The Club for Growth today declared its opposition to the tax compromise proposal reached yesterday by President Obama and congressional Republicans.
“This is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “The plan would resurrect the Death Tax, grow government, blow a hole in the deficit with unpaid-for spending, and do so without providing the permanent relief and security our economy needs to finally start hiring and growing again.”
“Instead, Congress should pass a permanent extension of current rates, including a permanent repeal of the death tax, and drop all new spending,” Chocola said. “A month ago, the American people repudiated Washington big government. It’s time for both parties to finally hear that message and act on it.”
On the plus side, Sean Hannity is very pro GOP here.
Shocking, I know. But then, he seems to gauge success by the “unhappiness of the left” and the consternation of the “President’s liberal base.”
Yay, team!
Hannity might be saying Rah! Rah! but Hewitt yesterday was positively apoplectic. He even had Ed Morrisey on and nearly made him cry.
It was a thing to behold.
Of course, you have to remember that Hugh is ALWAYS apoplectic when Lucy–YET AGAIN–pulls the ball away.
Hannity has more Republican hair than Hewitt.
Another variable for the calculation: I heard Michelle Bachman is talking about organizing tea-party/conservative opposition to the compromise and working with the progressive caucus in order to defeat it in the House. So now you have the so-called extreme right working with the extreme left to kill the compromise worked out by the establishment “pragmatists” in the Senate. I guess this means that the said Establishment gets to position itself as the voice of moderation and reasonable accomodation, which they must see as a win, even if they have to share that win with Obama. Boni Homines all around.
Jeff’s already hinted at this in the previous thread, I believe.
Haven’t heard enough Hannity to know whether he’s cheerleading or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, in his joy at the mistery on the Left, he’s failed to notice that he doesn’t have a lot (if anything,) to be genuinely happy about here.
Relax. They had to get the extension through now, with all the dead-duck Dems in place, or have it expire. Next year, bet on a “permanent extension”.
The count is right this is a stupid deal.
Next year, bet on Senate filibuster.
I’m just not feeling the anguish over this that others seem to feel. It was a lame-duck maneuver from a lame-duck Congress. I’m plenty angry over it, but I can’t say as it really caught me by surprise, apart from the quickness with which it was achieved.
Chalk it up as a farewell fuck-you from the Establicans on their way out. Enjoy the holidays, and then come back in the new year and pressure the new Congress to do better. Encourage those who do well by us, and work to replace those who don’t. Put 40 or 50 new puppies in the Congress with each election cycle, and work hard to make sure they don’t crap on the carpet.
In the meantime, Hannity can go lick a frozen flagpole.
You mean once they have that House majority, they’ll go back to their cost-cutting, Bush-era fiscal hawkishness, mojo?
They allowed another (I’m now hearing) $120 billion + in new unfunded spending. And they got the status quo — and even then, only on a temporary basis.
They are being called hostage takers whose holy grail is tax breaks for the rich.
Seems to me we’ve set the bar for success very very low.
Class warfare and economic fairness/equality rhetoric futures also look like a good buy right now.
Republicans won. Obama won more. Progressives lost and Conservatives/Classical Liberals didn’t win anything. I don’t think not losing counts as a win. The fact that the proggs are unhappy is some consolation, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama won too.
“You mean once they have that House majority, they’ll go back to their cost-cutting, Bush-era fiscal hawkishness, mojo?”
I mean that they are aware of being closely monitored by The Tea Party Beast, and will knuckle under for a while, before trying their old tricks again. I give it six months, tops. Yes, they are that venal and stupid – that’s why they’re in Congress.
WTF, use it for whatever it’s worth. Push through all we can while we can, that’s my attitude, and screw the Dems and their screeching moonbat harpies.
Heh. I wonder what Franken Berry thinks.
Elizabeth Edwards has died. A moment to reflect and to express sympathy for her family and loved ones. I hope they successfully keep John away from the funeral.
That is one seriously shitty way to go. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, and I’m not an especially nice person.
Ireland, and what waiting too long to deal with overburdening deficits will do.
There is much pain in the Edwards’ family tonight. I hope and will pray that they find peace.
Obambi’s presser today was hysterical.
Back to the topic at hand. Let’s all remember that this is still a Congress controlled by large majorities of democrats. Had they the will, they could have passed anything they wanted. All they needed was 2 Repubs to vote for cloture and the house could have used reconcilation.
No tax law is permanent. Oh, they can say this and such is permanent right up untill a future congress changes it. We got a two year extension of current rates, a cut in the payroll tax, and a less odious estate tax. What we gave up was an extension of UE, which let’s be honest, was going to happen anyway. Once the conomy recovers, the UE will matter much less. That’s the goal, right?
So, let’s wait to see what the new congress does before we declare it a failure.
Thing is, when will the economy “recover” and what will spur that?
Don’t see any serious economic growth on the horizon, certainly not with the regulatory burden Obama and Co. are planning and already have the power to enact day after day. Can’t see serious cuts in spending put into finished law either, which, let’s face it, must be enacted on the Democrat’s darling entitlement programs to have the necessary heft to pull the nation out of the deficit-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see mode, surely not with the Senate still in the hands of the Democrats: for even should quite a few of the Democrats defect their own President’s positions and plans, there will be more than enough hardliners left in their majority to filibuster any middleroad compromise put together by Republicans allied with Democrats who want to keep their Senate seats come 2012. Besides, Obama would have to sign any bill or be overridden by a 2/3s vote.
It looks rather more like a long wait for a better economic outlook. Course, looking at that chart HotAir put up today didn’t help much.
Big D —
First off, a two year extension coupled with a President saying he will make sure that’s it, isn’t likely to persuade a lot of people to put big money into growing businesses.
Second, the GOP has just agreed to unfunded spending that does nothing to promote economic growth — out of fear that they would be painted as Grinches.
I’m tired of waiting for their next great strategic moment, when we are assured they will finally do the right thing.
I don’t buy it any more. Begin taking the stand now. There was NO REASON that they needed to agree to an unfunded extension. And they’ve really done nothing that will spur the economy toward significant growth.
So Barky says that’s it. So what? If there’s anything we know now is that his word is worth nothing.
Again, this congress could have done anything they wished.
Had repubs gone for the original compromise that they floated last month, I would be right there with you. I’m just not there yet. If the next congress shows any propensity for “reaching across the aisle” at the expense of principle, I’ll grab a pitchfork and join the charge.
Also, gridlock in DC will do more for the economy than any plan the politicians could conceive.
Again, just my two cents. YMMV.
Work’s kicking my ass but thought I’d link to this as it’s the only summary of the proposed deal I’ve come across yet.
Would like to see some numbers on the amount of new spending if anyone could provide a link.
Gridlock. Unh huh.
President, House, and Senate may be gridlocked, but the alphabet soup bureaucracy is still running at warp factor 9.2
Uh, sir, let’s see your papers… you don’t have a Certificate of Compliance stating that the tines on that pitchfork don’t exceed 22.1 cm, and I can see from here that it doesn’t have the shock-absorbent handle mandated by OSHA regulation 234.2(A)(3). And where’s your Carbon Offsets for burning that torch? It’s also emitting unburned hydrocarbons, a serious violation of EPA 1123.47.3(3)(ii)(A). That tar is a known carcinogen, and transporting it without proper labeling is a contravention of NHTSA 21.233(II)(2.3), and we’re going to have to impound the feathers to determine if they’re from an endangered species…
You in a heap ‘o trouble, boy.
Regards,
Ric
Rush thinks it was a pussy move by the GOP and that they could have gotten far more. So you guys are on the same page again.
Dr. Charles the Kraut, who I know is percieved by many here as a ruling class, Establican, sell-out team R party shill RINO of Rovian proportians, is positively aghast at the compromise.
He’s essentially calling it Obama’s wet dream; the stimulus he couldn’t have gotten by any other measure. And he goes on to say that the nearly one trillion dollars that this deal will inject into the economy, through the combination of payroll tax cuts, unemployment extension for those eligible, and “the making work pay” earned income tax credit redistribution will all combine to deftly position Obama for an electoral victory in 2012.
Does this redeem him in the eyes of any of the commentariat that may have written him off?
Just curious…
Me? I never wrote him off personally, but in this particular instance I think he might be over-reacting a bit.
Besides, there’s no guarantee that the Pelosi-Reid-nutroot progressive axis of evil might not torpedo this deal below the waterline. You know, for the children.
Good point Ric,
I personally am hoping that they’ll refuse to fund the out-of-control EPA; as a good start down the road to abolishing it, the Dept of Ed, and some other useless bureaucracies.
I have a dream!
And yet they didn’t pass the tax hikes. Could have. Didn’t. Meaning they didn’t have the votes. Meaning we blinked and accepted less than the status quo, and some of us are declaring it a victory.
The GOP pledged to cut $100+ billion in spending in 2011. There first move is to allow Obama to add $150-$200 billion. We’re being hoodwinked. Bamboozled. We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us. And so on.
Jeff, I’m not up to speed on this yet. Could you break down the new spending amount you’re referencing? So far I have $56 billion for the unemployment extension but no other numbers. Are we looking at $100B to $150B in tax credits (to non-tax-payers)?
Not declaring it a victory, Jeff. Just not ready to declare defeat either.
dicentra
Hewitt is still verklempt … last hour he made sushi of Jim Geraghty.
His basic point? Screw the gleeful noises because The One is squirming before his Leftoid base; Republicans who stand for small-government, letting people keep what they earn and get to pass it to their heirs and who know that a growing deficit spells years of economic woes just got PLAYED with a version of the Gang of 14. A backroom deal that NONE of the incoming Republicans were consulted about. A lie in the face of TEA Partiers and others who went out and spanked the Socialist Dems just over a month ago – on Friday they were saying “permanent tax rates” and then suddenly it’s just a two-year extenstion.
It was if the DC GOP just patted the conservatives on the head and said “Ok, thanks for the money and support. Now don’t bother us while we run things.”
Jaysus effing Keerist on a Pony.
::::deep breath::::
Remember, this is not a done deal. Hopefully the blowback now in the works can kill this deal before it even gets to the floor.
I still say: Yes, it isn’t the best deal we could have gotten. But it is almost certainly the best deal Obama and Reid could have gotten, and note that Pelosi wasn’t “in the loop” when it was made. She’ll shoot it down out of petulance, with forceful assists from the Kos Kidz and a little sub rosa pushing from Bachmann; meanwhile (as newrouter notes on the other thread) Reid wants to tack his Mafia, Inc. legalization of online poker onto it — are you listening, Dems with Indian casinos in your States/Districts?
There’s no need for the next deal to be that generous, and time’s awastin’ for the lame duck.
Regards,
Ric
I think the payroll tax cut has to be paid for with IOU’s to either the lock box trust fund or the trust fund lock box, but either way it will add to the deficit.
I have that at $120B, ‘feets, but it’s not spending (yet, yes, it’s not paid for with spending reductions so it doesn’t help the budget picture any).
I know they’re still making the sausage but I’d like to get at least a fuzzy number on the spending increase.
no for reals I think it *is* a spending… I think the bill is written to where that part has to be paid for with deficit spendings
The White House said the cost of this one-year measure is $120 billion and that it wouldn’t affect Social Security’s solvency.
bh,
According to this source ( http://tiny.cc/rb3qp ) the payroll tax holiday will “cost” 120 billion dollars, as well as the 56 billion for extending the unemployment benefits.
But, in the article I linked, it claims that the payroll tax holiday replaces the “making work pay” spendulus tax cuts. That’s different than I’ve seen elsewhere.
About the only other hard number I’ve heard is the CBO claiming a budget cost of 5 trillion over 10 years of the current compromise extended that far. I’m pretty sure that’s what motivated Krauts rant that I heard on Faux news earlier this evening.
But there’s no definitive hard numbers yet, as the deal ain’t really done; and since it’s an “Obama initiative”, in other words-one that he want, the Obamites in the MFM don’t seem to be sounding the deficit alarm klaxons; same for the Rethugs…
blowback
link
How come you say “it’s not spending” on the 2% payroll tax dealer bh? That is, will SocSec-Medicare-Medicaid take a concurrent 2% hit in payouts this year? Or is my sense of the accounting (most probable case) all fouled up?
If it’s a reduction in taxes, it’s not spending unless the reduction in taxes is actually greater than the taxes paid for by that person. Definitionally.
Yes, it increases the deficit but so does any tax decrease that isn’t offset by spending reductions.
Spending is an outlay. Taking in less taxes is not an outlay.
Doesn’t the CBO number rely on the rhetorical sleight of hand calling letting you keep your money “spending”, and even worse,using a flat dynamic scoring to calculate same?
So, are we arriving at the larger $150B to $200B number by combining the unemployment insurance ($56B) to the payroll tax holiday ($120B)?
If so, we’re not actually at $176B, we’re at $56B.
How many points will the Dow drop when Pelosi, the Princess of petulence torpedo’s this deal?
And imagine, Granny Nanny McBotox essentially working together with Michelle Bachmann and…Jim DeMint? to scuttle this deal.
Post-Partisan!
No wonder Ric is near drunk on the schadenfreude.
So in view of all those strange bedfellows, I ask, which one is the staunchest?
that makes no sense SS was already projected to run a 2011 deficit *before* this 120 billion dollar hornswoggle.
That means it will have to redeem $120 billion of the t-bills it holds in order to pay the codgers their monies. That’s the same as spending.
here is some guy what kept a snippet from a USAT article what explains how brokedick and failshit Social Security is in 2011
$176B is what our failshit little country used to call “the deficit”
No, a tax decrease is not the same thing as a spending increase.
Yes, both can increase the budget deficit. Still doesn’t mean that they aren’t two separate sides on the ledger. Outlays on one side, revenues on the other.
We’re sorta talking past each other here because I’m looking for a specific piece of information, that is: what’s the new spending amount?
You’re talking about the budgetary implications and yes, you’re correct, they increase the deficit either way because there are no spending reductions in the deal, it’s all spending increases or tax decreases.
bh, JD, happyfeet: fageddaboudit. The point is moot, as are Jeff’s objections. This is going nowhere.
Look, dammit, House Democrats can’t pass this. I mean, absolutely cannot. It’s not so much that it’s being shoved directly up the noses of the class warriors as it is that Pelosi apparently wasn’t in on the negotiations — and that’s a direct slap in the face to somebody who’s already smarting about losing power for the next session. She has to derail it; has to. Are you familiar with the concept of “face”? — of course you are.
And the beautiful thing is, nobody has the credibility to tell them the next deal is bound to be worse for them — which it will be, and has to be.
Meanwhile Harry Reid is loading it up with poison pills; it might not even make it past the Senate vote, and they’re the ones that cooked it up in the first place!
Where does it leave them? –burning up days of the lame duck session spinning their wheels. I love it. I wish I knew whether the Senate Republicans did it on purpose, or backed into it by accident. Whichever it is, it’s a thing of beauty.
Regards,
Ric
No that is not true Mr. bh respectfully I think you are confuzzled. If SS is not self-financing – which became the case in 2010 and is expected to be the case in 2011 as well – that means it is paying the old useless people more monies than it is taking in.
That means it is spending monies when it sends the useless old people their bingo money.
sorry I did not see #51 before I hit the button
I wonder if they can find the money for the unemployment extension by not funding ObamaCare?
<that evil, evil grin the Grinch gets when he has his wonderful, awful idea to steal Christmas>
Mr. Ric bumblefuck will look like a douche if this deal falls apart, especially after his press thinger today.
I feel just awful.
This grin — though it looked better in the finished product on TV.
Does this proposed deal increase the amount of money paid out in SS, ‘feets, or does it decrease the amount of money paid in? If it’s the former, it’s a spending increase and if it’s the latter, it’s a tax decrease. It’s definitional issue, with the same budgetary shortfall either way. Nothing more.
I hope that’s the case, Ric.
Sorry, I didn’t see #54 before I hit the button.
ok I see what you mean
Oh, I feel just awful, too, ‘feets. It just ain’t Christian to feel such delight in the misfortunes of others.
Regards,
Ric
Ric,
I hope you’re not drivin’ later, ‘cuz I fear the schadenfreude has gone to your head bro :)
It’s stronger than the most righteous corn-likker from the Carolina hills.
baracky was trying out that role at today’s presser
Careful bh,
There is conclusive prooooooof! that using the internet at work makes one dummerer ( http://tiny.cc/ntphe ). At least, according to the Sun…
I guess lookin at the page 3 gals makes one hop off the train of thought, so to speak.
I’d like to ask a question. In the continuing race to borrow, borrow, and borrow, who gets the interest on the debt?
And who does it benefit most?
We seriously need to stop tacitly asking ourselves how we die from this trainwreck and start asking if we can yet prevent it. The Republicans blew all their gaskets in the wake of their last revolution, remember?
Well, I’m in trouble then, Bob. I’m on the internet everyday for work until Japan closes.
And here I thought it was the booze making me dummerer.
I’ve heard different numbers quoted all day today. I suspect we’ll have a better idea tomorrow.
oh i think baracky touched sumthing and it turn to poop. yea dear leader
For what it’s worth, I have a similar take to yours Jeff. I think they had already shown their hand on taxes. They didn’t want to increase them. Which means we should have said openly said that that chip was worth zero concessions. It’s simply them coming to grips with current political reality so they can remain a viable political party. If they wanted to increase unemployment insurance we should have asked for two or three to one spending reductions in return. Same with these assorted tax credits to non-taxpayers.
If they couldn’t come to the table on those terms, we string them along and we address the issue again in January with many more votes and add the stipulation that all tax extensions are permanent and retroactive to cover the gap.
Increased spending can’t be an option for us because it’s the exact problem we face. It’s nonsensical to consider it part of the solution.
the deal is overflowing with win
Harry Reid is loading it up with poison pills; it might not even make it past the Senate vote
Poison pills, pet projects, political payoffs, goodies that would never ever survive the regular legislative process, so hard to tell the difference.
such a nice xmast present: baracky and co. making a mess
From ‘feets link:
I just noted it so I could once again state how in-the-tank Zandi is. He’s a fucking hack.
Amusingly enough, I have somehow got onto the Daily Kos’s email list. An excerpt:
It must be horrid to see the train coming, and know you’ve tied yourself to the rails…
One thing I’d been worrying about hasn’t materialized: Kamikaze Congresscritters, people who know they won’t be back and don’t mind going out in a blaze of glory. Perhaps with so many of them dumped on the system at the same time, they know employment in Washington is likely to be scarce. They have to go home, and they have to sleep sometimes, and they’ll no longer have staffers alert for peaks in sales of canvas and quicklime.
Regards,
Ric
Oooh, oooh, I call that!
The discrete citizen chooses bh™ brand quicklime. Buy two bags and we’ll throw in the canvas for free!
I think we all agree that spending is a problem, and would have rather that these additional expenditures be paid for.
That said, given the composition of the 112th Senate, demanding two or three to one spending cuts for each new expenditure might not be so easy to accomplish. And there’d be little hope of overriding an Obama veto.
Getting the Senate to join the House in overturning Obamacare is going to be a struggle, and that’s something the public wants.
I’m not getting pessimistic, or trying to harsh any mellows here, but I’m just saying that a majority in the House and some Blue Dog Senators having to behave themselves is no guarantee for steamrolling any agenda. Of course, that doesn’t mean that votes shouldn’t be taken regularly on these initiatives, so that folks have to own their positions in 2012.
But I personally don’t think that we should be pissed everytime the entire causus doesn’t go all DeMint on their asses.
a problem = The problem…
Damn typist.
Give Ryan some room to work; or did I miss the memo where he was declared a RINO.
What has happened to the vast right wing conspiracy? It used to work like a well oiled machine!
All of those Lefty fears have to be implemented. And, Congress should start defunding department after department.
The Government Teat must be collapsed, or there’ll be hell to pay, because we will lose this Republic.
I sense a desperate trap in this compromise; Obama is attempting a feint within a feint. The bottom line is he’s a desire to self-preserve his chances for re-election in 2012 by not authoring the January 1 across-the-board tax hike. He knows his leftard base’s predictible response will be short-lived: who they gonna field against Teh O!ne? No one electable, that for sure. Obama knows that.
Of course we have the same problem.
If we, the loose coalition of disparate groups (mostly) to the Right of the Leftists, do allow this deal, we will certainly lose in 2012 no matter who we run, be it Palin or Zombie Reagan.
If I had my choice, I’d say allow the Clinton-era tax rates go back into effect Jan. 1, across the board for everyone, with no extensions of the expired unemployment insurance and no new ‘death tax’. We, that undefined loose coalition, must draw the line on these unfunded spendings; if we allow this compromise, we’ve compromised our principles (again).
The New Congress must be staunch and (figuratively) bloody.
Oh, sorry, Bob. I was implicitly speaking of our negotiating stance. If they cleverly talk us down from three to one all the way to 1.5 to 1 spending reductions, I guess I’ll just have to live with that. [Insert smiley emoticon here.]
Towards some of your statements towards the Ryan/Krauthammer/random guy being a RINO or not, Bob, I’m not really out to scalp anyone. I view it more as helping to set their default setting to “asskicker”. All people have a default setting and in the sane person it’s calibrated to avoid headaches if not outright danger. They should always know that this headache/possible danger lies to their right, not their left. (Even if all I’m doing is squeaking and begging for some of that sweet, sweet oil.)
Frum’s trying to do the same and along with his cohorts, he’s pretty damn loud.
Why stop at figurative. Once upon a time Senators and Congressmen went after each other with sticks on teh floor. Might be time for some of that old time religion.
I heard Dr. K’s sally on the stimulus aspect of the compromise deal and frankly, just don’t buy it, as not making enough economic sense in the current circumstances. Dr. K seems to too facilely accept a simplistic Keynesian reading of the thing. The nation still has an awful overhang in the housing markets, with the commercial real estate markets not far behind. There seems as well to be a mismatch in skills and jobs going wanting for people to fill them. Finally, Obama and Co. are not now nor will they ever be friendly toward business, as witness Obama’s outburst today. I just don’t see this recovery picking up the sort of steam that would be required to make Krauthammer correct about Obama profiting from this deal when it comes to his reelection efforts.
sdferr,
Don’t mistake my upthread snark regarding the Kraut’s opinion on the Fox news panel for complete acceptance as bible and verse on my part; I was just having a few yuks.
No, as I mentioned earlier, I believe at this point the only new injection into the economy will be those from the payroll tax holiday; around 120 billion by most estimates I’ve seen. Other than that, it’s just status quo.
Heck, I’m not even sure all of the unemployment funds will be used up, since it can’t prolong benefits for the long term unemployed for more than the current 99 weeks they can qualify for. A huge number of folks are going to reach the 99 week limit, and that’ll be all she wrote, so to speak.
But as you say, in addition to the relatively small additional infusion of cash, and the tenuous state of the economy as a whole, I personally don’t see it being as rosy for the won as Charles Krautel does. Especially since, in all this great comity and pragmatic dealmaking, I’ve heard no mention of the capital gains rates…
Make no mistake though, if the “fix” blows up, and all the tax cuts don’t get extended, the Dow will be effin hammered like you wouldn’t believe. Wouldn’t that be a “Merry Effin’ Christmas” gift from the lame ducks to America.
sdferr — you are taking Dr. K too seriously, even when disagreeing with him.
In the present sociopolitical environment there is no such thing as “economic stimulus”.
Suppose you have a company. Are you going to expand and hire people? Why, if you did that you might make money and become rich — and that’s just positively villainous, requiring Fr. Obama and his loyal followers to come and take that money away from you, which is traumatic for all concerned.
No. Even if you, yourself, don’t think it villainous to make more, you know it’ll make you conspicuous. You have enough money. Be satisfied with it. Your President says so!
The amount of “stimulus” necessary to break through that is effectively infinite, i.e., the thing to do is avoid any further income beyond what you need to live on — certainly, any amount that would allow you to make a significant contribution to the economy would make you “rich” and therefore a target.
Regards,
Ric
Towards that (#82), this: what does this do to cure structural problems that we face?
The one obvious answer would be the tax extensions. Well, that didn’t cure anything, it simply avoided adding another drag. In the least definite and in the shortest term possible.
At the same time, it increased the structural problem of paying unemployed people for a very large amount of time when they should be thinking about changing careers or accepting lower paying work.
Is the rest stimulative? Well, even if I took a neo-Keynesian outlook, I don’t see how this does more than give somewhere between .5% to 1% growth (I’d guess the lower bound) from a minuscule payroll tax holiday.
Our GDP is around $14T. You want to grow that with a temporary $120B tax decrease paired with $56B employment disincentive? Not gonna happen. This is a nonevent outside of the possibility that the Democrats will now agree to not actively shoot the economy in the head with tax increases.
Oh no, I didn’t attribute your account of his ideas as something you’d accepted Bob, not at all. In fact, I thought your rendering of his thrust pretty faithful to his view, though I’m not sure where the heck he was coming from at bottom? Was he just snarking at the Republican negotiators? Or just playing Devil’s advocate? Seemed like he had a smirk pasted on his mug anyhow.
Which Ric, is the phenomena that many folks predicted would happen if Obama and the Democrats got in power.
They themselves knew this, which explains the first half of this years attempt at codifying the meme that eeeeeeevollll Business! was sitting on their money just to damage the won…
When everyone, on both sides of the aisle knew that the actual reason was a combination of uncertainty and what you described in #84.
I just don’t see this recovery picking up the sort of steam that would be required to make Krauthammer correct about Obama profiting from this deal when it comes to his reelection efforts.
Well, if that turns out to be the case, I suppose he could run against the failed Republican plan to cut taxes for the rich, (even if no taxes have been cut) now that they’ve agreed to buy a share of his economy.
Well sdferr,
My thinking is that he was angry that the Republicans even made a deal with Obama on this, very much, it seemed to me, like our erudite host. And the smirk was more of a sneer, punctuating his prognosis that they had essentially gift wrapped the 2012 election for Obama.
I thought it odd myself since, as I mentioned upthread, the total “new” infusion of cash into the economy is very small with respect to overall GDP.
As bh sagely observed, the extention of the tax rates is, at best, a wash; but one that was necessary considering the downside.
Ernst hit on it here. This is the contingency plan, I guarantee; which is why the won made this deal in the first place.
If the economy improves, he takes credit, saying his spendulus finally bore fruit. If it fails, they hammer the diversionary meme that the failure of the economy to improve renders the definitive final verdict that supply side economics is a myth. A win-win for Obama, at least in his thinking.
Because, you know, the less than miraculous turn around of the economy will have nothing to do with Obamacare, the phony financial reform bill, the ever burgeoning debt, the continuing correction in the real estate market as rates increase, and the onerous imposition of excessive regulation by executive fiat…
‘Cuz, I mean, Reagan regulated with a heavy hand too, amirite? NOT!
Could be, but this somewhat uncharitable reading of Dr K, at least by our lights viz the nation’s probable economic prospects — to the extent we aren’t utterly surprised by some unforseeable fortuity falling like a theatrical deus ex machina — would make the man something close to a retard, wouldn’t it? Yes, I think it would. Which, on the whole, doesn’t seem to fit him. Hence, the puzzle.
If it was so damn necessary, (which it was) why settle for a paltry two year extension?
Could be they like the coincidence with that election season E.
That would be my guess as well sdferr, and that’s part of why I think it’s a net loss for our side, because we just forwent the opportunity to force the issue.
Well sdferr,
I won’t pretend to what’s in his head, or to speak for the man; I too am certain he’s no retard.
Perhaps it’s a combination of the CBO estimates, that by broadcast time there were no “hard” estimates of the cost of compromise, and his intuition that in Washington things always costs more than the politicians admit.
You’re right, it’s a puzzle indeed. Maybe, heaven forbid, he was spinning a bit hoping to “help” some squishy Rethugs! find their backbones.
I was a little surprised by the prognosis of it essentially guaranteeing the won’s re-election.
You guys always have a much better historical understanding than myself. So… how often does a president with a horrendous economy with terrible unemployment get a second term irrespective of all the issues we’re discussing?
Neither do I. ObamaCare still looms too large, and you can only attribute so much of our current stagnation to uncertainty about tax rates. I think we’re just now embracing our buyer’s remorse on the hopenchange deal, and it’s going to take us a couple of years to get out of that deal.
I’m not sure how many got a second term, but only one got a third.
Prognosticatin’ this far out is scary business to me, ‘specially seein’ as how I didn’t believe the bastard could get elected in the first place. Still, I can’t see how he isn’t already toast. I mean, his own fucking “base” is learning how to hate his guts already [lesion!]. Some dude was writing in the HuffPo just yesterday that the left needs to Gene McCarthy his stinking LBJ self.
There’s a lot of hate over on the left, no? With friends like that…
It’s a non-issue anyway.
Yes, a significant improvement in the economy would virtually insure Obama’s re-election.
BUT — so long as what we might call the “Obama Philosophy” stays in place, there will be no significant improvement in the economy. The only way to have economic improvement would be to render Obama a nullity, a posturing excrescence who shows up once in a while to sign legislation and spends the rest of the time playing basketball, watching ESPN, and occasionally junketing off to furr’n parts, totally severed from any real power. And if that’s the case, what’s the problem with re-electing him?
It is, in any case, a risk worth taking. The President gets the credit for the economy, no matter what; that’s been the case for as long as I’ve noticed politics, and people get steamed about it without any result. Despite the MSM’s blather and blame-assignment, if the economy is bad in 2012 Obama will carry the can for it.
So: If the economy improves it will be because Obama is irrelevant, and so will his re-election be. If the economy doesn’t improve, the Congress won’t be blamed — even now, Obama’s had very little real input; it’s mostly been Pelosi and Reid doing the work, but he gets both credit and blame for it, and that will continue. And if the economy’s bad and the tea parties continue their work, the only criterion for a Republican candidate will be winning the primaries.
Regards,
Ric
FDR came to my mind as well, Pablo. But, I’m not being a wise ass here. I’m not exactly steeped in American history even if Jay Leno couldn’t (easily) make me look like an idiot on the sidewalk.
If there are anomalies to the pattern, I wonder if those anomalies don’t have their own pattern that we could try to identify and then avoid.
To the best of my knowledge, he’s the only one to win a second term as well.
Maybe we should call them his “fellow congregants” instead of friends. There’s just no love for the ostensible heretic, even when he’s only a scapegoat. And b’sides, they’s got this cultish patchouli smell about ’em too.
It’s not worth going back further than 1960 for these trends, bh, and probably not further than 1968. Too much has changed since then. A couple more cycles and you won’t have to go any further back than 1980.
Krauthammer has been predicting a 2-3 year extension of the current tax rates for a while now, leaning more towards 3 years so Obama could be comfortably re-elected before they expire again. I am pretty sure Krauthammer expected all the other “secondary” taxes to remain the same as well, though I’m not sure.
Ric has convinced me that he has the right of it as far as any recovery goes. However, I think a tax increase will certainly make things worse.
“Faster”, perhaps.
Regards,
Ric
Gabe Malor at Ace claims that the deal only extended 13 months of federal funding for the current maximum 99 weeks of unemployment, not a 13 month extension of benefits.
Whew! What a relief.
Me neither, bh. Aside from FDR, I’m with Ernst and can’t think of another. But FDR got reelected in a crappy economy twice. Obama isn’t nearly as crafty as FDR was, and propaganda doesn’t sell as well as it did back then now that the internet points and laughs at it. I suspect that the one instance we can all remember isn’t a useful indicator here, and I can’t think of another.
The oldsters had the positive sense that FDR actually liked America and Americans. Obama? Not so much.
/wiseass on
Yeah, but do you remember when He was The One, the Lightworker who brought us the knowledge that we were the ones we’ve been waiting for? Good, good times.
That’s what I want to hear, Pablo. It’s just that my inability to remember anything that happened in the mid-90’s and my minor gaps from 1989-1949, 1930 something to 1900 something, 1899 to the Civil War, Civil War to the War of 1812, War of 1812 to the Revolutionary War, Revolutionary War to Roanoke and Roanoke to that enormous Indian settlement along the Mississippi, leave me rather less than fully confident.
I blame the public schools but only because I’m still scared of tattling on the nuns.
(Wasn’t calling you a wise ass, by the way, Pablo. Even though you are, you bastard. My question seemed to have an overly-determined answer is all and so I thought it maybe seemed snarky while I was actually asking without knowing for sure.)
There isn’t one in the modern era folks. The closest ones are Truman and Reagan; but Truman had already been reelected and the economy was clearly roaring back by the campaign of 1984.
Roosevelt was the only one that could sell that shinola to the American people; and it took a combination of propaganda and bribery to do so…
FDR probably did like America sdferr; the America that would be after he was finished transforming her. His wife though? Definitely a sliver-spoon nutty transnationalist.
Easy to be a socialist when you’re rich, and redistributing other folks money…
So really, Obama’s a lot like FDR, just not really as charismatic, pants creases and Niebuhr burblings aside. Nor as intelligent. But he is rich, and finds it easy to redistribute other folk’s money. And loves the America that he thinks would exist, if all of us knuckle dragging wingnuts would just capitulate.
So, it’s resolved: Obama won’t be re-elected.
I propose a party. Perhaps a theme party where we dress like tramps and stand in line for soup.
Goodnight, racists. Good reading in these threads, thanks.
Eldrick Woods just had by far the crappiest year of his career. I’d argue it was on account of his being found out and the ramifications that reveal had on his internal dialogue messing with the machinery. Obama’s due.
Difference is, sdferr, that Eldrick was the best golfer ever to set foot on a course. Barcky’s talent begins and with reading TOTUS, and ends in temper tantrums.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Obama has analogous skills in an ordinal sense JD, but only that ’til now he’s had a too smooth sail of it while carrying on a pretense. As the pretense is unfolded, I expect him to discover problems telling himself his story, and these to manifest in his outerly doings. Even in temper tantrums.
Barack catches the yips. Sounds Seussian.
Barry gissa Bunyip.
Duck Hooks and Extemporaneous Stammering: A Hawaiian’s Account of the Unforgiving Mainland.
Sourcing “gissa”. good times.
Daddy wouldn’t have it any other way, bless his soul.
Obama delivers a “personal message”.
Geoff, I got that one. From Mitch, my own personal O-pal. I even printed it out. I don’t think he’d be too happy to learn what the puppy thought of it – after it ‘accidentally’ ended up on the pee-pad. I found out Epson ink isn’t run proof when it gets, though, so it was a Obama based teaching experience of sorts.
an Obama – damn, fingernails and keyboards are NOT compatible.
Morning, folks.
Completely off-topic but this vid from Mr. Ace’s sidebar has been killing me; must have watched it at least 10 times now.
It starts off merely terrible. “Japan is such a confusing country!”
It reaches new, hitherto-unknown heights of terrible at 0:29 when the third voice kicks in.
Finally, at 0:50, when they’re all really going for it, y’know, it hits such a tremdous high of joyous, chaotic, well-intentioned monstrosity, that I LOL. Like a cat.
Every single time.
Sdferr @ 120 – I could not agree more, and it will be both entertaining, and sad, to watch it play out.