Hanging Around, Nothing to do but Frown

h7SFVObama made some extremely mild fun of Congress this afternoon and the usual suspects feeled a feel:

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about the brief remarks was the Republican apoplexy that followed. Apparently, the president’s tone hurt GOP lawmakers’ feelings — so much so that many Republicans are now arguing that a fiscal agreement mail fail because Obama made them feel bad.

Seriously. That’s what they’re saying. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on the Senate floor that the president’s tone represented “heckling,” and as a consequence, he “lost some votes” for a compromise deal. Soon after, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also said Obama was too mean and made Congress feel bad.






273 replies
  1. 1
    Punchy says:

    If the deal that TPM is reporting is the one that will be voted on, Dems once again just got played. Schooled. Caved on almost every major bulletpoint. Wow.

    Just amazingly bad negotiating. Lots of progs gunna be demolarized.

  2. 2
    gbear says:

    Maybe we should just force them to wear jackets that say ‘Kick Me Hard’ on the back.

  3. 3

    My Senator Bob Corker had a big sad. According to Cox Radio Corker said

    “I know the President has fun heckling Congress…he probably lost some votes”

    Dumb fuck. The election already happened, idiot. Too late for you!

    So, I have a post up about New Year’s traditions. Anyone?

  4. 4
    Nicole says:

    GOP intransigence always gets me down.

  5. 5
    mistermix says:

    @Punchy: I hope your New Years’ resolution is to be a less predictable, not quite so dull troll. I doubt you have the mental capacity to achieve that lofty goal, but please try harder.

  6. 6
    gbear says:

    If the deal that TPM is reporting…

    You lost me at ‘TPM’.

  7. 7
    Kerry Reid says:

    The Grand Old Pantywaists

  8. 8
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    , he “lost some votes”

    Let me guess….Boxer and FISAstain. That’s discouraging.

  9. 9
    Jeremy says:

    I love how the emo left said the president and the dems caved, but the right wing is saying the republicans caved. The emo left and the right wing but jobs have a lot in common.

  10. 10
    c u n d gulag says:

    Oh, did the big, bad Presidenty-wenty-man huwt yow widdwe fee-fees?

    Who know sociopath’s even had fee-fees?

  11. 11
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Seriously, fuck these whining babies. Fuck them. Repeatedly. Make them suffer.

    I am so tired of bawling Rethuglican infants.

  12. 12
    eastriver says:

    Gods, it’s like herding retarded cats. Bam was just flicking his towel and shoving a few louts against the lockers. “Get the fuck in line, freshman.” Prez gotta do what a prez gotta do. Get shit DONE.

  13. 13
    MattF says:

    Would it be cruel and unfeeling to point out that these politicians have a lot to be sensitive about? I hope so.

  14. 14
    Punchy says:

    @mistermix: I’m a troll now? Really? Either post something worth commenting on or go fuck yourself with a rake. Both outcomes are quite ugly.

  15. 15
    PeakVT says:

    a fiscal agreement mail fail

    Wha-huh? Perhaps a fiscal agreement male fail, given the House Republicans are involved.

  16. 16
    eemom says:

    oh fer fux sake. This beyond stoopid clown car sideshow is the aspect of today’s events that you choose to focus on?

    Looks like ABL’s talent for serial headlining of the dumbest shit to be found on the innertoobz is the wave of the BJ future.

  17. 17
    lamh35 says:

    my mom draws unemployment since she had her heart attack. it’s her sole source of income until she hears from SS & or disability which can take a very long time anyway, but especially in NOLA right now with all the backlog. I know, I know it’s just one issue, but it’s the primary one in my mind right now for obvious reasons.

    if no deal is reached, what does that do for unemployment? can someone give me a realistic & non partisan idea?

  18. 18
    JPL says:

    Maybe David Gregory will ask McCain to show him where Obama hurt his feelings..
    McCain whined for a long time but he said this gem.

    “I guess I have to wonder – and I think the American people have to wonder – whether the president really wants this issue resolved or is it to his short-term political benefit for us to go over the cliff. I can assure the president of the United States – I can assure him — that historians judge presidents by their achievements.”

    To which I say hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

  19. 19
    Keith G says:

    It seems we are a nation addicted to amateur psychoanalysis. The GOP are so sure they can divine some deal breaking, disrespectful attitude from the President.

    In the thread below, a handful of commenters are arguing not so much about …err..actual policy,but instead on what is the proper expression of a reasonable temperament as it applies to ideas concerning gun safety.

    Or something like that.

  20. 20
    Jeremy says:

    Based on what I’m reading the Dems are getting the most out of this deal. Though the threshold has moved from 250 to 400-450 deductions and credits will be taken away for those making 200-250 k. They gave some on the state tax but Obama will keep all of his stimulative measures and tax credits for the working poor and students, the wind tax credit, UI.

    The thought of the republicans agreeing to any tax increase is a major concession. This deal is not that bad.

  21. 21
    askew says:

    @Punchy:

    How is that a bad deal?

    Rumored details:
    1. Increases taxes above $400/$450 permanently
    2. Increases estate taxes on people above $5m at 40%
    3. Extends Unemployment Insurance through 2013
    4. Extends wind farm and R&D credits through 2013
    5. Extends Obama stimulus credits through 2017 including childcare, student loan, earned income credit.
    6. Permanently fixes AMT.
    7. Pushes off any cuts for 3 months.
    8. Increases doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare
    9. No stimulus funds.
    10. Increased rates on capital gains at $400.
    11. Phase out of tax credits, exemptions and deductions at $250 for wealthy.

    So, the Dems compromised by moving the rate increase from $250 to $400/$450 and in exchange they are getting 2-5 which the GOP is opposed to.

    And it gives the Dems the opportunity to push for more revenue or stimulus at the debt ceiling/sequester negotiation.

    Where’s the negative?

  22. 22
    japa21 says:

    @Punchy: Interesting, because from what I see, the GOP caved on every issue, every single one.

  23. 23
    mistermix says:

    @Punchy: res ipsa loquitur

  24. 24
    Jeremy says:

    @Jeremy: nut jobs.

  25. 25
    Lojasmo says:

    @Punchy:

    Ezra Kline can kiss my ass. I will NEVER again believe a word that little fuck says.

  26. 26
    feebog says:

    @ Punchy:

    I’m a troll now? Really? Either post something worth commenting on or go fuck yourself with a rake. Both outcomes are quite ugly.

    You might want to review your initial comment and tell us exactly what value you added to the conversation. NO specifics, just fine whine. If you have a problem with the deal, spell it out or STFU.

  27. 27
    Holden Pattern says:

    This is the classic M.O. of the wingtards. Whenever you criticize the wingtards or their opinions (or even just disagree with them), the wingtards say that you’re being mean, the MOTU say you’re being mean to them, the wingtards warn that the soldiers feel like people are mean to them, the oil companies say you’re being mean to them, the ultrawealthy say you’re being mean to them. So therefore whatever shitty thing the wingtards do is all your fault because you’re a meanie and you hurt their widdle feewings.

    But these are the brave individualist heroes! Fuck me, pick one — you’re a delicate flower or you’re a brave pioneering stud who doesn’t care what other people think.

  28. 28
    Lojasmo says:

    @Jeremy:

    I love how the emo left said the president and the dems caved, but the right wing is saying the republicans caved. The emo left and the right wing but jobs have a lot in common.

    Exactly. The political spectrum is more a circle than a line.

  29. 29
    PeakVT says:

    @lamh35: In the short-term, any deal which includes UE extension is likely to make the benefit retroactive, as long as it is reached in the next month or so. Without a deal, people who have reached the end of their state-funded insurance benefits will be cut off.

  30. 30
    mistermix says:

    @eemom: I’m in the “I’ll believe there’s a deal when both houses pass it”. They have 8 hours and what do we have other than rumors? I don’t think it’s gonna happen, so I’m not getting excited about it. The sideshow is the show today.

  31. 31
    gf120581 says:

    @askew: Because Obama raised his stance from $250K to $400K. Therefore, he is a dirty, filthy sellout who caves to Republicans and isn’t even a real Democrat. Or so their logic goes.

    It really irritates me when some on the left start acting like the Teabaggers and the other wailing infants of the right. It’s expected from them. Our side is supposed to be the logical, rational one.

    Oh and it’s no surprise McCain has hurt fee-fees. Every day Obama sits in the WH is an affront to the delicate sensibilities of Crabbypants McYellsAtClouds.

  32. 32
    Jeremy says:

    Some on the left are just like some on the right. If you don’t get 100 % of what you want then it’s a betrayal and the end of civilization. Then they go on and act like their “saints” FDR and Reagan never compromised an inch and just kicked ass. This is not a dictatorship.

  33. 33
    mai naem says:

    I don’t know if I see this because I want to so bad or if it is so. I don’t think Obama likes McCain and I am hoping this dislike will get him involved in the 2016 Senate race of McCain. As in he gets involved in who runs and helps with the fundraising and GOTV. McCain is just such a nasty piece of work.

  34. 34
    JPL says:

    @lamh35: Hopefully this gets corrected before your mom is affected.

  35. 35
    Punchy says:

    @askew: There’s no need to negotiate up to $450K limit when you’ll have your $250K limit in less than 12 hours. Also, I see nothing about debt limit authority. Without some deal to raise it now, March will be a very ugly month.

    Still has to pass the House, which will be interesting.

  36. 36
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Oh, and fuck the vermin of the Village who share in the hurt fee-fees of the Rethug scum.

    These people need to be subjected to 24/7 mocking by Stephen Colbert.

  37. 37
    👽 Martin says:

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said on the Senate floor that the president’s tone represented “heckling,” and as a consequence, he “lost some votes” for a compromise deal. Soon after, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also said Obama was too mean and made Congress feel bad.

    Keep doing that Obama. At some point the public will remind these jerkwads that being Senator is a job, and not an invitation to a social dinner.

    I have the privilege of feeling bad at work too, from time to time. Usually happens right after I fuck up.

  38. 38
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @PeakVT:

    Without a deal, people who have reached the end of their state-funded insurance benefits will be cut off.

    Are cut off.

  39. 39
    JPL says:

    The House will not vote tonight.. so we go over the cliff…wahoo

  40. 40
    lamh35 says:

    @PeakVT: well that is def bad for my mom then Ii guess. I’m starting a new job in 2 weeks, so besides my final paycheck from my job, I won’t have another paycheck until my first check from the new one. which I will prob not see until at least the end of the month. hopefully she hears from guv before then, but if it takes until March (which is an early estimate), then il. have to fund a good bit of her income until then, which isn’t that bad, but it would put a strain on my finance for a while.

    still I understand my mom is only one person, but u can guess why its my front & center concern right now.

    selfish of me I know.

  41. 41
    MikeJ says:

    @askew:

    Where’s the negative?

    Obama did it, so it is de facto bad.

  42. 42
    Raven says:

    Who gives a fuck whether it’s 250 or 450? It don’t mean nuthin.

    spatuala

  43. 43
    Face says:

    Anyone know if they passed whatever they had to pass to keep milk and gubbmint cheese from going up to eleventy billion dollars a gallon?

  44. 44
    The Dangerman says:

    Soon after, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also said Obama was too mean and made Congress feel bad.

    Perhaps he wanted a reach around to actually do his fucking job?

  45. 45
    RinaX says:

    @askew:

    I’ve been asking the same question.

    There’s no need to negotiate up to $450K limit when you’ll have your $250K limit in less than 12 hours.

    It’s not just about the 250K limit, it’s all of the other items listed that would NOT be extended when the tax rates expire. And here’s the thing: I don’t trust the public OR the Senate Dems to stay on the President’s side after those expire. The public is fine as long as shit isn’t affecting THEM yet.

  46. 46
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    No worries. It can be patched later for a seamless victory.

  47. 47
    Raven says:

    I hope they reject it, he’s sandbaggin these punks.

  48. 48
    White Trash Liberal says:

    I had no idea the debt ceiling was ever included in any discussions…

    This is firebagger goalpost moving. Invent a detail that could have been negotiated after the fact and blame the president. Nice job.

  49. 49
    Jeremy says:

    @Punchy: The debt limit authority is not going to be included in the deal no matter how hard the dems try. The republicans are giving big concessions on taxes and Obama’s tax credits, UI, so they are not going to give in even more.

    What you are basically asking the republicans to do is give the democrats 100 % and they get nothing. How in the hell are the republicans going to agree to that ?

  50. 50
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Punchy: Schooled. Caved on almost every major bulletpoint. Wow.

    Wow, indeed. Even Krugman admits this:

    And at least one positive thing can be said: no giveaway on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Basically, no spending cuts at all.

    Of course, it takes him five paragraphs to get to that minor point.

  51. 51
    Raven says:

    Doug Heye, a spokesman for House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), tweeted, “If Obama’s goal was to harm the process and make going over the cliff more likely, he’s succeeding.” Another Cantor spokesperson said, “So….I’m confused….does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me.

    Fuckin A you punk ass motherfucker.

  52. 52
    Elie says:

    @Jeremy:

    And also for those who believe that any concessions by Obama are a sell out — how do they coerce the other side? “Over the cliff” some offer as though that is a solution! After we go over the cliff, we still have to work with more or less the same a-holes that we did before! Though we get the taxes back to pre-Bush levels, without a deal we would still have to work out the automatic cuts to unemployment insurance and a bunch of other programs affecting the poor and working class. We would then STILL have to negotiate with these people! There is no running away from that reality.

    Yes, we won a good victory this fall. But we did not win every single person or legislator in the country. We do not have a monarchy. We have to negotiate to do the best we can for our people. Perfect? No sir! But the best we can to keep the process alive and in play.

    How do you seek a negotiated solution to this without – er – negotiating? Why is that called a “sell out” — the very process we need to run the legislature is compromise. When does compromise become sell out and what are you critics offering as an alternative? What is your magic number for all these components? Oh, so you would just walk away? Obama should walk away, let the thing go over the cliff and then and then — be in a better position to negotiate with the same a-holes? And then the heat is REALLY on because we have to bring some relief to people who just got whacked by the mandatory program cuts when the deal went off the cliff…

    We have to follow due process and keep pushing forward to get a deal — the best deal we can because that is action that plays by the rules instead of big shot talk about sell outs and how the republicans always win because you know the Democrats are weak.

  53. 53
    dmsilev says:

    Assuming for the sake of argument that the rumored agreement is real and passes the Senate, does anyone want to guess what John Boehner and the passel of maniacs that he is at least nominally in charge of will do with it?

  54. 54
    General Stuck says:

    @mistermix:

    Yer playing with fire. Punchy is Mr. Cole’s personal sex therapist, and all around pRon manager. Not to mention his man Friday for future betrothal advisement. Blog VIP

  55. 55
    White Trash Liberal says:

    As if the GOP would negotiate their one trump card (debt ceiling) and vote to raise taxes when sequestration raises them without dirtying their hands?

    Not happening. Boehner won’t bring a vote on any senate deal. The Tea Party caucus won’t vote on a tax increase, and Boehner hasn’t the courage to put his gavel on the line by forging a coalition that involves Pelosi.

  56. 56
    Dracula says:

    If the Senate were to pass this, how do any of the House members have enough time to read it before voting on it? Wouldn’t this bill be a 100+ page document? Who can read, understand, and make sense of legalese that fast?

  57. 57
    Valdivia says:

    Bernstein who worked in the WH with Biden says the deal is giving up all the leverage.

    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/.....rnstein%29

    I am really just baffled by the tactics here, short and long term.

    Maybe the House will torpedo and I can stop freaking.

  58. 58
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    Sad news for one of the Democratic stalwarts in the House: Congressman John Lewis’s wife Lillian died a short time ago. Rep. Lewis is on his way back to Atlanta. They had been married 44 years.

  59. 59
    MattR says:

    @Punchy:

    There’s no need to negotiate up to $450K limit when you’ll have your $250K limit in less than 12 hours.

    There is if those negotiations give you additional items that you were not scheduled to receive in 12 hours.

  60. 60
    The Dangerman says:

    We’re going cliff diving?! Woohoo, no longer will we have to call them the Bush Tax cuts; now, we have the Bush Tax hike (it was his fucking bill that sunsetted) we have to clean up.

  61. 61
    hitchhiker says:

    Well, I don’t see the negative either — but what I hear others describing is their frustration that Obama didn’t just kick them in the teeth and then make him lick the blood off his boots.

    Some of us — me, sometimes — get so goddamn angry at the stupidity on the right that we want to see them destroyed, humiliated, ground-salted, all that. I’m guessing the prez wanted above all to demonstrate that governing is still (barely) possible. It really does matter that the rest of the world sees us doing shit instead of just hating on each other.

    It’s fairly monumental, getting the Rs to vote yes on taxing the rich.

  62. 62
    Raven says:

    I think 250 was bullshit all along.

  63. 63
    Jeremy says:

    @RinaX: Like you said the republicans were not willing to give on tax credits that Obama passed and other stimulative measures that help the working class. At first they weren’t even willing to accept tax increases.

    And the president is still getting deductions and credits removed for those making 200-250k. If no deal is done like you said then people will get pissed and demand action and what makes anyone here thing that the republicans will agree to all of the dems demands after everything expires ?

  64. 64
    Emma says:

    @lamh35: Your mom is not the only one. My best friend is on disability and some other things which are at risk. I don’t know about the rest of you, but if this deal allows him to keep his little apartment and put food in his stomach without having to beg on the streets and sleep on a grate in a Chicago winter (and yes, it’s that damn close) I am all for it.

    Some of us would rather think of the effects on real people that who wins the dick-swinging contest.

  65. 65
    👽 Martin says:

    @White Trash Liberal:

    I had no idea the debt ceiling was ever included in any discussions…

    It was for a while. Boehner had agreed to automatically increasing the debt limit for 1 year in one of the earlier plans. I’m not sure Geithner’s proposal got any agreement, though.

    I think we just need to get to the next budget, though. I’m having a hard time imagining any budget getting signed that doesn’t have the debt limit increase built in from here on out.

  66. 66
    White Trash Liberal says:

    So, a deal in the senate that involves no cuts to social programs is a massive cave?

    A deal that would raise taxes on the wealthy, preserve the EIC, and fix the AMT is a massive cave?

    I’m just trying to wrap my head around how just a week ago chained CPI was a massive cave, but now it’s gone… Retirement age increase was a massive cave but now it’s gone…

    I mean, seriously, something is amiss here. I was all prepared to grab my pitchfork and go all cray cray, but this seems like a pretty large victory. That won’t materialize.

  67. 67
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Raven:

    a yeap…

  68. 68
    4tehlulz says:

    @Dracula: They’re not voting on it today regardless.

    I don’t think they come back into session until the next congress, so it doesn’t matter if it passes the Senate today.

  69. 69

    @Southern Beale: Just gave you a taste of mine, Beale (and added you to the BBWW blogroll; an oversight for which I humbly apologize.)

  70. 70
    Punchy says:

    What you are basically asking the republicans to do is give the democrats 100 % and they get nothing.

    Funny. This was exactly the tone of the majority of comments here just one week ago, usually followed up with “since Obama won the election….” or “elections have consequences…”

  71. 71
    JPL says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: They met in 1967 at a New Year’s Eve party.

  72. 72
    Morbo says:

    Man, if there’s one thing Congress needs, it would be hecklers. Hiring some professional hecklers to sit in the balcony and boo them would do the country a lot of good.

  73. 73
    Elie says:

    @hitchhiker:

    I’m guessing the prez wanted above all to demonstrate that governing is still (barely) possible. It really does matter that the rest of the world sees us doing shit instead of just hating on each other.

    Yes, this. By the skin of our teeth — barely possible.

  74. 74
    chopper says:

    @askew:

    that ain’t a bad deal. which of course means boner ain’t got the votes for it.

  75. 75
    rikyrah says:

    @lamh35:

    lamh35 Says:

    @PeakVT: well that is def bad for my mom then Ii guess. I’m starting a new job in 2 weeks, so besides my final paycheck from my job, I won’t have another paycheck until my first check from the new one. which I will prob not see until at least the end of the month. hopefully she hears from guv before then, but if it takes until March (which is an early estimate), then il. have to fund a good bit of her income until then, which isn’t that bad, but it would put a strain on my finance for a while

    lot of those on the purity left don’t understand that the President has people like your mother on his mind. and the effects on real families like yours….but, I guess since it goes against ideology, folks just stop understanding that the GOP ARE SOCIOPATHS who just as soon starve people like your mother.

  76. 76
    Valdivia says:

    @hitchhiker:

    not for me. I don’t need the Rs to be kicked in the teeth. It’s just that this deal assumes/counts on more revenue later and assumes the debt ceiling will be a piece of cake–because last time and this time it was so easy right? Less stuff now, more hostage taking later. Just not smart. And I am saying this as probably one of the most die-hard Obots here.

    I really recommend reading the Bernstein link, he is no firebragger and was part of many deals cut by the WH before so he know the players and how it will go.

  77. 77
    Raven says:

    “Sad news amid the fiscal cliff madness: Lillian Miles Lewis, the wife of U.S. Rep. John Lewis, died this morning in Atlanta, his office announced. Spokeswoman Brenda Jones said John Lewis is returning to Atlanta today but had no more details to release about the cause of death.”

    sorry, I see it was already posted

  78. 78
    Alias Undercover says:

    Assuming for the sake of argument that the rumored agreement is real and passes the Senate, does anyone want to guess what John Boehner and the passel of maniacs that he is at least nominally in charge of will do with it?

    They’ll kill it, and we’ll be back to a new bill with the taxes going up after 250K, Boehner being shown to be an incompetent ass (again) and the Rethuglicans’ popularity dropping to somewhere below that of slime mold.

    Understand, I’m not claiming Obama’s playing 11-dimensional chess here, crafting a compromise he has no intention of ever seeing pass, then torpedoing it by hurting the ‘thugs’ feelings. I think he’s trying to do his best to make a deal, with concessions by the ‘thugs on many issues… but if someone else kills it, it’s still going to be a win for the Dems and for the country.

  79. 79
  80. 80
    Elie says:

    @Jeremy:

    what makes anyone here thing that the republicans will agree to all of the dems demands after everything expires ?

    Exactly. As I said, there is no escaping the reality that we have to at some point or the other, try to get the best deal we can and if we are lucky, the thing will pass the House (not at all certain as you know). sigh

  81. 81
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Valdivia:

    It’s living from hand-to-mouth. There truly_is_no Leadership, anywhere.

  82. 82
    Raven says:

    @Alias Undercover: that’s what I’m talkin bout. Fuck those sissy punks.

  83. 83
    General Stuck says:

    Everyone should calm down and realize that most of what is going on, maybe all of it, is for which side has no chair to sit in to avoid blame once the music stops at midnight. Not all surprising, the House nihilists won’t even hold a vote. When they have already voted for both Obama and dems and Boehner and repubs to go pound sand if they won’t help burn it down.

    They are driving the clown car with no brakes and no steering. The rest of us are just along for the ride. And a little Kabucki to keep for entertainment. There is a revolution at the circus, and it will be televised. The voters can stop it, only them. If it’s not too late.

  84. 84
    PeakVT says:

    If the Republicans are agreeing to vote for multiple tax increases (I won’t believe they actually did agree until the gavel comes down), then in the current context this is a big victory by Obama. The deal may not result in optimal policy, or even good policy, but the country doesn’t have the opportunity to elect a different HoR for the next 22+ months. Hopefully the next time America won’t fuck up and give the Crazy Caucus another chance to blow up the country.

  85. 85
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Elie: NBC is stating flat out that the House will not vote on it before midnight. I don’t know how fast Boner can reverse that call. I don’t know who’s telling Boner what to do, and I think he’s pretty clearly a figurehead at this point.

  86. 86
    Punchy says:

    and all around pRon manager

    I did not know this. Resume builder!

    As someone else asked, did Congress fix the Dairy Dilema today? Will my chocolate milk cost me a sawbuck tomorry?

  87. 87
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    I am either:
    A)Too old.
    B)Too fed up.
    C)Too inured to violence.
    D)All of the above.

    To not be moved to think fondly of kicking some Republicans in the junk.

  88. 88
    General Stuck says:

    However, there is still a tiny possibility than Boehner and Mcconnell will bite the bullet at the last second, and Boehner frees the house to vote on the clean Senate bill passed last summer, at the 250 mark, only. It is so tiny, the possibility, that it hardly exists at all/

  89. 89
    👽 Martin says:

    As someone else asked, did Congress fix the Dairy Dilema today?

    Sorta. One year extension, so milk prices won’t spike.

    But at the current rate we should just disband the legislature and eliminate all expiration of laws. Would look exactly the same.

  90. 90
    Maude says:

    @gbear:
    I wanted to know if people ask you about your button. I think it’s a good idea. What a great way to make a statement.

  91. 91
    Elie says:

    @Valdivia:

    But tell me how you end the hostage taking without hurting our people also? What is the price you (or others) are willing for those who will go without to achieve this goal?
    If we do not get unemployment insurance extended and the people’s friend’s upstring don’t get their money, don’t we STILL have to negotiate with the a-holes anyway after we are over the cliff? Please tell me the specific process of how we coerce (or pursuade for the more delicate), the Republicans from hostage taking activities – eg always holding some program up with a threat to damage it to get something that they want?

    Seriously — this technique does not exist. It is wishful thinking. Letting them kill the hostage is not considered a successful outcome.

  92. 92
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Raven: I saw some of it yesterday, but according to Charlie Pierce’s recap, every single panelist on MTP yesterday said that Obama can’t work the R’s because he hasn’t had them upstairs at the White House for an afternoon of Yatzee and root beer floats. There’s a lot wrong with that, about the press who think like that, the probability that there might be some truth to it with regard to a few senators, or the fact that the VSPs really have no fucking idea what’s going on in a Republican House caucus they played no small part in creating.

    Also, too, the fact that Obama did in fact pursue this kind of cocktail weenie strategy in the first year of his term. It got him “you lie!”, birthers in Congress, death panels, et cetera.

  93. 93
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    Krugman says it’s not as bad as it could have been, but with a caveat…..

    OK, now for the really bad news. Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama’s previous behavior, can’t help but reach one main conclusion: whenever the president says that there’s an issue on which he absolutely, positively won’t give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way — and soon, too. The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn’t seem to be one that this particular president can grasp.

    Future negotiations will continue to be verklempt.

  94. 94
    Ohmmade says:

    @Punchy: And what if it isnt?

  95. 95
    Raven says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: No shit, they’re getting just exactly what they deserve.

  96. 96
    Elie says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Well, over the cliff we go, I guess…

    This is a little bit of terra incognita. If the house passed the legislation to set us the “fiscal cliff”, can’t they just vote an extension?

    Just asking…

  97. 97

    Echoing what someone else said upthread; everything is theory until it happens. No matter what Obama comes up with — total cave or total beat-down to Boehner — I’ll believe it when I see it pass both houses. Until then… wow, why did I stop drinking in 1992?

  98. 98
    Jeremy says:

    @Punchy: Yeah Obama won but the republicans still control the house. Obama is not a dictator because if he was we wouldn’t have to deal with this crap.

    How do you get the republicans to agree to tax increases from the 250 threshold, and agree to all of the measures the dems support including UI, and a debt limit increase ? Because that is the question and it seems like some on the left once again does not understand that you have to have the votes.

    Like I said earlier the Professional left and some stupid democrats in the senate are largely to blame for this situation and the debt ceiling debacle in 2011. When some dems in the senate abandoned Obama’s call to end the bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010 and he then had to come around to cut a deal to extend them. And when the professional left attacked Obama again and again telling Democrats and other voters to teach the dems a lesson and stay home. So I really could care less what the professional left and emo left have to say about anything.

  99. 99
    Raven says:

    @Mustang Bobby: Hey, me too! Seemed like a good idea at the time and it still does now.

  100. 100
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    Future negotiations will continue to be verklempt.

    Future negotiations will induce Weltshmertz.

  101. 101
    Emma says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): I have decided that I will read Krugman on economics. On anything else, he’s as much an idiot as any of us. Perhaps more, because he’s supposed to be one of the biggest intellects around.

  102. 102
    MattR says:

    It is hard to pass judgement on any plan until all the specifics are know, but I hope that President Obama is not taken hostage by senitmental feelings for those who would be immediately harmed by the lack of a deal. It is good that he has those feelings (and I definitely don’t want to dismiss the plight of folks like lamh35’s mother who are very rightly much more concerned with the immediate future), but IMO as president he has to balance them against all the people who would be harmed in the medium or long term by signing a bad deal. As a simplistic and extreme example, would it make sense to extend UI benefits at the cost of raising the Medicare eligibility age? I think there are comparisons to both military leaders (who sometimes have to “sacrifice” some of their troops to achieve a larger goal) and to union strikes (where the workers forego necessary earnings for a short period of time in order to gain better benefits over the long term). While there are definitely firebaggers who won’t accept anything less than 110% of their demands, I also think it is a mistake to paint all opposition to a deal as ignoring the negative real world short term consequences of that opposition.

    Note: I am not stating an opinion about any deal or specific ideas that have been proposed.

  103. 103
    Studly Pantload, the emotionally unavailable unicorn says:

    @Jeremy:

    The emo left and the right wing but jobs

    I think you have a typo in that phrase. There should be two t’s in “butt.”

  104. 104
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate:

    We go to war with the Zeitgeist, we have.

  105. 105
    General Stuck says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    Future negotiations will continue to be verklempt.

    Krugman is a hysterical idjit on politics, mixed with the need to keep emoprogs reading his blog for profit. If every position staked out can never be negotiated, then there is no negotiation to be had. To my knowledge, Obama has never declared no deal unless he gets everything he wants, or says he wants, like the 250 grand cutoff. The only thing he always, and I mean always states as his bedrock principle that the middle class and poor don’t shoulder too much of the load, and that the rich should shoulder more. 250 thousand is just a number, in the end, that doesn’t effect the poor or mc a bit. But losing ue bennies and a bunch of stimulus tax breaks for lower income folks will hurt them.

    Sick of Krugman’s drama queen bullshit.

  106. 106
    Valdivia says:

    @Elie:

    I would think going over the cliff and starting fresh with the Obama Tax cuts for the middle class which every day they are not passed Obama can make a point of it. And Reid.

    You think the next round they won’t want even more stuff and they will get it, inevitably? The point is that now we had leverage, and still we gave away a lot, how much will be given away next time, after this, the way the deal is set up when the leverage on our side will be absolutely zero.

    I am not arguing that there are no good things in this deal, just that it was a stupid stupid way to get at it. Making a lot of noise at the outset about lines in the sand that will never get crossed (my god we spent 2 years on an election and won saying this and the public agrees for once!) and then to fold while getting nothing that makes the next negotiation for our side easier–that’s what I think is the mistake.

  107. 107
    👽 Martin says:

    @Elie:

    Please tell me the specific process of how we coerce (or pursuade for the more delicate), the Republicans from hostage taking activities – eg always holding some program up with a threat to damage it to get something that they want?

    The US electorate only learns by putting its hand on the hot stove. We literally need to kill people before attitudes change – usually a lot of people in a short period of time in horrific ways.

  108. 108
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Valdivia:

    So Bernstein says the current deal contains some “real wins,” but he’s worried about how it looks?

    Sorry, but his theory only makes sense if you already belong in the “Obama always caves to everything the Republicans want!” camp. I’m still not sure how he went from the deal having “real wins” in it to it being a bad deal because of potential influence on possible negotiations later in the year?

    I still get a sneaky feeling that the people complaining about how this deal will be bad for negotiating later deals because shut up, that’s why, may not be very good negotiators.

  109. 109
    Jeremy says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): And right on cue Krugman attacks Obama for this deal. And this is the problem I have with the professional left. They love to attack Obama even for things he doesn’t do but they act like Clinton was a saint and they praise him and Hillary.

    Krugman has not said one word about Clinton caving to republicans time and again on welfare reform, telecoms, financial regulation, nafta, and decreasing capital gains taxes. He won’t talk about his buddy Clinton but Obama is evil and can’t get 100 % of what he wants.

  110. 110
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Emma:

    Like the rest of us, though, he hates to be treated like a fool and a dupe. So, he has that going for him.

  111. 111
    Emma says:

    @MattR: Thank you. When my friend commits suicide (he’s already depressed to have lost everything and we’re all concerned) we’ll send you the damn bill for the burial (none of us have money to foot the bill).

  112. 112
    Maude says:

    @Emma:
    Your friend can’t be tossed out because of this. The court wouldn’t allow that. It will be okay. Tell your friend that it will work out. It will.
    I have been harping on UI. Many people are going to get hurt and I find that unconscionable of the Republicans.
    I haven’t heard that disability will be cut off for January. I get updates by email from SSA and Medicare.

  113. 113
    Elie says:

    Obama is not just negotiating for himself to win for himself. He has to think of real consequences for people who will be effected if this thing does not go down. He has to think cost/benefit — not just “I won so shut up and do what I tell you”. I have just never heard how the critics here (and elsewhere), figure that the dynamic can be changed by Obama just insisting on what he wants and that is that. The basis for negotiation is compromise based on the fact that 1) both parties are in the same game with the same rules and 2) both want something out of the game that the other can give. If one or both parties are not interested in the game, we have a hard time reaching a negotiated settlement. Here, the huge externality is the outcome for our people, our economy and our pride as a country of laws and governance – a non trivial impact on world markets and such. Lets give the President and all the Democratic negotiators our very best thoughts and good wishes for a successful outcome… sheesh

  114. 114
    schrodinger's cat says:

    Can we start panicking after a deal actually goes through and we know all the details. This Obama has sold us all deal, is getting really tiresome.

  115. 115
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Jeremy:

    Actually, Krugman sees something good in this deal, albeit temporary. But the short-sighted nature of it sets up more and more crises on the next horizon.

  116. 116
    MattR says:

    @Emma: Look. I have tremendous sympathy for the plight of everyone in your friend’s situation. I have had friends commit suicide when they were in a place they could not see a way out of. But the President does not have the luxury of worrying about the lives of each individual American because there will always be someone harmed by his decision. He has to look at the bigger picture and make a decision that balances the short, medium and long term needs of the entire country.

  117. 117
    Emma says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): No. It has nothing with that. It has to do with making the same mistake all the emoprogs make. They don’t want real substantial progress; they want someone to deliver a public humiliation to Republicans so they can feel revenged for those years under Bush.

    Krugman likes to make believe he can read Obama’s mind. He fails time and again, but never rethinks his own premises.

  118. 118
    Emma says:

    @Maude: I hope so. I really hope so.

  119. 119
    Gian says:

    the complaints seem like a way to change the blame for there not being a deal.

    look, the Speaker of House couldn’t sell his own regressive plan B to his own team, because it wasn’t regressive enough.

    a less regressive senate version is a dead letter until the orange speaker is willing to put the bill on the floor and let it come to a vote.

    Unless he got a backbone installed over the Christmas break, I just don’t see it.
    all the complaints about tone are to try and shift the blame to anywhere but the teabagging Koch whores and their Norquist pledge army in the house.

  120. 120
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Jeremy: Krugman’s post is pretty incoherent. It’s a terrible deal because Obama is a weak lying wimp. The things Obama gave in on aren’t really that big a deal, and if the deal doesn’t go through, real people will suffer, and the concessions Obama got from Republicans will help real people, but it’s a terrible deal, because I would have been Hillary’s Treasury Secretary, and then… magic! Obama is a terrible president.

  121. 121
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Emma:

    They don’t want real substantial progress; they want someone to deliver a public humiliation to Republicans so they can feel revenged for those years under Bush

    You lost me there…….

  122. 122
    Dick Move says:

    Tomorrow is a federal holiday, so whether there is a vote tonight or not, there won’t be any consequences until Wednesday. IOW, a vote tomorrow, if successful, would be soon enough to avoid the ‘cliff’.

  123. 123
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    What kind of long-term deal do you picture us being able to get from a Republican-controlled House? Hunkering down and punting as best we can until 2014 seems most likely to do a minimum amount of permanent damage.

    For all of his brilliance about economics, Krugman is not very good at calculating political realities or predicting what politicians are going to do.

  124. 124
    👽 Martin says:

    @Gian:

    Unless he got a backbone installed over the Christmas break, I just don’t see it.

    Voting for the next Speaker is in 3 days. I imagine Boehner’s attitude about what to bring to the floor will change immeasurably in 3 days.

  125. 125
    Elie says:

    @Valdivia:

    I don’t think we have folded with getting nothing. A) we don’t know for sure what we have and 2) from the reports above, sounds like we did pretty good — not perfect but good — like extending the UE benefits.

    The only leverage we have is now — but that leverage is not absolute. So I guess, the question becomes for the negotiators, what is enough? When are you ready to give up and walk the plank with only the tax increase from the Bush tax cuts expiriting? Also, once you walk away, you have the certainty of again, facing the same folks who if anything, are even more pissed off…

  126. 126
    Emma says:

    @MattR: Wonderful. Living in the world of Dr. Strangelove. Silly me. I thought it was only a movie.

    Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

  127. 127
    Suffern ACE says:

    @askew: yes. I am not seeing the cave? Unless the incomes of those making 250-400K are a great concern. Nothing in there looks like broadening the tax base down, or much else. 250k was an arbitrary number, and it is a lot lower than the 1,0M that the moderates wanted.

  128. 128
    Emma says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): Are you telling me you haven’t notice the many Dems who seem to measure success as how much we kick Republicans in the junk? Me, I can afford it. Obama, not so much.

  129. 129
    gbear says:

    @Maude: I haven’t gotten any reaction from it on the street but I’ve been hiding out with a cold for the last week. Friends of mine like them and are asking for more. I need to ask a buck a piece for them to cover most of the cost (although I’ve been accepting mochas or hot chocolate in exchange for buttons).

    There have been a couple times I thought about taking it off because I was nervous about where I was, but I realized it was just my own paranoia rather than any real danger, so wearing the button has helped me be more aware of my own unwarranted fears, and that’s been a good thing.

  130. 130
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Gian:

    all the complaints about tone are to try and shift the blame to anywhere but the teabagging Koch whores and their Norquist pledge army in the house.

    Yep. Boehner knows he doesn’t have the votes, and Republicans are desperate to shift the blame when this deal also fails.

  131. 131
    Valdivia says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    no it’s not shut up that’s why. It’s about who thinks they walked away with the most so the next time around they feel they have the upper hand. Republicans feel like winners because they got a big shiny thing: Obama gave up on his cut off number. This is what the public know and understands–the other things are super important but the topline of the deal will be: 450k permanent tax cuts. It just created a heightened incentive to play Russian roulette with the economy every time because they think they won. And they will NOT pay a price for it.

    If Obama were to right now say he will take the constitutional option and ignore the Congress on the debt ceiling I would be ecstatic at this deal. Instead he backed down from the ONE thing he campaigned on for 2 years, which would have been perfect if he got something permanent to show for it in exchange. Instead now we have to go back to negotiating for hostages again every few months and these idiots extracting a lot each time, specially because the public doesn’t understand the debt ceiling and couldn’t care less about it. The linking of the tax rates to the debt ceiling was important because of that! Why not push for a one year extension or a 2 year one?

    To me that makes no sense at all. I will be happy to be proven wrong and will admit it if I am but I just don’t see the politics playing well for us on this.

  132. 132
    General Stuck says:

    @Emma:

    LOL, apropos film reference!!

  133. 133
    Maude says:

    @Emma:
    There has been no announcement that Social Security is not being paid for January.
    Timothy Geithner would have made it plain that SS was not going to be paid.
    I don’t have any more to go on.
    I’m on SSDI. I have a dog in this race.

  134. 134
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Mnemosyne

    A metaphor; If I’m selling a car on Craigslist, I have a wish-price and a bottom-line.

    If some joker texts me with a low-ball, and i tentatively agree, guess what happens when the jokester comes to see the car?

    I think you know. I don’t negotiate with myself.

  135. 135
    Maude says:

    @gbear:
    I have wondered if people are stocking up on ammo around here and I’m in NJ. It isn’t paranoia.

  136. 136
    eemom says:

    @Valdivia:

    I tend to agree with you.

    And Jaysus H. Christmas, it OUGHT to be possible to question the strategic and other merits of this deal WITHOUT being accused of being a firebaggist whiner or whatever.

    Oh wait, I’m on Groupthink Juice….

  137. 137
    pat says:

    If the deal the President was talking about does not include any changes to Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, that seems like a huge win. And the fact that McCain is whining about Obama being an old meany tells me that they are trying to shift the blame if it can’t pass in the Senate, and I doubt very much it would pass the House in any case.

    As someone said, a dead hostage is not an acceptable out come. But I still think the repubs would love to see the economy tank again so they can blame it on a Democratic president.

    Psychopaths.

  138. 138
    Suffern ACE says:

    Ok. We just found out that our farm bill was a temporary measure passed as a temporary measure since 1949, and the amt fix and doc fixes have to be passed every year, and the debt ceiling is tut tut drama time whenever Congress feels like it, and krugman is worried about the next crises?

  139. 139
    The Dangerman says:

    @eemom:

    …it OUGHT to be possible to question the strategic and other merits of this deal WITHOUT being accused of being a firebaggist whiner or whatever.

    What deal? I only hear disinformation and spin.

  140. 140
    Linda says:

    @mistermix:
    Thank you. Happy to see somebody in the lefty blogosphere not lose their shit. I can get that there are conditions under which going over the fiscal cliff would have been worth it (like a rise in Soc Security or medicare age), but severe budget cuts and a tax increase for all incomes would have hurt a lot of folks. And the economy is just healing. Please, can we not hyperventilate for a minute?

  141. 141
    Jeremy says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: LOL !
    Krugman knows his stuff when it comes to economics but not when it comes to politics.

    Obama has not been a perfect president but no president is perfect but he never made terrible deals like Bill Clinton did. The only thing you can say about Obama is that he hasn’t been able to get 100 % of what he wants but because of that people scream betrayal, attack him and his wife personally, talk about how all the other white presidents were better than him. And that is coming from some on the left not just the right.

    Krugman’s buddy Clinton was a failure by his standards but all we hear is how Clinton was a bad ass, and a economic warrior, but compared to Obama’s legislative accomplishments in two years he was mediocre at best.

  142. 142

    @Mustang Bobby:

    Awww thanks!! I approved your comment, you’re good to go from now on!

  143. 143
    Beauzeaux says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Can we start panicking after a deal actually goes through and we know all the details. This Obama has sold us all deal, is getting really tiresome.

    Thank you. I am also very tired of attacks on PBO for what has only happened in the heads of people who specialize in hair-on-fire hysteria.

    I’m going to go have a drink or three with our neighbors and be back home at 10pm for our customary New Year’s tradition of not having a New Year’s tradition.

  144. 144
    MattR says:

    @Emma: What world do you live in where it is possible for the President to act in ways that harm zero Americans?

    I am not saying the President should be indifferent to the lives negatively affected by his decisions. I am just saying he should not be solely focused on them

  145. 145
    Brachiator says:

    @Punchy:

    If the deal that TPM is reporting is the one that will be voted on, Dems once again just got played. Schooled. Caved on almost every major bulletpoint. Wow. Just amazingly bad negotiating. Lots of progs gunna be demolarized.

    Progs deserve to be demoralized. A useless, self-important bunch of fence sitters.

    What is it that you think the Dems should have done, and how would they have got there?

    Looking back, in 1993 got a tax and budget bill through a Congress with a Democratic majority, but he did it without a single Republican vote. Obama does not have a Democratic majority in the House and the GOP is dedicated to obstructionism.

    Idiots who say that going over the fiscal cliff would not be a big thing are simply uninformed, especially since the GOP is willing to hold unemployment benefits and milk price support hostage. And there is the little matter of the debt ceiling.

    The Republicans have shown that they have no problem tanking the economy in order to get what they want. You cannot easily negotiate with delusional, bitter fools.

    @Valdivia:

    I would think going over the cliff and starting fresh with the Obama Tax cuts for the middle class which every day they are not passed Obama can make a point of it. And Reid.

    Unfortunately, I am not sure that there is any such thing as starting fresh. Even if we go over the cliff, the president and the Congress would have to do something about unfinished 2012 tax items, otherwise 2012 taxes go up for at least 28 million tax payers. And going over the fiscal cliff pleases some Republicans since a boatload of tax credits that help low and middle income taxpayers go away or are severely reduced.

  146. 146
    Maude says:

    @MattR:
    You in the how many people have to die before it’s important place.
    You might want to rethink that.

    ETA FDR was concerned with people who were without resources. It is part of what made him great.

  147. 147
    Valdivia says:

    @eemom:

    And I think everyone knows I am the hard core Obot brigade captain. My doubts come from knowing the Reps and hearing McConnell already making plans on the Senate floor about the debt ceiling and feeling victorious that they got Obama to go up without giving up on that on their side.

    I think leaving the debt ceiling hanging this way is a stupid stupid easily dealt with mistake. All they had to do was tag a one year deal, just to show the debt ceiling was not going to be a second bite at this apple.

    Also, too: not close enough to having enough revenue. 84% of the Bush tax cuts made permanent. So that’s a problem too.

  148. 148
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Valdivia:

    Republicans feel like winners because they got a big shiny thing: Obama gave up on his cut off number.

    Actually, Republicans don’t feel like winners right now, which is why they’re whining about how mmmmeeeaaaannnn the president was during their speech and saying that they’re going to kill the deal because of his “tone.”

    And, yes, sometimes in a negotiation you decide to create and hold out a big shiny thing that you’re actually okay with not getting in the long run to make your opponent feel like he’s getting something from the deal. As I said in another thread, “Take it or leave it” is not a workable negotiating position. Neither is trying to grind the other guy into the dust, at least if you actually want to accomplish anything.

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    If some joker texts me with a low-ball, and i tentatively agree, guess what happens when the jokester comes to see the car?

    What happens is that you don’t sell it to him at that price. What, you thought you had some kind of legal obligation to meet that price before you even entered into the negotiation?

    Jesus, no wonder you guys keep thinking we’re losing — you have no fucking idea how a negotiation works in the first place.

  149. 149
    kathy a. says:

    no house vote today.

  150. 150
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne: it should be a good deal that is a long-term deal and a clear win that also sends a message, and if it isn’t all that at the same time, well, it blows, QED. This is how to handle all negotiations. Like if you find a house in your price range and in your preferred neighborhood and with the right number of bedrooms, but the master bath has only one sink, you walk, because, principle, that’s why.

  151. 151
    General Stuck says:

    @Emma:

    Maude is right. Entitlements and SSDI is one, are called entitlements because they derive directly from mandated federal law, without financial strings attached, and are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the USA. Theoretically, these benefits can be interrupted by a stoppage of funding of the federal government, but even that is disputed. The congress wrapped these programs in solid legal steel, that is one big reason it drives the wingnuts crazy that they can’t touch them, even with a pinkie finger.

  152. 152
    monkeyfister says:

    I am SO embarrassed that Bob Corker (Fascist Party) is a re-elected Senator from Tennessee, where JOB forces me to live. What a horrible, horrible excuse for a Human Being he is.

    Fuck your delicate fee-fees, Corker. DIAF, and do the state and this country a FAVOR, already.

  153. 153
    JPL says:

    Clinton’s doctors have release a statement
    “In the course of a routine follow-up MRI on Sunday, the scan revealed that a right transverse sinus venous thrombosis had formed. This is a clot in the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear. It did not result in a stroke, or neurological damage. To help dissolve this clot, her medical team began treating the Secretary with blood thinners. She will be released once the medication dose has been established. In all other aspects of her recovery, the Secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery. She is in good spirits, engaging with her doctors, her family, and her staff.”

    Someone on this very site mentioned this possibility earlier..

  154. 154
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    What, you thought you had some kind of legal obligation to meet that price before you even entered into the negotiation?

    I somehow knew the metaphor would be wasted. Thanks for confirming.

  155. 155
    Emma says:

    @MattR: I live in a world in which I expect the president to help the most needy, even if it means negotiating with the bastards. IF the economy were better, IF unemployment were better, I would say, go ahead Mr. President, kick them in the junk. It isn’t. A LOT of Americans in the shitter economically and it’s his responsibility to help them.

    I wonder if it affected your parents or your children you would be so willing to take a hard line.

  156. 156
    Valdivia says:

    I am going to go and celebrate the new year.

    I guess we will know who really ‘won’ when in February the markets are tanking and the credit rating of the US is downgraded again because we didn’t do anything about the debt ceiling this time around.

    But hey I guess it makes me unrealistic and a naive idiot to think that contemplating that as part of the deal this time around would have helped our negotiating position in the next round.

  157. 157
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    Perhaps you need to improve your metaphors since you seem to think that a tentative “sure, come on by and try the car” requires you to sell it at that price.

  158. 158
    Maude says:

    @General Stuck:
    I checked all over. No mention of SS being held up. For people who get their money on the 1st, they got it today because of the holiday. It tears me up when people just brush away the concerns of those who suffer.
    I want ever Repub on that bomb going down.

  159. 159
    lamh35 says:

    @kathy a.: ok. so I’m gonna be moving next week. so gonna have to try & spend as little money as possible so if my moms unemployment stops ill just have to tighten my belt a little. still at least I’m going back home to Louisiana (7 years after Katrina) & I’ll be closer to my moms too.

    Happy New Year everybody!

  160. 160
    Maude says:

    @JPL:
    She is lucky.

  161. 161
    General Stuck says:

    @Valdivia:

    I think you are mis reading the state of play with such offered compromise. Obama knows there will be no deal, no matter, and what the republicans think is moot. All of this dance is for the main audience that is the American voter. Who like them some flexibility for compromise, and don’t like hard ass ideologues like the current GOP. They don’t read such things as weakness, and in the end, they are the audience that matters.

    It is easy to get caught up in the neverending dog fight with the republicans, and not wanting them to get an inch of anything. But that is not smart politics, and why Obama has a 57 percent approval, and the GOP no where near that. And it says it all that the wingnuts in the House are going home and not voting. If true, game set match for dems and Obama, as the voting public will offer nothing but a thumbs down for such behavior by republicans with such an important issue. That is your longer term strategy.

    edit – though it does nothing for those that will be hurt by republicans, for their intransigence. All Obama and dems can do is salvage some cold pol capital from the mess, but the nutters have a vote and they have decided to let those vulnerable people eat cake.

  162. 162
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Valdivia:

    But hey I guess it makes me unrealistic and a naive idiot to think that contemplating that as part of the deal this time around would have helped our negotiating position in the next round.

    Frankly, I’m guessing that the idea of putting the debt ceiling into this deal was killed off pretty early by both sides. Though people keep hyping the “fiscal cliff,” the immediate problem really was taxes and having various tax breaks expire, not the debt ceiling.

    IANAE (economist), but I am content to see how the CBO says this deal will affect the debt before I decide that it automatically puts us in a bad position for the debt ceiling negotiations. I also don’t mind that we will have a few more Democrats in the House in the next Congress (and a few less Republicans) if the negotiations get pushed off to then.

  163. 163
    Valdivia says:

    @General Stuck:

    hey if there is no deal I will be ecstatic. I just think this is going to be the deal and the debt ceiling mistake will bite ALL of us in the ass many times over when the Reps insist on cutting the programs for the poorest in exchange for not blowing up the world economy by defaulting.

    If I am wrong I will be here eating crow happily, I mean it.

    Happy New year everyone.

  164. 164
    Emma says:

    @Valdivia: Not an idiot, but you seem to be thinking you’re negotiating with sane people. They aren’t going to negotiate in good faith ever, ever, EVER. Each negotiation is a way of screwing Obama over. That’s their bottom premise EACH TIME. They haven’t learned anything and if they have moved at all, they have moved in the wrong direction.

  165. 165
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Mnemosyne: Frankly, I’m guessing that the idea of putting the debt ceiling into this deal was killed off pretty early by both sides

    Yeah, I don’t see McConnell giving up what is pretty much his only good card over the next session, and if we go over the thing, I don’t see any incentive for him to put it back on the table, given that he doesn’t care about either the individual suffering or economic damage that are at risk.

  166. 166
    MattR says:

    @Emma: I am not upset that you are pushing for programs that would personally help you. I would do the same exact thing. I am not taking any kind of hard line stance nor am I suggesting the President should not be negotiating. If anything, I am suggesting the opposite – that the president should not be held hostage during negotiations by the damage caused by UI benefits being allowed to expire. What are you willing to agree to in order to keep UI benefits? Every one of the Republican demands?

  167. 167
    RedKitten says:

    All I know is that considering some of the shit that the Repulbicans have flung Obama’s way, hearing about their precious fee-fees makes me want to borrow a particular rusty pitchfork.

  168. 168
    Bruce S says:

    John McCain is the biggest fucking phony on the planet. He and Palin were appropriate label-mates in 2008 – that was the ticket of unbridled narcissism…and, of course, totally self-serving bullshit. This shriveled little prick is still licking his wounds – can’t deal with the rejection. It looks like even the slavish press corps that created the McCain Maverick Myth doesn’t think too highly of this clown at this stage of his demise.

  169. 169
    Emma says:

    @MattR:No. But I would not reject this deal out of hand, either. IF it helps the majority of people in the country keep their head above water, I am all for it. Right now, considering the state of the global economy, that’s my main concern.

  170. 170
    bcinaz says:

    Can’t wait for the next GOP administration when Putin lobs a stink bomb or some ayatollah in Iran says something dumb. Bad feelings and Nukes!

  171. 171
    Anne Laurie says:

    @lamh35: Happy New Year to you, too! You’ve got two definite life improvements to look forward to — being in NOLA, and closer to your mom — and all the rest is just speculation, so far.

  172. 172
    Rhoda says:

    @Valdivia:

    (1) The Debt Ceiling Fight was always going to happen.

    Republicans are looking for this fight; POTUS has said he won’t fight over it. We are going to have a major blow up over this matter.

    (2) $250k was never going to be the final number and everyone knew it. By definition, a compromise would mean moving off that number.

    To begin with; there are Senate dems who want a million dollar cut off and for whom $400k is a climb down. Also, the estate tax has major conservadem defenders. The concessions made are ones that were likely necessary to keep the senate democrats united. Meanwhile, we are getting permanent tax rate increase, stimulus in the tax code, and UI extension for a year. This is awesome.

    Republicans lost. They lost the communications war. They lost the image war. And they are voting to raise taxes; which cuts their core message. This is huge.

    The President won; again. I am astounded, again, how his supporters refuse to hold him up high when he scores these wins. Especially since he’s playing with psychopaths looking to rip him to pieces and drink his blood.

  173. 173
    Mnemosyne says:

    @MattR:

    What are you willing to agree to in order to keep UI benefits? Every one of the Republican demands?

    How about, I don’t know, the actual deal as detailed by askew? Can we start with that before flying off into speculation about what alternate deal might be acceptable?

    I think people have every right to be really pissed off at Republicans right now for putting the kibosh on a respectable deal because their pwecious ittle fee-fees were hurt by the mean ol’ president.

  174. 174
    Joel says:

    @askew: #7 is potentially a negative, pending negotiations. But this is about the deal that I expected (in spirit, if not the details).

  175. 175
    liberal says:

    @Jeremy:

    Krugman knows his stuff when it comes to economics but not when it comes to politics.

    Utterly false. Krugman pointed out that Obama would get only one bite at the apple in terms of stimulus, and would get hammered if the stimulus was too small because “it didn’t work!”

    Everything unfolded exactly like Krugman predicted.

  176. 176
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Krugman has said more than once that he doesn’t have the temperament to serve in government any more. (He was part of the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan for a couple of years.)

    Paul knows his economics backwards and forwards, but he doesn’t know politics – especially these days. I’ve argued with him on his blog at least once that Obama didn’t have the votes to get more. Sure, it’s frustrating, but that’s the way it is. There’s no magical, brilliantly obvious and true economic model that is going to change Republican votes at the moment.

    Yes, Paul gets frustrated with Obama. But it’s not sour grapes or out of a desire for personal aggrandizement or something. He’s a smart man who sees how stupid policies have been implemented around the world, stupid discredited arguments return as zombies in his own field, and who sees the real destruction (and death) that has resulted, and he wants it to stop happening. Just like all of us.

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  177. 177
    liberal says:

    @MattR:

    What are you willing to agree to in order to keep UI benefits? Every one of the Republican demands?

    Completely agree.

    Keeping UI benefits in the deal is worth it depending on the price. I don’t understand why this simple point is so hard to wrap one’s head around.

  178. 178
    muddy says:

    @Mnemosyne: I just loved Corker saying that it could make people not want to cooperate. “Now I’m not like that..”he says, but is apparently implying that many of his caucus *are* like that. Sweet.

  179. 179
    MattR says:

    @Mnemosyne: Well, my first comment was a general one about no particular issue being a hill that the president has to die on and that it was possible to oppose a potential deal without being a firebagger who wants everything. In that respect, the speculation regarding the deails of this particular deal are irrelevant.

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: It has to be tough to be an economist watching negotiations where every idea from one party is bad for the economy and knowing that at least some of those ideas are going to make it into the final package.

  180. 180
    JoyfulA says:

    @Valdivia: Bernstein had a column the other day that the chained CPI was no big deal. I was startled because I had thought of him as one of the reliable good guys.

  181. 181
    Valdivia says:

    @Rhoda:

    I have always always have had the President’s back, but this deal is not awesome, sorry. Again–when we have the debt ceiling fight and we have zero leverage and the economy goes to hell again we can see if he really got such a great deal. I hope the people cheering this are right, I just don’t see it.

  182. 182
  183. 183
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Valdivia:

    Hi, Valdivia!

    I really recommend reading the Bernstein link, he is no firebragger and was part of many deals cut by the WH before so he know the players and how it will go.

    I don’t know if you did that on purpose or if it was a typo, but “firebragger” is inspired and needs to become a BJ meme! Brilliant, just brilliant.

    Happy New Year, my twin :-)

  184. 184
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Valdivia:

    I’m not getting why this deal automatically puts us in a worse position for negotiating the debt ceiling. I’m not just being an Obot — I genuinely don’t get it.

  185. 185
    NR says:

    @Valdivia: Here’s Krugman:

    OK, now for the really bad news. Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama’s previous behavior, can’t help but reach one main conclusion: whenever the president says that there’s an issue on which he absolutely, positively won’t give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way — and soon, too. The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn’t seem to be one that this particular president can grasp. And that means that Republicans will go right from this negotiation into the debt ceiling in the firm belief that Obama can be rolled.

    But Obama will stand firm on the debt ceiling. Super serious for reals this time!

  186. 186
    Bruce S says:

    @Jeremy:

    Jesus Christ, you aren’t to be taken seriously – along with your fellow cranks who shout down any – literally ANY – critique of this administration from inside the Dem and liberal tents. You truly have your head up your ass. Totally. You whine and then you lie. Clowns like you would have made good party comissars in the USSR, attacking anyone who disagrees with the Fearless Leader, and dishonestly at that.

    I don’t always agree with Krugman, but thank God we’ve got voices like his. As for your defamatory “facts”, here’s Krugman on Clinton in 1996:

    I am still disgusted by the Republican welfare reform that Clinton signed for electoral reasons. It is an awful law that hits immigrants and children and should be changed. But I am skeptical that will happen. Congress will have a fragile majority and won’t change it. Probably nothing will happen until we see thousands of abandoned children on the streets.

    Q. So Clinton’s program is not ambitious enough?

    A. Not for me, anyway. For example we need a big initiative (say 2% of GNP) to help low income workers. The income distribution continues to widen and is one of the big unsolved problems. We need to strenghten programs to close the gap, but here also I am skeptical that will happen.

    Q. You seem very pessimistic.

    I see two things: The Clinton administration is very cynical and opportunistic. They are not heroes, ready to take risks to do what’s right. If these people invested one tenth of what they are doing to increase US exports to Japan, into an effort to keep one million children from poverty, we would all be better off. On the other side is a Republican party that is getting more extremist and partisan, that polarizes American society more and more.

  187. 187
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal: @liberal:

    Fuck you liberal, fuck you hard and long for your ambivalence to the poor, fuck you for you bankrupt ideology that cares more for bashing republicans than taking care of the less fortunate than yourself. You deserve Krugman’s panty twisting bullshit from the ivory tower, where nary a meal is missed, and all this is some kind of power game for amusement.

    Fuck Krugman and fuck you and your goddam cold ass heart. You aren’t any liberal, you are the reflection of the tea tards in the political mirror.

  188. 188
    NR says:

    @Jeremy:

    And when the professional left attacked Obama again and again telling Democrats and other voters to teach the dems a lesson and stay home.

    This never happened. Stop lying.

  189. 189
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Yes, Paul gets frustrated with Obama. But it’s not sour grapes or out of a desire for personal aggrandizement or something.

    I’ll concede I might, might, be wrong about his personal ambitions, I’m not convinced– but I think there are a lot of very personal sour grapes when it comes to his discussion of Obama. The moment I lost a lot of respect for him was when, I think it was the fall of 2011, he started to indulge in a lot of smarmy “I told you so” and “I tried to tell you he wasn’t the one we were waiting for” on his blog. Jonathan Chait him back hard and Krugman responded, basically, “What? Who? Me? I’m just a bearded economist! I don’t discuss politics” It was disingenuous in the extreme. So was his most recent post today, on how this deal is so much worse than its actual content. He’s so wrapped up in being disappointed with Obama he can’t the forest for the trees. It’s the same whenever he talks about the stimulus bill, the petulant refusal to recognize it was as big as that congress, dominated by Democrats, was gonna pass.

    @Valdivia: certainly not awesome, but also not the collapse of the New Deal that one would think from reading Krugman or Huffington, who have been going full metal Hamsher all day.

  190. 190
    Quiddity says:

    @askew: Current law (post-Dec 31) on the estate tax is 55% on over-$1 million.

    Your claim that Obama will “Increases estate taxes on people above $5m at 40%” takes the Bush cuts as the baseline. If you do that, then pretty much any crummy deal will look good. Also, I’m reading there would be a $10 million threshold.

    The rest of the deal mostly stinks since it sacrifices solid long term revenues for short term stimulus. Obama promised during the campaign that he’d raise the rates on incomes over $250K. Now he’s set to make that $400K, which substantially cuts into revenues. Who forced his hand on this? He did it on his own.

    Listening to him today, he sounds weak. Very technocratic. No talk of election mandate or principles.

  191. 191
    General Stuck says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    To your credit, you don’t get it. What it is, is the flesh and blood behind our politics as more than a parlor game on the web and on teevee. It is always a balancing act for spending pol capital that has a good chance of doing some good, and not too much bad for the longer term. It is whether some people fall through cracks or not. And never for the expense of landing a blow against the rich/ Though doing both at once is allowed.

    This is what this president has in mind whenever dealing with these kinds of issues. It is why I am an Obot.

  192. 192
    NR says:

    @General Stuck: Shorter Stuck: If you criticize the deal at all, you’re a heartless bastard who wants the unemployed to suffer.

    This is nothing more than demagoguery designed to shut down criticism of the president.

  193. 193
    askew says:

    @Joel:

    @askew: #7 is potentially a negative, pending negotiations. But this is about the deal that I expected (in spirit, if not the details).

    Yep, that is the big negative of the deal. I do think we’ll get a better deal on the sequester/debt ceiling next year with a new Congress though. We will have a significantly more progressive Senate and a slightly more progressive House.

  194. 194
    Valdivia says:

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    total typo but hey if you think it’s inspired it totally makes my day!

    And very Happy New Year to you too :D

    @Mnemosyne:
    because while the debt ceiling and the taxes were linked Obama had the leverage. Now that is gone and we go back to exactly the same dynamic of 2011, when they threatened to blow up the economy and Obama had to give and give. Delinking gave the leverage back to them on the debt ceiling. I don’t see how he gets it back–lets us default?

  195. 195
    General Stuck says:

    @NR:

    Shorter Stuck: If you criticize the deal at all, you’re a heartless bastard who wants the unemployed to suffer.

    Only if you criticize from the position of preferred optics rather than substance for whatever compromise that is offered. So what do we have here, a 250 number versus a 400 number that the deal should die and the unemployed suffer lest it looks like capitulation?

  196. 196
    General Stuck says:

    LOL, the horde of baggers emerge from the woodwork. This IS Balloon Juice!!

  197. 197
    Quiddity says:

    @Raven: Re:

    I think 250 was bullshit all along

    It was! That’s why Obama used it during the campaign, to get votes on a promise that he wouldn’t honor.

    Also, have you heard the latest from O-bot land? Seriously, some are praising the budget deal based on the notion that by conceding points to Republicans, they will be more amenable to a gun control bill next year.

  198. 198
    debbie says:

    What jackals. Could they really be so tone deaf? Hearing Ann Coulter say that Obama was “horribly rude” during the second debate, I thought, was as low as conservatives could get, but apparently there’s a new competition in town.

    Considering the mean and demeaning things they’ve continuously put out about Obama for the last four years, I’m hoping this is just a warm-up on the President’s part.

  199. 199
    NR says:

    @General Stuck: The concern about unemployment benefits is legitimate. But we cannot and should not let that concern overwhelm every other concern in this debate.

    Passing UI benefits will save some people some pain now, but it’s not worth it if it results in even more people suffering even greater pain in the (not at all distant) future.

  200. 200
    askew says:

    @NR:

    And what part of this deal causes suffering in the future? There are no spending cuts that will impact anyone and taxes are only going up on those who can afford it. So, who is suffering with this deal?

  201. 201
    General Stuck says:

    @NR:

    Listen, you jackasses were whinging for days that Obama was selling out SS, now what is it he is selling out? A number that Obama made up himself, as a point of debate with the republicans. There is no SS or medicare involved, only a few more dollars well off people will get to keep. That is not in any remote way, a reason to throw the unemployed under the bus with the Obama caved wailing. And arguing as such, just illuminates the mentality of those who make such arguments.

  202. 202
    Origuy says:

    200 responses and no love for the Carpenters reference?

  203. 203
    Emma says:

    @General Stuck: I bailed out when NR made his/her appearance. The thread is effed.

  204. 204
    NR says:

    @askew: You’re looking at this deal by itself, in a vacuum. You can’t do that. You have to look at it as part of the larger political context.

    I refer you to the Krugman post I linked to above.

  205. 205
    NR says:

    @General Stuck:

    A number that Obama made up himself, as a point of debate with the republicans.

    When you make that number a centerpiece of your national campaign and millions of people vote for you, it’s not just “a number you made up” anymore. Do you understand nothing about politics?

  206. 206
  207. 207
    James Gary says:

    @Origuy: I think it was too obvious to be worth noting. Post titles here need to quote something by Young Marble Giants or perhaps a Mudcrutch B-side before the extremely hip commentariat deigns give it a golf clap.

    :P

  208. 208
    General Stuck says:

    @Emma:

    I rarely respond to whatever is behind the NR nym.

  209. 209
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @NR: Do you understand nothing about politics?

    Oh, god, now that’s the funniest thing you’ve ever posted.

  210. 210
    NR says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yawn. Better trolls, please.

  211. 211
    General Stuck says:

    @NR:

    I understand you are almost certainly a Paultard posing as a prog on this blog. I also understand that I am now going to ignore you, Allah willing

  212. 212
    eemom says:

    Here’s Greg Sargent defending the WH strategery, fwiw.

    More generally, I have this to contribute to the definition of what is and is not a troll: a troll is someone who ONLY ever shows up here for the purpose of arguing that Obama sold us out. I name no NRs, of course.

  213. 213
    Anya says:

    @Valdivia: I am not gonna lie, what’s been reported about the deal is worrying me. I am gonna save freak out though till we hear something concrete.

  214. 214
  215. 215
    Lojasmo says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    SO a bill made it through congress that extends taxes for those above $250K and PBO is going to sign it?

    Krugman, and by extension you, exhibiting a great deal of ninconpoopery here.

  216. 216
    Bruce S says:

    @General Stuck:

    “Fuck Krugman”

    This bullshit response speaks for itself. You’re as idiotic as Jeremy, who makes up insane shit defaming Krugman because it makes him feel good about himself. Facts don’t matter. Nor does the possibility of honest disagreement on policy or strategy. One thing about Krugman, he looks at the evidence and data behind policies before he speaks. You guys are the biggest fucking “emos” on the planet. Your precious skin is as thin as John McCain’s. Worthless…

    The funny thing is that Obama can totally handle the criticism from his left – and probably welcomes it. I honestly don’t know what “Firebagger” means, nor do I care – but you and the lying and/or totally ignorant Jeremy are flaming assholes.

  217. 217
    General Stuck says:

    @Bruce S:

    Fuck Krugman and Fuck you pig ignorant shit for brains.

    Krugman is not making a good faith argument, he is firing up the firebaggers and emoprogs to come click on his blog for profit. You deserve him, so why aren’t you there licking his balls? You know you wanna

  218. 218
    Bruce S says:

    And FWIW, I’m not criticizing Obama at this point. The thing is playing out. I think Obama has done pretty well – certainly better than I could have done under the circumstances, just for starters. And he’s obviously far more politically saavy than Paul Krugman. What I find disgusting is people making insane charges about Paul Krugman…or simply interjecting “Fuck him” as though that’s a form of persuasion. Krugman’s criticisms are valuable and generally contain insights and information that go beyond the moment. He’s principled and well informed. Jeremy, in particular, decided to lie about Krugman’s attitude toward Clinton’s policies and strategies when he was President, probably out of ignorance. This crap is not helpful. Nor is Stuck’s emotional meltdowns – kneejerk namecalling, etc. There’s too much of this bullshit in the comments. Not that it matters…

  219. 219
    Bruce S says:

    @General Stuck:

    You make my point better than I could.

    Same old vitriolic scumbag…

    (“…clicks…for profit…” is probably the dumbest criticism of Krugman I’ve ever seen. But it figures, considering the source emerging from the gutter.)

  220. 220
    General Stuck says:

    @Bruce S:

    Krugman is a pandering clown that apologized for his total lack of political acumen after the election, with the four years of useless drek he puke funneled for pol dialogue on anything to do with Obama. Now he is back at it, being the same dumbfuck clown that probly can’t tie his own damn shoe laces. He needs to stay at Princeton and shut his fucking cow trap on national politics, at least when it comes to his hatred of Obama and shit stupid analysis of politics, delivered in regular passive aggressive doses of whiny bilge.

  221. 221
    General Stuck says:

    @Bruce S:

    Eat shit and DIAF

  222. 222
    Corner Stone says:

    Hmmm…Krugman or President Stuck…
    This is a tough call. Really tough.

  223. 223
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Whose dick are you here to suck?

  224. 224
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    But Stuck has better Boner FeeDees.

  225. 225
    Corner Stone says:

    Well, I do like Peking Duck. But that’s a special treat once in a while.
    Oh. You were talking about how you earned cash to ride the bus system across the US when you were younger.
    It’s ok man. We understand why you’re a seriously fucked up shut-in now. I hope you get the help you need one day.

  226. 226
    Bruce S says:

    Stuck – you’re a clown drowning in your own filth and emotional meltdowns.

    Actually I didn’t come back here to deal with that scum-drenched dick.

    But checked back to note that if Jared Bernstein and Noam Shrieber are, along with Krugman, making criticisms of this (reported, and not sealed – which is key IMHO) “cliff” deal from a strategic point of view, maybe it would be sensible to at least give them some serious consideration rather than consign the Vice-President’s former chief economist, a CPBB fellow and a reliable ally of the administration; along with the guy who wrote the best book on the administration’s economic strategy and policies, to the pit of “Firebaggers”(?!?!?”) or engage in mindless name-calling. Or in the case of Jeremy’s douche attack on Krugman, to simply make up lies about Krugman’s supposedly never criticizing major policies of Clinton (and in reality Krugman calling him an “opportunist” among other things, not that that is news about Brother Bill.)

    The “discourse” here is totally demeaned by this mindless “emo” crap.

  227. 227
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Well, I do like Peking Duck.

    All the pretty Texas boys do.

  228. 228
    General Stuck says:

    Stuck – you’re a clown drowning in your own filth and emotional meltdowns.

    You ain’t seen nothin’ yet for the next four years. I plan to live of emoprog liver and some Fava beans.

  229. 229
    Bruce S says:

    @General Stuck:

    “You ain’t seen nothin’”

    Ah – at least a bit of self-awareness.

  230. 230
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Bruce S: Don’t let Stuck get to you.

    Check the Lexicon for more on Firebaggers – http://www.balloon-juice.com/b.....con-a-h/#F

    HTH.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  231. 231
    General Stuck says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet Says:

    Maybe common idiot would suit you?

    cheers

    stuck

  232. 232
    liberal says:

    @Bruce S:

    …who shout down any – literally ANY – critique of this administration from inside the Dem and liberal tents.

    One way to look at Obots is through Popperian falsifiability—is there anything conceivable that would lead them to criticize Obama?

  233. 233
    lol says:

    @Quiddity:

    Gee, I don’t know, maybe one of the many Senate Democrats who want the threshold for taxes to be even higher than 400K? (ie: Chuck Schumer who thinks it should be a million.) It’s likely also driving the estate tax compromise too.

    Firebaggers forget Obama has to negotiate with people in his own fucking party to get votes.

  234. 234
  235. 235
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @General Stuck: Oooh. Good one.

    :-)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  236. 236
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal:

    Maybe one way to look at firebaggers is on the bottom of a shitpile.

  237. 237
    Bruce S says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    It’s not just Krugman – Jared Bernstein and Noam Shieber are saying the same thing. Of course they are probably all just idiots…and, you know, hate Obama.

  238. 238
    Bruce S says:

    @liberal:

    FWIW – a lot of the people I do political work with on local issues consider me an “Obot.” He’s the best President in my lifetime. But anyone who lines up with the President of the United States for political leadership on ANY issue is an idiot with absolutely zero political sense and zero understanding of history. Or who doesn’t think that positioning forces to the left of the President isn’t productive, if not imperative. Being President forces you into a position of compromise and caution – people outside have to keep the pressure on. The person I heard that from most memorably was Barack Obama back in 2007, live at an event which was the beginning of my spending more money than I could really afford to help elect him and re-elect him.

    If the divide among Democrats between allies of the President and these (mostly conjured) “Firebaggers” starts with me, we need to just give up. Clowns like Stuck don’t have a political bone in their body – they love the sound of their own hard blowing. That’s where it usually starts and ends with these idiots. I’ve been involved since the civil rights movement, and know just how self-destructive and/or cowardly lots of folks on the left – self-styled liberals as well as “leftists” – happen to be. circular firing squads are the order of the day. Supposed Obama “supporters” like Stuck are the mirror image of someone like Hamsher…narcissistic and single-minded.

  239. 239
    liberal says:

    @General Stuck:

    Fuck you liberal, fuck you hard and long for your ambivalence to the poor…

    LOL. OK, GS, so if the Republicans said they’d extend unemployment benefits only if the so-called liberals on the USSC were machine-gunned and replaced with right-wingers, any opposition would be wrong because it would show “ambivalence to the poor…”?

  240. 240
    liberal says:

    @Bruce S:
    I’m not sure Obama is the best president in my lifetime, but it’s possible—depends on whether you think someone other than LBJ would have avoided building up in Vietnam. Rest of your remarks are pretty much spot-on.

    As for money, well, I gave Obama $1K in the primary and general in 2008, and yet somehow Stuck has me classified as a Hillbot. I guess money and time don’t matter to Stuck…it’s the quality of the fellating. (Voted in 2012, gave $1K…guess I’m now classed as a Firebagger who stayed on the sidelines.)

  241. 241
    Lojasmo says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    The correct metaphor is the buyer called your brother, and was given a stupid bargain.

  242. 242
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal:

    LOL. OK, GS, so if the Republicans said they’d extend unemployment benefits only if the so-called liberals on the USSC were machine-gunned and replaced with right-wingers, any opposition would be wrong because it would show “ambivalence to the poor…”?

    This is detached and stupid comment from someone fish cold to the reality of most American lives. It is not only emotionally frozen, and bereft of plausibility, even as a metaphor to describe anything remotely relevant to what is being discussed here. I bet you are rich. Amirite?

  243. 243
    Bruce S says:

    @liberal:

    My feelings about LBJ are schizophrenic – but if you were there when he moved from civil rights to escalating Vietnam, it was impossible not to feel antipathy. It was insanely wrong-headed – and could have been avoided. The self-destruction of the “left” in the wake of building an anti-war movement that was powerful and influential, was another form of schizophrenia. The poison of Vietnam is still with us, to some extent. Not a high water mark in American history…

  244. 244
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal:

    I love it when firebaggers bond. The scent of progressive pheromone purity is only bolstered by its detachment from reality, in a netherworld of non sequitur and free ranging straw men. I have you classified as a political wraith, liberal.

    Let the true blue liberal circle jerk commence. Free towels, but I’d keep an eye on Machine gun dude,

  245. 245
    liberal says:

    @General Stuck:
    No, as usual for someone of your mediocre intelligence, you’re wrong—the point is that whether to cheer on a deal involving an extension of benefits depends wholly on what the price is. My point is that there is clearly a price which is too high, which raises the logical possibility that some price might be too high. I’m sure that one went right over you.

  246. 246
    liberal says:

    @Bruce S:
    I completely agree—I’m thinking more along the lines of how likely it would have been that America would have gotten out.

    Given we were “in” Vietnam since the early 1950s (by Dien Bien Phu we were funding 75% of the French war effort), and given that it literally took decades for mass skepticism regarding the war in Indochina to catch on (whereas the time period today would be measured in months), it’s not clear to me what the alternative was.

  247. 247
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal:

    Dude, I been reading your smarmy duplicitous swill for years now, and that is always added into my responses to any of your current swill. You and Bruce S have found each other. My work is done in this thread.

  248. 248
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Bruce S: Actually, I think Krugman, when you strip away all his whining about Obama, is more favorable of the substance of the deal than Bernstein. I haven’t read Scheiber. And I don’t think I called Krugman an idiot. In fact, if I were King of the United States, I would put Krugman in charge of economic policy, and it is a sign of how degenerate our political culture is that he is asked to treat Mary Matalin and George Will as equals in economic debates, but I also think he has a weirdly personal resentment of Obama (hatred? okay, you seem to like hyperbole) and an inability or unwillingness to grasp political realities (like, that we don’t have a king, we have a messy, clumsy, inefficient divided government) that color his thinking, especially on his blog.

  249. 249
    General Stuck says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    if I were King of the United States, I would put Krugman in charge of economic policy,

    I wouldn’t. He changes his economic tune fast as Romney, when it suits.

  250. 250
    liberal says:

    @General Stuck:
    LOL! You’re bringing up agitprop from Greg Mankiw? Not to mention that Krugman is already more than one move ahead of you.

  251. 251
    liberal says:

    @General Stuck:

    …smarmy duplicitous swill…

    LOL. Coming from someone who knows no economics, has terrible political sense (cf your admiration for TEH SENATE), and has a clearly mediocre intelligence, I’m not exactly going to lose sleep over that.

  252. 252
    General Stuck says:

    @Bruce S:

    FWIW – a lot of the people I do political work with on local issues consider me an “Obot.

    ROTFLMAO. So Bwuce is a real Obot. That is hilarious and suitable for framing, dude. Really, you could be the blog jester with this grade material. I’d vote for you.

  253. 253
    liberal says:

    @Bruce S:

    As for your defamatory “facts”, here’s Krugman on Clinton in 1996:

    FWIW, most liberals I know who have problems with Obama were very critical of Clinton, too. We all did rally around him when he was impeached, but that’s not saying much.

  254. 254
    Lojasmo says:

    @NR:

    Yes, your incorrect paraphrasing is an example of demagoguary. Strong work. my 10th grade debate teacher would pat you on the head for that.

  255. 255
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal:

    LOL! You’re bringing up agitprop from Greg Mankiw? <</blockquote

    Didn;t come from Mankiw, it was Krugman own words on basic principles on debt and deficit that he now rejects. He can try to talk his way out of it, and his apologists can apologize. But the article speaks for itself.

  256. 256
    General Stuck says:

    @liberal:

    you are so full of shit, that it takes the breath away. You have history here on this blog, liberal. Of delivering double talk bullshit for years, it is comical you trying to bullshit your way out of that bullshit. But not a surprise.

    All of this is parlor tricks and games for your rich liberal ass. Ain’t it ? don’t lie now.

  257. 257
    MattR says:

    @General Stuck: Are you really arguing that it is a bad thing that Paul Krugman views the deficit in different lights depending on the current economic situation?

  258. 258
    xian says:

    @Valdivia: the debt ceiling is the new public option

  259. 259
    General Stuck says:

    @MattR:

    No, what I am arguing is that was stating his belief of basic economic principles concerning debts and deficit, and what comes from them, and now has completely changed his beliefs. Not only changed them, but preaches down to anyone and everyone with questions and other elements of keynesian theory.

    I have a lot of other problems with Krugman’s authenticity as intersected with his involvement with politics, and especially Obama. I will just say he too often sends red meat to his firebagging fan base, that is often not truthful concerning the overall keynesian theory he claims to promote. And that all and all Obama, in practice as president the past four years, has stayed true to overall keynesian theory, and Krugman has relentlessly bashed him anyways.

    That and my normal disdain for liberal heroes to be worshipped, especially to the detriment of a sitting president of my ilk and other liberal ilk. When it is not principled nor accurate. I think that is fucked up priorities, and am saying so.

  260. 260
    xian says:

    @Rhoda: this, plus deductions start phasing out at 250 so i bet the ma works out about the same

  261. 261
    xian says:

    @Valdivia: they’re not linked. it’s the timing of the sequester and the Bush ax cut expiration that are linked.

  262. 262
    Lancelot Link says:

    @James Gary:

    Post titles here need to quote something by Young Marble Giants or perhaps a Mudcrutch B-side before the extremely hip commentariat deigns give it a golf clap.

    I think a lot of people here have lost their “credit in the real world”, IYKWIMAITYD

  263. 263
    Groucho48 says:

    Could someone explain this to me?

    “10. Increased rates on capital gains at $400.”

    According to the NYT, this seems to mean that folks who have a total income of over 400000 will pay a 20% capital gains rate, while those with a total income below 400,000 will pay 15%.

    This seems strange. Why not make it simply that capital gains under x amount are taxed at 15% and capital gains above x amount are taxed at 20%?

    Is there some nuance I am missing?

  264. 264
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Groucho48:

    My guess (and I am not an accountant) is that the people with total incomes under $400K are likely to be retirees who are cashing things out for living expenses, while people with total incomes over $400K are likely to be investors. But maybe someone with actual knowledge will come along and let us know.

  265. 265
    MattR says:

    @General Stuck:

    No, what I am arguing is that was stating his belief of basic economic principles concerning debts and deficit, and what comes from them, and now has completely changed his beliefs.

    Deficits don’t exist in a vaccuum. The consequences of running a deficit are different during times of economic expansion and economic contraction. Any criticism of Krugman’s comments that does not account for that is incomplete.

    That and my normal disdain for liberal heroes to be worshipped

    You do realize this can be used to justify criticism of Obama as well, right?

  266. 266
    Groucho48 says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    That’s a possibility that hadn’t occurred to me. It does make sense. But, in cases like that, 400000 seems like a pretty high bar.

  267. 267
    General Stuck says:

    @MattR:

    You do realize this can be used to justify criticism of Obama as well, right?

    There are practical political reasons why it is important to temper criticism by activists toward a president of their own party. Does not mean it shouldn’t occur but how and when is very important. It is basic presidential politics of a president maintaining power by intimidation over congress to pass into law his policies. It is partly measured by overall popularity, but more specifically from a party’s activist community, that influences the fear and loathing factor a president needs to use the power of his office when and where it is needed, and with congress people of his own party.

    And when there is principled dissent, it matters how it is conducted by that president’s supporters. And it is not helpful to run around writing in blog posts Obama as ‘wimp’ or, in this case, a headline suggestion Obama is “Conceder In Chief”. That is not helpful punditry, imo, especially from the lofty perch of the NYT’s. And there is no comparison to be made between a sitting president and how his supporters treat him, and bloggers and pundits of whatever stature. That is what is behind most of my emo commentary on this thread. I am just tired of it, and tired of the misplaced loyalty and support. And overwrought gratuitous critique

  268. 268
    JS says:

    @Groucho48:

    “10. Increased rates on capital gains at $400.”

    According to the NYT, this seems to mean that folks who have a total income of over 400000 will pay a 20% capital gains rate, while those with a total income below 400,000 will pay 15%.

    This seems strange. Why not make it simply that capital gains under x amount are taxed at 15% and capital gains above x amount are taxed at 20%?

    Is there some nuance I am missing?

    Mitt Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes on $13.69 million in income in 2011, most of it from his investments, for an effective rate of 14.1 percent.

    Since nearly all of his income is from capital gains, in 2013 Mitt Romney would pay $2.575 million in taxes on a similar $13.69 million in income, most of it from his investments, for an effective rate of around 19 percent.

    I’m not sure how much additional revenue hiking capital gains rates back up to Clinton-era levels gets us, but I bet it’s at least comparable to the $100 billion over 10 years that adjusting the top tax level from $250k to $400k costs the balance sheet.

  269. 269
    Porlock Junior says:

    @Alias Undercover: “the Rethuglicans’ popularity dropping to somewhere below that of slime mold. ”

    Hey, I like slime mold. Fascinating stuff to watch. Also, it has demonstrated the ability to lay out the design of the Tokyo transit system, which takes more brains than the entire Repub caucus has.

    So, ok, I agree: they deserve to rank below slime mold. I just don’t like the attitude.

  270. 270
    Groucho48 says:

    @JS:

    I think you missed the point of my question. I was asking why does someone earning a total of 399,000 pay a 15% capital gains tax, while someone earning 400000 pay a 20% capital gains tax?

    Wouldn’t it be better to say the rate is 15% on the first, say, 100,000 of capital gains and 20% on anything over that?

    And, yes, I see no reason why capital gains shouldn’t be taxed at the same rate as “regular” income, but, that’s a different discussion.

  271. 271
    Lojasmo says:

    @NR:

    Obama’s campaign was about NOT SCREWING THE MIDDLE CLASS.

    This bill DOES NOT screw the middle class.

  272. 272
    Xenos says:

    This deal is a political gambit – for once the house GOP is going to have to let a non_Hastert bill come up for a vote. If they do, and the deal passes, then either the house will collapse in warfare or the GOP will be tamed. Any other action, including the lame manuever of piling on amendments at this late date, will result in the GOP being 100 percent responsable for the cliff.

    Obama is a political strategist – forcing a deal like this on the house is the point that matters, and the finer details of the COLA do not matter. If Obama can win this he will have plenty of time to fix that later.

  273. 273
    Xenos says:

    @Groucho48: That is how marginal tax rates work. Something like only 10 per cent of the public understands this?

Comments are closed.