Has leverage switched to Republicans on spending cuts?

posted at 12:11 pm on January 4, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Peter Orszag argued as much yesterday, and Byron York continues the same argument today.  By splitting the fiscal cliff into two different debates — one on taxes, the other on spending and debt — Republicans shed their worst political position with a one-off concession and can now concentrate on a political strength.  Or at least that’s what they hope:

Their thinking was this: The GOP was on the wrong side of the polls in the battle over raising taxes on the highest earners. Surveys showed substantial public support for the president and Democrats on that issue. But Republicans are on the right side of the polls in the battle over fiscal responsibility. The GOP, the party trying to put sensible limits on Obama’s runaway spending, is better positioned to make the case for cuts.

“We’re making a hard pivot to spending,” says a senior GOP Senate aide. “Our view is that the revenue question has now been settled. It’s behind us. Now we fight on spending, and we’ve got two good opportunities to do so coming up — the debt limit and the continuing resolution.”

The Republican strategy is more than just positioning. It’s the right thing to do. Everybody knows Obama’s tax increases will do little to reduce deficits in coming years; they’ll add about $60 billion in revenue a year, turning a $1.2 trillion deficit into a $1.14 trillion deficit. And everybody knows entitlement spending is on its way to eating the entire federal budget. It has to be reduced or disaster awaits.

Byron notes that Barack Obama will try to get more tax increases in the next round too, demanding the deduction elimination the GOP proposed in this round as an alternative to raising rates.  However, Obama undermined his own argument on that point repeatedly over the last few weeks by deriding it as too little to make an impact on the deficit.  Ever since September 2011, Obama has insisted that the so-called Buffett Rule rates would make the system “fair” and relieve the deficit problem.  In two months, it will be clear that revenues aren’t rising enough to even make a noticeable dent in the trajectory of the deficit, and that will further strengthen the GOP’s hand.

Jim Geraghty also points out that the tax-rate argument has been the Democrats’ only answer for the deficit since Obama was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature:

Looks like a pretty slam-dunk counter-argument for Republicans: “Why the hell are you guys talking about raising taxes on the richest Americans again? We just did that at the beginning of the year! We haven’t even reached the annual tax-filing deadline of April 16, and your calcified one-track minds are coming back with the exact same policy recommendations that you insisted would fix the problem before!”

And just think, this debate will occur as everyone in America sees their paychecks get 2 percent smaller (at least on the first $110,000 of income) because of the expiration of the temporary reduction in the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. (Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”)

One of the fundamental reasons that “raise taxes on the rich” is less popular than Democrats want is the public’s well-founded wariness of just what income level constitutes “rich” in the eyes of lawmakers.

Obama is proudly proclaiming that he saved the middle class from a tax hike, and that he only raised taxes on the rich. But since most voters perceive their taxes in aggregate – that is, what’s left on their pay stub after everybody takes their bite – they’ll probably perceive the opposite, that an income tax hike supposedly targeting the rich made their paychecks 2 percent smaller. Thus, they’ll be even more skeptical than usual, since they’ll think the last tax hike on “the rich” hit them instead.

So the Republicans have better leverage for the spending fight in two months.  That doesn’t mean they’ll have all the leverage, or even most of it, since Obama and Harry Reid outnumber John Boehner.  However, there won’t be any more appetite for tax hikes, especially if the economy takes a hit from the rate increases and other changes passed on Tuesday.  That’s what Investors Business Daily expects to see — and they’re not alone, either:

Let’s look at what Obama has managed to achieve with his $620 billion tax hike on the wealthy and the boost in the payroll tax rate.

• They’ll hurt the economy. Economists are admitting the fiscal deal will slow the already sluggish economic growth.

Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says the higher taxes on the wealthy and the increase in payroll taxes will shave close to 1 point off GDP growth this year and result in 600,000 fewer new jobs.

Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors chief economist Ian Shepherdson figures the deal will cut GDP by 1.5 points. And Gallup’s chief economist Dennis Jacobe says the deal has created a “higher probability of recession — just the opposite of what fixing the fiscal cliff was intended to do.”

• They’ll do nothing to fix the debt crisis. Even with the Obama tax hikes, deficits are likely to reach nearly $1 trillion this year and top $6 trillion over the next decade (see chart). Worse, by slowing economic growth, the tax increase makes tackling the nation’s debt crisis all the harder. Getting deficits under control means tackling the massive growth in entitlement spending. But Obama still hasn’t put forward a credible plan to do so. If he fails again, he’ll pay a price with the public. And if he does put forward a plan, he’ll find himself at war with his own party.

The problem that underlies both debates is the national debt, which is soaring to Greece levels and shows no sign of abating under Obama’s perpetual trillion-dollar annual deficits.  Michael Ramirez captures the issue perfectly for Investors Business Daily, and warns Obama that it may not be safe to go back into the water.  Obviously, Michael is a big fan of Jaws:

As Glenn Reynolds is fond of writing, that which cannot be sustained … won’t be.

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


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

feel like boehner is caving saying there must be spending cuts WITH tax increases…..why have ANY tax increases during the debt ceiling debate….

ENOUGH

cmsinaz on January 4, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Yes they have the leverage .
No they won’t take advantage of it .

Lucano on January 4, 2013 at 12:14 PM

everyone knows that no matter what happens, the ceiling will be raised… so where is the leverage?

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM

vanitas…

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM

If they just kept hammering the Senate about the budget, and keep hammering how much debt and how little resolve to not spend is…just focus on those two, we would destroy the dems.

But the answer is:

No they won’t take advantage of it .

Lucano on January 4, 2013 at 12:14 PM

right2bright on January 4, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Well I guess we will have to see if the r’s will stand up to bho/d’s/bhopress to do something right for us for a change? It would be nice, but I’m not holding my breath! bho is going to come out slugging and on the tube daily demanding all he wants!
L

letget on January 4, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Doesn’t matter if they won’t use it.

The House GOP has *had* leverage, they just simply don’t have the cajones required to actually use it.

No reason to suspect they will this time either.

Sorry; they’ve lost trust – it’s going to be hard to regain it, and they’re going to have to do so a number of times, over a period of time, before they deserve the benefit of the doubt again.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM

From my perspective, I don’t see us getting any cuts alone for a debt limit increase.

All the Dem’s have to do is sit back and blame the repbulicans for shutting down the govt or, God forbid, “default!”.

That said, throw the virtual “kitchen sink” at them in demands just like Obama did in December. Put them back on their heels.

Negotiating 101. Boehner needs to learn it.

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 12:23 PM

And just think, this debate will occur as everyone in America sees their paychecks get 2 percent smaller (at least on the first $110,000 of income) because of the expiration of the temporary reduction in the payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. (Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”)

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney said we need Social Security Reform. What if they were right?

Fleuries on January 4, 2013 at 12:25 PM

The House needs to pass a budget now, with huge spending cuts. Then harp on it over and over about the Senate not taking it up. Why are the Senate Democrats shutting down the government? Why won’t they pass a budget? Why won’t they amend it and send it back to conference? Why won’t they negotiate? Why won’t Obama negotiate?

Instead, they’ll wait till the last minute, the top 2 or 3 guys will go behind closed doors, they’ll blame the Republicans and we’ll get the golden trifecta: spending hikes, tax hikes, and raising the debt ceiling.

Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”

Same DU commenter was no doubt leaping with glee just a couple of days ago as taxes were made to go up on “the rich”. Same DU commenter telling people they were stupid in response to people pointing out that everyone’s taxes were going up.

Today they are ‘surprised’.

Can’t fix stupid.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 12:26 PM

They’ll blow any leverage they have. Zero confidence in any of them. Now they are trying to change the primary process to keep far right candidates out so theres that.

ldbgcoleman on January 4, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Boehner needs to grow a pair and force the spending cuts during the debate on the debt ceiling and continuing resolution. Since Paul Ryan is still in the House, the House should pass Paul Ryan’s budget and spending cuts tied to a one-year increase in the debt ceiling, and send it to the Senate.

If the Senate refuses to act, then pass a continuing resolution for three months, with a three-month increase in the debt ceiling, with the public threat that the Government will shut down in April (when people are filing their tax returns) unless spending cuts are enacted in the meantime. Then get to work on a serious spending-cut plan, using Paul Ryan’s plan as a starting point, hammered out between Boehner, Reid, McConnell, and Obama.

Steve Z on January 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM

I still don’t understand how having no power is leverage. Are we saying they will be in a stronger rhetorical position?

They can refuse to pass the bill in the House? Because that will flip around and become “obstructionism” in about three news casts.

The debt ceiling is fait accompli all ready.

Nevermind. I’ll go look up “leverage” . . .

Axe on January 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Republicans shed their worst political position with a one-off concession and can now concentrate on a political strength.

ROFLMAO!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM

While R’s might have leverage, the axes of evil (media +Democrats) have honed their ability to make the Republican party appear obstinate in each and every situation.

O merely has to take his ball and go home and it’s always going to be Republicans fault.

LetsBfrank on January 4, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Yeah. Leverage.Riiight.
.
Behold the dominant Ed Morrissey wing of the the Beltway-media “conservative” establishment.
.
The perpetual Charlie Brown vis-a’-vis Lucy and the football.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 4, 2013 at 12:30 PM

If they don’t come out with their first volley with full fury fire and brimstone, real “rath of God” stuff, it will be a lost cause.

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I still don’t understand how having no power is leverage. Are we saying they will be in a stronger rhetorical position?

They can refuse to pass the bill in the House? Because that will flip around and become “obstructionism” in about three news casts.

The debt ceiling is fait accompli all ready.

Nevermind. I’ll go look up “leverage” . . .

Axe on January 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The House has absolute power when it comes to spending. They would balance the non-existent budget tomorrow if they wanted to. Yes, the media will attack Republicans, but that’s not an excuse for not doing their jobs. What’s their downside? Succumbing to socialism is not a path to conservatism.

cajunpatriot on January 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Steve Z on January 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Continuing Resolution?!@?!?!? Again??? Pass a friggin’ budget for God’s sake. Make the Democrats take it up. They won’t shut down the government, because if they do, people will suddenly realize that it’s not that big of a deal.

Except for all the moochers and government bureaucrats (but I repeat myself) who are voting Democrat anyway.

Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Republicans HAD leverage – they could have, and should have, simply voted NO on any tax increases and any spending increases. There shouldn’t have been any “negotiations” – Republican lost all “leverage” and credibility by siding with obama, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Republicans will not do exactly the same thing on every other issue going forward.

Pork-Chop on January 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

By splitting the fiscal cliff into two different debates — one on taxes, the other on spending and debt — Republicans shed their worst political position with a one-off concession and can now concentrate on a political strength.

So the Republicans have better leverage for the spending fight in two months.

Funny.

I used to come here for the truth.

Tim_CA on January 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM

The GOP House has had HUGE leverage ever since the sweep of 2010. They blew it. THey’re too scared to make the dems and the Indonesian shut down the feral government (which really should be shut down, anyway) and they have caved time and time and time again, getting NOTHING in return for leaving the spending spigot wide open for Reid and Barky to write checks and run up the federal EBT card like there’s no tomorrow. Oh wait! The Weeping Boner Idiot did manage to wrestle the Sequester in return for lifting the debt ceiling to the high heavens last time … the same Sequester that the Boner and the GOP couldn’t get away from fast enough over the past few weeks, acting as if space aliens had dropped it on us in the middle of the night some time a month ago – out of the blue.

The House GOP are a bunch of cowardly idiots. The Weeping Boner is the perfect leader for such a group of inept retards. They all suck. And they seem to love losing to the dumbest, most incompetent, biggest losers on the planet in the Indonesian (who is a math illiterate who can’t even grasp the meaning of any whole number over 20) and Hairy Reed.

Un-friggin-believable.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Tim_CA on January 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM

(often I think little johnny boner has his hand up Ed’s @ss and is operating his mouth).

Tim_CA on January 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Of course we have more leverage now. The morons who were screaming let it burn were rightly ignored, and now we can have this fight without being blamed for taxes going up on everyone.

This is where we have to make our stand, though. We can’t give in. And we have to be willing to shut the government down, defaulting, whatever it takes.

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Geeez folks, can we please not slit our wrists and wait to see what happens.

VegasRick on January 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM

The argument of the “rich not paying their fair share” has been dealt with and if the President insists on still making that argumenkt he needs to be reminded that he got his tax increase and it is no longer a part of the discussion. Republicans should echo the Presidents own words in every interview and speech that we need a balanced approach and now that taxes have been increased the next step is to make major spending cuts and taxes are no longer an issue.

Ellis on January 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Sad but true. And when the Republicans did control government under Bush, they were just Democrat lite. A whole new drug entitlement program, buying into the socialist dream, just a little slower.

Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Of course we have more leverage now. The morons who were screaming let it burn were rightly ignored, and now we can have this fight without being blamed for taxes going up on everyone.

This is where we have to make our stand, though. We can’t give in. And we have to be willing to shut the government down, defaulting, whatever it takes.

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM

LOL. Okey doke. THIS TIME, you’ll make your stand … Right …

And what are you talking about with “defaulting”? Now, you’re just parroting Barky’s idiocy, as there is not even an issue of default. Barky made that sh!t up to scare people like you. Even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, there’s no possibility of default. We owe less than $20 billion/month in debt service and collect over $200 billion/month in tax receipts. Anyone who talks about “default” is a stooge who has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.

Thanks for pushing Barky’s propaganda. Real stiff spine you’re showing there, already.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM

When Obama comes back demanding to close tax loopholes, the Pubs should say that’s off the table. It was an alternative to raising rates so, with the rates up again, the offer is expired. The only things to be discussed now are the debt ceiling and actual spending cuts, the exact questions being of how much in each case. Simple math, right?

Well, math is simple but Republicans are cowardly idiots. They would rather hear a kind word from the MSM than avoid looking like spineless chickensh*ts.

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 12:34 PM

They aren’t scared or cowards… they are two sides of the same coin, it’s theatre.

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Now they are trying to change the primary process to keep far right candidates out so theres that.

ldbgcoleman on January 4, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Gee, a lot of good those far-right candidates did. Chuck Hagel got primaried out of Indiana, and a Democrat won the Senate seat. Same thing in Missouri, where Clare McCaskill was easily re-elected, while Mitt Romney carried both states easily.

When are Republican primary voters going to learn that if an unelectable candidate wins the primary with 35% or so of Republican votes in a three-way or four-way primary, they’re stuck with Democrats in the Senate for SIX YEARS?

The primary system DOES need to be revamped so we don’t get stuck with the likes of Sharron Angle or Todd Akin who lose winnable Senate races. Although the process depends on individual states, a reasonable system would be a two-round primary. Many candidates could run in the first round, and the two top vote-getters face each other in a runoff primary two or three weeks later. This would ensure that the eventual nominee has the support of at least a majority of Republican voters, with more time for any gaffes to be made BEFORE the nominee is elected.

Steve Z on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I like the “pass a budget” idea but the low information voter will not understand the urgency. Most of these people don’t even do budgeting in their own personal lives and moreover, they will think:

“if we’ve gotten away with no budget for three years, it probably isn’t that important”.

That, my friends, is what the public is going to think.

So then, they will look at the Republicans shutting down the government for what? A nonexistant budget the Republicans haven’t done anything about for over two years?

Good luck trying to win that PR battle.

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Let it burn isn’t just for fiscal cliff diving.

The House response to raising the debt ceiling…… One dollar raise for one dollar of spending cuts. Obama and his filthy utterly corrupt party can take it or leave it. That is the only way there is leverage out of this situation.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Does anyone honestly believe that the debt ceiling will not be raised?

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

blue: We have strong empirical evidence (i.e., the last debt ceiling fight) that the last thing the GOP wants to do is risk their political hide to attempt to solve our fiscal problems.

Let’s see. The House GOP have not learned anything since, illustrated by their retention of Boehner as Speaker and using the same (poor) negotiating tactics as last time.

I am not sure why you think the GOP is going to stand on _anything_ other than their own political future. And until the GOP’s constituents hold them accountable (by not voting for them), nothing will change.

Scott H on January 4, 2013 at 12:43 PM

This is where we have to make our stand, though.

Yeah, right…

The Pubs draw a line in the sand and, when the Dems cross it, the Pubs say, “Now we’re on your side!”

We can’t give in. And we have to be willing to shut the government down, defaulting, whatever it takes.

Isn’t that about the same thing as saying ‘let it burn’, which you already knocked and are glad the notion was ignored?

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 12:44 PM

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

And the Republicans are winning the PR battle now? Ha. The election is 2 years away, that’s what the Dems do. Everyone will forget about what they do today by the next election.

The reason Ronald Reagan got reelected in a landslide wasn’t because everyone agreed with him and thought his policies would work. It was because they DID work, and by the time the election rolled around they had had time to work.

Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM

The House has absolute power when it comes to spending. They would balance the non-existent budget tomorrow if they wanted to.

True, assuming the now-dead Constitution had the force of law — but what has been the penalty of late when the Executive, Legislative, and even Judicial branches continually violate the Constitution? [/Rhetorical question]

Yes, the media will attack Republicans, but that’s not an excuse for not doing their jobs. What’s their downside? Succumbing to socialism is not a path to conservatism.

cajunpatriot on January 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM

No, but compromise and socialism are the paths to self-preservation and the D.C. cocktail party circuit — that’s their downside. [Oaths of office should no longer be given or taken; it's all now a sham.]

ShainS on January 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Republicans shed their worst political position with a one-off concession

In other words, republicans threw “rich” people, as they’re currently defined, under the bus. What makes you think not so “rich” people won’t be thrown under the bus next? R’s learned well from O didn’t they? The wheels on the bus go round and round, and anybody who thinks any serious spending cuts will be put forth by either party hasn’t been paying attention.

clearbluesky on January 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM

the leftist whack jobs are already prepping the battle space on this…so don’t worry guys. All barry has to do is issue Trillion dollar platinum coins (presumably with face on one side and fair Michelle’s on the other)

some whacked out leftist pol thought this up…and now Josh Barro writes in Bloomberg yeah..this will teach the Evil White Man’s party not to screw with barry

i don’t want to be mean about this…but bwahahahahahahaha. They are deep in the Kool-Aide. I doubt those stains will ever come out. The mask is off and we find a kool-aide drenched, fist waving fruitcake.

happens every time with these people

r keller on January 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM

And the Republicans are winning the PR battle now? Ha. The election is 2 years away, that’s what the Dems do. Everyone will forget about what they do today by the next election.

The reason Ronald Reagan got reelected in a landslide wasn’t because everyone agreed with him and thought his policies would work. It was because they DID work, and by the time the election rolled around they had had time to work.

Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I agree with on the timing, if they’re going to make a stand, right now is the time to do it. Give yourselfs two years for the public to forget about it and hopefully we show postive results from our action.

But that’s the thing, the cut’s were looking at are a drop in the bucket. Let’s say we hit the frickin jackpot against Obama and we get $2T in cuts for a $2T debt limit increase. That works out to $200B/year, or only 20% of the defecit!.

The debt will continue to grow faster the GDP.

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM

They’ll hurt the economy. Economists are admitting the fiscal deal will slow the already sluggish economic growth.

….this is true of about every economic policy coming out of the Obama White House.

…and this is what Obama,his knee-pad brigade,and the MSM have been declaring a “victory” for him the past week.

Baxter Greene on January 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Everybody knows Obama’s tax increases will do little to reduce deficits in coming years; they’ll add about $60 billion in revenue a year, turning a $1.2 trillion deficit into a $1.14 trillion deficit.

Even less than that. The drag on the economy will easily overwhelm the slight revenue raised, causing the deficits to increase because the tax rates were raised. The end result is exactly the same as a store raising their prices, but making less profit because people stop buying as much.

This “revenue enhancement” will end up costing money. If Obama were smarter, he would go along with lower tax rates and end up being hailed as an economic genius when the economy recovers.

Obama is proudly proclaiming that he saved the middle class from a tax hike, and that he only raised taxes on the rich. But since most voters perceive their taxes in aggregate – that is, what’s left on their pay stub after everybody takes their bite – they’ll probably perceive the opposite, that an income tax hike supposedly targeting the rich made their paychecks 2 percent smaller. Thus, they’ll be even more skeptical than usual, since they’ll think the last tax hike on “the rich” hit them instead.

Exactly right. Obama is inadvertently making the case for everyone that tax cuts work, and that raising taxes on the rich actually hurts everybody.

Oopsie.

tom on January 4, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Does anyone honestly believe that the debt ceiling will not be raised?

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

It isn’t about whether the debt ceiling will be raised or not (it will for a lot of legitimate reasons). The question is what the filthy parasites known as Democrats are going have to agree to in order to make it happen. The House GOP would be insane to simply say okay. This is the time to push for real spending cuts that make the moochers and takers upset. It wasn’t the first opportunity but it is the next best one.

And Boehner better hold true that he doesn’t get in a closed room with the rat-eared wonder and cut a deal on behalf of the House. There is no Democrat who will negotiate in good faith- they are all dishonorable bastards who have no integrity. Let the normal order sort out what the House position is through the various committees.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 12:56 PM

The morons who were screaming let it burn were rightly ignored, and now we can have this fight without being blamed for taxes going up on everyone.

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Huh? Republicans sided with obama and supported the democrat crafted bill which includes only minuscule cuts, increases spending by $330 Billion over current levels and adds $4 Trillion to the deficit over ten years. The bill also did nothing to prevent the S.S. tax from jumping back up to 6.2%, which raises taxes on 80% of American households.

So, in your opinion, WHO should be “BLAMED”?

Pork-Chop on January 4, 2013 at 12:56 PM

So the Republicans have better leverage for the spending fight in two months.

…we’ll see.

After Obama issues his “Those Republicans are trying to tank the economy to make me look bad” talking points to his allies in the MSM and they are regurgitated for weeks…..
…………..I’m hoping to see a lot more “Dirty Harry” out of the Republicans and a lot less “Sir Robin”………..

We’ll see.

Baxter Greene on January 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”

Same DU commenter was no doubt leaping with glee just a couple of days ago as taxes were made to go up on “the rich”. Same DU commenter telling people they were stupid in response to people pointing out that everyone’s taxes were going up.

Today they are ‘surprised’.

Can’t fix stupid.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 12:26 PM

True.

But at least you can sit back and laugh at stupid as it runs around in erratic circles saying, “Whut happen?”

tom on January 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM

The flip side to the “pass a budget” arguement is that it looks like a reasonable request by the R’s.

The Dem’s will look damn silly with their outrageous outrage for expecting them to pass a budget that will get signed by the President.

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 1:03 PM

WisRich on January 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM

I agree with you about what’s likely. Long term what’s likely is continuing stagflation, kicking the can down the road, and eventual third world status. That’ll take a few decades though.

Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Hmmm…
President Revenge says he will not negotiate on ceiling…That “Congress has an obligation to pay the bills on the debt THEY incur” (LOL)

And John (Nobody wants my Job) Boehner says he’s through negotiating with the Marxist in Chief.

So now what ?

Boobs Biden – the deal maker?

FlaMurph on January 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 12:56 PM

so everyone knows that the ceiling “must” be raised… there is no leverage on either side, the ceiling will be raised. they will borrow more money… the only problem that needs negotiating is how to sell it to the voters…

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Same DU commenter was no doubt leaping with glee just a couple of days ago as taxes were made to go up on “the rich”. Same DU commenter telling people they were stupid in response to people pointing out that everyone’s taxes were going up.

Today they are ‘surprised’.

Can’t fix stupid.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Hilarious….

Probably has no clue about the billions in taxes going up on the middle class in Obamacare this year either……

“Daa smartest people in the room” you know.

Baxter Greene on January 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM

(Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!! Wait till your free healthcare starts, moron.

Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Doesn’t matter if they won’t use it.

The House GOP has *had* leverage, they just simply don’t have the cajones required to actually use it.

No reason to suspect they will this time either.

Sorry; they’ve lost trust – it’s going to be hard to regain it, and they’re going to have to do so a number of times, over a period of time, before they deserve the benefit of the doubt again.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Do you really think that the socialists like Obama and his party wanted to keep the Bush tax cut for those making less than $ 400,000 a year?…

mnjg on January 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Ramirez is a brilliant national treasure.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 1:10 PM

so everyone knows that the ceiling “must” be raised… there is no leverage on either side, the ceiling will be raised. they will borrow more money… the only problem that needs negotiating is how to sell it to the voters…

equanimous on January 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I don’t think it is quite that simple (and neither do you) because “must” is a strong word. The filthy left will attempt to make this into a manufactured crisis like they did the fiscal cliff. The GOP approach should be more along the lines of “yeah we’ll get around to that but what are you going to offer up in the way of spending cuts to make it happen.”

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Funny.

I used to come here for the truth.

Tim_CA on January 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Keep your leverage, good one.

When top level people look down,they see only sh*theads;
When the bottom level people look up,they see only azzholes.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Hmmm…
President Revenge says he will not negotiate on ceiling…That “Congress has an obligation to pay the bills on the debt THEY incur” (LOL)

FlaMurph on January 4, 2013 at 1:04 PM

And, I would add, not a single GOPer in the House took the Indonesian Imbecile to task on this idiotic statement and pointed out the fact that the debt ceiling isn’t raised in order to service the debt – that would be just totally lunatic – but merely to incur more debt in order to allow Barky and the Dems’ wild spending to continue on. The debt ceiling isn’t about debt service. I don’t know how much more financially illiterate these people can get. NOT ONE GOPer saw fit to correct Barky and tell the American Socialist Superstate (the A.S.S. we are all stuck in, now) that the Indonesian math illiterate is LYING and STUPID and doesn’t know his azz from a hole in the ground. They could have thrown in that the idiot clearly didn’t break 900 on his SATs and never should have been in college, to begin with. They just let Barky get away with this stupidity … as usual.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Leverage? No. They caved. Get out of the way and let someone with real balls do the unpopular work.

ironked on January 4, 2013 at 1:14 PM

And this will play into messaging war well. If many Americans just saw their withholdings increase recently, they won’t be as likely to support ANOTHER tax increase.

blink on January 4, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I really want to share your optimism on this but I just watched a President with the worst economic record in our History….offer no plan for the next 4 years…get elected.

I have a feeling that after his allies in the press spend weeks running the “Those dam# Republicans won’t compromise and want to tank the economy” hit pieces day after day combined with Obama and his back drop photo ops of all the “victims” of Republican obstructionism because their checks will be cut off when we “default”……we “could”….and I am emphasizing “could” be in the same place we were just last week.

The Republicans are going to have to do something they have not been successful at so far……getting on the offensive….out in front of the MSM messaging with their own messaging….and standing strong in the face of public opposition.

Remember….Americans have shown so far that they are in favor of cuts…as long as those cuts don’t effect them.

I am hoping Republicans come together and get this right….we’ll see.

Baxter Greene on January 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM

(Here’s one Democratic Underground commenter exclaiming with surprise, “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with.”)

Rush is talking about this now. It follows what I posted earlier this week. These parasites who voted for Obama are going to gradually wake up and understand that they’ve screwed themselves by supporting the rat-eared wonder. Got my first paycheck of the year today- It was a slight shock just how much less from the last one but I live within my means. I’m willing to bet that any moron who voted for free stuff doesn’t have such a work ethic. The few of them that actually get a paycheck (as opposed to welfare) probably have it all spent in advance. I can see how this might cut into their supply of malt liquor, cigarettes, and cheese puffs.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Obama: “I Win! Pretty Much Everyone Else Loses!”

M2RB: Rose Tattoo (Thanks, Anti-Control)

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 1:19 PM

The question really is, for Republicans, are they willing to draw a line on the Hill?

Because, they are dealing with a man without conscience. He has no understanding of negotiation or compromise and, therefore, negotiates by saying “Do what I want” and leaving the field for others to play the game while he grabs a dog and a brew.

He will go further than anyone else in a game of Debt Roulette and that, with grudging admiration (much like admiring the guts of a fool willing to crash into a mountain on purpose, I suppose), is his strength. And the sycophants who enable and insulate him, but that’s another story.

Therein lies the challenge for Republicans. If they blink, ever, he will beat them. And that is a very difficult position for someone who is, at the wall, willing to compromise. His bluff must be called and that’s the problem: it’s not a bluff.

IndieDogg on January 4, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Next only R/Cs will be taxed.

It’s the next Obama devide…what fools brung him. Burn in Hades, all of you, no matter the party.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM

divide

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Our starting point for negotiations should be to decrease the debt limit to $15 trillion or roughly the equivalent of our entire annual GDP (around 14.9 trillion in 2011). Anything less is simply kicking the can down the road.

Pitch it with the idea that we cannot sustain a total debt that is larger then the entire US economy can generate in a year.

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 1:29 PM

The one bright side I see is that the “Bush tax cut” stuff is off the table with nothing else touched. Now, when people see their new paychecks, and when the ObamaCare fees and taxes start, they will see exactly what the effect of voting for Obama has been. As I have asked quite a few leftists, “What exactly is it you think you’ve won?” There is a woman with two sets of twins under the age of three actually crying on Rush because so far this year, they will be bringing $300 less a month and it’s going to get worse soon. It will be interesting how the media and the democrats try to blame this on Republicans after celebrating their great victory this week.

Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Economists are admitting the fiscal deal will slow the already sluggish economic growth.

Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says the higher taxes on the wealthy and the increase in payroll taxes will shave close to 1 point off GDP growth this year and result in 600,000 fewer new jobs.

Guess what, folks? Any spending cuts will hurt the economy as well in the short term.

The danger of the fiscal cliff was that a combination of massive automatic tax increases and massive automatic spending cuts would throw our already anemic economy into recession.

Well, tax increases and spending cuts that are legislated will do the same thing.

In the long run, these actions will help the economy, but there is not way we don’t get hit in the short term, just as Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s raising of interest rates in the early 80′s tanked the pallid 70′s economy in the short term and set us up for the Reagan boom.

Anyone who tells you that 2013 is going to be pleasant is lying.

Mr. Arkadin on January 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 1:29 PM

.
But what about the $$ Trillion+ budget deficits ? Isn’t THAT our new norm?

FlaMurph on January 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM

In two months, it will be clear that revenues aren’t rising enough to even make a noticeable dent in the trajectory of the deficit, and that will further strengthen the GOP’s hand.

No.
The press will interpret this as the taxes were not raised enough and two months is not enough data anyway.

No way on earth they will tell the truth.

The GOP will never under any circumstances ever even once have an advantage. Because the Press will never ever allow that again. Far too many in the GOP listen to the press even though they are worst than Hitlers press at covering up and lying about everything.

Proof positive they lied about unemployment to get Obama reelected but not a single story.

The Democrats own Education, Press, All News, All Experts. There is no way they ever allow the truth out there.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Democrats are in favor of raising taxes so that everyone is paying “their fair share”. Republicans are in favor of lowering the debt. Maybe the Republicans can win by letting the Democrats have their way on taxes and increase them until everyone is paying “their fair share” of the debt paydown.

If the Democrats are shocked by the New and Improved negotiated by I Won and Y’all Gonna Be In Chains’ payroll taxes, wait until they get a load of the Fair Share payroll taxes.

The problem now is that most of the masses think stuff from the government really is free. Nothing educats people on the cost of stuff quite like an actual bill.

Lily on January 4, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Has leverage blah blah blah blah?

No.

And especially these Republicans.

They have no leverage.

They got jack and squat.

They do it so much that is where they should live.

Caves that is.

Sherman1864 on January 4, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I can see how this might cut into their supply of malt liquor, cigarettes, and cheese puffs.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:19 PM

And lottery tickets. Lots of lottery tickets.

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 1:43 PM

So this is the typical troglodyte response I read and hear from liberals to explain away why their Marxist/Statist ideology is not the fault of their misguided belief systems:
1. Blame rich people for not paying enough- When you explain getting another 50-60 billion doesn’t even come close to covering the 1200 billion in deficit FOR JUST THIS YEAR ALONE, they change blame and switch to:
2. Blame the evil “wars” the “evil” Republicans have pushed onto us- When you explain a) The primary purpose of the Federal government is to PROTECT the American citizen from, oh, say, radical Muslims from flying planes into buildings, b) Even the best estimate is that “the unnecessary wars” cost us approximately 100 billion a year, and that the biggest costs are Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare/Interest on debt they then switch again to:
3. Blame the greedy doctors for stealing all the money from Medicare/Medicaid….when you explain subsidizing current retirees with reduced rates on the backs of future retirees is bleeding out 300 billion a year and going bankrupt, the Liberal then goes back to #1…only embellishes it….
1A) Blame rich people AND rich corporations outsourcing American jobs for all of our problems….when you explain only a small percentage of actual jobs have been outsourced and an equal number of foreign companies have hired inside America, they snarl…when you explain we should all want these companies to profit because we all are shareholders in our retirement plans of these companies, they obfuscate… finally, in frustration, they throw up their hands, ” Ideologue! Zealot! Radical! Right-Wing-Nut!”
Yet they never really understand they are the cause of their own destruction. Sad.

DrRich on January 4, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The one bright side I see is that the “Bush tax cut” stuff is off the table with nothing else touched. Now, when people see their new paychecks, and when the ObamaCare fees and taxes start, they will see exactly what the effect of voting for Obama has been. As I have asked quite a few leftists, “What exactly is it you think you’ve won?” There is a woman with two sets of twins under the age of three actually crying on Rush because so far this year, they will be bringing $300 less a month and it’s going to get worse soon. It will be interesting how the media and the democrats try to blame this on Republicans after celebrating their great victory this week.
Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 1:34 PM

The media doesn’t have to spin. Republicans get to share in the blame.
People will not make the connection to Obamacare, they will remember the most recent debate about the tax increases and that the Republicans went along with it.

All senators except 8 voted for the tax increases. Plenty of Republican blame in that body.

The Republican Speaker of the House voted in favor of the tax increases. If the defacto leader of House Republicans voted for tax increases, how do people not make the connection to the Republican Party? Specifically, how do they not make that connection of Boehner and tax increases to Republicans who just overwhelmingly re-elected him as Speaker even after voting for the tax increases they are now seeing?

There is plenty of deserved blame for the Republicans in all of this. They used to be the adults in the room. They are now acting like the adults/parents of today. If the kids whine enough, just give them whatever they want.

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM

The morons who were screaming let it burn were rightly ignored, and now we can have this fight without being blamed for taxes going up on everyone.

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 12:35 PM

“Symbolic” “victories” like this aren’t going to cut it any more. The Republicans must provide actual deliverables to their own side or the party is going to melt away.

Doomberg on January 4, 2013 at 1:46 PM

The one bright side I see is that the “Bush tax cut” stuff is off the table with nothing else touched. Now, when people see their new paychecks, and when the ObamaCare fees and taxes start, they will see exactly what the effect of voting for Obama has been. As I have asked quite a few leftists, “What exactly is it you think you’ve won?” There is a woman with two sets of twins under the age of three actually crying on Rush because so far this year, they will be bringing $300 less a month and it’s going to get worse soon. It will be interesting how the media and the democrats try to blame this on Republicans after celebrating their great victory this week.

Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 1:34 PM

I hope Rush asked her how she feels, since that’s all that really matters to liberals. However, since she’s talking about bringing in money, which implies working, they probably are republicans.

The media will cover for Obama. They always will. The primary issue for the GOP after doing the hard work, if that happens, is to message it appropriately.

I’m not holding out hope for either.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 1:49 PM

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Ok, there is no bright side.

Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Gee, a lot of good those far-right candidates did. Chuck Hagel got primaried out of Indiana, and a Democrat won the Senate seat. Same thing in Missouri, where Clare McCaskill was easily re-elected, while Mitt Romney carried both states easily.

When are Republican primary voters going to learn that if an unelectable candidate wins the primary with 35% or so of Republican votes in a three-way or four-way primary, they’re stuck with Democrats in the Senate for SIX YEARS?

The primary system DOES need to be revamped so we don’t get stuck with the likes of Sharron Angle or Todd Akin who lose winnable Senate races.

Steve Z on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Sorry, dude. In case you forgot, the only two “far right” candidates were Akin and, arguably, Mourdock. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/08/the-republican-partys-candidate-problem-in-two-charts/ Allen, Thompson, Baldwin, Mack, and many others threw away very winnable seats.

I think we need a vetting process to keep these weak incompetent “moderate” candidates out of our primary process before they lose us any more winnable seats. /

Doomberg on January 4, 2013 at 1:51 PM

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 1:29 PM

I don’t disagree with you. I just am not sure how you sell that in the court of public opinion to a bunch of morons (we call them low-information these days because morons don’t like being called morons). The morons hyperventillated at the very idea that some slut at Georgetown Law would have to pay for contraception or that we needed to cut entitlement spending. And you want to explain economic theory to them? Lotsa luck with that.

We’ve reached a tipping point where the takers outnumber the productive. They will not give up any of the stuff they get “for free” and the productive can not continue to fund their worthless asses. We need to “break” as a society before there is going to be any substantive change.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM

And lottery tickets. Lots of lottery tickets.

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Well yeah! I thought that was a given! ;0

Seriously, can you imagine how these low-information people feel when they suddenly find that somebody wants to tax the hell out what they “earned?”

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Allen, Thompson, Baldwin Mandel, Mack, and many others threw away very winnable seats.

Correction there.

Doomberg on January 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM

FY 2007 (the last budget passed by a Republican majority) increased the Total Public Debt Outstanding by $501 Billion ($0.5 Trillion), from $8.5T to $9T.

In the nearly four years since Obama took office, the Total Public Debt Outstanding has increased by $5.7 Trillion, from $10.7T to $16.4T.

So, Bush and the Republican majority added $0.5 Trillion to the Total Public Debt Outstanding in their last year of Republican majority control.

And Obama and the Democrat majority have added over $1.4 Trillion per year to the Total Public Debt Outstanding in each of the last four years of Democrat majority control.

Deficit spending is nearly three times worse under Obama and the Democrats than it was under Bush and the Republicans

ITguy on January 4, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Gee, a lot of good those far-right candidates did. Chuck Hagel got primaried out of Indiana, and a Democrat won the Senate seat. Same thing in Missouri, where Clare McCaskill was easily re-elected, while Mitt Romney carried both states easily.

When are Republican primary voters going to learn that if an unelectable candidate wins the primary with 35% or so of Republican votes in a three-way or four-way primary, they’re stuck with Democrats in the Senate for SIX YEARS?

The primary system DOES need to be revamped so we don’t get stuck with the likes of Sharron Angle or Todd Akin who lose winnable Senate races.

Steve Z on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I missed this. Chuck Hagel wasn’t from Indiana, he was in the Senate years ago serving the state of Nebraska. He endorsed the Democrat over Deb Fischer in this year’s Senate race for the seat that is vacant due to Ben Nelson’s retirement, and is being thanked by Democrats with a spot in the Obama Administration. Quid Pro Quo. Deb Fischer won the Republican Primary in Nebraska over 2 GOP establishment candidates, thanks in large part to a late endorsement from a former governor of Alaska that brough in money for advertising during the last week of the campaign. She went on and won the Senate seat over the endorsement of RINO Hagel. Ted Cruz was also elected in Texas. The primary system worked fine in TX and NE this last election, maybe we should just leave it up to voters like we have always done and keep the tax raising establishment GOP out of it.

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Has leverage switched to Republicans

…no!…Republican’ts think “leverage” is a sexual term!…they think it’s the foreplay before they fluke themselves!

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I hope Rush asked her how she feels, since that’s all that really matters to liberals. However, since she’s talking about bringing in money, which implies working, they probably are republicans.

The media will cover for Obama. They always will. The primary issue for the GOP after doing the hard work, if that happens, is to message it appropriately.

I’m not holding out hope for either.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 1:49 PM

How many people who are or think like Republicans actually bothered to vote? My own brother is not registered to vote to avoid jury duty. If we could get the people who agree with us to vote, we wouldn’t be having this problem. I don’t hold out much hope either.

Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM

And let’s not forget that Democrats won the 2006 elections with explicit, written promises of “no more deficit spending”.

In 2006, Democrats were trying to win control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. Nancy Pelosi put out a PDF document, with her signature, which included the following:

Over the past decade, the Republican controlled Congress took our nation in the wrong direction. Too many Americans are paying a heavy price for those wrong choices: record costs for energy, health care and education; jobs shipped overseas; and budgets that heap record debt on our children. For millions, the middle-class dream has been replaced by a middle-class squeeze…

Democrats are proposing a New Direction for America…

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people….

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

And here is what Nancy Pelosi promised on January 4, 2007 when she became Speaker of the House:

After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

- New Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 01/04/2007

On the day that Nancy Pelosi said that, the Total Public Debt Outstanding was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (less than $8.7 Trillion)

Now, (data as of 01/02/2013), the Total Public Debt Outstanding is more than $16,432,705,914,255.48 (more than $16.4 Trillion, an increase of over $7.7 Trillion since Pelosi and the Democrats promised “no new deficit spending”.)

ITguy on January 4, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I know optimism is a flamable offense on this board, but since when has that stopped me?

One thing that happened in the 2012 election is that we finally understand that we can’t get 0bamaphone Lady out to vote for us, and any sympathy for her plight is wasted. The Hispanic electorate as currently composed wants free stuff, not freedom. We can’t win their votes, we have to make them apathetic again, or not voting. And scrambling for what to do after their manicure budget is cut helps with that apathy. We no longer hope to win their votes. In the face of economic disaster, they will vote for Santa Claus.

So every sob story poster child needs to have an 0bamaphone Photoshopped into their hands. The percentage by which X hurt demographic voted D in 2012 should be part of the story as well. They are bought and paid for Democrats, and Republicans now understand we have no interest in their struggles for taxpayer subsidies. I think the holdup with Sandy is a good sign. What have Northeastern Yankees ever done for the GOP in the last 100 years? Start caring about us, oh, Pahkahs of Cahs in Hahvahd Yahd, and we might start giving a damn about your paaaaiiiin and suffferrrinng.

Sekhmet on January 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I agree it is a tough sell.
Instead of raising the debt ceiling ad infinitum, we should have a message to be repeated ad infinitum:

The current debt limit is higher than the entire GDP of the entire United States…Repeat…The current debt limit is higher than the entire GDP of the entire United States…Repeat…

Gotta start somewhere. The major problem with the public’s awareness of the debt, is that half the republicans aren’t really fiscally conservative and the other half can’t come to a coherent message to get through to the general public.

Just remember, Stephanie Cutter and DWS were an asset to the Obama campaign strictly because of their ability to repeat a message over and over again regardless of the question. The fiscally conservative half of the GOP should be taking notes.

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Well before the election, I argued here for the IN YOUR FACE BUFFET RULE to be added to allowing the rates for very high income filers to rise. This rule would reduce or remove the deductions which Buffet famously uses. It would be popular with Obama’s base. We might be more popular and we woud have done much better in the election.

Personally, I would like to eliminate all deductions, but that wouldn’t sell during my life time.

burt on January 4, 2013 at 2:12 PM

How many people who are or think like Republicans actually bothered to vote? My own brother is not registered to vote to avoid jury duty. If we could get the people who agree with us to vote, we wouldn’t be having this problem. I don’t hold out much hope either.

Night Owl on January 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Most people don’t have a clue what’s going on and when their self interest is interrupted they might get involved. That’s why the moochers found the time to get to the polls.

I don’t want to insult you, but your brother baffles me. You’ve probably worked him to go vote, explained the issues, he probably agrees, but won’t vote because he *might* get called for jury duty? Having a moron like Obama in office is not as bad as maybe jury duty?

This is what having the liberals in charge for so long has brought us – people who have no allegiance to the country. Your brother is one of many. I’m sorry. :(

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Seriously, can you imagine how these low-information people feel when they suddenly find that somebody wants to tax the hell out what they “earned?”

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I have yet to hear of a big winner at my local store. But what I do see is, if someone wins $5 and is paid on the spot, he buys more tickets.

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Gee, a lot of good those far-right candidates did. Chuck Hagel got primaried out of Indiana…

Steve Z on January 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM

That would have been D!ck Lugar, who hasn’t had a legal residence in Indiana in 3 decades.

As for Hagel, he’s such a swell guy….

Report: Hagel Worked to Shut Down USO Port in Haifa, Israel

Former senator Chuck Hagel, said to be on the short list to succeed Leon Panetta as secretary of defense, reportedly tried to shut down a USO port in the Israeli city of Haifa when he served as CEO of the USO. The Washington Free Beacon reports:

“He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,” said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational.

Hagel’s campaign to close the storied USO port struck many observers, including the U.S. Navy and congressional leaders, as misguided. Those same critics argue today that Hagel’s animosity toward the Jewish state leaves him unsuited to be the nation’s next defense secretary.

“He essentially told us that if we wanted to keep the USO [in Haifa] open—and when I say ‘we’, he meant ‘the Jews’—he said the Jews could pay for it,” said Halteman, who recalled being taken aback by the comment.

“I told him at the time that I found his comments to be anti-Semitic,” she said. “He was playing into that dual loyalty thing.”

Hagel has been accused of anti-Semitism for charging that lawmakers on Capitol Hill are intimidated by the”Jewish lobby,” and of homophobia for remarks he made in a 1998 confirmation hearing, for which he has since apologized. Outgoing representative Barney Frank, as well as senators Tom Coburn and John Cornyn have publicly expressed their opposition to his nomination.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I agree it is a tough sell.
Instead of raising the debt ceiling ad infinitum, we should have a message to be repeated ad infinitum:

The current debt limit is higher than the entire GDP of the entire United States…Repeat…The current debt limit is higher than the entire GDP of the entire United States…Repeat…
Gotta start somewhere. The major problem with the public’s awareness of the debt, is that half the republicans aren’t really fiscally conservative and the other half can’t come to a coherent message to get through to the general public.

Just remember, Stephanie Cutter and DWS were an asset to the Obama campaign strictly because of their ability to repeat a message over and over again regardless of the question. The fiscally conservative half of the GOP should be taking notes.

weaselyone on January 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Repeated messaging is important but you aren’t going to get low-information morons excited about GDP rates or debt levels unless you can figure out a way to weave them into Honey Boo Boo or American Idol. BUT I DO SEE A WAY FORWARD. Generational theft. Have Republicans constantly hold up pictures of little children and explain that the rat-eared wonder and his party want to harm children. It’s not an orginial idea to me but I think it makes a whole lot of sense. The left continually holds up pictures of the moocher class and cries how much cutting spending will cost the takers. How about holding up the pictures of sweet young children and explain how much each of them already owes thanks to reckless spending. They might even be able to get a Honey Boo Boo tie-in with that approach!

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I know optimism is a flamable offense on this board, but since when has that stopped me?

One thing that happened in the 2012 election is that we finally understand that we can’t get 0bamaphone Lady out to vote for us, and any sympathy for her plight is wasted. The Hispanic electorate as currently composed wants free stuff, not freedom. We can’t win their votes, we have to make them apathetic again, or not voting. And scrambling for what to do after their manicure budget is cut helps with that apathy. We no longer hope to win their votes. In the face of economic disaster, they will vote for Santa Claus.

So every sob story poster child needs to have an 0bamaphone Photoshopped into their hands. The percentage by which X hurt demographic voted D in 2012 should be part of the story as well. They are bought and paid for Democrats, and Republicans now understand we have no interest in their struggles for taxpayer subsidies. I think the holdup with Sandy is a good sign. What have Northeastern Yankees ever done for the GOP in the last 100 years? Start caring about us, oh, Pahkahs of Cahs in Hahvahd Yahd, and we might start giving a damn about your paaaaiiiin and suffferrrinng.

Sekhmet on January 4, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Found this hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I have yet to hear of a big winner at my local store. But what I do see is, if someone wins $5 and is paid on the spot, he buys more tickets.

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 2:16 PM

This is the reason why I’m against the lottery. The only people who play are the poor and they “reinvest” if they win anything. At the same time, I have yet to see any benefit to schools or whatever come out of the lottery systems despite all the hype that you’re scratching or quick-picking for the children.

Happy Nomad on January 4, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2