Skip to main content

Red stick figures
Will they or won't they?
Today is the GOP's last chance to send the country over the "fiscal cliff" (until next time) and it's looking as through there are two different scenarios for how things play out: either Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell strike a deal that passes the Senate, putting House Republicans in the position of deciding whether or not to "jump"—or Biden and McConnell fail and Senate Democrats put up a Democratic plan for a vote in the Senate, putting Senate Republicans (and potentially House Republicans) in the position of deciding whether or not to take the leap.

According to Politico, the Biden-McConnell talks are making "major progress." In this case, "major progress" is defined as a deal in which the threshold for tax hikes goes from $250,000 for families (which the president campaigned on) to somewhere between $450,000 (Biden's current offer) and $550,000 (McConnell's current offer). In addition, unemployment benefits would be extended and sequester spending cuts would be delayed. A deal would presumably also address the alternative minimum tax as well as things like estate, capital gains, and dividends taxes.

If a deal is reached, it would pass the Senate, but while House Speaker John Boehner has said his chamber would take action on any legislation coming from the Senate, he hasn't guaranteed passage—nor has he guaranteed an up-or-down vote. His definition of taking action includes amending the deal as well as rejecting or accepting it. That means even if Biden and McConnell reach a deal that passes the senate, there's no guarantee it will ultimately be adopted.

If Biden and McConnell fail to reach an agreement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will request a vote on a Democratic plan to extend tax cuts on all income below $250,000 and to extend unemployment benefits. With that fallback, why would Democrats continue negotiating with McConnell for a higher threshold, given that McConnell can't guarantee House passage? I haven't really seen a thorough explanation of that, but my assumption is that Democrats would say that a Biden-McConnell deal would include things like the sequester and would be more likely to pass.

That said, it seems as though with every day that Republicans refuse to take action, their options just keep on getting worse—and Democrats need to keep that in mind. For example, while it's possible that McConnell would allow a Republican filibuster of the Democratic fallback plan, if he does that, it would not only be a public relations disaster, it would put the filibuster-reform crowd in a terrific position to put new filibuster rules in place on Thursday when the new Congress begins. And even if McConnell didn't filibuster it, House Republicans would have a really tough time blocking a vote to avoid tax cuts that every Democrat says they would support.

As Laura Clawson wrote yesterday, Republicans had backed down on their demand to included chained CPI in any last minute fiscal cliff deal, saying that they didn't want to appear to be holding tax cuts hostage in order to get Social Security cuts. Two weeks ago, this was something President Obama was offering—but Republicans summarily dismissed it as insufficient. Now, they are saying it they don't even want to see it happen at all. Apparently, this is what happens when Democrats call Republican bluffs. Hopefully, it's a lesson they are taking to heart.

7:34 AM PT: Hmmm:

Dems worried about Biden-Mitch deal. GOP wants only 3-month sequester reprieve, meaning it would expire - yep - at same time as debt ceiling
@GlennThrush via web
If Thrush is right, and the GOP is pushing for three months, Democrats had better laugh in their face. Even six or nine months is ridiculous. Heck, one year probably isn't enough.

Remember, the president already can push back the impacts of the spending cuts, so a very short term extension basically is meaningless. An extension that takes us into the middle of 2014, when Republicans will (a) be past their primaries and (b) be less likely to fuck around because of the mid-terms would make a lot more sense. But anything very short-term should be a nonstarter. Democrats would be crazy to consider it, let alone accept it.

7:47 AM PT: Democrats are pushing for 2015 for the sequester delay according to the Washington Post.

8:22 AM PT:
Senate Dem aide: "definitely no deal yet," Dems won't accept 90-day sequester "buy-down" because that "just kicks the can down the road"
@JohnJHarwood via web

7:03 AM PT: Jonathan Chait points out that lifting the $250,000 to $400,000 would give up one-quarter of the revenue from the tax increase, so if the number goes up to $500,000, it will have an even bigger impact. He also makes the case that in being willing to negotiate on the threshold, Obama is giving away far too much in exchange for far too little given the weakness of the Republican position. If there is a deal, and the threshold does go up, the key question will be: what did Republicans give up in return? And simply being willing to end the tax cut hostage crisis isn't enough given the likelihood that the GOP is bluffing.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:46 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  The Republican's are hostage takers (33+ / 0-)

    and must not get their way.
    As any mom knows, reinforcing negative behavior will only guarantee it's return.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:55:02 AM PST

  •  If this is the best Biden can do... (36+ / 0-)

    I have one word for it: JUMP!!! This cliff garbage is just another GOP attempt at scaring America into austerity.

  •  Bohner can't deliver................ (20+ / 0-)

    Repug votes on anything that is remotely acceptable to Senate Dems and the POTUS without jeopardizing his speakership on Jan 3rd. Hence, he won't try.  

    The only thing that can keep us from tripping over the "monetary molehill" would be a few Repug moderates voting with the House Dems for passage. I wouldn't doubt Bohner might facilitate that happening--very quietly.

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:58:18 AM PST

    •  He might be able to deliver SOME GOP votes (0+ / 0-)

      after the Speakership election.
      The Majority of his party is gone round the bend, but some of them are more deeply in hock to Wall Street and Big Business than they are to the TeaBagger/Billionaire axis of insanity. With a unified Democratic caucus and an insurgent group of "Moderate Republicans" (yeah right), economic policy will be moved.
      One of the interesting parts of this is that the Speakership can be contested by Pelosi as well as Cantor and Boner. Conceivably, if they split the GOP vote, she could become Speaker!. But even if she doesn't, the once impregnable wall of the House Republicans is showing signs of cracking.
      I find all of this both funny and disturbing. I'm depending on the TeaBaggers to be so extremist that they keep us from making a bad deal and that they fracture their own caucus and counting on Wall Street and assorted fat cats to push their rented minions to get over it and get some work done, because profits.
      They tried everything, including a Capital Strike (a modified Galt maneuver) to prevent Obama's reelection, it didn't work, now the less fanatic want to get back to making some money.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:37:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why give up anything on race if (0+ / 0-)

        Boehner can't deliver? If it takes 200 Dems votes, shouldn't Pelosi demand something in return? Lets say 400k tax cuts but we get unemployment insurance extension and something  else.

  •  So explain why the exemption went from 400 to (16+ / 0-)

    450,000 and below.  I thought we campaigned and won on 250,000.  Also Mario's tweet from yesterday.  Ezra and Krugman are all over it. Can't wait for the debt ceiling.

    •  Obama won 51 to 47. (8+ / 0-)

      And a GOP House was voted in by that same electorate, a very conservative GOP House. So this notion that the American people spoke with one voice is just not true. We are a divided country, and Obama's approach recognizes this simple reality.

      •  Not really. (35+ / 0-)

        The GOP only kept the House due to gerrymandering. More votes were cast for Democratic candidates than for GOP ones. The country isn't as divided as you'd like us to think.

        Oh for crying out loud!

        by 4mygirls on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:11:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gerrymandering is a political process. (7+ / 0-)

          It is enabled because in enough states, the people elected a GOP legislature and governor, so they get pro-GOP gerrymandering. But the roots of it are at the same polling places we're talking about.

          •  The roots include big dirty money (6+ / 0-)

            The billionaires weren't able to buy much at the national level in the 2012 elections, but the gerrymandering got done at the state level, by folks elected in 2010.  Money carried more weight in 2010, and at the state level.

            We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

            by david78209 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:07:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  How does that build on your prior statemet (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timothy J

            First you made a numerical point. Lost that argument.

            Then you switch to a political one. Or rather I should say a legal  one since the House being turned into a place where you can so lose the popular vote and still win based on gerrymandering raises issues of one man, one vote.

            States do not have a carte blanche right under one man one vote to do whatever they want despite the fact thab both parties are currently ignoring this reality.

          •  it's tied in to the census (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4mygirls

            and "we" dems have done the same thing.

            democrats need to do a better job at the state and local level and people need to understand elections matter even on off year elections. the democratic party can help here too but at some point, voters have responsibility to educate themselves and engage.

            mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

            by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:42:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why blame the people? (0+ / 0-)

              The people are doing all they can do - vote.  The parties are the ones who have constructed these terrible districts (and you rightly point out that both sides have done so).  

              The parties both benefit from tight control of an electoral process, despite having no constitutional authority to do so.  They're not about to give up something that empowers themselves.  

              For example, in Georgia in 2012, about 2.1 million people voted for Romney, and 1.8 million voted for Obama, about a 53/46 split.  Meanwhile, of 14 seats that Georgia has in the US House, only 5 went to Democrats, or 36%.  If the Tea Party hadn't pushed a terrible candidate to one of those races, they could have pushed that number down to 4 of 14, about 29%.   You can't pin that on voters - they don't draw the district lines, they don't vote on the district lines that are drawn, and "How I would draw district lines" is not exactly a hot-button campaign issue.  

        •  The Repubs (12+ / 0-)

          represent right wing districts, so that is who they answer to, not the country as a whole, but I have a hard time believing even in those districts their constituents care about 250 vs 500 k. It is not going to affect them - they earn much less for the most part. But they're doing what their funders want, most of whom probably aren't even in the district.

        •  Wouldda, couldda, shouldda has zero application. (7+ / 0-)

          They kept the House and that is all the power, even idiotically directed power, to ensure TP/GOP obstructionists will be alive and well at least through 2014.

          Civics 100, not even 101, is that unless people speak in all elections, in every race, with a strong voice pockets of obstructionists power will remain in a system such as ours. The fact enough retrograde or ignorant people spoke, and enough on our side couldn't be bothered to vote in the last mid terms put into state legislative power gerrymander crazed TP/GOP types. Then enough of their side voted for these same types in those neat little safe districts to ensure we have die hard obstructionists at least through 2014 in the House.

          How the "American people spoke" in the one moment that counted in 2010 and 2012 in those CDs outweighs all the meaningless, hot air opinion polls and number citing about where they actually stand.

          Yeah, elections, every damn one of them, have consequences! Only one moment counts. That is when the American people speak casting a vote.

          Everything else is hot air and opinion. Regrets are just regrets since federal elected officials cannot be recalled. A moment of inattention or laziness lasts two years for the House, four for a president and six for the Senate. Our opinions, once they are safe in office, are effectively meaningless unless they choose to respect them. Right now, due to those safe districts, GOP office holders are way more afraid of primary challenges from TP and wingnuts than the "American people"!

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:05:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  excellent post (0+ / 0-)

            one of the best I have seen on all of this. I have been pushing this argument for years.

            people (when they do vote) vote against their own economic interests. sure all the right wing propaganda does not help but at some point personal responsibility kicks in. in today's social media society it is very easy to educate oneself on fact.

            I agree inattention and laziness are the root of it all.

            mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

            by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:46:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It isn't just the right wind involved in this. (0+ / 0-)

              I have to admit that I get much like a bear with a toothache backed in a cave when I see people on this site or hear some self declared "progressive" or "liberal" or "Democrat" declaring that because of (select any reason, including "both candidates are bad, disappointment, past betrayals, anything) they will sit out an election. That because this election isn't really important, just some piddly little statehouse district special, they don't have time. I get the same when I see people here claiming some statistic, such as Obama's margin or how the total national Congressional vote tilted Democratic, without any practical effect of putting some person into or out of office.

              Except in the few seconds when we actually cast a vote—hoping it makes a difference even if only to end short the aspirations of a Ken Cuccinelli who got his start in a little special on one August day with—everything else is sound and fury signifying nothing.

              Wouldda, couldda, shouldda! If 1,849 more of the Fairfax "blue" voters, in a pool of 111,135 registered in that 37th Senate district, had turned out that summer day in 2002 a rather infamous "Kook" would probably never have made the state and possibly national stage. Every vote in every election has consequences, sometimes well beyond the immediate horizon, such as an election before the reapportionment for the next decade.

              There are times that cave bear in me wants the satisfying crunch of foolish skulls in his teeth!

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:42:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  4 million votes out of 130 million cast (0+ / 0-)

          is about 4%. 51-47%.

          one can argue Dumbya claimed a mandate with less votes to make a case that this election was a mandate but it most certainly is a divided country.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:39:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  specifically.. (11+ / 0-)

        House dems got 1m+ more popular votes than the Rs.

        •  That's a silly stat, as you and every (6+ / 0-)

          other amateur political junkie knows. The number of people voting for the candidate(s) in any particular House election is largely a function of the seat's competitiveness. Simply adding up votes means little. In each election that mattered, the only important outcome is who won. And the majority of the time, it was the Republican. We are a divided country, there's no denying that.

        •  That's meaningless (5+ / 0-)

          we don't have a nationwide vote for the House.  We have 435 separate elections.  And the vote count in each election is a function of who is running.  You can't take those 435 separate elections and pretend they were a single nationwide vote on candidates who weren't running nationwide.  

          •  Did the House D's (0+ / 0-)

            ..running this year get 1m+ votes than the House R's or not?

            •  Of course they did. But that tells us (0+ / 0-)

              nothing about what "the people wanted" with respect to the House.  We don't have a national election where people chose "Republicans control the House" or "Democrats control the House."  We have 435 separate elections, and the vote and turnout in each of those elections depends on the candidates running on those elections.   In a district like LA-02, where is was a forgone conclusion that the Democrat was going to win, some Republicans might have voted for him, or not voted at all in that race.  Same goes in reverse for LA-02.  And, some voters cross their party lines depending on the individual candidate.  Here in Louisiana, Mary Landrieu comes to mind.  In a very very red state, she twice defeated Republican candidates.  That's because the voters like HER and HER positions (and because she is not opposed by buisness groups like LABI), not because they are "voting Democratic."  If anything, here in very very red Louisiana, the "D" behind her name brings down her vote totals.  

              You can cite the accurate numbers , but I have no idea WHY anybody would be citing those numbers.  I certainly hope nobody cites them as some indication that the election results are somehow invalid or illegitimate.  (That's no better than Republicans who say the same thing about election results that they don't like.)  It's just silly -- and a rejection of our Constitutional system, frankly -- to pretend that those numbers tell you anything about what the people "wanted" with respect to control of the House.  

              The only thing that Constitutionally tells you what the people "said" with respect to the House are the results of those 435 separate elections.  

              •  your analogy doesnt make sense (0+ / 0-)

                The house and senate are viewed as a singular entity respectively. The presidency headlined by an individual. By your analogy, a D in a solid red state might not have voted for Obama simply because it wouldn't make a difference in the electoral votes for that state. You can choose to dismiss House votes but they are still significant and show the majority vote count.

      •  We are a gerrymandered country.....the states have (12+ / 0-)

        manipulated the districts so that we really don't have a voice.  

      •  But Obama holds all the cards in this negotiation (10+ / 0-)

        regardless of the vote tally.  The Repubs are in a can't win position and what Obama is doing - once again - is helping them win.  That makes sense if the opposition actually is a serious one, but it's been clear since Obam's stimulus bill legislation that they are not serious.

        As to hurting lots of people by holding out - i.e., taking a stand - on his position, Obama would do those people more good in the slightly longer and much longer term by helping improve the economy and by weakening the Repub party.  But then, as for the latter, he wouldn't have anyone to pre-capitulate to and he might actually have to do what he says he would do.

        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 07:27:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  give him a call (0+ / 0-)

          I am sure he could use your advice.

          yes, this is sarcasm.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:48:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          How has Obama "pre-capitulate"[d] in the current negotiations? As I remember it, he made an initial proposal that was a bit more progressive than what he campaigned on. Do you think he should have not proposed anything until after January 1st? Having made the offer, should he have declared negotiations finished?

      •  N0 - a conservative House was NOT voted (4+ / 0-)

        in by that same margin.  Republicans in the House received fewer votes total than Democrats did - it's all in the gerrymandering.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by bobdevo on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:03:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Funny I don't (5+ / 0-)

        recall other presdents, like GWB and Reagan being oh so considerate of the losing side.

        No, GWB had a mandate and all kinds of political capital; Reagan had Congress quaking in their boots.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:03:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah and Dumbya (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          v2aggie2

          did a helluva a job with that "mandate" didn't he?

          not sure reagan had congress shaking in his boots. he had to work with Tip O'Neil to get things done and quite sure Tip was never quaking in his boots. you have evidence to support otherwise, I would be happy to reconsider.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:50:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't think Dumbya was effective at getting (0+ / 0-)

            RW leg passed?

            You don't think Regan was effective at the same thing?

            You think they both were ineffective at doing what their side wanted done?

            Look at the last 30 years and the current state of the middle class, I'd say they were both damned effective...and their deeds are still reaping benefits for the 1% today.

      •  You are wrong (5+ / 0-)

        Of course Obama won the popular vote in the house as well. It is the partisan redistricting by Republicans that delivered the house against the will of the American People to the GOP. See, OH, PA, VA were all clearly won by Obama but they are sending 70, 75% of all representatives as Republicans to Congress. How can that be? This is a complete failure of our democracy. The house has no mandate at all. It is fake because all democratic votes were shuffled into few democratic seats so that despite a total majority of democratic votes there are more Republican seats in the house. Total democracy fail. Unconstitutional. I would demand new elections in states where the number of seats for one party is in strong contrast to the popular vote. Yes, this includes a few democratic states, but partisan redistricting has to stop.

      •  And Reagan won 59 to 41% in 1984... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wewantthetruth, coffeetalk

        ...and still was willing to compromise with the Democratic controlled House to get things done.

        Yes, the Democratic success this time at the presidential level and in Senate does give Democrats more leverage to get things done -- but it doesn't eliminate the need to compromise with the Republicans who control the House (even if that control is largely an artifact of gerrymandering).

        The struggle is in determining what are core principles that should be adhered to, and where there's some flexibility.  Personally, I don't mind too much if the break point for eliminating the Bush tax cuts for earned income is raised significantly, as long as it goes away for the highest earners.  To me, the underlying principle is restoring some progressivity to our tax code, and the exact break point is a negotiating point.  More important is what is happening regarding tax rates for unearned income -- and the reports that I've seen on that subject appear to be a somewhat mixed bag, with the Democrats holding firm at $250k, but apparently agreeing to let the dividend rate go to 20% instead of 39.6%.  Still, I'm glad to see that they seem to be holding firm on capital gains.

        More distressing is that the reports that I read also suggested that Democrats were going to concede the Estate Tax issue to the Republicans, giving them a 35% rate above $5 million.  

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:48:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's a lot of fiscal capitulation (13+ / 0-)

      Biden and the WH certainly gave up a lot, if this is true.

      Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:43:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The majority of people support 250K! (7+ / 0-)

      The majority of people equally support the government honoring their social contracts, paying their bills, paying Medicare and Social Security. The Republicans want to steal benefits, break contracts to pay their debt then they need to tell the public and the banks this. This is their bailout of banks, little recession, unfunded Bush tax cuts, unfunded military insanity, and unfunded prescription drug give-away in the debt.

      This all comes down to trying to dump the GOP's mess on the Democratic Party. Hell no and hell no to this talk of default. The president has the power to sever all of this mess. He has the 14 Amendment and he has the statutory power of the treasury and he can tell the GOP to stuff their default limit. The public will cheer him for honoring the social contracts of the safety net and the government's contracts.

      •  actually, no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell

        The 14th amendment doesn't give the President authority to issue new debt. Nothing in the Constitution gives him that power.

        •  actually the 14th amendment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vacantlook

          provides the president with the constitutional power to pay the debt already incurred which is what the debt limit is actually about.

          Congress (in some cases long ago authorized and spent the money. the Constitution allows the president to act action to protect the financial interests of the United States according to a lot of Constitutional scholars.

          I am hoping he goes this route if the House GOP tries to default again.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:54:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no, the debt limit (0+ / 0-)

            is about issuing new debt.

          •  The President disagrees with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splintersawry

            The President believes the Constitution does not give him that authority.

            Q    Okay.  And secondly, can we quickly revisit the debt ceiling question?  You were asked yesterday about whether the President would invoke executive power and the 14th Amendment.  Can you say that --

            MR. CARNEY:  And Peter, with lightning speed, dug up a quote that I thought would take at least a few hours to find.  (Laughter.)  Let me --

            Q    Have you found another one?  (Laughter.)  

            Q    Can you say that the President has ruled that out as an option, or can you say whether there are discussions or studies underway?

            MR. CARNEY:  Let me give you your answer.  I can say that this administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the President the power to ignore the debt ceiling -- period.

        •  actually, yes - you misconstrued what mikeVA said (0+ / 0-)
  •  I do not want to be McConnell right now (11+ / 0-)

    Talk about a guy caught between Scylla and Charybdos (I know I spelled that second name wrong; don't hold it against me). Any which way he goes, he's pretty much screwed. He doesn't make a deal, he fucks the GOP over politicially, he makes a deal, he enrages the base and pretty much guarantees he'll get a primary challenge in 2014. There are no good outcomes for him right now.

    I have a feeling he's furious as the Drunk Weepy Oompa-Loompa for failing so miserably and then throwing all the responsibility on him. Again.

  •  I am not feeling the (20+ / 0-)

    scaled down kick the can deal to provide cover for the Republicans. I want a Boise State 2007 Fiesta Bowl ending - I want Reid putting something on the floor exposing McConnell and his never-ending filibuster crap, I want chanting in the House and Boehner crying. The march of the Republicans whining on Morning Joe was the last straw - they are the problem and it's time the rest of the country got to see their bullshit in all it's glory.

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:01:17 AM PST

  •  The debt ceiling needs to be included (13+ / 0-)

    in any fiscal cliff deal.

    Otherwise, we just go through all this BS again in a month.

  •  I am beginning to think that (10+ / 0-)

    including the sequester at this time is a bad idea.  Since we will not be going for a "grand bargain", once tax cuts are passed, we will need leverage vis a vis the debt ceiling.  Defense sequesters are that leverage.  This regular showdown over the debt ceiling has to end.

    •  It can end by the President invoking the 14th (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, wewantthetruth, Senor Frog

      amendment and forcing this to the Supreme Court.  He has an obligation to protect the full faith and credit of the United States and to finally get the debt ceiling declared unconstitutional.

      •  It won't go to the Supreme Court. (0+ / 0-)

        It will be the excuse for the House to impeach.

      •  do you think that's what jed meant by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell

        obama could delay the effects himself?  that caught my attention.

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:46:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it's more that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          The overall budget has to pass the congress, but there's has a lot of leeway in how that money is used. He can re assign monies within cabinet departments, and shuffle things a bit.

          Not with everything, of course, but there are some things he can decide without congressional input.

          •  I believe that is correct. (0+ / 0-)

            He has some discretionary funds, emergency stuff that he can move to cover the few real deadfalls in the sequester, the UI and DocFix in particular. The rest of the sequester comes on more slowly and adjustment can be made, parts of it rolled back, levels bargained down, et cetera.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:48:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The President disagrees with that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splintersawry

        From December 6:  

        Q    Okay.  And secondly, can we quickly revisit the debt ceiling question?  You were asked yesterday about whether the President would invoke executive power and the 14th Amendment.  Can you say that --

        MR. CARNEY:  And Peter, with lightning speed, dug up a quote that I thought would take at least a few hours to find.  (Laughter.)  Let me --

        Q    Have you found another one?  (Laughter.)  

        Q    Can you say that the President has ruled that out as an option, or can you say whether there are discussions or studies underway?

        MR. CARNEY:  Let me give you your answer.  I can say that this administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the President the power to ignore the debt ceiling -- period.

        If he were to take that position after that unambiguous statement, he would be doing something that he believes is contrary to the Constitution, and thus violating his oath of office.  

        That would be a bad thing for him.  

  •  If the Thugs again con the Dems (10+ / 0-)

    into ransoming the latest hostage, they will be justified in their continued belief that crime pays.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:03:50 AM PST

    •  Wait for it. Caving on the threshold will happen (10+ / 0-)

      unless the crazy Repubs bail out the Dems once again.

      It's really pretty funny.  The chickenshit Dems keep bailing out the Repubs by caving into their demands and the crazy Repubs in turn bail out the Dems by rejecting the offers that weaken the Dems.  Maybe that's what compromise looks like these days.

      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 07:34:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It gets old, counting on teabagger intransigence (8+ / 0-)

        to save America from "bipartisanship."  

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:46:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It gets old about (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell, wewantthetruth, v2aggie2

          progressives envying the tea party

        •  it gets old seeing (0+ / 0-)

          posts from same old naysayers with nothing constructive to offer the discussion.

          easy to sit back and throw darts.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:01:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll take the liberty of *constructively* quoting (0+ / 0-)

            something I posted a few weeks ago, on why the Cliff is the best deal out there:

            The tax increases on incomes lower than $250,000 aren't likely to stand. Nancy Pelosi can't initiate a stand-alone tax-cut bill herself, but she, the President, the whole damn party, can loudly advocate for Boehner (or maybe Cantor by then) to bring such a bill to the House floor. The Thugs would cave. What choice do they have? The GOP--the anti-tax party--can hardly be seen to be blocking tax cuts for 98% of all Americans. That would send them to the electoral wilderness for a decade.

            The across-the-board cuts in social programs like Head-start required by sequestration are painful, no question, as is the lack of an immediate extension of Unemployment Insurance. This time though, the Dems hold the only hostage the Thugs give a damn about: the Defense budget. We can trade some of it back, in return for most of the social cuts. Done right, we could still end up with substantial Defense cuts impossible to achieve otherwise.

            That's what real compromise looks like.

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:12:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is all just theater at this point (6+ / 0-)

    Everyone already knows we're going over the cliff already, and that a tax bill will be first order business for the next session of congress.

    After that, we'll be debt ceiling arguments over spending cuts.

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:05:09 AM PST

  •  I am watching all this intently. (8+ / 0-)

    I don't care about the Republicans. I really don't care about John Boehner's precious need to save face (his ego is terminal). Rather, I hope and pray suffering will be averted, and any final deal will pass muster with most progressives.

    Thanks for this authoritative update.

    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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:06:32 AM PST

    •  When the most vulnerable in our (5+ / 0-)

      society stand to lose everything should we go over the cliff, true progressives will push to get some sort of compromise done in order to avoid it. Maybe the whole thing is a ruse, and the impact on seniors and the poor will be a whole lot of nothing. Maybe. But what if people here are wrong about that. People do make mistakes, we are all human. What if it is NOT the case that this is a ruse, a hoax? What if this causes harsh pain just when people can least afford it? As a progressive, I don't feel like risking the lives of millions over a hunch. I will support whatever deal Obama makes if he thinks it is a deal worth doing. The alternative is too frightening.

      •  Barack Obama (10+ / 0-)

        is earning every dime of his 500K salary right now. Glad I'm not in his shoes. Indeed, I've criticized him, and have expressed concern over the outcome of this imbroglio--but I'm also deeply thankful he is the tough and shrewd cookie I know him to be. Thank God.

        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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:19:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly, there is no-one I'd (7+ / 0-)

          rather have representing our side in this unprecedented battle against the far right. I have doubts about our leadership once Obama is term-limited out. I for one am going to savor every moment of the next four years, because I've never had a president I could be so proud of, and I seriously doubt I ever will again.

          •  He will go down as a great president, (10+ / 0-)

            warts and all.

            Mark my words.

            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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:26:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, we have millions (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karmsy, MPociask

              of unemployed, we're practically a 3rd world country, and I cannot begin to list all of the truly horrid things he's allowed or authorized [think banks, drones, violations of civil rights, etc].

              That just doesn't add up to a great president.

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:16:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who's to blame for that? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishingwell, PorridgeGun

                Who's to blame for our near-3rd-World status. It's a fair question you ask, so I'm tipping your comment.

                I just don't share your apparent conclusion that the blame falls entirely on Barack Obama.

                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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:20:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you and millions more of us (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  karmsy, dickensgirl

                  don't understand why people even bother posting drivel like the post you responded to.

                  30 years of consrvative government including 8 disastrous years of Dumbya are responsible for where the US is today. end of discussion. period.

                  mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                  by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:10:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't go quite as far as you do :) (0+ / 0-)

                    in that I think the comment above asks a valuable question we always need to keep at the fore-front of any discussion we as progressives have. I just don't care for the conclusions the person has reached. They're extraneous.

                    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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:17:45 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  hahhahahhahahhahahhahahaha! (0+ / 0-)

                only comment worthy of your post.

                take it elsewhere.

                mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:08:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'd prefer someone on our side (5+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink, Aspe4, emal, MPociask, schnecke21
            Hidden by:
            mwm341

            who doesn't offer up cuts to SS, but then I'm a New Deal liberal.  Guess dKos is lurching to the right in lockstep with the democratic party.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:09:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I find this a troubling comment. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wishingwell, v2aggie2

              You aren't facing what Obama is facing right now. You aren't in his shoes. We can criticize, we can express concern, but reaching such a global conclusion is all too easy and cheap.

              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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:17:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  subterranean (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Subterranean
                Hidden by:
                mwm341

                often jumps on some of my posts to let me know he is a "real democrat"......

                not worth engaing him. he lives in his own little world and offers nothing constructive to any discussion he joins. he is a flame thrower and obviously gets his kicks by stirring up shit.

                mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:12:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  So cutting SS is okie dokie (0+ / 0-)

                as long as the president is in a tight spot?  

                That is precisely the time when the president needs to stand firm!  Anyone can stand tall when the wind isn't blowing.

                Your comment is internally contradicting, by the way.  You say your fine with criticism (at least, you give permission by saying "we can criticize"), yet you find my comment troubling because it's too "global".  How is criticizing Obama for offering up cuts to SS anything other than a specific criticism?  

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:09:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Let's ponder why (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aspe4, karmsy, Senor Frog, emal, Subterranean

            we are having this "unprecedented" battle to begin with.

            Because repubs think they can get away with it just like they got away with it during BO's first term.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:13:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe. Perhaps. (0+ / 0-)

              Tell me--could you have done a better job by more people?

              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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:06:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who knows what (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Subterranean

                could have been better.

                There was no serious attempt, and BO typically starts in the right's field.

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:20:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your opinion. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wewantthetruth

                  I honestly don't know what it's worth, because I don't know you from Adam. Perhaps you are a genius of some kind, a nuanced and critical thinker of sterling humanist vision, and broadly informed on all phases of American political policy. Perhaps you are a political wonk of the first magnitude, and for this reason, your global conclusions here carry some weight.

                  Myself, I am, at the moment, more in the mood to trust, cautiously, my elected president.

                  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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:30:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  "got away with it" (0+ / 0-)

              it's called negotiating and what I recall in order to get a 2nd stimulus and unemplyment extensions desperately needed as well as some other things, he took the deal he could get.

              The other fun fact is, Boner bragged he got 98% of what he wanted only to later find out that CBO scored the deal and Boner learned he got nothing from "cuts" O offered and Boner was happy to accept.

              you left a lot out of your sterling analysis.

              mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

              by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:15:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You Gave Obama a Raise (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karmsy, DSPS owl, Subterranean
          ...is earning every dime of his 500K salary right now
          The POTUS makes $400,000/year. :-)

          "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

          by Aspe4 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:48:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just Googled "President Obama salary" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aspe4

            and you do seem to be absolutely correct. For some reason, I'd had the higher figure in mind.

            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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:13:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think $400K is too low for the responsibility (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karmsy

              the POTUS has. It was $200,000 up until 2001 He's the CEO of the United States federal government and commands Earth's most powerful military by far.  He should be making close to $1 million/year. Most college presidents make more than that.  

              "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

              by Aspe4 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:11:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  As you say, humans make mistakes. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aspe4, karmsy, Subterranean

        What if it's Mr. Obama who is wrong?

        I will support whatever deal Obama makes if he thinks it is a deal worth doing.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:32:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because when you can take (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, a2nite, karmsy

          two roads, and one goes over a cliff, the more prudent path to take is the other road. It's about risk vs reward in an uncertain world. You don't take the world's largest economy over a cliff lightly.

        •  Thankfully--and we do need to give thanks (3+ / 0-)

          for this--you are not in the Oval Office, negotiating this deal right now. Rather, you are sitting in your cozy home, at your laptop, with a cup of coffee at your elbow, playing armchair quarterback.

          You pay the president's salary, with your tax dollars, to cut his holiday vacation short and deal with these awful people who are dealing in bad faith, who wish him the very worst. You are entrusting Obama to do a vital deal, shrewdly, with compassion.

          That's why we have representative, rather than participatory, democracy. It isn't you. Just remember that.

          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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:03:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is never wrong (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfarrah, Aspe4, Senor Frog

          according to a certain faction at dKos.  He can roll over on just about any issue and there are those here who will defend him.  It's like they see politics as a sport and root for their team no matter how bad they play.

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:12:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  obama is never right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wewantthetruth, dickensgirl

            according to a certain faction at dkos...he can accomplish something and there are those here who will attack him...It's like they see politics as a sport and root against their scapegoat no matter how well they play.

            Coming Attraction: "Tea Party II - now with more stupid!"

            by memofromturner on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:52:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  subterranean (0+ / 0-)

              is a classic flame thrower. nothing constructive to offer to any discussion and just here to throw darts. according to him, unless you're here to shit on O, your opinion does not matter.

              mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

              by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:21:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Certainly a flame thrower of late (0+ / 0-)

                Getting betrayed by a president a few months after his historic reelection will do that to a person.  Obama campaigned against cuts to SS, now he's proposing them to Boehner.  I've never felt so burned in politics as I do now.  

                If by constructive, you mean that I do not aid you in your construction of an alternate reality that helps you avoid the truth, you nailed it.  You need a warm fuzzy place to nurse your adulation of Obama.  That's cool, I can understand.  What I do not appreciate is you dumping on ME because I point out the truth.  

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:02:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I've never seen that sentiment here (0+ / 0-)

              at dKos.  Ever.

              There are those who give him credit when deserves it, and those who root for him no matter how bad he plays.  Rah rah, go team Obama!  

              I thought he kicked ass in the second and third debates, and plainly said so here at dKos.  I also ripped him for the first debate.  People like yourself whined at me after the first debate (surprising!), but strangely they commmented after the 2nd and 3rd debates that Obama had made up for the first debate (which he planned to lose so he would win the last two - sneaky!).

              "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

              by Subterranean on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:05:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The "cliff" may have less impact on (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83, TrueBlueDem, mmacdDE, emal, schnecke21

        the most vulnerable than some of these deals being floated. There is no law that says that extended unemployment can't be extended separate from the "fiscal cliff" show.

      •  please stop (0+ / 0-)

        do you even know the facts on what would happen and timing? if not, you should. easy enough to find.

        this is all ginned up to get people to make irrational decisions and posts like this don't do anything for the discussion.

        we go over the curb which Progressives like Howard Dean and Robert Reich are openly advocating.  they are firm in their belief this is the best for the country. only way to get defense cuts and dems go back in an get tax cuts for 98% retro to jan 1.......lets see Boner not bring that bill to the floor.

        seriously, read what Dean and Reich are saying on this subject and you may feel differently or at very least a little less anxious.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:07:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Boehner is in a fight for his life right now (7+ / 0-)

      When his plan B went south and a third of the GOP in the house literally went mutinous on him, he realized that his speakership could be up for grabs.

      Right now he'll play the theater, jump the cliff, get the gavel again next year and play ball on taxes with the other two thirds of the house GOP and some dems.

      Thats of course, if he has a brain.

      ....which remains to be seen

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:15:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  People acting to preserve face, (5+ / 0-)

        to avert personal humiliation that is already a foregone conclusion, don't generally behave rationally. They make poor decisions.

        This is a big variable that could be affecting John Boehner's behavior right now.

        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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:24:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is a very great point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karmsy, JeffW

          When looked it through that lens, I see the current Speaker as flailing and agreeing to concessions on the other side of the cliff.

          Which should make the resulting tea party base of the GOP gnash teeth and wail for the next 30 days.

          It will be interesting to see if the saner parts of the GOP wake up and realize just how badly they lost this last election, and that to avoid further losses they will have to bring their ball and play.

          --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

          by idbecrazyif on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:27:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's this, too. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            idbecrazyif, pamelabrown, MPociask

            The RW has been so successful in advancing its agenda in recent decades, coming to dominate the American political landscape, by its persistence. When its talking-points haven't been well-served in the outcome of a particular negotiation or election, this well-funded beast just gets up and it tries again. The apparatus understands persistence, and it plays for the long term.

            Now, the GOP (and the whole RW) are truly, honest-to-God, over a barrel. They are in an unprecedented situation with these negotiations, against a popular Democratic president, and coming, as they do, on the heels of a string of shocking defeats in important national elections in recent years. Persistence won't work. The GOP won't just be able to bull-doze its way through, as in the past. It's not 1980, and it never will be, again. The conservatives badly need a new  game-plan. And we are talking here about people who don't "do" change especially well.

            Interesting times we live in.

            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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:48:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are many people who are hoping for change (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karmsy

              A republic doesn't function well when one side is as dysfunctional as the RW have been in the last decade.

              --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

              by idbecrazyif on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:52:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  the bottom line is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PorridgeGun, karmsy

              the GOP does not give a shit about what happens. They proved it when they allowed US to default during the debt limit crisis.

              we already know they only care about the 2% so unless the 2% are hurt dramatically, the GOP can be intransigent.

              Hoping to go over the fiscal non-cliff. best option at this point and makes a point to the GOP.

              mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

              by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:26:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect he has a brain............... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        idbecrazyif, Cedwyn, dickensgirl

        how "pickled" it is is another matter.

        The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

        by cazcee on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:41:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Most of the GOP (14+ / 0-)

    live in districts where pretty much nobody is earning over $250k a year anyway. The 250-500k earners mostly live in big blue metro areas.

    Of course, when you're being controlled by the Koch brothers, who cares what your constituents think?

    •  The people I know that fit in that blue category (9+ / 0-)

      have no issue paying more.  They know how good they have it.

    •  Actually, Republicans do care about their (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, nextstep, splintersawry

      constituents.  Most House Republicans and House Democrats are from districts where the seat is either "safe" Republican or "safe" Democrat.  I'm in New Orleans, and LA-1 is very "safe" Republican and LA-2 is very "safe" Democrat.  That means that, when Republicans stand firm on no new taxes, and cutting spending significantly, they ARE doing exactly what their constituents want them to do.  and that's why both Republicans and Democrats these days are usually far more concerned about a primary challenge from their own party than a general election.

      •  They just don't want (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aspe4

        someone to be able to make an ad saying "Congressman X raised taxes!!!"

        I don't honestly believe that if you polled the Republican voters of Louisiana, many of whom are probably earning much much less, that this (raising taxes a little bit on 250 vs 500k) is really a top issue for them compared with other things.

        •  It IS an issue the constituents care about. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dickensgirl

          that's the point.  A House member's constituents are not the country as a whole, or the state as a whole, but the district that elects him or her.  That's the way the Constitution set it up.  

          In LA-1, Rep. Scalise promised not to raise taxes, promised to cut spending, promised to block as much of the President's agenda as he could, and that's what got him re-elected by a landslide -- 66%.

          Just like Democrat Cedric Richmond, by promising the exact opposite, got elected with 55% in LA-2.

          If either of them goes against what they promised, then yes, the people who voted to put them in office may well punish them in the next primary.  

          It's just wrong to say that Republicans don't care about what their constituents say.  They do.  It's just that their constituents are very very conservative.

          •  I was being (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dfarrah, wishingwell

            sarcastic with that line. Should have added a snark tag apparently.

            I am just not buying that most Republican voters in largely rural districts really care about a small tax increase on this tiny slice of the electorate. It's about the ability of an opponent to frame it negatively (that is the part about "doing what you promised"), and demands of their donors, rather than a substantial chunk of their constituents outraged about a small increase on incomes at that level.

            •  How are you not "buying" that? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep, dickensgirl, splintersawry

              Scalise promised not to raise taxes on anybody, and he vehemently supported the Ryan budget, and talked over and over and over about spending being the problem, that there was no need to raise taxes on anybody.  I heard the commercials.  (They ran on all the southern Louisiana radio, stations, along with a few TV ads.)  And he robocalled zillions of people with that same message.  

              And he got 66% of the vote in LA-01.

              It's just silly to say that what he ran on is not what his constituents in LA-01 wanted.  

              It's certainly NOT what the people in LA-02 wanted, but that's Cedric Richmond's constituents, and not Steve Scalise's constituents.

              People here have to recognize that there are a significant, significant number of people in this country who SUPPORT the positions the Republicans are taking.  

               

              •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                Being for a policy in general is not identical to being committed to every single tiny detail of it. Just like pro-life people might be ok with a rape or incest exception. Saying you are against taxes in general doesn't mean people are going to flip over this one small slice. Are they generally opposed, maybe so, but do they really care about this one very narrow group they don't belong to? I just really doubt it.

                •  Then why did LA-01 vote in equal numbers (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splintersawry

                  against the President, when he specifically ran on raising taxes on all income over $250,000?  

                  Should elected officials assume that the voters do, or do not, agree with the positions that those officials ran on?  

                  Should the President assume that those who re-elected him agree with his position on taxes?  If that's the case, they why shouldn't Rep. Scalise and Rep. Richmond both assume the same thing -- one ran against tax increases on anyone, and one ran on tax increases on income over $250,000?  Should they also assume that those who voted for them disagree with their positions?  

                  What you are doing is putting attributing YOUR views to everybody else.  It's comes across as "I'm right, and no sane person could possibly disagree with me.  Those who disagree with me are too stupid to know what they are doing."  

                  The fact is, there is a very significant part of the population that disagrees with Democrats on how the economy grows, and how jobs are created. Krugman and Keynes are not the only school of economic thought.  There are a lot of very smart, very well credentialed economists (Hayek, Friedman) who disagree with Kenyes and Krugman.  And Republicans believe in the views of those economists.

                  Add to that, there is a growing number (it seems to me) of libertarians, who believe that the federal government should stay out of things except for a very few things like Defense, and interstate dealings.  These are the people who buy John Stossel books and vehemently support Ron Paul.  

                  •  The president (0+ / 0-)

                    was not elected solely on this question, and neither was anybody else. They voted against him based on an awful lot of things. It's a fallacy to say because they voted for one person's many positions as a group that they care deeply about this one tiny thing.  I never said anybody was stupid, but I also don't think most voters are as ideological as you are implying.

                    •  So is a candidate supposed to pick and chose (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      splintersawry

                      which of the positions he/she ran on, and the promises he/she made, to just throw away after the election?  

                      How is Rep. Scalise supposed to know which of the promises he made to get elected should be disregarded because the people didn't really want that?

                      And should Rep. Richmond in LA-02 do the same thing?  

                      That seems to me to be a very bad argument to make.  Someone who runs for an office on a specific platform -- like the President -- has to assume that those who voted for him or her support that platform.  Yes, they may have to compromise, but I think they have to assume that their constituents expect them to push for the positions that they ran on.  Anything else gives all politicians license to, after the get elected, completely ignore promises they made to the voters when they were campaigning.  

                      •  If they want to (0+ / 0-)

                        back themselves into a corner by making absolute promises, that is their problem. But regardless, if they agree to hike it over $500k that is still hiking it. If it's going up somewhere you can't argue there is a principled reason based on their promises to raise it here but not there. He said none. If he votes for any he has already broken that promise.

                        Anyway, your comment is not what I was saying, which was rather that if he does it at 250 instead of 500 I doubt most people will care. How does he know what the line is - I'm gonna say common sense and what he hears from his district. Anyway though, if you are going to be craven enough to run on an unworkable platform when you know the cliff is looming, you will eventually have to face the fact that you may be primaried. The reelection rate of incumbents is huge though so he probably doesn't have to worry too much.

                        •  Scalise may vote for the deal (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          splintersawry

                          I don't say that he won't compromise.  But he has to assume that he then needs to explain to his constituents why he had to move somewhat off his position.  He has to assume that this constituents wanted him to stand firm on no new taxes.  Yes, his constituents will care.  Why do you think most Republicans are more afraid of a primary challenge than a general election?  The same would hold true for Scalise.  If he votes for this deal (assuming it happens), he has to be able to explain it, or he risks that voters will vote him out in 2014 for breaking his campaign promise.  

                          Where I disagreed with you is the notion that Republicans don't care about what their constituents think or that they don't reflect what their constituents think.  People like Scalise absolutely reflect what their constituents think -- that's why they are worried about a primary challenge.  

          •  The only thing they want to "conserve" are their (0+ / 0-)

            own $$--screw everyone else.

            It's just that their constituents are very very conservative
            .

            Can we please stop calling greedy extremists "conservatives"?

            If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

            by livjack on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:09:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Somehow I'm just (4+ / 0-)

            not convinced that even in LA, the people making median and below are going to be concerned about raised taxes on that tiny % that makes 250+.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:22:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They elected Scalise with 66% (0+ / 0-)

              of the vote, when he promised not to raise taxes on anybody, not even billionaires.  And when he openly and vehemently supported the Ryan budget.  That's LA-01, his constituents.  

              What are you not convinced about?

              •  Who was his opponent and what (0+ / 0-)

                Kind of budget did he or she have?

                If his opponent vowed not to raise taxes, except on millionaires, vowed to make health insurance more affordable, and vowed to bring more good paying jobs to the area, I'd think they'd have a shot. Provided they had the money to get the word out, that is. And to find the dirt on the incumbent, because you know it exists.

                And I suspect most of their opponents didn't.

                •  You are just wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splintersawry

                  I can assure you that anyone who supported the ACA would lose in LA-01.  Anyone who supported raising taxes would lose in LA-01, regardless of who paid those increased taxes.  I know the voters in LA-01.  Metairie, St. Charles Parish, Tangipahoa Parish, Washington Parish, are all largely middle class.  While there is a small section of Metairie that is very rich, the vast majority of the district is three bedroom, 2 bath, 1500 - 1700 square foot ranch houses built in the 1950's and 1960's that shout "middle class."  

                  Look, the President promised all those things.   Said all those things.  And in those areas, the President lost by the same margin.  It's not like the people didn't KNOW the President's platform.  They affirmatively voted against it.  If you were correct, that the only reason that LA-01 voted 66% for Scalise is that there was no alternative, they why did they also vote in an equal landslide for Romney?  

                  The reality is that there is a significant portion of this country that supports what the Republicans are doing.  It's just silly to pretend that there is not.  

            •  The issue is how they view the economy works (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, splintersawry

              The left believes higher taxes on the wealthy will not hurt the US economy's growth, employment and wages, while the left believes these higher taxes do not hurt and some believe these higher taxes help the economy.

              Similarly these two groups differ on how government spending impacts the economy.

              The non-wealthy conservatives are not voting against their interests, they are voting for their interests, but they differ with the left on how the economy works.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:25:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ahhh, there are actually studies (0+ / 0-)

                that the trickle down over 30 years has not worked and over the past 40 years, job creation under democratic administrations was about 20 million higher.

                Additional recent studies have validate that higher taxes on the wealthy does not hurt the economy.

                these are not "beliefs", they are published facts.

                as to non-wealthy constituents not voting against their interests, they are most definitely voting against their own financial best interests.....sucked in by faux outrage on social issues, fed by the right wing propaganda machine, sorry but when I engage these people in discussion, all I ever here are talking points.......brainwashed.

                mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:40:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Every Democratic Presidency after FDR has CUT (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coffeetalk, splintersawry

                  Federal Income taxes on investors (Pres Obama not known as his time in office has not ended.).  This defines cut as a lower tax rate on the max capital gain tax at the end of his term than at the start.  

                  All of the tax increases on investors during this time have been under Republican Presidents.

                  This is a fact that Democrats and Republicans don't raise as it conflicts with how they present themselves.

                  How do you resolve this fact with your comment that lower tax rates on investors don't improve the economy, while also asserting that the Economy performs better under Democratic Presidents?

                  The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                  by nextstep on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:48:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  you mean brainwashed (0+ / 0-)

            who tells the constituents what they should care about? Sheep, too lazy to find out the facts for themselves and listen to whatever they told.

            oh, they will go to church on sunday and be all christian but here is not a lot of christian behavior coming from those on the right.

            I see the 'what would jesus do' bumper stickers and I think to myself, well right now he is bending his head and has tears in his eyes.

            are there people abusing the system? sure but I know a lot of white people that do it (I am white by the way) and I know others than complain about friends or relative that do that but would never turn them in...then they complain about those who take advantage of the system.

            and don't get me started on corporate welfare......you want to talk about abusing the system.

            I have lived all over the country and my observation is there are not a lot of free thinkers on the right side of the equation........all I hear is talking points.

            mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

            by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:33:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So the people are too stupid to be trusted with (0+ / 0-)

              the vote?  We should operate a government on the basis that the vote of the people does not really reflect the will of the people, because they are too stupid to know what they are voting for?  

              That's the logical result of your comment.  

              •  great job of jumping to conclusions (0+ / 0-)

                that do not exist.

                where did I say these people are stupid so we should operate a government on the basis of the people does not reflect the will of the people becase they are too stupid??

                These people have been lied to, over years and years, the whole Southern Strategy thing......fan the flames of poor white people to the point of outrage so they ignore the fact that they have been hurt financially.

                That does not make those people stupid, it makes them used.  I know lots of them...good people, but when they cannot see the forest for the trees.....

                Congress has a 12% approval rating, worst Congress in history and greater majority what changes in Congress,,,until it comes to their own individual congress critters.......you know those that rail against TARP but then want their faces in the pictures when the checks get cut.

                I disagreed with your comment that constituents vote for what they want......my point is that a great job is done telling people what they want (or don't want) and many people do not do the deep dive to find facts....for a lot of reasons.

                Now......how did you get I think people are stupid out of all of that.

                mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:49:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No voter can be "used" unless he/she (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splintersawry

                  is a sheep with no mind of his own. That's how I get "stupid" out of that.

                  It is up to the candidates to tell the people what they will do if elected.  It's not like anybody living in this country did not KNOW what BOTH sides thought.  It's not like anybody in this country did not KNOW that Democrats think Republican candidates are lying (and vice-versa).  Every single voter in this country has access to the views and arguments of both sides.  To say that they voted one way because they were "lied to" and "used" assumes that they do not have the mental ability  to look at what both sides are telling them and make a intelligent decision.  

                  They CHOOSE to believe economic views of people like Hayek and Friedman rather than Keynes.  They CHOOSE to hold those social views they hold.  It's not like they don't know Democratic views are out there.   People who watch Fox News day after day know that the Democrats disagree with everything they are hearing on Fox News.  People who watch Fox News know what Democrats think -- they DISAGREE with what Democrats think.

                  Here's the point -- Why do they choose to keep the views they do, or choose to continue to watch Fox News, when they know there are alternatives out there, and they know Democrats believe that Fox News lies?  It must either be (1) that they've made a decision to do that, in which case they are rational people of normal intelligence who disagree with Democratic views, or (2) the are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are lying to them and the Democrats are telling the truth.  

                  And the view that they are "lied to" and "used" is a bit arrogant, actually.  It's not like Democrats have access to some secret cache of information that's only available to you if you prove that you are a registered Democrat.  All voters have access to the same information.  It's kind of arrogant -- and off-putting, really -- for Democrats to saw, we have access to the same information, but we can recognize the truth when we see it, but other people can't.  

  •  I Say Go Over The Cliff President (7+ / 0-)

    Quit giving in and make the GOP stop the bullshit.  PLEASE!

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:16:30 AM PST

    •  You like the odds of playing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher

      Russian Roulette? Because hoping for us to go over the fiscal cliff is akin to putting a gun against the heads of the people in our society who are most at risk. Say you are wrong about the cliff, and that it really is devastating to these people. You'll just disappear into the blogosphere, but millions will suffer (and Obama will get the blame from progressives horrified that the cliff turned out to really be a cliff).

      •  Doc2 - The President is in a better position (8+ / 0-)

        once we go over the cliff. At that point, the automatic sequesters go into effect and taxes go up for everyone. The White House can offer a "tax cut" bill that restores the tax cuts to people making less than $250,000 and the T-Pubs can either vote for it or not. If not, there will be a cut to PROPOSED spending and tax rates will be close to what is needed to fund expenditures. The deficit will be cut roughly in half and the debt ceiling recedes further into the future.
           The President and the Dems demand a clean up or down vote on unemployment extensions.
           I like that scenario a lot better.

  •  Chait has it right. And once again Obama gives (6+ / 0-)

    up a lot for a little.  Compromising for the sake of compromising is really getting tiresome.  Can he ever stick to his guns when it counts?  Mediocrity rules the day.

    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 07:21:45 AM PST

    •  Stop LYING (5+ / 0-)

      That's not what Chait said. He said that the Senate Democrats are the ones who are likely to undermine the WH's hard line.

      Why aren't you going after Senate Dems like Chuck Schumer who clearly aren't happy about the 250K threshold and prefer a 1M threshold?!?!?

      Your tendency to reflexively attack Obama without considering the toxic legislative branch he's working with is REALLY GETTING TIRESOME.

      •  Ah, seems to me it was Biden - who is not in the (7+ / 0-)

        Senate anymore but in the White House in case you haven't noticed - who has negotiated the cut-offs higher. with McConnell.  And Obama was doing so a few weeks ago.  Obama has undermined his so-called hard line directly and through his VP.  Unless, of course, you want to claim Biden is getting marching orders from Schumer.

        I agree the Congressional Dems are with few exceptions awful at dealing with the republicans.  What is most tiresome for me is the reflexive defense of Obama under any and all circumstances.

        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 07:43:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  P.S. Your saying I'm lying is why I should hide (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, tardis10

        rate your comment, but I'd rather people see you plain.  You obviously cannot take any criticism of Obama reasonably and instead must resort to personal attacks.  That's just sad.

        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 07:47:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I stand corrected (0+ / 0-)

          Chait's article in fact saying that Obama caved. So you were right in your initial comment about what Chait said. I was wrong.

          By the way, it is not true that I cannot take any criticism of Obama. However, I HAVE NO APOLOGIES whatsoever for being one of the staunchest Obama supporters who trusts that whatever decisions he makes he does it with the best outcome in mind for the middle class. I have no illusions about the toxic environment under which this President is functioning, with a media (including the likes of Chait and others) that is ready to crown him the "Wimpiest negotiator of all time" even if it means distorting what is actually going on to make is seem like he's giving everything to the Republicans and nothing to the Democrats.

          Chait is not a politician, does not exactly know what's going on behind the scenes and has never had to negotiate any major piece of legislation, so his musings about Obama's negotiation style are laughable at best.  

          •  I'm glad you bothered to read the Chait piece. (0+ / 0-)

            His reference to the Congressional Dems being to blame was simply reporting what the White House was saying.  And, yes, in fact he's very critical of Obama.

            I take your comment as an apology.  No need to apologize for being a staunch supporter of Obama; however, there is a difference between staunch and fanatical.

            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 09:02:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  chait also said this in same article (0+ / 0-)

            Now, the Obama offer to Boehner was not a full extension of tax cuts under $400,000. The plan was to get higher revenue on income below that level by reducing tax deductions rather than raising rates.

            if the combination of the two generates the same revenue without some other negative impact, does it matter? and if the answer is "NO", how is it a "cave"?

            mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

            by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:03:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  you must be related to subtarranean (0+ / 0-)

          or maybe the same person.

          flame thrower. nothing constructive to offer.

          what is tiresome for me (and others) is the constant harping on O regardless of what he does.

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:52:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Let's take a look at what Chait said (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10, PhilJD

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:56:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Frankly, the lack of a "grand bargain" is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, dickensgirl, DSPS owl

    disappointing.  The President will certainly get tax increases now. But, because it will only address the looming tax increases, and won't settle sequestration or any of the spending issues.  Democrats are on MSNBC this morning (Just saw Barbara Lee) saying that they recognize that "next, we have to deal with spending."

    So, next, we have the debt ceiling fight at the end of February.  

    Even if the President gets that, then we have the continuing resolution that funds the government running out on March 27.  Unless Congress passes a budget (hasn't happened in years), that will be the big fight over spending next year.

    We're likely to spend the next 3 or 4 months going through this again and again on the spending issues.  Which means no "breathing room" to address assault weapons, immigration, and overall tax reform to fix a very dysfunctional tax system.  

    That's why I'm disappointed that all of these issues weren't resolved before the first of the year.

    •  No Lame Duck "Grand Bargain" (6+ / 0-)

      I'll take my chances with the new Congress.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:27:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In 2012 (0+ / 0-)

      congress has been in session 130 days...nice work if you can get it.

      there is plenty of time to multitask and get a lot done if there is the political will and cooperation to get it done.

      there was 18 months to get a deal done but both sides need to want to get one done.

      Senate approved a bill in July which Boner refused to take to the floor because he could not get a majority of the majority to vote........he should have brought it to the floor, period but did not because politically it hurt gim and would even more because it would have passed.

      disappointed? I am furious and time for those who have held this up to be called on it.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:08:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  House members don't care about "being called out" (0+ / 0-)

        they're in gerrymandered R districts.

        The only problem they have is being fear of being primaried for stepping out of the teabagger line.

        That's why no amount of "calling out" will move them.

        Best option is to do nothing, until 1/1.

        •  and fear of Grover (0+ / 0-)

          which I guess is the same thing as being primaried.

          not sure if you saw O at 1:30 pm but GOP is up in arms with  proposed agreement......no chance to pass the House though so I am OK going over the cliff. think this was the plan all along.

          from what I just heard of the proposal on MSNBC,  tax rate limit would go up to $450k but in exchange for lots of other things dems can support...still, no chance of passing.

          O was pretty relaxed......McCain called him out on the Senate floor shortly afterward for dissing republicans.....not because of what he said, because he was relaxed and cheerful!!

          mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

          by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:52:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Democrats are showing that they are negotiating... (7+ / 0-)

    in good faith.  Every reasonable offer they make (no matter how much the extremes may squeal "caver", "whinner", "failure"), only goes further and further to show that they are not the problem.

    The MSM is lazy.  They don't like researching facts for a story.  The majority of the public are apathetic and will just blame "Washington" for any difficulties in their life.  By negotiating in good faith, the Democrats are making the plain even plainer....

    Republicans are not governing in the best interests of the country.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:27:25 AM PST

  •  Chait is right (6+ / 0-)

    We are negotiating and giving up way too much off our strongest point.  Anyone who thinks the R's will handle the debt ceiling (maybe their strongest leverage point) the same way haven't been paying attention to the last few years.

  •  Video of Biden helping the GOP with the Cliff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare

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

    by JML9999 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:34:49 AM PST

  •  experience (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, dickensgirl

    The Rs remind me of the special ed kids I worked with in the Bronx.  They doggedly bite off their noses to spite their faces--it's why they're in special ed.  And that's why Rs signed the pledge-- they need treatment, not logic--they need government services, not pass judgement on government services.  They are inmates running the asylum.  At the least, we need to let them hold their breath long enough to suffocate.
    Are there any cliches I didn't find appropriate?

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:38:46 AM PST

  •  Why would Democrats keep negotiating? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dickensgirl

    You're kidding, right?

    How can you cave in without negotiating?

    Once again our gutless leaders chase these bastards around promising "I can be whatever you want me to be! Just please love me!"

  •  I wrote the White House this morning (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob, slinkerwink, Aspe4, emal, dickensgirl

    I told the President that those of over 65 are expecting to pay to give the rich a happy new year.

    No response yet.

  •  Reminder, Reid gavels in the Senate in 15 minutes (4+ / 0-)

    11:00 eastern.  

    And maybe we'll find out.

    I hope there is no deal.  I really, really do. The Dem position has never been more powerful, and dammit. they have to learn to do what the people WANT.

    "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

    by mumtaznepal on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:41:57 AM PST

  •  Remember when Rs railed against "uncertainty?" (5+ / 0-)

    Now they want brinksmanship at three month intervals rather than the certainty of higher taxes on the richest.  Gee, it's almost as if taxes on the rich is all they care about.

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:42:26 AM PST

  •  The answer to (0+ / 0-)
    If Biden and McConnell fail to reach an agreement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will request a vote on a Democratic plan to extend tax cuts on all income below $250,000 and to extend unemployment benefits. With that fallback, why would Democrats continue negotiating with McConnell for a higher threshold, given that McConnell can't guarantee House passage?
    is that if you only have unemployment benefits to live on because you don't have a job, it will really suck if they aren't extended.  This would be a compromise.

    If McConnell cannot get through the senate something he can't agree on, then it gets shown just how ineffective a leader he is.  If we're going to and up having everything blow up tomorrow, we might as well have collateral damage.

    "But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton

    by anonevent on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:46:45 AM PST

  •  Obama Talking Points If Deal Is Made (4+ / 0-)

    No praise of Republicans or bipartisanship. Make clear that he gave up a lot in order to help most Americans.  Make clear that it is the Republicans who like the hostage deal making. He did that in 2010 although there was a little of the praising of the bipartisan nature of the deal. The public is obviously much more hostile to the GOP post 2012 election than the 2010 election. Further the negative image and hope to weaken the resolve of Republicans in swing house districts and ultimately defeat them in 2014. No praise for the hostage takers.

    •  Was just thinking this (0+ / 0-)

      Actually for the VP. Biden/Mconnell press conference:

      Mconnell...blah, blah, blah...
      Biden...well we finally have something to save the country from a potential disaster. During these negotiations, the Senator to my side here has been an obstructionist from the beginning. He cares only about the rich and powerful and I look forward to reminding America of that every chance I get.

      48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam this Holiday Season!

      by randallt on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:04:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Biden is giving up the farm for nothing! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, dmfox, emal

    He's a worse negotiator than Pres Obama.  McConnell found his rube it seems.  

    "Gee Joe, I'm in the Senate, you were in the Senate - remember how it used to be?  Well in the spirit of comity here's what I want - How about it ol' pal?"  

    "You got it buddy ol' pal!  Who said negotiating with Republicans was hard? Just needed a couple of ol'buddies to do it"

    The NRA is the Gun Manufacturer Lobby. Nothing more. Their pontification about the second amendment is nothing more than their ad jingle. They're the domestic version of the Military Industrial Complex.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:51:14 AM PST

    •  Yglesias (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Iberian

      http://www.slate.com/...

      The idea that Republicans are giving nothing is ridiculous.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:57:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama and Senate Dems accepting GOP policy (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, KingTag, Aspe4, emal

        that more taxes = lost jobs.  

        By not raising taxes/revenues there will not be enough money to pay for social programs meaning the deficit/debt will keep increasing and eventually a Republican President (or Obama) will decide "welp, we gotta axe major spending because we can't afford it" rather than raising necessary revenues.  This $250,ooo tax threshold is nickle and dime-ing the major issue anyways.  It's kabuki to say "now rich are shouldering some of the burden" when they plan is to savage spending on social programs.  

        Obama is a Conservadem in the mold of Warner, McCaskill, Landrieu, Bennet etc.  

        Dems have the WH and Senate - why do we have to bend and negotiate away so much?  Call the GOP House on their shit, if it's not a bluff than so be it.  If you keep giving into their hostage taking they'll keep asking for more and more.  

        The NRA is the Gun Manufacturer Lobby. Nothing more. Their pontification about the second amendment is nothing more than their ad jingle. They're the domestic version of the Military Industrial Complex.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:08:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for posting (0+ / 0-)

        hope the flame throwers posting earlier that O "CAVED AGAIN" based on Chait's article will see the light.....nah, why would they?

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:12:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Save SS & Medicare, Stop Corporate Welfare!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Aspe4, emal

    End corporate welfare and count the resulting $100+ Billion Dollar savings as newly proposed Democratic Spending Cuts!

    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, 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 here: http://wh.gov/...

  •  So, you really have to ask.... (0+ / 0-)

    If Biden and McConnell fail to reach an agreement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will request a vote on a Democratic plan to extend tax cuts on all income below $250,000 and to extend unemployment benefits. With that fallback, why would Democrats continue negotiating with McConnell for a higher threshold, given that McConnell can't guarantee House passage?

    Because dems are so great at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Maybe something interesting is going on that we don't know about.  [yeah, here I am, making excuses for the dems]

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:55:33 AM PST

  •  Chained CPI (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, KingTag, slinkerwink, mmacdDE, Aspe4
    Republicans had backed down on their demand to included chained CPI in any last minute fiscal cliff deal, saying that they didn't want to appear to be holding tax cuts hostage in order to get Social Security cuts. Two weeks ago, this was something President Obama was offering—but Republicans summarily dismissed it as insufficient. Now, they are saying it they don't even want to see it happen at all. Apparently, this is what happens when Democrats call Republican bluffs.
    One factor getting the Republicans to back off the chained CPI had to be all the emails and calls they were getting from seniors in their districts. Cutting SS benefits is still the third rail even in conservative-leaning districts.
  •  The prospect of a last minute deal ... (6+ / 0-)

    makes me very nervous, as I fear it likely that we'd be better off going over the cliff and then sticking it to the bastards on the other side.

    If the Dems don't cave - it'll be the first time in a very long while.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:00:15 AM PST

  •  Over the cliff. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LamontCranston, Minnesota Deb, Aspe4, emal

    Let's go. Social Security and Medicaid untouched, everyone in the new Congress can vote on a tax cut as their first item, military spending slashed.

    Why drag this out again? A temporary fix is idiotic.

    "They are an entire cruise ship of evil clowns, these current Republicans"...concernedamerican

    by Giles Goat Boy on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:03:13 AM PST

    •  Military spending being slashed is a great idea as (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal

      long as we replace a good chunk of that spending with infrastructure spending which is what we should do.  Frankly it  astounds me that so many people here on DK talk about slashing military spending without including the vital second half of that equation - replacing a good 70-80% of that military spending with infrastructure spending.  

      If we don't have that second half slashing in military spending will result in millions of good middle class jobs disappearing.  Like it or not military spending is this country's largest jobs program right now.  That means in order to not put millions of people out of work once we slash military spending we need to have a plan to replace a lot of that military spending with infrastructure spending.  That also means that, if done right, slashing military spending will not be the budget saver many people here think it will be.  

      •  I absolutely agree. (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't mean to suggest that my examples were an exhaustive list. If we go over the cliff, the Republicans have to compromise to get any of their goodies back.

        Going over the cliff is the only thing I've heard some liberal economists and some conservative economists agree on.

        "They are an entire cruise ship of evil clowns, these current Republicans"...concernedamerican

        by Giles Goat Boy on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:35:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds like Biden as shit negotiator as his boss. (4+ / 0-)
  •  What I want (5+ / 0-)

    1. No deal.

    2. Reid puts up a Democratic plan for a vote in the Senate that extends unemployment benefits and the tax cuts for up to $250K.

    3. The Republicans block it with a filibuster.

    4. The first item in the new Senate is filibuster reform.

    5. The Democratic plan passes with a majority vote.

  •  D-Iowa Tom Harkin speaking first on Senate (7+ / 0-)

    floor, will NOT vote for $450K as "middle class cut".

    Points out $250K is already top 2% people.

    Says, "Mr President, I'll compromise, but ... "

    Wants Clinton tax rates  "No deal better than bad deal".

    Angry if Dems make deal for $450 as being reported in WashPost today

    "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

    by mumtaznepal on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:11:41 AM PST

  •  new Manchin Senate proposal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BennyToothpick, KingTag

    I actually like this:

    Manchin said his bill, the Cliff Alleviation at the Last Minute Act, — the CALM Act — would slowly phase in the tax rate increases and allow the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to propose substitute cuts to replace sequestration.
    From The Hill: Manchin Introduces Bill to Soften the Fiscal Cliff.

    This is a far more progressive proposal than anything Obama has proposed. (Assuming all tax rates go to Clinton rates in the proposal.)

    •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JackND, emal

      That's just kicking the can further down the road and allowing for more GOP hostage taking in the future.

      I really want this shit resolved once and for all. No more half assed interim or phased in deals. Get it done once and for all, and take whatever time is necessary to get it as right as possible.

      "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

      by Richard Cranium on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:28:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I like it too... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingTag, ferg

      Really, I would actually prefer ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire, but it would be too much for the middle class now with the payroll also expiring. This would allow for a phase in and much more deficit reduction in the long run.

      Manchin also opposed the payroll tax cut from the left last year along with Sanders and Harkin. He's surprisingly good on some of these tax issues.

      22/Male/ D/Native of OH-16, Attending Graduate School in NC-04. Hoping for Richard Cordray or Ted Strickland for OH-Gov 2014.

      by liberal intellectual on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:31:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is fine with giving Republicans 98% of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    environmentalist, Aspe4, emal

    what they want, and 2% of what we want.

  •  Boehner can't deliver (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, ferg, Anokris

    This is kabuki.

  •  There won't be a deal. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare

    And there shouldn't be one.  Let the new Congress take up the matter.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:16:16 AM PST

  •  This is a trap and we are falling for it (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans up rate to $450k.

    Allow vote in Senate, with all Republicans voting present.

    Allow vote in House, with all Republicans not voting.

    Republicans are free to say they didn't vote for tax increases.  

    They can blame Democrats for voting to raise taxes (which they didn't vote for).  

    They can claim Democrats also want to protect the wealthy.  

    They can attack us for only raising taxes and continue to say it is a spending problem.

    THIS DEAL IS A JOKE AND ONLY OPENS US TO ATTACK!

  •  "You can't make deals with untrustworthy partner" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, KingTag

    Krugman is right, not with this GOP. Forget it. Lets go over this cliff.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

  •  I'm going to counteroffer my offer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingTag, jec, Senor Frog, schnecke21

    Wait, you won't accept my counter?  Let me counter my counter.

    Geez.  Let's see, Dems started at $250.

    Repugs made no counter.

    Then WH floated $400.

    Boehner says to Repugs, "Hey guys, can we at least give them a $1 Mil counter?"  Repugs say, hell no.

    Then McConnell and Reid start talking.  Does McConnell finally give a counter?  Of course not, he says I can't talk to Reid, he's being unreasonable.  Bring me Biden.

    WH: "There still not telling us their position.  What should we do?"  "How about we counter our counter and go to $450."

    WTF?

  •  Wait... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheKF1

    "Dems worried about Biden-Mitch deal. GOP wants only 3-month sequester reprieve, meaning it would expire - yep - at same time as debt ceiling"

    What's wrong with this? Why not combine both issues into one huge fight so we can settle both at least until the end of Obama's presidency. If Republicans want to send the country into a full Defcon 5 Doomsday scenario, let them. The Dems will continue to offer our balanced plan with the chained CPI until the Rs cave.

  •  So the Dems are back to using their negotiating (0+ / 0-)

    prowess.

    Is anyone surprised?

  •  Easy...Dems negotiating to lose. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Frog

    I think that is the answer to your question as to why the democrats are even bothering with negotiations at this point when they can just pass their own bill with tax cuts for middle class families.

    I think there is a large chunk of Democrats, including the president, that WANT to make cuts to medicare and social security.  But they can't just come out and do that so they need to make it look like they are only doing it to get a deal with republicans.  Of course, when they presented that deal, Republicans still said "hell no".  

    I have no doubt that when all is said and done, there will be cuts to social security and medicare.  But the Democrats need to see concessions from Republicans to push the plan forward and they aren't getting it because the Republicans want 100% their way or nothing and they don't care what happens to the people in the mean time.

    In the end, maybe polls are right and the general public will blame republicans if things go bad after the "fiscal cliff".  But ultimately, neither side seems interested in doing what is necessary to get the country back on track.  Republicans only care about themselves and their mega-rich, mega-white backers and too many Democrats are right-leaning and want to appear moderate and therefore just pass REpublican ideas thinking that is what "moderate" means.

  •  Agree...why move the cheese (tax increase)... (0+ / 0-)

    ...threshold to higher number and lose a significant amount of revenue towards reducing debt when you've already taken the critical first step of increase income tax that repubs will use against dems come next election cycle.  Dems will need as much of the "beneficial gains" their decisions created to combat the negative spin the repub spin machine puts out.  The move won't gain votes to Dems so is lose-lose deal for Dems.

    Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

    by kalihikane on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:36:29 AM PST

  •  enough already! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    v2aggie2

    mcconnell called in biden because mcconell is concerned about mcconnell. if this blows up in the gops face (and i hope it does), mcconnell knows that he and his party will be blamed.

    this does not sit well with his re-election bid. he is not polling well in ky, and the last thing he wants to be seen advocating (though he is) is tax cuts for the 2% who fund his re-election campaigns.

    and it is no surprise that every time the gop defecate all over themselves,  it is the dems that have to clean up the stench! the gop caused this mess, and as usual, it will be the dems that have to clean up their mess.

  •  10:21 CST -- For the first time ever, I'm ready (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, PorridgeGun

    to hold my nose and jump over the cliff.

    I can't tolerate losing a huge chunk of the estimated revenue from PBO's proposal go to multi-milllionaires. (Anyone who makes $450,000 a year and isn't a multi-milliionaire needs a financial advisor not a donation)

    This includes the multi-millionaire talking heads on CNN (even Erin Burnett's salary was $2 million last year) breathlessly whining about what this will mean to their deductions for their children's school expense. When I compare that concern to their nonconcern for people about to lose food stamps and/or their unemployment benefits, I want to puke.

    And, Leon Panetta should be FIRED TODAY if he can't think of a better way to cut the DoD budget than what Lindsey Grahma claimed Panetta said to him in a phone call:

    “[Panetta] says if we do this, it will be shooting the Defense Department in the head and we'll have to send out 800,000 layoff notices the beginning of the year,” [Lindsey] Graham said. “He is worried to death that if we don't fix the sequestration, we're going to destroy the finest military in the world at a time we need it the most. And this bill doesn't cover defense cuts, on top of the ones we've already have.” link

    “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

    by RJDixon74135 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:50:37 AM PST

    •  What Panetta Is Saying Is... (0+ / 0-)

      That the way the military industrial complex will show its displeasure is by sending out those pink slips to contractors and federal employees.  In fairness, they'll have to do this as payroll is the easiest and quickest way to immediately cut to match their new funding levels.  Research, weapons, facilities, etc., are much less flexible funding lines to manipulate.

      We could and should have been reducing the Defense budget over the last few years but neither the majority of Democrats or Republicans really want this.  Some reasons are good, some are bad.  Never the less, Congress has delayed and delayed making the tough decisions for so long, all options will end in pain for someone.  And that someone will be a member of the middle class.

      "The only hope is to keep the Republicans from shredding the safety net one hostage crisis at a time." - Kentucy DeanDemocrat

      by Senor Frog on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:43:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If true, this is pathetic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal

    Please email the White House and your Senator and Congressman.  Give them hell, and make sure this milquetoast "deal" dies before it hits the floor.  Obama admitted that he gets the revenue from ending tax cuts above $250k "for free."  What a nice gift to the GOP.  We're in for a tragic 4 years with more sops to the GOP like this.

    This coming from someone who usually sides against doomsayers.  This is just unnecessary and demoralizing.  The biggest display of political incompetence since the Bush social security privatization push.

    •  whoa! (0+ / 0-)

      this was from a story where a reporter said that Lindsay Graham told him about a phone call that an alleged phone call he got from Panetta...............WTF?

      Me, I'd like to see something directly quoted from Panetta.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:16:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so ~$500K cutoff...that's unacceptable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Frog

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:02:21 AM PST

  •  I don't want the... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Frog

    Bush tax cuts refitted, sanded and repainted, or otherwise lipsticked...I want them over.

    They never should have existed.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:11:57 AM PST

    •  And the $250,000 is a magic number because.... ? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't support making the income level any higher unless there's something good in return. Ifif something really good was on the table, say, no sequestration till 2015, I'd go from $250,000 to $400,000 or $450,000, that's not a place for a line in the sand.

      But if your position is none of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, the number is not $250,000, it's zero. Tax cuts for the middle class, and for low income taxpayers, all expire at midnite, not just for those under $250,000, or a million.

      It is an absolute and virtually divine perfection to know how to enjoy our being rightfully. - Michel de Montaigne

      by BlueRock on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:25:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, we should ... (0+ / 0-)

        completely start over, with the new tax cuts retroactive to tomorrow.

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:28:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, I'm with you... (0+ / 0-)

          But for everybody? Or for those with incomes under a certain amount? And what number is that?

          My point is only that there is nothing magic about $250,000. The Bush tax cuts were for everybody. If we start over and don't want to give new tax cuts to the rich, a position I agree with, we have to have a number. I like $250,000 myself but if I got something really good in return for going higher, like say eliminating the low rate for capital gains, I'd take it.

          It is an absolute and virtually divine perfection to know how to enjoy our being rightfully. - Michel de Montaigne

          by BlueRock on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:21:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Weren't we supposed to be having (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZatCSU

    an up-or-down vote on $250,000 cutoffs in the Senate today?

  •  Say the Senate passes something and the House... (0+ / 0-)

    ...adds a poison pill amendment. Do the Senate Democrats pass the bill as poisoned by the House? And, if not, do Senate Democrats get blamed for taking the country over the fiscal curb?

  •  I just want (0+ / 0-)

    the President to do what he campaigned on.  I say let's go all in.  Of course, I don't want my taxes to go up and I don't want to see unemployement stopped; but I'm so tired of this president trying to compromise with these people.  I really don't know what he's seeing.  I am hoping that they don't take whatever fucked deal is out there and we have to go over.  I know that sounds radical, but maybe it will shock these dems and the president in to real time negotiation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site