Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Post)   "The Republicans finally have leverage. They should use it. Obama capitalized on the automaticity of the expiring Bush tax cuts to get what he wanted at the fiscal cliff - higher tax rates. Republicans now have automaticity on their side"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Republican, Bush Tax Cuts, obama, tax rates, tax reform, leverage, Obama capitalized  
•       •       •

2188 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2013 at 9:56 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-08 07:58:29 AM  
It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

Yeah. Wait, no. The defense industry is pretty solidly Republican. Whoever started it, the defense industry is not going to be happy if Republicans allow the defense budget to be slashed.
 
2013-02-08 08:19:12 AM  

St_Francis_P: It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

Yeah. Wait, no. The defense industry is pretty solidly Republican. Whoever started it, the defense industry is not going to be happy if Republicans allow the defense budget to be slashed.


The Democrats are targeting 10 GOP congressmen whose districts include military bases or defense industries that will go on the chopping block if the automatic sequester goes into effect. Those Congressmen are going to have to explain to their constituents why they're out of a job.
 
2013-02-08 08:22:44 AM  

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

Yeah. Wait, no. The defense industry is pretty solidly Republican. Whoever started it, the defense industry is not going to be happy if Republicans allow the defense budget to be slashed.

The Democrats are targeting 10 GOP congressmen whose districts include military bases or defense industries that will go on the chopping block if the automatic sequester goes into effect. Those Congressmen are going to have to explain to their constituents why they're out of a job.


What Krauthammer meant was that Republicans finally have leverage to shoot themselves in the foot.
 
2013-02-08 08:25:57 AM  
Automaticity? Is that a word?

au·to·mat·ic
[aw-tuh-mat-ik]
adjective
1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently: an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.
2. Physiology. occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; involuntary.
3. done unconsciously or from force of habit; mechanical: an automatic application of the brakes.
4. occurring spontaneously: automatic enthusiasm.
5. (of a firearm, pistol, etc.) utilizing the recoil or part of the force of the explosive to eject the spent cartridge shell, introduce a new cartridge, cock the arm, and fire it repeatedly.

noun
6. a machine that operates automatically.
7. automatic rifle.
8. automatic pistol.
9. Football. audible ( def 2 ).
10. automatic pilot.

Huh. I guess it is.
 
2013-02-08 08:26:55 AM  

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

Yeah. Wait, no. The defense industry is pretty solidly Republican. Whoever started it, the defense industry is not going to be happy if Republicans allow the defense budget to be slashed.

The Democrats are targeting 10 GOP congressmen whose districts include military bases or defense industries that will go on the chopping block if the automatic sequester goes into effect. Those Congressmen are going to have to explain to their constituents why they're out of a job.


Exactly. The GOP are saying they have leverage for the benefit of the mouth-breathers who watch Fox News, so they don't look as pathetic as they really are. No politician wants to look powerless, least of all a minority party that just got their collective arses kicked a few months back.

Let the GOP allow the Sequester to happen, I want to see which House Republican breaks down crying first.
 
2013-02-08 09:02:00 AM  

Cythraul: Automaticity? Is that a word?

au·to·mat·ic
[aw-tuh-mat-ik]
adjective
1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently: an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.
2. Physiology. occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; involuntary.
3. done unconsciously or from force of habit; mechanical: an automatic application of the brakes.
4. occurring spontaneously: automatic enthusiasm.
5. (of a firearm, pistol, etc.) utilizing the recoil or part of the force of the explosive to eject the spent cartridge shell, introduce a new cartridge, cock the arm, and fire it repeatedly.

noun
6. a machine that operates automatically.
7. automatic rifle.
8. automatic pistol.
9. Football. audible ( def 2 ).
10. automatic pilot.

Huh. I guess it is.


Thanks for embiggening my vocabulary with that cromulent new word.
 
2013-02-08 09:06:14 AM  
Seems like apples and oranges to me.  Both have expiration dates, but are entirely different fruits.
 
2013-02-08 09:17:59 AM  

St_Francis_P: It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

Yeah. Wait, no. The defense industry is pretty solidly Republican. Whoever started it, the defense industry is not going to be happy if Republicans allow the defense budget to be slashed.


And the military has started flexing their muscles, like suddenly pretending they didn't have money allocated for a carrier deployment and starting to lay off people.  The Democrats have said they'd be willing to reduce those cuts in exchange for spending, and the GOP has refused it.  I don't see Democrats scrambling to stop the sequester.  They know their leverage is those cuts and waiting to see if the GOP panics.  If the GOP doesn't panic, there will be no deal anyway, so just sit and wait.
 
2013-02-08 09:19:52 AM  
Of course, the sequester is terrible policy.

But we should do it anyway since sending America's economy into the shiatter is a small price to pay for sticking it to the libs.
 
2013-02-08 09:24:35 AM  

GAT_00: St_Francis_P: It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

Yeah. Wait, no. The defense industry is pretty solidly Republican. Whoever started it, the defense industry is not going to be happy if Republicans allow the defense budget to be slashed.

And the military has started flexing their muscles, like suddenly pretending they didn't have money allocated for a carrier deployment and starting to lay off people.  The Democrats have said they'd be willing to reduce those cuts in exchange for spending, and the GOP has refused it.  I don't see Democrats scrambling to stop the sequester.  They know their leverage is those cuts and waiting to see if the GOP panics.  If the GOP doesn't panic, there will be no deal anyway, so just sit and wait.


Obama betting that defense contractors have GOP politicians in their pocket?  I can't imagine a safer bet than that.
 
2013-02-08 09:24:40 AM  
Farthammer.
 
2013-02-08 09:28:47 AM  
I say let the sequesters happen.  Our whole government evolves constantly.  Does Charles Krauthammer honestly believe that if sequesters go into effect additional actions would not be taken by the House and Senate to minimize the most damaging aspects?

Plus no one is looking at this from a future perspective.  What if Obama lets the sequester happen and somehow we magically pay off tons of debt because of those cuts.  Then the Democrats look even more appealing to the independent base and the Republicans don't win another White House seat for years.

Before I take any harsh criticisms I am not an economist.  I may not fully understand the entire amount of damage said cuts would make on our country.  However to start with "in the fiscal-cliff deal the president already got major tax hikes with no corresponding spending cuts." when the amount is a measly projected $157 billion increase to revenue is not "major".  Our interest on loans is increasing the debt far more than our spending.  Our revenue still needs to increase contrary to taking actions to cut spending to avoid the sequester.
 
2013-02-08 09:30:06 AM  
No mention of the $1.5T in cuts in exchange for no tax increases via the Budget Control Act. Probably just slipped Chuck's mind.
 
2013-02-08 09:35:33 AM  

GooseMeat: I say let the sequesters happen.  Our whole government evolves constantly.  Does Charles Krauthammer honestly believe that if sequesters go into effect additional actions would not be taken by the House and Senate to minimize the most damaging aspects?

Plus no one is looking at this from a future perspective.  What if Obama lets the sequester happen and somehow we magically pay off tons of debt because of those cuts.  Then the Democrats look even more appealing to the independent base and the Republicans don't win another White House seat for years.

Before I take any harsh criticisms I am not an economist.  I may not fully understand the entire amount of damage said cuts would make on our country.  However to start with "in the fiscal-cliff deal the president already got major tax hikes with no corresponding spending cuts." when the amount is a measly projected $157 billion increase to revenue is not "major".  Our interest on loans is increasing the debt far more than our spending.  Our revenue still needs to increase contrary to taking actions to cut spending to avoid the sequester.


Cutting spending is not an efficient way of balancing the budget when the economy is weak.  Every $1 you cut in spending, will significantly reduce the GOP and money that comes back in revenue to the Government.  Plus, other hidden costs increase when benefits are denied people.

Very simply, you need to increase spending when the economy is weak and cut spending when the economy is strong.  You guys are basically doing it wrong.
 
2013-02-08 09:36:09 AM  

mrshowrules: GooseMeat: I say let the sequesters happen.  Our whole government evolves constantly.  Does Charles Krauthammer honestly believe that if sequesters go into effect additional actions would not be taken by the House and Senate to minimize the most damaging aspects?

Plus no one is looking at this from a future perspective.  What if Obama lets the sequester happen and somehow we magically pay off tons of debt because of those cuts.  Then the Democrats look even more appealing to the independent base and the Republicans don't win another White House seat for years.

Before I take any harsh criticisms I am not an economist.  I may not fully understand the entire amount of damage said cuts would make on our country.  However to start with "in the fiscal-cliff deal the president already got major tax hikes with no corresponding spending cuts." when the amount is a measly projected $157 billion increase to revenue is not "major".  Our interest on loans is increasing the debt far more than our spending.  Our revenue still needs to increase contrary to taking actions to cut spending to avoid the sequester.

Cutting spending is not an efficient way of balancing the budget when the economy is weak.  Every $1 you cut in spending, will significantly reduce the GOP and money that comes back in revenue to the Government.  Plus, other hidden costs increase when benefits are denied people.

Very simply, you need to increase spending when the economy is weak and cut spending when the economy is strong.  You guys are basically doing it wrong.


GDP not GOP
 
2013-02-08 09:38:21 AM  
For every dollar of defense spending that you cut, you will cost this country a thousand jobs.

Are you prepared to cost this country a thousand jobs for every dollar of defense spending that you cut?
 
2013-02-08 09:41:33 AM  
If Krauthammer thinks things are going well for you it's probably a good idea to kill yourself.
 
2013-02-08 09:48:45 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: No mention of the $1.5T in cuts in exchange for no tax increases via the Budget Control Act. Probably just slipped Chuck's mind.


Those already happened.  Therefore they don't count anymore.

GooseMeat: What if Obama lets the sequester happen and somehow we magically pay off tons of debt because of those cuts.


Yes, magic, especially since the cuts will drop us into a recession.
 
2013-02-08 09:55:21 AM  
For instance, Charles Krauthammer argues today that Republicans should not give an inch on new revenues, because they already agreed to tax hikes as part of the fiscal cliff deal. Krauthammer doesn't mention that Democrats agreed to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts - significantly more than the $700 billion in revenues Republicans agreed to - in 2011. Indeed, even if the parties agreed to a roughly one-to-one split between revenues and cuts to avert the sequester, the overall ledger would still be tilted towards Republicans. Link
 
2013-02-08 10:00:35 AM  

GAT_00: Yes, magic, especially since the cuts will drop us into a recession.


Which is why the Government will never shrink. The economy is never deemed "strong enough" to survive any cuts, since people classify every slight downturn as a recession
 
2013-02-08 10:02:58 AM  
The sky is falling, how will we ever survive it. pfffffffffftttttt

Link
 
2013-02-08 10:03:52 AM  
www.washingtonpost.com

Charles Krauthammer?

No thanks.
 
2013-02-08 10:06:24 AM  
Look, suppose we had two islands, and we wanted launch a coconut using an artillery gun, then the spending becomes wastef... hey? Guys? Why are you hitting me? Guys? Stop it!
 
2013-02-08 10:06:54 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: For instance, Charles Krauthammer argues today that Republicans should not give an inch on new revenues, because they already agreed to tax hikes as part of the fiscal cliff deal. Krauthammer doesn't mention that Democrats agreed to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts - significantly more than the $700 billion in revenues Republicans agreed to - in 2011. Indeed, even if the parties agreed to a roughly one-to-one split between revenues and cuts to avert the sequester, the overall ledger would still be tilted towards Republicans. Link


Those are Washington-speak cuts.  Spending is not actually going down at all, it will continue to go up, It's just $1.5T off the future wish list.

The tax increases are real increases.

When "cut" mean we spend less than we did last year, then you can make the comparison.
 
2013-02-08 10:07:09 AM  
fark!! I am tired of this "how can our side win" bullshiat.  How about, just once, going "what's best for all, not just for me?"
 
2013-02-08 10:07:17 AM  

THERE WOULD BE NO SEQUESTER IF THE GOP HADN'T THREATENED TO NOT PAY AMERICA'S BILLS IN 2011.

 
2013-02-08 10:07:31 AM  
Governing by brinksmanship?

Sounds legit.
 
2013-02-08 10:08:33 AM  

stonicus: fark!! I am tired of this "how can our side win" bullshiat.  How about, just once, going "what's best for all, not just for me?"


zero-sum politics is literally destroying this country. and 99 percent of the fault lies with the modern (post '94) republican party.
 
2013-02-08 10:08:55 AM  
I may have found the flaw in your cunning plan:

The President is fairly popular.

Congress isn't.
 
2013-02-08 10:10:44 AM  
There are some GOP congress folk sweating farking bullets right now. They owe people.
 
2013-02-08 10:10:44 AM  
Yes.
Now everyone thinks the Republicans are idiots.
 
2013-02-08 10:12:41 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Of course, the sequester is terrible policy.

But we should do it anyway since sending America's economy into the shiatter is a small price to pay for sticking it to the libs.


The Republicans have done a great job of conflating the debt/budget deficit and the health of the economy. I had a fairly apolitical coworker who was genuinely surprised when I explained what sequestration does and why everyone agrees it's bad policy with "Wait, didn't you say it would cut spending? Wouldn't that help the economy?"

The debt/deficit is a long term concern. Unemployment and GDP are short term concerns. They are inversely related: to make things better in the short term means leaving the costs until later, while relieving your future obligations means making life harder now.

Anyway, I'd agree that Republicans have a stronger hand than they did back in January when the Bush tax cuts were in the mix, but sequestration is such a small thing compared to either letting the government shut down or defaulting on our debt that I don't think it leaves them any better than 2 years ago when the first debt ceiling fight happened. You might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
 
2013-02-08 10:13:10 AM  

stonicus: fark!! I am tired of this "how can our side win" bullshiat.  How about, just once, going "what's best for all, not just for me?"


When one side is clearly fighting against everything (even ideas the originally championed), there is only one that is part of the problem.   The side unwilling to compromise is the problem and that is the GOP.
 
2013-02-08 10:13:31 AM  
If the Republicans continue to fight against the national interest, at a certain point they may even lose in the gerrymandered districts.

Now the real political challenge of the day is for the Democrats to keep their focus and work for the benefit of all by running a clean and fiscally sound national government.  Keep the focus and try to work within their means and the Republicans will be in real trouble.  Start acting like celebrating frat boys and they will be in trouble themselves.
 
2013-02-08 10:13:58 AM  

cchris_39: Those are Washington-speak cuts.  Spending is not actually going down at all, it will continue to go up, It's just $1.5T off the future wish list.

The tax increases are real increases.

When "cut" mean we spend less than we did last year, then you can make the comparison.


Captain Semantics has not given me permission to make a comparison. Harrumph.
 
2013-02-08 10:14:18 AM  
I suggest these defense contractors stop relying so much on the government teet that they've been bootstrappingly sucking dry for years....
 
2013-02-08 10:14:49 AM  
from now on can we be warned of a Charles Krauthammer related article so we can not bother catching the stupid?
 
2013-02-08 10:16:22 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: The sky is falling, how will we ever survive it. pfffffffffftttttt

Link


Hey, let's look at the budget 10 years from now to evaluate the cuts planned for 3 months from now.
 
2013-02-08 10:16:28 AM  

GAT_00: GooseMeat: What if Obama lets the sequester happen and somehow we magically pay off tons of debt because of those cuts.

Yes, magic, especially since the cuts will drop us into a recession.


As I stated I am not an economist.  My major point was that the Republicans do not have the leverage Charles Krauthammer honestly thinks they have.  Should the Republicans choose to test Obama's resolve in this matter, they will be facing a finality beyond their comprehension, and they will not be counting days, or months, or years, but decades in a country that no longer elects their candidates.
 
2013-02-08 10:16:33 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-08 10:17:01 AM  
Call Obama's Sequester Bluff

The bluff was never Obama's, it was the 2010 congress that was confident enough in both a 2012 presidential and senate majority victory that they agreed to the sequester thinking they would never hafta face its consequences.   The GOP couldn't care less about the cuts to social programs but the defense cuts are simply anathema to them.  Those cuts cannot be allowed, its the only acceptable "public sector creates jobs" solution and it'll result in alot of otherwise-safe congresscritters being defeated next election cycle.  Boehner bluffed and is now going to pay for it.

But chins-up, repubs - by "pay" I mean that Obama is going to give the minority party 80% of what it wants, just like in January.
 
2013-02-08 10:17:14 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cchris_39: Those are Washington-speak cuts.  Spending is not actually going down at all, it will continue to go up, It's just $1.5T off the future wish list.

The tax increases are real increases.

When "cut" mean we spend less than we did last year, then you can make the comparison.

Captain Semantics has not given me permission to make a comparison. Harrumph.


LOL.  Well, you do have to admit that their idea of cuts is sort of like your wife running up the credit cards and "honey it was on sale, I saved us $300!" sort of thing.
 
2013-02-08 10:17:55 AM  
TARGET ACQUIRED...

hollywoodvideo.com
 
2013-02-08 10:18:34 AM  
LOL, we made one concession to raising taxes, therefore Libby Libs have to cut spending again and again and again forever and and ever!!!! It's only fair, stick it to 'em!
 
2013-02-08 10:18:41 AM  

cchris_39: Those are Washington-speak cuts. Spending is not actually going down at all, it will continue to go up, It's just $1.5T off the future wish list.

The tax increases are real increases.

When "cut" mean we spend less than we did last year, then you can make the comparison.


Why shouldn't spending go up? Federal receipts go up year-over-year (unless something stupid happens, like deep tax cuts or a recession or something), right - so it only stands to reason that spending should rise as well.

Also, inflation.
 
2013-02-08 10:18:41 AM  

cchris_39: LOL.  Well, you do have to admit that their idea of cuts is sort of like your wife running up the credit cards and "honey it was on sale, I saved us $300!" sort of thing.


No, I don't. Captain sir.
 
2013-02-08 10:19:32 AM  
mrshowrules:  Cutting spending is not an efficient way of balancing the budget when the economy is weak.  Every $1 you cut in spending, will significantly reduce the GOP and money that comes back in revenue to the Government.  Plus, other hidden costs increase when benefits are denied people.

Very simply, you need to increase spending when the economy is weak and cut spending when the economy is strong.  You guys are basically doing it wrong.


Every true!  Here's a wonderful article that says the same thing and shows how spending cut screwed Englands economy:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/02/uk-shows-h ow -austerity-policies-lead-to-more-borrowing-and-debt.html
 
2013-02-08 10:20:33 AM  
Otherwise, Mr. President, there is nothing to discuss. Your sequester - Republicans need to reiterate that the sequester was the president's idea in the first place - will go ahead.

Really?

"Boehner told the House Republican leadership and other key members not to worry about the sequester ... 'Guys, this would be devastating to Defense,' he said. 'This would be devastating, from their perspective, on their domestic priorities. This is never going to happen,'" Link
 
2013-02-08 10:21:55 AM  
If the Republicans come to the table with a list of programs where they can make valid points about cutting wasteful spending, then let them talk.  However when they come to the table with the plan of "Gut the social welfare programs and refuse to consider any cuts to defense", they have no leverage or credibility.
 
2013-02-08 10:22:34 AM  

Mike_LowELL: For every dollar of defense spending that you cut, you will cost this country a thousand jobs.

Are you prepared to cost this country a thousand jobs for every dollar of defense spending that you cut?


I know you're joking, but we were just told that the furlough math is for each employee they furlough for 22 days, its an average $7k in savings.  Or more accurately, $7k less that the person has to pay their morgage, put gas in their car, etc.

Thanks Republicans.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

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