If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?   (redstate.com) divider line 174
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, Krugman Agrees, Paul Krugman, Speaker Boehner, lame duck  
•       •       •

3208 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-12 10:11:31 AM  
The fiscal cliff essentially reveals what utter frauds almost all deficit hawks are. That's been its primary function so far.
 
2012-11-12 10:19:33 AM  
Done in one.
 
2012-11-12 10:21:07 AM  
By all means, slam the gas!
 
2012-11-12 10:21:24 AM  
If only the House - you know, where all tax and spending bills must originate - had done anything since January 2011 to deal with spending or taxation beyond the last short-term deal.

Hey, who has been running that half of Congress, anyway?
 
2012-11-12 10:22:00 AM  
...the cliff the Republicans wanted in the first place? Y'know, the same one that also caused the credit downgrade?
 
2012-11-12 10:23:19 AM  
Representative John Boehner (R-OH) claimed that the Republican party received "98%" of what was desired following the debt ceiling negotiation. The "fiscal cliff" is a result of the debt ceiling negotiation. As such, at least 98% of the "fiscal cliff" was desired by the Republican party; for what reason, then, did they ever decry its existence?
 
2012-11-12 10:25:13 AM  
You mean that problem Congress is facing that is of Congress' own making? The one that they now have to pass SOMETHING to fix - and something good, too. Obama's using the veto-o-nator on any stopgaps - or else everyone sees higher taxes? The one that will likely result in the GOP capitulating on one or more parts of party dogma (now that they're "open to revenues")?

That's less a "cliff" and more the politico-rhetorical equivalent of falling into bed with every starlet from every time period that you've ever had so much as a crush on looking her very best in that sexy little number, just waiting to fulfill whatever desire you have.

Obama may not get everything he wants, but it'll only be because he's tired at that point.

// I'm not really this optimistic, but every time I follow a course of action in my head, it ends with "big Obama win"
// so I can't wait to see what amazing derpjitsu the GOP pulls out to make the FAIL that much...failier
 
2012-11-12 10:25:19 AM  
Deficit hawk is a long-standing euphemism for granny starver. The fiscal cliff [sic] exposes this truth more clearly than usual.
 
2012-11-12 10:25:55 AM  

Dimensio: Representative John Boehner (R-OH) claimed that the Republican party received "98%" of what was desired following the debt ceiling negotiation. The "fiscal cliff" is a result of the debt ceiling negotiation. As such, at least 98% of the "fiscal cliff" was desired by the Republican party; for what reason, then, did they ever decry its existence?


Its existence does not make Obama look bad.
 
2012-11-12 10:26:58 AM  
We should prevent Obama driving us off this cliff by making it illegal for black people to drive.
 
2012-11-12 10:28:13 AM  
Dems have the leverage. they can let the Bush tax cuts expire. then put up a bill to restore them for the
 
2012-11-12 10:29:12 AM  
fta Last week I posted two essays (here | here) on why I believe the best way for the GOP to address the wildly misnamed "Fiscal Cliff" is to walk away. The impact of doing so, according to the CBO, will be a temporary downturn in the economy which will make the economy stronger in the long run.

I guess I'm out of the loop on this one. I thought everybody knew this already.
 
2012-11-12 10:29:31 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Dems have the leverage. they can let the Bush tax cuts expire. then put up a bill to restore them for the


Exactly right. If they don't simply say this to the GOP and then walk away, they are massive dumbasses.
 
2012-11-12 10:29:33 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Dems have the leverage. they can let the Bush tax cuts expire. then put up a bill to restore them for the less than 250k/yr. if the GOP balks then it's on them


ftfm stupid tags lol
 
2012-11-12 10:29:55 AM  
My expectation is that we'll end up with a "grand bargain" that extends the Bush tax cuts through 2014 and increases spending across the entire government. In short, a spineless repeat of the Obama-McConnell Debt Increase of 2010. The politicos will pat themselves on the backs and we'll slide further and further into debt.
 
2012-11-12 10:30:39 AM  
Redstate being disingenuous? The Hell you say.
 
2012-11-12 10:32:26 AM  
And, of course, to save yourself from the cliff, you need to burn your car.
 
2012-11-12 10:32:48 AM  
We should blow up the parliament.
 
2012-11-12 10:33:34 AM  
Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.
 
2012-11-12 10:33:35 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-12 10:33:38 AM  

sprawl15: We should prevent Obama driving us off this cliff by making it illegal for black people to drive.


you can't do that. the who would drive old white women around town?
 
2012-11-12 10:34:37 AM  

DamnYankees: Hobodeluxe: Dems have the leverage. they can let the Bush tax cuts expire. then put up a bill to restore them for the

Exactly right. If they don't simply say this to the GOP and then walk away, they are massive dumbasses.


I don't want to speak ill of my own party, but c'mon, man. We're Democrats. We'll figure out a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
2012-11-12 10:35:40 AM  

bwilson27: We should blow up the parliament.


The last thing our economy needs now is inflation.
 
2012-11-12 10:35:44 AM  

bwilson27: We should blow up the parliament.


A gunpowder plot, you say?
 
2012-11-12 10:36:15 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.


Yeah the Democrats would be wise to put this off for 5 years so the next GOP candidate can make hay out of it in his election campaign.

Nope.
 
2012-11-12 10:36:41 AM  

Notabunny: bwilson27: We should blow up the parliament.

A gunpowder plot, you say?


Wait... we missed the deadline on that. Need to wait til next year.
I didn't remember remember the fifth of November.
 
2012-11-12 10:36:50 AM  

that bosnian sniper: ...the cliff the Republicans wanted in the first place? Y'know, the same one that also caused the credit downgrade?


That was the debt ceiling. That was when the Republicans wanted to slash the deficit. The "fiscal cliff" will actually cut the deficit, but now they don't want that anymore because they realize it's a bad time to do it when the economy is still weak. Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.
 
2012-11-12 10:37:16 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that.


As compared to RedState's writing which is universally potato.
 
2012-11-12 10:38:10 AM  

ManateeGag: sprawl15: We should prevent Obama driving us off this cliff by making it illegal for black people to drive.

you can't do that. the who would drive old white women around town?


Morgan Freeman?
 
2012-11-12 10:39:03 AM  
OMG he's drinking champagne! Elitist!
 
2012-11-12 10:39:51 AM  

Hobodeluxe: [imageshack.us image 610x344]


Can you Photoshop Toonces the Driving Cat on there? That would be awesome.
 
2012-11-12 10:41:12 AM  

bwilson27: We should blow up the parliament.


assets.rollingstone.com
Fool, you don't know what you even talking about. We blow up every time we on stage
 
2012-11-12 10:42:05 AM  
I was told in 2010 that it would be unfair of any congressman voted out of office to exercise their vote in the lame duck session. I am sure all Republicans voted out of office will abstain from voting on any fiscal cliff bills.
 
2012-11-12 10:43:19 AM  

DamnYankees: If they don't simply say this to the GOP and then walk away, they are massive dumbasses.


I hope you're already preparing for when the Democrats agree to a full extension of the Bush tax cuts, no defense spending cuts, and massive Medicare/entitlement reform early next year (after the requisite OMG EXTENSION through the holidays).

There may be a partial repeal of some aspects of Obamacare in there, too.
 
2012-11-12 10:44:50 AM  

Fart_Machine: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that.

As compared to RedState's writing which is universally potato.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure their servers are kept in Idaho. Erik Erikson is probably cashing in on some farm subsidies from that site.

HotWingConspiracy: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

Yeah the Democrats would be wise to put this off for 5 years so the next GOP candidate can make hay out of it in his election campaign.

Nope.


I hadn't thought about it in those terms, I was thinking making tiny, continual changes over a long period of time after (too damned much time) worked our way through the housing and state/local government issues, private RGDP growth would be sufficiently strong to absorb gradually rising tax rates without impacting consumption and investment decisions too much. And, because they're some medium term out, households and firms could build those changes into their spending/investing plans.
 
2012-11-12 10:45:01 AM  

Publikwerks: bwilson27: We should blow up the parliament.

[assets.rollingstone.com image 304x304]
Fool, you don't know what you even talking about. We blow up every time we on stage


Word
 
2012-11-12 10:46:02 AM  
Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.
 
2012-11-12 10:46:54 AM  
It's great to see the right acknowledge that deficit reduction is counter-productive to growing the economy
 
2012-11-12 10:47:33 AM  

Arkanaut: The "fiscal cliff" will actually cut the deficit, but now they don't want that anymore because they realize it's a bad time to do it when the economy is still weak. Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.


It's that one. They don't give a rats ass about the economy, particularly since they can just blame it on Obama and people will buy it and keep electing them.
 
2012-11-12 10:48:54 AM  
The process is simple:

1) Give the Republicans a much-publicized chance to avoid the cliff
2) Watch them drive over it
3) Dems to the rescue! Pass stimulus and cut middle-class taxes
4) Remind Dem voters they saved the day
5) Remind Repub voters they broke the Norquist pledge

The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message. If they are going to succeed here, they need to really drive this home as a product of the Republicans.
 
2012-11-12 10:50:11 AM  

Cinaed: Notabunny: bwilson27: We should blow up the parliament.

A gunpowder plot, you say?

Wait... we missed the deadline on that. Need to wait til next year.
I didn't remember remember the fifth of November.


settle down you Guys
 
2012-11-12 10:50:19 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message.


This is what I don't understand. Why can they get their message out during a campaign, but they take a back seat on message when governing? It allows the GOP to run the conversation on everything and Obama always seems to be on the defensive.
 
2012-11-12 10:52:29 AM  

Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.


Yeah, keep up that narrative. It went over so very well with voters.

I'm sure it'll win next time, you betcha!
 
2012-11-12 10:52:37 AM  
Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?
 
2012-11-12 10:52:49 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.


I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."
 
2012-11-12 10:54:13 AM  

bulldg4life: whizbangthedirtfarmer: The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message.

This is what I don't understand. Why can they get their message out during a campaign, but they take a back seat on message when governing? It allows the GOP to run the conversation on everything and Obama always seems to be on the defensive.


It's because they pay good money to get their message out during the campaigns. Overall, the guys that own the media aren't friends of the Democratic party when the Democrats are focused on making the standard of living better for the average American.
 
2012-11-12 10:54:28 AM  
They should start calling it the Republican Fiscal Cliff.
 
2012-11-12 10:54:49 AM  
A deal against your own interests is not a deal, it is capitulation.

And there we have the teabagger problem summed up nicely. Compromise = Surrender.

Heck, maybe in 2014 their antics can give dems a Senate supermajority and lose them the House as well!
 
2012-11-12 10:55:07 AM  

skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?


Everything before the election was a thing.
 
2012-11-12 10:55:46 AM  

KarmicDisaster: They should start calling it the Republican Fiscal Cliff.


The Republicliff?
 
2012-11-12 10:58:34 AM  
Now that the GOP got what they deserve this election....

SFW


Link
 
2012-11-12 10:59:10 AM  

skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?


Romney explicitly said, at one point, "Elect me so that the House Republicans won't dig in their heels and ruin the debt ceiling deal"
 
2012-11-12 10:59:28 AM  
"The cost of giving Obama both his tax increase on high earners and respite from spending cuts - the near certain outcome of any negotiation - would be near criminal malfeasance on the part of Speaker Boehner and the GOP leadership."

Yeah, that's the ticket... Democrats don't want any spending cuts!
 
2012-11-12 10:59:34 AM  
Every time the Republican Congress winds up trying one of their Flintstonian get-rich-quick schemes on Obama, not only does it not work, but they lose more than they would have by just negotiating in good faith. Like the SSA tax cut deadline that they tried to hold hostage last time, these clods think they have leverage over a situation that winds up handing the President a big ol' stick to beat them with. The public isn't stupid. They know that laws originate in Congress, and rightly will hold them accountable for lack of action, and Boehner/McConnell have kindly made it clear that any lack of action is a purely partisan maneuver.
 
2012-11-12 11:00:45 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: A deal against your own interests is not a deal, it is capitulation.

And there we have the teabagger problem summed up nicely. Compromise = Surrender.


And the Obama problem is Surrender = Compromise.
 
2012-11-12 11:01:30 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Yeah, keep up that narrative. It went over so very well with voters.

I'm sure it'll win next time, you betcha!


Hey, dontcha know? 2014 is going to be the Year of the Teaparty! Also the Year of the Linux Desktop. Really, it is!
 
2012-11-12 11:03:26 AM  

Mercutio74: bulldg4life: whizbangthedirtfarmer: The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message.

This is what I don't understand. Why can they get their message out during a campaign, but they take a back seat on message when governing? It allows the GOP to run the conversation on everything and Obama always seems to be on the defensive.

It's because they pay good money to get their message out during the campaigns. Overall, the guys that own the media aren't friends of the Democratic party when the Democrats are focused on making the standard of living better for the average American.


oh stop it. You won the election, stop pretending you're the underdog.
 
2012-11-12 11:03:34 AM  

Lost Thought 00: skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?

Romney explicitly said, at one point, "Elect me so that the House Republicans won't dig in their heels and ruin the debt ceiling deal"


That was the Republican line during the last 2 or 3 weeks before the election. "Elect us, or we'll ruin everything!" Sounds kind of like every melodramatic and amateurish kidnapper from a 70s action movie.
 
2012-11-12 11:04:24 AM  
The derp coming from both parties reminds me of an old money family trying to hide the fact that the money is all gone. Somebody is lying and whoever it is (likely both sides) is going to be in shiatload of trouble soon.
 
2012-11-12 11:05:33 AM  
Now much of Krugman's analysis is wrong. This is not unusual. When Krugman ventures from his academic writings his is both an inveterate liar and relentlessly wrong. But in the main he is right.

This is all you need to know about Red State's "honesty". They just HAVE to name call. They can't help it. Krugman has made them look bad over and over, so he is a liar.
 
2012-11-12 11:06:54 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: The derp coming from both parties reminds me of an old money family trying to hide the fact that the money is all gone. Somebody is lying and whoever it is (likely both sides) is going to be in shiatload of trouble soon.


I'm pretty sure we know who that will be.
 
2012-11-12 11:07:44 AM  

turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."


No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.
 
2012-11-12 11:08:19 AM  

Lost Thought 00: skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?

Romney explicitly said, at one point, "Elect me so that the House Republicans won't dig in their heels and ruin the debt ceiling deal"


hehe
 
2012-11-12 11:08:47 AM  

sprawl15: We should prevent Obama driving us off this cliff by making it illegal for black people to drive.


It isn't already? How did this happen??
 
2012-11-12 11:10:35 AM  
Worst part of the fisical cliff is there'll still be a huge deficit.

That's how farked the federal gov't is right now
 
2012-11-12 11:12:07 AM  

Paul Baumer: Every time the Republican Congress winds up trying one of their Flintstonian get-rich-quick schemes on Obama, not only does it not work, but they lose more than they would have by just negotiating in good faith. Like the SSA tax cut deadline that they tried to hold hostage last time, these clods think they have leverage over a situation that winds up handing the President a big ol' stick to beat them with. The public isn't stupid. They know that laws originate in Congress, and rightly will hold them accountable for lack of action, and Boehner/McConnell have kindly made it clear that any lack of action is a purely partisan maneuver.


Heh, Flintstonian. I like that.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-12 11:12:12 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."

No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.


His writing is good when it agrees with that they think.

His writing is bad when it doesn't.

Welcome to derpsville. You think the election ended this crap? The pundit class would like to talk to you...
 
2012-11-12 11:13:05 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly



He is the most accurate pundit in America.
Hamilton College Study
Of course, this is roughly the equivalent of "Disco's Greatest Hits".
 
2012-11-12 11:13:55 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Yeah, keep up that narrative. It went over so very well with voters.

I'm sure it'll win next time, you betcha!


Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.
 
2012-11-12 11:14:08 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."

No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.


Yet you agree with TFA. What does that say about you?
 
2012-11-12 11:14:43 AM  
How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.
 
2012-11-12 11:16:55 AM  

skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?


It's very possible that I wasn't paying attention (though, god help me, I do visit the Politics tab daily), but the first I'd ever heard of this "fiscal cliff" was the day after Obama was elected.
 
2012-11-12 11:17:52 AM  

vermicious k'nid: skullkrusher: Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?

was that a thing?

It's very possible that I wasn't paying attention (though, god help me, I do visit the Politics tab daily), but the first I'd ever heard of this "fiscal cliff" was the day after Obama was elected.


the "fiscal cliff" has been a thing for a while now. I just don't remember the claims that BO will drive us over it though that does fit the GOP's MO
 
2012-11-12 11:18:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


Maybe because it's what they decided to pass?
 
2012-11-12 11:18:27 AM  

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.
 
2012-11-12 11:18:46 AM  

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


The looming cuts to defense and other spending i.e. the "fiscal cliff" were put in place as a compromise when Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling (which triggered the US credit downgrade). I'm surprised you don't recall, it was something of a big deal at the time.

Alan Greenspan on the debt ceiling...
 
2012-11-12 11:20:05 AM  

vermicious k'nid: It's very possible that I wasn't paying attention (though, god help me, I do visit the Politics tab daily), but the first I'd ever heard of this "fiscal cliff" was the day after Obama was elected.


Considering it's been in the news for a good year, you should perhaps pay better attention.
 
2012-11-12 11:20:56 AM  

Mrbogey: oh stop it. You won the election, stop pretending you're the underdog.


I didn't win anything. I just observed the US avoiding a huge mistake. And you can't seriously think that the multi-national corporations that run the major news outlets don't have more in common with the GOP platform than they do with the Dem platform, can you? The only news network where you could make a case for them being part of the Dem communication machine would be MSNBC and even they have Joe Scarborough on the on-air payroll (and until this year, Pat Buchanan as well).
 
2012-11-12 11:20:57 AM  

Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.


Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.
 
2012-11-12 11:21:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.


i158.photobucket.com

/And if I remember correctly, the Bush tax cut extension and the sequestration were two separate bills.
 
2012-11-12 11:22:24 AM  
The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.

I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

A think a fiscal conservative would be in favor in across the board federal budget cuts, reworking Medicare/Medicaid/SS and a simplification of the tax code.
 
2012-11-12 11:22:31 AM  
"When Krugman ventures from his academic writings his is both an inveterate liar and relentlessly wrong. But in the main he is right."

Normally the RedState authors wait at least until the end of the article before contradicting themselves, but this guy managed to do it in two consecutive sentences.

Its no wonder they believe Obama is both a muslim and a christian, a socialist and a fascist.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:10 AM  
It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:44 AM  

Mrbogey: Mercutio74: bulldg4life: whizbangthedirtfarmer: The problem is that the Obama team hasn't been terribly good at sending out their message.

This is what I don't understand. Why can they get their message out during a campaign, but they take a back seat on message when governing? It allows the GOP to run the conversation on everything and Obama always seems to be on the defensive.

It's because they pay good money to get their message out during the campaigns. Overall, the guys that own the media aren't friends of the Democratic party when the Democrats are focused on making the standard of living better for the average American.

oh stop it. You won the election, stop pretending you're the underdog.


oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.
 
2012-11-12 11:24:29 AM  

Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.


Not right now we don't
 
2012-11-12 11:26:09 AM  

skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.


It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:23 AM  

Summoner101: /And if I remember correctly, the Bush tax cut extension and the sequestration were two separate bills.


Yep. The Bush Tax cuts were extended (along with several more tax cuts, including one to social security payroll taxes) in December 2010. This is what I dub the "Obama-McConnell Debt Increase of 2010", since those two were the primary architects of that idiotic bill that liberals on this site were cheering as "Stimulus 2.0" even though the vast majority of the things were tax cuts that they spent years harping on for being non-stimulative. Then, predictably, the national debt shot up faster than ever before, and 6 months later we had to have a vote for the increase of the debt ceiling. It was during those negotiations that we got the sequestration bit added.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:24 AM  

bwilson27: Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.

Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.


It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem. If he gets those tax increases watch that revenue get sucked into morass of federal spending.

Republicans just keep defending those rich folk, drawing a line six feet in front of the Obama line.

Four more years of the same ol' crap. And Bush.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:40 AM  

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.


Of course not. If you can't fix all of it at once, it's not worth doing anything, right?

I find it amusing that you, a "fiscal conservative", have a stated preference for a large deficit over a smaller deficit. What sort of absurd sense does that make?
 
2012-11-12 11:27:36 AM  

CPennypacker: Not right now we don't


Not even military spending?
 
2012-11-12 11:28:29 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Not right now we don't

Not even military spending?


In general, yes

Right now? Probably not. Not domestically anyway. Foreign? Sure.
 
2012-11-12 11:29:41 AM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.

It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.


The only good Canadian is a dead Canadian.

/RIP John Candy
 
2012-11-12 11:30:15 AM  
I find it amusing that you, a "fiscal conservative", have a stated preference for a large deficit over a smaller deficit. What sort of absurd sense does that make?

When did that happen? Ever?
 
2012-11-12 11:30:26 AM  

Blue_Blazer: Hunter_Worthington: turbidum: Hunter_Worthington: Red State makes a good point here, the quality of Krugman's nonacademic writing varies wildly. I don't think anyone ever tells him that. We do need to address fiscal issues, and a package that raised taxes, gradually, over a multi-year period starting say, 5 years out, would not be the worst thing in the world.

I might even consider the merits of said point if the author hadn't prefaced the excerpt by giving Krugman the moniker of "all around Obama fluffer."

No one ever confused RedState with being a shining example of high-quality journalism.

Yet you agree with TFA. What does that say about you?


I was just agreeing with TFA about the quality of Krugman's writing. Read his blog sometime. It varies from academic quality work to "channeling Limbuagh" level garbage.
 
2012-11-12 11:30:29 AM  

CPennypacker: Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't


If the US did nothing else but spend $2T in infrastructure starting today, you would grow the economy, create jobs and raise amazing revenue. In 10 years you would be in a position to balance the budge and have $2T of infrastructure to boot.
 
2012-11-12 11:30:53 AM  

qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.

Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.


They were SO GODDAM SURE they were going to win both the Presidential election and the Senate they walked away from a better offer than they are going to get this time. The schadenfreude, it soothes.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:26 AM  

skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.

It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.

The only good Canadian is a dead Canadian.

/RIP John Candy


Watch it, you... we burned the White House once. Next time we'll... oh fark it... once the NHL owners get their shiat together, we'll just go back to quietly watching hockey.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:34 AM  

Paul Baumer: qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.

Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.

They were SO GODDAM SURE they were going to win both the Presidential election and the Senate they walked away from a better offer than they are going to get this time. The schadenfreude, it soothes.


It's what happens when you get used to dealing with an opponent that mostly negotiates in good faith.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:56 AM  

CPennypacker: Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't


Which is why the oft-cited $4T cuts/$1T taxes applies over 10 years. Even if we passed a grand bargain tomorrow, those cuts likely wouldn't start for another year or two, and even then would probably be more in the form of ending, combining and re-baselining programs, while the new revenues (sorry, every dollar over $250k in salary) would start in 2014ish.

You don't think new revenues would be $1T in a year, do you?
 
2012-11-12 11:33:10 AM  
fta "Mr. Obama did win re-election with a populist campaign, so he can plausibly claim that Republicans are defying the will of the American people."

Hey Paul, did you notice that the American people also wanted the House firmly in the hands of the GOP to follow up on their shellacking of 2010 and get government spending under control?

Or did you think Pelosi's big push actually succeeded?
 
2012-11-12 11:33:42 AM  

MugzyBrown: I find it amusing that you, a "fiscal conservative", have a stated preference for a large deficit over a smaller deficit. What sort of absurd sense does that make?

When did that happen? Ever?


You just said it, sunshine!

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

 

Conservatives won't be in favor of things that decrease the deficit if it leaves a deficit.
 
2012-11-12 11:34:02 AM  
If the US did nothing else but spend $2T in infrastructure starting today, you would grow the economy, create jobs and raise amazing revenue. In 10 years you would be in a position to balance the budge and have $2T of infrastructure to boot.

Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.
 
2012-11-12 11:35:58 AM  

qorkfiend: You just said it, sunshine!

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

Conservatives won't be in favor of things that decrease the deficit if it leaves a deficit.


No, I didn't. I want zero deficit.

This fiscal cliff thing is nothing but BS. It just gets us back to Bush level idiotic deficits instead of Obama level idiotic deficits.
 
2012-11-12 11:36:31 AM  

Paul Baumer: qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.

Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.

They were SO GODDAM SURE they were going to win both the Presidential election and the Senate they walked away from a better offer than they are going to get this time. The schadenfreude, it soothes.


This. This entire week since the election has been...fun.
 
2012-11-12 11:36:58 AM  

Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.


Hey look, everybody, Cletus C. is baaaaaaaaaaaaaccckkk!!!

Oh, and I'm 100% confident he's happier inheriting the Obama economy than he was inheriting the Bush economy. Wouldn't you agree?

And this word "cliff"...it doesn't mean what you think it does. The word itself was a GOP invention to scare the prolls. The reality is more like a gentle slope with months and months to hammer out a budget to avoid driving up unemployment. Meanwhile the revenues just keep pouring in.

Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?
 
2012-11-12 11:37:07 AM  

Cletus C.: bwilson27: Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.

Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.

It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem. If he gets those tax increases watch that revenue get sucked into morass of federal spending.

Republicans just keep defending those rich folk, drawing a line six feet in front of the Obama line.

Four more years of the same ol' crap. And Bush.


So what is the solution? Tax cuts for millionaires and less spending on social welfare?
 
2012-11-12 11:37:27 AM  
A visualization of the CBO analysis of letting the "fiscal cliff" happen vs. the time honored approach of kicking that can just one last time, this time we mean it, really.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-12 11:37:34 AM  

MugzyBrown: If the US did nothing else but spend $2T in infrastructure starting today, you would grow the economy, create jobs and raise amazing revenue. In 10 years you would be in a position to balance the budge and have $2T of infrastructure to boot.

Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.


Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?
 
2012-11-12 11:38:43 AM  

Dr Dreidel: CPennypacker: Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't

Which is why the oft-cited $4T cuts/$1T taxes applies over 10 years. Even if we passed a grand bargain tomorrow, those cuts likely wouldn't start for another year or two, and even then would probably be more in the form of ending, combining and re-baselining programs, while the new revenues (sorry, every dollar over $250k in salary) would start in 2014ish.

You don't think new revenues would be $1T in a year, do you?


I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete. We should spend more.
 
2012-11-12 11:39:05 AM  
Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.

Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?


Zero to Negative...
 
2012-11-12 11:40:33 AM  

Stone Meadow: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Hey look, everybody, Cletus C. is baaaaaaaaaaaaaccckkk!!!

Oh, and I'm 100% confident he's happier inheriting the Obama economy than he was inheriting the Bush economy. Wouldn't you agree?

And this word "cliff"...it doesn't mean what you think it does. The word itself was a GOP invention to scare the prolls. The reality is more like a gentle slope with months and months to hammer out a budget to avoid driving up unemployment. Meanwhile the revenues just keep pouring in.

Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?


Never left, Stoney.
 
2012-11-12 11:43:20 AM  

Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?


Ooh, now that's bold (delusional). Can we hold you to this statement?
 
2012-11-12 11:44:29 AM  

CPennypacker: I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete.


When is that?
 
2012-11-12 11:45:02 AM  

CPennypacker: Dr Dreidel: CPennypacker: The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't

Which is why the oft-cited $4T cuts/$1T taxes applies over 10 years. Even if we passed a grand bargain tomorrow, those cuts likely wouldn't start for another year or two, and even then would probably be more in the form of ending, combining and re-baselining programs, while the new revenues (sorry, every dollar over $250k in salary) would start in 2014ish.

You don't think new revenues would be $1T in a year, do you?

I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete. We should spend more.


I think that's startlingly close to what I said.

// though I don't think we should spend more, exactly
// more like a retargeting
// I think the recovery is underway, so let's not fark with it too much one way or another
// remember the "12 million jobs in the next 4 years" estimate?
 
2012-11-12 11:45:16 AM  

CPennypacker: Dr Dreidel: CPennypacker: Dog Welder:

I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete. We should spend more.


THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."
 
2012-11-12 11:45:20 AM  
Part of me really does have a lot of hope that Obama's gonna show a lot of spine these next 4 years. Remember, he's been accidentally recorded saying to others 'wait until I'm re-elected, then we'll make it happen'. Now he doesn't have to appease anyone for re-election, now he just has to get enough Dems and Repubs to play ball so that bills are passed. And the current split of the GOP's values show that he could easily get that if the moderate GOP decides to give the finger to the far right GOP.

And again, the Dems and Obama literally have to do nothing... the ball's completely in the GOP's hands, all eyes are on them now. If they double down, all Obama has to do is have a press conference, point at the GOP, and do this:

www.reactionface.info

Obama's approval rating is 53% right now. Congress approval ratings are maybe in the low 20's... they're the ones that have something to prove.
 
2012-11-12 11:45:20 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Hobodeluxe: Dems have the leverage. they can let the Bush tax cuts expire. then put up a bill to restore them for the less than 250k/yr. if the GOP balks then it's on them

ftfm stupid tags lol


The Democrats also need to put a thumb on the narrative -- they need to stop the spread of phrases like "ending the cuts [or raising taxes] for people making over $200,000", and replace them with "extending the cuts on the first $200,000 of income, for everyone."
 
2012-11-12 11:45:22 AM  

MugzyBrown: Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.

Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?

Zero to Negative...


How many of those nations have their debt primarily owned by their citizens? Part of the issue the IMF has been running into is that the interest flows out of the national economy and retards growth. That isn't really the case with the US.
 
2012-11-12 11:45:45 AM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.

It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.

The only good Canadian is a dead Canadian.

/RIP John Candy

Watch it, you... we burned the White House once. Next time we'll... oh fark it... once the NHL owners get their shiat together, we'll just go back to quietly watching hockey.


hehe

/love Canadians
 
2012-11-12 11:45:57 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete.

When is that?


I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?
 
2012-11-12 11:46:16 AM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: You just said it, sunshine!

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

Conservatives won't be in favor of things that decrease the deficit if it leaves a deficit.

No, I didn't. I want zero deficit.

This fiscal cliff thing is nothing but BS. It just gets us back to Bush level idiotic deficits instead of Obama level idiotic deficits.


Yes, that's what I said. You want zero deficit, and are entirely unwilling to entertain any ideas about deficit reduction that do not zero out the deficit.

Plan to cut the deficit in half? Not worth it, since the deficit won't be zero. So, you clearly prefer - and are advocating for - the status quo of large deficits over any plan that results in smaller deficits. And you call yourself a fiscal conservative! Hilarious.
 
2012-11-12 11:46:37 AM  

MugzyBrown: Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.

Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?

Zero to Negative...


I figured, but "bon mot" reminds me of "cinnabon" and now I'm hungry.
 
2012-11-12 11:49:23 AM  

Cletus C.: Stone Meadow: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Hey look, everybody, Cletus C. is baaaaaaaaaaaaaccckkk!!!

Oh, and I'm 100% confident he's happier inheriting the Obama economy than he was inheriting the Bush economy. Wouldn't you agree?

And this word "cliff"...it doesn't mean what you think it does. The word itself was a GOP invention to scare the prolls. The reality is more like a gentle slope with months and months to hammer out a budget to avoid driving up unemployment. Meanwhile the revenues just keep pouring in.

Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?

Never left, Stoney.


I notice you didn't address the central issue: there is no cliff. Care to take another swing at it?

GoldSpider: Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?

Ooh, now that's bold (delusional). Can we hold you to this statement?


Yeah, that was a little overabundant. While the budget won't be "balanced", we will be on the right track to getting it there instead of hemorrhaging red ink. Besides, I'm firmly in the Keynesian camp, so to me keeping the economy going is more important right now than ending the deficit.
 
2012-11-12 11:49:47 AM  

Blue_Blazer: THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."


The federal government can't become a permanent make-work program.
 
2012-11-12 11:50:11 AM  

Blue_Blazer: Cletus C.: bwilson27: Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.

Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.

It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem. If he gets those tax increases watch that revenue get sucked into morass of federal spending.

Republicans just keep defending those rich folk, drawing a line six feet in front of the Obama line.

Four more years of the same ol' crap. And Bush.

So what is the solution? Tax cuts for millionaires and less spending on social welfare?


I don't think anyone ever bought the tax cuts for millionaires idea as a solution. Even Romney.

The solution will sound quite familiar to realists. Military spending will increase. Not because we need a larger military or more high-tech weapons but because there are bases and defense contractors in districts of powerful politicians.

There will not be less spending on social welfare. It will continue to grow.

The fight over tax increases will paralyze Congress, once again.

They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.

If the economy shows strong growth a lot of the problems will resolve themselves. If it continues at the current rate or goes the other direction there's trouble ahead. A familiar and tiring story.
 
2012-11-12 11:51:14 AM  

Sliding Carp: Hobodeluxe: Hobodeluxe: l

The Democrats also need to put a thumb on the narrative -- they need to stop the spread of phrases like "ending the cuts [or raising taxes] for people making over $200,000", and replace them with "extending the cuts on the first $200,000 of income, for everyone."


OMFG thank you! Do they really think people can't understand the phrase? I hear everybody using "tax cuts for people making less than $250k" and I want to stab myself in the ear. Is there some good reason they say it that way? It's the money that is taxed, not the person. They need to rephrase it as simply "taxes on income under $250k for everybody, and taxes for income over $250k for everybody" and stop talking about it in a way that makes it sound like the
 
2012-11-12 11:51:26 AM  

Stone Meadow: Yeah, that was a little overabundantexuberant.


FTFM
 
2012-11-12 11:52:41 AM  

Cletus C.: They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.


The fiscal cliff is a gimmick.

a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Send a gimmick to catch a gimmick.
 
2012-11-12 11:53:38 AM  

GoldSpider: Blue_Blazer: THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."

The federal government can't become a permanent make-work program.


I didn't say permanent, I said don't start cutting while the recovery is making progress. If unemployment gets to say 5% or something, then I'd be willing to talk about cutting spending, but even then it might be too soon. I'd rather have some national debt than a 2nd recession.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:00 AM  

Arkanaut: Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.

Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.
Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.


Repeated for emphasis. It's not a government handout when it goes to a defense department moochers contractors.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:19 AM  

CPennypacker: I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?


Not a fan of open-ended timetables; look where that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to set a GDP growth or unemployment goal, I'm listening. Too many things are established as "temporary" (Bush tax cuts anyone?) and find a way to become permanent.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:36 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Cletus C.: They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.

The fiscal cliff is a gimmick.

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 359x222]

Send a gimmick to catch a gimmick.


We are in agreement.
 
2012-11-12 11:55:37 AM  

GoldSpider: Blue_Blazer: THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."

The federal government can't become a permanent make-work program.


No one's suggested it should. What has been suggested is a large infrastructure repair program, since we have a few people out of work and a few thousand miles of road that could use some repairs. Only a moron would decide that keeping people out of work and leaving the roads in poor repair is the preferable option.
 
2012-11-12 11:56:20 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?

Not a fan of open-ended timetables; look where that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to set a GDP growth or unemployment goal, I'm listening. Too many things are established as "temporary" (Bush tax cuts anyone?) and find a way to become permanent.


How about unemployment below 5%?
 
2012-11-12 11:57:56 AM  

Blue_Blazer: I didn't say permanent, I said don't start cutting while the recovery is making progress. If unemployment gets to say 5% or something, then I'd be willing to talk about cutting spending, but even then it might be too soon. I'd rather have some national debt than a 2nd recession.


The problem is when the politicians start referring to these spending items as "essential". Once that word becomes engrained with the public, then it's impossible to de-fund such "essential" programs.
 
2012-11-12 11:58:23 AM  

Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?


Aww jebus shooting coffee out your nose is painful. I have seen some deluded posts but this one takes the cake.
 
2012-11-12 12:00:16 PM  

Cletus C.: Dr Dreidel: Cletus C.: They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.

The fiscal cliff is a gimmick.

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 359x222]

Send a gimmick to catch a gimmick.

We are in agreement.


First thing I thought of when I read your post. And since I'm working from home today (thanks, Veterans!), Demolition Man will be up next on the quadruple-feature.

// currently watching Green Lantern, because Ryan Reynolds is dreamy
// taking suggestions (but only movies I've seen. I do still need to work in between farking) for more
 
2012-11-12 12:00:44 PM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?

Not a fan of open-ended timetables; look where that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to set a GDP growth or unemployment goal, I'm listening. Too many things are established as "temporary" (Bush tax cuts anyone?) and find a way to become permanent.

How about unemployment below 5%?


I'm not so sure... employment being a trailing indicator and all, there might be a chance of accidentally creating an economic bubble. But if you do want to concentrate on unemployment, perhaps it's time to start giving away tax credits for middle class job creation and/or create some kind of program that allows citizens to upgrade their education for jobs with requirements that are under-represented among the current crop of unemployed.
 
2012-11-12 12:01:21 PM  

qorkfiend: No one's suggested it should. What has been suggested is a large infrastructure repair program, since we have a few people out of work and a few thousand miles of road that could use some repairs. Only a moron would decide that keeping people out of work and leaving the roads in poor repair is the preferable option.


I'm all for beefing up infrastructure spending. The problem is that you can't take (just rectally-retrieving a number) a million people who used to work in office, manufacturing, foodservice, etc. jobs and plug them into construction jobs.
 
2012-11-12 12:03:04 PM  

GoldSpider: Blue_Blazer: I didn't say permanent, I said don't start cutting while the recovery is making progress. If unemployment gets to say 5% or something, then I'd be willing to talk about cutting spending, but even then it might be too soon. I'd rather have some national debt than a 2nd recession.

The problem is when the politicians start referring to these spending items as "essential". Once that word becomes engrained with the public, then it's impossible to de-fund such "essential" programs.


Don't really care about that concern. We should not be cutting spending RIGHT NOW FULL STOP. You can bring this back up in a couple years when people can say "we've recovered" instead of saying "we're in a tepid recovery." Should be interesting to see what it takes for Republicans to say it.
 
2012-11-12 12:03:09 PM  

qorkfiend: Yes, that's what I said. You want zero deficit, and are entirely unwilling to entertain any ideas about deficit reduction that do not zero out the deficit.


I didn't say that. I just said this fiscal cliff scenario is a puppet show to no effect.
 
2012-11-12 12:06:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You mean that problem Congress is facing that is of Congress' own making? The one that they now have to pass SOMETHING to fix - and something good, too. Obama's using the veto-o-nator on any stopgaps - or else everyone sees higher taxes? The one that will likely result in the GOP capitulating on one or more parts of party dogma (now that they're "open to revenues")?

That's less a "cliff" and more the politico-rhetorical equivalent of falling into bed with every starlet from every time period that you've ever had so much as a crush on looking her very best in that sexy little number, just waiting to fulfill whatever desire you have.

Obama may not get everything he wants, but it'll only be because he's tired at that point.

// I'm not really this optimistic, but every time I follow a course of action in my head, it ends with "big Obama win"
// so I can't wait to see what amazing derpjitsu the GOP pulls out to make the FAIL that much...failier


If the cuts are fully extended for another year or two, will you deem that a "big Obama win?"

The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.
 
2012-11-12 12:08:17 PM  

MugzyBrown: I didn't say that. I just said this fiscal cliff scenario is a puppet show to no effect.


I wouldn't say that there has been no effect. Setting the stage for it via Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling triggered a downgrade of the nation's credit rating.

Now the recent "fiscal cliff" talking point in the run up to the election was primarily a scare tactic to keep the Republican base good and riled up but now that the election is passed I expect that congressional Republicans will play nice rather than risk the ire of their corporate owners.
 
2012-11-12 12:10:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.


Good luck getting that through the Senate.
 
2012-11-12 12:11:32 PM  
I think it was telling that during the debates President Obama as much as came out and said "sequestration, what sequestration?".
 
2012-11-12 12:12:25 PM  

Cletus C.: It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem.


It comes down to the same shiat. You lying to make yourself feel better.

Well that, and (apparently) willful ignorance.

Obama has NEVER said taxing the rich will solve our problems. You just NEED to believe that because you are morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

Not a surprise.
 
2012-11-12 12:12:43 PM  

Saiga410: Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?

Aww jebus shooting coffee out your nose is painful. I have seen some deluded posts but this one takes the cake.


Yeah, that was hyperbole on my part, and sorry about the nose. Point being that with revenues much closer to spending after sorting the 'cliff', our economy will be in far better shape four years from now than had Romeny/Ryan enacted their catastrophe. Not balanced, of course, but in much better shape.
 
2012-11-12 12:13:08 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Good luck getting that through the Senate.


Also, the Senate has already passed a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class. The House is sitting on it. If all rates are raised, the House GOP will be the ones perceived as holding the 98% hostage in favor of the 2%.
 
2012-11-12 12:13:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If the cuts are fully extended for another year or two, will you deem that a "big Obama win?"

The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.


Right now, things are a bit wild in the House. The GOP has to find its shiat quickly, because moderates are signaling...moderation. They have to start whipping votes against extension and for whatever crazy bullshiat they'll likely pass as an opening salvo, and fast. The next 3 weeks will be very interesting.

The GOP has no reason to cave...right now. Like I said, once their first draft hits the news, we may both have a different assessment. The GOP may do the math, and find (like most economists) that we simply can't cut-the-deductions our way into $1T in revenues. Then again, the GOP may do "teh maff" and find that more tax cuts will solve our problems and if we end Medicare, it saves like $4T right there.
 
2012-11-12 12:15:14 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

Good luck getting that through the Senate.


The dems control the senate. It is Obama by proxy. If he wants it passed in the senate it will be.

Do you seriously think the senate would defy Obama on this issue?
 
2012-11-12 12:16:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Good luck getting that through the Senate.

Also, the Senate has already passed a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class. The House is sitting on it. If all rates are raised, the House GOP will be the ones perceived as holding the 98% hostage in favor of the 2%.


? Taxing bills have to start in the house ?
 
2012-11-12 12:18:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.


Why would Obama sign that, thought, when on January 1st he can simply ask them to consider a bill which cuts all taxes under $250K?
 
2012-11-12 12:22:06 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: If only the House - you know, where all tax and spending bills must originate - had done anything since January 2011 to deal with spending or taxation beyond the last short-term deal.

Hey, who has been running that half of Congress, anyway?


BUT BUT BUT the president signed our retarded bill. He last touched it, it is ALL his fault!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
 
2012-11-12 12:23:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The dems control the senate. It is Obama by proxy. If he wants it passed in the senate it will be.


Dusk-You-n-Me: Also, the Senate has already passed a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class. The House is sitting on it. If all rates are raised, the House GOP will be the ones perceived as holding the 98% hostage in favor of the 2%.


Checkmate
 
2012-11-12 12:24:29 PM  

Saiga410: ? Taxing bills have to start in the house ?


Apparently not.


25 July

The Senate on Wednesday narrowly approved a plan to preserve tax cuts for the middle class while letting them expire for the wealthy... Link
 
2012-11-12 12:26:33 PM  

Saiga410: ? Taxing bills have to start in the house ?


Appropriations i.e. spending bills have to start in the house.
 
2012-11-12 12:29:22 PM  
If you look at the Beame administration negotiating for assistance for NYC in the 70s, I think you're going to see a similar thread here.

Beame tried negotiating and his opponents found they could screw with him. He tried appeasing them, and knowing he could be messed with, NYC slid into stagnation.

When Ed Koch came along, he knew that this process had to be outright broken in order to escape its clutches - no negotiation, no settling for bad financial tactics. Everything came to a halt. Koch did this to end the city being held hostage.

Now, I don't have to tell you how ugly NYC was in the mid 70s and how everything fell into disrepair. The subways covered in graffiti, all infrastructure decaying; the West Side Highway could have been used in Fallout 3. However, Koch's tactic worked. It destroyed his opponents.

I predict that if the House does not come back with anything but the desire to work, we're going to see this tactic repeated. I can easily see Obama spending his political capital and ceasing any and all negotiations. He's got the support from the Country; all he has to do is point out to how obstructionist the House is being. The Republicans will wear the final red letter of being the bad guys, and while the country goes off the fiscal cliff, be painted firmly as those who have brought this about.

Once this cycle is broken, things will radically improve. NYC jumped back to life. I should know, I lived it.

We don't negotiate with Terrorists. Dangling our futures in front of us is our own fault; we put them in your hands erroneously thinking all the bluster and puff could help us. You've proved that wrong. We voted.

The hardest medicine to take is the one that causes pain while it works. The House has a choice, work with the Country, or face the election in 2014.
 
2012-11-12 12:29:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.

Why would Obama sign that, thought, when on January 1st he can simply ask them to consider a bill which cuts all taxes under $250K?


Because he has to start from scratch on a new bill, that would have to be originated in the house. A GOP controlled house. A new bill that probably wouldn't even get out of committee unless tax goodies for all are included.

You can line up all your talking points now, but the fact of the matter is the law of the land is that all Bush and Obama tax cuts will expire on 12/31/12. Obama is president and will take the majority of the heat for letting them expire if the House provides him with a bill that maintains the status quo and the Dems don't agree. And honestly, that would be correct. Obama would be letting the 98% taxes rise because he didn't get what he wanted, which is an expiration for the rich that will raise less than 1/4th the revenue the expiration for the 98% will.

Maybe he is going to stop the buck and let the all expire, or propose something that would phase them all out, and his class warfare rhetoric is merely posturing for position right now. (he already won reelection, now is the time to be gutsy and pragmatic!) It would be the best thing he could do for the future of this country.
 
2012-11-12 12:31:01 PM  

mediablitz: Cletus C.: It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem.

It comes down to the same shiat. You lying to make yourself feel better.

Well that, and (apparently) willful ignorance.

Obama has NEVER said taxing the rich will solve our problems. You just NEED to believe that because you are morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

Not a surprise.


Yes, it does seem to be the base upon which he builds all his proposals. Raise the tax rate for everyone earning more than $200,000 just to see if he has anything else to offer.
 
2012-11-12 12:35:03 PM  

Cletus C.: Yes, it does seem to be the base upon which he builds all his proposals. Raise the tax rate for everyone earning more than $200,000 just to see if he has anything else to offer.


Closing the revenue gap created by the Bush tax cuts is a *huge* step in the right direction. Closing out Iraq and Afghanistan is budgetary win as well.

Personally, I'd love to seem him take Congress out of the loop with respect to military appropriations. It's clear that Congress can't be trusted with pork of that magnitude.
 
2012-11-12 12:39:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Because he has to start from scratch on a new bill, that would have to be originated in the house. A GOP controlled house. A new bill that probably wouldn't even get out of committee unless tax goodies for all are included.


The phrase "originated in the House" is a technicality. The House would have to pass it no matter what, it doesn't really matter where it 'starts'.

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama is president and will take the majority of the heat for letting them expire if the House provides him with a bill that maintains the status quo and the Dems don't agree. And honestly, that would be correct. Obama would be letting the 98% taxes rise because he didn't get what he wanted, which is an expiration for the rich that will raise less than 1/4th the revenue the expiration for the 98% will.


I just disagree on the politics. I don't think people will blame Obama, someone just re-elected - they are going to blame the institution they already hate more than anything, Congress.
 
2012-11-12 12:44:06 PM  

DamnYankees: DI just disagree on the politics. I don't think people will blame Obama, someone just re-elected - they are going to blame the institution they already hate more than anything, Congress.


So congresses aproval rating will shrink to negative numbers but who doggy my rep and senators shure kick butt.
 
2012-11-12 12:46:45 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.

Why would Obama sign that, thought, when on January 1st he can simply ask them to consider a bill which cuts all taxes under $250K?

Because he has to start from scratch on a new bill, that would have to be originated in the house. A GOP controlled house. A new bill that probably wouldn't even get out of committee unless tax goodies for all are included.

You can line up all your talking points now, but the fact of the matter is the law of the land is that all Bush and Obama tax cuts will expire on 12/31/12. Obama is president and will take the majority of the heat for letting them expire if the House provides him with a bill that maintains the status quo and the Dems don't agree. And honestly, that would be correct. Obama would be letting the 98% taxes rise because he didn't get what he wanted, which is an expiration for the rich that will raise less than 1/4th the revenue the expiration for the 98% will.

Maybe he is going to stop the buck and let the all expire, or propose something that would phase them all out, and his class warfare rhetoric is merely posturing for position right now. (he already won reelection, now is the time to be gutsy and pragmatic!) It would be the best thing he could do for the future of this country.


Remind me again which group has to be re-elected? Congress or the President? If Congress doesn't play they know they have to go back and defend themselves from a very, very weak position in the next election. The President can just lay back right now and wait and he will already get a large portion of what he wants.
 
2012-11-12 01:08:08 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Deficit hawk is a long-standing euphemism for granny starver. The fiscal cliff [sic] exposes this truth more clearly than usual.


Granny starver, I'm so stealing that.
 
2012-11-12 01:13:41 PM  
Grannystarver Republicliff
 
2012-11-12 01:23:36 PM  

bwilson27: Smeggy Smurf: The derp coming from both parties reminds me of an old money family trying to hide the fact that the money is all gone. Somebody is lying and whoever it is (likely both sides) is going to be in shiatload of trouble soon.

I'm pretty sure we know who that will be.


Yup. Everybody. Bunch of lying bastards. I'm happy to say I didn't vote for any of them.
 
2012-11-12 01:24:18 PM  
So Republicans got 98% of what they wanted during the debt ceiling compromise, but now that the reality of government spending cuts actually do affect jobs has cut into their echo chamber, they're blaming Obama for it?

Let me show you my shocked face... :|
 
2012-11-12 01:34:13 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Yup. Everybody. Bunch of lying bastards. I'm happy to say I didn't vote for any of them.


Yeah, you showed 'em!
 
2012-11-12 01:43:59 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.

Why would Obama sign that, thought, when on January 1st he can simply ask them to consider a bill which cuts all taxes under $250K?

Because he has to start from scratch on a new bill, that would have to be originated in the house. A GOP controlled house. A new bill that probably wouldn't even get out of committee unless tax goodies for all are included.

You can line up all your talking points now, but the fact of the matter is the law of the land is that all Bush and Obama tax cuts will expire on 12/31/12. Obama is president and will take the majority of the heat for letting them expire if the House provides him with a bill that maintains the status quo and the Dems don't agree. And honestly, that would be correct. Obama would be letting the 98% taxes rise because he didn't get what he wanted, which is an expiration for the rich that will raise less than 1/4th the revenue the expiration for the 98% will.

Maybe he is going to stop the buck and let the all expire, or propose something that would phase them all out, and his class warfare rhetoric is merely posturing for position right now. (he already won reelection, now is the time to be gutsy and pragmatic!) It would be the best thing he could do for the future of this country.

Remind me again which group has to be re-elected? Congress or the President? If Congress doesn't play they know they have to go back and defend themselves from a very, very weak position in the next election. The President can just lay back right now and wait and he will already get a large portion of what he w ...


I disagree, but we'll see. It's going to be interesting. The GOP has already shown a willingness to use the filibuster excessively in the Senate in 2010 (then won seats in the next election), and a willingness to hold the debt ceiling hostage last year. If they're willing to act irresponsibly and provocatively in those instances when they were largely in the wrong and looked like assholes, why wouldn't they be willing to be obstinate in this instance, when their offer will be an extension for everyone and avoidance of the negative short term economic implications of tax increases, and be able to portray themselves as the good guys?
 
2012-11-12 02:05:30 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: So Republicans got 98% of what they wanted during the debt ceiling compromise, but now that the reality of government spending cuts actually do affect jobs has cut into their echo chamber, they're blaming Obama for it?

Let me show you my shocked face... :|


I recently figured out that "98%" of what he wanted was something he could try to hang around Obama's neck. I don't think you will see Mr. Empty Chair Speaker saying he wants sequestration to happen.
 
2012-11-12 08:13:42 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: fta "Mr. Obama did win re-election with a populist campaign, so he can plausibly claim that Republicans are defying the will of the American people."

Hey Paul, did you notice that the American people also wanted the House firmly in the hands of the GOP to follow up on their shellacking of 2010 and get government spending under control?

Or did you think Pelosi's big push actually succeeded?


Ha! That's a hot one. When have big spending Republicans ever gotten a deficit under control? All they ever do is increase the debt, and then try to keep it off the books until there's a Democrat in office.
 
2012-11-12 08:17:04 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: A deal against your own interests is not a deal, it is capitulation.

And there we have the teabagger problem summed up nicely. Compromise = Surrender.

Heck, maybe in 2014 their antics can give dems a Senate supermajority and lose them the House as well!


2014 probably won't do it, as the 2010 class of teabaggery won't be up for reelection. 2016 I think will, so long as the Dems put up a candidate for Pres that gets people to the polls. 23 R seats up, and only 10 D seats. The R's are largely first-term teabaggers that people are quickly getting fed up with. The Dems are the ones that survived and kept their seats during 2010, so I don't think they'll be easy targets.
 
2012-11-12 08:54:26 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: 23 R seats up, and only 10 D seats. The R's are largely first-term teabaggers that people are quickly getting fed up with. The Dems are the ones that survived and kept their seats during 2010, so I don't think they'll be easy targets.


There is much truthiness here. 2016 will see a unified government under the DNC banner.
 
2012-11-12 10:46:53 PM  

kg2095: tenpoundsofcheese: fta "Mr. Obama did win re-election with a populist campaign, so he can plausibly claim that Republicans are defying the will of the American people."

Hey Paul, did you notice that the American people also wanted the House firmly in the hands of the GOP to follow up on their shellacking of 2010 and get government spending under control?

Or did you think Pelosi's big push actually succeeded?

Ha! That's a hot one. When have big spending Republicans ever gotten a deficit under control? All they ever do is increase the debt, and then try to keep it off the books until there's a Democrat in office.


This is Politics Tab. There's a chart for that.

img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report