Breaking: Obama to speak about fiscal cliff at 1:30; Update: Tax deal done? Update: Sabotage?

posted at 1:11 pm on December 31, 2012 by Allahpundit

Just an FYI in case you’re one of the few Americans who’s still following this. Remember that O said on Friday that if Reid and McConnell couldn’t reach a deal by Monday, he’d ask Reid to bring the Obama plan — featuring tax hikes on all earners above $250,000 — up for a vote on the Senate floor. According to the AP, the “contours” of a deal are emerging as I write this. Good enough to buy more time for negotiations, or is O about to pull the plug and demand that up-or-down vote after all?

The contours of a deal to avert the ‘fiscal cliff’ emerged Monday, with Democrats and Republicans agreeing to raise tax rates on couples making over $450,000 a year, increase the estate tax rate and extend unemployment benefits for one year, officials familiar with the negotiations said…

The deal in the works would return tax rates on families making over $450,000 to 39.6 percent, the same level as under former President Bill Clinton. The agreement would also raise tax on estates worth more than $5 million from 35 percent to 40 percent. Unemployment benefits would be extended for one year.

A “senior Republican side” tells Reuters that a majority of Senate Republicans are expected to vote yes on the deal. Republicans may not be the main stumbling block anymore, though. There’s a lot of angst among liberals this morning about Democrats backing off of the $250,000 threshold for new taxes, with people as prominent as Tom Harkin dumping all over the proposed deal. Joshua Green explains:

With the caveat that no reporter is privy to the details of the offers being swapped, here is the deal that seemed to be emerging: Democrats would get an extension of unemployment benefits for 2.1 million people; they’d patch the alternative minimum tax for a year to protect the middle class from sharp tax hikes; and they’d implement a “doc fix” to ensure that Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors don’t fall precipitously and limit patients’ access to medical care. Republicans would get to preserve Bush-era income tax rates for households making up to $400,000 (rather than the $250,000 limit Democrats prefer). They’d also get a lower tax rate and a much higher threshold for inheritance taxes (set to revert to 55 percent on estates of more than $1 million on Tuesday). And significantly, Republicans would hold onto their greatest point of leverage in upcoming negotiations over entitlement cuts, because the deal wouldn’t raise the debt limit.

Here’s what’s important about everything Democrats would get: It’s temporary; everything expires (presumably) within a year. Here’s what’s important about what Republicans would get: it’s permanent. The tax rates won’t expire.

That means Democrats are offering a huge gift to Republicans and getting almost nothing in return because on Jan. 1, if no deal is struck, Democrats will get even more revenue than they’re asking for without conceding a thing. And if, as polls suggest, voters would blame Republicans for going over the cliff, Democrats are also offering to save Republicans from their worst impulses—which, at least for the time being, since they haven’t yet agreed, is to reject this deal.

A GOP source made the same point to Philip Klein, boasting that the emerging deal would trade “permanent Republican priorities in exchange for temporary Democratic priorities.” I’m mystified as to why Democrats would budge that far on the income threshold for new taxes when they can wait another 11 hours and then pound the table for tax hikes on the $250K and up crowd, as O demanded all along. If you’re not even getting the GOP to agree to raise the debt ceiling in return, why would you do such a thing? Lefty Jonathan Chait doesn’t understand it either and thinks all it’ll do is convince the GOP that they can make Obama blink on the debt ceiling if they hold out on that in a few months too.

Hence the mystery of O’s 1:30 appearance. Is he going to go out there and say he’s “encouraged by the progress” or whatever and hopeful that a deal can be reached in the next few hours, or is he going to side with progressives and call this a crap deal that he can’t support and demand that Reid bring O’s own bill up for a vote? (The latter would be odd given that his own VP is now evidently the lead Democratic negotiator.) I think he’ll do both: He’ll set a deadline of, say, 5 p.m. today for a negotiated deal and then ask for a vote on his plan if nothing’s been hammered out by then. Presumably the GOP will filibuster it — why vote yes if there’s a better deal for Republicans being negotiated between Biden and McConnell? — and then O can whine about it for a day or two until something finally passes both houses.

Stand by for updates.

Update: Liberals care trying to figure out the Democrats’ strategy in moving off of the $250K threshold. Ezra Klein says they’re giving a little now in the expectation of getting a lot later — namely, they’re planning to ask for further tax hikes in exchange for entitlement cuts as part of the inevitable debt-ceiling deal in the spring. Greg Sargent is more pessimistic and thinks they’re caving because they’ve realized they don’t have quite as much leverage as they thought:

A White House ally spells out an alternative interpretation. Dems don’t necessarily believe going over the cliff will give them all that much more leverage in the talks next year. It’s been widely argued (by me and many others) that if we do go over the cliff, Dems can simply move to pass the Obama Tax Cuts For The Middle Class, forcing House Republicans to go along. But some Dems question whether House Republicans will feel the need to follow this script. Rather, the thinking goes, if Dems do that next year, the House GOP leadership can pass its own bill cutting taxes on all income up to, say, $500,000 or $600,000.

If the idea is that it’s easier for Republicans to support continuing tax cuts just on some income levels after they’ve all expired, such a bill (with $500,000 or $600,000 as the threshold) could pass the House. What’s more, some Congressional Democrats may feel like they have to support such a bill, too. And the worry is that if this is then kicked over to the Senate, then some Senate Dems may feel tempted to support it or at least negotiate around it, which could divide Senate Dems. After all, some of them have already voiced support for putting the income threshold at $500,000 or $1 million.

And so, the idea is that it’s better to lock in a deal on rates now, at, say, $450,000, extend unemployment benefits, and pocket those gains and continue the fight next year.

Obama can’t hold his own caucus together on one of his signature policy demands, flush from a landslide presidential election win? What?

Update: Sounds like the key sticking point is unstuck:

Update: Equally baffling, why doesn’t the GOP, the self-styled party of “the family,” push for this?

Update: Marco Rubio said yesterday that he thinks most Senate Republicans are disinclined to filibuster whatever ends up coming to the floor, but I assume that’s limited to whatever bill emerges from negotiations. They’ll surely filibuster Obama’s bill if Reid brings it up. Why wouldn’t they at this point, when they know how far Dems will bend on the income threshold?

Update: Via Mediaite, Bob Corker reminds us just how embarrassingly low the stakes are here from the standpoint of deficit reduction. Quote: “This is a lot of fuss about nothing today, unless you make, you know, somewhere between $350,000 a year and $550,000, today’s discussion is totally irrelevant, because that’s all that’s being discussed.”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: Expect the obligatory amount of preening at this presser but not much news:

Update: Like Corker said, totally irrelevant:

Update: Senate GOP aides tell NRO that the two sides have agreed on the tax numbers. Details: $400K for individuals, $450K for married couples, and a 40 percent tax on estates above $5 million. Can it pass the House, though? Quote:

Update: O’s presser is done and the tone was … not helpful. In fact, a la Ezra Klein’s piece above, he specifically warned the GOP to expect a new demand for taxes when the debt ceiling standoff comes:

Why antagonize the other side when we’re finally on the cusp of a deal? Because, silly: He knows his base is going to hate this deal after he promised them an income threshold of $250K and tweaking the GOP is one way to get back in their good graces. In fact, if he tweaks them enough, Republicans might walk away in annoyance, which would bail O out by not only canceling the deal but letting the White House blame the GOP for its failure. To wit:

Update: Timothy Noah of TNR posts an open letter to Senate and House Democrats begging them to kill this deal. Meanwhile, Obama’s attempt to bait Republicans into walking away may be paying dividends:

Update: Mercifully, the House Republican leadership is whispering that they’re more likely to vote tomorrow on a final bill instead of late tonight, when no one but no one will be paying attention. Taxes do go up at midnight, but since markets are closed for the holiday tomorrow, the impact will be negligible — assuming that the final bill does end up passing, of course.

Update: Is the GOP about to take the bait?

Update: Another reason why the House is more inclined to vote tomorrow:

GOP sources admitted there is an added benefit to the Senate’s delay: taxes would already be up, so lawmakers could argue that they are voting for tax cuts, as opposed to tax increases.

One GOP source also said that may help get more House Republicans to vote for the deal.

“I wouldn’t overestimate it, but a handful may be the difference we need,” the source said.

Update: Interesting analogy. The difference is, Leon Lett didn’t fumble intentionally.


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 3 4 5 6

From the first 15 minutes I watched, Obama’s tone and demeanor were childish, shameful. It wouldn’t matter so much except that the nation is in such economic trouble and needs firm leadership. Not a grinning, laughing, narcissistic fool who for all appearances couldn’t care less about the future of this country.

Paul-Cincy on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I’d say that’s far from true.
And there’s also this.

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Hahaha. The triumph of the low-information voter.

Tell us, genius: how does Obama maintain average deficits about a trillion dollars more than that of Bush if he didn’t raise spending?

Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Who gives a shyt? When the majority of Americans proved they were too stupid to do fairly simple math and elected this jackazz again, I pulled waaaaaay back on caring about this politics crap.

LET
IT
BURN

RedNewEnglander on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

GOP sources admitted there is an added benefit to the Senate’s delay: taxes would already be up, so lawmakers could argue that they are voting for tax cuts, as opposed to tax increases.

Circus tricks might fool the clowns – but for most of us out here in “realville” – we’re hip to the scam boys.

HondaV65 on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I’m actually wondering if verbaluce is drunk. Or high.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Neither… He is just a communist scum…

mnjg on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Who is our government, though? Soldiers? Federal Agents? I can guarantee you that these men and women are the most ardent defenders of the constitution. They put their lives in the line for their country. Would they just follow a decree by an out of control government to squash the people’s rights? I don’t think so.

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM

They would absolutely do as ordered, don’t be ridiculous. The government doesn’t train people to question their orders.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM

You don’t know many soldiers or Feds, huh? You’re wrong.

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I think that’s what the Russians said about the Afghans…

… and what the US said about the Afghans…

… and what Ghaddafi said about the Libyan rebels…

… and what Assad has been saying about the Syrian rebels…

… and what King George said about those colonial peasants…

*shrug*

Midas on December 31, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I’d say that’s far from true.
And there’s also this.

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Hahaha. The triumph of the low-information voter.

Tell us, genius: how does Obama maintain average deficits about a trillion dollars more than that of Bush if he didn’t raise spending?

Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

A communist scum like verbulace has typically a low IQ and cannot understand the most basic concept you just showed to him…

mnjg on December 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM

From the first 15 minutes I watched, Obama’s tone and demeanor were childish, shameful. It wouldn’t matter so much except that the nation is in such economic trouble and needs firm leadership. Not a grinning, laughing, narcissistic fool who for all appearances couldn’t care less about the future of this country.

Paul-Cincy on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

How can you tell? He always sounds like that. He’s the world’s first talking meat flower.

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM

or you are a revolutionary attempting to overthrow the Constitutional Republic and replace it with a Democracy.

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

This is what they want.

RWM already shot the “democracy” claim.

verbaluce is the least of our problems.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

I suppose the next thing verbaluce is going to claim is that we can tax the rich our way out of this mess.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Keynes also called for government frugality and surpluses in boom times. Keynes is just an excuse for statists – they don’t really follow his theory (I’m not saying I agree with Keynes only that progressives don’t really follow him).

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM

The central tenant of Keynesianism, though — that government spending is functionally the same as investment or even consumer spending — is something that is virtually universally accepted by both parties in DC. They don’t grasp that they are conflating money with wealth, and real growth for government created bubbles.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Methinks the ‘liberal elite’ is ejaculating its Communist ideas a wee bit prematurely. They should have confiscated the rifles first. They are now hurrying to catch up but it might not work yet.

Archivarix on December 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Let’s be realistic here. The small per centage of citizens who would resist the US federal government confiscating their guns would have no chance against our government. Even a couple hundred thousand heavily armed people wouldn’t slow down the government, and would be an excuse for even more power for the govt.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I find myself vacillating between those two points. I fear we may find out sooner than we expect which is the truer statement.

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Funny how none of the trolls showed up here. Must not have been optimal for chin wiping. Looks like this thread is. Pathetic little 0 fluffers. Wipe that other area too.

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

From the first 15 minutes I watched, Obama’s tone and demeanor were childish, shameful. It wouldn’t matter so much except that the nation is in such economic trouble and needs firm leadership. Not a grinning, laughing, narcissistic fool who for all appearances couldn’t care less about the future of this country.

Paul-Cincy on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

What else do you expect from the most incompetent man to ever become President… He spent all his political life agitating the parasites and he was elected twice because the majority of his voters are parasites wanting to steal more of other people money…

mnjg on December 31, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Here’s for “democracy”.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I’m actually wondering if verbaluce is drunk. Or high.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Hey!!…let’s not alienate drunken stoners.

Tim_CA on December 31, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Funny how none of the trolls showed up here. Must not have been optimal for chin wiping. Looks like this thread is. Pathetic little 0 fluffers. Wipe that other area too.

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

How do you defend blood on Obama/Hillary’s hands?

When madmen in America shoot up schools or movie theaters,
Obama blames the weapons they used and calls for gun control.

When madmen in the Middle East shoot up American consulates and embassies, Obama blames movies and calls for film control.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I’d say that’s far from true.
And there’s also this.
verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

It’s always Bush’s fault huh?

Of course liberals like to ignore the fact that the Bush recession that Obama inherited ended 4-6 months after Obama took office – before any of the Obama “solutions” kicked in.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

From the first 15 minutes I watched, Obama’s tone and demeanor were childish, shameful. It wouldn’t matter so much except that the nation is in such economic trouble and needs firm leadership. Not a grinning, laughing, narcissistic fool who for all appearances couldn’t care less about the future of this country.

Paul-Cincy on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Hey, I’d be cranky too if I had to cut short my 14th vacation of the year, and fly non-stop from Hawaii to DC on my private, cost-free, customized flying RV.

The nerve of those GOPers.

BobMbx on December 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Keynes also called for government frugality and surpluses in boom times. Keynes is just an excuse for statists – they don’t really follow his theory (I’m not saying I agree with Keynes only that progressives don’t really follow him).
gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM
The central tenant of Keynesianism, though — that government spending is functionally the same as investment or even consumer spending — is something that is virtually universally accepted by both parties in DC. They don’t grasp that they are conflating money with wealth, and real growth for government created bubbles.
Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

+1

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM

To make the statement that “I love democracy and I love this country” is to state emphatically that either you are painfully ignorant of the antithetical and hostile natures of Democracies to Constitutional Republics, You are ignorant of the form of Government that the United States has, or you are a revolutionary attempting to overthrow the Constitutional Republic and replace it with a Democracy.

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

With all due respect, I think you’re splitting the hairs you have across your a**.
I suppose had I written ‘pure democracy’ your objection might be understandable.
But I didn’t.
And keep spreading those Constitutional Republic principles…

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, just spoke on the Senate floor. He said a fiscal-cliff deal is “very close.” But first, he’d like the Senate to vote on the tax aspect of the deal as soon as possible. “I can report we’ve reached an agreement on all of the tax issues,” he said. “Let’s pass the tax relief portion now.”

Sources say that Senate Republicans, for the most part, are ready to support such a measure. As one insider puts it, “they are ready to act on the bipartisan tax agreement.”

Intersting bit from NRO

Pass the tax deal part of it, and leave the sequester, etc. for another day…when it will have kicked in. If Boehner did this, and the Senate GOP was ready to go along, the ball would be back with Reid, Biden and the O.

Wethal on December 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Let’s be realistic here. The small per centage of citizens who would resist the US federal government confiscating their guns would have no chance against our government. Even a couple hundred thousand heavily armed people wouldn’t slow down the government, and would be an excuse for even more power for the govt.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I’ll second RovesChins in disagreeing with that. There is little chance that the entire power of U.S. Army can be turned against the civilians. Most likely, the army will project its strength as a “separation wall” to prevent violence, just like it did in Egypt and Honduras. The forces that will unquestionably support the government are unionized police and SEIU/AFK purple-shirt thugs, whereas the National Guard will likely join the people.

Archivarix on December 31, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Written by someone who has never read the man. Keynes had a lot to say about deficit spending and when it was appropriate. Suffice it to say, that it was only used temporarily and then repaid. Keynes was against trying to spend one’s way out of a recession, while running debt without any plans to slow down spending or repay it.

STL_Vet on December 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM

No, Keynes believed you could keep “booms” going by lowering interest rates and boosting government spending. When he was questioned about the long term consequences, he famously said, “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead”

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:14 PM

It’s always Bush’s fault huh?

Of course liberals like to ignore the fact that the Bush recession that Obama inherited ended 4-6 months after Obama took office – before any of the Obama “solutions” kicked in.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Far from it.
(And maybe that line gets retired in 2013?)
But he certainly did little to help the issue.
But then again, didn’t seem to matter or concern as much then.
So he was barely and rarely called to task…

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I’d say that’s far from true.
And there’s also this.
verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Hahaha. The triumph of the low-information voter.
Tell us, genius: how does Obama maintain average deficits about a trillion dollars more than that of Bush if he didn’t raise spending?
Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

If like politifact you ignore all the spending increases during Obama’s first budget (and the Q4 “Bush” budget which was held by Democrats until Obama signed it) and the stimulus which was baked into the baseline then Obama isn’t a big spender year to year.

I think verbaluce may have discovered why Reid hasn’t proposed a budget in over 3 years.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

how does Obama maintain average deficits about a trillion dollars more than that of Bush if he didn’t raise spending?

Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Volume! :0

Seriously, the idea of having legitimate debate and honest discussion with the parasites of the left is dead. All they want to do is find some what to blame the GOP and conservative right. That and this whole fiscal cliff debacle proves to me that we must no longer think of the left as anything but the enemy. They don’t want to debate the issues, they want to find ways to shut down the legislative process and rule of law and replace it with socialist dogma. In short, time to treat parasites for what they are. If you find a tick on your dog do you let it be? If you find a bunch of ticks on your country, do you let them call the shots?

Burn them all!

Happy Nomad on December 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM

“Repugs holding nation hostage, again” — Oof in Chief, who is your destroyer

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I suppose the next thing verbaluce is going to claim is that we can tax the rich our way out of this mess.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Eleven days. He might stop whining for eleven days as Obama sucks the rich dry. Then, they come for the middle class.

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM

In Keynesian economic theory, …
Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Written by someone who has never read the man. Keynes had a lot to say about deficit spending and when it was appropriate. Suffice it to say, that it was only used temporarily and then repaid. Keynes was against trying to spend one’s way out of a recession, while running debt without any plans to slow down spending or repay it.

STL_Vet on December 31, 2012 at 3:00 PMRichard

Many people confuse Keynes with his biggest disciple Kahn. Richard Kahn was a follower of Keynes and he proposed a large multiplier effect which is very popular with left wing economists but has never been proven in real life situations. It’s really just a way to claim that socialism is a better producer then capitalism, which is clearly wrong headed. History always proves the lib/marxist economists wrong.

The multiplier effect refers to the idea that an initial spending rise can lead to an even greater increase in national income…an initial change in aggregate demand can cause a further change in aggregate output for the economy.

BoxHead1 on December 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I’d say that’s far from true.
And there’s also this.
 
verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM

 
Thanks for the link. From the about us, btw:
 

PoliticusUSA was founded in February of 2008 by Jason Easley. Jason had a vision of a liberal and independent news site which would offer a mix politics and opinion in an unfiltered environment, not beholden to any specific political or media agenda

 
When I want solid, unbiased numbers, I’m definitely going to the site that has “Real liberal politics- No Corporate Money. No Masters” on the banner at the top (above the Google ad, comically) and a clickable “Koch Block It” link underneath the photo of a smiling Obama.
 
http://www.politicususa.com/koch-block-it
 
Nicely done.
 
Seriously, though. Thanks. I bet the comments there are hilarious.

rogerb on December 31, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Andy Reid Eagles Coach out.

Romeo Crenne Chiefs coach out.

Chan Gaily Bills coach out.

Lovie Smith Bears coach out.

Norv Turner Chargers coach out.

Ken Whisenhunt Cardinals coach out.

davidk on December 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Off to get the kids.
And off HA ’til 2013.
Sincere apologies for any strident comments that resulted in any genuine offense in 2012.
(I’m sure rogerb has a quote of me saying the opposite somewhere…but I was drunk then.)
Happy New Year to all!!

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Boooooosssshhhhhhhh!!!!!

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I’ll second RovesChins in disagreeing with that. There is little chance that the entire power of U.S. Army can be turned against the civilians. Most likely, the army will project its strength as a “separation wall” to prevent violence, just like it did in Egypt and Honduras. The forces that will unquestionably support the government are unionized police and SEIU/AFK purple-shirt thugs, whereas the National Guard will likely join the people.

Archivarix on December 31, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I definitely believe they COULD turn the army against the populace, but I don’t think they would ever have to. There are enough alphabet soup cops and local cops in this country to confiscate guns. I think the military would largely stay out of it.

Our cops have been trained as para-military units to fight the war on drugs, and our bureaucratic federal cops are trained as para-military units to fight the war on terror. Cops role is supposed to be to protect civilians, while the military’s role is supposed to be to kill people. Many cops already see and treat citizens as the enemy, it wouldn’t take much to get the rest to think that way too.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Off to get the kids.
And off HA ’til 2013.
Sincere apologies for any strident comments that resulted in any genuine offense in 2012.
(I’m sure rogerb has a quote of me saying the opposite somewhere…but I was drunk then.)
Happy New Year to all!!

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Bang up parenting, dude.

Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The GOP had BETTER NOT raise taxes without commensurate big spending cuts.

They had better stand firm here. The battle is joined and now is no time too go wobbly.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

With all due respect, I think you’re splitting the hairs you have across your a**.
I suppose had I written ‘pure democracy’ your objection might be understandable.
But I didn’t.
And keep spreading those Constitutional Republic principles…

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

No hair splitting here, it’s like being slightly dead or slightly pregnant, you really just aren’t that bright dude.

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:22 PM

real growth for government created bubbles.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM

And we’re doing it all over again, aren’t we? In a variety of sectors….. including real estate.

My moment of clarity came as a trader during the last months of 2007 watching the meltdown. It was terrifying.

In the following years we have seen EU officials trying to prop up their union and currency. The Fed keeps propping up failed policy.

The problem is that there seems to be little policy change. It’s all a house of cards.

Cody1991 on December 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Off to get the kids.
And off HA ’til 2013.
Sincere apologies for any strident comments that resulted in any genuine offense in 2012.
(I’m sure rogerb has a quote of me saying the opposite somewhere…but I was drunk then.)
Happy New Year to all!!

verbaluce on December 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Happy New Year!
And, we’re all sorry for always proving you wrong!

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM

If like politifact you ignore all the spending increases during Obama’s first budget (and the Q4 “Bush” budget which was held by Democrats until Obama signed it) and the stimulus which was baked into the baseline then Obama isn’t a big spender year to year.

I think verbaluce may have discovered why Reid hasn’t proposed a budget in over 3 years.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

And if Eleanor Roosevelt could have flown, she still wouldn’t have made a difference in the Battle for Britain because she lacked sufficient armament. (old SNL skit)

It’s been clear to many of us that the numbers are being cooked for the rat-eared wonder. It worked he got his second term because of stupid greedy parasites. I look forward to rubbing their vote in their face over the next few years because the shock of losing one’s job or finding themselves with far less each pay period is not limited to corporate fat cats, straight couples, legal citizens. Many of these worthless parasites, who have no societal value and can disappear at any time without anybody caring, will be among the first to be hit. And I couldn’t be happier.

Happy Nomad on December 31, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I definitely believe they COULD turn the army against the populace, but I don’t think they would ever have to. There are enough alphabet soup cops and local cops in this country to confiscate guns. I think the military would largely stay out of it.

Our cops have been trained as para-military units to fight the war on drugs, and our bureaucratic federal cops are trained as para-military units to fight the war on terror. Cops role is supposed to be to protect civilians, while the military’s role is supposed to be to kill people. Many cops already see and treat citizens as the enemy, it wouldn’t take much to get the rest to think that way too.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM

The local cops here in south Louisiana would not turn against the people – I can guarantee. They are of the people.

You would instead see maybe some REGIONS in which this happened, but in the solid South, no way… just no way.

It would have the same outcome as if the Southern governors had tried to take away the slaves in 1860.

Obviously, slavery sucked and was an abomination, and gun rights are different, but the local cops are not going to push us around.

You would see outright revolt.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

It is better to argue with a drunk than a despot. A drunk is much less likely to have you jailed without due process or just shot by a drone. Best sit back and enjoy this historic time of bread and circuses.

onomo on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I wonder if Boehner has considered the fallout from passing ANOTHER BILL that NOBODY has READ?

This alone is reason to DEMAND a new Speaker of the House.

Freddy on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

KICK THE CAN AGAIN, YOU WORTHLESS COLLECTION OF WEASELS.

Might as well double down on stupid.

Can we have a serious national discussion about term limits now, please?

If not now, when?

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The multiplier effect refers to the idea that an initial spending rise can lead to an even greater increase in national income…an initial change in aggregate demand can cause a further change in aggregate output for the economy.

BoxHead1 on December 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I wasn’t referring to the multiplier effect, but it is an important part of progressive’s economic theory (remember nancy pelosi saying unemployment benefits were the best form of stimulus?). Keynes believed that the boom and bust cycle could be stopped by government compensating for busts by spending more. In his theory, it doesnt matter if you hire people to dig holes then fill them back in, all spending is considered equal.

That’s my point. If you believe that as long as government is injecting capital and boosting aggregate demand and it doesn’t really matter where that money is injected, then you can see why our current situation makes total sense.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The local cops here in south Louisiana would not turn against the people – I can guarantee. They are of the people.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Sorry, not buying that… Katrina ring any bells?

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Sorry about the hollerin’; it’s just mad-making what our alleged representatives are doing to us.

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:27 PM

The problem is that there seems to be little policy change. It’s all a house of cards.

Cody1991 on December 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM

The real problem is that government is picking winners and losers. There is no reason why we’ve “invested” so heavily in worthless technology like solar other than the rat-eared wonder wanted to reward some donors even as he sought to put all coal miners out of work and their families on the street. Ditto the auto bailout. Billions to the UAW laundered through GM and Chrysler (I will buy neither of their products in the future).

We need a smaller government that does nothing more than work for the betterment of all Americans. We’ve got to wait at least another four years before we can start down that path.

Happy Nomad on December 31, 2012 at 3:29 PM

The local cops here in south Louisiana would not turn against the people – I can guarantee. They are of the people.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Sorry, not buying that… Katrina ring any bells?

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Eh, most of those people needed to be night sticked for being stupid and not leaving.

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

And we’re doing it all over again, aren’t we? In a variety of sectors….. including real estate.

My moment of clarity came as a trader during the last months of 2007 watching the meltdown. It was terrifying.

In the following years we have seen EU officials trying to prop up their union and currency. The Fed keeps propping up failed policy.

The problem is that there seems to be little policy change. It’s all a house of cards.

Cody1991 on December 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM

It’s not that we’re doing it again, its that we haven’t stopped doing it at least since the 90′s, but really since the establishment of the federal reserve.

The dotcom bubble caused the fed to zero out interest rates, which along with congress’s help, led to a housing bubble, which led to insane amounts of printing and bail outs by the fed and the federal govt, which in turn will lead to the next bubble (probably personal debt — student loans, credit cards, and mortgages). Each bubble will probably be worst then the last, and we will continue to vacillate between credit bubbles and real busts until we have a bust bad enough to break the dollar.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

If like politifact you ignore all the spending increases during Obama’s first budget (and the Q4 “Bush” budget which was held by Democrats until Obama signed it) and the stimulus which was baked into the baseline then Obama isn’t a big spender year to year.

I think verbaluce may have discovered why Reid hasn’t proposed a budget in over 3 years.

gwelf on December 31, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Bingo. The “hey guys, Obama never raised spending” lie has been debunked ad nauseum. To believe this, you have to believe Bush passing TARP once, 95% of which has been paid back or its spending cancelled, is the same thing as Obama locking $750 billion in new spending every year in the 2009 budget, 100% of which is new debt.

This is exactly why the Democrats have refused to pass a budget since. They don’t want any of their spending hikes touched or reviewed. Nor do Democrats give a rats butt about the deficits they are creating. The fiscal cliff deal proves this.

Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

You would see outright revolt.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Indeed. This is not a good situation. One thing is for sure…. I refuse to, and will never travel north of the Mason Dixon line. Never. I will never move back.

Next question is how to keep the locusts out?

Cody1991 on December 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

It would have the same outcome as if the Southern governors had tried to take away the slaves in 1860.

Obviously, slavery sucked and was an abomination,

obviously . . .

lostmotherland on December 31, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Sorry, not buying that… Katrina ring any bells?

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Oh, it rings plenty of bells, my friend. I lived it in living color.

New Orleans doesn’t count as south Louisiana. It’s New Orleans; its own entity.

I stand behind my comment, 100%.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM

obviously . . .

lostmotherland on December 31, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Yes, obviously.

That comment was there in case any trolls tried to use my southern extraction as an excuse to accuse me of supporting slavery.

You’re welcome.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM

The local cops here in south Louisiana would not turn against the people – I can guarantee. They are of the people.

You would instead see maybe some REGIONS in which this happened, but in the solid South, no way… just no way.

It would have the same outcome as if the Southern governors had tried to take away the slaves in 1860.

Obviously, slavery sucked and was an abomination, and gun rights are different, but the local cops are not going to push us around.

You would see outright revolt.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Well, in my area, there is no doubt in my mind that the cops would jump on any opportunity to confiscate guns, do random searches, arrest people, or do whatever the feds wanted them to. They already regularly infringe on our rights, and when caught, they protect the cops involved and keep on doing what they were doing.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Eh, most of those people needed to be night sticked for being stupid and not leaving.

RovesChins on December 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Not much for that whole concept of freedom or liberty, eh?

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM

NO CUTS NO DEAL! #nocutsnodeal

Connie on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Well, in my area, there is no doubt in my mind that the cops would jump on any opportunity to confiscate guns, do random searches, arrest people, or do whatever the feds wanted them to. They already regularly infringe on our rights, and when caught, they protect the cops involved and keep on doing what they were doing.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM

What general are is that? Truly curious. In my area.. no way.

My whole point is that there would be a strong regional aspect.

Barry couldn’t just order a national clampdown like that without rebellion in certain areas.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

When madmen in the Middle East shoot up American consulates and embassies, Obama blames movies and calls for film control.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Citizen Control is on the way; it’s what these people thrive on.

The modern-day liberal notion is but a hair’s breadth from fascism. (See Bloomberg and company.)

How dare you have a mind of your own?

The original liberalism has been perverted beyond recognition.

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Be well verbaluce – ya get a break until next year.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:36 PM

What general are is that? Truly curious. In my area.. no way.

My whole point is that there would be a strong regional aspect.

Barry couldn’t just order a national clampdown like that without rebellion in certain areas.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I live in a mid sized city in the north east.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:34 PM

What general are is that? Truly curious. In my area.. no way.

My whole point is that there would be a strong regional aspect.

Barry couldn’t just order a national clampdown like that without rebellion in certain areas.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I can see that happening in California’s I-5 corridor in a heartbeat. Once the major metropolitan area’s have been disarmed it’s a slow methodical process to disarm the rest of the country.

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

how does Obama maintain average deficits about a trillion dollars more than that of Bush if he didn’t raise spending?

Chuck Schick on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Assist.

FY 2001

Non-defence spending: $1.655 trillion
Defence: $305 billion
Revenue: $1.99 trillion (including SS)
Total spending: $1.96 trillion
Deficit: $133.29 billion (without trust funds)
GDP: $13.1268 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.16%
Spending-to-GDP: 14.93%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.24%
National Debt: $5.8075 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 53.84%

FY 2002:

Non-defence spending: $1.6823 trillion
Defence: $328.7 billion
Revenue: $1.853 trillion
Total spending: $2.011 trillion
Deficit: $157.8 billion
GDP: $10.6423 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.41%
Spending-to-GDP: 18.89%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.483%
National Debt: $6.4057 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 60.19%

FY 2003

Non-defence spending: $1.3774 trillion
Defence: $404.9 billion
Revenue: $1.7823 trillion
Total spending: $2.159 trillion
Deficit: $374 billion
GDP: $11.1421 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.99%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.38%
Deficit-to-GDP: 3.39%
National Debt: $6.7832 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 60.88%

FY 2004

Non-defence spending: $1.836 trillion
Defence: $455.9 billion
Revenue: $1.880 trillion
Total spending: $2.292 trillion
Deficit: $413 billion
GDP: $11.8678 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.84%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.31%
Deficit-to-GDP: 3.48%
National Debt: $7.596 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 64.01%

FY 2005

Non-defence spending: $1.976 trillion
Defence: $495.30 billion
Revenue: $2.153 trillion
Total spending: $2.472 trillion
Deficit: $317 billion
GDP: $12.6384 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.04%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.56%
Deficit-to-GDP: 2.52%
National Debt: $8.1708 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 64.65%

Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

FY 2006

Non-military defence: $2.119 trillion
Defence: $535.9 billion
Revenue: $2.407 trillion
Total spending: $2.655 trillion
Deficit: $248 billion
GDP: $13.3989 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.96%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.82%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.85%
National Debt: $8.6802 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 64.78%

FY 2007

Non-defence spending: $2.2026 trillion
Defence: $527.4 billion
Revenue: $2.568 trillion
Total spending: $2.728 trillion
Deficit: $163 billion
GDP: $14.0776 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 18.24%
Spending-to-GDP: 19.38%
Deficit-to-GDP: 1.86%
National Debt: $9.2298 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 65.67%

FY 2008

Non-defence spending: $2.488 trillion
Defence: $494.4 billion
Revenue: $2.524 trillion
Total spending: $2.9825 trillion
Deficit: $438 billion
GDP: $14.4414 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 17.48%
Spending-to-GDP: 20.65%
Deficit-to-GDP: 3.18%
National Debt: $10.6998 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 74.01%

FY 2009

Non-defence spending: $3.0234 trillion
Defence: $494.3 billion
Revenue: $2.105 trillion
Total spending: $3.5177 trillion
Deficit: $1.786 trillion
GDP: $14.119 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 14.91%
Spending-to-GDP: 24.92%
Deficit-to-GDP: 12.91%
National Debt: $12.13497 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 85.95%

FY2010

Non-defence spending: $2.793 trillion
Defence: $663.7 billion
Revenue: $2.1627 trillion
Total Spending: $3.4562 trillion
Deficit: $1.295 trillion
GDP: $14.5082 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 14.91%
Spending-to-GDP: 23.83%
Deficit-to-GDP: 8.54%
National Debt: $13.5616 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 93.48%

FY2011

Non-defence spending: $2.72 trillion
Defence: $880 billion
Revenue: $2.3 trillion
Total Spending: $3.6 trillion
Deficit: $1.3 trillion
GDP: $14.959 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 15.38%
Spending-to-GDP: 24.39%
Deficit-to-GDP: 8.69%
National Debt: $14.76 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 98.67%

Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Double shot…

… must be New Year’s Eve, or sumpun..

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I’ve never experienced cops in LA, but I went to school in the VA, and didn’t find their cops to be much better.

I think its a generational thing — the cops I know that are my age (mid 20s) were the idiot meat heads in high school, and they take that bullyish attitude on to the job with them. It seems that cops are hired more for their ability to bench press 300 pounds then for anything else.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I live in a mid sized city in the north east.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I think it really does depend on the zeitgeist in your area.

If it’s more of an impersonal, non-interconnected area, especially in a blue area, I could see it go down.

In my more interconnected red area, we have a lot of social ties… and also a great dislike for 0bama, who shut down the Gulf, arbitrarily and capriciously,and cost a lot of people their livelihood. 0bama is hated in my area by the workers… loved by the takers.

But due to the familial ties, 0bama couldn’t do a clampdown on us using local police.

Now, if he sent Chicago PD down here to confiscate out weapons, that would be different. Classic Nazi tactic.

But those Chicago folks would learn a new definition of Southern hospitality if they tried to tell us what to do, and the local cops would be on our side, not that of the invaders.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

In summary …

No cuts now.

Raise taxes now, permanently.

Some cuts later, if ….. Raise taxes some more.

Carnac on December 31, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Double shot…

… must be New Year’s Eve, or sumpun..

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Kidding;

Good info RWMuch.

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I’ve never experienced cops in LA, but I went to school in the VA, and didn’t find their cops to be much better.

I think its a generational thing — the cops I know that are my age (mid 20s) were the idiot meat heads in high school, and they take that bullyish attitude on to the job with them. It seems that cops are hired more for their ability to bench press 300 pounds then for anything else.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Down here, the grandmas would slap the local cops silly for trying to turn against their own people, and the locals would say “yes ma’am.”

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Thanks for posting this!

What is your source??

esr1951 on December 31, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Sorry for the OT comments!!!

I’ll check myself.

I guess it’s just a feeling of helplessness… that nothing I say here today will influence the jerks in Washington.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I can see that happening in California’s I-5 corridor in a heartbeat. Once the major metropolitan area’s have been disarmed it’s a slow methodical process to disarm the rest of the country.

SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Yeah, I don’t think people really conceptualize how much of population of this country is concentrated in a few small areas (mostly where democrats are in power), nor do they conceptualize how powerful our central government is. They have every email you’ve ever written on DHS servers. Just think about how much data google mines from you — don’t think the government is capable of that? They could identify all gun owners, and confiscate all guns in the middle of the night with a knock on the door by the local police at once, before anyone had any time to process what was happening.

Yeah, in rural areas it might be more difficult, but in urban and suburban areas it would be incredibly easy.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Barry couldn’t just order a national clampdown like that without rebellion in certain areas.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

North Georgia and South Georgia are like that. No way those cops would go along with it. As for Atlanta, that’s another story.

topdawg on December 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Yeah, in rural areas it might be more difficult, but in urban and suburban areas it would be incredibly easy.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:43 PM

You would see open revolt and bloodshed in my south Louisiana suburban area if that went on.

Minutemen, 200 years later.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Revenue collapsed after the Boooosh tax cuts for the rich™!!!123542346

tom daschle concerned on December 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The Ass-Clown Presidency continues! Obama is the biggest twit ever.

Jaibones on December 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM

RWM, AmeriKa doesn’t deserve you…nor does England any more, alas.

Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM

It’s easy for us all to lose sight of the fact that nearly 50% of the population voted to throw Soetoro out on his ear, and that the “strongly-dislike” numbers were much worse for him than for Romney.

Even 0bama is not so stupid as to try some sort of national fascist clampdown.

Anyway, I’ll stop talking about it, as we’re supposed to be discussing jerks in Washington picking through our wallets.

Sorry, Allah!

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Now, if he sent Chicago PD down here to confiscate out weapons, that would be different. Classic Nazi tactic.

But those Chicago folks would learn a new definition of Southern hospitality if they tried to tell us what to do, and the local cops would be on our side, not that of the invaders.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Yeah, I mean the cops around here regularly set up DUI / seatbelt / registration / whatever checkpoints to use as an excuse to go look through our cars, and hopefully search them. 9 times out of 10 if you get caught in a check point, you will not be leaving without some kind of ticket. It’s a huge way for them to get revenue and they love the power of making little old ladies walk the white line because they were slow to roll down the window.

Recently my neighbors door was kicked in by the SWAT team at 10 pm because someone thought he was acting suspiciously, and the cops feared he could be armed. He’s a 50-something year old guy with grown kids and a wife.

Could absolutely see those boneheads kicking in doors and taking weapons.

Timin203 on December 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Truly disgusting.

Tim_CA on December 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

But those Chicago folks would learn a new definition of Southern hospitality if they tried to tell us what to do, and the local cops would be on our side, not that of the invaders.

cane_loader on December 31, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Not sure how the police would respond here but I am glad we have Nellis AFB here in town. I know which side those folks would be on.

VegasRick on December 31, 2012 at 3:48 PM

It sounds like Democrats have a progressive vs. DINO war going on in the senate.

If the GOP leadership had any political skill at all they would exploit this, but they won’t.

Plus I would just ignore Obama’s speeches at this point. He never says anything useful and apparently Biden is the guy actually in the White House doing what should be the presidents job.

So basically we have President Biden at this point. If I were the GOP leadership after this cliff nonsense ends I would actually say that in speeches and on TV….just to get under Obama’s skin.

If Obama wants to make smart ass statements so can our side.

Hail President Biden…

:)

William Eaton on December 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM

These are the latest figures, but subject to revision since the FY ended on 09.30.12.

FY2012

Non-defence spending: $2.804 trillion
Defence: $925 billion
Revenue: $2.628 trillion
Total Spending: $3.729 trillion
Deficit: $1.101 trillion
GDP: $15.602 trillion
Revenue-to-GDP: 16.84%
Spending-to-GDP: 23.9%
Deficit-to-GDP: 7.06%
National Debt: $16.336 trillion
Debt-to-GDP: 104.7%

Reminder: There was NO Bush FY2009 Budget

Resist We Much on December 31, 2012 at 3:50 PM

The Ass-Clown Presidency continues! Obama is the biggest twit ever.

Jaibones on December 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Yeppers. It would be almost funny, were it not so goddamned tragic.

The slobbering media keeps doubling down on their clown-worship; meanwhile the ship is inevitably going to ground while Captain Asshole grins his way to oblivion.

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:51 PM

lost is a biter.

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Not even good at that.

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM

LOL!

kingsjester on December 31, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Maybe lost will contact its village friends for lessons.

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:54 PM

lost, practice!

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Practice lost!

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

GOP sources admitted there is an added benefit to the Senate’s delay: taxes would already be up, so lawmakers could argue that they are voting for tax cuts, as opposed to tax increases.

This is truly disgusting.

This is why we lose.

Tim_CA on December 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

lost, you missed a spot.

Bmore on December 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM

The Ass-Clown Presidency continues! Obama is the biggest twit ever.

Jaibones on December 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Yeppers. It would be almost funny, were it not so goddamned tragic.

The slobbering media keeps doubling down on their clown-worship; meanwhile the ship is inevitably going to ground while Captain Assh*le grins his way to oblivion.

hillbillyjim on December 31, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6