Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

The Crying Game

Anybody ready for a third party yet?

****
update: Boehner may have just saved himself, depending on what kind of “tax loopholes” get closed in any eventual deal.

Incidentally, let me just mention to Mr Balz, whose article it seems is trying to cast the GOP as somehow villainous for not accepting the comprehensive budget plan under discussion, that if the President really wanted to reform entitlement programs, he wouldn’t have held firm to a plan to increase taxes during what is for all intents and purposes a depression — with real unemployment at nearly 11.5 percent.

In fact, if he really wanted to increase revenue, he’d lower taxes and rein in the regulatory agencies.

He’s a class warrior and a Marxist. He wants wealth redistributed, and he wants the power to do the redistributing. “Fundamentally transforming” the US ends with a benevolent king taking from the “wealthy” and dispensing it to the woeful. Once the king’s beak — and the beaks of his court — have first been whetted, naturally.

58 Replies to “The Crying Game”

  1. JHoward says:

    $2T is one (unsecured) percent of the arrears.

    Motherfuckers.

  2. B. Moe says:

    I like how they conveniently leave out the word “projected” when fantasizing about the increased revenues tax increases are going to bring. I know junior high schoolers with more economic sense.

    Fucked we are.

  3. Seth says:

    $2T over ten years…that’s a whopping deficit cut of $200 billion out of deficits that lately have been well over a trillion. This isn’t a serious proposal. Hell, a cut of $4T over ten years wasn’t serious. We’re still talking about massive bleeding.

    Third party? Hell yes, bring it on.

  4. Spiny Norman says:

    Third Party? How about a GOP House Speaker with a backbone.

    Allen West comes to mind…

  5. bh says:

    We’re probably just fucked. As others have already twice mentioned in only three comments.

  6. bh says:

    I should hit “submit comment” a bit quicker and maybe my math would add up.

    It’s not like I proofread or think about my comments all that much. Yes, I know, that’s fairly obvious.

  7. Slartibartfast says:

    Not that a “sense of the Senate” vote really means anything.

  8. JHoward says:

    Allen West

    may be playing a dangerous game.

  9. Slartibartfast says:

    Oh. Wrong fucking thread. It’s that kind of day.

  10. Bob Reed says:

    I’m not sure if Doug saw this:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-09-20-26-39

    House Republican budget negotiators have abandoned plans to pursue a massive $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package in the face of stiff GOP opposition to any plan that would increase taxes as part of the deal.

    I’m not getting the impression that Boehner’s going to fold on taxes, but there is a danger of him signing onto a smaller package of cuts for an equal magnitude increase in the debt limit.

    I guess we’ll see more tomorrow, but I’d only warm the tar and bundle the feathers for now :)

  11. Spiny Norman says:

    JHoward,

    I imagine West has no real expectations that Obama will back any of that up.
    We’ll see…

    From the comments:

    west snuck in under the tea party platform…

    WEST VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT>>>>>HE IS NOT TEA PARTY!!

    HE IS A WARMONGERING NEOCON!!

    RON PAUL 2012…if you want to rid your government of the neocon thugs!

    Paulbots are the most absurd of all internet trolls.

  12. Bob Reed says:

    Jimmy P’s hearing similar talk about Boehner holding the line; he hopes he’ll walk like Ronnie did at Reykjavik

    http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/10/will-boehner-pull-a-reagan-at-reykjavik-and-walk-2/

    He notes that earlier today there was talk of Boehner falling for the Obama gambit, but I hope that all of our calls and e-mails helped him, ahem, find his resolve.

    Like I said, we’ll see tomorrow.

  13. Jeff G. says:

    I read that, Bob. I have to admit, the tone deafness Boehner exhibits — I mean, why is he even negotiating right now? — astounds me.

    If we’re saved somehow, it’ll be an accident.

  14. dicentra says:

    Politicians can’t solve this: too many entrenched interests, most of them beyond the reach of the electorate.

    Lesson? That the bigger the trough (federal spending), the more swine you attract.

  15. geoffb says:

    West is just helping Jane’s head to explode more. Just a little nudge.

  16. geoffb says:

    From WaPo:

    House Speaker John Boehner’s surprise announcement late Saturday that he was abandoning efforts to reach a comprehensive budget agreement brings a sudden end to what may have been the best opportunity in years to deal with the country’s looming fiscal crisis.

    Boehner pulled the plug on talks with the White House on a package that would have called for cuts in major entitlements programs as well as new tax revenues. It was a stunning decision, coming a day before President Obama and congressional leaders were due to resume their negotiations.

  17. Jeff G. says:

    If that’s true, geoff — and I hope it is — we have to get ready for the next prong of the attack: Obama will order social security and military paychecks withheld and, with the media, blame the pain on the Republicans.

    At which point the GOP — and all of us — need to be front and center asking why social security and military pay is being withheld while the government is still funding, say, NPR, or Planned Parenthood, or increasing the size and scope of regulatory agencies like the EPA, which has grown 25% over the last year or so? Why are they trying to build high speed rail? Why are they funding cowboy poetry festivals, and giving ethanol subsidies?

    In short, why is the President choosing blackmail Americans into getting permission to spend even more money we don’t have?

  18. newrouter says:

    “while the government is still funding, say, NPR, or Planned Parenthood, ”

    we could halve baracky’s cabinet and no one would notice.

  19. Bob Reed says:

    JeffG and geoffb,
    I have to agree. After the dismal NFP jobs report this week and the rapidly approaching alleged D-day for the debt ceiling, I don’t understand why Boehner didn’t just keep repeating that tax cuts would be bad for a struggling economy, and that it was time for the government to do what everyone has to do in hard times; cut their expenditures…

    I can’t see any method here, and am really starting to wonder about Boehner’s savvy and intelligence.

  20. Slartibartfast says:

    At this point, would it be such a dismay to find out that your hot date had a surprise pair of balls?

  21. Bob Reed says:

    Actually, that would be an excellent tack to take JeffG. Liken it to local government extortion; the kind that used to go on every couple of years in Maryland when I lived there.

    They’d talk about needing to raise taxes. The folks would object, and the first thing the phony politicians would talk about was how police, firefighters, and first responders would have to be laid off-instead of social workers and such.

    People are hip to that jive, and would understand it even on a national scale.

  22. geoffb says:

    Not so sure what they are going to do as the WaPo seems to think they will go back to a Biden group proposal which all in all leaves me confused because of this:

    A big deal would have reduced the deficit by $4 trillion or more over 10 years or so, with spending cuts in excess of $2 trillion and new revenues estimated at more than $1.3 trillion, although precise numbers were hard to come by, given the fluidity of the talks.

    Now that is 3.3 trillion or so of which 1.3T is taxes.

    White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement Saturday night that the president would try again to make the case for continuing to try to strike a comprehensive agreement. But the discussion will most likely turn to what kind of deal can be reached to avoid the chaos that could come if the debt ceiling is not increased.

    That package, if there is an agreement, will probably follow the outlines from talks headed by Biden, which would be about half the size of a big deal and include major spending cuts, the closing of some tax loopholes and, perhaps, an agreement to tackle tax reform.

    This sounds like the 2 trillion one which doesn’t have tax increases (as such)in it but 2 trillion in cuts not from entitlements. Still not good enough by far but it will not raise taxes. What they need but Obama and the Senate will never do is to cut both spending and tax rates to kick start the economy the growth of which is the only way to get past this mess.

    It’s going to take an election to get this straightened out.

  23. bh says:

    Heh.

    (Yes, I’m late again. For #20.)

  24. bh says:

    It’s going to take an election to get this straightened out.

    I’m taking that in a broad sense. So, yep.

  25. Jeff G. says:

    That Boehner even accepts the terms, “closing tax loopholes,” is enough to drive me to despair. The presupposition is that “loopholes” exist for people to take more of the government’s money — and Boehner is tacitly agreeing by entertaining such “loophole” closures.

    Want to close real tax loopholes? A flat or fair tax. Done.

  26. Slartibartfast says:

    It’s going to take an election to get this straightened out.

    I’m taking that in a broad sense. So, yep

    I’m feeling outgunned, of a sudden.

  27. geoffb says:

    I meant it in a very broad, broad sense.

  28. geoffb says:

    Or are you turning Japanese on me.

  29. newrouter says:

    “Want to close real tax loopholes? A flat or fair tax. Done.”

    cuts down on the number of lobbyists too. hmmm shrink fed gov’t reduce the number of lobbyist. demonrats what say you?

  30. newrouter says:

    Regardless, in poker you look for tells. I’m getting the impression that Speaker Boehner doesn’t like hard negotiation. He favors collegiality. He just wants people to be reasonable and to get along. Heck, I’d prefer that too. But when was Nancy Pelosi ever reasonable? Was she ever concerned with getting along? Every time the Democrats make a hard stand and we compromise, we end up moving closer to their position.

    It is beginning to look like Republicans have a tell, Speaker Boehner.

    So am I supposed to rest easy now and believe that this crew is negotiating another killer deal for us?

    link

  31. sdferr says:

    Hennessey is the goto guy for the straight up as it comes to light. And right now, after his heads up on gaming the baseline and the pseudo-cuts piece and dissection of the “balance” meme, he’s got nothing much new that I can see.

  32. sdferr says:

    Yeah, idiots like the WaPo headline writers can’t be bothered to count the opportunities lost when Obama adds spending to the debt over two years, plays for time with his commission to be ignored when it delivers a proposal, wastes the people’s time with his Obamaian StateoftheNation drivel, piles on top of that a worthless budget proposal only to abandon it a few months later for a speech! A Speech! No. No opportunities lost there, no time utterly unrecoverable there. Fuck.

  33. sdferr says:

    Balz:

    On that, he has support from outside analysts and politicians who have tried to design solutions to the fiscal problem. Virtually all, including the president’s debt and deficit commission, recommended a balanced package that would have included new revenues and entitlement reforms.

    Hennessey:

    In a budget context, balance has a well understood meaning. A balanced budget is one in which total spending equals total revenues.

    President Obama and his team have been working hard to redefine balance in the context of the current budget negotiations. In an attempt to gain rhetorical leverage and frame the negotiations, Team Obama is trying to impute two new apparently objective but absurd definitions to the word balance.

  34. geoffb says:

    Repeating from the Palin thread.

    Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan’s relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems. He is aware that he is charged with this failing, and in his 1967 inaugural address on becoming Governor of California, he asserted: “We have been told there are no simple answers to complex problems. Well, the truth is there are simple answers, just not easy ones.”

    This approach to public policy continues to characterize Reagan’s 1980 campaign. One of his proposed cures for inflation is the notion that a huge tax cut will restore the productive vitality of the economy and control price rises. Most economists believe this approach is nonsense, that it would simply fuel more inflation. Reagan also asserts that “inflation comes from the Government spending more than the Government takes in. It will go away when the Government stops doing that.” Economists say that a balanced federal budget would still trim less than a percentage point from the inflation rate.

    Stupid been around DC for a long time.

  35. […] at Powerline has more, Jeff at Protein Wisdom may have put his third party talk on hold for the moment. For the […]

  36. JD says:

    Let me get this straight … Our 10 year debt should currently be around 15,000,000,000,000. They have a plan to cut it to around 13,000,000,000,000, and we are supposed to be excited, given the accounting gimmicks and base jackasshattery involved?

  37. bh says:

    Nah, that would be the best possible case scenario, JD.

    They’re only talking about reducing our ten year deficit by 2 or 4 trillion. The cumulative debt in that scenario would simply increase a little bit less drastically.

  38. JD says:

    Ah, yes. I interchanged the words there. At any rate’ the debt will increase, at least, by $13,000,000,000,000. Yippee. Fuck them.

  39. JD says:

    Or, in other terms, we have annual deficits in the range of $1,500,000,000,000. This deal would cut those annual deficits by about $200,000,000,000, leaving annual deficits around $1,300,000,000,000. Yippee.

  40. bh says:

    Don’t know what our yearly deficit is now but I blindly thumbnail it around $1.5 trillion. If they cut $2T to $4T over 10 years we’d match that up against a static $15T in new deficit spending over that period.

  41. bh says:

    I’m a bit late again. But, yeah, you’re right. Those are the rough ballpark figures, JD

  42. newrouter says:

    the losers who don’t want to cut massively spending are the enemy.

  43. Slartibartfast says:

    “Long-range spending cuts” usually means nada next year, a few billion in a few years, and Herculean cuts out a decade or so where they’ll be killed before we get that far down the road.

  44. JD says:

    A-fucking-men, Slartibartfast.

  45. bh says:

    I hope the orange cry baby knows that we won’t buy into that bullshit this time, guys.

    Cut it this budget year or it doesn’t mean shit.

  46. newrouter says:

    cutting up baracky’s credit cards should be as easy as saying: chop chop

  47. cranky-d says:

    I think it’s about time Boner and the rest of his GOP “stalwarts” retire to spend more time with their families. Let the new blood take over.

  48. newrouter says:

    The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders
    by Sarah Palin on Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 3:22pm

    Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world.

    As a governor, I had to deal with facts, even unpleasant ones. I dealt with the world as it is, not as I wished it to be. The “elite” political class in this country with their heads in the sand had better face some unpleasant facts about the world as it is. They’ve run out of money and no amount of accounting gimmicks or happy talk will change this reality. Those of us who live in the real world could see this day coming.

    Back in January 2009, as governor of Alaska, I announced: “We also have to be mindful about the effect of the stimulus package on the national debt and the future economic health of the country. We won’t achieve long-term stability if we continue borrowing massive sums from foreign countries and remain dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.” Then I urged President Obama to veto the stimulus bill because it was loaded with absolutely useless pork and unfunded mandates. Everyone knows my early and vocal opposition to that mother of all unfunded mandates known as Obamacare starting back in August 2009, and many recall my objections to the Federal Reserves’ inflationary games with our currency known as QE2 from November 2010. It’s a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.

    The same “experts” who got us into this mess are now telling us that the only way out of our debt crisis is to “increase revenue,” but not by creating more jobs and therefore a larger tax base; no, they want to “increase revenue” by raising taxes on job creators who are taxed enough already! As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” That’s where we are now. Hard working taxpayers have been big government’s Sugar Daddy for far too long, and now we’re out of sugar. We don’t want big government, we can’t afford it, and we are unwilling to pay for it.

    link

  49. newrouter says:

    “As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.”

    snow hoochie bloviating

  50. Stephanie says:

    and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power.

    Damned Godbotherer.

  51. dicentra says:

    You know what, bh? I found out yesterday that ceiling cat is really wall cat.

    Will the disillusion never stop?

  52. dicentra says:

    I don’t want them to cut the budget, I want them to eliminate entire departments; otherwise, all they’re doing is mowing off the tops of the weeds, and they’ll just grow back.

    Yank ’em up by the root or blast ’em with Round Up. No other way to be sure.

  53. JHoward says:

    I want them to eliminate entire departments; otherwise, all they’re doing is mowing off the tops of the weeds

    x10. x100. Times infinity. NONE of it shall stand if we expect to NOT go down as the next collective disaster, the next tyranny. How in the hell do we expect to go on living in a land whose standard of living approaches the middle of the pack AND owes two hundred odd TRILLION in debt and obligation (including the states) and call ourselves free, represented, and constitutional?

    WE DO NOT OWE ONLY $15T, FOLKS. WE SHOULDN’T CARE WHAT THE ANNUAL DEFICIT IS.

    You know what? The right is utterly unserious. Not only has the right lost the messaging game and wholly botched the optics for an eternity, it can’t even do the fucking math. I haven’t been this mad in months.

    1. The fucking deficit isn’t the problem, people. It’s the national debt AND the unfunded obligations. Why in heaven do we continue to talk in terms of an annual shortfall when we’re drowning in standing debt that sucks half a trillion dollars out of the economy IN INTEREST ALONE a year?!

    2. Since when does a monetary cabal — the private corporation called the Federal Reserve with the largest federal policy control in the world and NO represented, voter oversight — which is connected at the hip to the US Treasury to enact more Keynesian, anti-classical liberal conflict of interest than you can count keep getting a pass on the right? What, are we stupid?

    3. Why do we continue to tolerate the personal income tax?!

    4. Why do we continue to promote low taxes for corporate America, given that crony capitalism has percolated through the entire fiscal picture to become indistinguishable from federal policy?

    5. Why do we continue to entertain their lobbies?

    That the hell is WRONG with the right? Why do we prattle on about annual budgets and that Ogabe, you know, just doesn’t get it? HE GETS IT FINE, SARAH! Why do we think we should debate with these thieves and liars? Why do we have a dime’s worth of faith in anything that goes on in DC?

    Wake THE HELL UP.

  54. B. Moe says:

    Why? Why? Why?

    Cause the gummints gots the schools and we is most totally iggernat.

  55. Carin says:

    Shit, is Obama going to be able to golf today? He’s going to ruin his streak.

  56. Carin says:

    Huh, the President’s schedule lists nothing until 3 pm, which says he “arrives at the White House”.

    Guess perhaps he is golfing this morning.

  57. bh says:

    Huh, that’s weird. I had never heard about the federal debt and unfunded liabilities before.

    Thanks for the wake up call.

  58. JHoward says:

    Here, bh, near the bottom of the page.

Comments are closed.