The party of no-

[nathanm]

It's an accurate statement, whether you think it's "presidential" or not.

[we vs us]

I'm pretty sure a substantial portion of the electorate would view the Republicans behavior as hostage taking. 

Obama was able to at least demonstrate that he understands that Republicans aren't trying to be honest brokers.  This was actually in question; it's not been clear up till now (IMO) that he knew he couldn't trust them to govern anything more than their own self-interest.  Using the all the hostage taker imagery at least means he's been paying attention.

In fact, as TPM put it, this was the moment when he finally put to rest all the questions about what kind of president he'd be.  Which is to say, he's now resolutely in the "pragmatic" camp, rather than the "left wing ideologue" camp.  The question is, in an atmosphere of hyperpartisanship, is it actually useful to be the guy who mediates the two sides?  Aside from being the guy that the ideologues hate, is it actually possible to get a useful deal when both of the sides are so far apart on policy?  Is any deal that the Guy in the Middle can get compromised from the start? 

Looking at what Obama got for Healthcare -- which was weak sauce compared to what he could've gotten -- and rolling that together with this tax cut deal -- which is also weak sauce compared to what he could've gotten, I've started to wonder whether the role he wants for himself is actually possible.  Contrast him with the Bush II admin, which was very partisan -- and effective -- I'm starting to wonder if compromise is actually something we as a society value any more. 

[Conan71]

This just in: Apparently tax cuts for the wealthy are helpful for economic growth, per our President.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And as you and others have pointed out so many times - he, too, is wrong.

[Conan71]

And as you and others have pointed out so many times - he, too, is wrong.

How long did you run the world's largest economy that has made you such an expert on these matters?



I thought so

[heironymouspasparagus]

I read and learn from history.

[Conan71]

I read and learn from history.

A lot depends on whose spin of it you read.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is also why I listen so much to Fox.  It tends to even things out.

[Conan71]

That is also why I listen so much to Fox.  It tends to even things out.

Careful, they will eventually get you to drink the Murdochian Kool Aid and take the Republicontin.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Believe it or not, I happen to agree with a lot of the basics they start with.  The problem is when they leap to the next illogical conclusion.  Start with a kernel of truth, then expand and espouse into the point of interest, which when taken on its own is patently and obviously ridiculous.  Read 1984.

Like the idea the infinite tax cuts will provide infinite economic activity.  Regardless of the reality of the last 70+ years.

[guido911]

50 Dems I gather are in favor of tax hikes on the poor.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/09/house-dems-voting-no/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider

Democrats--the party of "no" on tax cuts for the poor.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, since the bottom 50% of incomes in the country never pay taxes anyway (according to the Murdochian Kool-Aid machine), then it shouldn't hurt them at all, should it?

Oh, wait...that's just another one of their lies.  The poor pay disproportionately much higher taxes than the rich.  Whew!  I thought for a second there we had all wakened in Bizarro World!  Oh, wait...again... we did!!  The strange new world where the richest get two years of massive tax breaks while the poorest get 13 months of additional unemployment!

Unless of course, the Republicontin get their way and the unemployment is converted into a "loan", as they are proposing.  Gee, I wonder who would reap (rape?) the benefit of that?  Maybe big banks who would "administer" the program for us? 

[we vs us]

50 Dems I gather are in favor of tax hikes on the poor.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/09/house-dems-voting-no/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider

Democrats--the party of "no" on tax cuts for the poor.

You made me smile.  Funny stuff.

[guido911]

Well, since the bottom 50% of incomes in the country never pay taxes anyway (according to the Murdochian Kool-Aid machine), then it shouldn't hurt them at all, should it?

Oh, wait...that's just another one of their lies.  The poor pay disproportionately much higher taxes than the rich.  Whew!  I thought for a second there we had all wakened in Bizarro World!  Oh, wait...again... we did!!  The strange new world where the richest get two years of massive tax breaks while the poorest get 13 months of additional unemployment!

Unless of course, the Republicontin get their way and the unemployment is converted into a "loan", as they are proposing.  Gee, I wonder who would reap (rape?) the benefit of that?  Maybe big banks who would "administer" the program for us? 

Disproportionate to whom? Do I get more police protection or better streets or better protection from terrorists because I pay 30-50 times in taxes than many in this country? Tell me, why should I pay so much more to just live in this country?

[guido911]

You made me smile.  Funny stuff.

I'm sure Mr. "law abiding illegals"! Riding the gravy train is pretty funny. Tell us, you are driving this wagon.