Is Boehner the worst vote counter ever? Smooth move trying to box Obama into a corner by passing a Plan B with Bush Tax Cuts ending on those making over a million dollars, but then failing to get it passed!http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/21/republicans-plan-showdown-votes-on-fiscal-crisis-over-dem-opposition/

I think Boehner is at the head of what is essentially two parties in the House. He can make traditional Republicans toe the line, but he can't herd the tea party cats. The lack of unity of the Republican's is undermining his ability to negotiate. I think we go over the cliff, and while bad for half a year or so, it won't be so long-term terrible.

I blame Obama.

Me too. He campaigned on $2.5 of spending reduction per $1 of tax increases, and he hasn't even gone $1 to $1. Simpson Bowles was at $3 of spending reduction to $1 tax increases.

So how does that force Boehner to propose a bill he can't even get past his own party?

Perhaps in the same way Obama can't get a budget passing the Senate?

Indeed. Perhaps the common denominator is that Congress is not leadable.

Bush was able to lead it ... often in the wrong direction, but he was able to lead it.

I don't think you're being fair to the president, RJ. Bush was not able to lead on entitlement reform when he tried to privatize social security. Why? Because protecting entitlements is a litmus test for test for Democrats. The same now holds true for Republicans with regard to raising taxes. The president's offer to reduce social security benefits and only not extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making 400k or more did not exactly make his base happy, but we would have tolerated it. The Republicans won't even agree to that. (By the way Boehner has to go as Speaker. He just doesn't have a political IQ. He tried to box Obama into a corner by getting an alternative plan passed, but he should have realized that House Tea Party Republicans are not going to break their pledge of no-taxes unless their is an actual deal in place and not a bill that would not get enacted into law--that would be breaking their pledge for nothing.)

I'm certainly not complementing the Republicans, but Obama's plan is not something that they should agree to. There is a miniscule amount of cutting and a request to extend the debt ceiling for 2 years which takes away the leverage for any spending reduction till 2015, or after the next midterms. If Obama defines his job as weakening the Republicans, he is doing very well. If he defines his job as improving the US economy, not so much. Personally, I'm fine with the tax compromise at $400k or $750k or anywhere in between.

If you haven't seen the movie "Lincoln" - go.
The parallels to Lincolns decision to force a vote on the Amendment to end slavery, in the Lame Duck session of January 1865 has so many parallels to today's situation its astounding.

The Democrats in the House were divided into conservatives and moderates. The Republicans into moderates and radicals. Lincoln had to find a way to stick handle through the mess, confident that having 60 lame duck house members gave him an opportunity to buy or persuade enough to get the amendment passed. And he also knew that if the war ended, the opportunity to pass the amendment would probably be lost, since it was popular only as a war strategy designed to hurt the South...

The fact that today's complex problem is based upon such a little thing as a 3 % tax rise for 2% of tax payers .... and the need to actually identify budget savings - diminishes the comparison. But the problems both Boehner and Obama are having in dealing with unruly congress ... is remarkably similar.

What happens if the date comes and passes? When Congress reconvenes the Democrats offer a bill with a tax reduction for 98% of Americans..... And Republicans gladly vote for it, since they get to vote for a tax cut....
And they can stay loyal to Norquist ....and their silly pledges.
And look like asses for having inconvenienced so many with their intransigence that will create short term chaos for so many programs until a plan can be presented that they can call a tax cut.

rickyp wrote:If you haven't seen the movie "Lincoln" - go.
The parallels to Lincolns decision to force a vote on the Amendment to end slavery, in the Lame Duck session of January 1865 has so many parallels to today's situation its astounding.

The Democrats in the House were divided into conservatives and moderates. The Republicans into moderates and radicals. Lincoln had to find a way to stick handle through the mess, confident that having 60 lame duck house members gave him an opportunity to buy or persuade enough to get the amendment passed. And he also knew that if the war ended, the opportunity to pass the amendment would probably be lost, since it was popular only as a war strategy designed to hurt the South...

The fact that today's complex problem is based upon such a little thing as a 3 % tax rise for 2% of tax payers .... and the need to actually identify budget savings - diminishes the comparison. But the problems both Boehner and Obama are having in dealing with unruly congress ... is remarkably similar.

What happens if the date comes and passes? When Congress reconvenes the Democrats offer a bill with a tax reduction for 98% of Americans..... And Republicans gladly vote for it, since they get to vote for a tax cut....
And they can stay loyal to Norquist ....and their silly pledges.
And look like asses for having inconvenienced so many with their intransigence that will create short term chaos for so many programs until a plan can be presented that they can call a tax cut.

That's as lame a comparison as you could possibly make.

Ending slavery = an increase on the richest 2%, which would make nearly no difference in the overall deficit?

Norquist agreed to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.

The real problem is this: Lincoln led; Obama whines.

What's his "big plan" to get the Debt under control? He has none. Raising taxes AND spending is NOT A PLAN!

$80B a year in "new revenue" and billions more in new spending . . . that's bold leadership a la Lincoln?

Too much rum in your egg nog.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm certainly not complementing the Republicans, but Obama's plan is not something that they should agree to. There is a minuscule amount of cutting and a request to extend the debt ceiling for 2 years which takes away the leverage for any spending reduction till 2015, or after the next midterms. If Obama defines his job as weakening the Republicans, he is doing very well. If he defines his job as improving the US economy, not so much. Personally, I'm fine with the tax compromise at $400k or $750k or anywhere in between.

This confused me because it sounded so Fox News (e.g. Not True.) Everything I was reading was they were 50 billion apart, or about 2%, and according to this table, that's right. Obama's at 2.250 trillion, while Boehner is at 2.30 trillion, and in terms of cuts they're 7.5% apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff#Summary

It seems that the difference between them is pretty small, and I can't see how anyone would call Obama's nearly $0.925 tril in cuts minuscule compared to Boehner's $1 tril in cuts. Where you getting your data from RJ?

I'm under the impression that Obama's "cuts" are mostly things that had been previously agreed as part of other deals or as part of the troop winddown. I'm about to get on an airplane, and will have to provide more detail sometime in the future.

Still not boarding ... from your Wiki cite, $925B of spending reduction and $175B of stimulus for a net savings ofr $750B and additional taxes of $1.2T. It would be worth checking the detail on the $925B of savings ... I'm guessing that most of it is smoke and mirrors. Also, note that the $925B is over 10 years (and back ended) whereas the $175B of stimulus is front ended.