Report: Some Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

posted at 6:03 pm on November 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

Everyone was chummy and hopeful about a deal at the White House today, but if you’re surprised to hear that some Democrats are intent on driving a very hard bargain, you must have missed the polling data last night. They promised their base a tax hike on the rich and they can make it happen by doing nothing, with voters primed to blame the GOP for the economic fallout. Under those circumstances, why not go cliff-diving?

[The Gang of Six] reconvened on Tuesday, but the election results presented a new set of problems. Republican officials familiar with the talks say Democrats dug in on demands for tax revenue that Republicans are not willing to meet. Democratic aides say Republicans who had spoken abstractly about the need for more revenues are balking at the specifics.

“Things change. It’s not just a matter of the numbers changing, and they do,” Mr. Durbin said of shifting deficit projections, revenue forecasts and spending totals. “It’s also a matter of the political environment, and the landscape changing.”

Democrats freely admit they have shifted their stance from the defensive crouch of the summer of 2011, when they signed on to a budget deal that cut $1 trillion in spending with no tax increases, to now, when they believe the voters have given them a mandate to raise taxes on the affluent…

Both sides insist they want a deal before January, but a rising chorus of voices, especially Democrats, say they would rather go over the cliff than accept a deal that raised too few taxes while extracting too many cuts, especially to Medicare and Medicaid.

That’s the state of entitlement reform in America 2012, two years after a Republican landslide and a VP nomination for Paul Ryan. Here’s the question: How many Republicans would also prefer to go over the fiscal cliff (briefly), not because it’ll help them get what they want but because it’ll arguably make things politically easier for them to let Democrats get what they want? What I mean is, if Republicans make a deal now to raise taxes on the rich in exchange for deep spending cuts — even if they insist on limiting the rate hikes to millionaires only — they’ll be hammered by the conservative base for selling out. But if they go over the cliff and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, then agree with Obama to extend the old, lower rates for the middle class only, they can claim that (a) they didn’t blink under the pressure of the deadline bearing down on them and (b) technically speaking, they’re not responsible for the new, higher tax rates on the rich. In this post-cliff scenario, the new tax hike on the wealthy happens automatically, without any Republicans voting for it; the only vote Republicans would take would be to lower taxes, albeit only on the middle class. In practice, you’re getting the same outcome as you would if they made a deal now to reinstate the Clinton-era rates for high earners (plus, er, the initial fiscal shockwave from going over the cliff and the chaos afterward in trying to apply the lower middle-class rates retroactively), but in theory it’d be easier to sell politically because the House GOP would have avoided casting any votes affirmatively for new taxes.

Is that sort of posturing valuable enough to them to warrant going over the cliff, or is it just too risky given the likelihood of a new cliff-driven recession and the blame Republicans might get when it happens?

Oh, in case you’re wondering, here’s Boehner’s plan to make sure the government remains disciplined in tightening its belt if a deal is reached:

According to a Boehner aide, the speaker suggested that the leaders agree on long-term revenue targets for tax reform and spending targets for entitlement reform, as well as enforcement mechanisms that would kick in if Congress fails to act on either next year.

Sounds like part of the solution to the bind that the sequester’s left them in is … another sequester.


Related Posts:

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

Report: Many Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

No shit… It is and has been their plan for decades. Ever hear of the Cloward-Pivens Strategy?

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Bring it, bam!

crash72 on November 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Give me liberty or give me death.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

They have nothing to lose by demanding a balanced approach – the GOP will cave.

HondaV65 on November 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM

No shit… It is and has been their plan for decades.

SWalker on November 16, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Indeed it has, and we have been too damned naive to recognize it, or too spineless to confront it.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Report: Many Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

We’ just went over the Twinkie Cliff.

The Donks can own this too.

Bruno Strozek on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Report: Some Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

POSTED AT 6:03 PM ON NOVEMBER 16, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

You are correct AP. Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Viva el fuego!

Curtiss on November 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

ashes.. ashes.. all fall down.

rayra on November 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I wanted to link to this post on Facebook, but Facebook’s link-maker can’t find an image, title, or summary from which to make an attractive post. Please remember to include those when you make a post, so a Facebook link will look good.

Marsili.us on November 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Shouldn’t Boehner and Obama be holding hands in that picture?

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Everyone will blame the republicans either way. NOTHING is ever a democrats fault, NOTHING!

mrscullen on November 16, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I say every Republican should vote Present and let them have anything they want besides War.

Judging from the current State of Affairs, that might just happen, but….

Let em own it. I hope I express for many – that I’m ready to watch it burn. Until you demolish the entitlement mentality and the desire of many to “manage the poor”, we’ll never get our Republic back.

Let them dig the hole all by themselves.

seesalrun2 on November 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

$1.6 trillion?

Testicle free Communist Democrats, get some stones and go for $10 Trillion!!!!

Hells Bells….make it $20 Trillion!!

The media will blame the gop….NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

PappyD61 on November 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Own it, moonbats. Crash and burn.

Philly on November 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Do what you think you think is best…If that isn’t good enough then move on. Don’t change your values for political expediency.

tomas on November 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I was, at one time, hopeful.
Let.it.burn.

No one ever talks about the ‘baked-in’ baseline budgeting for ever more.

Again, where does all that money go?

mickytx on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

It’s a branding issue.

Look, the GOP is, more or less, the party of lower taxes. It’s what we’ve ostensibly staked our identity on.

Raising taxes is not lowering taxes.

Moreover, the second any tax-raising bill passes with GOP votes, the DCCC will have ads on the air blasting GOP incumbents for raising taxes.

Yes — the Democrats — will base their entire 2014 campaign on the GOP raising taxes. Wouldn’t that be hypocritical? Of course, it would. Does that matter? No, because this is politics and about who gets control of the House.

Boehner knows that the greatest threat to his Speakership is handing the Democrats the tax increase bludgeon.

Robert_Paulson on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Everyone will blame the republicans either way. NOTHING is ever a democrats fault, NOTHING!

mrscullen on November 16, 2012 at 6:11 PM

What infuriates me is the repubs let it happen every blankin time. No going to the public, media, etc. to make their cases. No calling out suspects by name, nothing. Spineless, worthless pieces of crap.

arnold ziffel on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Report: Some Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

Where do I sign up to help them push?

Let. It. Burn.

JPeterman on November 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

To complete my thought, basically, I’d rather go over the cliff, and then vote to lower middle class taxes, than vote to raise taxes a priori on millionaires.

Robert_Paulson on November 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Sure wish some states were successful in succeeding so I could move. Then they could go off the fiscal cliff all they want.

Mirimichi on November 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

We can say “shit” now?

That’s great, because the nation is turning to shit.

pseudonominus on November 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You are correct AP. Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

so popular he got what? six million less votes than last time?

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Count this conservative as one of those who’s ready to see us go over the fiscal cliff. It’s their mess…screw em!

cajunpatriot on November 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I never thought I would live to see the day when Mexico had a better credit rating than the United States of America…

Seven Percent Solution on November 16, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Limbaugh has been saying all week that no issue is ever resolved until it is resolved the way the dems want it. Sigh. He is right.

esr1951 on November 16, 2012 at 6:24 PM

i do wonder what portion of the R leaning people are of the let it burn coalition?

most of this stuff is propaganda from the left…the left/barry/media want the Rs to jump first.

notice that barry has just come up with some stupid idea that only appeals to stupid people (i.e. leftists and media and trolls) that we need to tax the rich…GO FOR IT guys.

i’m in…NAME YOUR PRICE (and this is where chucky schumer starts sweating…cause, his guys is RICH) Gellen just bought a 54M dollar condo from denise rich…that kinda RICH…those would be the chuck schumer clients

anyway…the most problematic tax increases would be the AMT and estate tax stuff. The rest is small potatoes

so let Barry jump first…go barry, go

and the Rs need to hammer barry every day….Every efing day until he jumps

r keller on November 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Mr. Boehner,
If you’re reading this, please give them enough rope and vote present. You’ve lost the media and 50% of the population.
Time to put what some call an administration and Eastwood calls “the biggest hoax…..)
Elections have consequences.
We lost.
Sincerely,
A Sore Loser

seesalrun2 on November 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

OK, if you want this go for it? Now our rating will be down again and IF no businesses hire, now how are you gonna fund this krap? Take note on twinkies going under by union thugs! Keep it up you slugs and you will see 1984 here sooner than later under bho! And I might add, Atlas Shruggsed will be here in the US!
L

letget on November 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Excellent article by Conrad Black…

Rendezvous With Disaster

M2RB: Molly Hatchet

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Comrades! All hold hands! We’re going cliff diving!

1 for the money, 2 for the show, 3 to get ready, and 4 to GO!

Mirimichi on November 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

If you’re reading this, please give them enough rope and vote present. You’ve lost the media and 50% of the population.
Time to put what some call an administration and Eastwood calls “the biggest hoax…..) accountable moving FORWARD
Elections have consequences.

seesalrun2 on November 16, 2012 at 6:28 PM

One thing that is killing us now is that Romney never successfully blew holes in Obama’s “balanced” approach. It was a whole lot of air. But it made for a nice sound bite.

All that needs to happen is the rich just need to pay a little bit more and the seas will recede, climate change will be solved, and peace will come to the world. Just a little bit more is all they have to pay…

What a crock.

STL_Vet on November 16, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Report: Some Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

Sounds good to me. Why be meanies?

kim roy on November 16, 2012 at 6:34 PM

since when was a balanced approach $1 in cuts for every $3 dollars in revenue (read: TAXES)? Why do we keep letting the Kenyan Wonderboy call it that?

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I will have to repeat myself. We are at war with the demonrat commies and the republican party is our army. Aren’t we lucky ? /s

johnny reb on November 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM

You are correct AP. Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

See HAL, what you maybe don’t get despite slumming here for w while, is that the R’s are going to get blamed no matter what happens.

There’s a whole lotta folks that figure there’s nothing to lose here.

You wanna own it, here, it’s yours.

Not. Playing. Any. More.

BTW – “The best tactic is one your people enjoy.”

Bruno Strozek on November 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM

The Democrats don’t have a MANDATE for anything!

51% IS NOT a “mandate”.

Tell Obama to bend over and shove his head up his ass. If he doesn’t go along with modification of entitlement programs, tell him to go and enjoy himself on the golf course, he’ll be spending a lot of time there for the next 4 years as the economy plunges into a depression.

Then the Republicans need to get Ryan on CSPAN and explain exactly what is going to happen if we don’t fix this FISCAL TRAIN WRECK now!

GarandFan on November 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM

even if they insist on limiting the rate hikes to millionaires only — they’ll be hammered by the conservative base for selling out.

Just the conservative base? Remember George HW Bush? They reach across the isle and will still get blamed by the left for doing it. Or blamed for not doing it. There is nobody to hold the left accountable so they can say whatever they want.

MechanicalBill on November 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Republican officials familiar with the talks say Democrats dug in on demands for tax revenue that Republicans are not willing to meet. Democratic aides say Republicans who had spoken abstractly about the need for more revenues are balking at the specifics.

Why is the GOP balking and why has the will of the people in the last election not been recognized? I’m not convinced that one party is less willing to concede than the other. Both are showing too many signs of intransigence.

Higher taxes are inevitable as defined by the original ‘fiscal cliff’ agreement, which now places the burden on the GOP to propose a lower set of tax increases that’s acceptable to Democrats. If that doesn’t seem fair, it’s probably not, but it’s the reality of the situation.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

The sooner this whole thing tips over the better. At some point you just gotta let it all crash and start all over. I’m at that point.

HerneTheHunter on November 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Face it people – the GOP will be blamed either way. Sooner or later the boys in the GOP will realize that they have to find a backbone, stand up for their principles, try to find a good faith acceptable compromise, and if not – publicize the hell out of the failure of the Dems to be reasonable – then step back and let them dive head frst over the cliff. Will we really be any worse off?

katiejane on November 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

You are correct AP. Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Popular? He did not even make it to 51%…it is interesting however to see a liberal bragging about how easy it would be for Democrats to wreck the economy and damage the lives of millions of people and get away with it.

You are not over burdened with a sense of right and wrong, are you?

So,now that we have ascertained that Democrats are dishonest and do not care about the American people…what should the Republicans do? I think they actually do care about the American people {unlike Obama} so they will try to come up with a deal…but then again. If it is good enough for the Democrats…

Terrye on November 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Moreover, the second any tax-raising bill passes with GOP votes, the DCCC will have ads on the air blasting GOP incumbents for raising taxes.

Yes — the Democrats — will base their entire 2014 campaign on the GOP raising taxes. Wouldn’t that be hypocritical? Of course, it would. Does that matter? No, because this is politics and about who gets control of the House.

Boehner knows that the greatest threat to his Speakership is handing the Democrats the tax increase bludgeon.

Robert_Paulson on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Case in point: Bush I. He compromised with the dems and let them increase taxes with the promise of dollar for dollar future spending cuts. Made him break his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge because the fiscal situation was so dire that “compromise was critical”. Cost him the 1992 election. Those promised “future spending cuts”? Funny that, they never did materialize except when Clinton gutted the defense department. Other than that, no cuts until 1994 when Newt and the Republicans took over.

AZfederalist on November 16, 2012 at 6:42 PM

You are not over burdened with a sense of right and wrong, are you?

Terrye on November 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM

tee hee

you are talking to a self proclaimed liberal

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM

f–k it, let them have their tax increases(vote present enmass), we know it won’t work, we have trillion $ a year deficit and this at best case brings in like 80 billion. they own this mess. so f-ing sick of libs and the $hit they get away with.

gsherin on November 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM

I’m on the low end and I’m willing to spend a few years tenting it and killing rabbit and squirrel to.halt progressives. In fact, I’ve gotten ready to do so.

So yea,, let it burn. I know how to hunt, fish, and grow food. Progs don’t.

wolly4321 on November 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You are correct AP. Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

LOL. I want you to get everything that you want because, luv, you have no clue how little money you are going to get from ending the Bush tax cuts on the “evil rich” and how much your share of the national debt, with and without unfunded liabilities, is as I write this.

Let me tell you something: I am from Britain. I’ve been down this road with Blair and Brown. At the end of 13 years of higher taxes and more “investments,” the country was broke, income inequality was worse than it had been in decades, 5 million able-bodied adults (out of a national population of 61 million men, women and children) had not worked a single hour in 13 years, 20% of children lived in homes where not a single adult worked, some areas had life expectancy rates lower than India and the Philippines AND THAT WAS WITH MORE SPENDING ON THE NHS, and some areas in Northern England, Wales and Scotland had 85% of the community living on the dole and others had economies where more than 70-75% of jobs and spending were completely reliant upon government, which is about as close as you can come to full-scale Sovietisation without tanks and gulags.

When Labour (the Fabian Socialists) spends billions of pounds more on the NHS and the life expectancy of a boy born is some areas of Glasgow is likely to die 28 years earlier, according to the World Health Organisation, than in Manilla or a village just a few hundred miles away, then you’ve got a problem. Yet, it is this type of society that you stupid, stupid, very stupid Obama Firsters have elected for yourselves.

On the bright side for people like me, I will get to watch your government ration you idiots out of existence and know that your children will die in the same social class into which they were born because, as in the UK with the “Etonians,” only those that have gone to Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton will be allowed to rule.

I think that it is wonderful. You won. 18,500 Hostess workers lost today. Many, many restaurant workers will lose their full-time jobs or jobs completely because of Obamacare. More miners got laid off today. More people are taking their profits before taxes go up.

As for me, I will continue to do what I’ve done since Obama took office. I will not work one hour for money even though I am 34 years old and have a law degree. I will continue to live off of my assets and arrange my affairs so that I pay NO Federal income tax. Finally, I will make NO investments in the United States…and, certainly, none that can benefit you and the rest of those that believe you are entitled to something that is mine.

It’s called “Gone Galt” and there is a growing army of people like me…so you’d better figure out how to FUND YOUR UTOPIA WITHOUT US.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:47 PM

LIB…. I say. LIB. Yes, the Rs might get blamed initially but two years is a lifetime in politics. Tipping off the fiscal cliff and pushing the U.S. into the double dip recession that it so wants to go into is a good thing because 51% of America needs a time out. There’s lots a bad stuff coming up like the disastrous Obamacare implementation and the EU break-up that will tank Obama’s second term.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Then frickin DO IT.

I dare ya.

Double DOG dare ya.

RealMc on November 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Why is the GOP balking and why has the will of the people in the last election not been recognized?

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Well, has Obama recognised that the will of the people was to send back to Congress a Republican House?

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM

we know it won’t work, we have trillion $ a year deficit and this at best case brings in like 80 billion. they own this mess. so f-ing sick of libs and the $hit they get away with.

gsherin on November 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM

It won’t even amount to that much. When tax policies become onerous, people alter their behavior. Look at the yacht tax and luxury car taxes that Clinton implemented. Look at how the economy was growing and unemployment below 5% after the tax cuts Bush implemented. Static analysis is easy, but it is almost always wrong.

AZfederalist on November 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM

If you think THIS is a “fiscal cliff”, I’ve got some bad news for you and don’t know what they’re going to call it regarding that $220+ trillion (including liabilities) national debt thingy …

ShainS on November 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Give the Shaniqua agitator his tax increase on the “rich”… Just let him get what he wants and let him own all the misery that would follow…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Higher taxes are inevitable as defined by the original ‘fiscal cliff’ agreement, which now places the burden on the GOP to propose a lower set of tax increases that’s acceptable to Democrats. If that doesn’t seem fair, it’s probably not, but it’s the reality of the situation.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Yeah right…let’s raise those taxes, bring in about 80 billion and let the people see that it has no effect on the deficit..do you think that is what the people want? The Democrats have lied to the people. That is the truth of it. BTW, the people have also said they wanted big cuts in spending as well. In fact, in recent polls the number of people who say they only want tax increases are about 11%. Compared to 40% that only want spending cuts.

Terrye on November 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Higher taxes are inevitable as defined by the original ‘fiscal cliff’ agreement, which now places the burden on the GOP to propose a lower set of tax increases that’s acceptable to Democrats. If that doesn’t seem fair, it’s probably not, but it’s the reality of the situation.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Have the GOP agree to the Clinton-era tax rates in exchange for federal spending per capita to be cut to Clinton-era levels (about $3k less per person per year, should add up to about $1 trillion per year).

JimLennon on November 16, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Let me tell you something: I am from Britain. I’ve been down this road with Blair and Brown. At the end of 13 years of higher taxes and more “investments,” the country was broke, income inequality was worse than it had been in decades, 5 million able-bodied adults

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Why is the GOP balking and why has the will of the people in the last election not been recognized?

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Well, has Obama recognised that the will of the people was to send back to Congress a Republican House?

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM

That is a very good point. After all, the people could have sent those House members packing and yet they sent them back to Washington.

Terrye on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I am not entirely opposed to going over the fiscal cliff but…..the hateful people who are behind the coming disaster will not even notice. The rest of us not so much.

With respect to what will happen, who knows. The only thing I am pretty sure about is the Law of Unintended Consequences will be enforced with a vengeance.

I can only take some solace knowing that the old lady in the “Let It Burn” commercial will be among the first to starve.

enginemike on November 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Why is the GOP balking and why has the will of the people in the last election not been recognized? I’m not convinced that one party is less willing to concede than the other. Both are showing too many signs of intransigence.

Higher taxes are inevitable as defined by the original ‘fiscal cliff’ agreement, which now places the burden on the GOP to propose a lower set of tax increases that’s acceptable to Democrats. If that doesn’t seem fair, it’s probably not, but it’s the reality of the situation.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Communist bayam… The Republicans should give the welfare queens President all his tax increase on the “rich” and you damn communists are going to own the misery that would follow…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM

No deal unless we get entitlement reform. Future spending cuts will never materialize. They can always be reversed later. Entitlement reform will require 60 votes and once you get it you would need 60 votes to make it more liberal in the future which would be very difficult for dems to do unless they had a super majority.

Wigglesworth on November 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM

According to the CBO, increasing the 25/28/33/35 tax brackets to 28/31/36/39.6 will raise:

FY2013: $40 billion or 11.43 days of government funding.

FY2013-2014: $95 billion or 27.14 days of government funding.

FY2013-2022: $730 billion or 208.57 days of government funding.

Go ahead and raise taxes on the “evil rich,” if it will make you feel better. I just don’t care anymore. Any revenue impact will be negligible, but the costs to employees will be painful. The country has a SPENDING problem. Period. Story. End of.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I call BS on a ‘mandate’, the public voted for gridlock. Let’s give them what they want.

Corporal Tunnel on November 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM

down with Bain

Viva la Twinkie

Slade73 on November 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Polishing your jackboots you ghoulish thug?

tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Do you communist realize that Clinton and Republicans cut the Capital gain tax from 28% to 20% and this tax cut combined with the Dot.com/Technology boom let to the good economics times to the mid to late 1990′s… The tax increase on the rich did not lead to anything positive…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Apparently you weren’t here either. GW Bush inherited the end of a recession in 2001. It was under Bush that unemployment fell below 5%, not during Clinton’s administration. The only reason things started going well in Clinton’s time in office can be traced directly to the 1994 Republican takeover of the Congress. Had that not happened, it would have been spending and taxing us into oblivion like the current regime is attempting. Unfortunately, the Republicans only have the House and Boehner while the dems have the Executive and the Senate.

AZfederalist on November 16, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam

How many more times are you going to peddle this BS you lying liberal pos?

xblade on November 16, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Oh come on. In April 2006 the IRS had its biggest pay day in history. When the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006 the deficit was $ 126 billion that year. We run that in a month now. The unemployment rate was about 5%. In comparison to today that was a good economy.

When Clinton was president, the House cut spending, reformed welfare and there was a dot com boom that fueled economic growth. Clinton had very little to do with it..He did however champion the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And that helped lead to the meltdown. He also signed the Iraqi Liberation Act that called for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and he failed to take Osama out of commission and stop the 9/11 attack. However, he does have something in common with Obama…a compliant and adoring media.

Terrye on November 16, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Look at the taxtables during the years you cite. IUt doesn’t support your STUPID AND DECEITFUL argument.

tom daschle concerned on November 16, 2012 at 6:58 PM

If the Republicans stand their ground, they’ll be blamed for whatever follows.

If the Republicans go along with what the Democrats want, the Democrats will gleefully claim it was a “bipartisan” vote that caused all the damage…and somehow the Republicans will end up taking all the blame for whatever follows (likely because they have the majority in the House).

In a no-win situation like that, the best course, I think, is to stick with your principles and fight to the last for what you think is right. And let the chips fall where they may. It’s easier to live with false blame than it is to live with blame you actually deserve (which the Republicans will if they go along with the Democrats–even if it is to prove a point; caving like that can be a satisfying form of revenge and a valuable teaching moment for the other side, but the consequences in a situation like this can escalate quickly and lead to a worse scenario than anyone on our side has the dark heart to imagine).

butterflies and puppies on November 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Look, there is a solution to this, and it is to agree to slightly higher rates on the rich, and then to lambast the Democrats for hiking taxes on the middle class. Attack them for the payroll tax going back up next year. Attack them for wanting to rescind the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Go out and wave around that NY Times article, and accuse Democrats of wanting broad-based tax hikes on everyone with a job because its the only way to pay for all of their envisioned giveaways. Attack, attack, attack; beat this dumbass country over the head with the idea that Democrats are trying to raise everyone’s taxes, not just the rich. That is how we will win.

Look, I’m kind of with Bill Kristol. As a matter of economics, we shouldn’t raise taxes on those earning over $250k. But you know what? Most the country earns $45k, and the folks who earn over 250k broke for Obama. Why should we fall on our sword over this and risk being blamed for hiking everyone’s taxes (an outcome Dems would find all too perfect)? We should state our opposition, note that this will do nothing to stop the spending-driven deficit, and then concede tax hikes on the so-called rich in the name of avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM

You are correct AP. Polls already show the fringe republicans will be blamed if they fail to agree with the newly minted and popular president.

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Your President is only popular among the Parasite class and the left wing lunatics like you… But as I said before the Republicans should give the welfare queen agitator his tax cut on the job creators and let him own the misery that would follow…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Could we take the entire Congress and “throw them over the cliff”, and I don’t mean metaphorically?

Another Drew on November 16, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I mean it doesn’t make sense for the Rs to play these political games of chicken, right? Haven’t all the credit rating agencies come out and said that in order for them not to downgrade the US credit rating a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue increases need to happen?

Don’t our elected leaders understand the balanced approach? It is clear the Demoncrats say one thing and do another. Case in point, they talk all flowery about a balanced approach and then turn around and say they want three times the revenue with no spending cuts.

I agree with a lot people here in that the Rs should present their plan and get out of the way. There is no need to play political chicken with morons.

rsherwd65 on November 16, 2012 at 7:04 PM

With respect to what will happen, who knows. The only thing I am pretty sure about is the Law of Unintended Consequences will be enforced with a vengeance.

enginemike on November 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM

If you want a good idea of what will happen, look to the EU. Contrary to what idiots like Paul Krugman claim, “austerity” is not nor has it ever been about massive spending cuts or something akin to what the Tea Party would demand. The idea of EU austerity, as neo-Keynesians in America have envisioned it, is a non-existent.

In fact, despite a lot of wailing, very few cuts have actually been made in Europe. Austerity? Starting in 2008, most governments enacted large stimulus packages. As in the United States, stimulus in Europe did not work. As proof, the EU has now entered into its second recession in 4 years, with skyrocketing debt, soaring unemployment and dismal prospects for future growth, democracy, and standards of living.

Austerity? As is often the case, things get lost in translation while crossing the Pond. Austerity in Europe does not mean the same thing as “austerity” in the United States. Over the last decade, EU member states have massively increased government spending by 62%…and that hasn’t changed. Average government spending by EU nations today stands at approximately 49.2% of GDP — v. 44.8% in 2000.

On its own website, the EU itself ridicules the notion of government austerity as a “myth.”

“National budgets are NOT decreasing their spending, they are increasing it,” the EU says, noting that in 2011, 23 of the 27 nations in the EU increased spending. This year, 24 of 27 will do so.

So, what IS austerity in the EU?

OVERWHELMINGLY, it means TAX RISES.

In fact, earlier this year, I detailed the “austerity” programmes in various EU member states. As you can see, if you choose to look, almost all of them consist of massive tax increases, especially on the “evil rich” and corporations…

…which, of course, is what Obama and the Left want to do in the US.

This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of “Austerity”?

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Resist We Must I don’t think that the U.S. is in danger of becoming Britain. The next R President is definitely not going to have an elitist background. Rubio graduated from the sports and drinking Mecca that is University of FL. Ryan graduated from Miami of Ohio. Neither comes from a really privileged background.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Report: Some Dems would rather go over fiscal cliff than compromise on “balanced approach”

I actually agree with them on this (though I’m sure for different reasons). I think this whole “fiscal cliff” thing is a scam and of course a political football. Let them go through sequestration…maybe several years of this will actually back us further out of this artificial debt foisted upon us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

The Republicans shouldn’t let this crisis go to waste. We need Churchills but we’re stuck with Chamberlains. Not one more red cent.

Mojave Mark on November 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Give the socialists what they want. Vote present.

darwin on November 16, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Rubio graduated from the sports and drinking Mecca that is University of FL. Ryan graduated from Miami of Ohio. Neither comes from a really privileged background.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Neither did Slick Willy.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I agree with a lot people here in that the Rs should present their plan and get out of the way. There is no need to play political chicken with morons.

rsherwd65 on November 16, 2012 at 7:04 PM

We should let them have their tax hikes on “millionaires and billionaires”, in time. But we should call for cutting the tax rate on corporations (as Obama advocated for during the campaign), and we should make it clear that this is all the “new revenue” the feds can get without raising taxes on the middle class.

Then, we can flog them with the deficit and wanting middle-class tax hikes for the next two election cycles.

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Pay now or pay more later.

If we allow them to bully us out of one principle today, tomorrow they’ll bully us out of three.

We do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny.

MARK LEVIN: We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We’re not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We’re not good losers, you better believe we’re sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we’re called ‘purists.’ Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We’re purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

Dive of this cliff now, before it gets any higher.

petefrt on November 16, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Look, I’m kind of with Bill Kristol. As a matter of economics, we shouldn’t raise taxes on those earning over $250k. But you know what? Most the country earns $45k, and the folks who earn over 250k broke for Obama. Why should we fall on our sword over this and risk being blamed for hiking everyone’s taxes (an outcome Dems would find all too perfect)? We should state our opposition, note that this will do nothing to stop the spending-driven deficit, and then concede tax hikes on the so-called rich in the name of avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM

In fact those making $ 250,000 or more vote 55% Romney, 42% Obama… In fact Romney won every group making more than $ 50,000… Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

In other word Romney won the “Producers”… But I will say let the Republican give the President of the parasite class his tax increase on the job creators (those who make more than $ 200,000 a year) and let him own the misery that would follow…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I actually agree with them on this (though I’m sure for different reasons). I think this whole “fiscal cliff” thing is a scam and of course a political football. Let them go through sequestration…maybe several years of this will actually back us further out of this artificial debt foisted upon us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

No thanks. I don’t want to see my taxes go up, and is it wise to massively slash defense spending with Obama in the White House?

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I wonder why the GOP never explains that raising taxes on business is essentially raising taxes on the middle class and lower income?

Any increase in the cost of doing business will be passed down to the consumer.

darwin on November 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

According to a Boehner aide, the speaker suggested that the leaders agree on long-term revenue targets for tax reform and spending targets for entitlement reform, as well as enforcement mechanisms that would kick in if Congress fails to act on either next year.

How about this. A law stating that Boehner/McConnell and Pelosi/Reid will immediately resign if they don’t come to an agreement by a certain date. Anything other than that is absurd. Sequestration was supposed to be so awful a result it would force a compromise and it is all but a certainty at this point.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Vote present. Let them have everything they want.

The Rogue Tomato on November 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I wonder why the GOP never explains that raising taxes on business is essentially raising taxes on the middle class and lower income?

Any increase in the cost of doing business will be passed down to the consumer.

darwin on November 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Have you been paying attention?

The GOP has constantly made this point. It gets drowned out in the MSM by stories of how much the moochers need more money and the “unfairness” of it all that some people can afford to pay for their own cell phones while the Obamaphone crowd has limited minutes.

Happy Nomad on November 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Resist We Must I don’t think that the U.S. is in danger of becoming Britain. The next R President is definitely not going to have an elitist background. Rubio graduated from the sports and drinking Mecca that is University of FL. Ryan graduated from Miami of Ohio. Neither comes from a really privileged background.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 7:07 PM

My point to HotAirLib is that is the kind of society that he and his friends are voting for. California is becoming that way. It has 20% of the country’s population and 1/3rd of the welfare recipients. Along the coast live the very wealthy whites and Asians and inland and in urban areas live the poor Hispanics and African-Americans. The middle class made up of all races is being squeezed out because they can’t afford to live in the state.

On Election Day, the voters voted to increase the income tax to the highest or one of the highest in the nation. The wealthy people don’t mind. They already have theirs. The state clients will always vote to raise income taxes because they either don’t pay them or they are on state payrolls. California has already reached the tipping point. The middle class didn’t vote for tax rises.

Back to the ruling class, in California, very few of the children born into the poor Hispanic and African-American communities get out now and that will get worse. It is ironic that those that scream loudest about income inequality vote for policies that only exacerbate it.

People like HAL would love to have the welfare state that countries like the UK have. They just don’t understand how terrible it really is.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

No thanks. I don’t want to see my taxes go up, and is it wise to massively slash defense spending with Obama in the White House?

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Hell no on the taxes…let them do without-it’s time that D.C. does with some austerity.

The defense spending thing is a Sacred Cow. Unless we’re planning on even more military actions overseas, I believe that we’d still be quite capable of deterring foreign invasion. O says he’s going to get the troops out of Afghanistan, while at the same time the number of troops going to Africa has increased? I don’t think he wants to dismember the military, but rather change its focus in accordance with his and his Marxist and Muslim friend’s ideologies. Perhaps a weaker military would prevent him from doing this.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Let it burn.

southsideironworks on November 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Yeah, we just need to make it clear that whatever rate they agree on is the ceiling. I don’t like it, and it will be destructive, but the only way the country will learn how destructive the Democrats’ agenda could be is to get a taste of it… that being said, I don’t want that taste of the Dem agenda to seriously injure the country. We need to walk a fine line here, and we badly need a consensus candidate in 2016.

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM

HotAirLib on November 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

..sing DAISY HAL…and oh by the way…Fluke You!

KOOLAID2 on November 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Perhaps you weren’t here during the Clinton years- those investments in paying down the previous debt paid off and resulted in strong growth. Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

The last time the national debt decreased 1 cent was in 1957.

Lower taxes under Bush didn’t result in high job growth but did contribute to a massive deficit.

bayam on November 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 went into effect in 2002 and many of the tax reductions that were to be phased in over 9 years were accelerated in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. According to the Bureau of Labour and Statistics:

* In January 2002, 134,319,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 5.5%.

* In January 2007, when Maerose Prizzi and Liar Reid took over Congress, 145,919,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

145,919,000 – 134,319,000 = 11,600,000 jobs

* In December 2007, the onset of the recession, 146,248,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.9%.

146,248,000 – 134,319,000 = 11,929,000 jobs

* On the day Barack Obama was first elected, 143,338,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.2%.

143,338,000 – 134,319,000 = 9,019,000 jobs

* When Bush left office, 141,748,000 Americans were working and the unemployment rate was 8.1%.

141,748,000 – 134,319,000 = 7,429,000 jobs

* In February 2009, Barack Obama’s first full month in office, 140,887,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 8.5%.

140,887,000 – 134,319,000 = 6,568,000 jobs

* Last month, 143,384,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.9%.

143,384,000 – 134,319,000 = 9,065,000 jobs

So, any way that you look at the Bush tax cuts, they were a net job creator.

Do you know what year Bush had his second smallest deficit? When you figure it out, you’ll know that you just destroyed your own argument.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Just some Rats want to go over the cliff? Only if 50 is “some”.

Steve Eggleston on November 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I’m more worried about maintaining a military edge against China and Russia than I am about a bunch of sandbox “countries” that won’t have a single aircraft carrier within our lifetimes.

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM

L.I.B. Let It Burn, Hey John Bonehead You can’t fix it. Kissing Dumbo the Flying liberals azz just doesn’t work. They laugh at your stupidity so step back say nothing and let it go down. The only solution now is real painful, once the parasites stop getting fed they will riot. good let them burn down all of Libtardville, if they decide to come out of their urban hives they will find a environment that is downright hostile to them. So L.I.B. Let It Burn.

stormridercx4 on November 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I’m more worried about maintaining a military edge against China and Russia than I am about a bunch of sandbox “countries” that won’t have a single aircraft carrier within our lifetimes.

Lawdawg86 on November 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I’m concerned about them as well. But, Russia is a threat to Europe and China is a threat to Japan. I have no problem with supporting them if need be, but we need to quit subsidizing their defense indirectly so they can have socialized medicine and bullet trains.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2