35 thoughts on “The President’s Budget Bluff

  1. Gregg

    I’d say so.

    Long past time to call the bluff. But in addition the message has to go out WHY the bluff is being called. Otherwise the Obama – Reid/Pelosi – MSM Tripartite Axis will demagogue the issue to the detriment of (real) Conservatives and libertarians who actually want the best for people and who want to stop the destruction of people’s lives by the Democrats.

  2. Peterh

    The occupier of the white house asks the impossible. He could get all the tax rates he asks for and never close the deficit on the budget he wants.

  3. wodun

    Obama wants sequestration. Military cuts, increased taxes on everyone to pay for his spending increases, and the chance to blame it all on Republicans until the midterms. Giver Obama his tax increase on the wealthy and nothing else. Republicans look bi partisan and Obama is shown to be a fraud because taxing the rich alone wont solve anything.

    Then Republicans can say they gave Obama exactly what he wanted so there should be no more excuses for $1t+ deficits and a crappy economy.

    1. Gregg

      Well there’s the “give them everything they want” (except the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling), is one way to go.

      I like the notion of passing a bill in the House which sets the tax rate of all the people who pay taxes and earn less than $250,000 a year to the present rate with no sunset.

      Take the middle class bludgeon away from the Democrats whose real objective is to destroy people, their lives, and the economy.

  4. PaulB

    What if the white house wants the cliff? Any feigned cause to declare marshall law, or a need to have central control from the white house and not congress. We are on a very dangerous path at this point and calling his bluff is not a good idea.

    I do like the congress throwing out a plan from the Erskine-Bowles commission as it the best way to show what is wrong.

    But I am concerned that congress could go into recess without a resolution. It could be the last recess they get to take.

  5. Jim

    How does the GOP “call Obama’s bluff” — pass nothing? Refuse to extend the Bush tax rates on incomes up to $250K? That would be terribly unpopular.

    Boehner is now offering what he offered (but probably couldn’t deliver) in 2011. In the meantime the public voted decisively for the Democrats. He must know that he doesn’t have the leverage he had then.

    1. Gregg

      Jim writes:

      “How does the GOP “call Obama’s bluff” — pass nothing? ”

      Not at all. The House should pass a Bill extending the Bush “middle class” tax rates.

      And NOTHING more. No debt ceiling, nothing else.

      Send it to the Senate. Let *them* decide to not extend the middle class tax rates.

      1. Jim

        The Senate has already passed an extension of the middle class rates. So if Boehner lets the House vote on that bill, and it passes, it goes straight to Obama, and I can’t see Obama vetoing it.

        The question is whether Boehner will allow the vote, and whether he can hold onto his speakership after letting the top rates return to Clinton-era levels. Lower top rates has been the #1 GOP priority since 1980; can they really give up on it so easily?

        1. Gregg

          Wrong. As usual.

          The bill passed by the Senate is not JUST a middle class tax rate fixation. From the NYTimes:

          “The Senate then, on a vote of 51 to 48, approved a Democratic version that would allow tax rates to rise on incomes, capital gains and dividends for earnings of more than $250,000. ”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/politics/senate-passes-tax-measure-with-election-in-mind.html?_r=0

          So Jim why do you want to destroy the lives of millions of citizens? Why do you want to strip them of their *earned* property?

          Why do you want to destroy people’s liberty?

          The Democratic Party is the new KKK

          1. Jim

            The bill passed by the Senate is not JUST a middle class tax rate fixation

            How so? It doesn’t affect the expiration of tax cuts on income past $250k, that’s what makes it a “middle class” tax cut.

            why do you want to destroy the lives of millions of citizens?

            What are you talking about?

          2. Gregg

            How so? Did you read the article?

            Did you even take the time from planning the destruction of millions of lives to read the excerpt I posted FROM the article?

            What am I talking about?

            I’m talking about the policies the Dems are pushing, and which you support, which will destroy the economic lives of millions of people (both in and out of the U.S.) and which are wholly rascist

          3. Jim

            Yes, I read the article. Its lede:

            The Senate narrowly approved legislation on Wednesday to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class but to let them lapse for more affluent households

            That’s exactly what you have been saying the House should do now.

            The funny thing is that the Times called it a “vote intended more to give both parties election-year cover than to produce a new tax law”, and Mitch McConnell said “This is not a serious piece of legislation because it is not going anywhere.” Now it’s a few months later, Obama’s been re-elected and the Dems gained seats in both the House and Senate, and passing that “not serious” bill is the GOP’s best hope.

          4. Gregg

            Jim writes:

            “The Senate has already passed an extension of the middle class rates. So if Boehner lets the House vote on that bill, and it passes, it goes straight to Obama, and I can’t see Obama vetoing it.

            The question is whether Boehner will allow the vote, ”

            Uhhhh in case you forgot…bills do NOT originate in the Senate. Doesn’t matter if the Senate “passes a bill” unless that bill was written by the House.

            I’m saying:

            The House should write and pass that bill NOW and send it up to the Senate where it would THEN have actual meaning.

            And see what the Senate does.

          5. Gregg

            Actually, to be more precise, the Senate Bill is a nothingness because it is a tax measure and the Constitution requires all tax measures to originate in the House.

          6. Jim

            The relevante line from the Constitution is:

            All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

            S.3412 does not raise any revenue (it postpones the expiration of tax cuts), so it isn’t clear to me that it has to originate in the House.

            But if it does, I’m sure the Senate Dems would be happy to vote for it again. The question is whether McConnell would allow a vote. If the House GOP passes it, and the Senate GOP blocks it, the net effect would be worse than having the House do nothing. It will be even more clear that the GOP is blocking tax relief for the middle class, and would make it easier for Reid to do filibuster reform.

            I do wonder whether Obama is purposely trying to trigger GOP civil war.

          7. Gregg

            Jim writes:

            “so it isn’t clear to me that it has to originate in the House.

            But if it does, I’m sure the Senate Dems would be happy to vote for it again”

            It does. increasing tax rates is raising revenue.

            But more importantly, your confidence that the Senate Dems would vote for the bill I suggest is misplaced since:

            if you read carefully, which, if you did that, destroys your argument….

            my suggested bill is NOT LIKE the Senate Bill.

            Not sure how many times more I have to repeat that before it sinks in…….

    2. Jiminator

      “The public voted decisively for the Democrats in the Presidential election.”

      There, fixed that for you. The public also kept the House in GOP hands.

      1. Jim

        The public also preferred Democrats in the Senate and House races. The GOP got a majority of House seats despite getting a minority of House votes, through the magic of gerrymandering.

        1. Hal Duston

          “Incumbents got a majority of House seats” FIFY.

          Look at my own house district, the Missouri fifth. It is clearly gerrymandered to project the Democratic incumbent, Emanuel Cleaver II. This district was created by a state legislature with a large GOP majority in both houses who overrode the Democratic governor’s veto to create it.

          See the image at the URL on my name. The blue-green is the old fifth district, the purple is the new fifth district, and the purple marker is the home of Rep. Cleaver’s perennial GOP opponent. The area carved out of the district is the area with the most GOP voters in Jackson County.

    3. Gregg

      Jim wrote:

      “The Senate has already passed an extension of the middle class rates. ”

      Which is different than the idea I wrote up earlier in this thread where I said:

      “…no sunset”

      The Dem Senate idea was an extension – by your own words.

      I don’t want an extension. I want the tax rate to be SET at it’s present value, so that if it is changed, it must be voted on.

      So as you see, the Dem Senate idea and my idea are NOT the same.

      1. Jim

        Ah, okay, I missed that difference.

        I don’t think there’d be any trouble getting 50 Dem Senate votes for your bill. The question is whether McConnell would filibuster.

  6. Karl Hallowell

    I think both sides are going over the cliff. There’s not enough incentive for either side to cooperate on this.

    1. Karl Hallowell

      There are some companies paying extra dividends now supposedly due to the “fiscal cliff”. Apparently, under the conditions of the automated procedures, dividend taxes go way up. That indicates at the least a degree of uncertainty about whether a compromise is reached.

  7. Daver

    Bluff.

    The ono-asecond–the time between when you hit return and the time you realize you made a typo.

  8. MfK

    “Even if he could shift all the political blame for such a legislative failure onto congressional Republicans, Mr. Obama cannot afford to risk a new recession that would irreparably damage his second term.”

    Ha! You stupid conservative Republicans! As a newly-minted Leftist Democrat, I can vouch for the fact that a new recession will mark the crowning achievement of President Obama’s second term. One can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs; and the stubborn refusal of the economy to die so that we can put more people on the welfare rolls has stood in our way long enough. But no more!

    I’m sure that Comrade Jim will back me up, here…

  9. Gregg

    How so? Did you read the article?

    Did you even take the time from planning the destruction of millions of lives to read the excerpt I posted FROM the article?

    What am I talking about?

    I’m talking about the policies the Dems are pushing, and which you support, which will destroy the economic lives of millions of people (both in and out of the U.S.) and which are wholly rascist

Comments are closed.