Some still blame it on bu-bu-bu-Bush!

well, let's see:

• democrats are willing to compromise on entitlements
• republicans are unwilling to compromise on taxes

BOTH SIDES ARE BAD

/so blame obama?

The act of governing is composed of compromise.

One of the two sides refuses to compromise.

Ergo they are incapable of governing. Vote the bastards out.

xanadian: Some still blame it on bu-bu-bu-Bushia

the reason that meme is so obnoxious is that we're still reeling from all of his farkups and there's no reason to simply forget that.

When this committee was first formed, many on the left said it was a good thing because it would force the GOP to actually agree to tax increases, since the automatic Defense cuts would be completely unacceptable to the GOP base.

Some of us though said that this was a false hope because -

1. The 'Tea' in Tea party stood for "Taxed enough already', and not for "protect the military's budget'. While most of the GOP base is pro military, ALL of the GOP base is anti tax.

2. The GOP has played the brinkmanship card so many times in the last 2 years, and been successful at it, that there is no reason for them to doubt that in the end the Dems will back down again. I can already hear the panicked calls from the White house to the Democratic committee members to "Get an agreement- ANY agreement"

3. The GOP has always had an ace in the hole - A house bill to void the required defense budget cuts. And what Congressman- Senator or Representative, Democrat or Republican, is going to vote against funding the troops in a time of war? Not going to happen.

sinschild: The repubs get the entitlement cuts they wanted, the dems get the taxs they wanted.

Actually, the automatic result of the failure of the supercommittee is cuts and no tax increases.

sinschild: GAT_00: sinschild: The repubs get the entitlement cuts they wanted, the dems get the taxs they wanted.

Actually, the automatic result of the failure of the supercommittee is cuts and no tax increases.

I will have to read it again, but I could have sworn the bush era cuts were set to be eliminated with the default plan on the committee.

Well I'd recommend reading it the first time, because those were never listed in the supercommittee automatic actions.

Dinki: 1. The 'Tea' in Tea party stood for "Taxed enough already', and not for "protect the military's budget'. While most of the GOP base is pro military, ALL of the GOP base is anti tax.

seriously? I thought they just liked the drink and/or felt like they were like those awesome people from Boston who just threw shiat in Boston Harbor, starting a long tradition of dumping your trash/bodies into it

Dinki: 2. The GOP has played the brinkmanship card so many times in the last 2 years, and been successful at it, that there is no reason for them to doubt that in the end the Dems will back down again. I can already hear the panicked calls from the White house to the Democratic committee members to "Get an agreement- ANY agreement"

...or this was their endgame the entire time was to let the Republicans think this so that they would eventually back themselves into a corner thinking that they were winning. I would like to think that there are those high up in the Democratic party that like to see the board and know what's going to happen 5-10 moves ahead. Republicans are known for short-sighted policies, so I don't doubt that this was the plan all along.

Dinki: 3. The GOP has always had an ace in the hole - A house bill to void the required defense budget cuts. And what Congressman- Senator or Representative, Democrat or Republican, is going to vote against funding the troops in a time of war? Not going to happen.

That's why we're ending the wars. Without the wars to fight, without the reason to fight, we cut off their only reasoning to keep it on the table. They probably agreed to this thinking that we were still going to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next decade still (or at least until they "win" the 2012 election). But holy crap, they were wrong about Iraq and quite possibly Afghanistan too. They were banking on us continuing to do something that is wildly unpopular. The Republicans are completely short sighted in all of this and its biting them in the ass. For once someone actually thought out a long-term way to completely destroy a political party by giving them what they wanted.

GAT_00: sinschild: The repubs get the entitlement cuts they wanted, the dems get the taxs they wanted.

Actually, the automatic result of the failure of the supercommittee is cuts and no tax increases.

Shut your mouth! All dems want is to raise our taxes and spend it all on hats!

somedude210: I would like to think that there are those high up in the Democratic party that like to see the board and know what's going to happen 5-10 moves ahead.

I have a friend that constantly tells me that Obama is so much smarter than the GOP that he's always 5 steps ahead of them. To which I reply, Exactly how many steps ahead was he in 2009 when he ignored the jobs situation to pass a wildly unpopular Health care reform bill that cost him the House and a clear majority in the Senate? Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the administration on most issues, but they are not the political Svengalis the Dems claim them to be.

Mugato: Shut your mouth! All dems want is to raise our taxes and spend it all on hats!

What kind of hats? Because that could sway my opinion.

The Republicans gave ground to Democrats and offered plans for new revenues, through closing loop holes and exemptions. The Democrats decided that what they had asked for wasn't acceptable despite early indications by several Democrats that this is what they wanted. If anything, this moves allows the Obama campaign to attempt to paint a picture of a "Do Nothing" Republican congress and\or a "Party of NO" during his campaign. One could justifiably suspect pressure from the White House to reject the Republican Compromise in order to assist in a 2012 election bid.

If that isn't the case, then it demonstrates that the Democrats are less concerned with bringing new revenue in than they are in confiscating private money and wealth redistribution. They have made themselves the party of *no*.

/Yes, a valid case can be made that "blame Obama" is right on the mark.

The fault lies squarely on the backs of the GOP.

This pig-headed stance that the wealthiest Americans should not feel even the slightest financial discomfort while they practically salivate about gutting every program set up to help the poor and middle classes is disgusting.

lennavan: So Republicans think everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes regardless of income? Because anything else is wealth redistribution.

I never mentioned a "flat" tax nor did the Republican proposal contain one. The point I made was that when faced with new revenues from closing loopholes the Democrats said "not good enough, we want to raise taxes on people", it tells me that new revenue is secondary to taking more money away from people. However, if you simply raise taxes without closing the loopholes, then those people who take advantage of them, still will, which means you're not really increasing the amount of revenue but you can certainly go back to you base and say "See, I stuck it to the rich, vote for me".

In the meantime, the presidential campaign can attempt to use this failure, despite it being a Democrat failure, on a "Do Nothing" Republican congress and the rank and file koolade drinkers will lap it up.

tomcatadam: 3) The Republicans will give 1 tax increase of value X for every 10 tax cuts of value 1.5X. THAT IS NOT FARKING COMPROMISE.

Actually, it is, considering Republicans control the house. In the immortal words of Barack Obama... "We won, get over it."

The fact that they have offered new revenues demonstrates their willingness to go against the base who would like to see nothing more than less spending, in order to get something done. Sorry, the Democrats are the obstructionists in this little drama.

CanisNoir: Sorry, the Democrats are the obstructionists in this little drama.



Now that's how you tell a joke, Todd Kincannon...

Canis Noir:
The Republicans gave ground to Democrats and offered plans for new revenues, through closing loop holes and exemptions. The Democrats decided that what they had asked for wasn't acceptable despite early indications by several Democrats that this is what they wanted.

Oh, how reasonable, but those dirty Democrats...

Wait, you left out the part where the Republican offer included lowering the top bracket from 35% to 28%. Thus providing a hefty (up to 20%) tax cut to the highest earners.

And in order to raise revenue (or, heck, even if it was revenue neutral) that means shifting a massive amount of the tax burden from the top earners to the middle class. *Somebody* has to pay those taxes, so if you cut taxes on those making over $388,350 you have to increase them on somebody else.

Gee, I don't think this is what many Democrats ever indicated that they wanted. Unless you're in that top bracket, you get completely farked by this plan.