No. of Recommendations: 10
Republican congressmen ran on the premise that they, not the Democrats, were the defenders of grandmas SS and Medicare.

They want Obama to cave on entitlement cuts to provide them with cover as a quid pro quo for not letting the country go over the cliff.

What the Republican don't get is that we can go over the cliff as far as Obama is concerned. The Republicans demagogued the crap out of Obama's changes to Medicare in the ACA during the election. The Republicans lied like rugs about Ryan's Medicare provisions.

Joe Scarborough can hold his breath and stomp his little feet, all he wants, 'til he turns blue. Obama isn't going to roll like Clinton did.

Righties still don't get it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Righties still don't get it.

They get it - they're just not happy about it.

The dynamics of these sorts of things are pretty obvious. The base of the Democratic party rejects the idea of any entitlement cuts; the base of the Republican party rejects the idea of any tax increases. Since control of Congress is split, any agreement will require leadership to take stand that their base will hate.

The Republicans feel that they've already taken some political risk by floating the idea that they would do something that their base hates. They expected Obama to do the same thing. They were wrong.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And I still think the best thing Repubs could do is give Obama everything he wants. Everything.
If they did, Obama would go down in history as the man that drove a stake thru the heart of the American Dream.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Joe S is a partisan hack who pretends that he is not.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The base of the Democratic party rejects the idea of any entitlement cuts

It's not just the Democratic base. In most of the Red states, the lower income quintile whites tend to vote hot button social issues, such as race, guns and abortion over keeping their benefits. That's because the Republican politicians lie about their positions on these issue. You heard them lie the entire campaign. It we republicans who wnat to save your SS, UEC, and Medicare. Food stamps and UEC are more important in much of the Red states then the Blue. I ehard one guy at a rally tell a reporter, I'm all Republican, but I disagree with them on unemployment comp.

The Republicans have played an increibly racist and cynical game with the social safety net for years. I think, and I really hope, Obama is going to call their bluff. Seventy years of righty lies is enough.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Joe S is a partisan hack who pretends that he is not

If hack means a--hole, then I agree.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What the Republican don't get is that we can go over the cliff as far as Obama is concerned.

I am starting to believe that Obama has some reason for wanting the US to go over the cliff.

There is no other explination


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not just the Democratic base. In most of the Red states, the lower income quintile whites tend to vote hot button social issues, such as race, guns and abortion over keeping their benefits. That's because the Republican politicians lie about their positions on these issue. You heard them lie the entire campaign. It we republicans who wnat to save your SS, UEC, and Medicare. Food stamps and UEC are more important in much of the Red states then the Blue. I heard one guy at a rally tell a reporter, I'm all Republican, but I disagree with them on unemployment comp.

That may be true, but the GOP base is far more unified on taxes than entitlement programs. You also have the Democratic converse - you'll find Democrats who are deeply concerned about the long term viability of entitlement programs, as well as others who worry about the shift in our government spending away from providing for the poor towards the middle-class and elderly. Even the GOP's spin when they claim to be protecting entitlements from the nasty Democrats is based on the idea that those programs need to be pruned to manageable levels in order to survive.

In order for Boehner to get the votes from GOP House members, he has to give them cover so that they can take a position contrary to the GOP base on taxes. That's why the House leadership is complaining about this initial proposal.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"There is no other explination"

Here's one: we ALL want to hear what the Republicans propose cutting in the first place.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That may be true, but the GOP base is far more unified on taxes than entitlement programs.

That's because they've always been able to enjoy the benefit programs and still call for lower taxes. The Republicans have sold the base a BS line for as long as I can remember. The Republicans have always claimed they have a magic pony of lower taxes equaling greater tax revenue. Coupled with the argument that all we have to do is clean up government waste by getting the welfare queens, which is how goobers translate government waste.

I think that argument is going to get shoved up their nose. The straight low tax Republicans aren't enough votes to control anything but the country clun board of directors
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<And I still think the best thing Repubs could do is give Obama everything he wants. Everything.
If they did, Obama would go down in history as the man that drove a stake thru the heart of the American Dream.>>>>

As I've said before, Obama's objective is to destroy the USA through bankuptcy, following Reagan's successful ploy vs. the Soviets.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 38
<As I've said before, Obama's objective is to destroy the USA through bankuptcy, following Reagan's successful ploy vs. the Soviets.>

I'm more worried about the secret tunnel he's building to Cuba, which will expedite the Commie invasion.

And don't get me started about what President Obama is putting in the water supply . . .
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
As I've said before, Obama's objective is to destroy the USA through bankuptcy, following Reagan's successful ploy vs. the Soviets.



You've said that more than once? I'm really surprised that anyone would repeatedly say something so stupid, much less admit to it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
As I've said before, Obama's objective is to destroy the USA through bankuptcy, following Reagan's successful ploy vs. the Soviets.

Interesting thought considering it was Bush who crashed the U.S. economy and mired us in... Iraq and Afghanistan.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And don't get me started about what President Obama is putting in the water supply . . .

Some things never change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Interesting thought considering it was Bush who crashed the U.S. economy and mired us in... Iraq and Afghanistan.

The War .. the War ... The war

Fact is, for financial injury to the US economy ,,, the Bush Iraq/Afghan wars were around $800 billion in total .... Obama has spent more than that $800 billion on just one failed stimulus package

Obama would save time by just flushing money and the Constitution down some White House Toilet

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obama isn't going to roll like Clinton did.

I hope you're right.

But, you must admit that it would be somewhat a change in habit for him.

--FY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey Al let me be a little more clear.


I see the Republicans as having two bases. One is the whacko right wing millionaire crowd. John Bircher types who provide the party with most of its funding. There is a very nice quid pro quo for providing this funding expressed in the tax code, farm subsidies, and military spending. (Remember Ike's farewell address?)

Then there are the Teavangies, who are motivated by fear of anything that is even marginally different than they are. They see themselves as under seige by the poor and minorities.

The problem with this coalition is that many of the Teavangies are in the lower income quintiles. They vote agains their economic interests because social issues trump economic issues for them. I am betting they will draw a line, however, at losing SS, Medicare, UEC and Food stamps.

I think that is why Boehner is in a box. Obama is now in a position to call out the establishment Republicans who have used the goobers for years. I think even the dimmest bulbs are going to realize that the Republican establishment is only interested in protecting the interests of the plutocrats. It all depends on Obama displaying the point. He'll mever get the hard core racists like we see on PA, but I think Obama will do very well with his public tour.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
.But, you must admit that it would be somewhat a change in habit for him.


I believe I once referred to Obama as a gutless puddle of puke on these very boards. That touched off a war between Goofyhoofy and myself. I believe Goofy is still in a huff over that spat.

I'm hoping Obama is has been using the Shogun strategy. Be patient and let your enemy sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Fact is, for financial injury to the US economy ,,, the Bush Iraq/Afghan wars were around $800 billion in total .... Obama has spent more than that $800 billion on just one failed stimulus package...

Who said anything about "injury?" We're talking about debt.

Anyway, the wars have cost more like $2.3 trillion so far.

And the $787 billion stimulus package created 2.5 million jobs and added 2-3% to GDP.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Anyway, the wars have cost more like $2.3 trillion so far.

Kool-aid .... Cost of the two wars to date (includes 2008-2012 as well as Bush years)

http://costofwar.com/


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Kool-aid .... Cost of the two wars to date (includes 2008-2012 as well as Bush years)

http://costofwar.com/


Those are direct costs of only the specific war appropriations bills, Bears. They do not include additions to the Pentagon's base budget to cover other war-related costs ($325-$650 Billion), the interest paid on the money that had to be borrowed to pay for the wars ($185 Billion), war-related foreign aid ($74 Billion), Veteran's medical and disability incurred so-far ($32 Billion), projected veterans medical and disability payments to 2051 ($589-$934 Billion), and projected interest costs on all this borrowed money until 2020 ($1 Trillion).

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

Looking at money spent so far, we are definitely already in $2 Trillion territory if you include direct war costs that are not accounted for in the "war appropriations" bills. Long term cost of the wars will easily be more than $4 Trillion, including additional benefits paid to our veterans and interest on the money borrowed to cover the cost of the war.

I don't post this to suggest that all of these expenditures are unnecessary. I don't think we ever should have been in Iraq, but I fully supported the Afghan war and definitely support the military actions we have taken against al Qaeda. But we should be honest with ourselves about the true costs of these actions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And don't get me started about what President Obama is putting in the water supply . . .

You mean the stuff to make the country yield to Islam and Sharia Law? So that we become part of the global Islamic caliphate?

Yeah...scary stuff...time to stock up on guns and get my bunker built...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The problem with this coalition is that many of the Teavangies are in the lower income quintiles. They vote agains their economic interests because social issues trump economic issues for them. I am betting they will draw a line, however, at losing SS, Medicare, UEC and Food stamps.

I understand - and it is a bit of a problem for the GOP. But that's why they've finessed that issue by not calling for the elimination of such programs, but modifications to them. The GOP narrative is to claim that these programs need fundamental structural reform both to be sustainable and to not weaken the overall health of the economy.

But again - that's why the GOP doesn't want to go unilaterally. They don't want to expose themselves to deep political pain unless the Democrats express a willingness to expose themselves to pain as well. That's self-serving and rather unsubtle, but it doesn't stem from the fact that they "don't get it." They get it, alright - and they want to fight it.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement