Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

More on that coming "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts

By Greg Sargent

The other day I noted here that it's folly to call a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts a "compromise." It merely constitutes doing it the GOP's way for now and kicking the can down the road, on the understanding that we'll have this conversation again in two years or whenever.

Now Orrin Hatch, who is widely expected to become the top GOPer on the Senate Finance Committee next year, has weighed in again on what would constitute a compromise. He said the best route forward is a temporary extension of all the cuts. But, amusingly, he referred to the Dems' preferred option -- a permanent extension of the middle class cuts, and a temporary extension of the high end ones -- as a tax increase:

"A reasonable path forward should be on the table," Hatch said. "It would garner support from Democrats and Republicans alike. That path forward is an extension of all the tax relief well past the next election."

Hatch rejected another compromise idea that has been floated of extending the lower tax rates for so-called middle class Americans permanently, while only temporarily continuing the discounted rates for wealthier Americans.

"That's a tax increase plain and simple that would be used to fund more Washington spending and would discourage private sector job growth," he said.

The idea here appears to be that unless the middle class and high end cuts are extended for identical periods of time -- either made temporary or permanent in tandem -- it automatically counts as a tax increase, even though the cuts are all being extended. In other words, anything other than the GOP position is a tax increase.

Look, I get that Dems are in a very weak position here. They just got "shellacked," and as Adam Serwer noted yesterday, Republicans win politically no matter what happens. If the cuts are allowed to expire, they get to blame Obama and Dems for hiking taxes. If they are temporarily extended, Republicans got their way -- temporarily, perhaps, but they still got their way. Dem leaders very well may go along with a temporary across-the-board extension, because they may decide they have no choice.

But let's not call it a compromise. It's capitulation, pure and simple. After all, what Orrin Hatch is proposing here is: Do it the GOP's way for now, on the understanding that we'll never, ever do it any other way in the future.

(H/T Political Correction)

By Greg Sargent  | November 9, 2010; 12:02 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On DADT, it's imperial presidency time
Next: Third party follies

Comments

Let them all expire. We never could afford them in the first place.

Posted by: nisleib | November 9, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

OT - Sullivan has a great piece up on "The Big Lie"

****

It seems to me that the last year or so in America's political culture has represented the triumph of untruth. And the untruth was propagated by a deliberate, simple and systemic campaign to kill Obama's presidency in its crib. Emergency measures in a near-unprecedented economic collapse - the bank bailout, the auto-bailout, the stimulus - were described by the right as ideological moves of choice, when they were, in fact, pragmatic moves of necessity. The increasingly effective isolation of Iran's regime - and destruction of its legitimacy from within - was portrayed as a function of Obama's weakness, rather than his strength. The health insurance reform - almost identical to Romney's, to the right of the Clintons in 1993, costed to reduce the deficit, without a public option, and with millions more customers for the insurance and drug companies - was turned into a socialist government take-over.

Every one of these moves could be criticized in many ways. What cannot be done honestly, in my view, is to create a narrative from all of them to describe Obama as an anti-American hyper-leftist, spending the US into oblivion. But since this seems to be the only shred of thinking left on the right (exacerbated by the justified flight of the educated classes from a party that is now openly contemptuous of learning), it became a familiar refrain - pummeled into our heads day and night by talk radio and Fox. If you think I'm exaggerating, try the following thought experiment.

If a black Republican president had come in, helped turn around the banking and auto industries (at a small profit!), insured millions through the private sector while cutting Medicare, overseen a sharp decline in illegal immigration, ramped up the war in Afghanistan, reinstituted pay-as-you go in the Congress, set up a debt commission to offer hard choices for future debt reduction, and seen private sector job growth outstrip the public sector's in a slow but dogged recovery, somehow I don't think that Republican would be regarded as a socialist.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/the-rights-accuracy-problem.html

Posted by: nisleib | November 9, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans win politically no matter what happens"

I disagree.

Republicans, almost to a person, detest compromise. That is what recent polling suggests. ANY compromise whatsoever will be a victory for the Dems and a loss for the GOP.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 9, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I second nislieb.

Posted by: Michigoose | November 9, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

When Obama compromises on health care, then the liberals might have a point.

Until then, this compromise talk is silly and childish.

The Republicans have the mandate now.

Not Obama.

The tax brackets were an election issue. The American People voted Repubican. The issue is settled. The American People have spoken. Case closed.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

All, beautiful beginning has been banned for thread bombing.

jake, any more OT birther crap, or any similar thread bombing from you, and you're gone.

Posted by: sargegreg | November 9, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

What is it about the simplest things that guys like Mr Sargent just can't wrap their mind around them?

Hello, Mr Sargent, let me try this approach: if the Democrats get their wish and the wealthiest wage earners in America must pay more taxes, we have what can only be described as a tax increase.

How sad it must be to have totally lost touch with the obvious. People pay more taxes equals tax increase.

Hello, hello, why make this more complicated? Why not just be honest with yourself and others--you want other people's money flowing to the government so your friends can dispose of it as they see fit.

I admire the Republicans for wishing to prevent this. Uncle gets more than enough money and we must bring the greedy government to heel. It will be a tough fight, made tougher by back bench political hacks (uh sorry "journolists") who mischaracterize the words of people with whom they disagree.

We've got to navigate a change in the promises the government made with the citizens. We've got face down and ultimately defeat the public sector unions who want nothing less that the greekification of America. We've got to threaten the legislature into demonstrating fiscal discipline. We've got to depoliticize the military expenditures so that we are spending necessary money wisely. We've got to take a long hard look at the various entitlement programs and insure that the America taxpayers continue to believe in their worth. If we find them unworthy, we've got to overcome the entrenched interests whose rice bowls will be eliminated and kill the programs.

None of this will be easy. Having folks like Mr Sargent purposely mischaracterize these efforts for selfish purposes just makes the task more challenging. Oh well. It wouldn't be the first time that America's uber liberals were on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 9, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Ban Joke! Do it! (Even though I can't see his posts anymore... tellin ya Kevin, your plugin has increased the perceptible IQ level of this blog by 1000%, thanks again)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 9, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg

What is the definition of thread bombing?

For compliance purposes.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg - Just a reminder, Jake is the guy who admits to wanting to destroy your blog, that you've put up with him this long is a testament to your patience.

Posted by: nisleib | November 9, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote: "Republicans, almost to a person, detest compromise. That is what recent polling suggests. ANY compromise whatsoever will be a victory for the Dems and a loss for the GOP."

What polling suggests that "Republicans, almost to a person, destest compromise."?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 9, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Does Obama and the democrats have an Economic plan ???

That is except for "drag down the economy with the health care bill" and "tax the rich."

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I only bring up "birther crap" when you or someone else refers to Obama as "President".

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 9, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

OrangeForces, repeating the same point again and again, as you've just done above.

Posted by: sargegreg | November 9, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Today Obama is in Indonesia - a discussion of whether Obama is an citizen of that country or not is in order.

Dual citizenship is not allowed between the US and Indonesia, so snide comments from the liberals are ridiculous.


Obama can do a great deal towards producing more information.

Trust, but verify.


Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent:

If you want me to stop posting here, you simply have to say "please".

Posted by: JakeD2 | November 9, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

skip-

re: entitlement programs-

You mean SS and Medicare? DeMint says they are off the table. So, one of your most Conservative members has essentially said that FDR and LBJ were right.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut - Here is a poll about compromise:

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20101109/NEWS01/101109017/Poll-Republicans-stick-to-beliefs-Democrats-seek-compromise

— Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to say it’s more important for political leaders to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done. Forty-one percent of Republicans put themselves at four or five on a scale in which five is the most unyielding. Only 18 percent of Democrats feel that way.

— Democrats are almost twice as likely as Republicans to say it’s more important for political leaders to compromise in order to get things done. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats rate themselves at one or two on the five-point scale compared with 31 percent of Republicans.

Posted by: nisleib | November 9, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Did you put in a call to Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane to track down that $500 Billion ???

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess Joke just jumped the shark.

Skip-

Speaking of "disposing of money as they see fit", I'm quite sure you were out there in the blogosphere railing against Bush, correct?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Greg - Please tell me you realize that OrangeForces is SaveTheRainForest...

Posted by: nisleib | November 9, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"If the cuts are allowed to expire, they get to blame Obama and Dems for hiking taxes."

Republicans and the media ASSUME that Republicans can place the blame solely on Democrats. But there's no guarantee of that, particularly since it's been widely covered that Obama's compromise (and yes, that's the appropriate term) has been to renew the middle class cuts permanently and extend the upper-level cuts temporarily, and Republicans are now burned with the public expectations for them to work with Democrats, not just take their ball and go home when they don't want to play.

Additionally, the public doesn't support the Republican position. The public has -- from the start -- been opposed to any permanent extension of the upper-level tax cuts. So, again, this not a guaranteed political win for Republicans.

Republicans are playing with fire by pursuing a tax policy that lays bare their fiscal hypocrisy about the deficit while furthering the public perception that they are too tied to seeking the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. And it won't help (beyond their base) that they seem to be adding an unhealthy dose of unreasonableness and unwillingness to compromise to the equation.

Posted by: associate20 | November 9, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Is there a definition for "thread bomb" other than "Posting statements that the host finds unpleasant"?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 9, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Skipsailing

I'm just trying to remain on a subject, and avoiding personal attacks.


I suppose that mentioning that Obama and the democrats have no economic plan - when Obama is trying to ignore the economic crisis - is thread-bombing.

What else could it be? It distracts from calling the Tea Party "rubes" and other attempts to smear.


.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "tellin ya Kevin, your plugin has increased the perceptible IQ level of this blog by 1000%"

Glad you're enjoying it. I need to start using it myself. I get here, and I read all the STRF posts (Orange Dogs, Beautiful Beginnings) and the birther crap and I'm too exhausted to post anything. ;)

Plus, reporting to do. Eating into my break time.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 9, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

I commented on that last night. First, I don't know how you interpret that poll as "Republicans, almost to a person, detest compromise." Second, couldn't that poll indicate a difference in thinking between Democrats and Republicans in terms of what "getting things done" actually means? A lot of Republicans believe that "getting things done" politically means more government regulations, spending and interference. If that is their view, and it's a view I tend to share, then of course compromise should be avoided. If your definition of "getting things done" meant a reduction in regulation, government oversight and less spending, I'd venture to say you'd be highly resistant to compromise.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 9, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"...jake, any more OT birther crap..."

Greg,
Do you realize these people have no choice but to do what they do, they can't not do it, that they have done exactly the same thing for years on the WaPo comments?

CC/The Fix could never figure that out, but it is easy for me to figure it out, I get paid to deal with them.

Turns out, some people really enjoy annoying other people. You knew someone like that growing up. After we enter the college and then the work world, we forget they exist because they can't function in a place where people have to care about each other's thoughts and feelings. But they still exist.

Cheers, S2

Posted by: shrink2 | November 9, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Jake, if you can't drop the birther nonsense, then please stop posting here.

Posted by: sargegreg | November 9, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2 - According to the Daily Caller half of Republican Bloggers are paid to issue their opinions. It could be that Jake and STRF are paid to spread wingnut lies.

Although, given that they make conservatives look stupid, and conservative positions look intellectually bankrupt, who would want to pay them is beyond me.

Posted by: nisleib | November 9, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

@TrollMcWingnut: "If your definition of 'getting things done' meant a reduction in regulation, government oversight and less spending, I'd venture to say you'd be highly resistant to compromise."

I'm sorry, Troll, but with such thoughtful rationality (now described as "false equivalency"--double plus good!), I'm afraid you no longer have any place in our national discourse.

You must begin yelling your points in all caps and sprays of spittle, or you will no longer be allowed to participate in any manner of political dialog.

:P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 9, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

But if they are able to disrupt this blog and reduce its traffic, they will have accomplished their goal of limiting the distribution of honest perspectives. One of the requirements of the "big lie" is that accurate information be restricted.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 9, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Chuck: "skip-

re: entitlement programs-

You mean SS and Medicare? DeMint says they are off the table. "

And Rand took earmarks off the table.

According to the WSJ: "He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Getting things done = activist judges

As long as the getting/activism is ok by GOP standards, it is acceptable. Otherwise it is socialism/naziism/usurping ... what other descriptions do you righties have for people you disagree with?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib, I think that's the poll I was referring to, thanks.

@Troll, it was an exaggeration based on seeing the poll in passing. Your second point bears no relevance to my main point, which is that any compromise at all is a net win for Dems and a net loss for the GOP.

@Kevin, honestly, you really helped remind me why I post on/read blogs and this one in particular. Real dialog, not nonsense. I admit I get all riled up by the fakes and push back with ferocity, but I far prefer intellectual discourse to ignorance and screaming matches.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I would do if I were in Congress, regarding the tax cuts. I would highlight the fact that when the Republicans passed the cuts they gave them an expiration date, their fault not the Dems, and since they expire Jan. 1 we need to pass some new tax cuts during the lame duck session because we're still struggling through a sluggish economy.

I would write legislation giving the middle class, up to $250k a new tax cut base on similar amounts they're getting now, then I would give $250k-$500k a small marginal rate deduction so as not to penalize small businesses and leave it at that. Then hold the vote. Period. If they pass fine, if they don't then everyone's rates go up Jan. 1.

After Jan. 1 if the new Congress wants to try something it's up to them.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 9, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

This sounds about right (but the argument is nonsense):

(H)ere is Hatch's argument:

(1) Temporary extension of tax cuts for the rich + temporary extension of tax cuts for the middle class = possibly acceptable outcome.

(2) Temporary extension of tax cuts for the rich + permanent extension of tax cuts for the middle class = "a tax increase plain and simple."

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201011090002

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 9, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

Please start using your own program.

.

Posted by: OrangeForces | November 9, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

in response to:
================
skip-

re: entitlement programs-

You mean SS and Medicare? DeMint says they are off the table. So, one of your most Conservative members has essentially said that FDR and LBJ were right.

======================
I dunno what Mr DeMint said. But I believe that we must review the promises that the government made. If they cannot be kept in our current approach we have to change things. It is not going to be easy, but the only other option is re arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

in response to this:
==========
Speaking of "disposing of money as they see fit", I'm quite sure you were out there in the blogosphere railing against Bush, correct?
=====================

Yes, there were some things that Bush did, such as Medicare drug benefit of which I didn't approve. sorry to disappoint you on that. Bush got the war right, but I didn't find his approach to spending all that effective.

but my belief is that ultimately congress must be held to account. the constitution puts the power of the purse in their hands. Spending went up when the Republicans were in charge and I don't trust them either. This past election was a message to Washington DC.


Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 9, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

You may not like what Hatch says but it's accurate.

If the middle class rate is made permanent, and the "rich" rate is made temporary - then a standalone vote to make the rich rate permanent will never happen. So Hatch is right, the "compromise" will inevitably result in a tax increase.

Plain and simple.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 9, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

To quote a much smarter man than I:

"Much of the GOP's posturing is about playing for the cameras -- if they refuse to compromise and Dems cave, Republicans get what they want. If they refuse to compromise and all of the tax rates expire on schedule, Republicans get the talking point they want ("Dems raised taxes").

With that in mind, Dems aren't playing the game well. After multiple efforts at offering concessions, there's no reason Democrats can't simply put a reasonable compromise on the table and tell Republicans to take it or leave it. Start trying to turn the tables and put the onus on the party that's hold middle-class tax cuts hostage.

The GOP won a House majority last week, but it won't take effect until the new year. There's no reason for Dems to forget they're still in change."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026550.php

Posted by: Michigoose | November 9, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on a Michael Bloomberg presidential candidacy:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/third_party_follies.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 9, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

skip-

Thanks for your response. We'll see how the electorate responds for threats of reduction in entitlements.

When we have enough well paying jobs where folks can sock away retirement and/or the retirement funds aren't shrinking and we have affordable and/or employer health insurance, maybe we can cut back on SS and others.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

@OrangeForests: "Please start using your own program."

I'm considering it.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 9, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If a black Republican president had come in, helped turn around the banking and auto industries (at a small profit!), insured millions through the private sector while cutting Medicare, overseen a sharp decline in illegal immigration, ramped up the war in Afghanistan, reinstituted pay-as-you go in the Congress, set up a debt commission to offer hard choices for future debt reduction, and seen private sector job growth outstrip the public sector's in a slow but dogged recovery, somehow I don't think that Republican would be regarded as a socialist.
-------------------------------------------If Obama (or someone of any color, the shkin pigment thing is sooooooo old), did these things he would not be seen as a socialist either.

Posted by: leapin | November 9, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama should stick to his campaign promise-
maintain Bush level for individuals under the $250,000 income, up to Clinton rates for those above that.

If the Republicans send something else, VETO it!

Posted by: Bak1 | November 9, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

If a black Republican president had come in, helped turn around the banking and auto industries (at a small profit!), insured millions through the private sector while cutting Medicare, overseen a sharp decline in illegal immigration, ramped up the war in Afghanistan, reinstituted pay-as-you go in the Congress, set up a debt commission to offer hard choices for future debt reduction, and seen private sector job growth outstrip the public sector's in a slow but dogged recovery, somehow I don't think that Republican would be regarded as a socialist.
-------------------------------------------If Obama (or someone of any color, the shkin pigment thing is sooooooo old), did these things he would not be seen as a socialist either.


Posted by: leapin

----------------------------------

Which of those things didn't he do?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 9, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

This is all Obama is asked abt.....the first & second time he talked about compromise he included extension of Unemployments comp in the deal. I have a feeling that's the deal the GOP will be offered when all Cong leaders go to the WH. Thanksgiving & Xmas are coming so let's see if the GOP wants to play Scrooge. Also, there is a current bipartisan tax reform bill in Congress ready to go....we'll see.

Posted by: carolerae48 | November 9, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

There should be NO COMPROMISE on this issue. Bush turned a $314bill surplus into $12trillion deficit in eight years!!!

Granting tax breaks on outsourced jobs, and for those with offshore accounts is just a means to funnel the nations GNP out of the country and has already damaged the nations productivity. (china is a blackhole in the world economy).

Ending government programs to continue giving money to the wealthy will perpetuate job loss. END BUSH TAX CUTS NOW!!

Posted by: PatriciaClarkson | November 9, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

There should be NO COMPROMISE on this issue. Bush turned a $314bill surplus into $12trillion deficit in eight years!!!

Granting tax breaks on outsourced jobs, and for those with offshore accounts is just a means to funnel the nations GNP out of the country and has already damaged the nations productivity. (china is a blackhole in the world economy).

Ending government programs to continue giving money to the wealthy will perpetuate job loss. END BUSH TAX CUTS NOW!!

Posted by: PatriciaClarkson | November 9, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

There should be NO COMPROMISE on this issue. Bush turned a $314bill surplus into $12trillion deficit in eight years!!!

Granting tax breaks on outsourced jobs, and for those with offshore accounts is just a means to funnel the nations GNP out of the country and has already damaged the nations productivity. (china is an economic blackhole in the global economy).

Ending government programs to continue giving money to the wealthy will perpetuate job loss. END BUSH TAX CUTS NOW!!

Posted by: PatriciaClarkson | November 9, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

There should be NO COMPROMISE on this issue. Bush turned a $314bill surplus into $12trillion deficit in eight years!!!

Granting tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, and for those with offshore accounts is just a means to funnel the nations GNP out of the country and has already damaged the nations productivity. (china is an economic blackhole in the global economy).

Ending government programs to continue giving money to the wealthy will perpetuate job loss. END BUSH TAX CUTS NOW!!

Posted by: PatriciaClarkson | November 9, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

@skipsailing28

Bush got the wars right??????????

Invading and occupying Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder since Reagan stationed marines in Lebanon...Maybe since Vietnam.

What does "success" look like in Iraq?
-Shiite dominated government closely allied with Iran
-seething sectarian tensions just below the surface
-without bribes the "sons of Iraq" are rejoining the insurgency
-8 months and counting without a functioning govt
-ethnic cleansing of Bagdad and other areas completed.
-The Kurdish North is ready to declare them selves autonomous and functionally separate from the rest of Iraq.

That's getting it right?

Posted by: srw3 | November 9, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3: Why wont the vote on tax cuts for the rich happen? If repubs support them, they can introduce it in the house...if the senate stalls the legislation, then the repubs have a campaign issue...

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the top 2% of all wage earners...

Posted by: srw3 | November 9, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

hey srw3, still doing that "repiglican" thing of yours?

if so, you are still not worthy of engagement.

foresake the foolish name calling and I'll take you on about Iraq. Any day. But I won't waste my time on someone who thinks I am a pig because I don't vote Democrat.

Be d*med to that pal.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 9, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

ss28: the skin so thin, I can see through it (and you)....I don't remember calling you a pig. I did refer to republicans as a group that way because that is how they acted for the last decade. Taking for themselves and screwing the country in the process. Besides, didn't you say you were a conservative not a republican... Somehow I missed all your lectures to those who call Obama Hitler, a socialist, a secret muslim, foreign usurper, use the term demorats, etc. goose and gander

Somehow, when strf and the clone army use disparaging remarks you are silent..

Iraq. It was and is a foreign policy debacle that will cost well over 2 trillion dollars if you include the costs of taking care of the returning vets for the rest of their lives, not to mention the physical and mental scars this horrible mistake created.

I can think of at least 10 things to do with the trillion that we spent in Iraq that would make our country more secure. Wasting that amount of money on an unprovoked invasion of a country with no ties to the terrorists that did 911, is simply indefensible...Not to mention the 100,000-300,000 civilians killed, the 4.5 million or so internal and external refugees.

Posted by: srw3 | November 9, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

1.The unfunded tax cuts were set to expire from the day they were passed ...10 years ago. That is the only way they could be passed. It isn't correct to say that Pres. Obama is raising taxes by allowing them to expire. The Republican/Tea Party cabal is disingenuous when they refer to it as a tax increase. The fact is they've been enjoying a "bonus" for ten years, and they've already gotten accustomed to saying that's the way its always been. Still even when the taxes return to the Clinton levels they will be lower than under Reagan or Eisenhower. Just a reminder how few appreciate what they have and how thoughtless, selfish and foolish the values of some are. Pathetic, really.
2. To continue to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% will add to the budget deficit, just like the two unfunded wars. One can't be for these tax cuts and then be screaming about fiscal responsibility and reducing the budget. The practice is not consistent with the rhetoric. The United States will literally have to go borrow money in order to give the rich the extension. Of course, we could just end programs that provide basic health and nutritional services for the poor. We could stop fixing the highways and let the bridges fall down, etc. so the rich could have even more money. We can end FEMA and let cities drown, buildings burn and consider earthquakes just the cost of doing business. We could close all of the libraries, postal service and fire departments since Benjamin Franklin was just a socialist, anyway. We could close homeless shelters too ...and then when the homeless get arrested for being vagrants we could subject them to something sorta like what Sheriff Joe Arpaio has going in Arizona. They could be free labor, and then the rich wouldn't have to outsource to the poorest nations in the world, anymore. We could do all of that ...but I'd prefer not to.

Posted by: alamantra | November 10, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

skipsailing:

I'm sick of these revisionist lies about conservatives who claim they didn't approve of the UNPAID FOR Medicare Part D MONSTROSITY when it was RAMRODDED DOWN OUR THROATS. They were silent then, so it's too late. Plus, why aren't you calling for it's repeal NOW? It's UNPAID FOR THUS UNSETTLED. The only reason you won't is because WEALTHY SENIORS are now the GOP BASE. Liberals like me have been very consistent on this issue: against it then and now. Conservatives have been consistently for it except when backed in a corner.

Posted by: jswarren | November 10, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

OK, srw3, thank you for your dishonesty. It is in keeping with my general impression of you.

Once again, I'm done with ya. You called me a pig and I have better things to do with my time than waste it on the likes of you.

note to jswarren: try maalox pal. It will soothe your achey breakey tummy and perhaps improve your outlook.

Yes, liberals are consistent: consistently wrong.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 10, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company