Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I agree, and in particular if you mean post-2008 election.



I agree here too. But there is no reason not to also talk.

I would like to see a much more agressive Dem party, like one who would actually force the Rs in the senate to vote against middle class tax cuts, but sadly we don't have that.



I think it is actually slightly easier to do that if you have been giving them every opportunity to engage.

I am starting to think they will get an opportunity to vote against middle-class tax cuts. They certainly seem to be asking for that opportunity.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Y It would be a popular compromise, good for both sides, and good for the country.

Actually given what it does to the deficit, I'm not sure about the last part.

But either that or a $1 mil cut off compromise seems likely.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You would make an awful political advisor.

Both sides need to cut a deal on taxes, and it's an easy deal to cut. The only point of issue is the extension for the highest bracket and they just need to extend those cuts for a period of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) and kick the can on the issue down the road. It would be a popular compromise, good for both sides, and good for the country.

I personally believe there should be no extension unless there are cuts found to match the cost.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Post-election, Obama's done several things to reach out an olive branch, including the freeze. So far from the Rs: nothing. Absolutely nothing. Indeed, the letter this morning was just another slap in the face. And their rhetoric about not compromising keeps escalating.

I'm fine with turning the cheek a few times. But it's getting silly. Now they've declared a moratorium on business in the Senate. I say draw a hard line on the Bush tax cuts, keep talking, bring cloture votes, let the Rs keep blocking them. We may not be able to get START, and the world will be a less safe place because of it, but at some point the Rs will get pushed to the table to behave reasonably. It ultimately happened to Gingrich, but only after he got a few months of public bitch-slapping.

But the Republican leadership should get treated like Kim jong-Il. Assume they won't negotiate rationally, don't reward them for irrationality. And periodically remind everyone they're crazy and not playing by the same rules everyone else abides by.

Instead of talking about who invited whom to which private meeting, look at what they've actually done. Even though economists said it wouldn't work as well, Obama devoted a substantial part of the stimulus to tax cuts to try to win over Republicans. Despite the concession, none voted for it. In retrospect, this was a mistake, one Obama got nothing in exchange for. Obama appointed a conservative Republican, Ben Bernanke, President Bush's appointee to the job, to the most important domestic policy position in the government and nonetheless he gets called a socialist. On health care Obama took what was essentially the GOP proposal fifteen years ago, and Governor Romney's plan in Massachusetts -- the moderate Republican approach to health care -- and dismissed lefty efforts to move the bill. The Republicans responded by disowning what they had previously supported and moving farther to the right. Absolutely the same pattern. He has made concessions on policy, they move away from him, and then apologists for the GOP and idiots in the Washington press corps use the fact of the GOP's recalcitrance as evidence that Obama somehow isn't trying hard enough.

On health care, not a single Republican Senator who was remotely in play -- Grassley, Snowe, Colllins, Hatch, Enzi -- would say what it would take to get them to support the billl. They always maintained the ability to move away, and then they did.

We just saw the same pattern again with Obama's freeze on federal salaries. He attempted to make a concession to move to the center, and it'll get him nothing. The lefties who are most frustrated with the move are not frustrated because they care deeply about federal employee compensation or the macroeconomic effects, but because they are sick of the pattern of Obama making substantive concessions and getting nothing for them.

Club absolutely proves the point. Even if Obama walks to Boehner's home district in Ohio with a gold-plated olive branch, we'll be hearing that he should have tried harder -- the branch wasn't big enough, or he didn't do it soon enough, or quickly enough. If you can convince yourself that that who and when Obama invites to a reception at the White House is a more important indicator of what's happening in politics than who is appointed to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, it's not that hard to think like that.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I personally believe there should be no extension unless there are cuts found to match the cost.

I'm fine with that too, but there is no way they are going to agree on the cuts in the next 4 weeks. The DEMs waited way to long to bring this to the floor to tie the extension to cuts (and the reason is that they weren't going to extend any of the cuts until they got bitch slapped in the mid-terms).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You would make an awful political advisor.

Both sides need to cut a deal on taxes, and it's an easy deal to cut. The only point of issue is the extension for the highest bracket and they just need to extend those cuts for a period of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) and kick the can on the issue down the road. It would be a popular compromise, good for both sides, and good for the country.

And just like that, your professed concern for deficits evaporates. Amazing! We can't do QE because of some non-existent worry about the national debt, but it would be "good for the country" to run up the national debt to give people more tax cuts.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And just like that, your professed concern for deficits evaporates. Amazing! We can't do QE because of some non-existent worry about the national debt, but it would be "good for the country" to run up the national debt to give people more tax cuts.

What is amazing is your reading comprehension.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

(and the reason is that they weren't going to extend any of the cuts until they got bitch slapped in the mid-terms).

You really believe that? They were going to violate Obama campaign pledge, and everything that ever D member of congress ever said on the topic?

[Adder]

Apparently national security is also less important that tax cuts.

It seems clear to me that what the Dems in the Senate need to do is hold daily cloture votes on each of the key issues so each day's headline can be "Rs vote against middle class tax cuts," "Rs vote against monitoring Russia's nukes," "Rs vote to keep gays out of the military," etc.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Indeed. I remember one agreeing and then backing out of the Commerce Sec seat.

Speaking of which, anyone remember Malcolm Baldrige? Dude died in office in a mutherfucking rodeo accident. Talk about dying with your boots on. That is some bad-ass Reaganite shit right there. Don't make 'em like that anymore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

What is amazing is your reading comprehension.

This is what you said:

Both sides need to cut a deal on taxes, and it's an easy deal to cut. The only point of issue is the extension for the highest bracket and they just need to extend those cuts for a period of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) and kick the can on the issue down the road. It would be a popular compromise, good for both sides, and good for the country.

I read this as saying that cutting taxes (albeit only for a few years for the highest bracket) would be "good for the country." I bolded some of the key words to help make it clear. Those tax cuts, without offsetting budget cuts, would increase the national considerable (far more than QE, say). How am I misreading you?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Instead of talking about who invited whom to which private meeting, look at what they've actually done. Even though economists said it wouldn't work as well, Obama devoted a substantial part of the stimulus to tax cuts to try to win over Republicans. Despite the concession, none voted for it. In retrospect, this was a mistake, one Obama got nothing in exchange for. Obama appointed a conservative Republican, Ben Bernanke, President Bush's appointee to the job, to the most important domestic policy position in the government and nonetheless he gets called a socialist. On health care Obama took what was essentially the GOP proposal fifteen years ago, and Governor Romney's plan in Massachusetts -- the moderate Republican approach to health care -- and dismissed lefty efforts to move the bill. The Republicans responded by disowning what they had previously supported and moving farther to the right. Absolutely the same pattern. He has made concessions on policy, they move away from him, and then apologists for the GOP and idiots in the Washington press corps use the fact of the GOP's recalcitrance as evidence that Obama somehow isn't trying hard enough.

On health care, not a single Republican Senator who was remotely in play -- Grassley, Snowe, Colllins, Hatch, Enzi -- would say what it would take to get them to support the billl. They always maintained the ability to move away, and then they did.

We just saw the same pattern again with Obama's freeze on federal salaries. He attempted to make a concession to move to the center, and it'll get him nothing. The lefties who are most frustrated with the move are not frustrated because they care deeply about federal employee compensation or the macroeconomic effects, but because they are sick of the pattern of Obama making substantive concessions and getting nothing for them.

Club absolutely proves the point. Even if Obama walks to Boehner's home district in Ohio with a gold-plated olive branch, we'll be hearing that he should have tried harder -- the branch wasn't big enough, or he didn't do it soon enough, or quickly enough. If you can convince yourself that that who and when Obama invites to a reception at the White House is a more important indicator of what's happening in politics than who is appointed to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, it's not that hard to think like that.

I'm ready to hand you my proxy on this. Excellent post.

I'm just kind of pissed at the moment, so if you want to add a swear or two, maybe note that Boehner wants Obama coming into his district ON HIS MOTHERFUCKING KNEES with a gold plated olive branch OFFERING TO KISS HIS REPUBLICAN ASS, that would be good, too.

By the way, about this not being invited to the white house deal, what's the cite, anyways? I mean, the Rs can never seem to find time to meet with the President, how do we know how many olive branches they've spat on in private?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is what you said:

Both sides need to cut a deal on taxes, and it's an easy deal to cut. The only point of issue is the extension for the highest bracket and they just need to extend those cuts for a period of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) and kick the can on the issue down the road. It would be a popular compromise, good for both sides, and good for the country.

I read this as saying that cutting taxes (albeit only for a few years for the highest bracket) would be "good for the country." I bolded some of the key words to help make it clear. Those tax cuts, without offsetting budget cuts, would increase the national considerable (far more than QE, say). How am I misreading you?

For context, he also said he would be in favor of offsetting spending cuts.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Apparently national security is also less important that tax cuts.

It seems clear to me that what the Dems in the Senate need to do is hold daily cloture votes on each of the key issues so each day's headline can be "Rs vote against middle class tax cuts," "Rs vote against monitoring Russia's nukes," "Rs vote to keep gays out of the military," etc.

Even had the Dems enough feck to carry out something like that, the actual headline would be more like "Reid says McConnell has legitimate concerns about Dem's tax cut proposal", "Reid says Kyl has valid issue about Dem's nuke proposal", "Reid says McCain has legitimate concerns about combat readiness if DADT repealed", etc.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Even had the Dems enough feck to carry out something like that, the actual headline would be more like "Reid says McConnell has legitimate concerns about Dem's tax cut proposal", "Reid says Kyl has valid issue about Dem's nuke proposal", "Reid says McCain has legitimate concerns about combat readiness if DADT repealed", etc.

Yeah, although "Reid says" and the feckless problems are integrally related.

ETA: Franken for majority leader?? (kidding)