Axelrod: Talk of mandate foolish except when it comes to tax hikes, or something

posted at 1:51 pm on November 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’m old enough to remember when David Axelrod dismissed claims of mandates from close presidential elections as “foolish” and “generally untrue.”  Oh, wait — that was just last week.  In fact, Axelrod specifically rejected the idea at that time that Barack Obama had won a mandate for raising taxes.  He argued instead that the results were a message that voters wanted “cooperation,” while noting that Obama ran on the push for a Buffett-rule hike.

Yesterday, Axelrod changed his tune:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wQwbmOyYYs

“On this particular issue, it wasn’t close,” Axlerod said, citing exit polling that show about 60 percent of voters agreed with Obama’s position on taxes.

“It is obvious that we can’t resolve the nation’s problems simply by cutting [spending],” Axelrod said. “Where is that revenue gonna come from? President Obama believes it is more equable for it to come from the wealthiest Americans, and most Americans agree with that.”

Ahem.  Just how much revenue would Obama’s tax hike produce a year, anyway?  The most optimistic estimates, based on static tax analysis, is $50 billion a year.  In a trillion-dollar deficit, Obama’s tax hike leaves 95% of the problem unsolved.  That doesn’t mean that new revenue can’t or won’t be part of a compromise, but the problem isn’t revenue, and it won’t be solved without massive spending cuts or confiscatory tax rates on a scale not seen in decades in this country.

Axelrod was closer to the mark when he first claimed that the vote retaining the status quo in Washington was intended to get the two parties to work on a compromise solution.  In that vein, John Boehner took steps this weekend to rein in his caucus — and seems to have succeeded, thanks to the dispiriting results from last Tuesday:

On a conference call with House Republicans a day after the party’s electoral battering last week, Speaker John A. Boehner dished out some bitter medicine, and for the first time in the 112th Congress, most members took their dose.

Their party lost, badly, Mr. Boehner said, and while Republicans would still control the House and would continue to staunchly oppose tax rate increases as Congress grapples with the impending fiscal battle, they had to avoid the nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years.

Members on the call, subdued and dark, murmured words of support — even a few who had been a thorn in the speaker’s side for much of this Congress.

It was a striking contrast to a similar call last year, when Mr. Boehner tried to persuade members to compromise with Democrats on a deal to extend a temporary cut in payroll taxes, only to have them loudly revolt.

Boehner has to come up with some way to avoid the fiscal cliff in the next seven weeks, and that will require painful compromise from both parties.  We’ll see if Boehner succeeds in holding the caucus together, or whether his steps will produce a floor fight for his gavel.

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

Yep his own caucus is the only think weeping bone-r can get tough on…

Valkyriepundit on November 12, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Four more years of Axelgrease… somehow I don’t think he’s going anywhere. What else would he do?

Marcola on November 12, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Anti-American businesses announcing layoffs post election in “revenge” against Obama.

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/09/despicable-libs-claim-layoff-bomb-is-revenge-by-un-american-business-owners/

You can’t make this up.

Axelrod and the Dem plans to break it and then remake it is on schedule.

Congrats gop leadership……….YOU SUCK

PappyD61 on November 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM

He really, really wants to make sure that the “class warfare” goal of “get the rich” is stuffed down everyone’s craw.

Raising taxes on “the wealthy” isn’t going to have an economic save effect, if anything, it’ll further harm our economy, but the Left, Axelrod, Obama, etc., they NEED to make this happen because it’s a symbol to them of taking and getting what they “feel” “should be”…EVEN AT THE COST OF FURTHER HARMING THE NATION’S ECONOMY.

Axelrod’s mad. I write that seriously, he is truly a madman. As is Obama. They gotta’ have this “raise taxes on the rich” thing because it’s a mark they need on their madmen posts.

Lourdes on November 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM

President Obama believes it is more equable for it to come from the wealthiest Americans..

Meaning he’ll be knocking on the door at the Kennedy compound asking for “donations” any day now, right?

pilamaye on November 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM

This is gonna be great….FOOD FIGHT! Could be a real fun 4 years. Let’s just go for it.

gracie on November 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM

“It is obvious that we can’t resolve the nation’s problems simply by cutting [spending],” Axelrod said.

Spend it, spend it all.

Let. It. Burn.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Raising taxes increases economic activity right leftists?

Raise taxes to 99%

Go for it. Go for the gold.

Don’t hold back.

Quit pussyfooting around.

tom daschle concerned on November 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

There is no mandate to raise taxes. In the Left’s fevered minds if 51% vote to rob the other 49% who vote against being robbed, a mandate exists to proceed with the robbery.

I’m sorry but if we’re going to discuss mandates and taxes I think we should exclude from voting those who either pay no income taxes or who receive public support support for being poor. Otherwise we’re in the situation of 5 wolves and sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

One American shouldn’t be allowed to vote to increase taxes on another American if he himself is not also impacted.

Charlemagne on November 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I’m at the point where I say, give them what they want! They won. Let them own it.

Boehner should say, “We surrender, we don’t think it will solve our problems, but we don’t have a mandate to oppose Bams any more.”

We can’t defeat them in the abstract, we need to let people decide if they want a Great Depression with food stamps or a free country without them.

PattyJ on November 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Give them anything they want. Vote present. Let them hang themselves with their own greed and lust for power.

darwin on November 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

President LightFoot has put the pedal to the metal..

Electrongod on November 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Let it burn.

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The Obama voters in income brackets below $250,00 are gonna be a little agitated when the real tax increase surprise comes. Guess they don’t know that’s where the real money is.

a capella on November 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Give them tax hikes on “the rich”. Get that off the table. I would even argue the GOP should pass a smaller “jobs bill” maybe for around 100-150 billion for hiring teachers and cops. Neither will do anything to help the private sector, but it takes away essentially the entire Democrat plan for the economy. If they can’t run in 2014 and 2016 on tax hikes and hiring more teachers, what else can they campaign on?

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I’m sorry but if we’re going to discuss mandates and taxes I think we should exclude from voting those who either pay no income taxes … .

Charlemagne on November 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Harry Reid called to say it’s OK if Mitt votes.

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Again, I say to all business owners, Make sure you Fire/Lay Off the Obama Voters first. These clowns voted for Govt. support, then let them live at the mercy of the Govt. they voted for. The Sandy victims are finding out it’s not quite as rosy a picture as they were led to believe. Let the rest of these clowns find out for themselves what it’s like to be a leach! Taxes raised equals, people out of work, then let it be the ones who voted for the madness!
Fight the Obama Enemy media or Kiss The Constitution Goodbye: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on November 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Axelturd: A Commie in Nazi Clothing.

FlaMurph on November 12, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I’m glad I didn’t watch yesterday’s talk show travesty. My TV is glad too.

22044 on November 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Boehner has to come up with some way to avoid the fiscal cliff in the next seven weeks

Really? Why?

L.I.B. 2013!

FireFly on November 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Boehner has to come up with some way to avoid the fiscal cliff in the next seven weeks

It’s called capitulation or surrender. Boehner doesn’t have the cajones to fight this fight. What he should be saying is “vote your conscience but stand out of the way. Vote abstain for any budget or debt ceiling bills”, let the Dems pass them and drive this country over the cliff. When the Dems can’t give away any more free stuff, their rule will end. I just don’t think the Republicans have the courage any longer.

TulsAmerican on November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

The only problem with that is what defines a taxpayer who is “rich”? It’s all relative, you see. A person making $20k thinks that someone making $120k is “rich” and someone who, in the mind of the lower wage earner, should pay their “fair share”. It’ll then creep down to just above the poverty line because in the minds of the remaining lower wages earners, everyone above them is “rich”. The only way to win the “who is rich” argument is not to play. Boehner should let all of the tax cuts expire thus giving Obama everything he wants which is, per him, a “balanced” approach. What’s more balanced than making everyone pay little more? Boehner could win this game if he had the stones but to date he’s shown himself to be more castrati than Machiavelli.

volnation on November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Again, if Boehner was smart he would cave on taxes for people making over 1 million dollars. That way he could force Obama’s hand.

If Obama refuses, then you give Republicans the momentum by saying this is not about the “rich” but getting as close to increasing taxes on everyone as possible. If Obama caves, you get the same rate for those under a million, and increase taxes on income over a million. However, it takes away the notion that Republicans want to protect the rich, and shows Republicans fought for small business and the middle class.

And there is support from Democrats for this idea. Claire McCaskill and Nancy Pelosi have both endorsed this idea in the past. So, if Obama does not go along with this, you make him look radical.

milcus on November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Anti-American businesses announcing layoffs post election in “revenge” against Obama.

http://twitchy.com/2012/11/09/despicable-libs-claim-layoff-bomb-is-revenge-by-un-american-business-owners/

You can’t make this up.
PappyD61 on November 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM

.
No, No, No,
This has NOTHING to do with Job loss. Job Loss is a WINNER for Democommies. They want the welfare state with as many unemployed-as the system can support.

No- what they are doing is trying to OFFSET Ocommie’s reference to VOTING FOR REVENGE. With an honest media- they would have been killed by POTUS encouraging revenge. This is ALL ABOUT putting the revenge meme on the business owners.

Say it early and often…. President Revenge.

FlaMurph on November 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Dems will not cave.. …all caving by gop and it will be called compromise

cmsinaz on November 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Why not Paul Ryan for Speaker?? He’d have to be better than Boner.

jubalearly on November 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Screw Axelrod!

We want more sex and spies posts!

Yeah baby!!!!

pilamaye on November 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

L.i.B.

Dion on November 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I’m disappointed he still has his mustache…

moo on November 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Character assassination worked pretty good. We were too timid to confront it June, July, August.

Starlink on November 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Yeah, but that’s because most of the character assassination of Romney was tied to his wealth and position on taxes. Assuming the Republicans don’t run someone worth 200 mil next time around(which is all but guaranteed based on the early contenders) and the tax hikes are no longer on the table if the House GOP caves on them, what will they base their smear attacks on? Nothing of substance, that’s for damn sure.

The only problem with that is what defines a taxpayer who is “rich”? It’s all relative, you see.

volnation on November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

It’s all relative, but I think Boehner should base it on Obama’s definition. People making 200 grand a year or more. If he gives Obama tax hikes on that income bracket and it’s still not enough, the Dems will be left with only two options in 2014 and beyond. Demand more tax hikes on the rich which contradicts their own message of needing them to pay “just a little bit more” or lower the bar to people making 100 grand which is when they start to lose much more of the middle class.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM

If taxes are increased at all this is how I see it happening. The Congressional Republicans will most likely pass a separate bill for each tax bracket and then send them to the Senate for consideration. All but the top bracket will be passed by the Senate and then Obama and the Dems get what they want and the Republicans can be on record for NOT voting to increase taxes of any kind. Of course, we’ll all be treated to all kinds of high pitched drama until the last minute – at which point they’ll pass all of this in one big flurry and both sides will fight to be first at the podium to declare victory. Pathetic I know but that’s what I see as the most likely scenario.

volnation on November 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I’m at the point where I say, give them what they want! They won. Let them own it.

Boehner should say, “We surrender, we don’t think it will solve our problems, but we don’t have a mandate to oppose Bams any more.”

We can’t defeat them in the abstract, we need to let people decide if they want a Great Depression with food stamps or a free country without them.

PattyJ on November 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Agreed. The House Republicans should decide as a group to just vote “present” on everything that comes up and let the Democrats own everything.

dominigan on November 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Spend it, spend it all.

Let. It. Burn.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM

It was already spent during the last 4 years, but I agree, let it burn.

A reboot cannot happen till after the complete collapse.

Robert Jensen on November 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

“It is obvious that we can’t resolve the nation’s problems simply by cutting [spending],” Axelrod said.

Aw come on Davey. Give it a try cause it’s never been tried before. You might be surprised.

DaveDief on November 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I’m at the point where I say, give them what they want! They won. Let them own it.

Boehner should say, “We surrender, we don’t think it will solve our problems, but we don’t have a mandate to oppose Bams any more.”

We can’t defeat them in the abstract, we need to let people decide if they want a Great Depression with food stamps or a free country without them.

the only problem with that is when their plans fail the republicans will get all the blame anyway. Though at this point I say no grand bargains. let the sequester happen and the bush tax cuts expire. Obama is incapable of cutting any deals because in his mind a negotiation is him getting what he wants and the other side liking it. If the lame duck goes poorly I’d expect Cantor to finally stick the knife in Boehner’s back in the coming congress.

bannor on November 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Boehner’s tendency to fold like a lawn chair in Hurricane Sandy does not bode well for the future.

It is one thing to compromise for the sake of our country. It is another completely different thing to compromise for the sake of compromise, politics and in the process abandoning basic principles.

I believe that compromise is a lost yet necessary art these days.

But what has been lost by a person like Boehner is the longer impact of those compromises.

The gains we have made are illusory and ephemeral. The Democrats gains have obviously been much more substantial and slowly accomplished over time.

The problem with a person like Boehner is his thinking and approach.

Marcus Traianus on November 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Bannor, yeah, they will get blamed, but how?

The GOP should give many speeches as soon they give in to the effect that this is a surrender to the Dems’ wishes. Sequester, I believe, will be entirely blamed on the “party or no” bit.

PattyJ on November 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

What do these liberal morons think rich people do with their money? Do they think that they stuff it in a mattress or bury it in coffee cans in the backyard? No, they invest it or place it in accounts where that money is then re-invested in other businesses.

Only an idiot would think that this money being now seized by the government is a good thing…and yes, I know we’re all already painfully that it’s true.

nextgen_repub on November 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Take everything from everyone making over $250k. It will pay for 16 weeks of govt spending. The elephant in the room is spending.

txhsmom on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

We can’t defeat them in the abstract, we need to let people decide if they want a Great Depression with food stamps or a free country without them.

PattyJ on November 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Feds to cut food stamps for poor in Ohio

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

L.i.B

nitzsche on November 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Boehner has to come up with some way to avoid the fiscal cliff in the next seven weeks, and that will require painful compromise from both parties. We’ll see if Boehner succeeds in holding the caucus together, or whether his steps will produce a floor fight for his gavel.

Democrats don’t compromise. How many times do people have to be punched in the face before they realize this?

Whats the history of “compromise” for the Republicans?

Joseph Russo III on November 12, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Spend it, spend it all.

Let. It. Burn.

JPeterman on November 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I heard Nanzi Pelosi on the news this morning, beating to death (once again) that tired Democrap talking point about the Republicans holding the middle class “hostage” so the rich can get huge tax cuts.

She is beyond slimy. May she rot in hell.

UltimateBob on November 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Feds to cut food stamps for poor in Ohio

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I just saw that on Drudge. Another post-election surprise from the Obama Administration. I anticipate a lot of those. This is why I’m begging the GOP to not cave on things like amnesty. Give Obama a little bit on taxes and spending, but that’s it. Once the debt gets so out-of-control that even the Dems can’t send anymore goodies out to their constituents, their political support will start to crater.

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

“It is obvious that we can’t resolve the nation’s problems simply by cutting [spending],” Axelrod said.
Aw come on Davey. Give it a try cause it’s never been tried before. You might be surprised.

DaveDief on November 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

how exactly does raising taxes on one segment of the population solve the country’s problems?

Does it balance the budget? No
Does it reduce the debt in any significant way? No
Does it create jobs in the private sector? No

Joseph Russo III on November 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Boehner’s behavior is just another example of how the country has turned into a social democracy.

In the republican form of government the Congress acts as a check on the executive, period.

It doesn’t matter if the president wins the election by a landslide or squeaks out a win.

Joseph Russo III on November 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Feds to cut food stamps for poor in Ohio

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Sucks to be an Ohio voter about now, huh? I’d feel schadenfreude, but I’m drained.

totherightofthem on November 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

*sigh* Formatting fail.

totherightofthem on November 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM

If they can’t run in 2014 and 2016 on tax hikes and hiring more teachers, what else can they campaign on?

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Idiot. In post-2012 world, they don’t need to campaign. All it takes is one corrupt polling company, one corrupt vote-counting program, and a few corrupt cable channels to provide the cover.

Archivarix on November 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Take everything from everyone making over $250k. It will pay for 16 weeks of govt spending. The elephant in the room is spending.

txhsmom on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

And at the end of the 16 weeks PBHO will redefine RICH as anyone working for salary or wages.

That should be able to support the spending habit!

belad on November 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM

… and that will require painful compromise from both parties”.

Translation:

“Give us what we want now, and we’ll cut spending later. Trust us.”

Mimzey on November 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Why does the left screw us up? Because they can.

We empower our enemies. Why is the left so shallow and demeaning?

Because we let it work. Democrats don’t need principles because we’re going to shoot ourselves in the foot anyway.

Speakup on November 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

and that will require painful compromise from both parties.

They will use that as an example of what the repubs wanted to do to the po’ folk. That will be their compromise.

They are not done stirring up hate for any who question them.

Mimzey on November 12, 2012 at 3:05 PM

“It is obvious that we can’t resolve the nation’s problems simply by cutting [spending],” Axelrod said.
Aw come on Davey. Give it a try cause it’s never been tried before. You might be surprised.

DaveDief on November 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Actually, it has. See the recovery from the 1920-21 Depression and the Roaring 20s.

The Forgotten Depression of the 20th Century

Resist We Much on November 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM

wrong quote. Should have been this:

Feds to cut food stamps for poor in Ohio

Flora Duh on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Mimzey on November 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Go ahead, raise taxes on the “rich”, which will do absolutely nothing to reduce the debt or deficit. It wont even be enough to make a dent on the interest payments. This failure will then form the pretext to raise all tax rates on everyone. Then we get a VAT and the seizure of private retirement accounts with the false promise of some new half-baked scheme, along with all sorts of hidden taxes on businesses that individuals will ultimately pay for.

Since there’s clearly no political will to address our insane spending in any serious way, our economy will continue to stagnate and corrode until it ultimately collapses under the weight of government. We can’t ignore the laws of economics and mathematics any more than we can ignore the laws of gravity without getting disastrous results. The past and present is littered with examples of societies that have tried, and they’ve failed every time. We wont be any different.

RadClown on November 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The GOP needs a tougher (not just in saying no to Obama, but in turning the Left’s arguements on themselves) leader who is willing to get in the dirt like the Left.

An example is Obama is proposing to raise taxes on those over $250K and extend the Bush rates for another year.

Tater Salad on November 12, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Yeah, but that’s because most of the character assassination of Romney was tied to his wealth and position on taxes. Assuming the Republicans don’t run someone worth 200 mil next time around…

Doughboy on November 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM

… it won’t matter. It’s only one angle, and they have several that they tend to mix and match with results that are no less frequently employed for their tired status:

In the national media narrative – perhaps best illustrated by the shorthand of Jay Leno’s monologue, which presumes that the audience has the barest-bone familiarity with national figures – every Republican figure is reduced to one of three things: Old, stupid, or evil.

George H.W. Bush: Old. Dan Quayle: Stupid. Newt Gingrich: Evil. Pat Buchanan: Evil. Bob Dole: Old. George W. Bush: Stupid. Dick Cheney: Old and evil. John McCain: Old. Sarah Palin: Stupid.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/313803/very-predictable-playbook-against-paul-ryan

The Schaef on November 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Actually, it has. See the recovery from the 1920-21 Depression and the Roaring 20s.

The Forgotten Depression of the 20th Century

Resist We Much on November 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Many thanks! I guess it’s not something the libs want to talk about.

DaveDief on November 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Axelrod is the personification of sleaze. I can’t stand to hear him talk. It is even worse than hearing Obama talk. And, that is saying a lot.

SC.Charlie on November 12, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I watched Face the Nation this Sunday with Axelrod as guest and having to watch the smile on David Gregory’s face during the entire program. He was so pleased that Obama had won, it made me nearly ill.

SC.Charlie on November 12, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Burn, Baby, Burn

davidk on November 12, 2012 at 3:27 PM

That doesn’t mean that new revenue can’t or won’t be part of a compromise, but the problem isn’t revenue, and it won’t be solved without massive spending cuts or confiscatory tax rates on a scale not seen in decades in this country.

Ahem. Et tu, HotAir? “New Revenue” is newspeak for “tax increase,” no? Or are we talking about selling off federal lands…? :).

I thought our principled stand against raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” was due to our ironclad belief that increased taxes lowers economic activity, lowering tax receipts… Did we move on from that?

Do we now accept that raising rates will increase revenue in to the treasury? Because if that’s the case then you’ve been talking out your… rear end …. for years

Timin203 on November 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Bring it…!

The Fiscal Cliff And The Keyser Soze Option

Seven Percent Solution on November 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Timin – of course not, but elections do have consequences – and lets go ahead and do it – offer an increase on the Millionaires, but raise it 30% – not 20%. Allow the increases on cap gains and interest – let it all go through. Now it won’t be enough, in fact cap gains will reduce revenue, and it won’t even raise the 50B they hope. And then tie it to real spending cuts and sale of federal lands.

That is the opening salvo.

Zomcon JEM on November 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Just stand back and let the libs do whatever they want. Make them own it all. Obama is going to be the Democrats’ Bush by midterms.

LukeinNE on November 12, 2012 at 4:05 PM

PappyD61 on November 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I wonder if it would have changed things if those companies held press conferences announcing that the size and scope of those layoffs would be determined by who won the election, Romney = smaller and shorter, etc.

Odysseus on November 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Many thanks! I guess it’s not something the libs want to talk about.

DaveDief on November 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

You’re welcome. Libs have tried to erase it from history. It proves that FDR wasn’t a god and Keynesianism isn’t manna from heaven. Here are two more things that you may not know:

1. Hoover was a Progressive. Big Time.

If You Want Obamavilles, Repeat What Hoover Did

“The ideas embodied in the New Deal Legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Herbert Hoover’s aegis. We all of us owed much to Hoover.”

– Rexford Tugwell, economic adviser to and member of FDR’s Brain Trust, 1946

2. In addition to FDR’s own Treasury Secretary admitting to the failure of FDR’s “Keynesianism” (Keynes actually disagreed with a lot of FDR’s “Keynesianism”), the New York Times threw in the towel and endorsed Wendell Wilkie for President in 1940.

You’ll never hear any of this from Progs.

Resist We Much on November 12, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Flora, LOL!

And now it begins. And they’re looking to cut subsidies to the middle class for Obamacare too. Reality bites!

PattyJ on November 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Shouldn’t the Republicans, who actually increased their hold on the House (where all revenue bills are required to originate) be claiming a mandate to cut taxes?

PersonFromPorlock on November 12, 2012 at 5:07 PM

It’s not Obowma that’s the problem, it’s the MEDIA. They regulate ALL NEWS and until we defeat their grasp and control of the message, hey continue to win these elections.

dthorny on November 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Axlerod said, citing exit polling that show about 60 percent of voters agreed with Obama’s position on taxes.

Really David? Then why didn’t The Chosen One get 60% of the vote?

GarandFan on November 12, 2012 at 5:47 PM

“Their party lost, badly, Mr. Boehner said…”
Exactly the Beltway Republican Party lost badly.
It would seem to me that the house is more representative of the people’s sentiment than either the senate or the presidency, as they are reelected every two years and are impacted more readily by public mood. The fact that we retained a large majority of the House tells me the people aren’t quite ready to cave in.
I didn’t vote for my representative so that he could role over and give in the progressive demands for higher taxes. Nor for them to raises taxes which are called ‘revenues’.
Washington has shown us that if you give them more of our money they will spend it. They won’t pay down debt. They won’t reign in spending. The only way that will happen is to starve them.
This will not end well.

RAN58 on November 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Obama: “I won.”
Reid: “I do what I want.”
Pelosi: “eff you.”

McConell: “We’re willing to help the president succeed beyond his wildest dreams.”
Boehner, to his caucus: “Get in line gdammit.” To Obama: “How far and how high?”

arnold ziffel on November 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Boehner has to come up with some way to avoid the fiscal cliff in the next seven weeks, and that will require painful compromise from both parties.

In other words, the Republicans have to capitulate to the democrat demands. Yeah, we know what “compromise” means.

Time for a real Tea Party. The Republican elite is no different than the democrats.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The time for trying to persuade them has passed. The time for defeating them was missed. Now is the time for stopping them. By any means necessary. If Boner doesn’t have the b***s to do it, it’s time for the Party to toss him aside like one of Sandra Fluke’s used condoms.

fitzfong on November 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM

One of my biggest regrets from the election – the fact that we are probably going to have to put up with superdouche Axelrod for the rest of time.

Red Cloud on November 13, 2012 at 7:38 AM