Bush Was Even Worse for the Debt than Obama

[Hauldren Collider]

My dad was in a meeting with a Republican congressmen recently, and the congressman seemed to believe that the debt talks collapsed mainly because the White House forced them to. He claimed that Obama wanted to run on a do-nothing Congress platform, and that would have been impossible if the super committee had worked. This may or may not be true, but it does make sense.

[rah]

Yes both sides are satisfied to run on their current positions. Which is why neither party deserves to be in charge.

[Lorizael]

My dad was in a meeting with a Republican congressmen recently, and the congressman seemed to believe that the debt talks collapsed mainly because the White House forced them to. He claimed that Obama wanted to run on a do-nothing Congress platform, and that would have been impossible if the super committee had worked. This may or may not be true, but it does make sense.

That's interesting, because my father recently had a conversation with a Democrat congressmen who believed it was Congress that was ****ing up the works.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'd name the congressman but I'm not sure I can. I'll ask my dad if it's okay later.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Obama extended the "Bush" tax cuts, so they belong to both presidents now. Just setting the record straight.

It would require a type of testicular fortitude not likely given the pols in office to erase the tax cuts that cause the most damage, namely the 85% that goes to those making less than $200K.

[MikeH]

My dad was in a meeting with a Republican congressmen recently, and the congressman seemed to believe that the debt talks collapsed mainly because the White House forced them to. He claimed that Obama wanted to run on a do-nothing Congress platform, and that would have been impossible if the super committee had worked. This may or may not be true, but it does make sense.

He certainly would have no reason to put a spin on it that would favour the Republicans and Congress does he? Oh... wait.

[MikeH]

May or may not be true, but that certainly doesn't count as evidence either way.

[Hauldren Collider]

Given how the Democrats seem to have walked away from what seems to be a very good deal by Pat Toomey and a few other smaller compromises, it would be very unsurprising if the reason were that Democrats were pressured into scuttling any viable solution. I'm not saying his story is the whole story, but I will eat my own socks if Obama wasn't pressuring the Democratic side in any way.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Course its congress's fault. Obama hasn't been involved at all. Hmm....

[MikeH]

Given how the Democrats seem to have walked away from what seems to be a very good deal by Pat Toomey and a few other smaller compromises, it would be very unsurprising if the reason were that Democrats were pressured into scuttling any viable solution. I'm not saying his story is the whole story, but I will eat my own socks if Obama wasn't pressuring the Democratic side in any way.

I would go as far as to say that if Obama wasn't exerting some kind of pressure he wasn't doing his job properly.

I suspect the Republican Congressman's story is one side of the story, the other side would perhaps have a different view. *shrug*

[Tupac Shakur]

Congress deserves what it gets if it lets a lame-duck president order it to commit electoral suicide for his benefit.

[Tupac Shakur]

I swear I hadn't seen this yet when I made my earlier post about Obama giving up on reelection for the good of the country...

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off. ...

One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be "guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it." The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.

If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html

Hillary! vs. Romney in 2012

[The Mad Monk]

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/

Just setting the record straight

Stipulating that that is true, how does that change any action we need to take today?

[Dinner]

The Dems have been seeking a "grand bargain" for some time, but since the GOP knows they can simply hold out for more, and more, and more... there has been no bargain yet. The Dems compromise, then compromise again, whine some, compromise again, whine some more...

The Super Committee negotiations have shown this to be complete bull****. Toomey offered the Dems $400 billion in increased revenue and they didn't take it.

That's a complete joke. They're offering to close middle class tax deductions but anyone who remembers the last time they made a compromise to end tax deductions (when Clinton insisted on tax reform as part of the welfare reform package) the Republicans added back all the loopholes with in two years of taking Congress. So what they're offering is if Dems agree to cut Social Security and Medicare then the Republicans will temperamentally close some loopholes which they'll just put back in the second they win an election. No thanks.

[Dinner]

Given how the Democrats seem to have walked away from what seems to be a very good deal by Pat Toomey and a few other smaller compromises, it would be very unsurprising if the reason were that Democrats were pressured into scuttling any viable solution.

The Republican "compromise" was a small tax increase on bottom 90% of the population, another massive tax decrease for the top 10% (their rate would have gone all the way down to 28% from the current 35% and the 39% it would be if Congress just did nothing), and actually made the deficit WORSE. This was supposed to be a deficit reduction committee not a tax cuts for the rich committee. Honestly just letting the group fail probably would be the best thing possible from a debt standpoint because it would automatically cut a total of $120 billion per year for 10 years with $40 billion from each Social Security, Medicare, and our bloated military budget. Hell, that's likely what both parties planned all along because it makes big cuts to the sacred cows but allows the politicians to pretend it wasn't their fault. It's the best possible outcome.