Quotes of the day

posted at 8:30 pm on July 9, 2011 by Allahpundit

“House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House:

“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

***
“I got this from a GOP congressional source later in the afternoon:

“WH is demanding major, unambiguous tax hikes. To get spending caps & entitlement tweaks, greater economic pain appears to be the WH’s asking price. It is increasingly likely that we aren’t going to see a ‘big’ deal if the WH doesn’t budge. Speaker looks to be holding strong…

“[Update 7:39 PM] Appears that the basic framework for future tax reform could not be resolved.

“The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior.”

***
“Tax reform is a worthwhile policy goal, and Mr. Boehner is right to pursue it. But the only way he can avoid being taken for a ride by Democrats is if all parts of any deal are negotiated, voted on and then implemented immediately. Two men, one deal, once. Promises of future action aren’t credible.

“Even if Mr. Obama is sincere on tax reform, he can’t guarantee he can deliver Senate Democrats who are desperate to keep their majority in 2012, much less Nancy Pelosi. We’re told that in Thursday’s White House meeting, Mr. Obama promised to veto any short-term debt-limit deal to give the two sides more time to negotiate. If that’s true, then the President isn’t serious. It means he is using the pressure of the August 2 deadline to bull-rush Mr. Boehner into a bad deal.

“If Mr. Obama is sincere about a long-term spending and tax reform agreement, he’ll take the time to get it right. If he insists on issuing ultimatums, then House Republicans would be better off passing a debt-limit ceiling for a few months with comparable spending cuts and letting Senate Democrats do the same. Mr. Boehner shouldn’t bet his majority on Mr. Obama’s promises.”

***
“In the latest salvo in their campaign to portray Republicans as extremists for not wanting to accept tax increases as part of a budget deal, liberal bloggers led by Ezra Klein have been promoting a chart showing that in the past, the GOP has been willing to accept deals that are far less generous than what President Obama is supposedly offering them. Yet as Conn Carroll pointed out earlier, there’s a big difference between budget deals as negotiated, and budget deals as implemented. The reason why today’s conservatives are much less tolerant of deals that include tax hikes is that they’ve learned from history that the reality of such agreements is that taxes go up as negotiated, but Congress doesn’t deliver the promised spending cuts. No past deal poisoned the well more than the 1990 budget pact, in which President Bush infamously broke his ‘no new taxes’ pledge…

“Back in 1990, the establishment was saying the same things about the need for a ‘balanced approach’ in which all sides sacrifice something to reduce the deficit. Yet what we ended up with in reality was a deal that raised taxes and slashed military spending (in other words, the liberal approach) while entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending rose by an even higher amount than was projected before a deal. Is it any wonder that today’s conservatives are deeply suspicious of budget deals in which Republicans agree to raise taxes in exchange for promised spending cuts?”

***
“The media will initially be all excited about the deal, but will turn almost instantly towards declaring it has no chance to pass, seizing on every criticism of the package or declaration of opposition as sure-fire signs the proposal is dead. The outcry against the package (both before and after the details are known) will be intense on both the left and the right. Interest groups from all quarters will denounce the measure as unacceptable. National security conservatives, for example, will declare that the Pentagon cuts will eviscerate America’s ability to defend itself; liberal groups will deem the entitlement reductions unacceptable. Thumbs down will also come from Paul Krugman, Rush Limbaugh, and every Republican running for president in 2012…

“As the House prepares to vote, the media will declare again that there is virtually no chance of passage. Strange-bedfellow allies, including prominent elements of Big Business and Big Labor – plus, inevitably, Bill Clinton – will make the ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ argument in public and in private. As the measure’s details become more known, there will be another round of fly-specking from webizens of the left and the right, declaring the package the worst thing ever considered by Congress in American history. Obama will give some blockbuster speech explaining why the bill must pass. The measure will appear dead both before and immediately after his speech. Then a handful of liberal and conservative House members will come off the fence and declare themselves in favor (some might even flip from declared opposition)…

“And, then, the bill will heart-stoppingly pass the House, with some secret backroom deals and lobbying that will be revealed (if ever) only long after the fact. Reps. Bachmann and Pelosi will vote against. And then it will fully dawn on Boehner and McConnell at the White House signing ceremony (likely as Obama is handing them their souvenir pens) that they were part of history, including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”

***
“Politicians have always postured in public and played poker in private, but as both sides dithered over the debt ceiling, even grizzled veterans grew disgusted. ‘My side’s just as guilty. I think we’re going to have a crisis because politics is going to trump the good of the country,’ says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. ‘It doesn’t sound like there are any real adults any more, including in the White House.’”

***

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Moral of the story: the Democrats lied from start to finish, because it got them what they wanted: political power. It’s exactly what they’re doing right now.

And you’re a dishonest little snitch yourself, trying to claim that the Republicans have some great deal being offered to them for a minor little compromise. It’s not a little compromise at all. You’re trying to get Boehner to commit political suicide. You’re pushing for the GOP to break faith with the people who put them in charge of the House in 2010.

Keep saying, then, that the Republicans are being offered a great deal, and that only extremists could be opposed to raising taxes. Those must be the talking points that polled the best in your focus groups, because you keep pushing exactly the same argument. But anyone who’s been paying attention to politics in the last generation should be able to see through the ploy.

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM

We have all seen this little fraud played out over an over again, but we are supposed to believe that some want higher taxes or that they won’t mind a little increase.

The Leftists always like to portray it as though it’s only a small amount on top of nothing, when in actuality it’s more on top of a mountain – or camel if you will.

increasing their tax rates by a few percentage points isn’t a concern.
bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

That increase is on top of ALL THE OTHER TAXES WE PAY.

Income taxes, Social security taxes, Capital gains taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, local taxes, school taxes, state sales tax, country sales tax, gasoline taxes, local government fee, personal property taxes, state income tax surcharges, City income tax, Taxes on our phone bill, Taxes on our cable bill, personal property sales tax surcharges, online sales taxes, on and on and on..

And you say well can add onto all this and it isn’t a concern?

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Tim_CA and El_Terrible I know these areas well. I lived in Lake Elsinore several years. Born in Iowa came back to Iowa. Not sorry I did. Riverside county is a rough neighborhood. The State of California treats it like a redheaded stepchild. Good luck, I really mean that.

IowaWoman on July 10, 2011 at 12:25 AM

You’re more impressive when you make a case rather than behave like a troll.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM.

Projection at it’s finest.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:26 AM

I am only happy with revenue enhancements if they come from all 100% of income earners. Including me, in the bottom 50%. But especially those below me who pay nothing to the government and even likely get a refund back from the nothing they paid.

astonerii on July 10, 2011 at 12:27 AM

What’s the over under on The Spelunker of the House getting the same type of result as he did with the ealier $100 Billion cuts they were in reality closer to $47 Million?…Cuts of $4 Trillion, $2 Trillion or ? and revenue tax increases of ? in a recession???

Gohawgs on July 10, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Since you’re going to ignore it anyways, here it is again:

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Moral of the story: the Democrats lied from start to finish, because it got them what they wanted: political power. It’s exactly what they’re doing right now.

And you’re a dishonest little snitch yourself, trying to claim that the Republicans have some great deal being offered to them for a minor little compromise. It’s not a little compromise at all. You’re trying to get Boehner to commit political suicide. You’re pushing for the GOP to break faith with the people who put them in charge of the House in 2010.

Keep saying, then, that the Republicans are being offered a great deal, and that only extremists could be opposed to raising taxes. Those must be the talking points that polled the best in your focus groups, because you keep pushing exactly the same argument. But anyone who’s been paying attention to politics in the last generation should be able to see through the ploy.

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM

We have all seen this little fraud played out over an over again, but we are supposed to believe that some want higher taxes or that they won’t mind a little increase.

The Leftists always like to portray it as though it’s only a small amount on top of nothing, when in actuality it’s more on top of a mountain – or camel if you will.

increasing their tax rates by a few percentage points isn’t a concern.
bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

That increase is on top of ALL THE OTHER TAXES WE PAY.

Income taxes, Social security taxes, Capital gains taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, local taxes, school taxes, state sales tax, country sales tax, gasoline taxes, local government fee, personal property taxes, state income tax surcharges, City income tax, Taxes on our phone bill, Taxes on our cable bill, personal property sales tax surcharges, online sales taxes, on and on and on..

And you say well can add onto all this and it isn’t a concern?

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM

What entitlement cuts? Give us the numbers. The Dems have not committed publically to any entitlement cuts.

It’s widely reported that the $4 tril deal includes deep entitlement cuts that are pissing the hell out of liberals, and that Obama will need Republican support in the House to pass it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/democrats-incensed-with-white-house-over-social-security-medicare/2011/07/08/gIQAHmMm3H_blog.html

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Do you realize that it was Republicans that demanded 85% of spending cuts in a budget deal 3 months ago? I say it’s a very good deal because it’s exactly what Boehner and McConnell demanded in the first place. Is that hard to comprehend? If you believe that one party can dictate every term of a deal, you’re living in an alternative reality. It will never happen.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Straw man. Saying that Boehner should not accept tax hikes in order to get spending cuts that both sides already know are necessary is not the same thing as “dictating every term of a deal.”

It’s more a matter of making clear that raising taxes is not an option.

And there’s nothing hard to understand about that.

Especially since the people that voted for the GOP to take over the House will not be happy if the Speaker of the House then decides to raise taxes because the Democrats want it. That kind of bad faith ends political careers.

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Chippy, stop stalking me with questions, it’s kind of disturbing. Find another way to amuse yourself.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Chip, can’t you see your questions are distracting bayam as she tries to remember her talking points?!

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:14 AM

That’s why she ignores our questions and just spews out some more – and then gets upset when we call her on it.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM

You do realize, don’t you, that here are numerous preeminent economists who specialize in studying recessions. Some with Republican credentials. None of them refer to the Great Depression, an event that occurred over 70 years ago under far different circumstances and under a dramatically different financial system, both domestically and globally.

So yes, it may be tempting to point to the 1930′s or the 1890′s for valuable lessons. But it’s kind of pointless. You may be surprised that its modern recessions, especially Japan’s lost decade, that are the point of comparison for most economists today- and certainly for Bernanke and economists at the Fed.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:50 PM

I’m all for considering what Peter Schiff might have to say about the economy.

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Hey, are you going to ever get around to answering my question, or can we all assume that since you can’t that your just spewing leftist talking points with no basis in fact?

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:35 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/democrats-incensed-with-white-house-over-social-security-medicare/2011/07/08/gIQAHmMm3H_blog.html

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Long-simmering tensions between the White House and congressional Democrats on how best to address the country’s debt boiled over Friday, with leaders and rank-and-file members alike fuming at reports that President Obama is mulling cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of a bipartisan debt-limit deal.

This is no more of a plan or deal than President Obama’s speech is a budget.

El_Terrible on July 10, 2011 at 12:37 AM

It’s widely reported that the $4 tril deal includes deep entitlement cuts that are pissing the hell out of liberals, and that Obama will need Republican support in the House to pass it.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:30 AM

In other words, you have a leak. You have no public statement whatsoever. I don’t give a flying ‘fig for a leak. Leaks of this nature are notoriously inaccurate and are leaked not to inform the public, but to set the political landscape.

Get me a public statement, on the record and attributed to a key Democratic leader in which he or she states that they are going to cut entitlements.

Got a link like that? I doubt it very much. Hell, the Dems don’t even have a budget and have steadfastly refused to offer one for 800+ days.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Hey, this (I’m sure not preeminent) economist doesn’t seem to like the inheritance tax…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Especially since the people that voted for the GOP to take over the House will not be happy if the Speaker of the House then decides to raise taxes because the Democrats want it. That kind of bad faith ends political careers.

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Fine. Then you end up with no tax cuts and no deep entitlement reform. If you don’t think that 85% spending cuts is a fair deal, then clearly no deal will happen. When the liberal extremists have a chance to turn social security into the top election issue in 2012, you may see the Hochul win in a conservative distrcit repeated across the country. I’m surprised that you don’t take this real threat more seriously.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM

GOP ready to tank economy to get rid of Obama” –Katrina Van Den Heuvel

“Obama willing to tank country to get reelected” –Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM

I’m surprised that you don’t take this real threat more seriously.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Well, the rest of us are surprised that you think the big boys and girls of congress achieve great things.

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Fine. Then you end up with no tax cuts and no deep entitlement reform.
bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM

I don’t think the Dems are going to offer deep entitlement reform. Every PUBLIC statement by Obama and the Dem leadership has been against it. All you have is a leak which you can’t attribute to specific individual in leadership position.

I’ll stand by my prediction that if/when the details of this “deep entitlement reform” come out, within a news cycle or two, we’ll find out that it really isn’t that deep and it really isn’t reform.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:47 AM

“Obama willing to tank country to get reelected” –Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM

I agree..:)

PS..Hardball is really sad..just sad..:(

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 12:48 AM

PS..Hardball is really sad..just sad..:(

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 12:48 AM

I could have told you that when Elizabeth (s?) Edwards phoned in to Ann Coulter and told her to stop picking on her husband. I could be wrong, but has Ann been back since then?

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I’ll stand by my prediction that if/when the details of this “deep entitlement reform” come out, within a news cycle or two, we’ll find out that it really isn’t that deep and it really isn’t reform.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:47 AM

It’s $4 trill in spending cuts according to Boehner and the GOP, and it’s pointless to worry about whether or not it represents reform or not. $4 tril in cuts is a real achievement. It’s easier for both parties to do nothing and just play the blame game.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Here’s some simple questions, bayam. I don’t think you can answer them.

Currently, federal spending is roughly 25% of GDP. But at no point in history has the federal government ever collected that much in revenue on an annual basis.

So here’s the simple question: What rate structures and “loophole closures” need to take place in the tax code to ensure that the federal government will consistently, year over year, take in 25% of GDP?

How about for 24%? 23%? 22%? 21%? 20%? 19%?

If the goal is to honor the “sacred promise” to pay back the debt we incur, it is necessary to not only balance the budget, but to actually go into surplus, so the extra taken in exceeds what is spent, and can start paying down the debt.

So how much do each of the two components (revenue and spending) need to change to get a balance, and what changes are needed to make those two numbers match?

VekTor on July 10, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Obama willing to tank country to get reelected”
Schadenfreude on July 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM

He is willing to skip reelection if he can tank the whole country during his first term.

LegendHasIt on July 10, 2011 at 12:57 AM

and it’s pointless to worry about whether or not it represents reform or not. $4 tril in cuts is a real achievement.

No matter how many times I read it, something just doesn’t seem right here.

I mean, I suppose that if Congress borrowed $4 trillion that would be a real achievement, but don’t worry about the details.

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 12:57 AM

If Boehner doesn’t deliver cuts greater than or equal to the amount of the debt ceiling increase, or if he agrees to overall tax hikes . . then he will have failed.

Boehner is unclear on the concept. What a dope.

There is only one thing worth doing: refusing to hike the debt limit. Period. The cuts will take care of themselves, even if they have to improvise and scramble. They can say, for starters, we’ll pay for defense and interest on the debt, and for Social Security and for Medicare, and in that order, but after that you’re on your own.

With no debt limit increase, the budget is balanced immediately, since no more money can be borrowed.

Obama’s talk about tax hikes should be openly ridiculed.

Talking about cuts its also counterproductive. There is nothing to negotiate about cuts. Just refuse to raise the debt limit. The House holds all the aces here.

Emperor Norton on July 10, 2011 at 12:59 AM

It’s $4 trill in spending cuts according to Boehner and the GOP, and it’s pointless to worry about whether or not it represents reform or not. $4 tril in cuts is a real achievement. It’s easier for both parties to do nothing and just play the blame game.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM

And big were the spending cuts in the bill from earlier this year supposed to be? (38 billion) and what did the final number turn out to be? (352 million).

Forgive me I dont’ trust anything until it gets vetted by the public. I’ve seen this show before and it always ends the same way: cuts that aren’t really cuts with the promise to do more, “next time”.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM

He is willing to skip reelection if he can tank the whole country during his first term.

LegendHasIt on July 10, 2011 at 12:57 AM

I’m willing to be trumped by the great Legend, any time, as he’s so right.

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2011 at 1:02 AM

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM

You make a good point..I do not think Ann has been on Hardball in a long time..Michele Bachmann and all GOP folks need to drop that show ..:)

PS..Good to see you!..:)

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 1:03 AM

PS..Good to see you!..:)

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Good to see you too. Anyway, I think it’s time to chill out in front of the AC and hit the hay. Night.

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Hitler promises healthcare for everyone in 1933.
Obama promises healthcare for everyone in 2009.
Hitler uses the term “education camps” instead of death camps.
Obama uses the phrase “spending in the tax code” instead of take hikes.
Hitler hated the rich.
Obama hates the rich.
Hitler believed in the power of the state and not the individual.
Obama believes in the power of the state and not the individual.
Hitler was charismatic and employed catch-phrases without substantive details.
Obama is charismatic and employs catch-phrases without substantive details.
Hitler had death camps.
Obama has death panels.
Hitler rose to power stirring up hatred between factions.
Obama stirs up hatred between factions.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/

Mark7788 on July 10, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Obama’s talk about tax hikes should be openly ridiculed.

Talking about cuts its also counterproductive. There is nothing to negotiate about cuts. Just refuse to raise the debt limit. The House holds all the aces here.

Again, you’re overestimated the GOP position, a tragic and foolish mistake. A majority of Americans already support higher taxes on the wealthy and in many key congressional districts, social security cutbacks are turning into a critical issue that already has resulted in a GOP loss in a conservative district (Hochul).

GOP leaders demanded 85% spending cuts and forced Obama to deliver by cutting entitlement programs. This deal has the potential to neuter Democrats by taking it away as an election issue in 2012. If the $4 tril deal fails to pass, liberals will force this issue down Granny’s throat next year and the outcome will be bad for everyone except the left.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 1:09 AM

MeatHeadinCA on July 10, 2011 at 1:06 AM

Later..:)

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 1:11 AM

The Republicans should insist that the Democrats lay their cards on the table, as they are required to do. They would normally do so by passing a budget in the Senate to be negotiated with the House, as I recall. If the Democrat controlled Senate doesn’t pass a budget, oh well then, I guess they’ve decided to stop spending money.

The Senate has to pass a budget before the process can continue, and if they don’t the government will shut down. How can the government spend any more money if there is no budget? The Senate had better get off their azzes in gear because people are going to demand answers.

But the Democrats budget would be so damaging to their re-election chances, festooned with taxes and spending, so they would rather risk a government shutdown than make their intentions public, and they believe the MSM might be able to pin a shutdown on the Republican’s regardless of the obviousness of the truth….but they’re not sure. I think they suspect what I already know, that the MSM’s credibility is already suspect and that this could be their end if they take sides again.

All we have to do to win this, to destroy the far Left for a generation or more, is to insist on an open and honest process. If that happened the Democrats would be faced with a choice: they could pass a disastrously embarrassing budget through the Senate, or they could pass a much tamer, centrist budget with an eye toward reelection, but if they take the later course they’ll have to undo a lot of what they’ve been doing for the past few years and also commit electoral suicide that way, too. They have themselves trapped in a fricking box.

And if they were to release such a modest budget, then the baseline of negotiations with the house would be that much weaker and the end result would be a victory for the tea party, and it’s only thanks to the TEA party all of this is now within our grasp, if only our leaders would simply reach out and pluck the succulent fruit from the vine.

But alas, no. Boehner and McConnell show no comprehension of the gift that the Democrats have handed to us, or if they do, they are not inclined to take advantage of the Democrats vulnerability. There the Democrats crouch, trapped in a box, no way out, and Boehner and McConnell are going to save them…by joining them in the box where they think they’ll be safe from the obnoxious tea party that keeps primarying all of his friends on both sides of the isle.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM

…Once the budget fight is over then we’ll know how much to raise the debt limit, if any. Is there any reason the budget can’t be done now? I don’t see why not, but if not, then perhaps a short term extension of the credit ceiling can be justified to lapse when the budget is due. Perhaps if the Democrats release a budget out of the Senate right now they can convince people to give them a little more time on the debt ceiling.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 1:33 AM

…Not that it matters if the Senate releases a budget, since Boehner is so desperate to avoid a shutdown that he’ll take extraordinary steps to reach some accord, even if it’s a sleazy one negotiated in a back room.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Wuz all this tawk about debt limis? I dont care nun for fancy numberz like GDP and unemploymant cuz I is clingun to my bible an’ guns an’ worried abowt my next bowl of corn flaykes.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM

including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”

Wishful thinking. The single most damaging issue to be used against Obama is the tanking economy, genius. That ain’t being “taken off the table” by a debt ceiling deal or any other deal.

Missy on July 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

Obama would rather negotiate a seedy backroom deal with Boehner and bypass the step where The Senate passes a realistic budget as a baseline for negotiations. By skipping that, they never have to accept any blame for their profligate spending, instead they’ll share it with the Republicans, and the Democrats will get a much better deal that way, too, because if they actually release a budget it’s not going to be as liberal as their base would like and will be a problem for them. I think then Obama would finally fall into the 30 percentile range, either path they take.

Please, don’t let Boehner and McConnell save Obama and the Democrats. Let the Democrats rot in their box.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Again, you’re overestimated the GOP position, a tragic and foolish mistake.

Nonsense. You’re overestimating your tired, liberal talking points.

A majority of Americans already support higher taxes on the wealthy

If they do raise taxes on them, there’s not enough money there to make a dent in the Obama deficit. Besides, the middle class will be the next group targeted for tax increases, and your push poll didn’t ask them how they feel about that part.

in many key congressional districts, social security cutbacks are turning into a critical issue that already has resulted in a GOP loss in a conservative district (Hochul).

Nobody said anything about cutting Social Security, except you. And neither should you. Just stop making things up. You are a liberal once again trying to scare Grandma. The New York congressional district was won by a Democrat because another Democrat pretended to be a Tea Party member.

Emperor Norton on July 10, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Wishful thinking. The single most damaging issue to be used against Obama is the tanking economy, genius. That ain’t being “taken off the table” by a debt ceiling deal or any other deal.

Missy on July 10, 2011 at 1:40 AM

But looked at from a different perspective, if the Republican Party goes back to its old ways and shrugs off the promises they made to win back the House, they are unlikely to win much of anything in the future.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 1:55 AM

if the Republican Party goes back to its old ways and shrugs off the promises they made to win back the House, they are unlikely to win much of anything in the future.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Santelli was right – if they do this, throw them all out in 2012. It might be the only way to teach them the big lesson.

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2011 at 2:06 AM

Schadenfreude on July 10, 2011 at 2:06 AM

And every election thereafter until the job is done.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Stick a fork in him. Even diehard liberals I know are saying they supported Hillary in an effort to distance themselves from the used-car salesman from Chicago.

John the Libertarian on July 10, 2011 at 2:27 AM

I’m not a Palin supporter, at least not as of now, but this is really good:
http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-the-sugar-daddy-is-out-of-sugar/

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 2:38 AM

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 2:38 AM

She kinda gets under your skin that way, in a good way.

heshtesh on July 10, 2011 at 2:50 AM

No debt ceiling hike means the government must live on their revenues. If that’s the case, they will start making the hard choices they need to make. I say let the debt ceiling come, at least they’ll have to make real cuts for once.

ClanDerson on July 10, 2011 at 3:13 AM

Republicans should absolutely NOT seek a deal. Obama had strong majorities in both House and Senate for two years, and did nothing but expand the deficit explosively. He acknowledged the problem and handed it off to his “Deficit Commission” which offered a bipartisan plan to deal with the fiscal crisis, and Obama entirely dismissed it.

He chose instead to submit a budget that was so unrealistically wild-spending in the red that it failed in the Senate 97-0. Not one liberal Democrat would support Obama’s nonsense. And where is his new budget, which he claims will do this and that? NOWHERE! He lied. LIED.

We should be done with this buffoon now. Let him party on and play golf until we can replace his worthless butt.

Adjoran on July 10, 2011 at 3:39 AM

I’m not a Palin supporter, at least not as of now, but this is really good:

http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-the-sugar-daddy-is-out-of-sugar/

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 2:38 AM

Yes, it was really good. Even when trying not to “mis-underestimate” SP it is easy to “mis-underestimate” SP.

Someone on another thread was criticized for just posting that link. Glad you did it here.

Geochelone on July 10, 2011 at 4:00 AM

Bohnner was punked by the Democrats in the last deal, just like Reagan was punked when trying to make a deal in good faith. I say the Republicans shouldn’t make a bad deal just to avoid looking like the bad guy. They should only make a good deal or don’t make one at all.

I talked to my friend today, who was a strong Obama supporter, who loved to post the most outrageous Newsweek and MSNBC articles on facebook. Today he seemed to acknowledge the truth and now realizes what a terrible mistake he made in supporting Obama, even though he continues to be a die-hard liberal. I was very encouraged by this. I still have friends who are Obamabots but the tide seems to be turning.

He did say they all hope Bachmann will win because then she will spew gaffs and then lose to Obama. I asked him, so then they (the liberals he knows) want more of this? Why? He just mumbled so they can keep power but he knew how stupid that was when things in the country are going this badly.

redeye on July 10, 2011 at 4:12 AM

Jiggy McJugears says:

Balanced approach = I’m never gonna quit talking out of both sides of my mouth while I destroy your precious democratic republic.

What a hopeless piece of shizzle we have for a supposed President.

hillbillyjim on July 10, 2011 at 5:03 AM

Scaling back.

Heh.

Scaly back, maybe; as in snake-in-the-grass.

hillbillyjim on July 10, 2011 at 5:07 AM

OFF TOPIC:

Please stop the automatic ads. Being yakked at without my OK is VERY annoying.

WannabeAnglican on July 10, 2011 at 7:58 AM

If libs were really serious about taxing the wealthy, they wouldn’t base the tax rate on what a person earns in one year, they would base the tax rate on the person’s assets. That would really tax the liberal wealthy, not the hard working trying to earn their way out of poverty or the middle class or reinvesting into job creating businesses.

ray on July 10, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Nobody said anything about cutting Social Security, except you. And neither should you. Just stop making things up. You are a liberal once again trying to scare Grandma.

You have no idea what the liberals will do to scare Grandma in the next election cycle if social security isn’t cut now. And of course social security cuts are on the table, without entitlement cuts, you can’t fix the deficit. It’s beyond naive to think otherwise.

Republicans should absolutely NOT seek a deal. Obama had strong majorities in both House and Senate for two years, and did nothing but expand the deficit explosively.

But where does that leave the US? Republicans control the House and that’s not enough to dictate the terms of governance. BTW, most experts estimate that Obama inherited a $1 tril structural deficit which accounts for most the debt accumulated over the past 2 1/2 years, in addition to the stimulus package of course.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 8:13 AM

Anyone know what happened to the cutcapbalancepledge.com website?

Fallon on July 10, 2011 at 8:46 AM

I’m not a Palin supporter, at least not as of now, but this is really good:

http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-the-sugar-daddy-is-out-of-sugar/

FloatingRock on July 10, 2011 at 2:38 AM

Yes, it was really good. Even when trying not to “mis-underestimate” SP it is easy to “mis-underestimate” SP.

Someone on another thread was criticized for just posting that link. Glad you did it here.

Geochelone on July 10, 2011 at 4:00 AM

Yes but will it get any coverage besides Hot Air? I bet they do not mention it on TV today at all. Everyone is breathless about a potential Perry run and he has not announced, but they are dead silent about a potential Palin run and she makes these statements. Hmmm.

txmomof6 on July 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Mr. Boehner shouldn’t bet his majority on Mr. Obama’s promises.” Because Mr. Obama lies.

And then it will fully dawn on Boehner and McConnell at the White House signing ceremony (likely as Obama is handing them their souvenir pens) that they were part of history, including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.” Bingo, and this has always been how we are sold down the river.

Kissmygrits on July 10, 2011 at 9:00 AM

BTW, most experts estimate that Obama inherited a $1 tril structural deficit which accounts for most the debt accumulated over the past 2 1/2 years, in addition to the stimulus package of course.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 8:13 AM

That is such BS! He signed the Stimulus. He signed the 2008 Omnibus budget which he as a former Senator had helped delay past Bush’s term. Both of these increased the baseline government spending by Trillions. He did that, not Bush. He could have vetoed that, he did not. He is directly responsible for creating more debt than all other Presidents combined. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

txmomof6 on July 10, 2011 at 9:04 AM

That is such BS! He signed the Stimulus. He signed the 2008 Omnibus budget which he as a former Senator had helped delay past Bush’s term. Both of these increased the baseline government spending by Trillions. He did that, not Bush. He could have vetoed that, he did not. He is directly responsible for creating more debt than all other Presidents combined. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

You can see the facts here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Again, spending increased by 40% during Bush’s first 6 years alone without any new taxes or revenue, creating around $1 tril structural deficit according to most on Wall Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit

If you’re aware of another set of facts, I’d like to see them. As for the stimulus package, Obama did sign it with support from Greenspan and many other respected economists. When a country experiences a 1 in 70 year economic catastrophe, it’s no surprise to see stimulus packages passed to prevent a depression as the US, China, and Germany all did.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Do you understand how high level business or political negotiations are actually conducted? You’re incredibly naive about Republican options. Boehner has Obama cornered and can force him into deep entitlement cuts, but of course some concessions are necessary. Obama can’t take a deal to his own party that doesn’t include some sacrifices that from the opposition. This is how major deals are closed in business and on Wall Street.

Why, yes. Yes I do. I also understand what a debt ceiling is. I understand that if the house were to pass a bill today, that returned the unspent stimulus money to the treasury for the purpose of paying down the deficit, returned spending levels to pre-Obama levels, defunded Obamacare and made other real and significant cuts the Dems would likely reject it.

And then we’d hit the debt ceiling and one of two things would happen. A) Congress begins to cut things because they have no other choice. (so long as the Reps refuse a debt limit increase) B) We loose our credit rating. This would incur more debt through interest and further limit our borrowing ability. The first is bad, the second is necessary. America would go through a period of economic readjustment (read recession/depression) that would have been relatively painless if it had been left to do so about ten years ago.

It’s call negotiating with principles and a position of strength. It’s called “off the table.” Tax increase and debt limit increase are off the table. Now lets negotiate. You are correct that some concessions will have to be made, but those should be about where and what to cut. Both sides are arguing that cuts need to be made. One side want to raise taxes, the other refuses…you can’t negotiate that. The problem for the Democrats is they can’t enforce their end of the bargain where the Republicans can. The Democrats NEED the Republicans to agree to tax hikes to get them passed. The debt will eventually take care of itself…one way or another spending will be decreased. The question is whether or not our economy has to die first.

Pattosensei on July 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM

The Democrats NEED the Republicans to agree to tax hikes to get them passed. The debt will eventually take care of itself…one way or another spending will be decreased. The question is whether or not our economy has to die first.

Yes both sides need to reach an agreement. But why are tax increases off the table? Our tax rates are at historic lows, while our military commitments and entitlement obligations, driven by an aging population, have dramatically increased over the past 8 years. I don’t see how you can balance the books without more revenue.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/

Earlier generations paid higher taxes and I’m not sure when the current generation started to believe that historically low taxes were a birthright. Anyway, look who’s making all the money these days at LinkedIn, Pandora, Groupon, and all the other huge tech IPOs. It’s the liberals and those libs like paying taxes anyway, right?

BTW, ‘killing the economy’ and destroying the dollar is much worse than you describe because it will place China at the top of the world’s economic order. The power that China would gain as a consequence is completely unacceptable.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 9:34 AM

BTW, ‘killing the economy’ and destroying the dollar is much worse than you describe because it will place China at the top of the world’s economic order. The power that China would gain as a consequence is completely unacceptable.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Gee, then perhaps we should get serious about spending cuts and stop playing stupid games with the Socialist Party, eh?

I don’t see how you can balance the books without more revenue.

Jazz…did you change your screen name? Or did you just miss the debate on this very subject over the past week?

You also realize that your graph is marginal tax rates, right? Two comments from the site that say it better than I would have:

Nathan359 2 months ago
This type of historical comparison is highly misleading. It shows changes in MARGINAL rates, not EFFECTIVE rates. Looking at changes in MARGINAL rates is only meaningful if the available deductions, tax credits and other variables which impact EFFECTIVE rates remain constant. These variables HAVE NOT remained constant and therefore this type of comparison is apples to oranges and completely misleading. I have seen this data presented OVER AND OVER.
WHY DOES NOT EVER SHOW THE CHANGES IN EFFECTIVE TAX RATES?

irev210 2 months ago
This is somewhat misleading. The effective federal income tax rate is what should be looked at.

The effective federal income tax rate for the top 1% in the 60′s and 70′s isn’t that different from what it is today.

Pattosensei on July 10, 2011 at 9:52 AM

I don’t see how you can balance the books without more revenue.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Why is it so difficult for liberals to see? Let business owners keep more of their money. SBO’s higher the unemployed. Once hired not only do the unemployed stop receiving govt. money they actually start paying taxes. Not only do they start paying taxes they start buying more stuff. Once more stuff is bought more people get hired and the cycle continues until everyone that wants a job is working and paying taxes and no one is receiving them.

If we cut the capital gains tax to zero permanently you couldn’t keep businesses from coming back home.

Socmodfiscon on July 10, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Accumulated debt, by the liberals at Politifact: By the End of His First Term, President Obama Will Have Added as Much Debt as all the Prior 43 Presidents Combined

slickwillie2001 on July 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM

You also realize that your graph is marginal tax rates, right? Two comments from the site that say it better than I would have

You’re right, that graph is overly dramatic. If you look up effective tax rates by year, you’ll see that the fact remains- those rates are at historic lows. Yet spending has increased dramatically. Unless you restore pre-2001 spending levels across the board, including prior defense and security budgets, the budget won’t be balanced.

Why is it so difficult for liberals to see?

It’s hard for Alan Greenspan, Paul O’Neil from Treasury, Alan Simpson, and every respected economist on Wall Street to understand how deficit spending (which you’re confusing with tax cuts) can do anything more than provide a short-term lift to tax revenues. It would be nice if the world actually worked that way- lower taxes and your problems disappear- but you’re just propagating a myth that has no basis in facts or reality.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 9:34 AM

As Senator Rubio said, make more taxpayers. I know I haven’t contributed in over a year.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM

As Senator Rubio said, make more taxpayers. I know I haven’t contributed in over a year.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Time to hire a Mexican gardner? ;)

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM

It would be nice if the world actually worked that way- lower taxes and your problems disappear

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Yeah, except it’s lower taxes and cut spending. Encourage growth through lower taxes and cut spending. When the money starts rolling in because businesses are hiring and people are working instead of more govt spending you ….. cut spending.

Socmodfiscon on July 10, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Emperor Norton on July 10, 2011 at 12:59 AM

This. Just be done with this stupid bickering. There is not enough tax money in the world to fix our spending problem and, watching bayam, there is not enough words in the english landuage to make the democrat robots understand. Obama;s ridiculous spending has got to stop and cutting off the credit card unlimited limit appears to be the only way to get somewhere.

ORconservative on July 10, 2011 at 10:34 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Still flogging away at your talking points?

Still you have yet to come up with a good answer as to how anyone with a lick of sanity would recommend the same insanity repeatedly.

You said:

Increasing their tax rates by a few percentage points isn’t a concern.
bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

That increase is on top of ALL THE OTHER TAXES WE PAY.

Income taxes, Social security taxes, Capital gains taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, local taxes, school taxes, state sales tax, country sales tax, gasoline taxes, local government fee, personal property taxes, state income tax surcharges, City income tax, Taxes on our phone bill, Taxes on our cable bill, personal property sales tax surcharges, online sales taxes, on and on and on..

And you say well can add onto all this and it isn’t a concern?

At what percentage would that be ‘a concern’ 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 5%?

Pick a number.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 10:39 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM

I thought you were annoying until that comment. Keep posting. You are very instructive in how a democrat voter thinks.

ORconservative on July 10, 2011 at 10:40 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM

I’ll can be a gardener. I’m old and more suited to trained monkey data entry but I would love a paycheck.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Hello Cindy..Hope all is going well..Are you back in FL?..:)

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM

there is [sic] not enough words in the english landuage to make the democrat robots understand. Obama;s ridiculous spending has got to stop and cutting off the credit card unlimited limit appears to be the only way to get somewhere.

As Ed knows, I was the one raising the red flag when Bush was racking up the federal budgets during his first 6 years, while most in the GOP cheered him on. You’re deeply mistaken if you think that Obama has increased federal spending more than Bush- the difference in the deficit numbers are a consequence of the the great recession economy. Incoming tax revenues have been far lower post 2007.

So why is this history relevant? It means that merely reversing Obama’s spending increases hardly even starts to balance the federal budget. You still have to content with Bush’s massive spending increases and wars that were never offset by new revenue or tax hikes.

But it’s good to hear that you finally recognize that deficit spending is not sustainable.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM

I’ll can be a gardener. I’m old and more suited to trained monkey data entry but I would love a paycheck.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I’m sorry to hear that Cindy.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Hey!!! I am excellent, how about you? I’m still in Virginia. Several of the Florida ladies are hoping to get together this Fall with Knucklehead and JetBoy. This could be fun.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:56 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Remember folks, if you ask bayam a ‘Difficult’ question- one that exposes the fallacy of her position, she will ignore it in lieu of spewing more talking points.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 10:56 AM

I saw that..That would be so cool..I hope you all can pull that off..Glad to see everything is going well!

PS..Everything is going very good for me!..:)

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 11:00 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. I am luckier than most since I’m not the main bread winner. That said, we are stymied by the current situation and forced to dip into our savings. So even people in “good” shape are sincerely hampered.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2011 at 11:00 AM

WTH is that? Finally recognize? Yes, this spending started with GW but Obama is like nothing we have seen before.
What about Obama’s unlimited ridiculous spending. A Billion to this country a Billion to that country, a new war in Libya, vacations all over the planet, outreach to Muslims, and guns to anyone who wants them to the south?
Keep blaming Bush.
Sorry, but this is all about the O. Exactly how he wants it.

ORconservative on July 10, 2011 at 11:02 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Remember folks, if you ask bayam a ‘Difficult’ question- one that exposes the fallacy of her position, she will ignore it in lieu of spewing more talking points.

And No, you have yet to actually answer one.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Remember folks, if you ask bayam a ‘Difficult’ question- one that exposes the fallacy of her position, she will ignore it in lieu of spewing more talking points.

And No, you have yet to actually answer one.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Chippy, your stalking is becoming disturbing. Let me remind you that you’re in violation of HotAir’s TOS and that can result in account suspension if I bring this situation to Ed’s attention. And no, I’m not a woman if that’s somehow affecting your behavior.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. I am luckier than most since I’m not the main bread winner. That said, we are stymied by the current situation and forced to dip into our savings.

Yes, I realize that things are tough and hope that you’re able to find a new opportunity soon. There simply aren’t enough jobs to go around and a lot of great and talented people competing for what’s available.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 11:09 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM

What are you talking about?

I am merely asking you questions, and you are ignoring them because they cut against the grain of you Leftist talking points.

How exactly is that in violation of HotAir’s TOS.?

That would be the case with just about everyone here, so are you going to have everyone thrown off because they are doing just exactly is the intent of this discussion board?

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 11:16 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM

ROTFLMAO…um…exactly who are you supposed to be sweetheart..posting police?

Get a friggin’ life and man up.

Tim_CA on July 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM

……….you’re in violation of HotAir’s TOS and that can result in account suspension if I bring this situation to Ed’s attention. And no, I’m not a woman if that’s somehow affecting your behavior.
bayam on July 10, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Heh, usually it is the vapid centrist females that threaten to get people banned for arguing with them. So it is a natural mistake.

Unusual for a leftist to do so; they usually relish the fight. Especially the ones that get paid by the word for putting out talking points.

What? You say you don’t get paid for it? You should look into seeing if 0bama will put you on the payroll. You are better at it than most of the others.

LegendHasIt on July 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Again, you’re overestimated the GOP position, a tragic and foolish mistake. A majority of Americans already support higher taxes on the wealthy and in many key congressional districts, social security cutbacks are turning into a critical issue that already has resulted in a GOP loss in a conservative district (Hochul).

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Of course there are people that are more than happy to see the taxes on the “rich” raised. Anyone but theirs is about right.

Only problem, it doesn’t stop there now does it?

Little changes in the tax code can cause one’s tax to rise quite a bit. Changes like removing the mortgage deduction or the charitable deductions.

Here’s an example from my own circumstances.

We have never itemized as we never had more in deductions than the standard deduction allowed. So, each year we claimed that standard deduction.

We were allowed a tax credit for our property tax and that was a “loophole” we used to reduce our federal tax liability. Nevada has no state income tax.

Well, they have removed that little credit and moved it into the standard deduction category, and raised the standard deduction slightly.

Guess what, I paid more in taxes this year than ever before because of it.

It’s the details that will get you.

Jvette on July 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM

You’re right, that graph is overly dramatic. If you look up effective tax rates by year, you’ll see that the fact remains- those rates are at historic lows. Yet spending has increased dramatically. Unless you restore pre-2001 spending levels across the board, including prior defense and security budgets, the budget won’t be balanced. bayam on July 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Oh? I was unaware.

If you click the link, you’ll see your ship sinking. Unless history started in 1985 and you ignore medicare, social security and the % of income. Ignore all those and you are correct. The median effective direct income tax rate is pretty low right now.

Pattosensei on July 10, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Fine. Then you end up with no tax cuts and no deep entitlement reform.
bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Care to back off on that bit of nonsense given today’s news?

In reality, the White House had upped the ante on taxes. A Republican House aide told me that the White House “started to backpedal on entitlement reforms too.” He explained, “They [the White House] had started to go back on some of the Medicare and Medicaid reforms they had previously said they were ok with.” In other words, either the White House never intended to present a viable grand bargain, or, if Obama did, the left got to him.

The simple fact is the Dems are NOT going to offer entitlement reform. Period. End of Story. They may try to tweak a few minor details involved in operating the entitlement programs (such as compsensation to doctors, etc.) but they won’t reform the basics of the programs.

Next time, don’t rely on politically-motivated leaks which hide the true facts and rely your common sense.

Dems will NEVER agree to reform entitlements until the situation has become so desperate that they can’t avoid it.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 1:24 PM

The Preamble says that one of the guiding principles of the Constitution (therefore the Federal Government) is to preserve liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.

IMHO, this means today’s politicians shouldn’t be saddling future (our posterity’s) politicians with debt so today’s politicians can avoid making the hard choices today by buying votes for the next election with future generation’s yet to be done hard work…

drfredc on July 10, 2011 at 2:37 PM

You cannot negotiate in good faith with liars, and Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted. Let them lay out their own case in public. No more cover behind closed doors for these creeps.

Democrats don’t want a deal, because it would take away their planned “Mediscare” campaign and they have nothing else to run on.

Adjoran on July 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I have been thinking about the current crisis and ways to fix the problem for a long time. The solution(s) I proffer are based on case studies, in my MBA and PhD work.

The solutions will require serious dose of tough love on the part of employers and employees. But perhaps the toughest decision of all is to recognize our economic crisis originated, in the political arena.

Rolling back all legislation that manipulated growth rates wages, duplication of rules protecting workers, users, research and development, and manufacturing all which have created and improved the economy, but have been punished by the political machine for doing so.

MSGTAS on July 11, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3