freeman2 wrote:GJ was not talking about the average American's impression of the investor class, he was talking about YOUR view (as a fairly typical right-winger). It would thus seem more pertinent to discuss why right-wingers are so protective of Wall Street, rather than discuss the average person's view.

I was talking more about the "job-creator" meme that was so prevalent among the right recently. You know, think about any speech John Boehner's made over the past two years and the way he talks about the job-creators, like they're saints.

geojanes wrote:I was talking more about the "job-creator" meme that was so prevalent among the right recently. You know, think about any speech John Boehner's made over the past two years and the way he talks about the job-creators, like they're saints.

The President won. If he's willing to be reasonable, he'll get most of what he wants. His opening gambit "give me double of what I ran on or else" is not reasonable.

Republicans may get the blame if it goes off the cliff. Heaven knows the press will spin it that way.

However, it's the President's legacy that will be at stake. He's the one who is going to preside over the double-dip recession. Throw in the growing number of States refusing to set up Obamacare exchanges, the chaos in the Middle East, and a trend toward higher unemployment (wait until next Friday), and I think he's the one who is going to be the most hurt by this.

fate

Republicans may get the blame if it goes off the cliff. Heaven knows the press will spin it that way

May?
They lost the election. And they continue to fight against a very popular concept. (Taxing high income earners more) So, if thats spin, its exactly the spin republicans want to project.
Of course they'll get the blame....
And pay for it electorally in the midterms.
Obama is in a no lose situation. Which is why he's digging his heels in. .

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... americans/

Sixty percent of Americans questioned in the poll say they back higher taxes on high earners, with 37% opposed. According to national exit polls from this month's presidential election, an identical 60% said taxes should be raised on incomes over $250,000.

rickyp wrote:fate

Republicans may get the blame if it goes off the cliff. Heaven knows the press will spin it that way

May?
They lost the election. And they continue to fight against a very popular concept. (Taxing high income earners more) So, if thats spin, its exactly the spin republicans want to project.
Of course they'll get the blame....
And pay for it electorally in the midterms.
Obama is in a no lose situation. Which is why he's digging his heels in. .

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... americans/

Sixty percent of Americans questioned in the poll say they back higher taxes on high earners, with 37% opposed. According to national exit polls from this month's presidential election, an identical 60% said taxes should be raised on incomes over $250,000.

Yes, "may."

"No lose situation?"

We'll see. Somehow, most Americans expect their President to not be the whiner in chief.

What he campaigned on, specifically, is not what he offered.

Of course, one would go mad expecting you to traffic in facts.

Not sure why it matters if Obama is after a legacy. He won't be standing on it in 2016. Perhaps another Democrat will be, but why should he really care about that?

What is important is the outcome, not the posturing. Both sides are posturing, but DF seems to want to make it all out to be Obama's fault again. Another 4 years of ODS it seems...

RickyP,
Who do you blame if the country tanks financially if the Rs all abstain? (3rd request... I think the FOIA requests are easier )

I guess the Dems B. But it would ultimately depend on why the economy tanks.
But the Republicans aren't all abstaining are they?

Haven't yet. I think they should. Andrea Tantaros (1st place in the cutest conservative contest , IMHO) wrote the article on that today.

Why does it matter the reason the economy tanks if the Dems get all they want? Shouldn't their plan fix everything?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/30/it-time-for-republicans-to-let-obama-own-fiscal-crisis/

danivon wrote:Not sure why it matters if Obama is after a legacy. He won't be standing on it in 2016. Perhaps another Democrat will be, but why should he really care about that?

What is important is the outcome, not the posturing. Both sides are posturing, but DF seems to want to make it all out to be Obama's fault again. Another 4 years of ODS it seems...

Not really fair, but what else is new?

Look, if I offer you a million bucks for your home and you say "no." Then there's an intervening event and we sit down to negotiate (because you've changed your mind) and I say, "Okay then, half a million--oh, and I'll have your dog and your car too," that might be a deal breaker.

Obama campaigned on $800B in tax increases.

As the NYT article I linked says, he's now asking for twice that, plus an end to oversight on his borrowing authority, plus a few other odds and ends.

You can frame it however you'd like, but there is a reason the Republicans don't think he's serious: because his initial offer is so far off what he campaigned on.

Yeah, why don't Republicans do the nation a service, get out of the way, and let Obama's plan get passed--I'm all for it. And If you let Obama get his way, then you can criticize the Denocrats if it doesn't work, just like they criticized Clinton (oh forgot, the economy was great under Clinton...) See, Bush II got his way, got his tax cuts, got his wars, got huge increases in military budgets and his policies caused huge deficits and the Financial Crisis. So since Bush II's policies were essentially conservative policies you would think they would admit the failure of their ideology. But no, conservatives now seem to recall that they were against Bush II's policies and that the Financial Crisis was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
Yes, conservatives, let us see what we can do with the economy, given that your ideology almost wrecked it.

freeman2 wrote:Yeah, why don't Republicans do the nation a service, get out of the way, and let Obama's plan get passed--I'm all for it. And If you let Obama get his way, then you can criticize the Denocrats if it doesn't work, just like they criticized Clinton (oh forgot, the economy was great under Clinton...)

Your post is boring.

Clinton was great . . . and the dot-com bubble had nothing to do with it? It was because tax rates were higher?

Really?

See, Bush II got his way, got his tax cuts, got his wars, got huge increases in military budgets and his policies caused huge deficits and the Financial Crisis.

Bush inherited a recession.

Bush had to deal with 9/11. Afghanistan was something any President would have had to deal with. Iraq is a different story.

Yes, conservatives, let us see what we can do with the economy, given that your ideology almost wrecked it.

Cheesy and cheap, but so is the idea that jacking up taxes will solve our fiscal problems. The President is talking about raising taxes AND spending, how will that help?

Thanks to RickyP for his answer.

Freeman2 what do you think, if the Rs get out of the way, and the economy tanks, whose fault is it then?

I don't why you seem so certain that the economy is going to tank just because 2 percent of the country sees their tax rates go up 4 percent. But,yeah, if the president gets what he wants with regard to the economy, then he has to own failure should it occur

I am not certain. But I am certain of this. I want the damn partisanship finished where it comes to the budget. This is one way to solve it. Let the Dems have their way, and we will know one way or the other. If it succeeds, great! If it does not, well, we have learned hopefully.

This is why I want to know what the libs here think. Then they could gloat, or hide; as the results would warrant.

Something that the media seems to ignore is that effective 1/1/13 there will be a new tax on investment income of 3.8% for those making more than $250,000. So, in the case of interest, short term capital gains, rents and royalties the wealthy will already within 1.1% be at Clinton rates (35% + 3.8% = 38.5%). If the bush tax cuts expire, they will be at 43.4% for these types of income. When Democrats talk about going back to the Clinton tax rates they aren't being accurate. I think it would be more reasonable to go back to the Clinton rates if we eliminated the additional 3.8% tax of the ACA.