November 29, 2012

“Inside the talks: Fiscal framework emerges”

Oh, goodie! That must mean Obama has given in and decided not to raise taxes at all — and that the Republicans held firm, letting Obama know that they’re happy to go over the fiscal cliff, getting rid of Bush’s tax cuts “for the rich” and taking us back to the Salad Days of the Clinton rates and all the Democrat mythology built up around it!



I mean, if we can’t count on Boehner to hold firm, who can we count on?

Prediction: Obama gets his tax hikes on “the rich” through “loophole closures” (read, an end to certain deductions, like mortgage deductions, etc.), Boehner gets to say he kept the tax rates the same, and the “cuts” in the rate of increased spending Boehner secured will not even take effect until a later date.

Like, sometime around never.

Kiss your kids, folks. And tell them you’re sorry and that you tried. What else is there to do?

(h/t EBL)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:36am

Comments (16)

  1. Teach them how to hunt, fish, and identify edible plants.

    Couldn’t hurt…

  2. What gets me about “the Clinton Surplus” is how people invoke it as a magical talisman, as if President Clinton had anything at all to do with it merely because he was that moment’s Sun King (which is how such people seem to view the Presidency).

    Point out the internet bubble providing it via capital gains, and the way Congress spent it as fast as it appeared, and there’s no reaction, and no change in future invocations; “It Happened While Bill Was President, So If We Do What He Did It’ll Happen Again”.

    Cargo cult economics.

  3. Any invocation of Clinton as the Sun King should note the levels of spending when he was president. but hey, federal spending has gone up $800B a year since 2007. Guess we’ll just keep partying like it’s 1999.

  4. Just in case there is any confusion, Boehner is the one on his knees.

  5. On the bright side, we have a bucket of sodium-orange tears to console us, so there’s that.

  6. “loophole closures”

    Anything they can do to starve private charity, they’ll do. Damn those do-gooders! Don’t they realize that they’re stealing the bread from SEIU’s children?

  7. Any charity that isn’t funneled through the government will be discouraged. After all, you need the government to decide who should get the money, right? After they take their 60% cut of course.

  8. “That must mean Obama has given in and decided not to raise taxes at all — and that the Republicans held firm”

    Has anyone else realized that we (i.e. conservatives) have ZERO representation in this government?

    [[if anyone was thinking of saying “We have the House”, let me say “Uh, …riiight. Sure ‘we’ do.”]]

  9. We have NO representation despite being a pretty significant portion of American society. (feel free to insert your own estimates of our percentage)

  10. Yuri, I would say more than 50% of the population is not represented. Many of them also knew that they wouldn’t be represented no matter who they voted for, so they didn’t bother voting.

    The Declaration of Independence is, in many ways, more relevant now than when it was written.

  11. I agree, Yuri. Nothing that carries much weight except for a few stalwarts in the House (where the leadership is actively working to get rid of them) and Senate, a minority of a minority.

  12. Jeff is correct about the people in the margins, of course, but note that the Dems will likely end the filibuster so they won’t even have to listen to those wingnuts at all.

  13. Jeff, Cranky, Yuri, let’s face it: it’s over for us on the national level. Time to concentrate on a few of the Several States.

  14. Again, with the definitions (dayum, I’m starting to sound like Jeff). No such thing as a tax “loophole.” Each of the misnomered “loopholes” is the law of the land, legislated on and voted into existence by our elected representatives. They are legal exemptions based on certain conditions being met. They just didn’t spring into existence to be discovered by the accountants’ guild.
    Doesn’t make them good, bad or indifferent. Just legal.

  15. Jeff, Cranky, Bob,
    I think Cranky’s estimate of 50% is a bit high; but otherwise, I think you’re all right on.

    The funny thing (funny strange, not funny “ha-ha”) is that even if Republicans held super-majorities in both houses, if we had won the Presidency, and if the Dread Justice Roberts had turned out to be merely Wesley the Constructionist Judge; conservatives would still have almost no representation.

    I know (I think) why this is; and yet, at the same time, I am still astonied by how this could possibly be.