Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog. Please read our site Terms of Use.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

The Current RRH Race Ratings:

Final 2014 Race Ratings

2014 Turkey Awards


Fiscal Cliff Policy Thread

by: shamlet

Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 18:23:40 PM EST


Since this is probably on everyone's mind, let's go for a policy thread -

You're in the negotiating room representing your party in the fiscal cliff talks. What do you do?

As always, please keep it civil.

shamlet :: Fiscal Cliff Policy Thread
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

If I was Boehner
I'd repeat this over and over again.

"We passed a budget. Reid and the Democrat Senate has not even brought one up. Until that happens, there's nothing to talk about."

I'd go over the cliff, and keep mentioning that we did our part and passed the budget. Government hasn't shown it can spend the money properly, and does not deserve extra revenue until it proves that it can handle the trillions of dollars it already takes in.  

Everything on the table for cuts.  

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  


I'd go over the cliff
Republicans will be blamed (rightfully in my opinion, wrongfully in most of yours, but it's reality).  The tax cuts for 250K and less would pass in the new Congress because most Americans support them.  Same with payroll tax cut.  I'd negotiate with Republicans so that half of the sequester goes through (1/2 the military cuts, 1/2 the other cuts), which would make the possible recession resulting from said cuts less brutal. Since Republicans don't want military cuts and Democrats don't want domestic ones, but most on both sides agree cuts have to be made, this seems like a realistic compromise to all but the biggest balanced-budget enthusiasts.  
I'd let the other taxes (estate, income on 250K+) go up because Democrats have the stronger position right now and can allow that to happen.  Unemployment benefits would be the only thing that might not get extended, but I'd hope Republicans would agree to extend them.

I'd use the debt ceiling negotiations as an attempt to make a grand bargain (Republicans have a stronger hand there), but do no such thing with the fiscal cliff.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


the sequester is a bipartisan spending cut
Why create another bipartisan spending cut when you already have one?

People need to stop whining.

28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Well, if you believe that spending cuts
will hurt our economy, but also believe that we need to have some spending cuts as part of reining in our deficit (both of which I believe), then it makes sense to do fewer of them now and more of them later when we've fully recovered (5% unemployment, or at least 6%).

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
the thing is
The 'later' line has been used for at least 5 years.

Congress is much better at increasing spending than it is at reducing it. So, you might as well hack everything by 10% because nobody is willing to propose an equivalent short term alternative.

28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Exactly
Will we ever reach later? I doubt we'll get down to 6% unemployment any time in the next 4 years regardless of how much the government spends.

The increased spending hasn't helped the economy, so it's difficult to see how removing it will hurt. If you believe that government spending is essential for economic growth then you shouldn't cut it. If you believe it doesn't, then you shouldn't hesitate to cut it.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
But if you believe
that both:
a) gov't spending leads to economic growth and
b) deficits matter

you need to strike a balance.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
The ideas are contradictory to me
If government spending leads to economic growth then worrying about deficits leads to stunted growth and the more you spend the better. If deficits matter, then you have to cap spending at a reasonable deficit. The "balance" of the Obama administration has led to poor economic growth that Keynesians attribute to government spending being too low and deficits that critics say are too high. The worst of both worlds.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Well
Let's use a sports example.  In basketball, having a great offense (gov't spending) is very helpful.  If you can score 120 points per game, you'll win most of your games.  However, if you only worry about your offense without practicing defense (responsible budgeting), you will end up losing 150-120.  If you only worry about the defense (deficit), you will lose 80-50.  However, if you reduce your offense a bit and concentrate some on your defense as well, you can win 115-105.  

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Stimulus
Actually I am going to concede to you that some short term stiumulus is good for the economy if done properly.  The problem is the Obama administration has show it is incapable of putting together a responsible stimulus.  

There are roughly over a trillion dollars in large scale infrastructure projects that are on the drawing board but lack funding.  Use 300 billion to move these projects to reality on an expedited time table. Waive EIS and Davis Bacon requirements and make sure the projects are done by a certain date.  

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Davis-Bacon
that's right the point where you'd once again see a united Democratic opposition and hear about the "Republican war against working class families" til the end of times.

Never touch their babies, or they'll lock arms and not move one iota. Somehow, it always works out for them ...

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
Sports Analogy 2.0
Tom Brady restructured his contract to push some of his 2012 cap hit into 2013 and 2014, thus opening the Patriots to retaining some high priced 2012 players.

Well, in 2013 he now has a $22 million cap hit. You can't play the 'later' card in 2013 again or else in 2014 he will take 25% of the salary of your entire team.

28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
I'd do very similarly to what Obama has been doing
Everyone knows he has the upper hand, even Boehner. Boehner asked for the 2011 offer that he previously rejected, but Obama said that "sorry pal, you had your chance". My guess is we will go over the cliff, the Democrats will propose cutting taxes under 250k, and basically dare Republicans to say no. Ultimately the people on the side of inaction generally have the upper hand in negotiations, and in this case more or less, It's Obama.  

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

Here's the problem
You and the President are operating under the paradigm "If the economy goes bad the Republicans will get blamed." And that's a great strategy if you're trying to win an election. Eventually Obama will realize that he doesn't have another election to win and a stagnant economy will be his legacy no matter who the voters want to point a finger at.

In 20 years does he want his Presidency to be remembered as one where nothing was accomplished but maybe people will say it was because the Republicans didn't want to work with him? The economy thrived under Bill Clinton and he got impeached by the Republicans. So it's not like Obama can say the Republicans are different now.

Obama's first term strategy was marked by "I won." He can go that way again, but it'll also be his legacy.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
You put words in my mouth
I do think the spending cuts will hurt the economy to an extent, but not by a ton.

Also, I believe that Obama will be judged on only a couple things in history. 1) the killing of BinLaden. 2) the state of the economy in January 2017 vs. the economy in January 2009. The former is set in stone, the latter is still up in the air.

Republicans lose 100% of what leverage they have if we don't get a deal tomorrow. Taxes go up, and all Democrats have to do is publicly propose lowering taxes on everything under 250k, and Republicans certainly won't overrule that when it comes to a vote. Yes, Democrats have some things they don't want to see cut on the chopping block, but Republican priorities like the military and tax cuts are a disproportionately hampered by the Cliff. The only the Democrats are really jumpy with are the unemployment benefits.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.


[ Parent ]
I apologize for putting words in your mouth
You overrate the importance history will place on killing Bin Laden. He'll be judged on the war against Al Quaeda. I'm not sure Obama will be judged well if we have a sluggish economy for 8 years and recover in 2017, but there's no point in arguing something that can't be settled.

Frankly, if Republicans lose 100% of their leverage tomorrow then they never had any to begin with. If not making a deal was such a big win for the Democrats, why try to make one? That may be why they haven't really pushed for one too hard up until now.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
I'm agreeing with you here
I don't think Bin Laden will matter too much in the end.  Like all presidents, he will be judged on three things:

1) Was the economy strong? So far, evidence is pretty mixed.
2) How did foreign policy go?  So far, I believe he will be judged well here.
3) What transformative laws occurred? Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and potentially immigration reform look like the three big ones here.  Too early to see how they will be judged historically.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
I'd both go over the cliff and put major preconditions on increasing the debt ceiling
such as major immediate spending cuts to entitlements



42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.


My ideas
Since Boehner's "Plan B" was not well-received, I would modify it in the following ways:
1) Raise rates on all incomes above $800,000.00
2) Make significant military cuts (maintaining current spending levels in only a few, if any, areas)
3) Make actual cuts to entitlements, but scale them back somewhat in order to make the deal palatable to enough Democrats for it to narrowly pass the Senate

In exchange for all of this, I would ask that the Democrats do the following:
1) Index the tax rates to inflation
2) Cut regulations
3) Entitlement reform

If they ask me for significant concessions, I would tell them to take it or leave it, and would then make sure voters know exactly what deal the Democrats rejected.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


Give him the 250k tax cut and go home for a month
No reason to fret over anything else.

28, R, PA-07.

Clinton hospitalized again
Let me be the first to state this. She won't run in 2016. She's not healthy.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


Concussions are a serious medical issue
They mess with everything from your equalibrium to your stomach. I hope she gets better soon

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
you aren't the first i've heard it from
That job takes so much out of its appointees anyway.  I don't know if a couple of years is enough time to recover.  I hope she retires and enjoys herself for a while; she deserves a beach house.  And I'm not saying that because of her supposed invincibility in 2012.  

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't say that so soon
The hospitalization is related to the concussion.  This is still all one incident.  I think if she has any hospitalization for an unrelated illness between now and 2015, then I agree with you.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
"Wave your hands in the air like you don't care"
Wave your hands in the air like you don't care, glide by the people as they start to look and stare.

Just kidding.

I'll think about what I want but what I can say for sure is that I do not want taxes on anyone $400k and under going up in any circumstances.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


Stephen Skowronek
What I can say is that his "Political Time" theory is proving to be oh so accurate. No one in the House Democratic Caucus is publicly calling for massive tax increases on a large percentage of Americans so that the government can provide more services and can create jobs (as if the government can do that), an ideal that I'm sure some of the Democratic Caucus and much of the Progressive Caucus believes in. We really still are in the political time of the great Ronald Reagan.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


I think you need a new sig.


Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
It is a new sig
I just put the wrong year in it.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
You probably don't remember
But there was a time when Democrats believed everybody should pay taxes not just the filthy stinking rich. Somewhere along the way the idea that the middle class was paying too much took hold and Democrats had to abandon that idea to win elections.

Democrats are big on saying that people who made $200k per year paid more when Bill Clinton was in office and the country thrived. So did people paying less than $200k per year. If it's a good idea to return to those rates for people making over $200k, why not for everyone?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
That's exactly what I meant (nt)


From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
That's fine with me, it's just not politically popular


Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
I don't know a politician who'd agree
Democrats believe that you can finance benefits for 98% of Americans on the taxes of 2%. I've never seen how this works mathematically.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'm agreeing with you
I want tax increases on more like 50 to 75% of Americans, not 2%.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Taxes were too high during the Clinton years
It's odd to see Democrats now fighting for middle class tax cuts that they mostly opposed in 2001, but they've basically conceded the above point.

28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Some yes, some no
I think the view most Republicans have is a tax is a tax is a tax is a tax. Democrats differentiate one tax from another. Was the estate tax too high in the 90's? It my opinion it was. Was the top income bracket too high? It my opinion no. Is the business tax too high? In my opinion yes. I think the real thing that really draws ire from me and fellow Democrats is the relatively low level of taxation on things like capital gains. If I were rewriting the tax code, I would structure investment income taxes like income taxes where Joe Schmo that puts some money away for retirement doesn't get hit, but the people that get deferred compensation or stock options instead of a $50,000,000 cash bonus does.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Raising capital gains taxes
Democrats don't understand that rich people don't have a pile of cash sitting around waiting for the tax man to ask for it. Capital gains income is income on investments. People have to earn salary to pay their bills, but investment money is mostly discretionary. It's a choice. If the taxes on investment income are too high, people will invest less. No, not everyone, but some people. The riskier investments won't get investors because the upside isn't there.

The problem you have is that people act in their self-interest and don't do what Democrats think they should do.

When Reagan lowered capital gains taxes, investment went up and government income went up. When Clinton raised capital gains taxes, investment went down and government income went down. When Bush lowered capital gains taxes, investment went up and government income went up.

Raising capital gains taxes will suppress investment and may result in lower government revenue. President Obama famously said four years ago that lowering investments and government revenue, and thus hurting the economy, was a risk he wanted to take. That raising capital gains taxes was not about increasing revenue. It was about fairness.

What is government's role? Is it to maximize revenue and spur growth or it is about instilling fairness into society? I'm sure Democrats would like both, but economies don't behave the way you want. People act out of self-interest.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Also not indexed for inflation
Which means that a lot of capital gains, particularly long-term ones, are illusory.  The lower rate is meant to compensate for that.  

[ Parent ]
What I have to say in response
Is likely not appropriate for this forum.

I will, however, say that when Clinton's tax code took effect, government and revenue were at a (then) all-time high, unemployment was at historic lows, and the budget gaps we have seen since he left office were unimaginable. Clinton certainly did not reduce feral revenue.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.


[ Parent ]
What can we do?
Aside from taxes below 250k, is there anything the Ds want to change? Given that we agree on those tax cuts and it'd be suicide to hold them hostage, I'm not sure we can really push much. Whatever leverage we had existed is only before the cliff. Even if there are other things they want changed, it seems for the most part that they wholly coincide with the larger changes that we want.  

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

Go over the cliff, unless
Republicans cave in on the taxes on the rich stuff. This won't go anywhere because both sides don't see "going over the cliff" as enough of a negative to give up on the points they want to press.


Why not an extension?
One thing I don't understand is: Why didn't both chambers of Congress simply pass an extension, saying "yup, we screwed up (again) and have to kick the can down once more, but it's better then to go over the cliff".

I realize that approaching this deadline today puts you in a position of strength and that political gains can be diverse, but come one ... Country first anyone?

And they wonder that Congress is less popular then polygamy.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


Because the going over the cliff isn't as dramatic as
the word makes it sound. It won't be the end of the country or anything. There will be some economic losses in 2013 through it-- economists project something like a negative 1% effect on GDP for 2013, nearly nothing afterwards--, but in a way it fixes a lot of systemic problems by throwing the Bush tax cuts overboard.

Honestly, even from a pure policy perspective, disregarding partisan implications, going over the cliff is probably my second favorite solution-- second to a full Republican cave-in.  


[ Parent ]
Tend to agree
Ironically enough, going over the cliff brings the budget into balance quicker than anything else being seriously proposed.  Right now our focus should be on preserving our credit rating and balancing the budget.

More importantly, I think going over the cliff has good implications for both parties.  It will show the world will not end if taxes are raised and spending is cut.  

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Over the cliff, for sure
My strategy:

1) Appear to negotiate in good faith, make sure to insist on a 'poison pill' for the GOP.

2) Put a New Year's Eve bill on the Senate floor that fixes the 'fiscal cliff' however it suits Democrats to do so.

3) Go over the 'fiscal cliff' that Republicans insisted on creating during the 2011 debt-ceiling standoff.

4) Pass mostly stand-alone bills in the Senate to fix each piece of the 'fiscal cliff' one at a time.

* This part is very important. The Senate should not pass a comprehensive fix after Jan 1. It should be a series of individual bills.

a) Cut taxes on incomes under $250,000.

b) Extend the payroll tax cut.

c) Extend unemployment benefits.

d) Pass a fix to keep the AMT from hitting the middle class.

e) Fix the marriage penalty.

f) Re-increase the Child Tax Credit & the Earned Income Tax Credit.

** If any of items a-f fail to pass, attach them to subsequent tax reduction bills.

g) Pass an Education Bill that restores the college tax rebate and reverses cuts to Financial Aid, Special Ed funding, Head Start, and ESEA (particularly school lunches). This one should also restore HHS funding (e.g., cancer & HIV research, maternal care grants, child immunization subsidies, etc.)

h) Pass a 'doc fix' for reimbursement to Medicare providers.

i) Pass a Farm Bill to keep milk from going to $8 a gallon.

j) A 'mop-up' bill to reverse cuts to the National Park Service, Customs & Border Protection, the Federal Courts, etc.

k) Pass a Defense Bill that funds the Joint Strike Fighter, restores the pay raise for military personnel, restores the Veterans Administration budget, restores funding for next-generation bombers and subs, and restores modernization funding for ground combat vehicles and Army helicopters.

** Attach any of items g-j that fail on their own to the Defense Bill.

5) Let Republicans block whatever they see fit from the above. The more votes, the better.

Democrat, NC-11


Debt ceiling increase
Oh, I forgot the debt ceiling. Just attach that to every one of the above bills until it passes, or not.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Eliminate baseline budgeting
That should be the #1 goal for Republicans.  I'd attach it to any debt ceiling increase.  But that's for a later date, I suppose.  

It's not enough to simply "cut" entitlements.  They must be reformed.  That was the point of the GOP resistance to Obamacare's changes to Medicare (even if it was communicated terribly) - simply cutting payments to hospitals, but nothing else, is a recipe for disaster.  Reforming the CPI is a good start (gotta start somewhere, and you need Dem cover if you do that) but insufficient.  Unfortunately it seems even that is no longer on the table.  If not, then I say go over the cliff.  


yes, baseline budgeting is a crock of bull
According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was not cut by $1 trillion in 2011. In fact, in fiscal 2010, federal spending was $3,456,213,000,000. In fiscal 2011, federal spending was $3,603,213,000,000. That was an increase of $147 billion.

This from a guy who claims he cut spending. Real spending cuts are real spending cuts, and some imagined 'war savings' in the year 2020 are just a way to gimmick the numbers.



28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
agreed


42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
Go over the cliff
and stay there. This is, in all likelihood, the best opportunity to start to get our budget house in order. Some mild austerity now is far better than becoming Greece later. If Republicans are the party of Fiscal Responsibility and not just of Tax Cuts, this would be the time to show that we're really the ones committed to responsible budgeting. Also, it would be a major help (as that columnist said, forget who it was) to actually force people to consider the cost of big government.

If I were Boehner/McConnell, I'd be in talks with Sanders et al. to try and get them to vote against any solution whatsoever. That way we can sell it as a "bipartisan way to cut the deficit while protecting Social Security and Medicare." So far a left-wing version of austerity is working for Jerry Brown. I think we could make a more center-right (i.e. more spending cut heavy and sans trains to nowhere) version work on the national level.

R - MD-7


McConnell and Biden appear to be close to a deal
Somewhere between $450 and $550k.

Meanwhile, the farm bill is stuck due to food stamps and somebody trying to protect his pork.

28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Obama and Republicans
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Perhaps someday the Obama administration will learn that continually bashing and pointing fingers at Republicans isn't a good way to get them to work with you. Assuming he actually does want to work with them instead of wanting gridlock.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


Is Schweitzer now DOA in the 2016 primary?
http://watchdog.org/64856/mont...

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


No
But he's a long shot regardless.  This a bunch of Malarkey, but I wouldn't let it stop me from supporting him.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
No
memories fade, and at the end of the day there are still enough pro-gun Dems to win 35% in Iowa.

If anything this makes him more attractive as a VP pick, considering the nominee is very likely to be a pro-gun control Northeasterner.

R - MD-7


[ Parent ]
Will definitely hurt him IIRC
It will be brought up in a debate and ads.
How much is an open question. But after Newton, it's a big problem for a D running for national D votes.
Just like after WI, even if it faded already, not supporting RTW and Walker reforms causes the candidate to be DOA in a GOP primary.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
IMO
Automatic finger typing to blame...

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
But he's not running for national votes
Schweitzer is an Iowa-only candidate... i.e. he needs to win Iowa and then roll forward on momentum alone. Iowa has enough pro-gun Dems for him to win. Then he just needs to hunker down for the next 4, lower expectations, and hope multiple candidates split the vote - say (just throwing names out) Cuomo in NH and FL, and O'Malley in SC and NV, or something like that. That will still punch his ticket to Super Tuesday. From there he needs to focus on racking up delegates in the Mountain West, Midwest, and Appalachia.

It's a long shot strategy but Schweitzer was always going to be a dark horse.  

R - MD-7


[ Parent ]
People consider the full package
If Schweitzer runs as the the candidate of sunday morning talk shows, and emphasizes his support of the second amendment and oil drilling, it would be a problem; if he waffles on gun control, and is willing to run to the left on other issues, there's a path in the primary for him.

This is the same discussion as the one yesterday about social conservatives winning in New England; in politics, deemphasizing a position people disagree with can often amount to not having that position. He won't win the people for whom gun control is the #1 issue, but if he's quietly pro-gun, people will consider him in the frame of what matters most to them. No one position is usually killer for any candidate.

(-10.00, -3.49), libertarian socialist, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy."



-- Stanisław Lem


[ Parent ]
I doubt the 2016 nominee for the Democrats will be from the Northeast
Look at who the Democrats have there. Unless you're thinking it'll be Cuomo, Gillibrand, or O'Malley, I don't see any other candidates that will come out of that region. The bench seems to be much deeper in terms of national candidates out west and in the Midwest. Brown, Nixon, Klobuchar, Schweitzer, Udall (2X), or one of the new Hawaiian senators seem to be much more likely.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Cuomo, Gillibrand, O'Malley, Warren, Shumlin, Patrick
and I count Warner as a cultural northeasterner too.

Nixon is running for Senate. Klobuchar doesn't have the fire in the belly, the Udalls are too anonymous and the Hawaiian Senators are planning to stay for a generation.

The only non-Northeast candidates besides Schweitzer that I'd give more than 5% odds to run and be any sort of a factor are Sherrod Brown and Hickenlooper.

R - MD-7


[ Parent ]
No?
It might not play well with his current base within the party, but I'm sure there are plenty of suburban and inner-city leftists who agree with that sentiment. Of course, those voters break with Schweitzer on so much else, I wonder if he could ever win a significant portion of those voters in a Democratic primary -- so I do think there's a question of whether this helps him. But I really, really don't think he's "dead on arrival" in a Democratic primary; either for opposing gun control, or supporting further regulating video game content.

He's not going to be the entertainment industry's favorite candidate, but he wouldn't have been that anyways.

(-10.00, -3.49), libertarian socialist, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy."



-- Stanisław Lem


[ Parent ]
He was never more than a potential veep pick, anyway
As if the progressive blogosphere would ever embrace a pro-gun rights contender atop the ticket. I could, however, see him accepted as a liberal nominee's number two. Even Hillary would probably consider him.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Jeb 2016. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
Over the cliff
I don't have time to go into detail on what I'd do but any long term solution that will actually work begins by going over the cliff. I really don't care if we get blamed for it.

The only way to win is not to play!
This whole debate is rigged against the GOP. They've been painted as fighting to cut spending on all Americans to support tax cuts for the rich. When in truth what they need to be doing is making a supply side arguement about how to GROW the economy. If I was in the room I would play the Wild Card. When in doubt blame the IRS. I would push for the complete scrapping of the current tax code and replace it with a new simpler tax rate. I would make the arguement that with in the context of a complex 72,000 page tax code filled with every loophole imaginable that raising rates will not nessisarly generate more revenue. I would push the GOP policy position to one of total opposition to the current system, push for a temporary 1 yr extension of current rates in conjuction with the formation of a new Super Committee to re-write the entire US tax code with the code of making it simpler and flatter.

well, they have a deal
Under the emerging deal, income taxes would rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent on income over $400,000 for single people and $450,000 for couples. Above those income levels, dividends and capital gains tax rates would also rise, to 20 percent from 15 percent.

The estate tax would also rise, but considerably less than Democrats had wanted. The value of estates over $5 million would be taxed at 40 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Democrats had wanted a 45 percent rate on inheritances larger than $3.5 million.

Under the deal, the new rates on income, investment and inheritances would be permanent.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats would be granted a five-year extension of tax cuts they won in the 2009 stimulus law for middle-class and working-poor taxpayers. Those include a child credit that goes out as a check to workers who do not earn enough money to pay income taxes, an expanded earned income credit and a refundable credit for tuition.

Democrats also secured a full year's extension of unemployment insurance without strings attached, a $30 billion cost.

All combined, the official said, the new package would raise about $600 billion over 10 years, compared to the revenue generated if current tax levels were simply extended. That, he said, is 85 percent of the revenue Democrats had wanted to raise under Mr. Obama's initial proposal, which would have raised around $700 billion.

28, R, PA-07.


Any word on the cuts side of the deal?


I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
as far as I can tell, nothing
NT.

28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Twitter reaction to Obama press conference
Aaron Blake ‏@FixAaron
Twitter's reaction to Obama's remarks = big thumbs down

Larry Sabato ‏@LarrySabato
Not sure a partisan pep rally helped. Maybe POTUS is trying to nudge liberal Ds who are upset.

Stuart Rothenberg ‏@StuPolitics
President picking another fight with GOPers even before the current deal is set. Oh great....

Guy Benson ‏@guypbenson
What does repeatedly antagonizing Congressional Republicans accomplish here? GOP making virtually every concession here.

David Harsanyi ‏@davidharsanyi
didn't O just make it more difficult for Republicans to agree to a deal?

Zac McCrary ‏@ZacMcCrary
The skillful White House advance staff was able to quickly secure audience from Bill Maher show for the Obama press conference.

Josh Holmes ‏@HolmesJosh
Potus just moved the goalpost again. Significantly. This is new

Sally Canfield ‏@TheLifeofSally
Seriously. I don't get this. They are still trying to negotiate & all he is doing is rubbing the situation in everyone's noses. Not helpful

Ezra Klein ‏@ezraklein
Obama isn't making it easier for R's to vote for this deal. But WH probably thinks that if R's kill it, they get all the fiscal cliff blame.

Doug Heye ‏@DougHeye
If Obama's goal was to harm the process and make going over the cliff more likely, he's succeeding.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


that's why the sequester needs to stay
You give this guy tax increases and he just wants to undo the spending cuts in a 'balanced' way with more tax increases.

One wonders what the prior tax increases were.



28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
agreed
no deal is preferable to any that would eliminate the sequester without dollar for dollar spending cuts to whats in them.

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
McConnell claims deal very close
McConnell claimed on CNN that a deal is very close. The tax side of the equation seems to be pretty much settled as the entry above spelling out the details indicated. Still not clear on what will happen with cuts.  Last I heard Reps wanted to postpone the cuts for 3 months the Dems for a year.  

I also understand that the issue of changing the  "inflation rate formula" to make cost of living increases for SS recipients lower has been dropped.  Frankly since SS is funded from a separate tax and has its own trust fund, I don't consider lowering the cost of living increases for SS recipients to be a real cut in federal spending.  In a unified budget it looks like a decrease in federal spending but in reality it is a separate pension plan.  In other words it really has nothing to do with federal spending funded from personal income or corporate taxes.  So it looks like a spending cut but when you really look at it you are dealing with something separate and apart.


So the deal is tax increases for no cuts
And people wonder why the tea party exists.

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
it's actually negative spending cuts
There's $30 billion for Medicare docs, and $30 billion for 'temporary' extended unemployment (that has been there since 2007).

Tack on $60 billion for Sandy and there's your entire 2013 -$120 billion sequester.

28, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Deal Tommorrow
So it looks like the House won't vote on the deal thats close tonight.

Now obviously they can do things retroactively, but do these then technically become the Obama tax cuts especially since they are different and permanent?  Or does the MSM still go with Bush tax cuts?  Does it even matter?

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


The NYT is reporting that the tax increases
above $400K, the tax increases on investments, and the estate tax increase are permanent.

[ Parent ]
AMT
I hope they include a permanent fix for the AMT. It's somewhat ridiculous how they keep passing temporary fixes when there's no chance they'll ever let it slide down the income scale.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
that is apprently inculded in the deal


42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
WTF
Estate tax increase? I want the estate tax gone.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
Estate tax
I think they are doing it at 40% on 5 million+. Clinton era was 55% on 1 million+. Obama wanted 45% on 3.5 million+. McConnell wanted 35% on 5 million+.


[ Parent ]
It's one of the less-bad taxes
All it disincentivizes is dying.

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
Estate tax
The federal estate tax a great big "f*** you" to people who worked over a lifetime to earn their life's money. The government doesn't tax 40% of your belongings and I sure as hell think it's completely ridiculous that it gets to take a great big bite out of one's lifetime earnings after they die. It had enough chances to suck away money to waste over the lifetime of the deceased earner.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
40% might be too high
But I don't really see it as a problem if it were taxed at normal income tax rates. If some dying person paid their heirs a salary consisting of their entire estate it'd fall under those rules. To the extent you buy that redistribution has some social good, the estate tax performs the function better than regular income taxes.  

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
main problem is with farms and other property
It's a tax on the worth of the assets; which in case of farm have to be sold to raise the money to pay the tax, when the person didn't spend lawyer fees to arrange a trust.

(Which amounts to having the estate tax is a pay-back to lawyers)

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.


[ Parent ]
Maybe as a lawyer that's OK to me
The laissez-faire answer is that some investor will pay the tax for tax+nominal% of the farm, but of course that won't always happen

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
*semi-laissez faire
Sorry for the double correction in a night

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
It also disincentives saving and frugality
There is much too much of that in the tax code already.  


[ Parent ]
Fair enough
Since they can't raise the interest rate, the easiest way for Congress/Obama to fix the lack of savings would be to fix the higher education problem. Most other major credit markets have been deleveraging while student debt continues to skyrocket in the depression, not coincidentally most of that debt is owed to the government and can't be discharged in bankruptcy.  

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
* recession - nt


Libertarian-R New MA-5.  

[ Parent ]
I tend to agree
The estate tax is easy to avoid and anyone with a half-decent attorney can avoid the estate tax.  

In many respects, the bigger worry for most people is Medicaid eligibility testing.  If you are really concerned about peoples fortunes, look at Medicaid eligibility.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
The MSM only called tax cuts for those making $250k+ Bush tax cuts
And those are going away. The MSM has always called the tax cuts for those making less just tax cuts. No reason that'll change, although they could just credit them to Obama.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Defense Cuts
Will the Sequester defense cuts be drastic like take DOD back to 2002 levels?  Or are we talking back to 2008 levels?

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

DoD cuts
It would take it back to roughly 2006 levels. It's already projected to be at 2008 levels by 2014. However, the main difference is that those cuts are primarily from overseas operations (i.e., ending the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan) rather than from cutting contracts for military hardware.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Path forward in nutshell
As long as US interest rates stay low, real spending reduction is NOT going to come in Washington, because 50%+ people do not want any spending reduction, plain and simple and interest costs don't overwhelm rest of budget.  Unfortunately it means a Greece/Spain like situation in future.

My guess as to when this happens is when US generally ceases to become the policemen of the world.  The reserve currency status goes hand in hand with global policemen status.  Loose one and loose another.....that's just my hunch.

Republicans should realize this and stop shooting themselves in foot.  Anybody wonder how Republicans have not been able to come with any substantial and specific cuts (except maybe voucher option in Medicare?  Waste and fraud is a sham way to say it.  

42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10


Nobody wants anything
As I put it on the phone to a friend today, Americans are truly conservative.  They are opposed to change in any way!

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
The GOP got rolled and Democrats don't like it
The deal, as I understand it, is one that Republicans have to vote to increase taxes, just not on people making between $250k and $450k. They have to vote to raise the estate tax, just not as high as it would've gone up. They've given Obama unemployment benefits and tax cuts for people who pay no taxes. There are no spending cuts. Republicans got virtually nothing and Obama got almost everything.

I don't know what our Democratic friends here think, but Paul Krugman is upset because apparently not getting everything means they lost.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


I would vote for this deal.
Then again, until about 4 weeks ago I would have strongly considered voting for Rick Snyder if I lived in Michigan.

Mainstream Dem.  

[ Parent ]
Why wouldn't you vote for this deal?
You get almost all the taxes you want and you get unemployment benefits and tax cuts for who pay no income tax that'll result in checks sent to them. The final bill is likely to be loaded with things no Republicans would ever vote for and you get the added benefit of Republicans voting to increase people's taxes. That wouldn't happen if there was no deal.

I don't see the downside for Democrats.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
I said I would vote the deal.
??


Mainstream Dem.  

[ Parent ]
All the taxes!!!
Pleeeease stop this all the taxes stuff.  If all Bush tax cuts were allowed to lapse, it would generate something like $2T+ over 10 years, the $450k threshold gets that down to $600B, we are able to keep over 2/3'rd of the tax cut intact forever, with 1/3'rd of power in DC, I take that as a victory with the week hand we have.


42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10

[ Parent ]
One more point.
If you take a look at arc of political back-and-forth on taxes since the 60s, we have basically moved the acceptable threshold for tax increases to $250k, basically a big majority of people will agree to tax increases only if they apply to somebody else, Republicans need to recognize this and play it to their advantage.  This is because the welfare state being set up by Obama requires vastly more tax revenue, and the only logical source of that is people making below $250K.  You already have democratic think tanks starting to put feelers on things like VAT, which is another way to get this tax rev.  This is a huge Republican opportunity looking forward when D's start to move the needle below $250K.  This is why I wish the $250K or $450K threshold is off the table as soon as possible, as much as it hurts to send more money to a pit hole called DC, it's a drop in the bucket or what's needed by the welfare state going forward.  

42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10

[ Parent ]
+1
NT

28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
That's what Obama wants
Obama doesn't want the taxes to go up on people making under $250k. So not raising taxes on them isn't a GOP victory. It's giving Obama what he wants. Not raising taxes on people making $250k-$450k isn't a win either. If Republicans believe in not raising taxes on anyone than raising taxes on anyone, those making more than $450k, is a loss. If Republicans believe raising taxes on rich people will hurt the economy, then raising taxes on rich people is a loss and the economy will suffer.

By voting for this bill, Republicans are hypocrites and voting for the very thing they say will harm the economy.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
2014 elections
Am I the only one who thinks Democrats will run against incumbent Republicans with "He said he wouldn't raise taxes. He signed a pledge. He voted to raise taxes. Can you trust [incumbent Republican]?"

Any Republican who votes for this is going to be very vulnerable in 2014.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


Unless
those Democrats also oppose tax increases, I don't see how that argument works unless you are mostly trying to suppress Republican turnout. I think it's tough to make it into solely an honesty issue. Any such Republican would be most vulnerable in a Republican primary.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
A Superpac can run the ad
It doesn't matter if the Democrat supports tax increases. You elect Republicans to keep your taxes low. If they vote to raise your taxes, just as a Democrat would, then why vote Republican? And the honesty thing can be huge.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I don't really see it
I think whatever problems the GOP has based on this vote will be in the primaries, not in the general election. If a Republican is worried about the general election, then the thing to do is vote for the deal.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Think about 2006
In 2006 Democrats ran against Republicans by calling them big spenders who rang up huge deficits. They ran against Medicare Part D as a huge government program. This is the party that never had a surplus any year they controlled the House and always supported government programs. They ran against Republicans raising the debt ceiling, calling deficits irresponsible. And it was a great weapon, as people couldn't see a reason to vote for a Republican who was just going to spend their money when a Democrat could do it better.

Voting for the deal will be just like 2006 in that it'll give any Democrat something to run against the Republican. Who wouldn't want to run against a Republican who votes to raise taxes?  It'll be very beneficial for your party, just as it was then. I can see why you'd advocate a Republican to vote for this deal.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
No
This vote is not for tax increase, its to keep taxes from going up, a avg voter gets this.

42, Hardcore R Except Abortion & Gay Marriage, CA-10

agreed with this part


42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
Semantics
You're assuming the average voter will understand complicated issues. Ads are very simple. "He voted to kill Medicare." We all know that no Republican voted to kill Medicare. That didn't matter. We know that Ryan was using cuts to Medicare that Democrats supported. That didn't matter either.

They are voting for a tax increase. The average voter will hear that Republicans voted for a bill that allows taxes to go up on those making $450k+. Democrats will run with this in all their ads in 2014 and it'll really hurt any Republican who votes for it.

Republicans not only get nothing in this but they hand Democrats an electoral talking point on a silver platter. The DCCC will be popping Champagne tonight. Well, they already were but you get the point.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Politico sees it as one sided
http://www.politico.com/story/...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

5R & 3D against
Five Republicans and three Democrats voted against the deal in the Senate:

Grassley (R-IA), Lee (R-UT), Paul (R-KY), Rubio (R-FL), Shelby (R-AL)

Bennet (D-CO), Carper (D-DE), Harkin (D-IA)

Three Senators skipped the vote:

DeMint (R-SC), Kirk (R-IL), Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
Dem votes
Any theories why the Dems opposed it?  Seems like an odd bunch to me.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
Harkin thought it wasn't a good deal.
Opposed it from the left. Not sure on the other two.

Mainstream Dem.  

[ Parent ]
Harkin from the left; Bennet, Carper, from the right
Harkin gave a brief floor speech condemning the deal as permanent tax relief for the upper class. Bennet and Carper released statements criticizing the deal for not sufficiently cutting the deficit.

(-10.00, -3.49), libertarian socialist, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy."



-- Stanisław Lem


[ Parent ]
Bennet
Wonder if being in charge of senatorial committee also played part?

This is bad bill. You do not vote for tax increases without cutting spending first.


[ Parent ]
One thing to note
$200,000 and $250,000 in 1993 are now $319,000 and $398,000 respectively, in today's dollars.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


details of Senate passed bill
Income tax rate: Extended but only up to 400K for singles / 450K couples

Article I'm looking at does not state how long the length is for

Estate tax increased to 40%. (I'm not sure if this is "permenant" or a temporary rate scheduled to go up in a few years without further action)

Capital Gains & Dividends went up from 15% to 20%. (I'm not sure if this is "permenant" or a temporary rate scheduled to go up in a few years without further action)

AMT: Permanently fixed with index added.

Accelerated Business depreciation extended for one year.

Obama's payroll tax cut expired; most other Obama initated temporary tax breaks extended for five years.

Spending increases:

The annual "medicare payment fix" extended for one year

Unemployment benefits extended for yet another year

Sequestion delayed for two months

Pay-go for sequestion:
"Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs"

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.


Drudge is headlining...
NEW REPUBLICAN MATH: $1 IN CUTS FOR EVERY $41 IN TAXES

Yesterday on this thread I was going to suggest a possible strategy for the Republicans.  Keep playing/referencing the clips of Obama from the debate mocking the Republicans for not accepting $10 in cuts for $1 in taxes.  Tell him you'll take the 5 for 1 or 2 for 1 you were begging for in the debate (call his bluff), and paint him as a unfair negotiator who was misleading voters in the debate in order to win re-election.


[ Parent ]
ratio confirmed on foxnews channel
The 24 Billion referenced above is split 16 Billion of replacement cuts and 8 Billion expected income from change in rules about converting IRAs to Roth IRAs.

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
Sequester
Does anyone seriously  believe the sequester will not happen now? The Democrats have nothing to leverage against the Republicans.  

28, Republican, PA-6

The odds are roughly 0%
It definitely won't happen. The military programs I specified above aren't my arbitrary selections. They're what the Pentagon has identified as where the cuts will come from. It's no accident that they've spread around the pain as much as possible.

What Sequestration Really Means

The Democrats will not restore this funding without a restoration of the other funding that I also specified above, which is also drawn directly from what those Departments have identified as where their cuts will come from.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
Democrats prefer the sequester to alternative spending cuts
As any alternative to the military cut would be domestic cuts.

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
Votes on the bill
Jason Chaffetz ‏@jasoninthehouse
Without substantial, real first year cuts in spending I can't vote for the bill passed by the Senate late last night.

Senator Bennet
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Senator Rubio
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


The 8 no votes
Democrats:

Harkin - He was railing against the bill from the left.. Electorally you can read that two ways: either he's trying to boost his fundraising from the netroots or he's retiring and doesn't give a hoot.

Bennet - I think this is Bennet trying to temper his DSCC partisanship because he's still not out of the woods in 2016 if he doesn't preserve some aura of moderation.

Carper = I think this one is out of conscience as he's not at all vulnerable and probably on his last term anyway.

Republicans:

Paul & Lee - no way any package was getting their votes.

Rubio - When you're vote doesn't matter and you have national ambitions this is a good place to stand on principle.

Grassley - Probably a vote on principle as he's devoted his life to the budget and is likely in his last term.

Shelby - This is the one that surprises me the most, as he's generally been on the fiscal left of the R caucus. But he's not at any primary risk either.

Also, why did Lautenberg not vote?

R - MD-7


Lautenberg has the Flu
http://politicsandpolls.com/pl...

19, Republican, KS-03
Standing strong with Senator Roberts and Governor Brownback.


[ Parent ]
Cantor a No
Boehner laying out options as well according to twitter

Starting to doubt this passes the house.  

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


i think it squeaks by in the 250-300 range
nt

28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Are you saying
Boehner will pass the bill mainly with the votes of Democrats?

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
I think half the Republicans will vote for it, and about 2/3 of Democrats


I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
That would be interesting
It'd mean Boehner putting the bill on the floor without being sure whether a majority of the House GOP would end up voting for it, or whether a majority of Yeas come from Democrats.

At those exact ratios, it'd mean passage with 248 votes, 126 Democrats and 122 Republicans.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
heh
Turns out that was accurate.

28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
no surpize
Mom and Dad would both have been No votes

Even in my own district; (MO-02) all the political risk would be on voting yes.

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.


[ Parent ]
Hastert Rule
It does look like Boehner would have to break with the Hastert Rule to pass this thing ... not sure if he's ready to do just that. Personally, I think he should have done that with Plan B and dared the House Dems to vote against something they've supported previously.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
Cantor AND Boehner against the bill?
Reading two tweets from Todd Starnes (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/01/fiscal-cliff-does-boehner-have-the-votes/), both Boehner and Cantor are against the Senate bill and that there may be as few as 30 Republicans willing to vote for it.

I must say I haven't spent much time reading through the details of the Senate bill and I may be wrong, but I think Republicans in the House would be well served to vote for the deal, count their blessings and move on to the next looming battles ...  

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


If that's true
There will be zero Republicans voting for it because there's virtually no way it'll come to the floor, and if it does it'll be guaranteed to fail, so no Republican in his or her right mind will vote to pass it.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
OH-8
I'm coming to the conclusion that a lot of signs are pointing towards a Boehner retirement in 2014. He seems to be genuinely worn down by this mess, and I think Cantor voting no is in preparation for staving off a challenge from the right next congress after losing a lot of credibility.

R - MD-7

Agreed
I thought the very same thing just a few minutes ago. I surely wouldn't blame him ...  

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
If Boehner goes because of failed leadership
There will be bigger wholesale changes including Cantor. McCarthy seems like the only competent one of the group, although I think a more charismatic leader would be better for the party.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

[ Parent ]
Not McCarthy
Not now, not ever. He got his position by doling out campaign money early on, it seems. I get the feeling he's not super well liked amongst the caucus.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
McCarthy
McCarthy got his position because everyone knew him and wanted him as the Whip. He was minority leader in the California assembly for the same reason. No one has an unkind word for him. Even Karen Bass compliments him. I've met a lot of congressmen and candidates over the last several years and McCarthy is one of the most likable if not the most.

McCarthy was responsible for recruiting a lot of the current freshmen class. While I'm sure they appreciate the NRCC's money, his contribution to their campaigns went so far beyond that. The guy would give you the shirt off his back and they know that.


R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
I beg to differ
There are more than a few people who dislike McCarthy within his own district and within the caucus. Maybe we just talk to different people.

21-Cubano, R, CA-38
Community College Trustee, City Commission Vice-Chair, College Republican Club President


[ Parent ]
Bingo
I won't say more than "bingo."

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
Sure
I'm pretty sure with 700,000 people in McCarthy's district and 240 people in his caucus we have talked to different people. Everyone has people who dislike them and I'm sure there are people who don't say publicly what they feel.

That said, no one I know has ever had to say anything that wasn't completely complimentary about McCarthy. I stand by my interactions with him and others in the caucus.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
My Democratic friend, who is a McCarthy
constituent, had nothing bad to say about McCarthy as a person.  And my ex girlfriend has met him and likes him.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
I'm thinking more if he leaves of his own volition in 2014
it's possible there could be a smooth shift to Cantor in that case.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Cantor
Given our choices, I don't think Cantor would be our best choice to replace Boehner either. From what I've heard, he'd likely be as divisive and polarizing as Newt Gingrich was as speaker. I would suggest, instead, that Jeb Hensarling, who is just as conservative as Cantor, if not moreso, and possesses a much better personality, be Boehner's successor.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
Boom
I'd love a Hensarling/Roskam one/two punch. Who would be Whip?

From IL-09, Living in PA-07.
Sold on Bob Dold!


[ Parent ]
Possible Whips
If he can't run statewide (either for Senate or Governor) in '14, then I'd love to see Tom Cotton as Whip, so he can gain a little more visibility in a leadership role.

If Cotton does run statewide in '14, then perhaps Pete Sessions ,because of how he relentlessly discouraged retirements in tough seats as NRCC chair.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


[ Parent ]
Walden
Need something of an olive branch to the old guard.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Agreed very much so
If Boehner takes his hat today over this (who could blame him), Cantor should be the one of the last people to get near the gavel. I'd very much prefer Hensarling ... he has the PR capability and I think good standing with the Caucus.

Anyone thinking that McMorris Rodgers could get it? The PR point would be the first female Republican Speaker, however, I have to admit that I don't know much about her standing with the Caucus (incoming Conference Chair, but maybe not so much supported by the conservative crowd) and her abilities to lead a House like this. And electing her for the sake of PR would not be the smartest move on earth.

But if Boehner goes, I'm pretty dead sure that Cantor will step up ... no affairs, or something like that to prevent him from moving up, like it happened to Livingston.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
I'm fine with McMorris Rodgers
But she voted for the fiscal cliff package, so I'm skeptical many conservatives would be very enthused.

Anyone but Cantor.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Jeb 2016. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast


[ Parent ]
This looks dead
Spencer Bacchus saying he'd be shocked if it wasn't sent back to the senate and that would Kill the deal.  

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

Headdesk ...
The Politico article (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/01/fiscal-cliff-does-boehner-have-the-votes/) says that there is some regret among Republicans for defeating Plan B. Oh, really now? You've got to be kidding me ...  

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
I must say
They're basically right about the sequester. The Pentagon doesn't just flip on a dime. Are they supposed to proceed as if the sequester won't happen or are they supposed to proceed as if it will? There's not really a middle path that isn't a big huge mess.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Leadership elections on Thursday
Consequences of this disaster left aside, I'd pay real money to be inside these meetings ...

http://hotair.com/archives/201...

Quite honestly, after Cantor openly saying that he won't support it into Boehner's face and House conservatives being thrilled with that, I could see Boehner packing up and leaving. What kind of masochism is required to lead a House like this?

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


Good, let the deal fail
Letting the cuts and taxes just happen is better than any "deal" that will ever be reached.

And Boehner needs to go. With or without this thing passing. He has no leadership abilities and he's no conservative.

Saint Paul (MN-4)  


I agree on Boehner's leadership
Ineffective leader of the caucus and ineffective at PR for the party. I'm mostly OK with him politically, but as a Speaker he's really been pretty much a failure.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
Agree as well.
Boehner has let Obama maneuver him and his caucus into a political cul-de-sac that was clearly visible for months. There's no clean way out now. He must go.
Pass this monstrosity of a "deal", ditch Boehner, and then spend the next two months raising holy hell over the debt limit--because that's where the real fight is.

R/MA-9; hometown CT-2; lonely MSM conservative.

[ Parent ]
Another thing
I get tired of hearing from some in the media about how the House GOP needs to pass something, even a bad bill because they will get blamed if nothing passes. This sounds like what we were told about the stimulus and the health care bill-that the united Republican front against them was going to hurt them in the 2010 elections. How did that turn out? It's 22 months until the next election-what happened with the fiscal cliff votes will have very little effect by then. Stand your ground and don't vote for a bad bill just because you're afraid of getting blamed.

42, R, NE-1.

Agreed
We see every cycle that the issues that impact the election are ones from the last few months before the election. This year Sandy hit a week before the election. No one remembers bills that don't pass. [see budget, Ryan]

If the Republicans don't pass a bill, it's possible that people's taxes will go up. A bill will probably pass to make sure that doesn't happen, however. If it doesn't, most people don't look that closely at their paycheck. Some won't notice and most won't know who to blame. If some blame Republicans, and taxes aren't ever fixed, how long is that blame going to last?

Raising taxes and cutting spending might lead to a recession, but it's not like that's going to happen overnight or be a dramatic drop. Heck, some of us won't know the difference between not working now and not working then. Wall Street may be angry but they'll recover. They always do.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Not sure if asking different policy questions in a policy thread
is okay, if not, feel free to delete.

Would you be in favor of extreme income redistribution (maybe communism, maybe something close to it) in a post-scarcity society?

Let's say we have enough technological progress to have robots taking care of basically everything, driving our GDP up to the point where we could slice it up and give everyone a comfortable middle-class income without having to work for it.

Otherwise, the profits of the industrialization go almost entirely to the people who own shares in the companies who hold the patents for the robots, leading to extreme income inequality where most people struggle to make it from day to day, but other people have a net worth in the 12-digit range.

What do you do?


What would I do? I'd wake up.
A post-scarcity society is a near impossibility due to limited terrestrial resources and population growth. I suppose if you had a world that had a stagnant population (probably a slowly declining one, actually), you could maintain this for a while, but even if you send robots to mine asteroids, moons, and planets, something will eventually become scarce and acquire more value. Any society like this would be brief and transitory. Therefore, I would not support what you're proposing.

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college)

[ Parent ]
I mean, this is an ideological thought-experiment,
not a view into the future.  

[ Parent ]
post-scarcity society
A post-scarcity society would by definition be a cashless society, and it would be so radically different from anything that we're familiar with that speculating about its socioeconomic arrangement is virtually pointless.

First, you must have unlimited energy supplies for all practical purposes. This probably means either cold fusion or vacuum energy.

Second, you need to have either nanotech synthesis or something equivalent. Combined with unlimited energy, that means nothing really costs anything once you've built the hardware to produce it.

Finally, you almost surely have technology so advanced that lifespans will be drastically prolonged, if not indefinite. Moreover, this could very well include the capability to upload one's consciousness, and for anyone who did that, nothing would cost more than the quantum coding of the simulation.

Communism, for all its utopian idealism, still requires scarcity to be coherent. There is no 'proletariat' in the society you've described, except for the robots, so I guess if there's a proletarian revolution, patents will be the least of our problems.

So, in short, a "post-scarcity society" would not have the limitations that you've built into your framing of the question.

And, if it did, the Chinese would disregard the robot patents anyhow, so I guess the future would be communist for sure.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
or else Long Earth
Just take a few steps either west or east and pick up whatever you want. (Other than Iron)

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
read Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano
I have a feeling that a society like you describe would end up being a horrible dystopia that would descend into chaos and violence. What would the unemployed citizens do all day while the robots worked and they waited for their middle income handouts? Smoke dope & do drugs? A society like you suggest would never advance because human innovation is what creates progress. A robot cant invent new concepts, ideas and inventions. Besides the choices you poses in your questions in a false one because economies and economic systems are more complex than you seem to think. The very fact that you think that in such an advance post scarcity society the ONLY choices would be between a mass re-distribution of wealth and extreme income inequality betrays the bias you instinctively have that economies can be commanded and controlled.

[ Parent ]
I think modern Liberalism misunderstands the problem with wealth
The problem that tends to wreck societies is not disparity in wealth - rather it is the concentration of wealth. A concentration of wealth throughout human history has almost inevitably led to a concentration of power in those hands.

The great problem in France Pre-1792(and arguably pre-1880s when Republican reforms smashed the power of the local notables beyond recovery) was not so much that some were rich and many poor, but that the concentration of power in a few hands rendered the countries ungovernable because the major feudal figures who dominated traditional interest groups became interest groups of one. The state in order to protect itself had to appeal to the disenfranchised.

There is substantive difference, missed both by "Free Market" Conservatives and Liberals between what Teddy Roosevelt did - breaking up Trusts and oversized companies that were stifling innovation, development, and competition, and simply redistributing money from the rich to the poor. It involved that, but it involved that in order to lead to a better environment for everyone.

Concentrations of power, whether they be in governments, mafia, unions, and corporate board rooms tend to be equally pernicious to stable society, because wealth and power tend to lead those who hold them to become paranoid about losing them, which in turn forces them into efforts to acquire more to protect themselves. Its those instincts which would wreck your society, and both of your proposals - neo-feudalism or bribing the masses into government funded apathy, are both efforts motivated not by the welfare of society, but by the Robotocrats' desire to protect their position.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Agree
I think the left really does not understand the problem being the concentration of wealth not the disparity of wealth.  More importantly, the left does not understand what societal elements promote the disproportionate concentration of wealth.

The American left seems to have no concern with illegitimacy, broken homes and countless other social ills that are almost always tied to poverty and the growth of the disparity of wealth.  Wealthier individuals practice the cultural norms that promote financial success (nuclear family unit, waiting to have children, etc...).  The American left refuses to acknowledge policies that disincentivize these cultural norms further the concentration of wealth and power among those who continue to follow those norms.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Problem
I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.  Many on the right, including myself, don't oppose redistribution purely on individual rights grounds, but impracticality grounds as well.

The utopia you are describing would never happen as economic inequality is largely driven by bad cultural choices of individuals who ignore successful models and choose to live lifestyles that make economic success substantially less likely.

One of the beauties of growing up in such a poor area is gaining a greater appreciation for what makes the poor, middle, and rich unequal.  In most respects, the poor are not poor because of the evil rich or middle screwing them over.  Most of the time, they are poor based on poor decisionmaking.  How many rich people do you encounter who had a kid at 16?  How many poor people do you encounter waited to have kids until they were married and settled for a few years?

You cannot have this discussion unless you are willing to acknowledge that a large percentage of inequality is driven by bad lifestyle choices and no matter how much economic redistribution you perform, you will not correct those choices.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Amen
The poor in America are poor because of their own decisions. The poverty rate for high school graduates with no children out of wedlock is 2%, vs. 16% overall. The poor are more likely to smoke, drink excessively and use drugs. They are more likely to commit crime. They are less likely to attend religious services. In short, they are more hedonistic, more impulsive, and less ambitious.

So no, in a post-scarcity society, I would have no problem with some people starving and some people having 12 figure incomes. I have no theoretical problem with inequality because it reflects the fundamental character and ability differences observable in human beings. Some people are worth more money than others just based on their abilities. As they are worth more, they deserve to receive more.  


[ Parent ]
Fiscal cliff
I'd take the deal if the spending cuts were equal to the tax raise. I think Obama would take that. I liked Plan B. I usually would demand a 10 to 1 ratio of cuts to tax raises (or tax cuts if the GOP had full control), but we're backed into a corner.

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college)

Pay freeze
The House of Representatives has just passed a Congressional pay freeze in a 287-129 vote.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Wittman and Wolf vote against
Understantable.

DWS voted for overturning the pay raise.

R - MD-7


[ Parent ]
I'm thinking that its a meaningless vote
Won't come up for a vote in the Senate

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO Pattonville School District, Maryland Heights Fire District (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
They're voting now
119-64 with 58% of Republicans voting no. If this is how it passes, Boehner should give the gavel to Pelosi because Democrats will now be controlling legislation. We've lost.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Bill will pass easily
It's 179-124 and 64 Democrats have yet to vote. Republicans just gave Obama 90% of what he wanted and got nothing out of it. Remember that grand bargain that we didn't like that was $1 increase in taxes for $1 in spending cuts? Well, this is $1 in taxes increase for $0 in spending cuts. Why do we elect Republicans?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
The bill has passed
35% of GOP caucus voted yes. Maybe Boehner is counting on Democrats voting for him for Speaker.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Plan B
Not voting for that was a tactical error on the part of House Republicans.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
What happened?
Did I miss something when I was out to Dinner and seeing This is 40?  What was all that noise this afternoon?

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Except
There was no debt ceiling raise. Taxes are now out of the discussion, which is what Obama was demagoguing on for the last two months.  

Baker '14
R, MA-3


[ Parent ]
Oh
I'm sure the demagoguery has just begun. In fact, it's far easier to demagogue the crippling of our national defense and the war on women and children than it is to demagogue raising taxes. Rest assured that every federal department will pick the most popular, and easily demagogued, programs to put on the sequester chopping block, since Congress didn't specify how the cuts would happen.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Nays
Schmidt, Rohrabacher, Wolf, Wilson (SC), Young (IN), Roe, McClintock, Myrick, Gowdy, Flake, Cantor, McCarthy, Terry, Southerland, Marchant, Lummis, Neugebauer, Stutzman, Nunes, Quayle, Massie, West, Westmoreland, Walsh, Chaffetz, Blackburn, Akin, Amodei, Amash, Culberson, Brooks, Burgess, McHenry, Fleming, Gravees, Duncan (SC), Farenthold, Gosar, Issa, Jones, Jordan, Mack  

Also
McKinley, Pence, Rehberg, Adams, Ellmers, Jordan, King  

[ Parent ]
Ayes
Ryan, Sessions, Boehner, King, Grimm

[ Parent ]
Noem not running for Senate
Nobody who might be thinking of moving up in 2014 voted for it - outside of Illinois.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Womack (AR) did...


[ Parent ]
Oof
not good. I really hope he doesn't run now as this is probably a crucifiable vote in an AR Republican primary.

Might be a signal he's going to stay in the House.

R - MD-7


[ Parent ]
16 Dem defections
Right:
Barrow, Cooper, Matheson, McIntyre, Peterson, Schrader.

Left:
Becerra(!), Blumenauer, DeLauro, McDermott, Brad Miller, Moran, Bobby Scott

Probably more about the sequester:
Dicks, Adam Smith, Visclosky

R - MD-7


Peterson did not vote against it on taxes
but because the farm bill part of it was not up to his standards.

[ Parent ]
Hat tip to Pelosi
I'm surprised to see Becerra going against it with Pelosi going for it, but alas ...

I once again have to tip my hat to Pelosi. Like her, or hate her, she's an effective vote counter. Yes, she had a hell of a lot easier task than Boehner, but still ...

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
Agreed
She seems to have mastered the art of whipping votes when needed.  Do Republicans have anyone who can do that if Boehner goes?  Hensarling?

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Well ...
during her time as Speaker, she always had the option of handing out pork - something that Boehner lacks and which must not be underestimated, tbh.

This time, it propably was the "we have GOPers with their backs against the wall" that made it easy enough for her to get the votes needed.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
Congrats
to the Dems you can all be giddy that you are raising taxes on those of us that worked the hardest to get where we are.

Now a lot of us will have to cut our spending and that we will.


No
I don't know of any Dems who are giddy that the Payroll Tax Holiday is over or that the Estate Tax is now indexed to inflation but not the minimum wage, or that major spending cuts are coming in March etc.

A lot of Democrats, myself included do believe we needed Tax rates to go up on the wealthiest 1% or so, and thats pretty close to what happened with the base rates.  It's not perfect, but its a step.  

We all believe spending can be cut (Ok maybe not all, there are people on the fringes of course), its just where the cuts come from.

I would also dispute the claim that "those of us who work hardest" are those above $400k in wages.  I'd like to think I work pretty hard as did my father and his father before him and none of us ever came close to the top bracket.

I'm sure I went too much into talking points, and for that I apologize, I'll just end it with that this deal is not perfect, but if MoveON AND FreedomWorks oppose it, It can't be the worst thing on earth.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


[ Parent ]
Your issues
Your issues with the estate tax and the taxes on the top 1% can't have much to do with the revenue they'll produce, since the revenue isn't significant. If you want to raise taxes to seriously address the deficit, raising them by $60-$100 billion a year, at the most optimistic, isn't the way to go.

It can't be because they aren't paying "their fair share" since they already are paying far more than that. So it's more about "fairness," the satisfaction of knowing that the rich will be a little less rich. Social justice and all that.

Where, besides defense, do you believe spending can be cut? Of course, Obama's defense secretary doesn't believe we can cut any more than we already have and that the sequester cuts will be disastrous on defense.

I've heard the meme that the sanitation worker works just as hard as Steve Jobs. While that's certainly debatable, people who make $400k+ work very hard. Of course many of them worked hard for years making a lot less than what you and your father made and are finally seeing the rewards. I've spent way too many payrolls where I not only don't take home a paycheck I have less money than when I started.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
raise taxes on 48% who pay zip
Why do I have to pay for a lot them and they get to steal my money?  This is just class warfare.  

A lot people will just work less to be under 400,000 especially if ur salary is close to it.


[ Parent ]
You do realize that this 48%
includes seniors, soldiers, and those below the poverty line, right?

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Democrats act like that's everyone in the 48%
Many of them don't fall into those categories. One theme pushed by Democrats is that millionaires and billionaires are in the 48%. Many Democrats I know believe Mitt Romney hasn't paid income taxes in ten years.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
yes
And I don't care. Everyone should pay taxes even someone making 10,000 a year.

[ Parent ]
Only those with no understanding of the tax code would work less
Since they also pay less on their first 400K, so a person making 401K a year still takes home more than someone who makes 399K.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Income tax effect on income
Income tax is partially psychological. If people perceive they're paying more than makes sense, they'll work less. If the income tax was 99% on all income above $400k, then no one would bother to make more. Some people, even those making $401k, will work less. Even liberal economists agree that increasing taxes is a drag on income for some people. They just disagree with how much and what the value of it is.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'll answer these questions myself
but of course Tekzilla can answer them his way as well.

Besides defense (where I support the entire sequester), I believe we can cut some from Medicare, particularly the excessive amounts people spend in the last few weeks of their lives.  Of course, cutting Medicare in any way is politically unpalatable, but such is life.

$60-100 billion per year is not enough to fix our deficit, but it does make a difference.  You can't just laugh off $100 billion.  Every billion dollars means a billion dollars more in aid to families who need it.  Of course, I also believe that social justice requires a 100% estate tax over a certain income level so as to cripple American aristocratic families, which you will clearly disagree with.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Aristocratic families?
You guys believe that people who leave money in estates are all these old money Vanderbilts who inherited their wealth and didn't work hard for their money. Very few fortunes are passed down from generation to generation, partially because it gets distributed over many beneficiaries. Most estates are from hard working people who paid a boatload of money in income taxes on their fortunes. To me, it's not just to tax people twice on the same dollar. Didn't you guys get enough the first time?

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
If families need it
they should earn it themselves. The reality is very few people are poor who graduate from high school and do not have children out of wedlock. I do not think it is hard to graduate from high school or avoid premarital sex. Both things are entirely within an individual's control and completely free. The poverty rate for people who do both things is under 2%. I have absolutely no desire to support laziness or immorality.

I think our government needs to adopt the Puritan concept of "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor." I believe in helping widows, orphans, the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped (read: quadriplegic or paraplegic..."bad back" does not count.) I think such people should be supported to a working class standard of life. I do not think the government should give a dime to anyone who does not fall into one of those categories, including illegitimate children.


[ Parent ]
As a liberal....
...I hope every swing district Republican says something like you just did. :)

[ Parent ]
Why
So I guess this means the Democrats support bad choices with no recourse?  I get the impression that many Democrats are proud we live in a country with illegitimacy rates around 40%

I know the bedrock view of the Democratic Party has become acceptance if bad choices at any cost, but cannot the Democrats look at this from a non-emotional perspective for once and realize the welfare state as structured provides people with incentives to not improve themselves?  Can the Democrats admit the deserving poor lose out because the undeserving poor suck the system dry?

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Aristocratic families
Obviously you are naive or just don't understand how the system works.  Most of those you call aristocratic families will have structured their wealth in such a way that they avoid the estate tax all together.  Someone could use any decent lawyer to avoid the estate tax let alone these aristocratic families.

Moreover, the people who are impacted by the estate tax the most are people I would not call rich like farmers and small business owners, but aren't savy enough to use an attorney to avoid the tax.  Again I am not surprised as you have never lived outside of your liberal suburbs.  You simply don't know people like this.  Get some life experience outside your suburb young man.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
yup
For a party that likes the "little guy" over "big corporations", Democrats are silly to not realize the estate tax has killed more family farms and given rise to more corporate farming operations than anything else...

[ Parent ]
Exactly
The Democrats refuse to acknowledge this is one of the easiest taxes to avoid and their constituents, affluent liberals with attorneys, can avoid it very easily.

The people caught by this tax are the unlucky, i.e. those who die unexpectedly, and the unsophisticated.  The Democrats claim to be looking out for the little guy and the less fortunate.

If the Democrats really cared about redistribution they would demand the implementation of a wealth tax on all wealth over $5 million.  Obviously this would impact the latte liberals more than some tax that hits "rich" family farms in flyover country.

28, Republican, PA-6


[ Parent ]
Some Dems believe
That rich people are largely those who:

1. Inherited their wealth
2. Make money without working hard doing things like investing and day trading.
3. Own companies and profit off others' hard work.

I've heard this many times, so it's understandable they feel such people aren't deserving of their wealth and that wealth should go to the state when they die.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
You
have basically described Ted Kennedy very well, minus the murder issue.

Republican Medical Doc from New York, NY

[ Parent ]
this is of course 'balanced'
Shrug.

28, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
Some surprising votes
Yes: Buck McKeon, John Kline, Joe Pitts, Kristi Noem, Lamar Smith strike me as surprising

No: Tom Latham, Lynn Jenkins, David McKinley, Scott Rigell, Frank Guinta, Erik Paulsen, Sean Duffy, Frank Wolf all surprised me.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


Buck McKeon
Buck will vote for anything that delays defense cuts.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Defense Cuts
:D Nice explanation for his vote.

However ... what's next for defense cuts? The question had already been raised. Delaying the cuts by two months is a joke, b/c the Pentagon can't have a clue how to budget now and I really, really doubt that after this mess, we'll see people getting together early to deal with it.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
That makes some sense
But a few of the Democratic defections were likely because of defense cuts: Moran, Visclosky, Dicks, and Adam Smith.  Why would they oppose Obama yet McKeon support him when all five are defense budget hawks?

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)

Law and Order Liberal.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Latham
Is close to Boehner, so this is surprising, but so was his vote in 2011 when he voted against the debt ceiling bill. I wonder if he's preparing for a Senate primary with King?  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
I suppose but he'll be 66 then
He also has a seat on Appropriations.  

[ Parent ]
us senate run
He looks like he will run when grassley retires.  Right rank protection

[ Parent ]
He can't beat King in a GOP primary
GOP primary voters are nuts most of the time.

26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
If Harkin stays on
hopefully King runs against him. He'll lose but clear the way for Latham/Reynolds/Northey/P. Grassley to face Braley in '16.

R - MD-7

[ Parent ]
Breitbart reports Boehner in trouble
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...

To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all votes cast. There will be, I assume, 433 votes cast on Thursday for Speaker, 233 of which will be cast by Republicans. If 17 Republicans vote for someone other than John Boehner, they need to vote again. Nancy Pelosi would only become Speaker if she got a majority, not a plurality, so there's no danger of that.

They'd only be postponing the inevitable. Eventually someone will have to get the 217 votes needed and if John Boehner gets 213 on the first ballot then whoever gets the other 20 would likely never get enough.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


If anyone beats him, I'm thinking it is Tom Price
He's motivated and has enough credibility with movement and establishment conservatives to get it done. It certainly won't be Cantor.

29/Male/Married/Father of One/Republican/CA-3

[ Parent ]
Maybe Rogers as a fresh face
But I'm not sure she has the ambition or cajones to make such a bid.

[ Parent ]
Well
If I were the Democrats, I would make sure enough of my members vote for Boehner to guarantee he is elected speaker.  Having a Republican speaker propped up by the Democrats would be quite the feat for the Democrats.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
Joe Straus 2.0


26, Male, R, NY-10

Scott Walker for President!


[ Parent ]
Boehner would probably step down before that happened
He has never struck me as a power-dependent egomaniac. Sure, he'll fight hard to keep his speakership, but in a situation where the vast majority of his votes come from Democrats I think he would have the decency to step aside for a consensus GOP figure.

[ Parent ]
Agreed
Plus leading a Republican Caucus divided like this will take a heck of a lot more effort - thanks to a diminished majorit. I wouldn't be shocked to see him stepping down.

However, there'd first have to emerge a rival ... I don't think Rodgers has the cojones (and the standing/leadership capability?), same goes for Cantor - he cast his vote after 218 Ayes were cast - tells you something about him ... so propably no major challenger.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
Rules have been suspended to elect a speaker with a plurality
In 1855 for instance.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Quel horreur
Waiving that rule would lead to Pelosi having a shot at being elected Speaker, depending on how strong that opposition to Boehner is ...  

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
That took 133 ballots
If we don't have a Speaker after 132 ballots we can do that again.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Stamp of approval
I didn't know that, thanks for that fact. :D

In that case, I'd support such a waiver.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
And there were also 4 major parties
With no party having more than a third of the seats.  Gridlock was therefore a partisan issue rather than an intra-party one.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Damn it Mike.
Really disappointed in Mike Rogers. I'm sure sequestration was the reason, but there's more issues besides defense.

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  

No whipping
McCarthy said there was no hard whipping for/against the deal, so people voted according to their conviction (if that story is true).

That prolly wasn't the case for Democrats, where one Dem said that Biden talked to them for quite some time ("A lot. I thought it was a filibuster").

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker


[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox