The New Republic

How come this country is being run by a few guys who don't represent the people? Whose party lost big in the elections and whose policies are extremely unpopular, according to polls? And which also defy common sense and logic; I don't get it.

- Sophia

January 2, 2013 at 1:20am

Because Obama is weak. That's why. And a party cannot be lead around a sitting president. He still refuses to lead the Democratic party, imagining himself above all that sordid political work.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 1:42am

The debt limit should be a peice of cake. All O has to do is agree to raising it to cover the spending voted for by the House in the Ryan budget. Then it will be even more obvious that the Repubs aren't working for fiscal stability, but in effect refusing to pay for spending they've already authorized. Let the chips fall where they may.

- Robert Powell

January 2, 2013 at 2:15am

On the tax side, if we get rid of the capital gains dividend preference (less the additional Obamacare tax to make rates completely equal,) the work will be done. On the spending side, reform the prescription drug benefit to allow government negotiation and we will be part way there. The problem is that those two areas have a lot of political money behind them -- excuse me, I mean, political speech.

- Nusholtz

January 2, 2013 at 6:43am

Weak or weak-minded, tho this might be a distinction w/o a difference. As I see it, Obama's main problem is that he still--still--sees bipartisan compromise as an end in itself. He has diagnosed the failures of governance of the past two decades or so as being due to the failure of the parties to compromise, and he thinks that to the degree that he can achieve compromise across the aisle it constitutes a victory for good governance. Another interpretation--my interpretation among many others'--is that the only path to the restoration of good governance in the US of A is the destruction of the primary obstacle to good governance, that is the Republican Party. Obama's chief goal, as for any contemporary Democratic president, should be to humiliate, discredit, disempower and unelect the GOP and its officials at every opportunity. Only in this way can he restore sanity to Washington and improve the ability of the United States' government to do its job.

- AaronW

January 2, 2013 at 7:25am

For a family at the median income level ($50,000), the deal will result in neither a net tax increase nor a net tax increase, the Bush income tax cut extension about offsetting the payroll tax increase. But the effect and perception for that family will be a tax increase, the only change this month from last being an increase in payroll tax withholding. In other words, a political loser for Democrats.

- rayward

January 2, 2013 at 7:29am

I have been making the point for years that Democrats lost the middle class because of the payroll tax increase adopted in the 1980s, which allowed Republicans to tag Democrats with the tax and spend label all the while cutting income taxes for the wealthy. So what does Obama do? He accepts an increase in the payroll tax. Sure, its not an actual increase, but the lapse of the temporary cut in payroll taxes adopted at the beginning of 2011. But that detail will be lost on ordinary working Americans, as the taxes withheld from their next paycheck goes up. This deal is a net tax increase for ordinary working Americans, whatever Obama may say. It's lousy economics and, worse, lousy politics.

- rayward

January 2, 2013 at 7:39am

I believe Paul Ryan voted yes. I suspect this means he will not be nominated in 16.

- stanmvp48

January 2, 2013 at 8:26am

"But it ultimately gets the job done"? Except the "job" in this case was letting Bush tax-cuts expire on people over $250K. Let me list how we accomplished that. 1. In December 2010, the Bush tax-cuts were supposed to expire. Obama extends them to get unemployment extended in the depths of the Great Recession. 2. In April 2011, Republicans demand 100 billion in cuts in Obama's stimulus plan, or they'll shut down Government. Eventually Obama works out a "deal". 3. In June 2011, Republicans demand revocation of Obamacare, or they'll refuse to raise the debt limit. In August a compromise is reached, but the House Republicans refuse to approve it. The Fiscal Cliff is created, and a SuperCommittee appointed to resolve it. 4. In December 2011, the SuperCommittee fails. 5. All of 2012, the Fiscal Cliff is coming. The Republicans wail that it's horrible, but do nothing to stop it, even filibustering their own bill in the Senate and withdrawing their bill in the House. 6. We actually reach 1/1/2013, and only then are Republicans willing to approve a bad compromise which raises too little revenue, leaves spending cuts in place, and sets up additional Hostage Situations on Spending and the Debt-Ceiling. If we repeat that process, it's going to be a very bumpy next couple of years.

- AllanL5

January 2, 2013 at 9:08am

ray, you are wrong, for a middle class family with children at $50,000 payroll taxes will go up about $1,000 but the extension of the tax credits will equal about $5,000 in an income tax refund. Trust me losing $20.00 a week over the course of a year but still getting $5,000 as a refund is a big fucking deal considering how the Erick Ericcson proposal was to get rid of that $5,000 and let the payroll tax cut stand (which goes to everyone who declares an income, rich and poor) The 3 groups who most benefit from this compromise are the rich, the elderly (since entitlements have not been touched) and middle class families. It seems that the writers and a lot of the readers are not in this group. It seems to be let's punish the 47% (and lets face it there was no way taxes were going up for the 47% unless no deal was made at all) just to get their pound of flesh from Republicans. And I think Obama was canny rolling up the debt ceiling, the budget, and the sequester all in one negotiation. Republicans might try to separate them all but I simply can't see 3 separate negotiations going on. Let the Republicans then take the lead in entitlement cuts, we all know how that worked for them under Bush. On the revenue side Obama will push for what Romney proposed, capping deductions but without lowering the rates, that will make up that money from the 250k to 450k group that Obama dealt away, and a lot of his entitlement reform will be smoke and mirrors backloaded a generation away, like raising early retirement for people born after 1980 from 62 to 65. yes, I know I am going to be blasted for this as a sell out interested only in seeing that the 47% of Americans who rely on this tax credits continue to get them and that I am somehow wrong for disagreeing with Mitt Romney and his slam of the 47%, and for thinking that these kind of credits are necessary and vital in the midst of a prolonged slump in unemployment. I guess I am not "progressive" enough to want to slam the 47% in favor of those who don't benefit from these credits, people like Noam. We won this round, long term Republicans are boned as demographics will do them in. I promise you so many cuts will be backloaded easily undone by a future Democratic congress.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 9:21am

And I am tired of hearing about the Clinton rates, Clinton himself changed them. are you people aware just how long Clinton's tax rates lastest? It was passed in August of 1993 and lasted only 4 years with the Taxpayer relief act of August 1997 when the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. What is it now? 20-Percent Capital Gains Rate for Certain High Income Individuals. The bill retains the zero percent tax rate on long-term gains, modifies the 15% rate, and proposes a new 20% rate. Starting in 2013 the tax rates on long-term gains would be: 0% if income falls below the 25% tax bracket 15% if income falls at or above the 25% tax bracket but below the new 39.6% rate 20% if income falls in the 39.6% tax bracket As to the permanent nature of the cuts, nothing is permanent. The only thing I liked about the sunset was it gave Democrats leverage but long term I am not that concerned. By the end of this decade, if not earlier, Republicans will be done in by demographics. If the economy rebounds enough by 2016 a Hillary Clinton will have a Democratic House and Senate and will be free to raise taxes on the rich, in fact she can run on raising taxes on people making above 250k. So we have 600 billion in new revenue, no spending cuts, and in addition the additional PPACA cuts that are coming into play. We will also be substantially cutting defense as we are now out of Iraq and will be leaving Afghanistan so from these alone we will see trillions in deficit reduction, couple that with an improving economy and increased revenues I am not going to be in full on hissy mode. By the way, read some right wing blogs, they are on full melt down mode. They really think Republicans will have the balls to take an axe to entitlements.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 9:32am

Congressional Republicans are in a rage this morning. They were forced to vote for tax increases that would have been automatic had they not been backed into a corner and forced to look like sell-outs to the voters in their gerrymandered districts. They simply don't understand nor care that new taxes can pay down the debt and that new employment can produce a lot more revenue. They care nothing about new jobs and the revenues they could produce. All they want to do is is cut spending. They are unwilling to go to their business buds who are drowning in investment money and ask them to get together with the government and hire new people. Instead, they encourage titans of industry to pee and poop their pants in fear that investors will cut CEO salaries and bonuses if they take a chance and employ Americans. We do need to cut spending--dramatically in some areas. I saw a documentary recently about 2 sisters in the Midwest who billed the U.S. taxpayers (through through the Defense Dept.) $999,000 in shipping costs for 38 cents worth of merchandise (computer glitch). Over the years they gorged on $72 million in shipping costs for a few thousand dollars of merchandise. Why aren't the Republicans doing something about that? Because they love astounding profits, and they don't care if criminals get them and that U.S. taxpayers are stuck with the bill. They scream about Medicare, but they are willing partners in the in the systematic gouging of taxpayers by the medical industry--to the tune of many trillions of dollars over the years. Our political system is broken, because the thinking abilities of Republicans are broken. They are against Americans being employed. High employment means that investment has taken away funds from CEO bonuses. I appears that our economic system is broken, too. We not only need to fix our tax system. We need to fix free enterprise. But Republicans want to maintain monopoly and the outrageous profits it brings. Look for a ferocious fight on the debt ceiling in a couple of months. Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to bring down the global economy to keep the record profits flowing. Kinda makes you wonder about their economic chops, doesn't it? Fortunately for America and the world, voters have slowly come to realize that Republicans kill jobs instead of create them. But is it too late?

- magboy47.

January 2, 2013 at 9:40am

It'll be nice to see Geithner go. If I were to look for a weak advising partner when it comes anything that might involve Wall Street players paying more, Geithner doesn't inspire confidence. At least I hope he's going.

- jet

January 2, 2013 at 9:47am

Blackton, you missed the point. The deal preserves for 2013 the same tax benefits enjoyed by the family with a median income in 2012, but reduces that family's take home pay, which is how most people (especially those with incomes at or about the median) measure their "taxes". Having never "lost" the tax benefits, they won't credit Obama with preserving them, but they will blame Obama for the reduction in their take home pay. When Republicans emphasize the "Obama tax increase" during the coming months, ordinary working Americans will come to sympathize with that view as they see their take home pay go down, just as they did as the payroll tax increase adopted in the 1980s was phased-in over the next 15 years, turning many ordinary working Americans into tax protesters and Republicans. Sure, it's perverse (after all, it was Obama who passed the temporary payroll tax cut), but most Americans, especially ordinary working Americans, don't pay much attention to the details, just how their take home pay is affected.

- rayward

January 2, 2013 at 9:48am

I agree with every single word you wrote there, aaron. I wish I could say it as well. I agree with every word written by rayward just above too. "I promise you so many cuts will be backloaded easily undone by a future Democratic congress." says blackton. Yeah, sure, just like he says that defense spending will come down because we leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is the bonus for leaving Iraq, I wonder? We are not going to have a Democratic Congress as long as Democrats keep signing up for and legitimizing Republican policies. The public, rightly, cannot see where the Republicans are trying to take us because the Democrats fail, either rhetorically or in their legislative strategy, to articulate what we stand for.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 10:55am

"Obama's chief goal, as for any contemporary Democratic president, should be to humiliate, discredit, disempower and unelect the GOP and its officials at every opportunity. Only in this way can he restore sanity to Washington and improve the ability of the United States' government to do its job." says aaron. I quite agree, but Obama refuses to be the leader of the Democratic party because of his grandiose vision of himself as above partisan politics, as if there were any other kind of politics. That means, in effect, that he refuses to engage in politics, which is his chief responsibility. The roots of this bad deal aren't so much in Obama's inability to negotiate, but in his own self-importance and self-righteousness.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 11:00am

The battle lines here are drawn along the exact same path as in 2010 and 2011. And, of course, everyone talks about the Democratic leverage of the "fiscal cliff" as if it just materialised out of thin air. Well, I recall what might to some appear as an alternative reality. It's about a fight over the debt ceiling, and how the Republicans were quite willing to push the US into default. Out of that gun to the head of a President going into reelection with an 8% unemployment rate and popularity ratings in the toilet, emerged a deal that gave Obama pretty much everything he wanted - plus the leverage that everyone is bleating about here. Not bad, how the community organizer who can't negotiate himself out of a wet-paper bag, who wants so much to be post-partisan, blah blah blah, managed to buy himself time, get re-elected and then, allegedly, waste the leverage he had obtained at gunpoint. Ray might be right - the prospect of losing $20 a week to Social Security might, for the median voter, result in a permanent souring against the feckless President and get them to vote in droves for the Republicans, who, far from robbing them of said $20 a week, merely want to fuck them raw in the backalleys of a Randian economy. Who knows what the median American voter thinks. It is also possible that the vaunted middle - those ten percent of voters who swung between Bush and Obama in four years - will look at the President delivering an 89-8 Senate bill to a House that promptly fractures not just the Republican caucus but the Republican leadership itself and think, "that Obama, what a spineless compromiser; instead of openly and actively humiliating the Party of 47% of the Americans, he merely let them humiliate themselves. Evidently he can't negotiate and don't know politics, that community organizer." Finally, it may well be that the same Republicans who buckled under Wall Street pressure to give Obama the fiscal cliff leverage in the first place in 2011, might decide, in 2013, to push the US into default - and worse, into sequestered defence cuts. Even "rational idiocy" is plain idiocy at times; and it is the case no one ever lost a penny betting against Republican sanity. I concede that all of this is possible. It is also possible that Obama does have a "grandiose" vision of himself, not as above partisan politics (cf Romney, W M; McCain, J.), but as the only adult in the US political system; the one responsible not just to himself, not just to the 2 million unemployed and the million who might become unemployed as a result of all this politicking, but also to history. Perhaps all the observers of the US political system are correct in saying that it was a big problem to merge the Head of State and Head of Government functions in the US - making a right-thinking President hesitant to get too deep into partisan brawls. In any event, in this retelling, he got what he wanted, which was to avert unnecessary tax hikes for most taxpayers, the termination of UI benefits, no social benefits cuts, and a healthy tax-hike-based revenue increase. And in two months, we are back where we were in 2011, with the difference that he is not running for re-election and he has the sequesters in his pocket. He has a better hand now than he did when he got the fiscal cliff in the first place. Back then he offered a four-to-one cuts to taxes and got rebuffed. He is already saying that his negotiating position is one to one cuts to taxes, and this, AFTER he got his $600 billion. I'd say that it is also possible that he knows what he is doing. Finally, this from Larison. It's about Hagel, but it could be able Aaron and Roid as well: "It is frequently the case that the message that activists and pundits intend to send is never received. Because they fail to imagine how others will perceive it, they often demand actions that result in a worse outcome than if those actions had never been taken."

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 11:30am

Well, look on the bright side. Rome wasn't built in a day. You can't expect the GOP to capitulate on tax increases overnight. They did compromise, it's a start. As for the payroll tax, that should float upward. No reason there should be a cutoff, if a person is earning wages, that should be subject to payroll tax. I think the wealthy get SS benefits and Medicare, for the most part; why shouldn't they fund it proportionately? Regressive taxes make no sense. And, capital gains and estate taxes are still to low but it's something. So, one thing at a time. Grover The High Priest Of Stupidity has been challenged, the GOP actually went to work on New Years, it's amazing.

- Sophia

January 2, 2013 at 11:33am

"Obama's chief goal, as for any contemporary Democratic president, should be to humiliate, discredit, disempower and unelect the GOP and its officials at every opportunity." How is this different from McConnell's chief goal of making sure Obama was a one-term president? The President's chief goal should be to govern responsibly. "Obama refuses to be the leader of the Democratic party" Quite evidently, my grade four civics class (admittedly, in rural flyover country) missed this responsibility of the President. "Leader of the Party" might mean something in a parliamentary system; in a Presidential system, less so. It is true that, on the whole, Democratic presidents tend to be less partisan than Republican ones - Clinton, after all, let himself be led by Dick Morris into triangulation and got impeached for all his troubles - but I put that to Democratic sanity and responsibility, rather than to fecklessness or lack of political savvy.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 11:37am

Meant, "too" low. Sorry. Another observation: oil stocks are up. I have a lot of thoughts about oil. Oil industry + nationalization. Why shouldn't the people whose environment and resources are being extracted and damaged profit from it? That would be us. We the People, not just a few people who might not even be American. So? Now it's fracking, with serious long term consequences to the environment. Energy is a national, that means NATIONAL, resource. The people are the nation not the corporations. Is this too progressive? PS start nationalizing oil/gas and watch how fast energy technology evolves.

- Sophia

January 2, 2013 at 11:37am

Conn Carroll runs through some numbers today: What Obama initially wanted: $1.6T in tax hikes and infinite limit on debt. These taxes would primarily come from those making over $250K. Boehner countered with $800B. The final deal was $600B, with marginal rates increasing on those making over $400K. And other taxes raising on EVERYONE. For a fiscal conservative, the deal is awesome. The extension of Bush cuts on the middle class will focus the debate on revenue versus spend debate like never before. The amount of money to grab between the $100K earner and the $400K earner is small. And the rich are now back at Clinton rates. So the bleating about that can finally go away. And thus the argument must laser focus on the middle class: Do they want to pay a LOT MORE for the government they have today? I suspect the answer will be "no" But the days of making the rich the boogeymen and the root of all our problems is finally behind us. Sure, it'll still be an issue. But with the wealthy paying the same rates as Clinton, it's not nearly the 800 pound gorilla it was before. Awesome job republican leaders. And I'm serious about that.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2013 at 11:45am

Yes, you did miss it, icarus. Because that is not what is taught in fourth grade civics. Do you think the actual function of our political system is as taught to you in fourth grade? You seem to confuse political leadership with rabid, hyper-partisan behavior of the Republican kind, as if there were no alternative. Was FDR the leader of the Democratic party? Was he "non-partisan" or above partisanship in any minute that he drew breath? Fascinating that you think that whatever an activist believes should be communicated to the public will not be heard but that you also believe that the public is going to examine the details of process in the Senate and House and come to the right conclusions. What an educated public we have. They must all have studied civics in fourth grade. It seems that all of the leverage that Obama obtained through his brilliant maneuvering as used ultimately to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent. Now it requires a positive enactment to raise rates. Just what is the leverage going to be for that? And how do you suppose the outcome of that disastrous decision is not going to be huge cuts to everything other than defense? Is there any "compromise" that Obama might make that you would not characterize as responsible governance? Making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent is not responsible governance, but grossly irresponsible governance, as bad or worse than the original irresponsible tax cuts themselves. Intoning solemnly that the responsibility of the president is to govern responsibly does not magically render whatever he does even arguably responsible. In order to govern responsibly, or at all, one must fashion and nurture a political coalition that has goals and moves towards them. If the goal is to get us past the fiscal mess without creating even greater income inequality and gutting social security, Medicare and Medicaid, Obama is moving backwards. Oh, I know, everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 11:54am

Read seattle crowing, icarus, and maybe you will begin to understand. He says it was an awesome job by Republican leaders. He is right, for once.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 11:56am

The Repub agenda has been obvious for decades.. Stave the beast. End Social Security and Medicare. And most recently-- intractably oppose BHO. What should also be obvious by now is that BHO is a political weakling whose primary goal is to effectr "compromise" and remain above what he sees as the political fray. He is NEVER going to advocate, propose and support truly Progressive policies. Consequently, until Dems support Progressives who openly challenge BHO's compromises that enable Repub policies, the country will constantly drift further right. And, ironically, those Progressive policies ARE supported as policies by pluralities to majorities of voters.

- drofnats1

January 2, 2013 at 11:59am

"...the fiscal cliff presented Democrats with as much leverage as they're likely to come by in a generation or two..." is this hyperbole meant as shot to the Obama administration's solar plexus or are you alluding to your extraordinary ability to look over the horizon and appreciate the future? how long is "a generation or two" these days anyway?

- teoc

January 2, 2013 at 12:10pm

All this talk of "leadership" kind of misses the point, in my humble opinion. Obama's first and foremost worry was that the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts, and the failure to re-instate them quickly for income below a high threshold ($250K, $400K, $500K, whatever) would result in an immediate slam to most people's budgets and, thus, result in a renewed recession right away. Obama is not interested in a renewed recession, no matter how much some people might think it would focus the GOP's minds, perhaps because the last recession didn't result in the kinds of political outcomes some liberals thought -- you know, how a large sector of the population decided that the Great Recession was Democrats' fault and that the cure was a return to orthodox GOP economics of 1920's vintage. The problem with mass economic pain is that the patient's response is unpredictable. So Obama sought a deal that would prevent a mass recession, and he got it last night, both in the form of extending the Bush tax cuts for income below $400K and through extended unemployment insurance and renewed tax credits. And he didn't concede any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, which is a win because the former two are the main drivers of budget deficits which Republicans love to demagogue but are mortally afraid of actually cutting without a whole lot of cover from Democrats. Of course, there will be three other confrontations with the GOP in the next several months on the sequester cuts, the debt ceiling and the 2013 budget. My view is that the sequester and the budget, bad as they are, are insufficient to cause the economy to backslide into anything like a recession. First, the sequester's impact is limited to public sector spending in general and specific industries (military and health care) in particular. Those industries WILL be hurt by sequestration cuts, but the pain won't be evenly spread through the economy the way that pain from higher income tax rates would be spread. So there is actually a lower downside to the White House from the sequestration cuts being fully implemented, as this will not likely result in a renewed recession. Obviously liberals will need to press the White House not to make concessions to the GOP on entitlement spending issues in connection with the sequester -- and Obama may well come down with Grand Bargain Fever again in the course of negotiations -- but this is one issue where failure to agree would not, in fact, produce economic catastrophe. Of course, the debt ceiling does have the potential for economic catastrophe and I agree with Noam and others that the GOP is not going to give that one up without concessions and that the dynamics of the fight would not be the same as they were today. Since McConnell, Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership that caved on the fiscal cliff are being roundly pilloried by the right, their best way to avoid primary challenges is to draw the line on the debt ceiling and wash away the stain of this "rout" (to use Krautie's formulation). What can the White House do about it, besides refusing to compromise? I think the best course of action would be to initiate a gradual government shutdown in response to the debt ceiling, so that some bills stop being paid while others continue. This is feasible and doesn't carry the same problem of questionable US bonds that the once-lauded 14th Amendment option would. Plus it would put actual harm on actual constituencies, without the broad-based quick trigger of tax cuts that could push the economy into a fast recession. How long would Republicans hold off in the face of government contractors whose bills are not paid, or Social Security recipients whose checks are not mailed, or fellow legislators whose salaries are withheld? My guess is, long enough to make noise but not long enough to lead to mass economic dislocation. They will eventually cave the way the Gingrich House caved after the 1990's showdowns, and will vote to approve a 2013 budget in the course of the cave -- or risk another 1990's-style government showdown. All that said, do I think Obama has it in him to pursue this strategy? I would like to think he does this time, because (i) he knows that the GOP won't concede anything without some real hardball, which is the lesson of the 2011 debt ceiling showdown, (ii) a properly managed rolling shutdown in advance of the debt ceiling could be done without unduly endangering the economy and (iii) Obama doesn't need to be re-elected, so he can afford a debt-ceiling showdown more than GOP legislators who are up for re-election next year. On the other hand, Obama's track record on this is not very encouraging. So we will all have to anticipate a triumph of hope over experience in Spring 2013. Let's buckle up for the ride!

- wildboy

January 2, 2013 at 12:18pm

"Read seattle crowing, icarus, and maybe you will begin to understand." Seattle was crowing about the poll results as well, if I recall. I pay no more attention to his crowing now than I did then. I do agree with one thing he says (not quite the way he says it): middle American should ask itself if all Americans should pay for the government they get (including irreponsible Republican wars abroad and unfunded Republican entitlement spending at home). Republican tax-cutting has had the most infantilising impact on the American voter since Proposition 13 by cutting the tie between programs and payments. The absolute most irresponsible version of it was W, of course, and no wonder: Republicans, and especially libertarians, are self-entitled cry-babies who want something (war, defense spending, Medicare Part D) for nothing (tax cuts), and what is worse, they have persuaded the old biddies and the meth-addled confederates in Alabama, Arkansas and Montana to buy into that bullshit. It's only when you bring the costs of government to the people, all people, through a properly structured tax system that they can make an informed decision as to what it is they want, and what it is they don't want. This is where Seattle's crowing is a bit, let's say, premature. In two months, the Republicans will have to deliver on the cuts they seem to want. Oh, where will they cut, the poor dears? I want Ryan - the same oik of "restoring cuts to Medicate" to propose cuts to Medicare. Let them try to shield loopholes and defense spending by proposing cuts to SS - and let's see how AARP will react. He presents the numbers on the revenue side as if they were the whole story. And you guy into his crowing. Of course, Obama got his $600 billion without conceding a cent in spending cuts. He got the Republicans to vote for a $600 billion tax increase without a cent in cuts in return. Reflect on that. And let Seattle crow for now; he will be eating them in two months.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:19pm

"Was FDR the leader of the Democratic party?" We are not in 1932, Toto. In any event, I am not suggesting that Obama ought to be non- or post-partisan. I am merely saying that the position is not given to bare-knuckle partisan brawls in the same way as in a Parliamentary system; and for that, you should look to the Congress rather than the White House.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:22pm

Wildboy - agree entirely.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:26pm

And this from Galupo - as usual, very clear-eyed. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-focus-on-spending-and-the-dog-that-caught-the-car/ "In the just-concluded fiscal cliff battle, the impasse was only superficially about Republicans’ demands for spending cuts—it was about Republicans (not irrationally) wanting bipartisan cover for spending cuts. In the coming battle, the Republican position is effectively going to be “Give us the cuts that we all would rather avoid—or we shut down the government.” Does that smack of a winning political argument to you?" Read the rest. Seattle can crow all he wants; Republicans now have to start from the position of having to screw the very "Take your government hands off my Medicare" constituency that got them elected. It won't be pretty.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:35pm

ray: When Republicans emphasize the "Obama tax increase" during the coming months, ordinary working Americans will come to sympathize with that view as they see their take home pay go down Um...what is to prevent Obama from then going out and asking for a payroll tax cut again? And workers are accustomed to seeing their paychecks go down from insurance rates rising and employers forcing employees to contribute more and more. and seattle is deluding himself if everything will come down to cuts, tax reform alone will raise hundreds of billions if Obama simply proposes what Romney himself proposed, which is limiting deductions but rates will not then be lowered. payroll taxes will increase, but so will the cap...and it will likely be indexed. as to the cuts, Republicans have never spelled them out in detail because they are all hugely unpopular, so go ahead seattle, make the pitch tell me exactly what Republicans will cut. in any event this is all done. people like roi and drofnats will now stay home in 2014 to punish Democrats and then bitch that Republicans win the mid terms.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 12:40pm

Yuval Levin at NRO adds some interesting analysis too: --- "This deal is projected to yield $620 billion in revenue over a decade — increasing projected federal revenue by about 1.7 percent over that time. And that’s about it. The Democrats have made the Bush tax rates permanent for 98 percent of the public, which Republicans couldn’t even do when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. " --- This is astounding: 1.7% more revenue. That is it. That is the change in the cracks of the couch. All this rattle and hum over 1.7% more revenue???? And now, in order to keep spending at current levels, dems must go in an EXPLICITLY raise taxes on the middle class. That is, they must go before the people AND TELL THEM THEY WANT TO RAISE THEIR TAXES to get this thing balanced out. PS. We pay more in INTEREST on the debt each year than these new tax increases generate. Think about that. And if rates go up a bit, the money spent to service the debt explodes. Some round numbers: The 4th quintile of earners earn on average $85K. They are responsible for 14% of all individual income tax revenue (not including SS and medicare and corp taxes) There are about 20M households in this group. If we run a $1T deficit, then this means 20M households must cover $140B in deficit spending IF we want to balance. This means for an $85K earner, their taxes must go up $7000 to cover their share and balance the budget. If you ask an $85K earner if he's willing to pay an extra $7000--almost 10% of his paycheck--to get the government he currently has and balance the budget, will he vote yes? And this is on top of his new health care requirement spending! The days of the $85K earner buying a low-cost high deductible policy are gone. He's now required to buy a $12K annual gold-plated policy with ZERO gov assistance. In other words, under a dem president, the $85K earner now has an extra $17K in expenses ($7K in taxes and $10K in health care requirements) that he didn't have to spend before. And he gets nothing to show for it. This is so awesome.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2013 at 12:45pm

don't forget the platinum coin option. Treasury could mint a trillion dollar coin and then borrow against it, with inflation so low the risks will be minimal, in fact it would likely help housing, and Republicans couldn't do squat about it. He would likely only be able to pull this stunt once, but it would break Republicans hard.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 12:46pm

"And now, in order to keep spending at current levels, dems must go in an EXPLICITLY raise taxes on the middle class." No they don't. Democrats don't have to do squat. End of story.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:49pm

"All this rattle and hum over 1.7% more revenue????" Indeed - you might ask that of the Republicans, who could not even vote for Plan B to screw Obama because it provided for even less tax increases. You are sooo predictable Seattle :) I should have thought that after the Nate Silver drivel you would have learned your lesson. Guess not.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:52pm

Blackton writes: "make the pitch tell me exactly what Republicans will cut." Probably nothing in the near term. Now tell me if an $85K earner believes paying an extra $7K a year for the government he is currently getting will make him more or less happy about big government? I'd guess less. We need a forcing function to start the swing of the pendulum in the other direction. This may be it. The late 90's showed the swing away from big gov. Our leaders couldnt' shrink things fast enough. Once the will of the people is clear, the cutting will begin.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2013 at 12:57pm

"The late 90's showed the swing away from big gov." Yup, ESPECIALLY among Republicans. Like Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and two unfunded wars. What's astonishing is the ease with which you spew such nonsense, expecting no one to notice. :)

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 12:59pm

Icarus writes: "No they don't. Democrats don't have to do squat. End of story." The doom the CBO has been forecasting has just be brought forward by a decade or more with the current decisions. And Obama has 4 more years. He cannot ignore this much red for 4 more years. If he was leaving office this month, then yes, he could. But not now. As I said the day after the election, the one silver lining is that this election will lay bare for all to see just how destructive the dem policies are (or not). And in terms of revenue and spending, we've just secured the revenue side. It's locked. The ink now gets even redder than even the CBO predicted. So, the dems either start cutting or start raising taxes. it's up to them.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2013 at 1:03pm

You know what? A collection of stray Twitter-quality half-formed thoughts isn't very interesting or helpful.

- mlottman

January 2, 2013 at 1:03pm

Icarus writes: "Yup, ESPECIALLY among Republicans. Like Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and two unfunded wars. What's astonishing is the ease with which you spew such nonsense, expecting no one to notice. :)" No, that was the swing BACK to big gov.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2013 at 1:04pm

Right - so under Democrats and a surplus, people swing away from "big gov"; under Republicans and massive decifits, they swing back. Makes a lot of sense.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 1:11pm

"A collection of stray Twitter-quality half-formed thoughts isn't very interesting or helpful." Speaking of twitter-quality half-formed thoughts ... not interesting, I agree.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 1:12pm

Or, Seattle, did you mean to say that, "In reaction to twelve years of Republican mismanagement and promise-breaking, in the 1990s people moved away from 'big gov'; however, seeing how, properly managed (1992-2000), government can be a force for the good AND produce surpluses and modest tax cuts, they swung back in the aughts." This WOULD make sense. Naturally, once in office, Republican cronyism, profligacy and mismanagement caused a swing away from big gov, especially by the "keep your government hands off my Medicare" crowd.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 1:17pm

Blackton writes: "don't forget the platinum coin option. Treasury could mint a trillion dollar coin and then borrow against it, with inflation so low the risks will be minimal, in fact it would likely help housing, and Republicans couldn't do squat about it. He would likely only be able to pull this stunt once, but it would break Republicans hard." Even if you keep inflation in check, printing money is an instant tax on everyone's savings. From union pensions to 401K, it hurts. Here's what Clinton just said about the debt: --- “If interest rates were the same today as they were when I was president, the payment on the debt, that is, what the taxpayers have to pay every year, the financial debt (payments) would go from $250 billion to $650 billion a year,” Clinton warned on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday. Congress and President Barack Obama, he said, “can't let that happen” – so they must strike a deal on reducing deficits and debt. While acknowledging that the U.S. economy right now is anemic, Clinton said, “When the economy starts to grow and people start borrowing money again, and banks start loaning money to small businesses and not just big ones, interest rates will go up, because there will be more competition for money.” Clinton has been trying for months to warn of what he sees as a danger. Last May he said as soon as the economy begins to grow “interest rates will go through the roof, the cost of financing the deficit will be staggering, and the private sector will be screaming for affordable credit.” --- This is what will force Obama to do something: As soon as the economy starts to move a little, the cost to borrow will increase and suddenly we could be looking at $500B a year just to service the debt. That is almost as much as we spend on the military. That is half as much as we spend on welfare. All in interest. Wasted.

- seattleeng

January 2, 2013 at 1:20pm

in all the wailing, lamentation and rending of garments over the amount of increased revenue shouldn't someone call a time out and ask if the numbers being bandied about reflect increased tax revenues generated by job creation and consumer spending—you know that John Maynard guys virtuous circle thing-a-ma-bob it would appear some forget the knifes edge our economy is treading or some posting hear a wolves in sheep's clothing

- teoc

January 2, 2013 at 1:25pm

Seattle, you were the guy who believed that the American electorate had finally seen through Obama's economic nonsense and were clearly aching to embrace the solid common-sense offered by Mitt Romney, am I right? Everything looked that way to a smart guy like you, no? In fact, said electorate took a look at Romney and said, er no, I don't think so. Remember that? So there is at least the capability among people to understand that government is useful in certain areas, those areas affect a lot of voters, and that government can't be run for free. Indeed, there is a certain intuitive realization among Americans now that government is rather necessary for the effective operation of a capitalist economy. And that is why the president is more trusted to look after the state of middle-class life than the Republican Party is at present. And that is why the Republicans want to make cuts but don't want to take open responsibility for them. And that is why, in the longer, term the GOP is caught between their actual political principle (profits for the rich are sacred) and their performed principles (pro-ordinary Americans, pro-small government, pro-small business etc) in an equation very difficult to solve. And possibly also why you are good with numbers but fail continually to read situations correctly.

- ironyroad

January 2, 2013 at 1:29pm

"...we could be looking at $500B a year just to service the debt. "That is almost as much as we spend on the military. That is half as much as we spend on welfare. All in interest. Wasted." the ability of the financial sector to wreak havoc on sovereign nations is well documented over several centuries of history just has never happened here live by the sword, perish by the sword

- teoc

January 2, 2013 at 1:32pm

Seattle: This is Peter King on the Leadership you think has done so well. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/new_york_republicans_turn_on_house_gop_leadership_over_sandy_aid/ I mean, if you manage to screw your own side so badly ... :).

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 1:47pm

It's not the Republican Party in general that needs to be opposed. America needs a conservative party to rein in the most expansive impulses of the left. What does need to be opposed is the effect of the Tea-Party (Koch Brothers) Republicans. And this idiotic and self-defeating policy of "starve the beast", which hasn't worked since 1980 when it was first tried, along with this stupid and self-defeating policy of never raising taxes. Especially at a time of record deficits (created by tax-cutting) and low taxes. True conservatives try to maintain the Government, not increase it, and certainly not starve it to death. The current crop of Republicans have completely lost sight of that.

- AllanL5

January 2, 2013 at 1:51pm

Seattle quotes Clinton. The same Clinton who set the tax rates against which the Republicans, and Seattle, bleat so much. The same Clinton who gave a trillion dollar surplus to the Republicans to turn into a trillion dollar debt through mismanagement and profligacy. Yeah. $500 billion in interest payments. Whoa, Molly - stop, let me get off ... the end of the world is nigh! Except that interest rates rise not on their own, but as a result of action on the part of the Fed. And they are increased not in the abstract, but as a result of 1) massive depreciation of the dollar, requiring immediate intervention on the part of the Fed to shore it up; 2) overheating of the economy, requiring the Fed to slow it down; or 3) a change in global financial dynamics such that all reserve funds flee to some other currency. But then, if the dollar depreciates, it is likely that exports will increase as a result, economic performance will likely go up, and - which is the most important - the debt loses its value to the borrowers. So the real question is whether any increase in interest rates, and rise in debt servicing costs, will offset the benefits of increased exports and diminishing debt. That is the real analysis, not throwing about a $500 billion number. With a rising economy, revenues rise as well - unless there is a Republican administration, in which case they slash revenue and increase program spending like Paris Hilton on E - and so the question is whether the economy is at the point of overheating to require increasing interest rates - at which point, the real analysis is whether the overheated revenues make up for the higher costs of the debt. That, again, is the analysis, and not a meaningless number. Finally, change in global reserve currency. To what, the Canadian dollar, the Swiss franc, the - he he - Euro, the yuan? Yeah. Not. Losing. Sleep. As irony said, you might be good with numbers - $500 billion! more than welfare! 2/3 as much as defence! - but you have no sense of context. None whatever.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 2:04pm

jeez seattle, the Fed just promised to keep rates low until unemployment significantly drops, it is like you have no idea why rates are so low and will continue to remain so. ick, I find seattle to be amusing. "if interest rates were the same as under Clinton" why stop there, why not say under Carter? A large reason deficits are low is because unemployment is high, add to that the war in Afghanistan which is draining a couple of hundred billion a year and which we will leave seattle reminds me of Republicans when Clinton tried to pass his tax hikes...

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 5:32pm

No matter the screaming, the Republicans didn't vote for tax increases, icarus. They voted for tax cuts, and for making most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, finally achieving their starve the beast strategy. As pointed out, they couldn't achieve this even when they controlled Congress. it took the feckless Obama to give it to them. In your fourth grade civics class, Dorothy, did they teach you that the budget has to be voted upon by Congress and that that will indeed require affirmative Republican approval? Or didn't they get that far?

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 8:28pm

Yes, high unemployment leads to reduced revenues, but the Bush tax cuts pushed the budget into deficit while we were still near peak employment. Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP are now back to the level of 1980, despite rising medical costs and retirements of the boomer generation. Now that the operating deficit is locked in (until the Democrats can achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, despite Blue Dogs, and a House majority, and the presidency all at the same time), what do you suppose happens next blackton? Let me tell you, cuts to SS and Medicare and Medicaid and regressive tax increases, the twin goals of the right and especially the libertarian right. Obama has already been willing to put such on the table. That's what seattle is crowing about. Glad to hear that amuses you. I should say that is whistling past the graveyard. No matter. I don't need SS or Medicare, don't get any tax credits, and have enough for myself and a couple of generations of my descendents at least, especially in light of the estate tax structure just locked in.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 8:38pm

"Now that the operating deficit is locked in" Roid, this is not true. Clinton passed his tax hikes in 93 with only Gore breaking a tie in the Senate, there was no need for a filibuster as it was via reconciliation. In the House it was only 218 to 216. I mean, c'mon, do I really have to teach you about reconciliation? OK, here is it: Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a budget bill with debate limited to twenty hours under Senate rules. ergo, no filibuster. Now what do I think the chances of a Democratic President, House, and Senate? How does 2016 sound to you? Enough of the chicken little routine. Without Seniors Republicans are well and truly boned. I promise you all of their cuts will be for way down the line, which is a fantasy. No Congress is obligated to hold true to any previous congress's cuts. And I find it amazing that you actually agree with seattle. I would think you would realize someone who has been so spectacularily wrong on so many things would suddenly now be the most astute poster here is a bit of a...shall we say..stretch. Maybe Republicans are truly nihilistic and will push us into default, but if they do please don't pretend that somehow they would have caved over anything as minor as this bill.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 9:53pm

"And I find it amazing that you actually agree with seattle. I would think you would realize someone who has been so spectacularily wrong on so many things would suddenly now be the most astute poster here is a bit of a...shall we say..stretch." blackton -- yes, and roid starting to agree with drofnats was the practice run. Drofnats was the guy who claimed again and again over two years that if only Dems offered the radical progressive solutions they would be rewarded by voters, and whenever I raised the issue of Russ Feingold, a popular progressive senator, losing his seat in a traditionally liberal pro-labor state in 2010, I never got a response.

- ironyroad

January 2, 2013 at 10:10pm

Roid: I am not quite sure what that has to do with your earlier comparison of, or contrast between, FDR and Obama as leaders of their parties. I will grant you Obama is not FDR. At least grant me that 2012 is not 1936. The roles of political leaders, of parties, and of party leaders, such as they are, has changed. FDR got away with "I welcome their hatred"; Obama can't. I also think that Obama takes his Head of State responsibilities more seriously than Bush; he is not as skilful in politicking as Clinton; he cannot lie quite as breezily as Reagan or Poppy. All of which means that he approaches statecraft in a different way that the others, and in a different way than many of his supporters want him to - but that does not mean that he does not know how to negotiate, or that he is feckless. I am not sure whether it is the substance of the deal to which you object or, more, the fact that Obama did not exact a few scalps. On substance, I think Joan Walsh captures it. On the scalp - I think Josh Marshall nails it. On long-term political prospects - the Republican Party is in its death-throes. It was Obama's apparent fecklessness that has split them, not his scalping.

- icarus-r

January 2, 2013 at 11:13pm

You are quite right, blackton. They could increase taxes by reconciliation without having to overcome a filibuster. That means that all that is necessary is a Democratic Senate (with a majority large enough not to need Blue Dog Democrats), a Democratic House, and a Democratic president. Until that day arrives, we are indeed locked into a structural operating budget deficit. But, of course, on the other hand there is the "chicken ittle" argument. Now that's persuasive. We haven't heard much about chicken little lately. Seniors? You mean the seniors who were persuaded by the "death panels" argument to oppose the ACA? Of do you mean the seniors who want the government to keep its hands off their Medicare? Or do you mean the future but not yet seniors who will be denied social security and Medicare benefits afforded to previous generations? As for you, irony, I do understand that you have such difficulty parsing and weighing any argument that who makes the argument is decisive for you. It is only to be expected therefore that you are unable to agree with something said by those you have decided are not creditworthy and unable to disagree with those you have decide are creditworthy. Ad hominem is about as far as you can go, as you demonstrate amply in your remark just above about drofnats. He didn't take your point about Russ Feingold? OMG. Off the list. I, however, prefer to consider what people say and then decide whether I think the argument has merit or not. Once in a while, this means that I agree with people with whom I most often disagree, and vice versa. Do you find that your highly reductive reasoning limits you in any way, or are you able to function well in life with such a simple rule of decision?

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 11:26pm

You think seattle is wrong in this case, blackton? In the next round, when the budget rather than the tax structure is the subject, what "revenue enhancements" do you think are going to emerge to vindicate Obama's purportedly "balanced approach" now that income taxes are off the table? Would you like to tell us how big the budget cuts are going to be and how they will be allocated? Would you like to explain how the reduction in household income entailed by the cliff deal combined with the likely budget cuts are going to avoid a recession, which I believe you think was the most important thing to be achieved by the cliff deal? Government spending is more important as Keynesian stimulus than tax cuts. Do tell us how you think this is going to play out so that we can understand the secret wisdom of Obama's deal. In particular, please explain just why Mr. Scheiber is so clueless about what you see so clearly that he can say things like, "Democrats' Cliff Compromise Is Bad; But the Strategic Consequences Are Disastrous." What on earth is he thinking?

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 11:41pm

Icarus, I simply cannot see any reason why Obama did not sweat the Republicans, letting the non-existent fiscal cliff pass, and holding out a bill that stuck to his original position, the one he campaigned on, that only Bush tax cuts on income below $250,000 would be renewed, together with the various middle and lower income credits and UI relief. Every one of those items is politically popular individually. Why do you think the Republicans could have refused for more than a few days to enact that package merely to prevent tax increases on income above $250,000, a very unpopular position? And why on earth did Obama agree, completely out of the blue, to the gift of making he rest of the Bush tax cuts permanent, no longer subject to sunset provisions? That was not even part of the public discussion three days ago. It is a pure gift to the Republicans and a huge loss to the country. As I have said, we have now locked in an operating deficit (until we have Democratic control of both houses of Congress and the presidency at the same time) that is only going to result in cuts to social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Nor is the deal anti-recessionary given that the payroll tax holiday ended. Taxes actually go up for working families and the very wealthy, leaving a good swath of the upper middle class largely untouched. Do you want to tell me that Obama couldn't have gotten a deal at least this good two weeks from now with the Republicans then standing in the way of popular tax cuts? I'm sorry, I simply don't believe that. So, I have to ask myself, why is Obama willing to make such deals? Is he stupid? I don't think that for a minute. Does he not understand the implications of what he is doing for public policy? I highly doubt that too. The only explanation I can see is that he is so devoted to his self-image as a non-partisan statesman that he will make whatever deal he can, as long as he makes a deal. He, like you, thinks this adds luster to his self-image. I don't. I do not for a minute expect Obama to behave exactly like FDR or LBJ. But the most important job of the president is to be politician-in-chief, not chief executive. FDR understood that. He hired the brilliant wonks of his era to take care of policy and he took care of politics. The president's critical task is to cultivate public opinion on behalf of the party's agenda, and part of that means making the intransigent opposition pay a political price for its intransigence. Obama is unable to do this because he is unwilling to walk away from the table when their demands are too great and let them take the political hit for their intransigence. He seems to think that his most important task is policy, not politics. The game has many aspects. Being a statesman is but one of them, and not the most important. Cultivating public opinion in your own favor and to quash opposition are much more important. With public opinion behind you, you can do anything. Without it, you are dead. Yes, it is not 1936. It isn't necessary that Obama behave just like FDR would. It is necessary that he understand, as FDR did, the critical elements of his job and not hold himself above political dirty-work. If the opposition has no fear of you, you are also dead.

- roidubouloi

January 3, 2013 at 1:18am

Just look at the price the Republicans are paying for delay on Sandy relief. Why don't you think they could have been made to pay an even bigger price for delaying the popular tax cuts, and with as good or better a deal to boot? If Obama had sweated them and then caved on the $400,000, without making the cuts permanent, in exchange for the additional prize of sufficient debt ceiling relief to cover all previously approved expenditures, then he would have been a hero. I am not interested in scalps, as you call them, for the purpose of vengeance, but for the purpose of securing the public support that is necessary to put an end to Republican extremism. The extremism has to come with a price. If it constantly succeeds in extracting concessions, then a rational person would conclude that the extremism pays.

- roidubouloi

January 3, 2013 at 1:25am

Roid, everything you are saying about Obama's political handicaps, you have been saying since 2009 and the ACA. There is nothing new about your critique of Obama or about Obama himself. And yes - he should be more of a politician than he is, especially because when he puts his mind to it (cf Bain) he's pretty good at it. Whether his deal-making is a question of self-image or real sense of responsibility - who knows? I gave you my own small experience to say that it is possible that what one thinks of as responsible deal-making could, in the short-term, be considered incompetence or fecklessness. I'm pretty ruthless in litigation and highly conciliatory in negotiations, especially when the stakes are high. I suspect that Obama is much the same way, though of an order of magnitude better. I have commented further on the deal on the other thread.

- icarus-r

January 3, 2013 at 11:36am

good lord Roid, what do you propose I do? You wrote on the other thread I am screwed while you will sit around counting your money sneeringly. For one, you have to know just having spent 15 years in the 3rd world I don't care that much about money and have learned just how well you can live with less. You revealed yourself too well in that statement. You could afford brinkmanship, millions of Americans can not. As to all of your questions, how the fuck do I know? I was not in the negotiating room nor am I a member of congress. All I have said is that this is a deal I find to be a reasonable compromise, that Republicans will be far more hard pressed to point out exactly what cuts they want to make. And if Republicans are insane enough to drive us into default, then there is nothing you can say that would make me think they would have "sweat" themselves out over this. But Obama showed us the way forward. He now has 85 Republicans who voted yes. This means that surely some of them are not as nuts as those that voted no.

- blackton

January 3, 2013 at 11:51am

"Roid, everything you are saying about Obama's political handicaps, you have been saying since 2009 and the ACA. There is nothing new about your critique of Obama or about Obama himself." That's exactly right, icarus. Because there is nothing new about Obama himself. He continues to make the same mistakes. Shall we ignore them for that reason? The Republicans voted yes, blackton, because it was a good deal for their goals of making taxes less progressive and taking the difference out of entitlements. I told you that if I were concerned about my own pocketbook, I would be walking around with a big shit-eating grin right about now. That view comes from a lifetime on Wall Street in the belly of the financial world and an advanced degree in economics. If you don't want to think that working people got screwed by this deal, enjoy yourself. The fact remains, Obama could have played rougher by going over the cliff and seeing whether the Republicans would blink before folding. He couldn't.

- roidubouloi

January 3, 2013 at 7:00pm

Millions of Americans are going to be paying higher payroll taxes, blackton. How come they can afford that?

- roidubouloi

January 3, 2013 at 7:02pm