First time visitor? Learn more.

Give Our House Speaker Some Credit, Especially Since He Deserves Some.

by Flyovercountry ( 50 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Republican Party, taxation at December 19th, 2012 - 8:00 am

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Wails of Oust Boehner went up over the weekend and yesterday so loud I believe my Grandmother, who survived the Reagan Years but not the Clinton years probably heard them. I will admit that going to bed last night, I too was ready to throw in the towel on this weepy eyed Speaker from the liberal 32% of the Republican Party. A funny thing happened on the way to my effigy burning party however. That was the little fact that when John Boehner delivered Nancy Pelosi’s plan on tax rates to the President for consideration, basically eschewing the line in the sand drawn by a goodly percentage of the right side of the aisle outside of the beltway, Barack Obama rejected it quicker than Yasser Arafat rejecting the offer from Israelis at Oslo that basically promised him his entire wish list. In order to be fair to the President, who has shown less than the slightest inclination to, “come together in the interests of all Americans,” with regards to the, “Fiscal Cliff,” negotiations, John Boehner did couch his monumental capitulation in the terms of separating out spending as a different issue to be discussed.

Whether by design, or purely on accident, John boehner has accomplished three things with this latest offer of capitulation to President Obama. First, by offering President Obama the plan endorsed by his very own party, at least as far as tax rates are concerned, Boehner forced our President to either accept the offer, or to show America the blindingly obvious fact that he indeed is only too happy to drive that car, Thelman and Louise style, off of the, “Fiscal Cliff.” By the time I am writing this, even the dullest talking heads from MSNBC should be able to realize that the President just rejected his own plan, because it was not punishing enough to American Taxpayers.

Another thing it does, is it puts the onus back on President Obama in regards to spending, specifically, having our federal spigots permanently stuck on the OMG + WTF rate of flow. In the end analysis, I would not mind seeing the United States revert to the Clinton era rates of taxation on income and investment, if we subsequently agreed to cut our spending to the Clinton levels of spending as well. After all, as I have stated before, spending and taxation are really the same thing, irrespective of the rates put into place at the time.

Speaking of which, as it turns out, Veronique DeRugy, a Mercatus Fellow at George Mason University, and a top notch economist besides, has done the math to show exactly that. I’ll admit that I learned this by simply watching one of several dozen Milton Friedman videos online, so I of course feel like I’ve cheated somehow by learning it the easy way, rather than actually proving it. So, my hat’s off to Ms. DeRugy.

The third thing this does is to place the ball back in Obama’s court with respect to the most important issue in this debate. By caving totally on the minor issue, which is the mistaken belief that tax rates are equal to the total of taxes paid, Boehner has put the spotlight uncomfortably back onto a President who will try to push promised cuts in growth decades from now as actual cuts in spending. Not even Christopher Hayes, he of, “rhetorically proximate to a justification for war,” fame, will be dumb enough to fall for this one with the disinfectant of sunlight shining at full beam.

If Boehner does a good job in securing actual cuts in exchange for his capitulation, then I say we give him his props. If he secures for us once again, spending cuts in rates of growth on Tuesday for a tax increase today, then I’ll personally lead the charge to hang him in effigy, while writing my Congress Critter to oust him as Speaker.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

50 Responses to “Give Our House Speaker Some Credit, Especially Since He Deserves Some.”
( jump to bottom )

  1. SciFiGuy
    1 | December 19, 2012 8:43 am

    All I want for Christmas is sanity and common sense to return to Washington. (Hey a Scifiguy can dream , can’t he?)


  2. 2 | December 19, 2012 8:45 am

    Had a bit of a blog outage there….


  3. 3 | December 19, 2012 8:48 am

    Stop the presses! Chuck Hagel is too far Left for the Washington Post! I’d have thought Obama would have to appoint Mao or such for that:

    FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

    It isn’t what they say (I pretty much agree with it), but where it is said that is interesting.


  4. 4 | December 19, 2012 8:55 am

    I’ll have to agree that Boehner’s hand, to his credit, was well played in that it stripped away the facade of “compromiser” that Obama has carefully crafted for himself. Whether the American people are smart enough to recognize this…well, that’s a wholly different matter. Using November 6 as my yardstick, my answer would have to be “not bloody likely”.


  5. 5 | December 19, 2012 9:20 am

    @ MacDuff:

    I think the House should pass a tax increase on those making over 1 million dollars and send the bill to the Senate. Then do a recess and let Obama own the fiscal cliff.


  6. RIX
    6 | December 19, 2012 9:21 am

    Good morning. This post makes a good case regarding Obamas
    real motives & duplicity.
    He has no intention of compromising on anything & even
    scoffed at a plan that was originally offered by Pelosi.
    But the MSm drives public opinion, so whatever happens
    the Republicans will be demonized.


  7. 7 | December 19, 2012 9:27 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    I think the House should pass a tax increase on those making over 1 million dollars and send the bill to the Senate. Then do a recess and let Obama own the fiscal cliff.

    Methinks you’re correct. Staying on offense is the best favor Republicans can do for themselves right now; I’m not entirely sure it’ll be successful, but it’s absolutely our best course of action.


  8. theoutsider
    8 | December 19, 2012 9:27 am

    @ Rodan:
    The deal is going to be income for income over $500,000 to be taxed at 39%. My prediction.


  9. theoutsider
    9 | December 19, 2012 9:29 am

    @ theoutsider:
    I meant taxes for income over $500,000.


  10. rain of lead
    10 | December 19, 2012 9:30 am

    stupid,just stupid

    WaPo/ABC poll: Compromise on fiscal cliff — but without cuts

    If you want to see why American politics are so dysfunctional, just take a look at American voters. In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, there is a broad consensus that Barack Obama and Republicans should reach a compromise to fix the fiscal cliff. Only a third believe that Obama has a mandate to insist on his own policies as an exclusive response to the crisis. And, oh, by the way … spending cuts are unacceptable.

    In other news, next week Santa Claus will come to deliver a solution, in partnership with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny:


  11. RIX
    11 | December 19, 2012 9:31 am

    The Benghazi report blames Ambassador Wilson in part
    for not pressing his case strongly enough for increased
    security.
    No mention of Obama insisting on a “light footprint”
    I’m shocked./


  12. lobo91
    12 | December 19, 2012 9:34 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    The deal is going to be income for income over $500,000 to be taxed at 39%. My prediction.

    Which will accomplish what, precisely, with regard to balancing the budget?


  13. 13 | December 19, 2012 9:37 am

    Robert Bork has died at 84, RIP.


  14. theoutsider
    14 | December 19, 2012 9:41 am

    @ lobo91:
    It will help figure out our finances.


  15. lobo91
    15 | December 19, 2012 9:49 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    It will help figure out our finances.

    What the hell does that mean?

    We know what the problem with our finances is: We’re spending 25% of GDP and taking in 18% in taxes, and Democrats absolutely refuse to cut one single penny of spending.

    There’s the problem. Doesn’t require raising anyone’s taxes to “figure out.”


  16. 16 | December 19, 2012 9:51 am

    @ MacDuff:

    We have lost a great man, and a great legal intellect.


  17. 17 | December 19, 2012 9:58 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    We have lost a great man, and a great legal intellect.

    Indeed we have. The hatchet-job that was done on him, at the hands of the likes of Ted Kennedy, still makes my blood boil and is something I’ll never forgive.


  18. 18 | December 19, 2012 9:59 am

    @ lobo91:

    I think what it means is “you have to pass it to see what’s in it”. ;)


  19. 19 | December 19, 2012 10:00 am

    @ MacDuff:

    That was rich, that was. A man who left a woman to drown in a car to save his reputation (instead of going for help and lying about it later passing moral judgment on a man of impeccable credentials. I have a feeling they have now, shall we say, gone to their reward in the same locale.


  20. theoutsider
    20 | December 19, 2012 10:01 am

    @ lobo91:
    It means figuring out the right taxing rates and the right spending rates. I’m hopeful the President and the Speaker will work out a deal.


  21. lobo91
    21 | December 19, 2012 10:16 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    It means figuring out the right taxing rates and the right spending rates. I’m hopeful the President and the Speaker will work out a deal.

    I’ll bet you still believe in Santa Claus, too.

    The problem is spending. The Democrats absolutely refuse to cut one penny of spending. There is no “deal” to be made.

    I’m quickly reaching the conclusion that the Democrats are the “domestic enemies” mentioned in my oath of office, and need to be treated as such.


  22. dwells38
    22 | December 19, 2012 10:21 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    With Hagel they’re just trying to see how much the American people hate Jews and the Israelis. They’ll dump Hagel in a heartbeat if the average know-nothing thinks the Jew-cabal-run-the-country is crazy talk. If they think it makes sense (they’ve shown they’re capable of anything that Jimmy Fallon winks at approvingly) then he’ll be the pick.


  23. lobo91
    23 | December 19, 2012 10:23 am

    In other news, it looks like Obama is going to announce the creation of a “commission” to study the problem of mass shootings, headed by Joe Biden.

    Yeah, that’ll be helpful.

    Apparently Mickey Mouse is busy.


  24. theoutsider
    24 | December 19, 2012 10:23 am

    Taxes and spending are on the table. Let’s talk about it. Do you actually think Democrats are domestic enemies?


  25. dwells38
    25 | December 19, 2012 10:24 am

    I think keeping the ball in his court is the best policy since this guy’s supposed to be a great intellect and leader. Let’s show him for what he really is. A Chauncy Gardener with a teleprompter and a petulant streak.


  26. lobo91
    26 | December 19, 2012 10:26 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    Taxes and spending are on the table. Let’s talk about it. Do you actually think Democrats are domestic enemies?

    If you think spending is “on the table,” then you’re clearly not paying attention. Obama, Pelosi and Reid flatly reject any proposal to reform major spending programs, because they need that money to buy votes.

    And yes, I do believe that Democrat politicians in DC are domestic enemies. They’re deliberately trying to destroy the country.


  27. 27 | December 19, 2012 10:28 am

    @ dwells38:

    And using the Newtown shootings as a fundraising tool. No shame at all. What is he fundraising for? He isn’t running for anything.


  28. dwells38
    28 | December 19, 2012 10:36 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    He’s fundraising for totalitarian socialism and the end of democracy. This is obvious.


  29. 29 | December 19, 2012 10:38 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Spending is unsustainably high. No amount of raising taxes will do anything about that. Do you have any clue as to what our spending is like? We are borrowing over a trillion dollars a year right now. What do you think is going to happen when we hit 150% GDP in debt? We are already over 100%. If they taxed enough to cover Obama’s spending the economy would collapse. Where do you want to see cuts made? How mouch? Are you willing to give on entitlements? Do you realize that entitlement spending will be the bulk of the Federal Budget by 2020? The rest will be interest payments on the debt, and that is only if interest rates stay at the near 0% level that they currently are. Do you have any idea how bad a situation you Democrats have put us in? We needf massive cuts in spending, but we will never get them. Obama doesn’t want to cut anything. He just wants to raise taxes in a recession. That[s guaranteed to help the unemployment rate climb.


  30. lobo91
    30 | December 19, 2012 10:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Do you have any clue as to what our spending is like? We are borrowing over a trillion dollars a year right now.

    Actually, we’re on track to have a $1.6 trillion deficit this fiscal year.


  31. SciFiGuy
    31 | December 19, 2012 10:41 am

    @ theoutsider:
    Not just yes but HELL YES. If you were/are even remotely honest to yourself ask this question “If I wanted to destroy this country from the inside, What would be the steps I would take?” Your answer should be exactly what the Dems and RINOs have done and are planning on doing.


  32. lobo91
    32 | December 19, 2012 10:42 am

    @ SciFiGuy:

    Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done more damage to this country than the Soviets ever did.

    I don’t see any other way to view their actions.


  33. 33 | December 19, 2012 10:48 am

    @ lobo91:

    Indeed, one of the foundations of the ACORN strategy (damn, but I cannot remember their names) is to get as many of the populace on government subsistence as possible. And they are most certainly headed in that direction. Suddenly, apparently everyone who has exhausted their unemployment is now “disabled” and cannot work. Keeps them from being included in the statistics of those able to work but cannot get jobs. And it is adding to the unfunded liability total for Social Security, since the system was not designed to be welfare for those under 65.


  34. lobo91
    34 | December 19, 2012 10:50 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Indeed, one of the foundations of the ACORN strategy (damn, but I cannot remember their names) is to get as many of the populace on government subsistence as possible.

    Cloward-Piven


  35. 35 | December 19, 2012 10:55 am

    @ lobo91:

    I always want to say “Coward-Pliven.” Well, I think I’m correct in “part 1.”


  36. 36 | December 19, 2012 10:57 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ SciFiGuy:

    Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done more damage to this country than the Soviets ever did.

    I don’t see any other way to view their actions.

    The 50 years of the Cold War is estimated to have cost the US in the neighborhood of $8 trillion (I’ll stipulate that I have no idea if that’s adjusted for inflation) with historically low deficits, meaning it was pretty much “paid for”. Thus far, Obama has amassed $6+ trillion in deficits alone.


  37. lobo91
    37 | December 19, 2012 11:01 am

    @ MacDuff:

    And we actually got something for the Cold War spending.

    The money Obama’s spent has pretty much just vanished.


  38. 38 | December 19, 2012 11:06 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    And we actually got something for the Cold War spending.

    The money Obama’s spent has pretty much just vanished.

    Indeed. At least we had some very cool hardware, and the most lethal military in the history of the world to show for our Cold War expenditures, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO SHOW FOR THE OBAMA YEARS?

    Uh, rhetorical question, that. ;)


  39. 39 | December 19, 2012 11:18 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    The money Obama’s spent has pretty much just vanished.

    A lot of his cronies have gotten rich, but yeah, the money is as gone as if he’d blown it on coke and whores. We could have nuclearized the entire US power grid for the kind of money he’s blown, if he were really into real Green projects, but hefunneled the money into things like Sloyndra where his buddies got rich and the taxpayer got hung with the bill. The “Stimulus” was the biggest bank robbery in history.


  40. 40 | December 19, 2012 11:24 am

    If Boehner does a good job in securing actual cuts in exchange for his capitulation, then I say we give him his props.

    I would if he did.

    But as a whole?

    Like I wrote on the latest RNC gimme money letter that came in the mail and sent back to them- I’ll send money again when the RNC and Boehner stops punishing conservatives for being conservative.


  41. Lily
    41 | December 19, 2012 1:01 pm

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    The deal is going to be income for income over $500,000 to be taxed at 39%. My prediction.

    And you think taxing people who make over 500,000 dollars a year at least 39% is just dandy…right? Well I hate to tell you the tax rate will be higher. I just don’t understand people like you.


  42. Lily
    42 | December 19, 2012 1:04 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    theoutsider wrote:
    @ Rodan:
    The deal is going to be income for income over $500,000 to be taxed at 39%. My prediction.
    Which will accomplish what, precisely, with regard to balancing the budget?

    Nothing…but it sure will make people like outsider who don’t make that much money feel real good that people who make money will be taxed wide and far. Never mind the small business owners.


  43. lobo91
    43 | December 19, 2012 1:08 pm

    @ Lily:

    It’s just like when Obama said that he wanted to raise capital gains tax rates even if doing it meant that less revenue would come in.

    This whole negotiation thing is just a game to them. They have no intention of even attempting to balance the budget, because they want to crash the system.

    Obama and company are domestic enemies of the Constitution, and should be treated accordingly.


  44. Lily
    44 | December 19, 2012 1:14 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I find it amazing how many people don’t understand what’s going on. Even the outsider shows how little he actually knows concerning budget and taxes and spending concerning this country. I honestly don’t understand their thinking. Really I don’t.


  45. 45 | December 19, 2012 1:20 pm

    @ Lily:

    They are not thinking. They are emoting. It feels fairer to tax the more well off, even if that winds up depressing the economy and leads to fewer jobs. Theydon’t look at the results of what they do. Results don’t matter. Only feelings matter.


  46. lobo91
    46 | December 19, 2012 1:20 pm

    @ Lily:

    He agrees with whatever his leader wants. He has no ideas or understanding of issues.

    He’s just a blind follower.


  47. Lily
    47 | December 19, 2012 1:31 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Sounds about right…feelings trump all.

    @ lobo91:

    This is odd too…why would anyone follow someone so blindly is really strange.


  48. Da_Beerfreak
    48 | December 19, 2012 1:49 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    Sounds about right…feelings trump all.

    @ lobo91:

    This is odd too…why would anyone follow someone so blindly is really strange.

    The Obama Mushrooms only know what the MSM feeds them. If they really cared about the truth they wouldn’t be Mushrooms. Ignorance is Bliss.


  49. 49 | December 19, 2012 2:28 pm

    I think they should pass a drop in taxes for the lower 3 tax groups, leave the 2 higher rates alone -- then go home!


  50. 50 | December 19, 2012 2:40 pm

    The point is moot, it would appear as though Boehner did not deserve my defense of him after all. His latest proposal was an even higher increase in taxation rates coupled with vague cuts that might or might not occur several years out.

    I can taste the bile.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David