Air time and political negotiations are two completely separate issues. The media will report on the points of conflict and areas that will most interest the viewers. That's different from saying that the administration is saying that tax rates are the only way to increase revenue. And SJ knew that when he made his post. So he's lying. To himself or to the rest of us, I don't claim to know. But one way or another, he's a-lyin'.
Indeed. The idea that this small subset of tax payers paying a 4% higher tax rate on income over $250,000 will either a) cause them to not spend anything or b) that this lack of spending will be enough to send the economy into recession is ludicrous to me. Business owners don't hire based on tax rates. They hire based on demand and based on the new hire's ability to increase profits. If you could hire an additional person to grow your company, you do it, regardless of whether or not you're paying more in taxes to do so. At least, you do if you are semi-decent at running your business. Besides, because of how business income is taxed, these business owners might wind up reinvesting MORE of the revenue back into the business to keep it from being taxed at the rate of the top bracket.
It'd be nice if there was at least a small amount of trust in the political system at this point. At least the concession by both sides that the other side was bargaining in good faith if not taking the desired position in the process. But then arrayed opposite that possibility is a scorched earth Republican plan to make Barack Obama a one-term President by any means necessary. It was a lunatic idea but it was especially insane to be as open as they were about the end goal. Now we have Barack Obama ascendant after his successful re-election campaign and the Republicans have nothing to offer him that he cares to hear at this point. The public has already decided based on the last four years and on the very unwise words of people like Mitch McConnell that the crash that is coming is because Republicans grabbed hold of the steering wheel and started tugging randomly doing everything they could to put the car in the ditch. Now that we're headed into that ditch there isn't really anything the Republicans can do to change the public mindset on the issue of who is to blame. You hear wise people in their caucus making this point over and over again but nobody is really listening. Is Obama pouring gasoline on the fire? Yeah, probably to a certain extent but after the last 4 years who really blames him? Well, Republicans do but they've got 2014 in front of them and very few options to avert the catastrophe they face. If they back down now after inciting their base for the last 4 years they appear weak and defeated and the base stays home on them, leading to disaster. If they continue on the confrontational path they anger everybody else and only the base turns out for them in 2014, leading to disaster. It's a truly horrific situation for them. I for one am glad that at least one of the political parties is going to pay for the last 4 years of gridlock. I just wish it could happen with fewer collateral casualties.
Heh. Yes, of course. Since we've established that this tax-the-rich proposal won't do much, if anything, on the revenue side, and will have a negative effect on growth, the only remaining virtue is the Democrat populist mission of chopping top-end wealth down to the middle. You can type until your blue in the face, there's just nothing else there. On the other hand, it's universally accepted that entitlement reform is necessary. The virtue there is in the political courage of addressing difficult issues instead of using them for political benefit. Because it isn't the deficit we're addressing as much as it's the debt. Which is why Simpson-Bowles was called the "debt commission," and addressed budgetary spending but had a keen focus on entitlement reform. Simpson-Bowles had a big revenue component. So does the current House plan. So did the former Ryan plan. Please. The President's "cuts" weren't cuts at all. They were phased-out spending recast as affirmative spending cuts. Even the NYTimes caught that. This latest proposal is more of the same. Let's also be clear about who's "shooting down" Obama's proposals. His last two budget proposals didn't get a single vote in the Senate. If you believe Bob Woodward, he was largely shut out of the room in the last round of debt ceiling negotiations. And, the Democrat majority in the Senate refused to even bring this latest proposal to the floor. But, yes, I'm sure it's just the mean ol' GOP.
It shouldn't surprise you to hear that I didn't invent the label, "entitlements." I wouldn't get so hung up on parlance. We know the programs are. One of those programs is troubled by years of replacing money with IOUs. The others were killed by demographics and health care costs. I don't think it matters much how we refer to them. Blame the nature of government. On one hand, it will always be inefficient and wasteful. On the other hand, as far as Social Security is concerned, it is in the nature of government to grab at any available source of funds to feed its inefficiency and waste. And because we are alleged to live in a representative democracy, blame rightfully goes to the people who kept reelecting the government overlords who refused to address problems in their infancy. And it should be easy enough to do. The problem that the Republicans had with Simpson-Bowles was the healthcare component. That component was later mostly hammered out by Alice Rivlin and Paul Ryan. Contrary to popular belief, the tax component wasn't the issue. I do think that adopting Simpson-Bowles steals the argument back. I agree with the first part of this. I'm generally a huge fan of Congressional gridlock. I suspect what's going to happen - again - is that Congressional leaders will leave the president out of the process, because he's an amateur at negotiation and he's destructive to the process. It may take a cliff dive to get there, but we will.
I think you need to bone-up on the president's plan and then not insert words into my posts. Clearly, the president and his minions have made tax-the-rich the central focus of the plan. The media is going where it's being led. Populism. As Barney Fwank once pointed out: the thing about populism is - it's popular. The rest of the plan is largely just a repackaging of Barack's last two budget proposals. Neither of which has ever seen a Democrat vote. Stage Two, so called, the undefined part, is where the president plans to propose tax code reform and entitlement reform. Yeah right. The rest is just the same spending of the last few years, except now top-heavy with taxes on "rich peopleses." I think John Boehner would be wise to bring this plan to the floor of the House and then have every Republican vote "present." I suspect you'd see a good many troubled Democrats. Taxes: Immediate increase in both top marginal rates Increases on taxes on capital gains and dividends 2009-level estate tax ------------ AMT and business tax extenders Payroll tax extension or alternative policy Bonus depreciation extension Spending/Extras: $50 billion stimulus package in FY13 Mass refi mortgage proposal Deferral of sequester Savings from non-entitlement mandatory programs Extension of unemployment insurance: $30 billion Medicare SGR Patch: $25 Billion Increase in the debt limit to avoid requiring Congress to vote to increase STAGE TWO: Tax reform consistent with $1.6 trillion tax increase Entitlement policies from President’s FY13 budget that could total $400 billion in savings
cap imo we are on a recession cliff (usually every 5-7 years, lasting 1-1/2 years). its not just the marginal tax increases - its going to be the cumulative negative effect of all the other goodies that are planned - payroll tax bump, AMT, lower deductions, higher tax on investments, etc etc.
I didn't. I used your words. So... yeah. Except, once more, you ignore the point that they weren't the ones pushing this MUST FIX THE DEFICIT debate.
I frankly don't participate here much since i long ago concluded Jack, who tends to dominate the righty side of the argument, doesn't even attempt to say things that are logically consistent. I am not really sure who he thinks he is talking to, but while his posts are better written and sometimes supported with cherry picked references, his lack of consistent logic is not really materially less than is the case with Hobbes. For example he says EVERYBODY believes in "entitlement" reform, while it is only the politically driven Obama Admin and their lackeys who support tax increases on the rich. Wrong, and laughable. Enough of that. Anyway, I did think I would interject on the point Brad made. I tend to be skeptical of wide claims that one party or the other is in danger of minority status for the foreseeable future. But just as hopes for candidacies like Mondale's and Dukakis's seem almost laughable in hindsight, we have now concluded a cycle that mathematically is teh equal of the so called Reagan Revolution period, following as it did Nixon's two wins. Five in six times the GOP won the popular vote during this period. Well now the Dems have done the same thing, and the GOP seem to be following THEIR fifth loss in six attempts with more right wing arrant nonsense. In hindsight, McConnell's statement was red meat for his base, and did serve (even if as a wrongheaded notion and strategy) to focus the GOP's efforts during Obama's first term. Well the net result of that has been a disaster, and the GOP as Brad says is in a no win situation right now. I don't see how they get out of it. One more point, on raising the Medicare age to 67. I do not recall a single GOP candidate who ran on that suggestion, and that includes the winners. How did this become what appears to have become a central "demand" of their position after the election? Do they claim a mandate to raise the eligibilty age for Medicare? I just wonder where that comes from, other than being merely another in a long line of GOP attempts to drain away public support of Medicare.
The Republicans held both houses and the Presidency for 6 years. Their answer to health care was to allow large Corporations to move to low or no regulated insurance States and allow middle class people with good health care benefits to be striped of them at the whim of Insurance companies. That dumb proposal wasn't even on the table until they were thrown out of office and it was clear some form of national health care legislation was a Democratic priority. There is a ton about Obamacare that I find really disturbing but compared to what we had prior and what Republicans were proposing it is a major improvement even though it's going to cost a ton of money to implement. Here's something the Republicans will never propose good health care benefits that's national in scope. Allowing big companies to control health care by moving to States with little or no regulations on standards of care would be a complete disaster and devastate individuals and families across the country who actually get sick through no fault of their own. A competitive market with no standards of care is what Republicans have been pushing. How do I know what lurks in my blood stream to make an informed choice on health care? Do you know?
A wise move on her part. There was no win there for the administration, only a bruising fight that they might prevail in at the cost of a lot of political capital that they need for other things. This will kill the Republicans with moderates also. That's not the effect anybody intended but like so many things with the Republican Party these days there's no place for them to be that works. They're going to get killed by somebody they need on almost every decision they make and on many the administration makes over the next two years. That's where willful public intransigence gets you.
Moderates really don't care about Susan Rice one way or another. I suspect what moderates really want is growing GDP that will fuel there ability to provide for their families.
I totally agree on the second part. Moderates are going to kill Republicans for spending time on this while they are having trouble providing for their families. This was another of those feed the base moves that completely ignored the realities that most people are dealing with. Republicans want to get loud about denying a black woman a job that has nothing to do with the economy? Same old, same old.
Be4dw4y5ux, race-baiting? Your posts are always good reads; kinda surprised you'd play a 'Condoleeza-on-the-other-foot' card. Yes, the criticism directed at Rice was woefully disproportionate, but at the same time (and at the risk of sounding clumsily obtuse), was it really Benghazi-in(black)-sheep's clothing? jm2cts. ;-)
From the standpoint of the Republicans: why bother putting up such a fight against Susan Rice if race-baiting wasn't part of the process on their part? It's just self-defeating behavior on their part. Kind of like "legitimate rape" and such. I just don't get where a party that requires coalition building, because their political views are in the minority, would spend so much capital over and over again feeding their base when what they are also doing is driving other people away. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now is that the Democrats understand that committed Liberals have nowhere else to go. The Republicans on the other hand are just terrified of their wingnuts and so they are allowing that faction to marginalize them on the edge of the political spectrum.
Thx for the reply. Totally agree with the 'self-defeating' assessment if race in fact was part of it. Myself, while a registered Independent (and at the risk of sounding like a 'liberal politician' i.e. "some of my best friends are black" lol), while I voted for OB in both '08 & '12, I admit casting my first vote for OB ('08) partially on the basis of race: 'twas about time (esp. in the wake of GWB squandering our "911-good guy victim" worldview with the Iraq mistake), for the United States to put up or shut up and elect a man of color to be kingpin, that is, giving the biggest, most powerful 'gig' in the world to a black guy. Again, not solely on the basis of race in an affirmative action sense, but as part of it...fwiw. That said, I'm thinking that Rice was really post-election butthurt blowback. As for the wingnut GOP 'marginalizing' hijack, the day a true independent maverick like a Barry Goldwater (not a pseudo maverick, e.g. McCain) can be part of the GOP fold will be the day they might begin to resonnate again with those forgotten masses out there in nowhereville who are totally turned off by the chillingly creepy Huckabees out front and the Tom DeLays lurking behind the Huckabee puppets, pulling the strings, and, generally-speaking, who are turned off by the intractable, irrational scumbags on both sides of the aisle. Further to that, maybe the "walk to the beat of his or her own drummer" candidate is now an extinct dinosaur altogether given the viciously partisian, increasingly extremist slobbism whose caustic devisiveness is on daily display at Fox and MSNBC - unabashedly vicious slobs posing as 'journalists'. For every unconscionably cruel and stupid Todd Akin "legtimate rape" comment (the supposedly "GOP-only" war on women), there's a seething Ed Schultz gleefully hissing "she's a right-wing slut!" Overall, Americans should be as informed as people such as yourself who take the time to go beyond the 30-second talking point soundbites and whose manner of political discourse is above and beyond the flat-out "fuck you!" manner of address that is nowadays the unfortunate stock in trade for so many. I'm sorry for the semi-incoherent ramble....I'm still kinda numb (yet bristling) with Newtown, CT in my head. Thx again for the thoughts. Later.
Susan Rice, as I've said, has an atrocious résumé of incompetence, and it was the criticism from the LEFT that eventually led to her downfall. Turns out, her support wasn't very deep at all. But it was the attacks in Slate, TNR and, go figure, from Maureen Dowd that did her in. Not to mention the deafening silence coming from the Senate in her defense. In the end, she had a handful of minority House members and a remarkably predictable MSNBC crowd shouting about racism on her behalf. Which is to say that, in the end, almost no one cared. Susan Rice will rightfully never be promoted past the job she never should have received in the first place. That's still a victory for the left.
