Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Kwanza? Are there really enough people in the US who *actually* celebrate Kwanzaa to give a shit about it?

Apparently the scourge of Kwanzaa has ruined yet another Christmas

even though I saw it mentioned all about zero times during the month of December by anyone anywhere

 

[TacticalFox88]

Apparently the scourge of Kwanzaa has ruined yet another Christmas

even though I saw it mentioned all about zero times during the month of December by anyone anywhere

SMH. Everytime I THINK I'm going to get used to stupidity in politics, Washington seemingly ALWAYS seems to say:

"Lol, nope!"

-_-'

 

[pigeon]

Meanwhile:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration eased the way Wednesday for illegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to apply for permanent residency, a change that could affect as many as 1 million of the estimated 11 million immigrants unlawfully in the U.S.

A new rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security aims to reduce the time illegal immigrants are separated from their American families while seeking legal status, immigration officials said.

Beginning March 4, when the changes go into effect, illegal immigrants who can demonstrate that time apart from an American spouse, child or parent would create “extreme hardship,” can start the application process for a legal visa without leaving the U.S.

Once approved, applicants would be required to leave the U.S. briefly in order to return to their native country and pick up their visa.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...immigration-residency-20130102,0,181647.story

I wonder whether we'll get immigration reform purely through executive action before Congress can get it together to act.

 

[ivysaur12]

Lines at the MVA here in Maryland are non existent due to online services, express locations throughout the state, and smart kiosks that direct and queue people to the proper lines.

It's really damn impressive.

But hey, cut spending so we don't get technological advances...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cph2QjATgeo&noredirect=1

 

[sangreal]

Al Jazeera plans to scrap Current’s programming lineup and brand, which never caught on with a critical mass of viewers, and use the channel’s subscriber base of 60 million households as the basis for a new network.

awesome!

But the sale will diminish the network’s value considerably. According to Hyatt’s memo, Time Warner Cable did not consent to the deal and will drop Current from its menu going forward. TWC’s 12 million 9 million households represent 20% 15% of Current’s total reach.

oh... of course

 

[Byakuya769]

Cloving is probably working his way up to a perma on a lot of innocuous bs.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Cloving is probably working his way up to a perma on a lot of innocuous bs.

Speculawyer is still here. He'll be fine.

 

[Oblivion]

LOL

 

[speculawyer]

Isn't the GOP kind of fucked with regard to budget issues?

They refuse to raise taxes and CLAIM to want cuts. But the biggest government spending is social security, medicare, and defense. Old people, old people, military people, and defense contractors . . . all big GOP constituencies.

How do they square that circle?

I know . . . the low-level tea party idiots all want welfare and foreign aid cut. But you could cut those to almost nothing and you'd still have a huge budget problem.

Isn't the GOP trapped?

But Republicans haven’t named anywhere near a trillion dollars of further cuts in any of the fiscal cliff negotiations. They’ve been afraid to take direct aim at Social Security and Medicare, and while they can call for deep cuts to Medicaid, everyone knows that’s a nonstarter for the White House in the age of Obamacare. Meanwhile, domestic discretionary spending has already been cut to the bone, and Republicans want to increase defense spending. So what’s their demand going to be, exactly?

Ezra Klein points out what we already knew . . . the GOP is all talk and no cutting.

Speculawyer is still here. He'll be fine.

Have I been pushing it lately? I never know.

 

[B-Dubs]

LOL

Is he sure about that? It sure sounds awful close to one...

 

[GhaleonEB]

LOL

I honestly can't tell if he's self aware enough to realize the absurdity of that statement.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Ezra Klein points out what we already knew . . . the GOP is all talk and no cutting.

But we really need to cut some defense spending.

 

[B-Dubs]

I honestly can't tell if he's self aware enough to realize the absurdity of that statement.

Protip: He isn't

 

[fallagin]

Ezra Klein points out what we already knew . . . the GOP is all talk and no cutting.



Have I been pushing it lately? I never know.

Heh heh, that is a pretty interesting dilemma for the GOP. I hope they find out for themselves that they can't keep this up going forward.

 

[Amir0x]

Mitch McConnell's little op-ed has just exactly the right amount of teeth gritting 'oh boy here we go again-ness' to make even the most hardened Democratic heart soar with joy at how fucked up Washington is going to be in only a few months:

Editorial Here

Snippets:

Predictably, the President is already claiming that his tax hike on the “rich” isn’t enough. I have news for him: the moment that he and virtually every elected Democrat in Washington signed off on the terms of the current arrangement, it was the last word on taxes. That debate is over.

"Now that you guys have no leverage anymore..."

Now the conversation turns to cutting spending on the government programs that are the real source of the nation’s fiscal imbalance. And the upcoming debate on the debt limit is the perfect time to have that discussion.

"...we think holding the country hostage and destroying its credit rating is a perfect way to get a harsh austerity deal that damages the economy even further! The economy loses either way!"

While most Washington Democrats may want to deny it, the truth is, the only thing we can do to solve the nation’s fiscal problem is to tackle government spending head on — and particularly, spending on health care programs, which appear to take off like a fighter jet on every chart available that details current trends in federal spending.

"Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid... it's not like this country has a huge institutional health care problem that is continuing to spiral out of control! Surely making more cuts to these programs and making it even more difficult to get sick and not go bankrupt will solve our countries fiscal problems!"

The President may not want to have a fight about government spending over the next few months, but it’s the fight he is going to have, because it’s a debate the country needs. For the sake of our future, the President must show up to this debate early and convince his party to do something that neither he nor they have been willing to do until now.

...

And it’s the debate that starts today, whether the President wants it or not.

"Everyone ignore what happened during the last debt ceiling debate! The President never allows cuts, ever!"



Oh this is going to be a sloppy mess

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Big Lebowski Explains the Fiscal Cliff
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/big-lebowski-explains-the-fiscal-cliff.html

Best description of this deal, and the problems it will lead to in the future

The basic text for understanding this situation, as with so many situations, is The Big Lebowski. A woman has allegedly been taken hostage by nihilists (nihilists conveniently being a common point of comparison with the House Republican caucus.) Jeffrey Lebowski, the Jeff Bridges character, fears they will kill her. Walter, the John Goodman character, has already figured out that there is no hostage. Lebowski here is Obama, and Walter is Harry Reid

Walter is right. There is no hostage. The Republican Party was actually terrified of the no-deal scenario. Policy-wise, the alternative to a small tax hike that they agreed to was a huge tax hike that they didn’t agree to. The politics were even worse: Republicans would be blamed for higher taxes on the middle class in order to defend the rich, deepening an already severe image problem.

Obama grasped the basic leverage over the Republicans. But he also fears the sheer nihilism of the crazy House wing, members so fanatical they cannot even seem to grasp their own political self-interest and vote coherently. Walter explains, “Without a hostage there is no ransom. That’s what ransom is. Those are the fucking rules!” Whereas Jeffrey hopes to avoid confrontation by handing the nihilists a small payment

And in two months we do it again. And why shouldn't republicans do it again, considering how well it has worked for them.

 

[speculawyer]

The Big Lebowski Explains the Fiscal Cliff
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/big-lebowski-explains-the-fiscal-cliff.html

Best description of this deal, and the problems it will lead to in the future



And in two months we do it again. And why shouldn't republicans do it again, considering how well it has worked for them.

Yes! That actually made a lot of sense.

The next two paragraphs explained the problem of the deal:

Obama ultimately traded away about a quarter of the revenue he would have gotten in the no-deal scenario in return for extending unemployment benefits and some temporary tax extensions. A bad deal, but not an awful one — like Jeffrey’s offer of giving the nihilists the four dollars in his wallet. The nihilists curse at Walter (“fuck you!&#8221 in basically the same way John Boehner curses at Reid (“go fuck yourself.&#8221. They angrily rage at the unfairness of the circumstances — nihilists: “We thought we would get a million dollars! It’s not fair!” — in much the same way the most deranged House Republicans thrashed about trying to set the tax threshold at a million dollars a year, making impossible demands, and otherwise refusing to accept the basics of the negotiating dynamic. (Luke Russert quoted, via Twitter, a Republican member on yesterday's meeting: "Felt like I was living in another world, guys asking for stuff there's no way Ds wld give on.") Say what you will about the tenets of supply-side economics, dude — at least it’s an ethos.

The problem here is not the $200 billion in revenue Obama traded away. It’s the fact that he allowed Republicans to use the nihilism of their own members as a bargaining chip. Unlike the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the debt ceiling is a real hostage. Failing to lift it would have real and immediate effects. And Obama’s political club against Republicans is far weaker — rather than demanding they do the popular thing of extending middle class tax cuts, he’ll be demanding that they take an unpopular vote to lift the debt ceiling.

And I love the commenters stretching the analogy:
I think this makes sense, except that tax payers are Donnie. And if Obama had been Walter, Donnie would've died by taking the action he did.

I think this makes Paul Ryan (or maybe Eric Cantor) the marmot in the bathtub.

 

[Snake]

And in two months we do it again. And why shouldn't republicans do it again, considering how well it has worked for them.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Captain Pants]

I just finished Game Change and would like to keep the momentum going. Can anyone recommend some books? Initially I was thinking about either of Obama's books, but I'm feeling Obama'd out at the moment.

 

[East Lake]

Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, Second Edition (1940).

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I just finished Game Change and would like to keep the momentum going. Can anyone recommend some books? Initially I was thinking about either of Obama's books, but I'm feeling Obama'd out at the moment.

Victory Lab
The Signal and the Noise
The New New Deal
It's Even Worse Than It Looks
The Path to Power

 

[Captain Pants]

Thanks guys! I'm going to bookmark those posts. I just picked up It's Even Worse Than It Looks along with The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet. I've been meaning to read both of them and then I succumbed to the fall videogame season and stopped reading.

 

[codhand]

If Chris Christie defected it would be a landslide.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hey, I haven't been active on NeoGaf recently (I think my last post was in august of last year) though I did contribute a bit to poligaf back in 2011 (not much) I've been lurking but might get back into posting more!

But I just figured I'd share with you guys that I'm pretty lucky to be taking classes with James Carville and Melissa Harris Perry next semester. And I'm pretty damn pumped. Carville I know brings in a lot of speakers (he's brought Gingrich, among others) so I'll have lot of chances to hear smart people talk.

I think the class is gonna be real interesting considering were going to have a bunch of important political events in the next few months and the class starts right near inauguration day.

 

[pigeon]

The Big Lebowski Explains the Fiscal Cliff
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/big-lebowski-explains-the-fiscal-cliff.html

Best description of this deal, and the problems it will lead to in the future



And in two months we do it again. And why shouldn't republicans do it again, considering how well it has worked for them.

Firstly, again, this is basically inaccurate. Obama didn't trade away $200 billion to avoid nihilism, he traded it for stimulus. The White House clearly believes that there was no other way to get economic stimulus, and protecting the economy was the top priority. If you think that there was some other magical way to get stimulus, then the deal was a mistake, but if there was some other way, you'd think he would've used it to pass the American Jobs Act.

Secondly, this is the same circular argument. People are making exactly the same arguments the other way -- if the Republicans are willing to cave over the fiscal cliff, they can't hope to hold firm for the debt ceiling, so it's a great victory for Obama, so he'll be empowered to win again in February, which is why it's a great victory. Basically, this deal's utility is entirely based on what you think will happen in the future, so it really just reaffirms whatever beliefs you already had about Obama's capabilities as a politician.

Here's the best metric to use, I think. What did Obama want that the GOP did NOT want?

- Taxes to go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending

What did the GOP want that Obama didn't want?

- Big spending cuts

What does the bill contain?

- Taxes go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending
- No spending cuts

Any reading of this bill that isn't a win for the Democrats is implicitly assuming that we could've somehow gotten all of the above, plus more, using some other strategy. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to what that strategy is, and there's plenty of evidence to show that stimulus especially is hard to get through Congress even with plenty of exhortations and pulpit-pounding on the part of the President.

 

[el retorno]

So how soon does the battle over the debt ceiling begin? are we gonna have any respite?

 

[Gotchaye]

And in two months we do it again. And why shouldn't republicans do it again, considering how well it has worked for them.

I think Chait is just wrong here, or perhaps he got it right and didn't recognize it. Offering $4 to shut the nihilists up is not giving them undeserved bargaining power in any real sense. Jeffrey is making a perfectly reasonable decision, and Walter is as nutty for his "those are the rules!" stance there as he was when he pulled a gun in the bowling alley. The Democrats fundamentally got what they collectively wanted here, and additionally secured some other things that the Republicans actually did have the power and inclination to kill.

And pigeon posted first. But only I overanalyze the analogy.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Predictably, the President is already claiming that his tax hike on the “rich” isn’t enough. I have news for him: the moment that he and virtually every elected Democrat in Washington signed off on the terms of the current arrangement, it was the last word on taxes. That debate is over.

Now that Obama has chosen to raise the income tax, the issue of taxes is solved and we'll never have to discuss it, unless of course we're talking about cutting them, of course.

Also, "his tax hike?" The one that you negotiated and then voted for? Asshat.

 

[Gotchaye]

Also, "his tax hike?" The one that you negotiated and then voted for? Asshat.

Come on, that's perfectly fair. If higher taxes on $250k+ reduce the deficit and don't hurt the economy, the Democrats should get all the credit. If all of the rich people go Galt and the USA collapses in fire and blood, the Republicans can justifiably say "told you". McConnell negotiated to get the tax increase to be as small as possible, in a context in which not coming to a deal meant even larger tax hikes than the Democrats wanted. He doesn't have to own them.

 

[empty vessel]

Firstly, again, this is basically inaccurate. Obama didn't trade away $200 billion to avoid nihilism, he traded it for stimulus. The White House clearly believes that there was no other way to get economic stimulus, and protecting the economy was the top priority. If you think that there was some other magical way to get stimulus, then the deal was a mistake, but if there was some other way, you'd think he would've used it to pass the American Jobs Act.

Secondly, this is the same circular argument. People are making exactly the same arguments the other way -- if the Republicans are willing to cave over the fiscal cliff, they can't hope to hold firm for the debt ceiling, so it's a great victory for Obama, so he'll be empowered to win again in February, which is why it's a great victory. Basically, this deal's utility is entirely based on what you think will happen in the future, so it really just reaffirms whatever beliefs you already had about Obama's capabilities as a politician.

Here's the best metric to use, I think. What did Obama want that the GOP did NOT want?

- Taxes to go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending

What did the GOP want that Obama didn't want?

- Big spending cuts

What does the bill contain?

- Taxes go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending
- No spending cuts

Any reading of this bill that isn't a win for the Democrats is implicitly assuming that we could've somehow gotten all of the above, plus more, using some other strategy. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to what that strategy is, and there's plenty of evidence to show that stimulus especially is hard to get through Congress even with plenty of exhortations and pulpit-pounding on the part of the President.

I mostly agree with you. The only problem is that the Democrats didn't really get no spending cuts. They got the spending cuts they already agreed to postponed for a couple of months. Admittedly, this isn't a problem with the current deal, it's a problem that they ever agreed to it in the first place. The only other quibble is that I don't think they got taxes to go up on the rich. They actually lowered them slightly. It was 2001 legislation (voted for by Republicans themselves) that got taxes to go up on the rich.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Come on, that's perfectly fair. If higher taxes on $250k+ reduce the deficit and don't hurt the economy, the Democrats should get all the credit. If all of the rich people go Galt and the USA collapses in fire and blood, the Republicans can justifiably say "told you". McConnell negotiated to get the tax increase to be as small as possible, in a context in which not coming to a deal meant even larger tax hikes than the Democrats wanted. He doesn't have to own them.

At the same time I'd argue against calling it a tax hike, considering the fiscal cliff already happened when the bill was passed. These are Bush's tax hikes.

 

[Chichikov]

At the same time I'd argue against calling it a tax hike, considering the fiscal cliff already happened when the bill was passed. These are Bush's tax hikes.

I'd argue it doesn't fucking matter, and damn, we really should be more focused on the rate itself than the direction in which it just moved.

 

[soul creator]

I'll be curious if the payroll tax thing becomes the new talking point on the right. Saw this on facebook from a conservative, heh:

Look at your next paycheck everyone. You will notice that most of you are making less than you did back in December. Hooray for more taxes...

Obama just raised your taxes!

 

[empty vessel]

Obama just raised your taxes!

Well, he did. Actually, he probably lowered them slightly when you take into account the income tax cut. It's just that it was stupid not to make the payroll tax cut permanent.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'll be curious if the payroll tax thing becomes the new talking point on the right. Saw this on facebook from a conservative, heh:



Obama just raised your taxes!

This thing that fake pigeon points out actually is an illegitimate attack, since the Republicans weren't trying to extend the payroll tax cuts. It doesn't make sense to pin that exclusively on Democrats.

But yeah, I expect that to be a big thing from them for a while.

 

[soul creator]

This thing that fake pigeon points out actually is an illegitimate attack, since the Republicans weren't trying to extend the payroll tax cuts. It doesn't make sense to pin that exclusively on Democrats.

But yeah, I expect that to be a big thing from them for a while.

Yeah, I know the reality of the situation of how it was all actually passed, but as pointed out, it's "technically" true enough that it could be spun that way.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'd argue it doesn't fucking matter, and damn, we really should be more focused on the rate itself than the direction in which it just moved.

It's all about the game, man.

 

[Byakuya769]

Not sure why kicking the sequestration cuts further and further into the 2014 election season should elicits chants of "victory!"

 

[Black Mamba]

Firstly, again, this is basically inaccurate. Obama didn't trade away $200 billion to avoid nihilism, he traded it for stimulus. The White House clearly believes that there was no other way to get economic stimulus, and protecting the economy was the top priority. If you think that there was some other magical way to get stimulus, then the deal was a mistake, but if there was some other way, you'd think he would've used it to pass the American Jobs Act.

Secondly, this is the same circular argument. People are making exactly the same arguments the other way -- if the Republicans are willing to cave over the fiscal cliff, they can't hope to hold firm for the debt ceiling, so it's a great victory for Obama, so he'll be empowered to win again in February, which is why it's a great victory. Basically, this deal's utility is entirely based on what you think will happen in the future, so it really just reaffirms whatever beliefs you already had about Obama's capabilities as a politician.

Here's the best metric to use, I think. What did Obama want that the GOP did NOT want?

- Taxes to go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending

What did the GOP want that Obama didn't want?

- Big spending cuts

What does the bill contain?

- Taxes go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending
- No spending cuts

Any reading of this bill that isn't a win for the Democrats is implicitly assuming that we could've somehow gotten all of the above, plus more, using some other strategy. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to what that strategy is, and there's plenty of evidence to show that stimulus especially is hard to get through Congress even with plenty of exhortations and pulpit-pounding on the part of the President.

Bingo. The argument shouldn't be if the democrats won, it's whether it was a huge success or small success. I think it was a solid one. Nothing super great but also not just a small one. He got both the things he wanted and most of the revenues he wanted with a chance for more later and got the GOP to look bad in the process.

And I still don't get how the GOP has much leverage in the debt ceiling fight. They're going to take all of the blame on that one moreso than ever since Obama proved to be reasonable yesterday. Furthermore, the sequester cuts really hurt the military so they have to bargain their way out of those. And finally, I think they have to put specific cuts on the table this time around, not just hot air, since Obama isn't trading for anything directly like he did with UE. It's the GOP who wants to make a tradeoff.

All this is to be seen, but yesterday was a democrat victory any way you slice it.

Well, he did. Actually, he probably lowered them slightly when you take into account the income tax cut. It's just that it was stupid not to make the payroll tax cut permanent.

Obama didn't raise it. He tried to bargain for an extension and proposed it separately and it passed the Senate with almost 90 votes IIRC but it was killed by the House. The House GOP raised those taxes.

They've always been for raising taxes that hurt the middle and lower classes more than upper classes.

edit: I do wish Obama would propose a new version of it, perhaps in the SotU address. Then re-propose it in the Senate and dare the House to block it again. At least make the GOP eat that one if they won't go along.

 

[empty vessel]

Obama didn't raise it. He tried to bargain for an extension and proposed it separately and it passed the Senate with almost 90 votes IIRC but it was killed by the House. The House GOP raised those taxes.

You're saying that the Senate passed a bill to make permanent or otherwise extend the payroll tax cut?

 

[Black Mamba]

You're saying that the Senate passed a bill to make permanent or otherwise extend the payroll tax cut?

I could be wrong here but I thought the Senate passed at least a 1 year extension of it but failed in the House.

But I do know Obama did propose it to Boehner in their negotiations.

Never was it meant to be permanent, though.

 

[empty vessel]

I could be wrong here but I thought the Senate passed at least a 1 year extension of it but failed in the House.

But I do know Obama did propose it to Boehner in their negotiations.

Never was it meant to be permanent, though.

I'd want to know if that's true, because it would definitely change how I talk about it. It's my understanding that nobody ever even so much as talked about extending the payroll tax cut, though, let alone voted for it. And I've read several things to that effect, so if you have a link otherwise, that'd be something I would be interested in seeing.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'd want to know if that's true, because it would definitely change how I talk about it. It's my understanding that nobody ever even so much as talked about extending the payroll tax cut, though, let alone voted for it. And I've read several things to that effect, so if you have a link otherwise, that'd be something I would be interested in seeing.

The proposal marked an opening salvo in negotiations over the fiscal cliff and represented a particularly expansive version of the White House's wish list, with a heavy focus on tax increases and spending proposals—including keeping in place a payroll-tax cut and extended unemployment benefits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578149180660186900.html

Based on Obama's 1st offer. Boehner came back without the extension and during their negotiations it seems Obama realized there was no chance at getting it so it was abandoned fairly quickly.

Seems I may have been wrong about the vote, that was the 2011 one.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

edit: I do wish Obama would propose a new version of it, perhaps in the SotU address. Then re-propose it in the Senate and dare the House to block it again. At least make the GOP eat that one if they won't go along.

That right there could be the perfect add-on legislation to put pressure on the repubs come debt ceiling time to frame the discussion not at all in their favor. Not only are we raising the debt limit not to hurt America's economy here is another stimulus to middle class Americans to add further demand for goods as well.

 

[pigeon]

I mostly agree with you. The only problem is that the Democrats didn't really get no spending cuts. They got the spending cuts they already agreed to postponed for a couple of months. Admittedly, this isn't a problem with the current deal, it's a problem that they ever agreed to it in the first place. The only other quibble is that I don't think they got taxes to go up on the rich. They actually lowered them slightly. It was 2001 legislation (voted for by Republicans themselves) that got taxes to go up on the rich.

Yes, I agree basically with both these points, but for the purpose of the breakdown I didn't count the sequester for anybody because neither side appears to want it much. Like the debt ceiling or the taxes returning to Clinton levels on the middle class, it's a threat but not an actual goal. But you can certainly substitute "not cutting taxes on the rich" for "raising taxes on the rich."

That right there could be the perfect add-on legislation to put pressure on the repubs come debt ceiling time to frame the discussion not at all in their favor. Not only are we raising the debt limit not to hurt America's economy here is another stimulus to middle class Americans to add further demand for goods as well.

There's an old Yglesias article where he notes that the payroll tax holiday was just a substitute for the Making Work Pay credit that the GOP killed when it came up for renewal, and that if the Dems want to keep it around they just need to come up with a third version of the same credit.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...portant_part_of_the_fiscal_cliff_must_be.html

 

[polyh3dron]

Wonder what happened with that "rumor" being thrown around this morning that Boehner was going to resign today..

 

[titiklabingapat]

Wonder what happened with that "rumor" being thrown around this morning that Boehner was going to resign today..

I took that as some conservative brain-fart and knee jerk reaction that likely amounted to nothing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Firstly, again, this is basically inaccurate. Obama didn't trade away $200 billion to avoid nihilism, he traded it for stimulus. The White House clearly believes that there was no other way to get economic stimulus, and protecting the economy was the top priority. If you think that there was some other magical way to get stimulus, then the deal was a mistake, but if there was some other way, you'd think he would've used it to pass the American Jobs Act.

Secondly, this is the same circular argument. People are making exactly the same arguments the other way -- if the Republicans are willing to cave over the fiscal cliff, they can't hope to hold firm for the debt ceiling, so it's a great victory for Obama, so he'll be empowered to win again in February, which is why it's a great victory. Basically, this deal's utility is entirely based on what you think will happen in the future, so it really just reaffirms whatever beliefs you already had about Obama's capabilities as a politician.

Here's the best metric to use, I think. What did Obama want that the GOP did NOT want?

- Taxes to go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending

What did the GOP want that Obama didn't want?

- Big spending cuts

What does the bill contain?

- Taxes go up on the rich
- Stimulus spending
- No spending cuts

Any reading of this bill that isn't a win for the Democrats is implicitly assuming that we could've somehow gotten all of the above, plus more, using some other strategy. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to what that strategy is, and there's plenty of evidence to show that stimulus especially is hard to get through Congress even with plenty of exhortations and pulpit-pounding on the part of the President.

I'm assuming you are labeling the tax credits stimulus correct? At what point in these discussions were they in danger, outside of the green energy ones? The liberal defense of this bill seems to be that it was the only way to get credits, UE benefits etc, otherwise...what? Republicans would stand firm and let taxes truly rise in a couple weeks? As Reid and others argued, the GOP was losing. Badly. And they would have continued to lose if democrats twisted the knife for a few more days. You think republicans would vote against child tax credits, unemployment benefits, and tax cuts?

McConnell never asked for spending cuts. He realized that this was a smaller tax based deal, and any spending cuts would be achieved in two months. Therefore I would not count the absense of spending cuts as a victory here: no one was asking for them outside of the house, which had no leverage in this fight after Boehner passed the conch to the senate.

Norquist himself argued republicans voted for a tax cut, not a tax increase. If democrats had waited, they could have gotten the 250k rate, and they also should have delayed the sequestration for longer. That's my basic point here. The House was on the ropes and democrats control the senate. Every behind the scenes piece out right now shows republicans were scared, and Obama hammering them on television made them even more scared. As Chait has argued, a few more days of this would have led to a market scare but no impact on taxes. Dems could have had a complete victory here, period. Instead in two months they'll be embarrassed by another amateur hour negotiation attempt by Obama.

How many lines in the sand can be crossed? It ensures neither side believes him when he takes a stand.

 

[nib95]

Just watched the Christie video.
God. Damn.

Link?

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I'm assuming you are labeling the tax credits stimulus correct? At what point in these discussions were they in danger, outside of the green energy ones? The liberal defense of this bill seems to be that it was the only way to get credits, UE benefits etc, otherwise...what? Republicans would stand firm and let taxes truly rise in a couple weeks? As Reid and others argued, the GOP was losing. Badly. And they would have continued to lose if democrats twisted the knife for a few more days. You think republicans would vote against child tax credits, unemployment benefits, and tax cuts?

McConnell never asked for spending cuts. He realized that this was a smaller tax based deal, and any spending cuts would be achieved in two months. Therefore I would not count the absense of spending cuts as a victory here: no one was asking for them outside of the house, which had no leverage in this fight after Boehner passed the conch to the senate.

Norquist himself argued republicans voted for a tax cut, not a tax increase. If democrats had waited, they could have gotten the 250k rate, and they also should have delayed the sequestration for longer. That's my basic point here. The House was on the ropes and democrats control the senate. Every behind the scenes piece out right now shows republicans were scared, and Obama hammering them on television made them even more scared. As Chait has argued, a few more days of this would have led to a market scare but no impact on taxes. Dems could have had a complete victory here, period. Instead in two months they'll be embarrassed by another amateur hour negotiation attempt by Obama.

How many lines in the sand can be crossed? It ensures neither side believes him when he takes a stand.

And if we did it your way, would getting an extra 100 billion in taxes be worth it? A couple days to you might be fine, just so you can spike the ball and say you "won." But that doesn't really help the country or its citizens at all. How does kicking the Republicans' teeth in make them more open to change? How does making them choke on electoral losses restore our government to one that is based on compromised? How does that help feed people, ensure people get medical care, or anything at all? Sorry Obama didn't rub their faces enough in it for you. And I don't think he would come out of it as unscathed as you say.

And when it comes to the debt ceiling, what are Obama's incentives to compromise? Last time he did it to check it off his list as you say and use it in the campaign. Now what has he got to lose? He already cut discretionary spending. He won't touch Medicaid because it's tied into his legacy achievement of Obamacare. You think Obama wants to go down as the guy that raised the Medicare eligibility age? Something that has stayed the same since it's creation in 1965. Sorry, people aren't buying your bullshit anymore.