It’s nothing but a power play
Such nonsense abounds because Obama’s objective in these negotiations is not economic but political: not to solve the debt crisis but to fracture the Republican majority in the House. Get Boehner to cave, pass the tax hike with Democratic votes provided by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and let the Republican civil war begin.
It doesn’t even matter whether Boehner gets deposed as speaker. Either way, the Republican House would be neutered, giving Obama a free hand to dominate Washington and fashion the entitlement state of his liking.
This is partisan zero-sum politics. Nothing more. Obama has never shown interest in genuine debt reduction. He does nothing for two years, then spends the next two ignoring his own debt-reduction commission. In less than four years, he has increased U.S. public debt by a staggering 83 percent. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the real marker of national solvency, it has spiked from 45 percent to 70 percent.
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
It’s nothing but a power play part 2?
JPeterman on December 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Second time around in the Headlines?
Maybe it needs a Main Page post.
Bitter Clinger on December 7, 2012 at 4:03 PM
I doubt their trousers will be dry.
Schadenfreude on December 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Gee, ya think?
tbrosz on December 7, 2012 at 4:04 PM
at least 3.6%. also, chuck, back in 2004 you said bush’s 2.4 win was “a large majority, or a significant majority” and “a mandate.” you fail, again.
sesquipedalian on December 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM
And how’d that Bush mandate work out when he tried for Social Security reform? And refused to change course in Iraq?
rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM
As Rush was saying today on his radio show, IF the r’s cave on raising the tax (rate) on the 2%, bho HAS them for ever more. ALL the horrible things that happened anytime in our history of giving tax cuts to anyone shows this mess bho inherited was the result? No good comes from tax cuts, and it will be bho’s grand ‘I won, I told you so’ as long as we have a US! And to boot, WE WILL NEVER get a tax cut ever again if this happens, period, bho will see to it! bho has the r’s by the ‘short(you know)’ and he is going to go down with all he has making his point? I might add with the help of those spineless worthless worms r’s to help bho?
L
letget on December 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM
it worked so fabulously we might not have another gop president again.
sesquipedalian on December 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM
OK…I got a few screws loose, but I thought I saw this headline last week…
22044 on December 7, 2012 at 4:20 PM
I heard Rush’s take too, but I don’t think I agree with it. The end game isn’t “blame tax cuts for screwing up the economy.” The end game is “create a civil war within the Republican Party, leading to divisive primaries in 2014 and an inability of Boehner to unite his troops on anything else in the next 4 years.” So far, our side seems to be playing right into this.
Kim Strassel is more correct today, I think. The correct course is for the House to pass a clean bill that extends all but the top rate for 4 years. That’s what Obama campaigned on and said would be the solution for everything. So give it to him, but only afterthe appropriate kicking and screaming and trying other offers.
In the short term, this is a capitulation and will be portrayed as such by the media. But if the Republicans hold ranks, soon enough they will have the upper hand on the spending side of things when it becomes clear that ther tax ioncrese did nothing to either foster growth or close the deficit. And that’s the most important thing anyway.
rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM
You saw it TODAY:
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/12/07/its-nothing-but-a-power-play/
Bitter Clinger on December 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Huh? It worked out so well that Bush got his butt kicked in the 2006 midterms and his party lost in a landslide in 2008.
Americans don’t much care for Presidents that overplay their hands and assume power they don’t have. It was Bush’s downfall, and it will be Obama’s. Hide and watch. Obama won’t even do the things Bush tried after it was too late (i.e. firing Rumsfeld and doing the surge in Iraq) because he’s an ideologue who thinks his s— doesn’t stink. He’ll take down 8 Senators in 2014.
rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM
But since it wasn’t, you can’y say that it is for for Obama.
And it isn’t, since he doesn’t control the House.
Good Lt on December 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Said Bush supporters in 2004.
Hubris. Google it.
Good Lt on December 7, 2012 at 4:30 PM
That might be the case. bho IS not that smart to be doing this, he is a brainless person who happens to be president. NOW we have to ask, WHO is doing all this for bho? mo/jarrett/soros/union thugs/and and all communists here in the US/the rop type and their pull in dc to total our country?
L
letget on December 7, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Charles is spot on, except he misses one thing.
Obama would be demanding higher rates if even if he knew it would not increase overall revenue, and it likely won’t yield the $80 billion projected. It will raise closer to half that. And that additional revenue could easily be offset by revenue drops elsewhere due to a corresponding marginal decline in economic activity.
In addition to being a power grab, this is a purely putative “stick it to the rich” move. In his mind the “wealthy” should be suffering more in this economy, an economy “they” caused (Romney is part of the problem, not the solution). If he could do more to make them suffer more he would. If can do more down the road he will.
farsighted on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM
Pretty bold words for a guy whose president won by about 3-4 large college football stadiums across 4 states. Nevertheless, I’m sure you’d like nothing more than institutionalize one party rule like they have in China or Cuba. However, it’ll sure suck for you when the mob you celebrate today figures out the rich don’t have enough money to finance their layabout lifestyle.
The Count on December 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Intellectuals are supposed to be smarter than us.
faraway on December 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Yeah, that’s kind of a twofer for Obama. He can split the Republicans and continue his demonization of the successful, and keep his base cheering him on.
What’s important to know is that it isn’t about the money, at all. It’s a very Peronist approach to keep the lower classes in line by attacking the upper classes, even though nothing will actually improve for the lower classes. In Peron’s day it was the “oligarchs”, in Obama’s it is “the top 2%.”
We’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well, especially for the President. Eventually the lower classes get restless and expect some actual results, the upper classes flee, and the economy collapses.
rockmom on December 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Where are you getting that from? Can you share the transcript? 2004 is a long time ago.
Thanks.
Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM
“I think it was a huge issue that the president was weak in his first term. He had less of the power and strength and capital, as he speaks of, than he does today. And now that he’s been elected with a large majority, or a significant majority, and with a mandate, I think part of that mandate is to get the right judges, by his likes.”
sesquipedalian on December 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM