Interesting article I found. Your thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121127/us-fiscal-cliff/?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=green

I'll read that article later tonight. Just my two cents first:

I do find it quite sad the Congressional GOP, outside of some Senators protected by their lengthy terms who've publicly spoken out, are apparently still quite frightened by Mr. Grover Norquist, with some taking a novel concept of trying to appease him while trying to wiggle out and potentially give Boehnner negotiating room, all miniscule as it is.

(The same Norquist who at CPAC earlier this year said it didn't matter who the GOP nominated for President, they ( and the rest of the right-wing special interests) would run the show. The President would merely be the rubber stamp. I bet Romney liked hearing that.)

Mind you its a inner-GOP matter for them to sort out and deal with (nevermind alot of those interests are why the GOP lost not just the national election, but several Senate seats), but if that sillyness obstructs an actual fiscal cliff agreement before the 31st next month...damn them for not having the balls to tell him to go fuck off. I don't care if he threatens to run primary challengers, your country's economy (shit maybe even the world's economy) is at stake here. Look outside the Conservative bubble sometime and notice that the world is bigger than just Grover's whineyness about his precious Pledge. Don't let this partisan/ideological civil war screw the rest of us who aren't involved.

It would be pathetic to see the other side be ruled by a special interest leader, not the Speaker of the House and allegedly the leader of the Republicans. (Does anybody in the House actually fear Boehner like they do Grover?) I can see the President drag his party's base kicking and screaming, and slapping the interests to shut up, to pass a compromise which would (probably) include entitlement cuts which they're currently protesting. I know this because he's done it before.

I have little to no faith in the other side doing the same.

One seat the GOP should have kept was Scott brown in Massachusetts. Solid senator and a bipartisan I have no doubt Elizabeth warren will be nothing more than a stooge for the left wingers.

On the other hand Ronnie both sides will have to make concessions to get this deal done and while the GOP is certainly in more of a mess I don't see the democrats doing anything more to ease this process along.

I think Obama, unlike his base and many party members, isn't exactly thrilled about going over the cliff. And I think he's correct to not exactly be enthusiastic about such a wreckless move. Instead of this kubaki dance over raising revenues and not tax rates, how about instead Boehner says "Let's say we hold our nose and do raise the rates. What do we get for it?" Then again in the last time we had this do or die $$$ negotiations, Obama gave the GOP their precious Bush Tax Cuts and they thought they made him tap like a wimp. Yet stuck in billions upon billions of new spending in what in what is being called his Second Stimulus.

It's one thing to die charging the hill for your cause, its another when you win the battle to save your sacred cow and end up possibly losing the war.

See that's the difference between both parties. The Dems find the bloggers and pundits on their side as annoying nuisances. They have influence, but not to the point that Democratic incumbents fear a primary challenge. There's not exactly a Coffee Party. (Or would it be the Carrot Juice Party?)The GOP are deathly afraid of the right-wing media and blogs. Well RedState's editor openly is thinking about running against Chambliss in that Georgia Senate GOP primary. He can say hello to Senators Murdoch and Adkins and O'Donnell and Angle when he gets there.

(Don't that blogger know he has more power using his keyboard than being in the Senate? Pure ego.)

Of course all this is a dance-off this side of WEST WIDE STREET, pure foreplay until the near end of next month when actual negotiations take place. Probably go down the wire again on the 31st. Except perhaps unlike last time, Obama has the leverage. And it's possible that if forced to by an opposition that isn't serious in negotiating, he will take us off the cliff.

And if that happens, forget the economical and fiscal fallout. The GOP will actually lose their beloved Bush Tax Cuts. Puff, gone!

EDIT - ABC/Washington Post have a new poll out.

Overall, do you support or oppose...
...raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year:
Support: 60
Oppose: 37

(NOTE: Poll claims 4 in 10 self-describing Republican poll respondents support raising taxes.)

...reducing deductions people can claim on their federal income taxes:
Support: 44
Oppose: 49

...raising the age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 67:
Support: 30
Oppose: 67

I really think there will be a compromise on this. Will the far right and far left be kicking and screaming? I hope so.

Out of 10, how likely do you all think a deal will fail to be reached before the deadline?

I've heard that the Republicans KNOW they have their backs to the wall and will have no choice to to cave. There have been what? 3 or more Republican Senators indicating it's time to bend a little (I know what a concept) .

A couple pundits concluded that since these senators are still speaking out even today, indicates Speaker of the House has NOT instructed them to "shut-up."

But then to hear Boehner speak and others you'd think no deal is likely. The theory is that in the end, Boehner has to sound tough so can say, he tried.

I'll have to wait a couple days to see but if I had to guess on a scale of 1-10, how likely, right now I'll say 6 or 7.

TIS

I say a 4

This isn't just about making the Republicans concede. Both sides will have to give up something in the name of a deal. Right now I'd go with a 5 out of 10 but I still believe they can work out a deal.

I think if the GOP relinquishes on tax revenue (which I think they will) than President Obama HAS to meet them halfway and present some serious spending cuts.

Rush is pretty adamant (What else is new?).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/rush-limbaugh-fiscal-cliff_n_2219441.html

Well they should listen to Rush. It tends to work out well for the Democrats it seems.

Seriously its one thing if negotiations (if symbolic only) fail, but for one side to fully pull out like Rush and Charles Kranky do, they'll lose the message war. Which I think they could very well regardless, but it's one thing to lose a hill. It's another to lose a mountain.

(Then again the GOP have been terrible at messaging lately. After the elections when they had public troubles with women voters, they go ahead and give all the House committee chairmanships to men. After that PR screwup with GOP women even complaining, they gave the Administration chair to Rep. Miller of Michigan. I don't know her, so I'll assume she's qualified for that assignment, but the fact that she didn't receive it before that PR flap just unfortunately and unnecessarily cheapens her into a belated token.)

I especially wonder if the Congressional GOP try to repeat what they did on the debt ceiling, refuse to raise it and hold the economy hostage to get the demands that they want? There is an argument out there that using argumentation under the 14th Amendment, the President can unilaterally raise it, and let the right-wing lawyers fight it in courts as merely token efforts once it's become ad hoc. (Back during the last debt ceiling negotitions, Clinton supported this thinking.)

The GOP has not gotten the message of the last election. It has published a collage of GOP House committee chairs. What stands out about the collage? All pictured in it are white males.

WSJ:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578151322684021276.html

If the republicans give way to higher revenues and higher tax rates, which they should at this point, the president HAS to bring something to the table. Cuts to entitlements must be made. It's a tit for tat situation. Just because Obama won the election does not give him the right to enforce his agenda without compromise. He needs to be a leader and say "okay you conceded on this, here's what I'm willing to do". Congress needs to have chemistry because if they don't get this done we are doomed.

Entitlements cuts ($400 billion) were already offered by the President in the deal presented to Republicans, the GOP has to give in cause if nothing is done then the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year for everybody along with defense cuts. It will be bad for both parties, but that would be an unfathomable scenario for the GOP and their interests.

The largest budget reduction figure proposed is Paul Ryan's $5.3 trillion. However, that is over 10 years. That averages about $500 billion annually. It won't happen. The draconian effects of such severe reductions will never be approved by the Congress. Large annual budget deficits are here to stay.

Keep your eye on this year's revenue which was projected at $2.9 trillion. I bet it won't be reached.

Dap this is not just a matter of the GOP giving in. This is a about compromise and both sides have to give something up. Since when are democrats being lenient about Medicare and social security? Frankly I don't see either side budging at this point. But I do want to see the president taking center stage in this and no that doesn't mean him going to a toy factory and talking about "folks getting their fair share" that shit needs to be set aside

Like I have stated before, read the actual details of the deal proposed NOT what the media talks about and spins in the papers and on tv. The Dems have already put medicare and other programs on the table. Social security shouldnt be put on the table since it is solvent and it is NOT the cause of the current deficit/issues., if they want to reform it thats another issue.

Besides a few GOPer's saying that we need to raise new revenue (taxes), the GOP hasn't compromised on anything. Obama can only do so much, Boehner needs to get his caucus behind him to present a unifying negotiating front which is not the case currently as the House GOP is still their usual selves. Obama is doing the right thing, rallying the poor/middle class to put pressure on their congressmen to come to the negotiating table.

Like ALL (including Fox and co) political analysts have said, the ball is in the GOP's court.

The dems need to cut with the stimulus spending. Their cannot be huge spending bills with this deal. Conservatism on spending has to be on the table. And while I think the house is being stubborn and I agree boehner needs to unite his party, when that happens I want to see strong leadership from Barack Obama. Rather than rallying the "middle class" against them he should be firm but open.

This is not a contest of who can get the most out of this. This about finding a common solution for the American people. Dap I'm still getting the impression that you think democrats are being saints in these negotiations against the grumpy republicans. The white house has not offered them anything reasonable in return for higher rates. As far as I'm concerned the democrats and republicans are both being stubborn to the point of nothing being done.

But you're right. It is up to the GOP at this point to come to the table.

I really have no sympathy for the GOP.

If I remember correctly, Obama and Boehner roughly hatched out a "Grand Bargain" 2 years ago which would've cut 3 dollars of spending for every new dollar raised. Sounds good, right? But the GOP base pissed on it. They really believed that if they double down, and beat Obama's re-election, they can achieve their goals of cutting 10 dollars(!) for every new dollar of revenue raised. They bought into that gamble.

And lost. Opps.

An AP article from this weekend argued an uncited problem for the GOP is they lack leadership. If Romney had won, he would've been the party's "daddy" but since he lost and the base have made him a pariah and the Congressional GOP are promoting NONE of his campaign proposals/ideas, and he's happy to be away from that mess and eat Boston Market for Thanksgiving with the family (if USA Today is to be believed).

So who's their leader then? More like a politburo of different men, but nobody clearly collectively acknowledged as the boss. From the House Speaker to your GOP Senate old timers like McCain and Graham and of course your fringe peoples of the base like the Tea Party and their enablers the conservative entertainment complex. They're all in clear vocal disagreement about what to do next, contrast that with the Democrats (led by "daddy" Obama) having just drawn their line in the sand after offering their opening proposal.

Yes that proposal may've been intentional goal posts moving in the demands of this chicken game, but this aint Obama negotiating against himself. The Dems have pissed. Now it's the other side's turn to piss and go from there.

And some of those members on the other side arguing that they don't need to make a proposal, like new Texas Senator Cruz or Limbaugh demanding they go off the cliff on principle*...don't they understand they're in danger of losing the center of this political fight? Whatever flaws in that opening Democratic proposal, they've made their offer. Where is the GOP alternative specific plan, to counter them? Surely it can't be that hard, right?

*=Knowing Rush's weight, wouldn't the cliff snap off and plunge if he stood on it?

EDIT - speaking of the GOP leadership void, where is Ryan? He's certainly dropped off the radar since losing the election.

True Ronnie. I agree the GOP has to come to the table however flawed the original offer was. But when they do, we can all agree that the Democrats have to get serious about limiting stimulus money, restructuring the tax code, and cutting spending. If Obama wants to talk about a "balanced approach" then he has to keep that on the table but better than the original offer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/fiscal-cliff_b_2229352.html#postComment

I'm sorry but this guy is such a fucking bonehead.

You NEED to cut money out of medicare and social security. You HAVE to. It's not just taxes you raise, it's a combination of cuts as well. And his criticism of the Simpson-Bowles comission made me go through the roof! That plan was as intelligent and bipartisan as any given to the President, and what did he do? He shot the thing out of the sky! Another reason why I was disappointed with Obama in his first term.

Robert Kuttner you are an idiot.

They're not, are they?

Remember they all said we need to embrace immigration reform this and that? I mean good and all, god knows they got the shit beaten out of them by that lopsided (and growing) Latino vote against them. The one question I had was, how would the state/local base and conservative media respond to this massive demographic problem?

There were promise initially, with Sean Hannity giving some I guess ideological cover to those on the right to go forth on immigration reform. Again, that's good. That asshole finally saw the handwriting on the wall when said wall fell on him. Better late than never.

The state/local base, that's quickly becoming a problem. Already you have a divide in that party about whether to tackle all the issues on Reform comprehensively, or piecemeal it at a time? Of course all the piecemeal proposals are coming from House members, all probably scared shitless if they supported comprehensive reform, they might get primary challenged. So better to hold off from actually solving all the major problems until the apocalypse, preferably.

or read this about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the one who heroically waged her finger at the President at the tarmac for a photo-Op that the right-wing ate up. She can also be blamed for being one of the leaders of the base who essentially gave the Latino vote away to Obama on a silver platter with salad and bread. She's picking another fight with the federal government regarding immigrant children and driving licenses.

It won't matter at all if they nominate Marco Rubio or Cruz in '16. If they keep doing such counter-productive shit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-arizona-immigration-immigrants-license-20121129,0,4245539.story

TIS

Doomsday for whom? This sounds like a shitty plan.

Republican "Doomsday Plan"

"It's quite simple: House Republicans would allow a vote on extending the Bush middle class tax cuts (the bill passed in August by the Senate) and offer the President nothing more: no extension of the debt ceiling, nothing on unemployment, nothing on closing loopholes. Congress would recess for the holidays and the president would face a big battle early in the year over the debt ceiling."

Two senior Republican elected officials say this doomsday plan "is becoming the most likely scenario" with one variation being that House Republicans "would allow a vote on extending only the middle class tax cuts and Republicans, to express disapproval at the failure to extend all tax cuts, would vote "present" on the bill, allowing it to pass entirely on Democratic votes."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/republican-doomsday-plan-cave-on-taxes-vote-present/

The Republicans' goos is cooked no matter how yu slice it. The party is falling apart before our eyes, and you know what? They began going off the rails (unwittingly) when they began calling themselves the "Party of Reagan" instead of the "Party of Lincoln."

That along with the fact that I truly believe they are SHOCKED that Mitt didn't win. They had so much invested in it (billions?). Plus, the media kept on pressing lack of enthusiasm on the Dems part (which I never believed) & the neck & neck election. The Rs believed their own spin.

The Republicans are really licking their wounds right now but need to be careful how they negotiate (IF they actually do negotiate that is.)


TIS