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

cmsinaz on July 9, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Later..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 10:18 PM

And I have a magical hat that chases fairies away.

IlikedAUH2O on July 9, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Can I borrow it….? I live in Southern California, and it would make it real easy to get a parking space.

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Oh and btw….you’re not actually saying that the TEA party had no impact on the mid-terms are you?

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 10:19 PM

It’s a liars’ world and I just live in it.

leftnomore on July 9, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Rush Limbaugh did his best this week to warn the GOP leadership of the consequences of caving. But this is not 1994 when the Gingrich leadership team shared the same ideology as the party’s base for at least a year before they started caving. Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are all pragmatists first.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 10:20 PM

I hope they can hold the line on not raising taxes or the debt limit.

Kini on July 9, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Speaker Boehner: Do not raise the debt limit. Our nation cannot afford to do so. Tell that adolescent in the WH to grow up and to pass that same message along to his playpals in the Dem party.

onlineanalyst on July 9, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM

If you wear it in Massachusetts or NJ it can be a hate crime.

And from ABC NEWS:

Still, just 23 percent said they voted to send a message in favor of the Tea Party movement, versus 18 percent against it; 55 percent called the movement “not a factor” in their vote.

IF you believe the media.

Still the TPers did not get rid of Pelosi.

IlikedAUH2O on July 9, 2011 at 10:22 PM

And I believe in complete in complete equality of gays just as Goldwater did. But I’ll go to jail if I can’t make a remark.

IlikedAUH2O on July 9, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I hope they can hold the line on not raising taxes or the debt limit.

Kini on July 9, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 10:24 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM


The second data point that suggests Buffett isn’t really worried that he pays too little in taxes is the method in which he makes his generous donations to the Gates Foundation. Currently, Buffett donates shares of Berkshire Hathaway to the foundation. If Buffett were truly concerned that he didn’t pay enough in taxes, he could easily remedy this by selling his Berkshire Hathaway shares first, paying the capital gains taxes on the sales, and then donating the net cash proceeds to the Gates Foundation. Presumably, Buffett donates the shares instead because he feels he pays enough in taxes already, or because he feels that the Gates Foundation will spend his money more wisely than the federal government will. Whatever the reason, avoiding the capital gains tax by donating the shares is inconsistent with Buffett’s lamentations about not paying enough in taxes.”

http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-warren-buffetts-secretary-have.html

Cindy Munford on July 9, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and most of the other great capitalists of our era want you to raise taxes on those earning over $1 mil per year, and give tax breaks to entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Too bad most of the time they are the same people – or would like to be.

How do you distinguish between them? Our wonderful geniuses in the feral government?

You do realize that when the looters Share in the Sacrifice of the Producers and achievers – those earning over $1 mil per year – that it hobbles the economy, as it’s doing now.

So you actually think that it’s intelligent to do that even more?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 10:26 PM

DOTUS looking for political cover?

Who knew?

PappyD61 on July 9, 2011 at 10:27 PM

O/T: Is little Bammie trying to outlaw cars for the middle class? The Obama Car

Now Obama’s decided to ban cars outright.

Not in so many words, perhaps, but his just-announced proposal that new cars be required by law to average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 will effectively do just that.

Not one car sold in the United States currently averages 56 MPG — not even on the highway. Not even hybrids like the Toyota Prius, the best of the lot — which maxes out at 51 on the highway and 48 in city driving.

slickwillie2001 on July 9, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Paging President Palin!!!!

Spending slash needed in aisle 4!!!

PappyD61 on July 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and most of the other great capitalists of our era want you to raise taxes on those earning over $1 mil per year, and give tax breaks to entrepreneurs. In his view, his low tax rate amounts to an outlandish protection of his wealth.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Have you seen their tax returns? Do they currently take any income (earnings) at all? Unless these guys are willing to disclose all of their financial data, whatever they say in public is just more BS. Yes they want you to raise income taxes on everyone but them.

Let’s say we just tax their wealth and leave income alone, what do you think their position would be?

whbates on July 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Still the TPers did not get rid of Pelosi.

IlikedAUH2O on July 9, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Have to disagree with you. EVERYONE who worked hard to get the message out helped bring down Pelosi. EVERY seat gained was a Win for (if not by) the TP’ers….not sure where your distaste for Americans who want their tax-burden reduced comes from.

And I believe in complete in complete equality of gays just as Goldwater did. But I’ll go to jail if I can’t make a remark.

IlikedAUH2O on July 9, 2011 at 10:24 PM

LMAO – Im sure “the gays” are fine with ya buddy.

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Accodring to the GOP and the Democrats and the media you are insane…

Republicans have an opportunity to force through deep spending buts, including entitlement cutbacks that were unthinkable just a few years ago. Boehner has Obama cornered and Pelosi neutered- yet he’s unable to capture this unique opportunity because wingnuts in his own party can’t view the world through the lens of reality. Conservatives do not represent a majority of the electorate, making some form of compromise inevitable. The massive budget deal pushed by Boehner delivers on many levels of the Republican agenda, yet its held hostage by the fantasy held by fanatics that conservatives can dictate every term of a major agreement. It will never happen.

All that Boehner has to accept a reversal of tax cuts that were never sustainable, according to every respected Republican economist on Wall Street, not to mention Alan Greenspan, independent CBO analysis, and even a Treasury study done during Bush’s presidency. It’s even more unfortunate when you realize that tax rates are frequently modified after the next election cycle, while structural changes to entitlement programs are very difficult to undo. In other words, Obama could be forced to entitlement cuts that will never be reversed, in return for tax increases that are far from permanent.

So yes, perhaps it’s not insanity, but a child-like naivete about the application of power in politics and business.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:32 PM

From the lady sitting just outside the room:

The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders.

“Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world.”

“Back in January 2009, as governor of Alaska, I announced: “We also have to be mindful about the effect of the stimulus package on the national debt and the future economic health of the country. We won’t achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing massive sums from foreign countries and remain dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.” Then I urged President Obama to veto the stimulus bill because it was loaded with absolutely useless pork and unfunded mandates. Everyone knows my early and vocal opposition to that mother of all unfunded mandates known as Obamacare starting back in August 2009, and many recall my objections to the Federal Reserves’ inflationary games with our currency known as QE2 from November 2010. It’s a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.”

“This debt ceiling debate is the perfect time to do what must be done. We must cut. Yes, I’m for a balanced budget amendment and for enforceable spending caps. But first and foremost we must cut spending, not “strike a deal” that allows politicians to raise more debt! See, Washington is addicted to OPM – Other People’s Money. And like any junkie, they will lie, steal, and cheat to fund their addiction. We must cut them off and cut government down to size.”

Read the rest here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435

SheetAnchor on July 9, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and most of the other great capitalists of our era want you to raise taxes on those earning over $1 mil per year, and give tax breaks to entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Too bad most of the time they are the same people – or would like to be.

How do you distinguish between them? Our wonderful geniuses in the feral government?

You do realize that when the looters Share in the Sacrifice of the Producers and achievers – those earning over $1 mil per year – that it hobbles the economy, as it’s doing now.

So you actually think that it’s intelligent to do that even more?

Hellooo bayam! Don’t you have any response?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Read the rest here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150235296718435

SheetAnchor on July 9, 2011 at 10:33 PM

or here:

To paraphrase Hemingway, people go broke slowly and then all at once. We’ve been slowly going broke for years, but now it’s happening all at once as the world’s capital markets are demanding action from us, yet Obama assumes we’ll just go borrow another cup of sugar from some increasingly impatient neighbor. We cannot knock on anyone’s door anymore. And we don’t have any time to wait for Washington to start behaving responsibly. We’ll be Greece before these D.C. politicians’ false promises are over. We must force government to live within its means, just as every business and household does.

We can’t close our $1.5 trillion deficit overnight, but we must get as close as we can as soon as we can. Little nibbles here and there over 10 years (spun to sound like they’re huge budget cuts) aren’t anywhere near enough. I know from experience that cutting government spending isn’t easy. As governor, I made the largest veto cuts in my state’s history, and I didn’t make many friends doing it. But we will never recover, we will never get free of devastating debt, unless we make tough choices now. We don’t hear talk like this from leaders in D.C. or from those running for office because they say what they think we want to hear rather than what must be said.

We are in desperate need of real leadership, but President Obama’s solution to everything is to grow government by borrowing more money, spending more money, printing more money, and taxing our job creators. He once said that he “believes in American Exceptionalism…just as the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism.” Well, the path he has us on will make us just as “exceptional” as Greece – debt crisis, stagnation, permanent high unemployment, and all.

As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.

But let me tell you where real hope lies. It’s not the hopey-changey stuff we heard about in 2008. Real hope comes from realizing how God has blessed our exceptional nation, and then doing something about it. We have been blessed with natural resources, hardworking entrepreneurs, and a Constitution that preserves the greatest form of government ever devised by man. If we develop those natural resources, allow our entrepreneurs to keep and invest more of what they earn, and adhere to the time-tested truths of our Constitution, we will prosper and endure.

But first and foremost we must tackle our debt. We don’t have the luxury of playing politics as usual. We need real leaders who will put aside their own political self-interest to do what is right for the nation. And if they don’t emerge… well, America has a do-over in November 2012.

- Sarah Palin

unseen on July 9, 2011 at 10:35 PM

After Scooter’s Press Conference yesterday about the Unemployment numbers, I thought he was going to become a stand-up comedian. I laughed until I cried.

kingsjester on July 9, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Yahoo news headline say Boehner is seeking a smaller 2 trillion dollar cut. Doesn’t sound too promising to me.

sandee on July 9, 2011 at 10:37 PM

No, Obama.
We can service our debt with the current tax revenue. We reject your calls for tax hikes on job creators. We reject your EPA’s draconian and punitive rules on job creating states. We reject your call for a European Socialist Model that is clearly on display by way of Greece. Americans elected Republicans in record numbers not seen in more than a generation.

We reject YOU, mister Obama. Your move.

Key West Reader on July 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM

There is no more that one can add to this. Except a big “Hell Yeah!”

TXUS on July 9, 2011 at 10:37 PM

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.

I agree with that 100%..Ask George H Bush about trusting the Democrats..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 10:39 PM

There is no more that one can add to this. Except a big “Hell Yeah!”

TXUS on July 9, 2011 at 10:37 PM

yeap

unseen on July 9, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Yahoo news headline say Boehner is seeking a smaller 2 trillion dollar cut. Doesn’t sound too promising to me.

sandee on July 9, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Bohner wants to accept the $4 tril cuts but extremists in his own party (who live in a fantasy world) are forcing him to scale back. Obama can’t accept deep entitlement cuts without getting something in return to save face.

This is an incredible opportunity- Bohner can cut entitlement spending before Dems have a chance to turn social security cuts into a huge political issue in the next election cycle. Those extremists who believe that it’s better to wait and see what happens as opposed to making concessions in order to achieve deep entitlement reform are making a huge mistake, esp. according to recent polls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/social-security-poll-benefits-cuts_n_885401.html

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Bohner wants to accept the $4 tril cuts but extremists in his own party (who live in a fantasy world) are forcing him to scale back. Obama can’t accept deep entitlement cuts without getting something in return to save face.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Nice post..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Bohner wants to accept the $4 tril cuts but extremists in his own party (who live in a fantasy world) are forcing him to scale back. Obama can’t accept deep entitlement cuts without getting something in return to save face.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Only good if the cuts kick in immediately and there are no tax increases… We shall see.

sandee on July 9, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Am I the only one here that would prefer a small deal? I would prefer immediate cuts over some phony baloney $2 or $4 trillion cut in the future that will never happen.

Cut $700ish billion now and from the 2012 budget and increase the ceiling by a similar amount.

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM

i lean toward a 1.5T clean increase in the debt ceiling. Step 2 is a very agressive campaign by all Rs to say 1. the Obamacrats want to tax your brains out…2 Spend 25% of GDP on their friends..and 3. Want to do this BEHIND Closed Doors.

This is a republic. This needs to be public legislation. We need to call Barry on his smoke-filled room strategy…his little secret deals that can’t be done in public…we don’t want the Chicago Way

And the ONLY way to save the nation is R Senate/House and Executive

r keller on July 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 10:54 PM

I would just add no tax increases also..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Attention Messers Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy!

If you cave on taxes and spending cuts, we will take your balls — or what is left of them — and send you back home.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Attention Messers Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy!

If you cave on taxes and spending cuts, we will take your balls — or what is left of them — and send you back home.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 10:56

Exactly my thoughts.

sandee on July 9, 2011 at 10:58 PM

btw, on the clean 1.5T bill? the Dims/Left/Barry would vote no…not enough..so you offload the blame again

r keller on July 9, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

That is going to leave a mark..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Only good if the cuts kick in immediately and there are no tax increases… We shall see.

sandee on July 9, 2011 at 10:51 PM

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.

Republicans who are short-sighted enough not to support these deep cuts in entitlement spending are taking a huge political risk and missing a unique opportunity. These cuts will be far, far harder to achieve after the next election:

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

I can imagine the Chinese and Germans laughingto no end as this incredible foolishness ensnares our political process.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM

I would just add no tax increases also..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Actually, I think it’d be cool if they agreed to tax increases, but the tax increases have to happen in the future and the cuts have to happen now :p

(I’m trying to do a reverse of what they’ve done in the past — tax hikes now, spending cuts later)

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Not sure why there is a link to a video of the Liar in Chief… Won’t be watching… By this point in his presentcy I’m immune to having hope that he’ll change.
-

RalphyBoy on July 9, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Attention Messers Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy!

If you cave on taxes and spending cuts, we will take your balls — or what is left of them — and send you back home.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Read those names again…out loud….then think balls and try not to laugh.

They have yet to rustle up a single testicle between the three of ‘em.

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:07 PM

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM

I see what you are saying..But I will respectfully say that there should be no tax increases on the front end of the deal..IMHO..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I’m ready for a cowboy — or cowgirl — to ride to the rescue. I am sick of unforced errors by so-called Republican leaders whose default position is the circular firing squad.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:11 PM

The trick in this deal is getting the Democrats to admit there is a spending problem and not a revenue problem..It is going to be tough but GOP is making progress even if it is slow..:)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and most of the other great capitalists of our era want you to raise taxes on those earning over $1 mil per year, and give tax breaks to entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Too bad most of the time they are the same people – or would like to be.

How do you distinguish between them? Our wonderful geniuses in the feral government?

You do realize that when the looters Share in the Sacrifice of the Producers and achievers – those earning over $1 mil per year – that it hobbles the economy, as it’s doing now.

So you actually think that it’s intelligent to do that even more?

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Apparently bayam doesn’t have a good answer so she’s ignoring the question.

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:13 PM

If you cave on taxes and spending cuts, we will take your balls — or what is left of them — and send you back home.

Don’t worry, there will be no tax increases and no massive spending cuts either. Republicans have a chance to push through major entitlement reform, enraging liberals across the country. But no, today’s brilliant Palin supporters realize that it’s better to let Democrats turn social security reform into a major political issue next election cycle. After all, the Republicans recently lost a congressional seat in a conservative district over this very issue- so it’s much better to do nothing. Liberals owe you their deep felt thanks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/25/democrat-wins-conservative-upstate-new-york-race

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 9, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:07 PM

The double entendre humor was my point (i.e., taking away their “balls” so they can’t play).

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Tim, I’m in SoCal, too. Costa Mesa, to be exact. Hello, neighbor!

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

I can see this falling apart. Its too easy. Like Santelli said: The answer is easy, spend less.

Mirimichi on July 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and most of the other great capitalists of our era want you to raise taxes on those earning over $1 mil per year, and give tax breaks to entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Too bad most of the time they are the same people – or would like to be.

How do you distinguish between them? Our wonderful geniuses in the feral government?

You do realize that when the looters Share in the Sacrifice of the Producers and achievers – those earning over $1 mil per year – that it hobbles the economy, as it’s doing now.

So you actually think that it’s intelligent to do that even more?

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Apparently bayam doesn’t have a good answer so she’s ignoring the question.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Late to the party? Anyone see the Palin bombing of Obama?

That’s why I could vote for her :D

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Tim, I’m in SoCal, too. Costa Mesa, to be exact. Hello, neighbor!

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Hi! I used to live in Irvine, now I’m in the Riverside area.

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Late to the party? Anyone see the Palin bombing of Obama?

That’s why I could vote for her :D

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Has the Pentagon released the footage yet?

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Still waiting bayam, cat got your – key board?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Has the Pentagon released the footage yet?

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Darth Cheney is trying to pull some strings as we speak. On the other hand, Eric Holder is trying to bring Palin to the Hague for war crimes.

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:23 PM

You do realize that when the looters Share in the Sacrifice of the Producers and achievers – those earning over $1 mil per year – that it hobbles the economy, as it’s doing now.

Chip, I have many friends who work on Wall Street and earn 7 figure bonuses on top of their annual salaries. I’m sure that most would be flattered by your generous descriptions of their non-existent plans to create jobs. As for the most successful entrepreneurs in places like silicon valley, they create so much wealth that increasing their tax rates by a few percentage points isn’t a concern. It’s the people who inherit wealth, not entrepreneurs who create it, that are worried about small tax rate changes.

I don’t like raising taxes- but I’d rather increase taxes than see our budget woes continue to no end. You may be correct from an ideological standpoint, but when Alan Greenspan, Alan Simpson, the CBO, and even a Republican Treasury department study concludes that our last round of tax cuts were never sustainable, then I tend to listen.

And I’ll take a few tax increases any day in exchange for deep entitlement spending reform. Such a deal, brokered and supported by Obama, would prevent Democrats from turning entitlement reform into a major political issue during the next election. Aftrer all, if Obama supported entitlement cuts, Democrats would have trouble politicizing the issue.

Based on the Hochul election victory, such a liberal strategy could be very successful. So why you may not realize it, I think your failure to support Boehner’s strategy is ultimately going to result in a huge victory for liberals. This deal has liberals mad as hell… yet conservatives can’t accept it? Are you kidding me?

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 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

“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?”

Before that tax deal, Bush 41 had a sky-high 91% approval rating. After making the deal, the economy went south — because tax hikes were exactly what the economy didn’t need — and Democrats started mocking Bush for breaking his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, even though they were the ones who repeatedly shut down government to pressure him to break the pledge.

You can talk piously about “both sides being just as bad,” and it’s true that neither side is completely innocent. But let’s not lose sight of the simple fact that in this case, it is absolutely the Democrats who spent like drunken sailors and never even passed a budget, and it’s Democrats who, in the current economic crisis, aren’t willing to cut a dime of spending unless they can raise taxes some more.

It’s not being partisan to blame the Democrats. It’s just the simple truth.

didymus on July 9, 2011 at 11:27 PM

It’s the people who inherit wealth, not entrepreneurs who create it, that are worried about small tax rate changes.

First, it’s their wealth, not our wealth.

Secondly, you are wrong. It’s highly conceivable that many small (family) business owners actually do inherit wealth.

I don’t like raising taxes- but I’d rather increase taxes than see our budget woes continue to no end.

But that isn’t what we’re faced with. We could cut spending significantly without taxing an American a penny more and start trimming down our budget woes.

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Sorry, but more taxes for imaginary entitlement reforms doesn’t mean much to me. The Democrats will undo every entitlement reform and the R’s will have broken their only pledge to America. No deal.

txhsmom on July 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
W. C. Fields

How did I know that with all that BS you weren’t going to answer the question –try again.

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM

“We have tried spending money . . . it does not work . . . we have just as much unemployment and an enormous debt to boot.”

–Treasury Secretary Morgenthau before Congress, 1939

andy85719 on July 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Is little Bammie trying to outlaw cars for the middle class? The Obama Car

Now Obama’s decided to ban cars outright.

Not in so many words, perhaps, but his just-announced proposal that new cars be required by law to average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 will effectively do just that.

Not one car sold in the United States currently averages 56 MPG — not even on the highway. Not even hybrids like the Toyota Prius, the best of the lot — which maxes out at 51 on the highway and 48 in city driving.

slickwillie2001 on July 9, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Step number one to Obama’s high speed rail..

TN Mom on July 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM

It’s not being partisan to blame the Democrats. It’s just the simple truth.

In the real world, major deals require concessions from each side. Conservatives lack a political majority and the power to force Obama to make all the concessions. See my earlier posts. You’re helping the liberals.
And before you start feeling like a victim, keep in mind that it was Bush with a Republican House and Senate that increased fed spending by almost 40% during his first 6 years.

After making the deal, the economy went south — because tax hikes were exactly what the economy didn’t need

There’s absolutely no evidence to support this claim from economists. Only a few years later, Clinton passed much larger tax increases and the economy thrived.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:34 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
W. C. Fields

How did I know that with all that BS you weren’t going to answer the question –try again:.

Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and most of the other great capitalists of our era want you to raise taxes on those earning over $1 mil per year, and give tax breaks to entrepreneurs.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Too bad most of the time they are the same people – or would like to be.

How do you distinguish between them? Our wonderful geniuses in the feral government?

You do realize that when the looters Share in the Sacrifice of the Producers and achievers – those earning over $1 mil per year – that it hobbles the economy, as it’s doing now.

So you actually think that it’s intelligent to do that even more?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:35 PM

You know when the Roosevelt administration started Social Security & all of their social programs but mostly their vast increase in the government they faced the same problems & they decided to kick the can down the road.

It’s time to kick the can back, roll back the government to pre 1930′s in size & scope.

The problem is on both sides of the aisle because neither is willing to give up their power. They work in their own best interests to get reelected, not for the best of the country.

batterup on July 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Tim, I’m in SoCal, too. Costa Mesa, to be exact. Hello, neighbor!

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Hi! I used to live in Irvine, now I’m in the Riverside area.

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Hey y’all….!!! South Bay here!

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Sorry, but more taxes for imaginary entitlement reforms doesn’t mean much to me.

Some day you’ll have to grow up and accept the fact that you can’t impose your will on the world. Big boys and girls negotiate to achieve great results. We’ll see how many Congressional elections are lost by Republicans over this issue next election because extremists like you failed to support Boehner. The Hochul election should have sent a very clear signal but you don’t seem to understand what’s at stake.

A deal that liberals hate yet conservatives can’t support because it’s not “perfect”. Brilliant.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Hi! I used to live in Irvine, now I’m in the Riverside area.

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Howdy to my other neighbor! Were you part of the great Inland Empire migration of the past few years? Stay cool in the summer heat.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Yes, Alan Greenspan, Alan Simpson, Paul O’Neill and countless Republican economists and Wall Street experts are all morons.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

If they want to raise taxes in a recession, then yes, they are morons.

In this case, they’re just morons who should know better, rationalizing the politically popular answer.

didymus on July 9, 2011 at 11:40 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:39 PM

extremists!!!!!! woooooooooooooo

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:37 PM

I hope you’re getting a good coastal breeze. Wasn’t this week’s humidity crazy?

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:42 PM

…Only a few years later, Clinton passed much larger tax increases and the economy thrived.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:34 PM

That’s because Al Gore invented the internets …Clinton just got to sit there & watch it all happen.

andy85719 on July 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM

People don’t know history & therefore don’t understand it. It all sure does seem like the 1930′s all over again doesn’t it?

batterup on July 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Some day you’ll have to grow up and accept the fact that you can’t impose your will on the world.

Instead, impose taxes on anyone that can spare some money!

Big boys and girls negotiate to achieve great results. We’ll see how many Congressional elections are lost by Republicans over this issue next election because extremists like you failed to support Boehner.

When was the last time the big boys and girls in Congress came together to achieve great results?

The Hochul election should have sent a very clear signal but you don’t seem to understand what’s at stake.

Au contraire.

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Howdy to my other neighbor! Were you part of the great Inland Empire migration of the past few years? Stay cool in the summer heat.

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Grew up out here in the heat. Moved to Irvine for undergrad and back home after.

El_Terrible on July 9, 2011 at 11:44 PM

I hope you’re getting a good coastal breeze. Wasn’t this week’s humidity crazy?

Terrie on July 9, 2011 at 11:42 PM

LMAO…just got back from 12 days in Northern Michigan where the Humidity was so high you could cut the air with a knife…the last couple of days have been great in comparison.

Love it up there but just about the time you get used to the stickiness…it’s time to come home.

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:46 PM

bayam spends a lot of time babbling on while ignoring a simple question.

Why is that bayam?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:47 PM

bayam spends a lot of time babbling on while ignoring a simple question.

Why is that bayam?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:47 PM

It’s easier to argue while coppy-and-pasting from David Brooks stuff?

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM

People don’t know history & therefore don’t understand it. It all sure does seem like the 1930′s all over again doesn’t it?

batterup on July 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM

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

Bammy ain’t going to cave: he needs massive spending to continue his project of filling the federal bureaucracy with environmental whackos, faculty lounge Marxists, and America-haters. It will take years to get these parasites and vermin out of our government.

Dhuka on July 9, 2011 at 11:51 PM

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

Yes….and it’s worked so well.

Tim_CA on July 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM

bayam spends a lot of time babbling on while ignoring a simple question.

Why is that bayam?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:47 PM

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

I’m going to agree that your ideas are ideologically pure and you win. If you disagree with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet on upper income tax rates, you can read their past statements and mail either one for clarification.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/07/why-some-millionaires-want-their-tax-cuts-to-end.html

Or you can read this recent post by Jazz Shaw and ask him about tax rates- his contact info should be on Hotair:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/a-few-laughs-with-the-laffer-curve/

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM

bayam spends a lot of time babbling on while ignoring a simple question.

Why is that bayam?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:47 PM

It’s easier to argue while coppy-and-pasting from David Brooks stuff?

MeatHeadinCA on July 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM

I guess we’re supposed to be real impressed with what she says – the plain fact is that anyone here can say anything about who they are and who they supposedly are friend with etc. etc.

Knowing this, clearly it’s just more BS grist for the mill.

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Um, Japan did exactly what we are doing and that is what caused the lost decade. Cheap money, ballooning debt, and high taxes turned Japan into an economic wasteland.

andy85719 on July 9, 2011 at 11:58 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Try answering a simple question for once.

Or is it a case where you can’t?

Chip on July 9, 2011 at 11:59 PM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:50 PM

So those preeminent economists think growing the federal government, borrowing more money and kicking the problem down the road is a good idea?

The only group benefiting from this advise is the political class, and those “preeminent economists” seem to be a part of that group, bit of a conflict of interest.

batterup on July 10, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Bammy ain’t going to cave: he needs massive spending to continue his project of filling the federal bureaucracy with environmental whackos, faculty lounge Marxists, and America-haters. It will take years to get these parasites and vermin out of our government.

Dhuka on July 9, 2011 at 11:51 PM

You’re the one failing to support Boehner’s $4 tril in deep spending cuts, not me. You’re the one who thinks you’re smarter than Boehner politically and should let this amazing opportunity pass. There’s a reason that liberals HATE this deal. You’ll see that I’m right when the Hochul race is re-played across this country next year. You don’t know it yet but you’re playing into the hands of liberals.

Boehner has Obama in a corner and it’s a tragedy that his own party is preventing him from forcing major entitlement cuts.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:01 AM

batterup on July 10, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I think the translation y’all are missing is:

Preeminent Economists = Keynesian Liberal Tools of the Obama Administration.

Tim_CA on July 10, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Boehner is pretty brilliant. By leaking the Dem plan filled with $2 trillion in spending cuts and $1.3 trillion in tax hikes he established that $2 trillion could be cut without increasing taxes. Obama is boxed in. If he demands tax hikes, Republicans will turn around and show that the liberal plan includes $2 trillion in cuts and that Obama is just a vindictive socialist.

andy85719 on July 10, 2011 at 12:05 AM

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Entitlement reform would require leadership, like Ryan, but that hasn’t happened with this President. If it’s really on the table, let the President craft and release his version of entitlement reform and we’ll take it from there.

However, entitlement reform will not happen with Obama. It is simply a bad bluff.

El_Terrible on July 10, 2011 at 12:07 AM

It’s not being partisan to blame the Democrats. It’s just the simple truth.

In the real world, major deals require concessions from each side. Conservatives lack a political majority and the power to force Obama to make all the concessions. See my earlier posts. You’re helping the liberals.
And before you start feeling like a victim, keep in mind that it was Bush with a Republican House and Senate that increased fed spending by almost 40% during his first 6 years.

After making the deal, the economy went south — because tax hikes were exactly what the economy didn’t need

There’s absolutely no evidence to support this claim from economists. Only a few years later, Clinton passed much larger tax increases and the economy thrived.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I lived through it. I well remember Bush pledging “no new taxes.” The Democratic House shut down the government multiple times, and blamed Bush for refusing to break his pledge. Pundits in the media said Bush should break his pledge for the good of the country. Polls showed Bush was being blamed more for the shutdowns than the House. The media called on Bush to break his pledge for the good of the country — to make those concessions you keep trying to sell. Bush refused over and over again.

And then, he caved, even though he knew it would hurt him politically.

And those same people who urged him to put the country first hypocritically turned around and mocked him for the rest of his administration for breaking his pledge.

And when he raised taxes, the economy went south. Clinton ran against Bush and “the worst economy in 50 years.”

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.

If you raise the minimum wage, you raise unemployment — every time. In the exact same way, when you raise taxes in a recession, you do not stimulate the economy.

There were a lot of Republican economists — experts! — in Reagan’s day who said lowering taxes would never work. They were wrong, and he was right. The only reason Clinton was able to have a balanced budget was because Reagan fixed the economy, and the Soviet empire collapsing allowed us to spend less on defense. Of course, like a good Democrat, he took all the credit himself, even though the budget was balanced before Clinton’s first proposed budget even went into effect.

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:50 PM

So those preeminent economists think growing the federal government, borrowing more money and kicking the problem down the road is a good idea?

batterup on July 10, 2011 at 12:00 AM

That is the case According to bayam and since:

I have many friends who work on Wall Street and earn 7 figure bonuses on top of their annual salaries.

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:24 PM

That kind of ill-logic is perfectly logical to her apparently, but it doesn’t seem like she can even back this up very well.

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:09 AM

bayam on July 9, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Try answering a simple question for once.

Or is it a case where you can’t?

Chip on July 10, 2011 at 12:10 AM

Still the TPers did not get rid of Pelosi.

IlikedAUH2O on July 9, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Wrong , we knew her district would re-elect the witch. Fire Pelosi meant she was to be fired from the Speakers job. You are either a fool or trying to change the premiss. No one in the TP thought of Fire Pelosi in any other context.
Which is it troll? Fool,spinner or both?

IowaWoman on July 10, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Bohner wants to accept the $4 tril cuts but extremists in his own party (who live in a fantasy world) are forcing him to scale back

If I want to find the definition of “extreme” I’ll just look at the projected deficits this government is facing. And any elected official who tries to paper over those numbers with a lot of double-talk meets my definition of an “extremist”.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Boehner is pretty brilliant. By leaking the Dem plan filled with $2 trillion in spending cuts and $1.3 trillion in tax hikes he established that $2 trillion could be cut without increasing taxes

That’s not the deal at all. The deal is far better for Republicans- 83% spending cuts, 17% revenue increases that consist of closed tax loopholes, means tests for entitlements, and a few tax increases.

According to insiders, these are the terms the Repubicans were demanding from Obama 3 months ago. Now that Obama has been forced to cave in, enraging liberals in the process, Boehner is forced to back out because of complaints from his own party.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/what_a_normal_gop_might_do030667.php?page=all&print=true

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 12:13 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

Boehner has Obama in a corner and it’s a tragedy that his own party is preventing him from forcing major entitlement cuts.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:01 AM

What entitlement cuts? Give us the numbers. The Dems have not committed publically to any entitlement cuts. I suspect that if the details ever come out, we’ll find there are no cuts to entitlements, but lots of money “saved” by the promise of making the system “more efficient.”

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:16 AM

The Republicans should never have entered negotiations. They should have told the Dems to come up with a budget proposal first, after 800 days of nothing.

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:19 AM

The Fed has just recently debased our money with hundreds of billions of purchases of short and long term Treasury debt. And we are talking about a tax increase? All that inflationary debt-purchasing is a damned tax!

Obama, our Maoist Cheshire cat, sits on this post-2008 massive increase of spending and this level is taken as the given? No, Johnny, you cut that damn thing now and you cut it deep, you hear?

AshleyTKing on July 10, 2011 at 12:20 AM

What entitlement cuts? Give us the numbers. The Dems have not committed publically to any entitlement cuts. I suspect that if the details ever come out, we’ll find there are no cuts to entitlements, but lots of money “saved” by the promise of making the system “more efficient.”

PackerBronco on July 10, 2011 at 12:16 AM

+1000

Let us read the bill. I’m not accepting a deal simply because a salesman tells me its the deal of a lifetime.

El_Terrible on July 10, 2011 at 12:20 AM

How about a simple rule? The party that couldn’t even pass any budget when they had majorities in both houses of Congress and a president from their own party should quit objecting to the “grown-ups” who are actually trying to fix the problem.

Even now, during these supposed negotiations, the Democrats have no budget on the table. So how are they “grown-ups?”

didymus on July 10, 2011 at 12:20 AM

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

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.

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

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

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.

I understand where you’re coming form but I’m don’t agree that it’s an identical situation. You don’t recognize how bad things will go for conservatives if you give liberals the chance to run on entitlement reform as the main issue in 2012. Conservatives lost to Hochul this year in a Republican district over social security. It’s a warning sign.

bayam on July 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3