"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Human Snorenado]

I dunno Maurice, these are some dumb motherfuckers in Congress right now.

[Oblivion]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html

Typically not a David brokks fan, but he really nails the current situation in this one.

Senator JadyDubya responded to Brooks post:

What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then you can’t lower tax rates. So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can lower those tax rates. If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need lower tax rates by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high.

http://dailykos.com/story/2011/07/05/991552/-GOP-tax-cut-obsession:-David-Brooks-versus-Paul Ryan?detail=hide&via=blog_1

[Great Rumbler]

What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then you can’t lower tax rates. So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can lower those tax rates. If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need lower tax rates by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high.

http://dailykos.com/story/2011/07/05/991552/-GOP-tax-cut-obsession:-David-Brooks-versus-Paul Ryan?detail=hide&via=blog_1

 

[Oblivion]

With that in mind, I find it odd the WH is willing to sell the farm and kitchen sink to get congress to do something they're going to do anyway. I have no problem with the general idea of using this to get spending cuts; it also lines up with Obama's pledge to cut significant amounts of the deficit in his first term. But they're talking about more than a trillion in cuts and the GOP is still not happy. Nor are they willing to make the apparent trade Obama would like to make: spending cuts for irrelevant populist loophole stuff; this almost reminds me of republicans arguing health care costs were all about tort reform during that debate. Hell, republicans won't even agree to an employers payroll tax cut. That's why Digby is calling bs here, as are others.

Mandark's probably gonna internet kill me for this, but what the heck.


It's hard to imagine Obama being a horrendously shitty negotiator 2 years into his term. Going in with such naivete the first few times is one thing, when one might have been under the impression that you're dealing with actual grown ups. But when the Reps fuck you over for the 2oth time, you really start to wonder.


The possibility that Obama (and his entire administration) is the most incompetent negotiator(s) in history very unlikely. Therefore it leads me to believe a second, possibly more depressing theory. That Obama caves in to Republican demands, not because he has to, but because he wants to.

[Phoenix Dark]

With that in mind, I find it odd the WH is willing to sell the farm and kitchen sink to get congress to do something they're going to do anyway. I have no problem with the general idea of using this to get spending cuts; it also lines up with Obama's pledge to cut significant amounts of the deficit in his first term. But they're talking about more than a trillion in cuts and the GOP is still not happy. Nor are they willing to make the apparent trade Obama would like to make: spending cuts for irrelevant populist loophole stuff; this almost reminds me of republicans arguing health care costs were all about tort reform during that debate. Hell, republicans won't even agree to an employers payroll tax cut. That's why Digby is calling bs here, as are others.

Mandark's probably gonna internet kill me for this, but what the heck.


It's hard to imagine Obama being a horrendously shitty negotiator 2 years into his term. Going in with such naivete the first few times is one thing, when one might have been under the impression that you're dealing with actual grown ups. But when the Reps fuck you over for the 2oth time, you really start to wonder.


The possibility that Obama (and his entire administration) is the most incompetent negotiator(s) in history very unlikely. Therefore it leads me to believe a second, possibly more depressing theory. That Obama caves in to Republican demands, not because he has to, but because he wants to.

Obama's major legislative accomplishments are the work of bipartisanship. He's willing to compromise and make bills worse in order to pass bills; I'm not familiar with the legislative records of many presidents but I'd assume Obama isn't the first to do this. He also seems to genuinely like being the grown up in the room who gets two warring sides to agree to something; he's literally done that his entire life. I don't think he passes weak bills because he has some secret conservative agenda. He had to have known passing a small stimulus full of tax cuts would fuck him in the end, but that's all he could get. I'm not saying he's perfect either - Wall Street supported him in masse for a reason, he made deals with Pharma/the health industry to get the healthcare bill passed etc.

Plus here, he already promised to cut the deficit significantly in his first term. So these negotiations are an excuse to get that done. My problem is that the issue is a ticking time bomb and he's more than ok with an 80-20 type split of priorities which he claims is a fair deal.

[Human Snorenado]

The notion that taxes are fucking high on ANYONE BY ANY HISTORICAL OR EMPIRICAL DATA POINT is fucking absurdly laughable.  Fucking libertarians.

[Oblivion]

The stimulus and the health care bill were fine the way they were passed, from a practical view.

I'm referring to other things, like the debt ceiling, where Obama shouldn't have to give up shit, since the Republicans should have no fucking leverage whatsoever.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

To be honest, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire or to close loopholes, let alone raising taxes on top of that, is to go up against a strong anti-tax current that has been raging for 40+ years.  It takes a leader with a lot of balls (even with generous public support like there is now) to swim against that current and let's be honest, Obama ain't that guy.

[Phoenix Dark]

To be honest, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire or to close loopholes, let alone raising taxes on top of that, is to go up against a strong anti-tax current that has been raging for 40+ years.  It takes a leader with a lot of balls (even with generous public support like there is now) to swim against that current and let's be honest, Obama ain't that guy.

Which is why I laugh at the idea that he's going to magically grow balls and let them expire in 2013, assuming he even gets re-elected. Republicans won't extend the middle class tax cuts without the high income taxes included, and we'll have a repeat of what happened last year. The deficit will basically take care of itself if we let those tax cuts expire and the healthcare bill is enacted as planned.

[Oblivion]

To be honest, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire or to close loopholes, let alone raising taxes on top of that, is to go up against a strong anti-tax current that has been raging for 40+ years.  It takes a leader with a lot of balls (even with generous public support like there is now) to swim against that current and let's be honest, Obama ain't that guy.

Taxing the richies actually polls really well (Bruce Bartlett compiled a list of polls that showed just that). If a politician doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich, it's not out of fear of public backlash.

[drew]

i guess getting head is worse than breaking your oath to uphold the constitution and turning from president into emperor overnight, why the fuck is there not more talk about getting this guy impeached?

[Mandark]

Shorter PD:  Obama has all the leverage, because he can count on Congressional Republicans rationally dealing with the consequences of policy rather than kowtowing to their base.

Yeah ok.

[drew]

WTF are you talking about?

he said that he doesn't need congressional approval to drop bombs in Libya

[Phoenix Dark]

Shorter PD:  Obama has all the leverage, because he can count on Congressional Republicans rationally dealing with the consequences of policy rather than kowtowing to their base.

Yeah ok.

Their base is Wall Street and the rest of the financial/corporate sector. The Bachmans of the house would be clear to vote against it, but Boehner would get enough of his caucus in line to avert disaster.

[Mandark]

Obama's major legislative accomplishments are the work of bipartisanship.

wat

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-396

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-165

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-64

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-70

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-208

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-413

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-281

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-638

[Mandark]

OBAMA:  "This bill enjoys the support both of my own party, and of many Republicans, such as Senator Scott Brown, and... [mumbles something, coughs]"

[drew]

here's a direct quote from Obama during the 2008 campaign regarding a question about war powers:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

there seems to be a theme with him involving saying one thing and then doing another.

[Phoenix Dark]

Obama's major legislative accomplishments are the work of bipartisanship.

wat

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-396

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-165

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-64

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-70

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-208

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-413

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-281

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-638

Bipartisanship in the sense that the bills were formed across party lines with a series of concessions. The health care bill, the recovery, Dodd-Frank, etc all were watered down at the behest of republican lawmakers - most of whom decided to vote against the bill in the end. I wasn't talking about the actual votes.

c'mon mardark, I ain't that dumb.

[Mandark]

PD:  Exactly what provisions of the ACA were dropped in order to win Republicans that would have otherwise been supported by all 60 (later 59) Democratic Senators?



edit:  The point being that liberals are quickly accepting the meme of Obama as someone ideologically committed to bipartisan compromise, when in practice he's aimed to give away just enough to get the bare minimum of votes, and those concessions have generally been made to win over reluctant Democratic votes like Lieberman, Nelson, etc.

Ironically he gets compared to Bush, who in retrospect never deviated from a path of ruthless partisanship, and certainly never made a Ted Kennedy sponsored education bill a centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

[Phoenix Dark]

PD:  Exactly what provisions of the ACA were dropped in order to win Republicans that would have otherwise been supported by all 60 (later 59) Democratic Senators?

The biggest would be subsidy differences between the house and senate bills, and the Medicaid expansion changes. Also stronger state insurance regulations, which were dropped for ridiculous interstate compacts. I'm pretty sure the original house and senate bills didn't allow state opt outs until dems conceded on that, but don't quote me.

[Mandark]

Are those things that were specifically to win GOP votes, with the "stronger" options able to carry all 60 Senate Democrats, though?

[Phoenix Dark]

The house bill was the most liberal despite having to deal with the Blue Dog caucus. Whereas Baucus wasted months trying to get Snowe and Grassley's votes in the senate, which lead to a host of concessions/changes like the subsidies and Medicaid expansion.

The senate ran into problems with the parts of the bill typically used to illustrate the "watered down" claim, such as the public option and Medicare buy-in. But those things had no chance of getting 60 (or 59) democrats; I remember Lieberman and Rockerfeller screwing the Medicare plans up especially, once it seemed like it would be the compromise for rejecting the public option.


With respect to the stimulus, the WH lowered the price tag to get Snowe's vote, and added the tax cuts to attract other republicans.

[Human Snorenado]

The war powers act thing is a bunch of bullshit.  Congress is too chickenshit to do anything; witness their votes to disapprove of the action in Libya but then turn around and won't vote to defund it.  If I was Obama and had to deal with those fucktards, I'd do whatever the fuck I wanted to, and when anyone asked I'd just point at the nearest Congressman/Senator and break into laughter.

[Human Snorenado]

Vis-a-vis the whole Obama shitty negotiator meme, I will say that I think he gives away too much at the beginning of a negotiation, but overall he's done pretty well getting the best possible bill through what has rapidly become the worst congress in history.

If I have major complaints with his administration, it's in the area of civil liberties in general and more specifically in not aggressively going after more liberal goals as soon as he was elected.  I kind of feel like he has broadsided by the monolithic approach to opposition that the GOP has taken and he shouldn't have been.  But whatever, he's still probably getting re-elected so long as we don't start another great depression in a couple weeks here... which is a very real possibility.

[Mandark]

Are those things that were specifically to win GOP votes, with the "stronger" options able to carry all 60 Senate Democrats, though?

.

[Phoenix Dark]

Yes. Subsidies were lowered in an attempt to gain republican votes, for instance. And they had the votes in the senate to pass higher subsidies

[Mandark]

I'm really gonna need to see a source on that, since IIRC the final subsidy levels were negotiated between House and Senate representatives in conference, at which point it was clear that reconciliation would be used and that no GOP votes were possible.  At that point it was completely intra-party.

[Oblivion]

Mandark, I agree with you on the ACA for the most part, but do you really think Obama needed to cave on the debt ceiling? Sure, I wouldn't put it past Republicans to destroy the economy for political points, but the problem with fucking up the economy is that it would fuck over their base (Wall Street/other richies) as well, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want that to happen.

[Human Snorenado]

Republicans have a problem these days... they have an economic base (rich people) that fund them and a voter base (insane people) that they have to convince to elect them.  Unfortunately, sometimes the kabuki theater just can't be reconciled for the lunatics and I think this is one of those times.  There just aren't enough rich people to give them THAT MUCH MONEY to make up for the sin of turning into socialists and working with the demon black man, or something.  The insane-o's would rather the country and even world go down the shitter- hell, it would REINFORCE for them many of their crazy ass beliefs.

[Phoenix Dark]

Interestingly in looking further into the Snowe/Baucus stuff, she actually advocated for higher subsidies - not lower; my bad. And yet the subsidies in the final package were lower than her suggested rate. I don't see any information on Blue Dogs holding out on subsidies in conference, outside of the abortion complaints/bullshit.

edit: the final bill featured weaker subsidies than Snowe wanted, a sign of the WH attempting to appeal to blue dogs and conservatives.

[Mandark]

Mandark, I agree with you on the ACA for the most part, but do you really think Obama needed to cave on the debt ceiling? Sure, I wouldn't put it past Republicans to destroy the economy for political points, but the problem with fucking up the economy is that it would fuck over their base (Wall Street/other richies) as well, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want that to happen.

Boehner is roughly in the same position that Newt was back in 95, with a lot of zealous freshmen, high expectations, and a crazy activist base who hate the president.  He wants to avoid disasters while keeping his leadership spot, which puts him in a bind.  There are enough cranks in his caucus that he can't rely on most of them seeing reason, calls from the Chamber of Commerce be damned.

I don't know how the forces balance out, but the idea that of course the House GOP will do the right thing and Obama can afford to take a completely hard line and come out like roses is just magical thinking.

Who wants to argue that Republican officials can be counted on not to inadvertently fuck over the economy by sticking to their dogma?  Or that Obama won't take a huge chunk of the blame no matter what the shape of negotiations?

For that matter, who wants to pull a Cheebs and act like they actually know what the fuck is going on in private negotiations?  Remember the last few cries of "CAVING!" we heard?  During the tax extension compromise that not just netted a secondary stimulus, but ratification of START and a repeal of DADT as well?  Or the emergency budget resolution, where all of the spending cuts turned out to be smoke and mirrors?

Seriously dude.  In a few months you'll be saying "Okay, fine.  Maybe the ACA and FinReg and the tax extensions and budget resolution and debt ceiling negotiations were okay deals considering the circumstances.  But this cave-in that hasn't even happened yet proves that Obama's a huge pussy or seekrit Republican and a real liberal could turn this country into Sweden through sheer willpower.  If I were king of the jungle..."

[Phoenix Dark]

Boehner is not nearly as temperamental or stupid as Newt. Even Newt backed down, and Boehner will too. The country will not default, and wouldn't even if Obama offered nothing; until someone explains how republicans square a default with Wall Street, I'll continue maintaining that point. At the worse we'd get a temporary extension. Boehner may have some crazy party members, but he has enough sane ones to join with democrats and raise the ceiling.

Which is why I'm not happy with what is alleged to be a trillion in cuts in exchange for populist tax loophole cuts.

[Mandark]

Even Newt backed down

After the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN OPERATIONS, if you recall.

But either way, acting like you definitively know what's in the mind of Boehner, much less a couple hundred GOP reps you couldn't name without a scorecard, is the very definition of being a Cheebs.

[Phoenix Dark]

A government shut down is not even comparable to a deficit default, come on. The national parks shut down, some (not all) social security checks stopped going out. The economy didn't crash, global markets didn't respond severely, nor did we enter a double dip recession. We came within hours of a shutdown last time, and Obama/Boehner managed to throw a deal together without much fanfare. If we get to late July and there's no deal here, the markets will react; that's a definitive statement.

And another definitive statement: the US will not default. I don't definitively know what Boehner is thinking nor do I pretend to. But given his history I tend to believe he's not going to follow in the footsteps of Newt, who's downfall led to him becoming speaker. We also know he's not a clown like Newt is/was, would you agree?

Clearly we won't be coming to an agreement on this. And for the record, can we change the description of "pulling a Cheebs" to "bagging a hot gf and nearly making six figures"?

[Mandark]

Look, I think Boehner will back down eventually.  I think that.  But I realize that there are really significant pressures on the other side (which is why you have stuff like Cantor walking away from talks), and I can't be sure how they'll play out.  Besides which, if "my opponent doesn't want a default, so I can take a hard line and wait for him to cave" is a logical play for Obama, then it's a logical one for Boehner.  Game theory's a bitch.



But getting back to the main point, your whole spiel about Obama taking a naturally bipartisan approach is still just wrong.  The administration's strategy for the big priorities has been to give up just enough to get the minimum number of votes needed to pass.  There were negotiations with Republicans on the stimulus and health bills, but the negotiations themselves were concessions to moderate Democrats whose votes were needed for the bill.  The final ACA was determined by what was necessary to get moderate Dems on board, with Republicans completely shut out of negotiations.

Let's please please please stay away from dumb received wisdom and narratives based on vague personal impressions of celebrities.  We've got sports journalism and TMZ for that.

[Barry Egan]

Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

Oddly, Brooks keeps having these epiphanies about Republicans only after they get elected, while stanning shamelessly for them during the campaign build-up.  Funny that.

Dude is such a snake.

[Phoenix Dark]

Look, I think Boehner will back down eventually.  I think that.  But I realize that there are really significant pressures on the other side (which is why you have stuff like Cantor walking away from talks), and I can't be sure how they'll play out.  Besides which, if "my opponent doesn't want a default, so I can take a hard line and wait for him to cave" is a logical play for Obama, then it's a logical one for Boehner.  Game theory's a bitch.



But getting back to the main point, your whole spiel about Obama taking a naturally bipartisan approach is still just wrong.  The administration's strategy for the big priorities has been to give up just enough to get the minimum number of votes needed to pass.  There were negotiations with Republicans on the stimulus and health bills, but the negotiations themselves were concessions to moderate Democrats whose votes were needed for the bill.  The final ACA was determined by what was necessary to get moderate Dems on board, with Republicans completely shut out of negotiations.

Let's please please please stay away from dumb received wisdom and narratives based on vague personal impressions of celebrities.  We've got sports journalism and TMZ for that.

Cantor walked away from the table once him and Biden reached the point where they needed the president and speaker to step in; that was well reported. Biden wanted revenue increases and Cantor couldn't sign off on them.

With respect to game theory here though, why walk from the table when you're about to get 80% of what you want in a "compromise" agreement?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/91391/deficit-debt-deal-tax-spend-cut-obama-boehner-balance

How is the bipartisan point wrong? The WH watered down the stimulus specifically for republican votes; sure he needed blue dogs, but the demand for the bill to be "bipartisan" even if that meant one republican on board, was quite heavy. The same thing happened with health care with Joseph Cao, and before him the attempts to get Snowe, Susan Collins, and Chuck Grassley's votes. The financial reform bill was watered down to gain Scott Brown and others votes. Obama's presidency has quite a history of putting deal making before policy.

Finally on Boehner, I'm confused why you disagree with this. Boehner is considerably more cautious and moderate than Newt. Is it narrative building to suggest Boehner saw his former boss fall off a cliff and isn't interested in making the same mistake? If so I'm guilty.

[Beardo]

 



"New era of American Politics"

[drew]

Yes, but saying one thing and doing another is hardly an impeachable offense.

but going to war without congressional approval IS

[Boogie]

Yes, but saying one thing and doing another is hardly an impeachable offense.

but going to war without congressional approval IS

Who is the United States at war with?

[Human Snorenado]

Yes, I must have missed this declaration of war.  If bombing another country without congressional approval is an impeachable offense, then every President back to Reagan should have been removed from office.

[drew]

Who is the United States at war with?

Libya, unless those are peace bombs they drop every night

[Mupepe]

I think drew is trolling you guys.  Maybe not.  But I hope so.

[Human Snorenado]

Congress should also grow some testicles... if they're gonna have a vote to say they don't support something (bombing Libya) then they should also, you know vote against funding it.

[Mandark]

How is the bipartisan point wrong?

I know this is getting into neverending internet argument territory, but the internet's where I get to tell people when they're wrong, rather than mumble something noncommittal and change the subject.

You said "Obama's major legislative accomplishments are the work of bipartisanship."

I'm not doing this to be a dick, but that's just wrong.  We've got a record that can be checked.  But it's something that a ton of people repeat because, well, we just know it.

Bipartisan legislation is Sarbanes-Oxley or No Child Left Behind or the tax cut compromise.  It's not the ACA or Dodd-Frank.  If an attempt to woo Olympia Snowe in the first case or Scott Brown's inclusion in the second (which only happened because Feingold was a no vote) makes something bipartisan, then the word has so little meaning that it's basically useless.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'll maintain the bills were watered down for republican support which ultimately led to worse bills. If the word "bipartisan" doesn't apply, fine: his legislative record is the product of bad deal making with people who usually don't vote for the end result.

Now lets be friends and read a Brooks article together

[Mandark]

Yeah, but that's fuckin' wrong too.  The bills were watered down to win Democratic votes, not Republican ones.

[Human Snorenado]

Yeah, the whole song and dance that was done on those bills was to get the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the world to vote for them, not the mythical "moderate Republican" which of course no longer exists.  You're wrong, Maurice.

...and Obama is still a shitty negotiator.  MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME

[Phoenix Dark]

That is simply not the entire truth. Each bill mentioned was watered down to appease republicans during committee hearings. Yes blue dogs made demands, but those tax cuts and the small price tag of the stimulus were included for republican votes. Nor did democrats ask for interstate insurance exchanges in the healthcare bill.

[Boogie]

Who is the United States at war with?

Libya, unless those are peace bombs they drop every night

You're silly.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Congress should also grow some testicles... if they're gonna have a vote to say they don't support something (bombing Libya) then they should also, you know vote against funding it.

Yes but the Twatterverse (the group of fucks that made the noise about Libya anyway) would be in a tizzy if the Libya bombing were defunded.  Gaddafi is gonna fall any day now! #FreeLybia

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/politics/07fiscal.html?_r=1

Obama wants $4T in cuts, including to Medicare and SS. For revenue increases that sound like nonstarters for republicans, and a laughable agreement on already current law: letting the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012. That deal happened last year. It's ridiculous to think republicans would simply let them expire, assuming Obama is reelected and republicans retain the house; they'll hold the cuts hostage for the higher income cuts, just like last time, while fearmongering about the largest tax increase in US history. And Obama will kick the can down the road again.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I wouldn't doubt that Obama will make the Bush tax cuts permanent after 2012.  The same arguments that will pop up in 2012 will be the same ones we heard in 2010.  The time to let them expire was when they were originally supposed to as intended.  I never quite understood the props Obama got on the tax deal last year, which was essentially losing but declaring victory anyway.  The tax deal was kicking the can down the road at a time of record deficits, leaving behind tens of billions of needed tax revenue.  As Congress will undoubtedly get redder, it seems foolish to think that Obama will somehow step things up and let the tax cuts expire.  No, he is more apt to make them permanent instead.  Maybe he'll get a $50 billion package of additional spending and declare victory like last time.  That is more likely.

[Mupepe]

God I wish they'd expire.  All of them.  I don't want to hear these arguments about them and all this hyperbole from Republicans on them anymore.  It's like they have a 5 year memory and don't recall a time before they were enacted.  Plus it'd do wonders for the deficit so I don't have to hear that shit anymore either from "budget hawks" who have no problem spending money to build shit that blows up.  I liked Republicans more when they only cried about gay sex

[Mandark]

already current law: letting the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

The Bush cuts expiring is "already current law" like the AMT, the current debt ceiling, and the Medicare doctor reimbursement formula are "already current law".

[Phoenix Dark]

already current law: letting the Bush tax cuts expire after 2012.

The Bush cuts expiring is "already current law" like the AMT, the current debt ceiling, and the Medicare doctor reimbursement formula are "already current law".

I'm pretty sure you got my point, but here it is: the Bush tax cuts already expire at the end of 2012. Naming that as a concession/part of negotiations makes absolutely no sense, as it's already on the books.

And in 2013 we'll go through the same dog and pony show.

[Beardo]

It sure would be nice to have someone in charge that cared bout job growth... I mean in between golf games and talk show appearances.

[Brehvolution]

And trips to Camp David. Oh wait, Camp David is for whites only.

[Great Rumbler]

And sleeping. That's 8 extra hours right there that he could be working, but I guess he's just too lazy. 

[Beardo]

ITT I learn that liberals think appearing on Oprah is the same as sleeping.