rights to the average person." Anyone in DC saying that should be pelted with offal.

    And please use the correct spelling: It's bipartisanshiT when the two parties, or one of their Gangs, comes up with something. Paraphrasing George Carlin: they call it bipartisanship when they're going to really screw you.

    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:54:29 AM PST

  •  interesting. O & dems oughta take WSJ's advice fir (0+ / 0-)


    and find several republican boondoggles to make more efficient (aka cut)

    tax breaks and grants for shipping jobs overseas should get defined, so that it shows it wasn't just an election gimmick.

    personally, i think, the way epa rules are administered is a complete bummer for anyone trying to do anything interesting. it'd be nice to clean those up on our terms rather than rightwing aholes. (and for the sake of an e.g., we send zillions of tons of very nice steel, made from the best ore (u.s. midwest from 100 yrs ago) and it gets shipped to china to recycle, because it takes too long, and it's too much of a clusterf to get the work sourced in u.s. - these are normally cases where the state is administering the epa rule, with some typically nutty overlap from a fed agency concerned about a worm or something, & no i'm not a troll)

    what lincoln said

    by rasfrome on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:56:21 AM PST

  •  There Is NOW A PROVEN Bi-Partisan Coalition (0+ / 0-)

    That can get stuff done in Congress.

    If we had not reached a deal, this would almost certainly not be true right now.

    The Tea Party, arguably, might become completely irrelevant.

    And we can thank the deal for that. Among other things.

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

    by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:56:28 AM PST

  •  Sure he can. Obama does it all the time. n.t (0+ / 0-)

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:58:44 AM PST

  •  You can (0+ / 0-)

    if the "cops" play along.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:00:22 PM PST

  •  WSJ isn't right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dancing Frog, SusanL143

    It doesn't matter if you are willing to shoot the hostage or not, it's if the other side (the police, whatever) believe that you will shoot the hostage. If they believe you will shoot the hostage then they will negotiate and might give you what you want, but if they don't believe that then they won't. It doesn't matter what you will or won't do.

    Of course, it might help you convince them to take you seriously if you actually WILL shoot the hostage.

    The question to me is whether you believe that the Democrats have shown any evidence that they will "not believe" the Republican hostage takers (regardless of their actual intentions).

    Take it easy, but take it.

    by ltsply2 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:01:37 PM PST

    •  Of course there's also the little problem (0+ / 0-)

      of whether the police believe that if the hostage taker gets what he wants that he might not then shoot the hostage anyway.  And with some of the a--holes in Congress right now, it's hard to say that that might not be the case.

    •  With the Republicans, it's more of a.... (0+ / 0-)

      negligent discharge situation. Whether or not they intend to shoot the hostage, they might shoot him accidentally, because they keep handling the gun in an irresponsible and unsafe manner.

      I think the democrats are worried that if the knuckleheads in the GOP allow the tea partiers to hold the gun, they might just shoot for the hell of it. So far, we have seen no evidence that the GOP won't let the tea party lead.

    •  death penalty for those who shoot hostages (0+ / 0-)

      Prison for those who merely take them and death or life in prison for those who shoot them. Hostage taking is a serious crime.

      No one who takes hostages in Congress should be allowed to be in office.  Period. Impeach, recall, and/or vote out those suckers. If they are willing to hurt America and Americans, they are not keeping their oath of office.

      Now, about Obama being a Democrat.  None of us like watching him make sausage but when it has come to the bills he urges and signs, he is definitely not a Republican.  I've always wanted someone more to the left but whenever one of those has run for President, they lose badly and we end up with a Nixon, a Reagan, or a Bush as president instead.  I fear, in this nation, we get middle of the road legislation or we curve off badly to the right lane. The majority of voters don't want us to drive on the left.

      As far as I'm concerned, they can cut out Medicare and Medicaid fraud all day long but must leave the benefit amounts alone.  We need to collect from a higher income index (which I think we just got partially enacted) for sure. If we could raise the lowest level benefits, it would really help a lot of people and the economy.  

  •  Will someone please share with me out there... (0+ / 0-)

    WHY there is this constant "take down" of the Federal Government ONLY when a Democrat is in office?  I am so sick and tired of the phoney "Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling" stupidity every single time a Dem is sitting in the Oval Office.

  •  when even the Republican Wall Street Journal (0+ / 0-)

    is stating the fact that the Republicans are simply holding the entire country hostage...then the Republicans are in real trouble.

    Wouldn't this make a great ad leading up to the final "negotiations" (aka cluster-f#&k/slow-moving-train-wreck) for settling our newest fiscal cliff crisis (which will be followed by yet...another...and another...and another...until the Republicans have beaten the entire country into submission by electing them just to shut them up...seriously...that, it seems to me, is part of their be so brazenly obnoxious each and every day where enough low-information voters elect them...just to shut them they did in...2010.)

  •  Not helpful (0+ / 0-)

    Sure, you can take hostages you're not prepared to shoot.  You just have to make sure they're hostages that the president is not prepared to shoot.  

    The big problem with this president "negotiating" with this particular gang of hostage takers as that he always makes it so clear that he is less willing than they are to see the hostages shot, that they don't really have to worry about actually having to shoot the hostages at some point.  They can and do tell themselves that it's perfectly safe to threaten anything at all, no matter how unwilling they are to actually see it hurt, because they will never have to carry out the threat.

    The states must be abolished.

    by gtomkins on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:09:46 PM PST

  •  There's also the subtle encouragement in there (0+ / 0-)

    to go ahead and shoot the hostage.

  •  Toomeys, Hensarlings, and Johnsons (0+ / 0-)

    O my!  The WSJ tells him to back off the far right agenda then suggests three of the farthest right people to make the case.  That is good because they sound like complete buffoons when they step up to the microphone.  Johnson (one of my Senators) is particularly a clown. Bought himself a Senate seat (was conveniently given a check from the family owned business after the election that miraculously equalled the amount he contributed to himself.) and has publicly stated that he doesn't want to legislate, he wants to "message." So far he is merely a playback of RW talking points.  

    "Liberty" is a living wage. "Freedom" is not worrying about your medical bills.

    by billybam on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:24:00 PM PST

  •  unless limbaugh/hannity back off boehner has to go (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with it.

    last i checked they're still saying it's the only way, to go along with them telling the teabagger GOP base that default is no big deal.

    dems should be blasting the airwaves with ads countering that stupidity. whatever happens in the end, the ability of those fucking idiots in congress to point to their talk radio constituents and say they want us to use the debt ceiling, like rush and sean say, for leverage will give them leverage (that might not show up directly) they only have because the left has no serious response to talk radio. what a waste of time we need to be using on important stuff.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:26:12 PM PST

  •  'Take on corporate welfare ...' (0+ / 0-)

    "Um, WSJ? Let me introduce you to your own party ... it seems you've never met!"

    And yeah, "unleashing" Pat Toomey and Jeb Hensarling sounds like a winner idea.

    But they shoudn't fret: the President and our beloved party will give them 97 percent of what they want this time, if not the 98, without them having to load their guns.

  •  Shooting hostages (0+ / 0-)

    I find it amusing (and horrifying) that even the WSJ recognizes that the GOP is acting like terrorists, "take a hostage you aren't prepared to shoot."  This is economic terrorism at its height, only to be surpassed by the Europeans (read Germany and the UK) which force austerity on working people so that the banks are kept solvent.

    Whatever happened to the maxim, "never give in to terrorists."

  •  Remember (0+ / 0-)

    They are also against good policy.

    E Pluribus Unum does NOT mean "every man for himself"

    by Daddy Love on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:04:53 PM PST

  •  Don't Cave Yet Again, Democrats! (0+ / 0-)

    "And as long as President Obama and congressional Democrats stand firm in their pledge against negotiating over the debt limit and to only consider spending cuts if Republicans are willing to raise revenues, Boehner and the House Republican Conference will be headed off the political cliff in November 2014."

    To be sure, the best way that Democrats can ensure that Boehner and the Republicans can experience political success in 2014 and beyond is if they cave yet again.  And if they DO cave, they can put Mitt Romney's "47% Video" in mothballs because they will be throwing the 47% -- indeed, the entire country -- under the bus.  What makes that a travesty is the fact that one expects that kind of thinking and behavior from Republicans.  They do not expect it from Democrats.

    So if the Democrats want to be taken seriously, they need to "man up" and stand firm in all of the fiscal discussions that are about to take place.

  •  Tax The Rich & End Corporate Welfare! (0+ / 0-)

    How To Raise Taxes: Think Eisenhower!!!

    Quoting J.J. Goldberg at  

    [...] Eisenhower inherited a top marginal income tax rate of 92% from his predecessor Harry Truman when he entered the White House in 1953. He quickly lowered it to 91%, where it stayed until Lyndon Johnson lowered it again to 77% in 1964 and then 70% in 1965.  

    During his eight years in the White House, Eisenhower managed to reduce the federal deficit by 75% — down to a quarter of the size he inherited — while building the Interstate Highway System and launching America’s space program. GDP growth averaged 3% per year. Unemployment averaged just under 5.5%.  

    Reagan, entering office in 1981, inherited Johnson’s 70% top marginal income tax rate and immediately lowered it to 50%, then to 38.5% and finally to 28%. His theory was that high taxes stifle economic growth, while lowering taxes unleashes growth and creates jobs. It was a great national experiment, and the result was conclusive: It didn’t work. Growth averaged 3.4% per year during Reagan’s presidency, hardly better than Eisenhower’s, while unemployment averaged a shocking 7.43%, far worse than Eisenhower’s and hardly better than the much-maligned Obama record. [...]  

    So the next time you listen to a presidential debate, remember that nobody up there is taking the Democratic side. The debate we’re having today is between a robust Reaganism and a faint, timid echo of Eisenhower Republicanism. In fact, when you get down to it, the Democrats can’t even bring themselves to take Eisenhower’s side with any conviction. We’re all touting variations on a flimflam theory that’s been tried and proven a colossal failure.


    How To Cut Spending: End Corporate Welfare!!!     

    As Rex Nutting of Marketwatch noted in his 12/18/2012 article “Why isn’t Obama demanding corporate welfare cuts?”, “$2.6 trillion could be saved [...] It’s possible to achieve all the budget savings we need for the next 10 years simply by cutting the fat out of discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures [removing all of the corporate welfare] without raising tax rates on the wealthy or cutting the safety net at all.”     

    Oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, certainly don’t need $4 billion a year in subsidies, and even the oil company CEOs admit they don’t need it!     

    Why are cuts to Social Security and Medicare even being discussed while literally billions in corporate welfare are constantly spilling out of the Treasury? 

    White House petition to End Corporate Welfare:

  •  John Boehner (0+ / 0-)

    He needs to think real hard about what he is going to do, and what he says.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site