Wait… somebody’s worried Obama might cave?

posted at 8:31 am on December 8, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

The nation stands at the precipice of a tragedy. Progressive icon Paul Krugman fears that a horrifying vision of the future may come to pass. In this nightmare scenario – and I’d like you all to take a seat and quaff some sedatives here – Barack Obama may sell the liberal agenda down the river and not get everything on the Unicorn Wish List.

I Hope This Isn’t True

Ezra Klein says that the shape of a fiscal cliff deal is clear: only a 37 percent rate on top incomes, and a rise in the Medicare eligibility age.

I’m going to cross my fingers and hope that this is just a case of creeping Broderism, that it’s a VSP fantasy about how we’re going to resolve this in a bipartisan way. Because if Obama really does make this deal, there will be hell to pay.

Can you imagine the horror? The tax rate on the wealthy may only go up to 37% and – gasp – there may have to be adjustments to entitlement programs. What would happen to America? I mean… Obama won the election! Krugman has to get everything he wanted, right? How could this travesty take place?

Larry Kudlow explains.

Republicans are divided. President Obama won’t budge. And more and more, it looks like the fiscal-cliff deadline of December 31 will be missed.

It’s now clear that Team Obama wants higher tax rates and revenue-raising tax-deduction caps to meet their $1.6 trillion revenue target. Spending cuts and entitlement reforms are vague to non-existent. In fact, it could be that Obama not only rejects the across-the-board budget sequester, but that he actively seeks to raise spending, not cut it.

I guess it stands to reason that if you puff up his $800 billion revenue increase from last year, and double it to $1.6 trillion this year, the money will be spent. The government will grow larger.

All this should be unacceptable to the GOP.

Molly Ball has an even more lengthy explanation of how Obama is about to be Lucy With the Football to progressives, even as conservatives fret that that John Boehner has sold them down the river. Of course, the fact is that nobody is going to be happy with any deal which flops out of the sewer grates before the end of the year.

As I’ve written since the election, Obama has no reason to seek a deal early. And any deal which the Speaker signs off on is going to tick off the entire conservative base. So who is going to be happy? Nobody. But does this mean that everyone lost? Or did we get the only morsel left on the plate left worth eating?

Your guess is as good as mine at this point, but the fundamental question for me really hasn’t changed. It still looks to me like Obama is more than willing to ride this raft over the falls if he doesn’t get some sort of an increase in marginal rates on the wealthy. He said it at virtually every campaign stop. And a month after he’d won that last election he’ll ever need to compete in, he’s still making stops around the country, taking the same message directly to his base. But what do we get in exchange, assuming that John Boehner somehow manages to find enough Republicans to swallow a 37% tax rate?

It’s got to be entitlement reforms with some significant savings, done in a way that can substantially decrease the drag being put on the nation’s fiscal future. And it obviously can’t be some sort of ambiguous, “give us the tax hikes now and we’ll definitely talk about entitlement reform next year after you also give us the debt ceiling increase.” If that’s the deal, there may as well be nothing on the table at all. Of course, in that event, there won’t be enough GOP votes for it anyway. Or at least I’d like to think there wouldn’t.


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

And it obviously can’t be some sort of ambiguous, “give us the tax hikes now and we’ll definitely talk about entitlement reform next year after you also give us the debt ceiling increase.

No worries! Our fearless “leaders” would NEVER allow such an idiotic…yeah.

4Grace on December 8, 2012 at 8:41 AM

So despite his public statement that there would be no increase in tax rates, Boehner is going to cave…water is wet, sun rises in east, bear….

Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 8:44 AM

I’m still catching up. I’m still sitting on my couch from Nov 6th with my jaw on the floor.

Hawkerflyer on December 8, 2012 at 8:45 AM

this 37% rumor seems to be popping up everywhere– it’s pathetic that all Nobama and his parasite voters care about is punishing and confiscating wealth from others

So they’re “only” going to raise my income tax rate 2%, plus add a 0.9% Medicare surtax, plus the 3.9% surtax on cap gains/dividends, and they’re the ones who will be upset?

It’s pathetic what our country has turned into

I said it before– if Obama won in 2012 it would be a pyrrhic victory, based on irrevocably tearing the country in half to get his 51% victory

thurman on December 8, 2012 at 8:45 AM

And again, cartoons are shown to be where the Dems/Libs get their financial planning ideas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6xBaZ92uA

ProfShadow on December 8, 2012 at 8:45 AM

fairness is what killed liberty and prosperity…

fairness…

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Head fake to make the spraying of their leftist skunk juice in the Glimmer of Hope eyes of the emasculated republican party all the more fun.
Mao didn’t call the leftist pundits to the WH for nothing. Expect concern trolling by them for the next couple weeks.
Its all theater.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM

How much of the Liberal coalition is going to be upset by a rise in the legibility age? The GOP got a majority of seniors, not the Dems, so who’s going to be upset? Gays? The young? The eco-fascists?

I don’t think there will be a lot of squawking about it.

Charlemagne on December 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I’m sure I speak for many in saying this whole “fiscal cliff” thing makes me SICK. ANYTHING given to Owebama will only be wasted and go down the drain like all the rest of taxpayers money.

I’ve said it before, the only thing the GOP should allow is continuing the Bush tax cuts for the 98%. They should not allow any other legislation in the bill and they should vote “No” and go over the cliff for anything else proposed.

Next the GOP needs to get ready to write an injunction to prevent Owe from raising the debt limit and then have it litigated in Court. Of course God only knows what Owe can get a court to rule. We are going down folks, but we should go down with a HUGE fight.

katablog.com on December 8, 2012 at 9:01 AM

if Obama won in 2012 it would be a pyrrhic victory, based on irrevocably tearing the country in half to get his 51% victory

thurman on December 8, 2012 at 8:45 AM

What part of tearing the country in half equates to a Pyrrhic victory?
Tearing the country apart is the tactic to the goal, which is the fact that you HAVE to destroy in order to necessitate rebuilding the country in his vision. Thats how fundamental transformation works.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:02 AM

L.i.B.

It’s only fair.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I just read the comments on Krugman’s blog link. I’m constantly amazed how uninformed and just plain stupid some people are. One guy said Social Security was fully funded through 2033.

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I hope the GOP is satisfied with its 2010-2012 “cave, cave, ….. when we take back the senate and WH in 2012, we can undo this” rationale.

Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Congress and the Ruling class in DC will continue to overspend.

PappyD61 on December 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I’m still catching up. I’m still sitting on my couch from Nov 6th with my jaw on the floor.

Hawkerflyer on December 8, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Like bad hangover eh? Right there with ya buddy but pick your jaw up and keep it up. We needs ya.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM

No deal, Boehner… LET IT BURN…

Khun Joe on December 8, 2012 at 9:11 AM

OT: Fox News is reporting Choo-Choo Charlie Crist is joining the Democratic Party!

I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

pilamaye on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

If we go over the cliff the Republicans may suffer some blame but Obama will forever be a failed leader. Remember, Obama only received slightly over 50% of the eligible vote. He is not the overwhelmingly loved messiah that the left wants you to believe, he is only the winner by a small simple majority and not even in Obamamath is that a mandate. Let’s take the hit and let the next two years play out. Again, remember, the Republicans still have half the country behind them with 94 million eligible non-voters just waiting to be won over. Obama also has only has half the country behind him . . . this sounds like a fair fight to me.

rplat on December 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Cap gains at 26.4 % should help a lot./

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM

One guy said Social Security was fully funded through 2033.

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 9:08 AM

It is…it’s funded by a lock-box full of IOU’s.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Can’t the GOP act like the adult in the room?

Obama is acting like that screaming spoiled rotten little kid in the checkout line, demanding all the candy in the rack, simply because it is there.

And the GOP is acting like that Mom…you know, the one who has told the little b*stard that he will get a time out when they get home? The one who finally caves in and buys the punk kid a handful of candy bars, just to shut him up. Yeah, that one.

Well, maybe the GOP needs to stop caving into that petulant extortion.

Otherwise, each and every time the Mom and kid have to go to Safeway…that scene will repeat itself, again and again, and again.

If the GOP wants to be the adult….then just walk away, let the little b*stard cry all he wants…not gonna get anymore candy bars. Not that way, at least. Maybe swat him on the butt a few times on the way out. Maybe telling the kid “No!” a heck of a lot mre times around the house, too.

Reward good behaviours; Not bad behaviour.

No more time outs. No more candy extortion.

Just do it. C’mon, Boehner, you know you want to.

coldwarrior on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

OT: Fox News is reporting Choo-Choo Charlie Crist is joining the Democratic Party!

I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

pilamaye on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Next up on the loading dock..Chris Christie.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM

OT: Fox News is reporting Choo-Choo Charlie Crist is joining the Democratic Party!

I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

pilamaye on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Yeah, but how long will that last? If the Dems’ electoral prospects in 2014 start to look a lot like 2010, will he switch back to being an independent(after accepting millions in donations from Democrat donors of course)?

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM

It is…it’s funded by a lock-box full of IOU’s.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I heard AlGore [Manbearpig] boosted that little lock box a long time ago. Had to fund that new house in Tennessee, and other earth friendly stuff.

coldwarrior on December 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM

What if instead of Todd Beamer, John Boehner had been on Flight 93? This economy is going down, the only question is, are we going to let them take ‘individual free will’ (Freedom) down with it? Boehner is a gutless punk.

Pole-Cat on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

also can someone tell me why the frack having the libs “cave” on means testing SS or Medicare is a victory for us?

We’re screwing the successful now with taxes, then screw them out of benefits they paid for later, and that’s a victory for us????

The idea that getting the libtards to “give” on means testing of SS/Medicare as a concession is some of the most asinine logic I’ve ever heard from our side

thurman on December 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM

It is…it’s funded by a lock-box full of IOU’s.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Right … I asked my bank manager if I could fund my account like that. Unfortunately he’s not a liberal and said no.

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Speakup on December 8, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Just do it. C’mon, Boehner, you know you want to.

coldwarrior on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Good analogy.

But I wonder if Boehner really does want to.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Know someone who is dying? Have them do it before years end.

United States

Premiums paid by the policy owner are normally not deductible for federal and state income tax purposes, and proceeds paid by the insurer upon the death of the insured are not included in gross income for federal and state income tax purposes.[13] However, if the proceeds are included in the “estate” of the deceased, it is likely they will be subject to federal and state estate and inheritance tax.

Cash value increases within the policy are not subject to income taxes unless certain events occur. For this reason, insurance policies can be a legal and legitimate tax shelter wherein savings can increase without taxation until the owner withdraws the money from the policy. In flexible-premium policies, large deposits of premium could cause the contract to be considered a modified endowment contract by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which negates many of the tax advantages associated with life insurance. The insurance company, in most cases, will inform the policy owner of this danger before deciding their premium.

The tax ramifications of life insurance are complex. The policy owner would be well advised to carefully consider them. As always, both the United States Congress and state legislatures can change the tax laws at any time.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Just do it. C’mon, Boehner, you know you want to.

coldwarrior on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Good analogy.

But I wonder if Boehner really does want to.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Boehner also has to worry aobut being shafted by McConnell-Reid again, like happened last year.

If those two cook up some deal on middle class tax cuts, and everything else is kicked down the road to 2013, and Obama and the MSM chime in, Boehner would definitely cave again.

I can see why Boehner didn’t want Reid, Pelosi or McConnell in on the negotiations, although I assume the WH is leaking to congressional Dems.

Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 9:35 AM

OT: Fox News is reporting Choo-Choo Charlie Crist is joining the Democratic Party!

I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

pilamaye on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Yeah, but how long will that last? If the Dems’ electoral prospects in 2014 start to look a lot like 2010, will he switch back to being an independent(after accepting millions in donations from Democrat donors of course)?

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM

With Choo Choo Charlie, it will either depend on which way the wind is blowing, or if he is running out of tanning spray; whichever comes first.

pilamaye on December 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Wise up.
Anyone who thinks there is a losing scenario here for the Obamunist is not very bright.

Remember how these aholes think- “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”

The Repub House is the new Blame Bush for the next four years. Correction, Evil- Hostage Taking- Repub Controlled House. 43 was just evil, and solidify Ocommie as a champion of the people.

The pending Obama Tax Cuts for the middle class will win the tug of war for these votes.

Deal with it- Oblama is too Black to fail…….( And that’s no more racist then having 97% of the African American electorate.)

FlaMurph on December 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

So Obama compromises, when?

Speakup on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Wise up.
Anyone who thinks there is a losing scenario here for the Obamunist is not very bright.

Remember how these aholes think- “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”

The Repub House is the new Blame Bush for the next four years. Correction, Evil- Hostage Taking- Repub Controlled House. 43 was just evil, and solidify Ocommie as a champion of the people.

The pending Obama Tax Cuts for the middle class will win the tug of war for these votes.

Deal with it- Oblama is too Black to fail…….( And that’s no more racist then having 97% of the African American electorate.)

FlaMurph on December 8, 2012 at 9:40 AM

You guys sure get whiny when you lose. And given that Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts two years ago and again on the debt ceiling negotiations, I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to fly the economy into the ground to make its point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Its depressing our idiot leaders got us in this mess in the first place. They should hold the line on the cliff and then later not raise the debt ceiling. Really make Barry cave.
Principles mean something. Its time Congress remembers that.

I really wish they’d wait to the last minute, and present a bill as if Reagan was in office, a bill filled with conservative solutions to the budget crisis. Then have every Republican go back to his district’s media and say “Yea! We’ve solved the debt crisis! Now the President just has to sign it, and we’ll be fine.” Then when Barry vetoes it, the blame is all on him. And then hammer them with the debt ceiling. If they’re going to raise it, make him have to come every month and beg for it to go up, meanwhile making him concede another conservative priority to do so.

Iblis on December 8, 2012 at 9:48 AM

You guys sure get whiny when you lose. And given that Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts two years ago and again on the debt ceiling negotiations, I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to fly the economy into the ground to make its point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

“Caved” and “demonstrated flexibility” do not seem to be complimentary terms.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

If conservatives could get past their unrivaled hatred of Obama they’d recognize that his entire political career he’s been in the center of whatever Democratic body he was a part of. As an Illinois state senator there were many more liberal Democrats. He ran to the right of Hillary on Healthcare and instituted a plan first floated by Heritage. He’s been as anti-privacy as the Bush Administration, pro “testing” in education policy, pursued drone strikes at an accelerated rate and on and on and on. You all are focused on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, while the rest of us are looking at how Obama *governs* and the result is clearly moderate Dem. So yes we will be betrayed he’s going to acquiese big time on entitlements instead of eliminating the 104K cap.

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Its depressing our idiot leaders got us in this mess in the first place. They should hold the line on the cliff and then later not raise the debt ceiling. Really make Barry cave.
Principles mean something. Its time Congress remembers that.

I really wish they’d wait to the last minute, and present a bill as if Reagan was in office, a bill filled with conservative solutions to the budget crisis. Then have every Republican go back to his district’s media and say “Yea! We’ve solved the debt crisis! Now the President just has to sign it, and we’ll be fine.” Then when Barry vetoes it, the blame is all on him. And then hammer them with the debt ceiling. If they’re going to raise it, make him have to come every month and beg for it to go up, meanwhile making him concede another conservative priority to do so.

Iblis on December 8, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Your second, sound paragraph won’t happen because we have no leaders, idiot or otherwise.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

You guys sure get whiny when you lose. And given that Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts two years ago and again on the debt ceiling negotiations, I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to fly the economy into the ground to make its point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

“Caved” and “demonstrated flexibility” do not seem to be complimentary terms.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Nor were they meant as compliments. On the other hand, these actions do suggest a willingness to step away from positions rooted in partisan theocracy and actually get something done — something that the ankle-biters in the Tea Party caucus have yet to demonstrate.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Quit shooting each other.

BTW “latino” should be capitalized, racist.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

You guys sure get whiny when you lose. And given that Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts two years ago and again on the debt ceiling negotiations, I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to fly the economy into the ground to make its point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Obama didn’t “cave” on anything. In 2010, he’d just had his ass handed to him in the midterms and the economy was sputtering along(although ironically it was doing better than now). So he was in no position to play hardball with the GOP over the tax rates.

In the summer of 2011, when he supposedly “caved” again during the debt ceiling negotiations, Boehner had put $800 billion in new revenue over 10 years on the table. In other words, exactly what Obama had been asking for in public. But Barry killed the deal(intentionally IMO) when he demanded even higher taxes at the last minute.

Politically this was a wise move since it allowed him to run for reelection using class warfare and portray Mitt Romney as a defender of “the rich”, but in terms of dealing with our fiscal crisis, it accomplished absolutely nothing. Much like any deal they arrive at this time around will do.

BTW, you wanna know why I know Obama never caved on anything regarding tax rates? Just ask yourself a simple question. If raising taxes on upper income earners was so important in dealing with our deficit, why didn’t Obama do it for 2 years when he had supermajorities in Congress? I’ll just be over here listening to the crickets chirping.

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Go over the cliff. Jan. 1 paychecks will be smaller, while Dear Liar parties in Hawaii. Make that the story.

rbj on December 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

That’s the biggest pile of rancid goat dung I’ve seen on this board in months.

rplat on December 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Nor were they meant as compliments. On the other hand, these actions do suggest a willingness to step away from positions rooted in partisan theocracy and actually get something done — something that the ankle-biters in the Tea Party caucus have yet to demonstrate.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The reason “the ankle-biters in the Tea Party caucus” haven’t backed down from their “from positions rooted in partisan theocracy” is they are doing the will of the voters.

Damn socons!

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

You guys sure get whiny when you lose. And given that Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts two years ago and again on the debt ceiling negotiations, I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to fly the economy into the ground to make its point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Whiny? Where were you during the eight Bush years? Plus, Obama didn’t cave on anything. Even socialists understand you don’t burden a nation in recession with more taxes.

You might also explain how any proposed Republican bills (which are all sitting in the Senate gathering dust thanks to that very flexible Harry Reid and his boss Obama) would fly the economy into the ground.

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM

If conservatives could get past their unrivaled hatred of Obama they’d recognize that his entire political career he’s been in the center of whatever Democratic body he was a part of. As an Illinois state senator there were many more liberal Democrats. He ran to the right of Hillary on Healthcare and instituted a plan first floated by Heritage. He’s been as anti-privacy as the Bush Administration, pro “testing” in education policy, pursued drone strikes at an accelerated rate and on and on and on. You all are focused on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, while the rest of us are looking at how Obama *governs* and the result is clearly moderate Dem. So yes we will be betrayed he’s going to acquiese big time on entitlements instead of eliminating the 104K cap.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Was Obama in the center when he voted in support of infanticide three times while in the Illinois State Senate? If you believe that, I’d hate to think what your idea of a left-wing position on that issue is.

As for running to the right of Hillary on health care in 2008, you’re right with regard to not supporting the individual mandate. But that doesn’t mean d-ck to me considering he then flip-flopped in favor of it once he took office.

Regarding the drone strikes, he certainly has amped those up. I would argue he has no choice though. He’s boxed himself in on his vocal opposition to waterboarding and Gitmo(although that remains open). So taking these terrorists alive makes little sense from a political standpoint. It’s why he’s now even authorizing the assassination of American citizens(including 16 year-olds). Hardly a centrist position, I might add.

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

What a racist.

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

ankle-biters in the Tea Party caucus have yet to demonstrate.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

What another fallacious tactic ? Tell me it ain’t so.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

A fact that seems to have been forgotten: These idiot politicians created the “Fiscal Cliff” and they can just as easily abolish it. This is not some predetermined prophesy from God . . . it’s just a stupid, cowardly piece of legislation passed and implemented by dumb-ass politicians.

rplat on December 8, 2012 at 10:02 AM

If conservatives could get past their unrivaled hatred of Obama
libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The fallacious arguments never end.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Here’s a thought. Live longer. It is your choice.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:05 AM

The reason “the ankle-biters in the Tea Party caucus” haven’t backed down from their “from positions rooted in partisan theocracy” is they are doing the will of the voters.

Damn socons!

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And Obama and the Dems are also doing the will of the voters.

Maybe they should all — elected officials and voters — grow up a little and accept a compromise and actually get something done.

BTW, you wanna know why I know Obama never caved on anything regarding tax rates? Just ask yourself a simple question. If raising taxes on upper income earners was so important in dealing with our deficit, why didn’t Obama do it for 2 years when he had supermajorities in Congress? I’ll just be over here listening to the crickets chirping.

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Your argument is undercut by your repetition of the “two-year supemajority” canard. Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate for five months, which included summer recess and Christmas recess, during which period it was all health care, all the time.

Obama didn’t “cave” on anything. In 2010, he’d just had his ass handed to him in the midterms and the economy was sputtering along(although ironically it was doing better than now). So he was in no position to play hardball with the GOP over the tax rates.

I guess it won’t be a cave then if the Republicans give Obama what he wants, then.

In the summer of 2011, when he supposedly “caved” again during the debt ceiling negotiations, Boehner had put $800 billion in new revenue over 10 years on the table. In other words, exactly what Obama had been asking for in public. But Barry killed the deal(intentionally IMO) when he demanded even higher taxes at the last minute.

Boehner could never deliver his caucus and was not credible. He was posturing so Obama postured back.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

And Obama and the Dems are also doing the will of the voters.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

You are right there. Handing out free stuff.

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM

As an Illinois state senator there were many more liberal Democrats.

Not really. Obama just chose to vote “present” over and over and over for political cover, his eyes set on higher office. He knew the Leftist policy would get pushed though anyway. This is Illinois we’re talking about. There’s no conservative opposition whatsoever. That’s the reason, BTW, that we’re the laughingstock of the USA.

instituted a plan first floated by Heritage

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

A plan “floated” by one guy, 20+ years ago, who no longer is at Heritage. The plan was an extreme alternative to the authoritarian “single-payer” nutjob plan that had a chance of passing at the time. ObamaCare is a highly partisan bill. How many GOP votes did it get? To pretend otherwise is preposterous.

visions on December 8, 2012 at 10:11 AM

But what do we get in exchange, assuming that John Boehner somehow manages to find enough Republicans to swallow a 37% tax rate?

Without a doubt. And the GOP will own the tax hike.

besser tot als rot on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Your argument is undercut by your repetition of the “two-year supemajority” canard. Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate for five months, which included summer recess and Christmas recess, during which period it was all health care, all the time.

Lame. You know hit priorities were misguided. So please.Quit,then.(heh)

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Lame. You know hit priorities were misguided. So please.Quit,then.(heh)

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Different argument.

At any rate, when people get basic facts wrong, it’s hard to credit the rest of their argument.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I would like to know, since you’re a “progressive”, when enough is enough?

Do you guys ever stop and say ok, we got what we wanted … now we’re done … or do you just keep pushing for more and more and more?

Look at what you guys have … Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, welfare, food stamps, public housing, section 8, student loans, public education, minimum wage, union mafias, utility subsidies, free phones, all kinds of free stuff for public school students, business bailouts, home loan bailouts, a totalitarian EPA and the list goes on and on.

When do you say … ok, we provided all these things to help you out. Now the rest is up to you? When do you say that?

Plus, why is it everything you demand must be shoved down Americas throat by the force of government?

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

One might suspect that the assertion that Obama has demonstrated more flexibility than Republicans is the most laughably false part of the above statement. Sadly it is not, it is “I think.”

besser tot als rot on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/06/why-america-is-going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

If conservatives could get past their unrivaled hatred of Obama they’d recognize that his entire political career he’s been in the center of whatever Democratic body he was a part of. As an Illinois state senator there were many more liberal Democrats. He ran to the right of Hillary on Healthcare and instituted a plan first floated by Heritage. He’s been as anti-privacy as the Bush Administration, pro “testing” in education policy, pursued drone strikes at an accelerated rate and on and on and on. You all are focused on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, while the rest of us are looking at how Obama *governs* and the result is clearly moderate Dem. So yes we will be betrayed he’s going to acquiese big time on entitlements instead of eliminating the 104K cap.

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Maybe you should have listened when Republicans were trying to make it possible to put the money paid into SS into your own private accounts, which would have been kept in the family when you die. Then all that money wouldn’t have been paid for nothing. But no, you are brain washed to believe we are out to get you, and it is your own party who actually harms you, and yet you still vote for them. What exactly did you win?

Night Owl on December 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I would like to know, since you’re a “progressive”, when enough is enough?

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Irony: “Working Americans who believe in our country and who believe in our Constitution are saying, ‘Enough is enough!’”~John Boehner

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Your argument is undercut by your repetition of the “two-year supemajority” canard. Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate for five months, which included summer recess and Christmas recess, during which period it was all health care, all the time.

So why didn’t he pass a tax hike(aside from Obamacare which includes half a trillion in new taxes) during that timeframe? Don’t blame the GOP for Obama focusing solely on Porkulus and Obamacare. And since when did he even need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to get a tax bill passed? Plus let’s not forget that he could’ve sat by and done nothing in late 2010 and the Bush tax cuts would’ve all expired. In other words, Obama and the Dems had multiple opportunities to raise taxes for 2 years and refused. That’s on them, not the GOP or the Tea Party.

I guess it won’t be a cave then if the Republicans give Obama what he wants, then.

It’ll be a cave if they get nothing in return. At least Obama got a debt ceiling hike that carried him past the 2012 election when he and Boehner came to an agreement in 2011.

Boehner could never deliver his caucus and was not credible. He was posturing so Obama postured back.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

What the hell kind of logic is that? The House Republicans never got a chance to vote on any deal because Obama killed it. Boehner offered $800 billion. That’s been verified by him, Cantor, and even Bob Woodward in The Price of Politics. Obama agreed to it and then at the last minute demanded well over a trillion in new taxes which he knew Boehner would scoff at. Then came the downgrade and the rest is history.

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

This older, white American says, “Thank you.”

Keep shootin’

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Wool so dyed even the sheep don’t want it. On a more positive note. One year and one day into my time here at HA as a commenter. I finally got the sought after job from the poor Black, Latino homeless guy down the street from me. Good times. Decline.

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 10:24 AM

So despite his public statement that there would be no increase in tax rates, Boehner is going to cave…water is wet, sun rises in east, bear….

Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 8:44 AM

I’m not a betting man but that is as close to a sure thing as it gets.

Alabama Infidel on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

So why didn’t he pass a tax hike(aside from Obamacare which includes half a trillion in new taxes) during that timeframe? Don’t blame the GOP for Obama focusing solely on Porkulus and Obamacare. And since when did he even need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to get a tax bill passed? Plus let’s not forget that he could’ve sat by and done nothing in late 2010 and the Bush tax cuts would’ve all expired. In other words, Obama and the Dems had multiple opportunities to raise taxes for 2 years and refused. That’s on them, not the GOP or the Tea Party.

My point was that Obama has demonstrated flexibility on the issue rather than being beholden to the more radical wing of the Party. The fact that he may have had an opportunity to raise taxes but chose not to simply underscores my point.

BTW, he traded the Bush tax cuts extension for an extension of the payroll tax cut that the Republican inexplicably opposed.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM

BTW, he traded the Bush tax cuts extension for an extension of the payroll tax cut that the Republican inexplicably opposed.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You are really thick. They opposed it because that money is supposed to go into the Social Security “lockbox”. It is draining money from another entitlement that is about to go broke. It is not “inexplicable” at all. You are just dumb.

Night Owl on December 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

You are really thick. They opposed it because that money is supposed to go into the Social Security “lockbox”. It is draining money from another entitlement that is about to go broke. It is not “inexplicable” at all. You are just dumb.

Night Owl on December 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

But they don’t oppose tax cuts that have the exact same effect on the broader fiscal health of the nation when they accrue to a relatively small portions of wealthy households.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:45 AM

In fact, it could be

that Obama not only rejects the across-the-board budget sequester, but that he actively seeks to raise spending, not cut it.

Could be? He has asked for another stimulus package, time to pay off his donors. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, then he’ll get the rise in the rates, all of them, that he dreams of.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM

But they don’t oppose tax cuts that have the exact same effect on the broader fiscal health of the nation when they accrue to a relatively small portions of wealthy households.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Because lower tax rates for job creators historally lead to more jobs being created(I know, crazy logic) and therefore even more revenue to the Treasury. This happened when JFK did it, when Reagan did it, and when Dubya did it. You could even include Clinton and Newt’s capital gains tax cut in the late 90′s as another example. And let’s not forget that Obama himself conceded several times after taking office that you don’t want to raise taxes during an economic downturn.

The payroll tax holiday drains money from Social Security which will have to be paid back at some point. Maybe that extra cash in people’s paychecks has led to increased economic output which in turn will result in more jobs created and more revenue to the government, but thus far that hasn’t panned out. It’s historically worked a lot better to just cut the income tax rates for the people who actually create jobs.

Doughboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Okay, that just came out weir. Preview is my friend.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Charlie Crist makes it official.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/charlie-crist-democrat_n_2260975.html

Philly on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Let.It.Burn.

tngmv on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Philly on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I can’t think of anything the Democrats deserve more.

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Anna Wintour, showing tolerance of other views:

In 2010, we set up an interview with the Syrian leader’s wife, Asma al-Assad, a Western-educated former banker and a woman with a reputation as a force for reform in the Middle East. Like many at that time, we were hopeful that the Assad regime would be open to a more progressive society. Subsequent to our interview, as the terrible events of the past year and a half unfolded in Syria, it became clear that its priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue. The escalating atrocities in Syria are unconscionable, and we deplore the actions of the Assad regime in the strongest possible terms.

http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/editors-note/#1

davidk on December 8, 2012 at 11:08 AM

But they don’t oppose tax cuts that have the exact same effect on the broader fiscal health of the nation when they accrue to a relatively small portions of wealthy households.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:45 AM

How do lower tax rates have a detrimental effect on the fiscal health of the nation?

darwin on December 8, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Why Raising Tax Rates Won’t Raise Revenue
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120712-636363-obama-demands-higher-tax-rates-but-gop-has-real-revenue-plan.htm

The fiscal cliff standoff pits Barack Obama’s social-justice symbolism against a Republican approach that actually would raise money and help close the deficit.

Obama has the rules of propaganda on his side here: The simple beats the complex, and social-justice symbolism packs an emotional punch that economics can’t match. But the reality is clear: You can jack up rates on the rich all you want, but that doesn’t mean you’ll get more tax revenue out of them.

One fact conveniently ignored about this era, however, was that few Americans paid the top rate or anything close to it. The Tax Code was quite different from the one we’ve lived with since the 1986 reform. It was full of perfectly legal dodges for those who could hire a decent tax adviser.

Galt2009 on December 8, 2012 at 11:11 AM

It still looks to me like Obama is more than willing to ride this raft over the falls if he doesn’t get some sort of an increase in marginal rates on the wealthy. He said it at virtually every campaign stop.

Don’t forget that there are other esteemed members of the national cadre of the socialist-left who are calling for screwing more and more people with higher taxes.

Galt2009 on December 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM

My point was that Obama has demonstrated flexibility on the issue rather than being beholden to the more radical wing of the Party. The fact that he may have had an opportunity to raise taxes but chose not to simply underscores my point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Obama is the radical wing of the Party.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I love when there is panic and tears in “My Progressive Little Ponyland.”

I actually could support a 37/67 deal…just for the pure schadenfreude.

Resist We Much on December 8, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Is Obama Party staffer and admitted welfare fraud urban elitist screaming and whining about taxing “the rich” again?

You might ask why this Obama Party staffer and welfare fraud urban elitist doesn’t believe in taxing rich Obama supporters.

Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president’s top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120G’s here or there. So he dropped out.

And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42,000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he’d be in charge of as secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who’s supposed to know about handling everyone else’s money. In the end this was excused by Washington’s bipartisan CYA culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.

And under Geithner’s expert guidance the U.S. economy has been, well, wow! Just look at it.

Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents’ names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama’s very own White House owe the government they’re allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.

See that? Screaming liar Barack Obama exempts his own “rich” staff and supporters from having to pay taxes.

Especially his supporters, who also get to charge their luxurious lifestyles and private planes to the taxpayer;

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012…..

The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.

In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.

But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.

and who also get to avoid paying local taxes for the upkeep of schools, roads, etc. so they can pocket the money.

Ohio Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown was more than four months delinquent in paying taxes on his Washington, D.C., apartment and had to pay a penalty and interest last week.

This was not the first time, records show.

Brown also was delinquent in 2006 and 2007 and paid penalties and interest, according to tax records from the District of Columbia.

So the Obama Party, the Obama cultists and staffers like urban elitist, and Barack Obama himself are all tax cheats, liars, and hypocrites.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM

An excellent article with ACTUAL DATA from the 1950s:

The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

Resist We Much on December 8, 2012 at 11:33 AM

it’s pathetic that all Nobama and his parasite voters care about is punishing and confiscating wealth from others

thurman on December 8, 2012 at 8:45 AM

What’s truly pathetic is that they nor the “poor” will ever see a dime of that money that will be wrung out of the middle class’s pockets…it’ll end up in the coffers of the DNC and the bank accounts of Obama, his cronies, and many of the fat cats these parasites yammer about all the time…and many of those may very well be Republicans!

It’s astonishing how easily the American people can be robbed.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Question for the trolls:

When did it become morally acceptable to steal the property of some as a monetary sacrifice to the gods of government waste?

And if it’s okay to ream the rich, what to stop them from reaming others? Like you?

Galt2009 on December 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Cindy Munford on December 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Amen. They deserve each other.

Philly on December 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

That’s the biggest pile of rancid goat dung I’ve seen on this board in months.

rplat on December 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

lobotomyfreeordie has been racesh!tting his fermented diarrhea for a year now…happy anniversary BIGOT !

KOOLAID2 on December 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

So just sue the government over the unequal outcomes. That would be a win-win for lib lawyers. Oops, one problem though the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that you don’t have property rights to Social Security. So whether you draw $.01 or $1,000,000 from Social Security over your lifetime it is straight welfare from the government that you actually have no entitlement to. Wanna bet that the courts would say the same thing about Medicare.

chemman on December 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Just do it. C’mon, Boehner, you know you want to.

coldwarrior on December 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM

No he doesn’t.

Solaratov on December 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Step 1: The House extends the Bush cuts as is and sends the bill to the Senate.

Step 2: Boehner says that he is willing to consider any serious written proposal offered by Obama.

Step 3: Boehner promises that the first order of business for the House in 2013 will be to extend the Bush cuts retroactive to January 1st and send that bill to the Senate. Let the Senate and Obama deal with the shock the working poor will get when they see on their 2013 pay-stubs that the lowest rate increased 50% and child deductions were cut.

Laurence on December 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM

…I think he’s demonstrated a great deal more flexibility that the kamikaze-like House Republican caucus, which has repeatedly shown its willingness to fly the economy into the ground to make its point.

urban elitist on December 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

So then, you wouldn’t object if all of the Republicans simply voted “present” on whatever ‘plan’ d’ohbama puts out? It’s fine with you if they don’t argue about it – but just give the little SCOAMF everything that he wants…but without a single Republican vote for it?
IOW, lil barry and the democRATs OWN everything that happens.

Solaratov on December 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM

But what do we get in exchange, assuming that John Boehner somehow manages to find enough Republicans to swallow a 37% tax rate?

Without a doubt. And the GOP will own the tax hike.

besser tot als rot on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

…if Bonehead doesn’t have his people vote present…he may as well join Charlie Crist!

KOOLAID2 on December 8, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Exasperating. All this talk about taxes when what should be the center of discussion is spending.

Taxes? I do not care. Sure, they shouldn’t be raised when the economy is so weak, but, eh. Recessions come and recessions go. Going back to the old rates won’t kill us.

OTOH, the spending most definitely will kill us. Deader’n a doornail.

What is most baffling is that focusing on the spending side of the equation and refusing to let the MSM talk about the taxes until we get serious about real, right now spending cuts would also be the best political strategy for the GOP.

Democratic Party = The Evil Party
Republican Party = The Stupid Party

Really.

fadetogray on December 8, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The really horrible thing about Obama raising the medicare age is that it betrayes the black and latino people who voted for him. Black and latino workers pay more in SS taxes than we ever get back because black and latino life expectancy is shorter in this country. We’re being robbed to fund the retirements of older white Americans. Raising the age only exacerbates that inequality. Victory or something.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Hard cheese.

Solaratov on December 8, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I don’t see why the democRATS are whining about some mythical “fiscal cliff”, anyway. All it is, is a return to the Clinton tax rates; and the dems constantly assert that, under those rates, America enjoyed the most prosperous time, evah, in history!
So…what’s the problem? Why should only the top 2% get to enjoy all that “prosperity”? Let ALL the rates go back to Clinton’s…and let everybody enjoy the prosperity!!

(Of course, the dems never mention “spending” at the Clinton rate. That’s just off the table. Heh!)

Solaratov on December 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

You’re all arguing about you’re wealth being confiscated for no legitimate purpose.
Oblabla admits this is not about raising revenue, but about some idea of “fairness” or “social justice”, and that revenue to the treasury will actually be reduced.
The Constitutionalists cannot win this argument against the media/Progressive (Commie) cabal.
The House should just pass a bill with the tax cut extended permanently for all and then adjourn.
The next debt ceiling increase should be linked to a budget and reduced from the budgeted amount by 10%….will get the debt/deficit under control and reduced over a fixed period of time.
The House controls the purse and they need to exercise control.
They need to put these things in legislation and then go home, leaving it to Oblabla to deal with.

dirtengineer on December 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

(Of course, the dems never mention “spending” at the Clinton rate. That’s just off the table. Heh!)

Solaratov on December 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Seems like they’ve dropped that little talking point lie since people have started asking about the spending side of that equation.

Galt2009 on December 8, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2