Growing to like it..

CNN has a poll they released yesterday questioning respondents about what Dingy Harry Reid called the worst piece of legislation ever – yeah worse than Obamacare.. impossible! – which for those of you living under a rock, is the bill proposed by the Republican controlled house referred to as the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill, which amongst other things comes with cuts over $100 billion, immediately, from the 2012 fiscal budget, caps and rolls back federal spending to under 20% – which I still feel is ridiculously high – and then not until 2021, which I also feel is way too far out there, and finally sets the stage for a balanced budget amendment as a prerequisite to allowing he debt limit to be raised, is a good first step. And contrary to the lies from the usual lefty morons, it doesn’t touch either the holy social programs that are on pace to bankrupt the country soon, like Social Security & Medicare, nor touch the other benefit Obama threatened to hold hostage if he didn’t get his way: Veteran benefits. It’s a good first step, but that’s all it is. Too few cuts happen now, and too much of the promised reduction is hanging out there, too far in the future, to be taken seriously. But IMO, that balanced amendment thing makes all of it worth the trouble.

So back to the poll. I am sure the idiots at CNN where surprised by their results, which went against what they hoped for even when they likely rigged the sample to favor the left’s point of view, and ended up having to spin heavily when reporting on it. But the fact is indisputable: they result was 2 to 1 in FAVOR of the bill. Sane Americans want smaller government, despite what the left tells us.

Of course, the left’s leadership’s reaction to that is, and Reid has basically made it clear, is to kill this bill in the Senate. Why? Double why, when some 20 democrat senators like the deal. Well, it seems that we got the truth from the House Minority leader, Steny Hoyer, whom basically pointed out that the amendment would make the democrat’s top priority – to raise taxes on people to feed the monster and grow it bigger – a near impossibility. And he basically also makes the case against the amendment on the basis that only a fringe bunch of insane fiscal conservatives, that have no home other than the republican party, are the only ones that want to thwart what he and the other Obamanauts want. I guess he missed that CNN poll or actually believed the spin by CNN when they reported the results. The left is pissed that they can’t hike taxes. Yes, they really are. Makes me want to smile.

Comments are closed.

  1. hist_ed

    2012 is gonna be the biggest political bitch slap in generations. The leadership of the dems still doesn’t get it and won’t ever get it. A republican president with both houses of Congress controlled by the GOP might cause the party to think about it (the current leadership won’t, but enough members might). The problems for the dems will be that most of the moderates will be out if the GOP sweeps, leaving the socialist core.

    The problem for the country will be that the GOP will find some way (probably a few ways) to royally fuck it up anyway.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT *

    The problem for the country will be that the GOP will find some way (probably a few ways) to royally fuck it up anyway.

    This!

    Seriously, why they just lose any semblance of sanity and turn into demcorat-is obvious to me – power corrupts and makes you want more, not less – but how to keep their feet to the fire and prevent that is not so much. Of course when the choice is between bad and deadly, sane people pick bad despite the fact it isn’t good.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Hal_10000

    Polls like this are very iffy because a lot of the time people don’t really know what they’re in favor of. Similar polls indicated huge support for combining tax hikes with spending cuts (up to 75%) with only cuts polling down in the 20’s. So I’d take any polls with a grain of salt.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Dave D

    Michael Medved had the Seattle congressmen (liberal dem serving since 1988, don’t give a shit about his name) as a guest yesterday. The guy had the GALL to state (paraphrased) that the US citzenry lives by borrowing and has debt, so what is wrong with the US government doing the same.!!!! If my family debt was growing at 10% a year and that deficit was nearly 40% of my annual income, with the recent trend in growth having quadrupled for as far as they eye can see, I’d be declaring “disaster” and looking for a good bankrupcy attorney. His SOLE concern was maintaining the bond/credit status of the US so we can keep borrowing! He also laughed at people who called in to task him on “taxing the wealthy”, etc. Unbelievable.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    So you are saying we should ingore people’s opinions, ignore polls, ignore CNN conducting a poll then not reporting the result because it doesn’t fit their agenda, or that we need to give these assholes in government more money because they can’t help that they like spending so much?

    When you explain to the average person what the problem with letting these politicians take more of our money – they will just spend twice as much, yet again – most wise up and decide these crooks need to be cut off, like a junkie from his crack habit. I am not surprised that as this fight drags on and more people learn the details they turn against allowing the left to steal more money from the productive sector, I mean raise revenue, and that they basically feel we shouldn’t allow government to raise the debt limit. After all, they where lied to and told that if the debt limit wasn’t raised, it was Armageddon, and that’s only the case if you are sucking on the federal teat and that income dries up.

    You are correct polls need to be taken with a grain of salt though. Know the poller, the question, the sampled people, and then draw your conclusion.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000

    So you are saying we should ingore people’s opinions, ignore polls, ignore CNN conducting a poll

    I’ve long said his. Polls mean little; we’re not a democracy. It doesn’t matter if 100% of the public support policy X; what matters it whether policy X is right.

    Most people use polls, as I often say, the way a drunk uses lampost — for support no illumination. When the polls agree with them, they cite them. When they don’t, they ignore them. Nowhere has that been more clear than the budget debate.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *

    I’ve long said his. Polls mean little; we’re not a democracy. It doesn’t matter if 100% of the public support policy X; what matters it whether policy X is right.

    You are correct we are a constitutional republic. I am all for the constitution – not some interpretation by those that want to use it to justify whatever – says what’s right or wrong. But not everything can be traced back to the constitution for an answer. And I seriously dislike the concept of what someone thinks is right being impossed on me unless I am harming people. In this case the issue is government’s ability to take money from people so the political class can grow their power while pretending to help the disinfranchised. I find that wrong as hell. So does the constitution.

    Most people use polls, as I often say, the way a drunk uses lampost — for support no illumination. When the polls agree with them, they cite them. When they don’t, they ignore them. Nowhere has that been more clear than the budget debate.

    Well Hal, what’s clear to me in this budget debate is that only insane people will trust these crooks to take more and not doubel spending again. It’s like trusting, to use another drunk analogy, the alcoholic to not drink the liquor store clean despite the fact they can’t pay for what they are drinking.

    Thumb up 0

  8. HARLEY

    The problem for the country will be that the GOP will find some way (probably a few ways) to royally fuck it up anyway.

    Exactly, the fudis, the big statestis, or the simply fucking stupid, oh and corrupt, will find a way to piss away any positive gains.

    Thumb up 0

  9. balthazar

    Well they pretty much explain why they walked away. They tacitly agreed to revising the tax code so that it would increase revenue, they BO decided that he wanted an additional 400 billion in taxes. Seems self explanatory to me.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365

    Could someone please tell me how the hell Republicans could step away from this?

    From what?

    “The White House moved the goalpost,” Boehner said in a news conference, claiming that the talks broke down when the White House demanded an additional $400 billion in new revenues to the $800 billion that was agreed upon, “which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people.”

    The truth is that nobody (outside of those negotiations) knows what “this” is. I would expect that both Obama and Boehner are either playing to their base or doing damage control, but I would not believe much of what is in that NYT link.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Kimpost

    Most news outlets report the same thing, though. The deal, as it’s been reported, was even better from a Republican point of view, than what was outlined by the gang of six. And I think that Republicans should have taken that and just ran with it. But it wasn’t good enough. Apparently the Republicans mean it when they say no tax hikes, regardless if they are in form of actual tax hikes, or in the form of closed loopholes and reduced subsidies.

    Here’s Politico’s article.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Hal_10000

    Hard to believe this is the party of Reagan. It’s becoming clear that the base, at least, governing is not on the table. Democracies are built through compromise. This seems like a great deal. And if they don’t like it — win the other two branches in 2012 and cut taxes.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Hal_10000

    That first year that’s marked Obama is mostly Bush. You can pin maybe $300 billion that year on Obama. But it was his FY 2009 outline that passed.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Hal_10000

    The thing is that not only should taxes go up, I’m not entirely opposed to linking tax hikes to future debt. As Friersdorf pointed out (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/grover-norquists-pledge-is-a-colossal-failure/242340/) we have a big problem in this country in which spending has become disconnected from taxes. Congressmen — of both parties — promise to create all these programs at no extra cost in raised taxes. Hell, we even started a war and were told we could cut taxes and revenue would somehow show up.

    When you raise spending without raising taxes, you are giving people government at a seeming discount. Is it any wonder government expands when it’s “free”? ‘Starve the beast’ did just the opposite; it persuaded people they could big government programs without big taxes.

    Spending should hurt. The GOP doesn’t seem to realize that.

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT *

    Most news outlets report the same thing, though. The deal, as it’s been reported, was even better from a Republican point of view, than what was outlined by the gang of six.

    The problem is that you believe that propaganda. The deal was bullshit. The fact remains that what is good for America is going to be terrible for the democrats.

    Thumb up 0

  16. hist_ed

    Could you explain why Obama is being so pig headed? Apparently the most important thing in these negotiations is to shield himself poltically for the 2012 election. He has repeatedly said he will not sign anything that doesn’t extend the borrowing to after the 2012 election.

    GOP should put up a short term relatively cleam bill-500 billion more for 500 billion in spending cuts. The House could pass it next Tuesday. Let Obama and the Seante then explain why they won’t pass it.

    Thumb up 2

  17. AlexInCT *

    Funny how you keep bringing up Reagan Hal. Reagan compromised because the democrats controlled both houses and he needed to go through them to get America back on track. I am sure that if he didn’t have to deal with these morons he would have not put up with their stupidity. Don’t forget that while he got what he wanted and it worked, the democrats he compromised with pissed it all away by tripling spending when the US government’s income doubled. Compromise right now is a loss for America.

    Fuck compromise in this case. The ridiculous spending must stop, and government should not be given the chance to take in more cash when the promise to bring spending under control is a decade away and long after these crooks can be held responsible for it not happening. It’s not about cutting taxes: it is about stopping this behemoth government, and about the only weapon they ahve right now to stop the train wreck of the last 3 years is to denay these bastards anymore money to flush down the toilet. That you keep ignoring that makes me wonder if you even get the problem, and if youd, then well it makes me wonder if you really grasp the economic situation we are in.

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT *

    Exactly. The party playing politics here are the ones that want to keep doing the same stupid shit they have done over the last 3 years in the hope they can buy enough votes in 2012. In the mean time America gets fucked harder by them. No fucking way should Boehner allow Obama to keep doing what he has been doing. No fing way.

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT *

    Hell, we even started a war and were told we could cut taxes and revenue would somehow show up

    .

    You sure suffer from a problem with facts. The tax cuts came long before the war, and nobody but you and people that want to raise taxes like you, made this ludicrous claim that a war and tax cuts would yield revenue. Tax cuts stimulated economic growth. The war was brought to us by barbarians that want to destroy the modern world for their political quasi religious ideology. Last I remember it was only stupid people and dumb stickers that made idiotic claims about how we should avoid war without ever pointing out that when you don’t fight the consequences are never anything short of disastrous for the loser.

    At this point the demcorats have proven they are either trying to destroy this country’s economy or simply too stupid to be left in charge of it, and anyone advocating we let them get more money to piss away is insane. We need to cut governments ability to keep spending, then roll it back, and put in place a balanced budget amendment. If we allow them to get any new taxes it should only be to pay off debt or deal with national emergencies (real ones not social bullshit). No more bloat.

    Spending should hurt. The GOP doesn’t seem to realize that.

    Right, that’s why they want a balanced budget amendment, to cut spending, and to reform the entitlements that are breaking our country, and for that are rewarded with the entire leftosphere going bananas and claiming they want to push grandma off a cliff and kill kids.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Hal_10000

    My point was not to object to the war; it was to object to starting a war without paying for it. Even the most pie-in-the sky misunderstandings of the Laffer Curve did not say we would generate enough “stimulus” from the tax cuts to cover both the revenue loss and the war.

    If W’s tax cuts stimulated growth, then we must have been about ot enter Great Depression II back in 2001. The following ten years featured slow growth and slow job growth and half the startups that the 90’s did. Some economy. And you want to talk about rewriting history: the first wave of Bush tax cuts were passed before we were even in recession. The justification was the surplus (a rationale that conveniently vanished when the surplus did). Then we started a war and, instead of cutting spending taxing us to pay for it, Bush passed a second round of tax cuts in 2003. And Medicare Part D.

    Destroy the country’s economy? Hah. It’s not the Democrats who are glibly talking crashing the debt ceiling.

    Right, that’s why they want a balanced budget amendment, to cut spending, and to reform the entitlements that are breaking our country

    They SAY they want these things. And yet what have they done? Back away from $4 trillion in cuts and entitlement reform. This would be the biggest rollback of the government since Truman. If they don’t like the taxes, run against them in 2012 and repeal them … AFTER the budget is balanced.

    I thought you would have learned from the last decade that talk is cheap with the GOP. They said everything we wanted to hear and fucked us. Governing is what matters. And cutting the best debt deal you can right now — one that would raise the retirement age, link SS to CPI and cut $4 trillion over the next decade — is governing.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Kimpost

    Maybe he is being pig headed, but the ones who are being the most pig headed here, are the House Republicans. A compromise in the eyes of Obama is spending cuts + tax hikes in the form of closed loopholes and reduced subsidies. A compromise in the eyes of the House Republicans is spending cuts + spending cuts.

    I doesn’t make sense. Taxes are suddenly treated as something sacred, that can’t be higher. No tax can be higher, regardless of the tax. Regardless of how stupid a particular tax exemption is, it can’t go, not without a complete tax reform.

    They should just drop it and understand that a tax hike doesn’t mean anything. It’s not crossing holy ground to make some taxes higher, not when you get so much in return.

    Everybody gets that the Republicans wants lower taxes. Campaign on it, win the Senate and the presidency in 2012, and go ahead. But right now, they have nothing but the House. They need to compromise.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Hal_10000

    One thing to point out. You suppor cut, cap and balance. I think it’s the GOP’s latest “let’s support something that can’t pass to prove our fiscal cred” BS, but let’s pretend it can pass. Let’s further pretend that we can control spending down to 18% of GDP, which is basically cutting everything but Medicare, Social Security and National Defense.

    You’re sill going to have to raise taxes.

    Taxes are currently at 15% of GDP. Even with an economic recovery, you’re going o have to raise them to get to 18%.

    Thumb up 0

  23. hist_ed

    The GOP just won an election on a platform of not raising taxes and cutting spending. Damn them for keeping to their promises.

    Apparently there was an agreement to close the varous tax deductions but not raise rates. Obama then said “just kidding, ha ha” and demanded an increase in tax rates.

    So the GOP is being pig headed and honest. Obama is being pig headed (just for electoral advantage) and dishonest (no surprise there, he promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone earning under 250,000/yr and then broke that in his first month in office).

    They should just drop it and understand that a tax hike doesn’t mean anything.

    It means something if you or your boss or your customers have to pay it.

    Thumb up 3

  24. richtaylor365

    Taxes are currently at 15% of GDP. Even with an economic recovery, you’re going o have to raise them to get to 18%.

    That would assume that we need to raise taxes to raise revenue, history has shown us that lowering the tax rate can expand the tax base, thus raising tax revenue. Not to rehash the discussions we have already had on this topic, my point being only that your solution is not the only solution and may not be the best solution.

    Let’s not forget that the ONLY reason why we are having this discussion is because the Tea Party types won big last November, if they had not then Obama would still be enjoying his bullet proof majorities in both houses, there would be no discussions going on now because he would have no opposition, he would raise the debt ceiling to whatever he wanted, no muss no fuss. Funny how now that he does not have near dictator like powers (his congressional majorities) and he has to “work” with the GOP, all the sudden they are the unreasonable ones, leaving him at the alter, hilarious.

    Kimpost, you seem to think that the gang of six plan was the perfect solution, the be all/end all to this mess. First off, even they admitted that the plan was big on concepts/little on details, that it in no way would be ready by the August deadline but would take several weeks (months) to work out the specifics and get it ready, that the loopholes you speak of were in many ways deductions that most Americans count on and would be leery to give up, things like the home interest deductions, child credits, charity giving, all these would be a tough sell on both sides and cannot be camouflaged out of the simple fact that they are tax increases.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Hal_10000

    That would assume that we need to raise taxes to raise revenue, history has shown us that lowering the tax rate can expand the tax base, thus raising tax revenue. Not to rehash the discussions we have already had on this topic, my point being only that your solution is not the only solution and may not be the best solution.

    What OBama is offering is to not raise marginal rates but close loopholes and eliminate deductions (sort of a baby version of the 1986 overhaul). So you would get this.

    Thumb up 0

  26. AlexInCT *

    My point was not to object to the war; it was to object to starting a war without paying for it. Even the most pie-in-the sky misunderstandings of the Laffer Curve did not say we would generate enough “stimulus” from the tax cuts to cover both the revenue loss and the war.

    Ah Got it! We started that war now, Check. And we couldn’t pay for that war we started – after we flew planes into the WTC to make sure everyone knew terrorism and state terrorism by the radical anti western goons that told us back in the late 70s they where at war with us to give us an excuse for war – AND cut taxes to stimulate government. Check again. The fact that the real problem wasn’t either the taxes or the cost of the war, which we started according to you, but the fact that the republicans then really jacked up entitlement and discretionary spending too, see there is that spending thing again, doesn’t factor.

    BTW, the republicans whom where totally wrong about their economic behavior lost the 2006 elections on promises by demcorats to stop that. Then, when they took over the house – the organ of one of the three branches, and the one that does spending – Pelosi took it to a new high in 2008, and after the 2008 election her party simply decided that they could, in but a couple of years, spend as much as those evil war starting republicans had in the previous 7, tacking on 5 trillion plus, and trillion to two trillion annual deficits for the foreseeable future, managed to pull off a bitch of a government takeover of healthcare scheme they told us we would need to let them pass before we could find out what was in it, and did all that and more by borrowing and printing money like it was going out of style, all to buy more votes. They even started a bunch of other wars of their own! But those don’t factor or even make it on the radar for people like you whom remain hell bent on blaming tax cuts for the doubling, tripling, and finally outright quadrupling, if not quintupling of spending, to buy votes, by a government that now wants to pull over a quarter of the GDP into their coffers – all of it if these collectivists really had their way – in order to make sure the money is “fairly” distributed.

    Fuck that. Again, let me say it slowly so it doesn’t get missed: the problem is S-P-E-N-D-I-N-G and a B-L-O-A-T-E-D collectivist government, and anyone telling us it is tax cuts or wars, wars they blame us for starting even, either is being disingenuous or has been getting their ‘advice” from morons like Krugman and other democrat posuers, and basically have lost their senses.

    They SAY they want these things.

    The “They” you refer to sure wanted it, since they voted and passed it in the House. Then the Senate killed it. One party however, as my link showed, sure as hell wanted none of that.

    And yet what have they done?

    Let me repeat it again Hal: the mysterious “They” passed the bill in the House, only to have Reid railroad the thing. You do know that right?

    Back away from $4 trillion in cuts and entitlement reform.

    Really? What plan was that? One that promised cuts we would obviously never get, because they all where scheduled so far out that these politicians would all be long gone, and that where likely to be pushed out, yet again, by the next administration? And what entitlement reform was that? Oh yeah, and the only thing that this bill guaranteed was that the demcorats got the one thing they wanted – a massive jack in the debt ceiling they hoped would cover them and let them keep spending close to $4 trillion a year, all so they could then cash the check at the ballot box in 2012 from those they bought votes from – resulting in the final series of nails being driven into our coffin.

    This would be the biggest rollback of the government since Truman.

    Someone has actually fallen for the left’s talking points. This was a big gimmick and nothing else. And the people pretending it was otherwise are exhibit A that it was a bad deal.

    If they don’t like the taxes, run against them in 2012 and repeal them … AFTER the budget is balanced.

    I say bullshit yet again. If we do not cut it now, it will not happen in 2012, when they will go to the election with multi billion dollar campaign coffers, and a large bought section of the population they will tell to vote for them or risk losing their graft, likely with even more spending on the line. But you can pretend other wise.

    Thumb up 0

  27. AlexInCT *

    One thing to point out. You suppor cut, cap and balance.

    I sure as hell do. Anything that makes it impossible for these goons to raise taxes, and really forces them to roll back the nanny state, is golden with me.

    I think it’s the GOP’s latest “let’s support something that can’t pass to prove our fiscal cred” BS

    ,

    As opposed to what plan from the demcorats, Hal? Raise taxes and let us keep spending whatever we want in return for promises of future cuts and entitlement reform we will never get? Have you seen anything concrete from them? I mean anything real, not the joke plans that claim cuts but do so decades from now (meaning never).

    but let’s pretend it can pass.

    Says the guy that just above was talking about what was right and not just whatever was popular. I guess you only want what’s right when it suits your needs then, huh? Just as I suspected.

    Here is a new concept for you: let’s not pretend that if we compromise with the demcorats, like you want, that they actually will keep to any promises they made, once they have their debt ceiling raised and the republicans lose the ONLY leverage they have to force them to come to the table now and roll back the monster. Once Obama and Reid get their spending cap increase, pray tell what will incline them to do anything the House wants? Giving in to what the left wants without forcing them to give up the spending now, is not a compromise, it’s a white flag.

    Let’s further pretend that we can control spending down to 18% of GDP,

    Let’s not. We have proof they can’t do it. So since that’s the case, it all but becomes a given that the only way we will get it to happen, is to force it by law, hopefully in such a way that they can no longer just circumvent it ether, and limit their ability to get cash.

    which is basically cutting everything but Medicare, Social Security and National Defense.

    I actually hope what it does is force them to privatize SS and get out of the healthcare business. I saw nowhere in the constitution that they where tasked with either of those things. Especially since at the rate they are going they will just have robbed people like me of a huge chunk of our income only to leave us a broke country with neither a Medicare system nor any kind of social security, and with the savings I made on my own to counter the obvious fact these unsustainable schemes were on their death bed, not big enough to cover the fact they destroyed the economy. Fuck them for that.

    Thumb up 0

  28. AlexInCT *

    What OBama is offering is to not raise marginal rates but close loopholes and eliminate deductions (sort of a baby version of the 1986 overhaul). So you would get this.

    You forgot the part where he also wants to raise the income tax rates on the people already paying most of the taxes, and doing mose of the work, like me.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Hal_10000

    Just to back this out of the loops. The choices before the GOP are:

    1) Pass cut cap and balance knowing it will never become law. This had the disadvantage of not doing anything but the advantage of letting them blame Obama.

    2) Sign a deal that would raise the retirement age, fix Social Security growth rates and cut trillions in other spending. This has the advantage of being a big step forward in fixing our budget woes. It has the disadvantage of not playing well in the 2012 election.

    It’s clear which the GOP favors and why. A party that really wanted to roll back government would take option (2), even if it let the Democrats demagogue. A party that only cared about defeating their political opponents would pick (1). Politicians do this all the time — pass legislation they know will be vetoed or overturned by the courts so they can have an issue. We saw this in the last decade with social security reform, tort reform and budgets. Just last night, I was reading Phillip Howard’s account of how sensible tort reform was dismissed by the Bush Administration because the Democrats would have supported it; instead they went for damage caps which the Democrats would never accept but gave them a political wedge.

    It’s just so sad that so many conservatives are bamboozled by this three-card monte act over and over and over and over again. Why do you keep falling for the same tricks? It’s clear these guys don’t really want to pay the political price for cutting spending. And it’s even clearer, based on the commentary, that this is all about the 2012 election, not about our budget. Better to ruin things and blame Obama in 2012 than fix things and let him take some credit.

    The right has also become delusional about how change happens. No big change happens overnight in one fell swoop. The welfare state wasn’t erected in a day. Real change comes through a series of compromises. And in this case, we’re compromising way on the side against the huge growth of government. The retirement age alone would be the biggest setback to big government in 20 years. It’s like you’ve got the prom queen in your back seat but you’re walking out because she wants you to wear a condom. WTF?

    Thumb up 0

  30. AlexInCT *

    1) Pass cut cap and balance knowing it will never become law. This had the disadvantage of not doing anything but the advantage of letting them blame Obama.

    2) Sign a deal that would raise the retirement age, fix Social Security growth rates and cut trillions in other spending. This has the advantage of being a big step forward in fixing our budget woes. It has the disadvantage of not playing well in the 2012 election.

    You forgot the part where after they discussed signing the deal and almost shook hands on it, Obama told them he wanted to tack on another $400 billion in new taxes. Of course, he didn’t do it for any political reasons like those evil republicans!

    Pfeh.

    Thumb up 0

  31. hist_ed

    What OBama is offering is to not raise marginal rates but close loopholes and eliminate deductions (sort of a baby version of the 1986 overhaul). So you would get this.

    That was the original offer, one that Baohner agree to. Then Obama added an increase in rates late in the game.

    Thumb up 1

View Mobile Site