Cliff Diving, Washington Style…

Susan Ferrechio at The Washington Examiner sumarizes the current state of “fiscal cliff” negotiations:

The White House on Thursday offered House Republicans a deal that would raise $1.6 trillion in tax revenue in exchange for $400 billion in spending cuts that would “come later,” according to a top GOP aide.

Not surprisingly, the deal isn’t sitting well with Republicans. One called the offer “a joke.”

The deal, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner offered in separate visits with House and Senate leaders on Thursday, also would allow for nation’s debt limit to increase without any additional cuts or reforms, something Republicans oppose.

The deal would also include other goodies for the Democrats, such as new stimulus spending, according to the GOP aide.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters he was disappointed in the Geithner offer.

As Charles Krauthammer notes, “Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War.” The offer is laughable.

If this is the kind of “negotiating” the Obama administration is planning on sticking with Republicans (and the country) would be better served letting the sequestration cuts occur as scheduled and simply walking away. Doing this behind closed doors isn’t doing anyone any good. It’s time to pull back the curtain on this clusterf#%k…

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Slate: If You Like The White Turkey Meat, You Are A Racist
  • Commander_Chico

    I agree, the cuts would do the country good.

    Also better than a deal to default on the Social Security fund to pay for general government spending and the war in Afghanistan.

  • JWH

    Actually, it’s not a bad offer …. except that this offer should have come about three weeks ago when the two sides were staking out their territory.

  • herddog505

    I’ve decided that the GOP should take a play from Barry’s book and vote “present”: the the dems have everything they want. Just say, “You won” and vote present. Let them completely, utterly, totally own the whole thing. Don’t block any votes. Don’t even make speeches about how they think it’s a good idea. Just vote “present”.

    That should make everybody happy… for the time being.

    • Hank_M

      I agree. Although I’d encourage the repubs to continue making speeches stressing the point that they’re not going to oppose Obama’s economic plan.

      Let’s see Obama campaign against that.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I should have read this before i posted my own comment

  • Wild_Willie

    Don’t accept any deal that does not contain cuts in 2013. The dem’s are famous for their long term cuts that never come. ww

    • Carl

      Defense cuts? You’re in favor of defense cuts, right?

      Or no? Seems like the only “cuts” the right want are those that have the greatest effect on minorities and women.

  • Carl

    Obama’s electoral mandate has value and no doubt Republicans and Democrats disagree on what that value is. What we’re seeing is the start of that negotiation. Obama is taking his case to the public and ultimately the public will decide. The GOP congress members who are up for re-election in 2014 will sway with public opinion – either for or against. Yes, I know — suggesting that the people will ultimately decide is shocking… shocking.

    But the fact is Obama creamed Romney in the electoral college, and beat Romney in the popular vote by a percentage margin greater than Bush’s in both 2000 and 2004. And public opinion is behind Obama on raising tax rates for the wealthy.

    The attached cartoon is spot on. But who knows, maybe public opinion will turn in the GOP’s favor. Watch for flying pigs as an early indication of that.

    • Sky__Captain

      You may want to go into detail about how the “raising tax rates on the wealthy” won’t make a bit of difference on the deficit.
      Put simply – America does not have a taxation problem, it has a SPENDING problem.

      • Carl

        Eliminating the tax cut for those making over $250,000 generates $52 Billion a year in revenue – that’s half trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

        And that’s how much revenue this country gave up with the Bush tax cut for the wealthy initiated 10 years ago.

        Half a trillion dollars isn’t much, I admit. /sarc

        EDIT: And I think there should be cuts – big cuts – to the defense budget. It’s so over bloated and full of $1000 toilet seats and $600 crescent wrenches iand 100 million dollar boondoggles ts ridiculous.

        But since the retired, the poor and minorities and women don’t see any of those defense dollars its better to take dollars away from programs that benefit them instead.

        Cause we can’t have entities in the US who think they’re entitled to their tax dollars — unless they’re a defense contractor or wealthy corporate CEO. Notice how the right says nothing about cutting defense expenditures? THAT’s how serious they are about the deficit.

        To the right, it’s all about taking away from anyone who isn’t a white male.

        • Sky__Captain

          Here’s a helpful video to explain it to Carl, since he can’t see past skin color (a clear violation of MLK’s dream).

          • Vagabond661

            shared on facebook. great video!

        • Sky__Captain

          And you want to talk about bloated spending?
          Start with entitlement reform, then I’ll give you some credit that you’re serious.
          Follow up with the lies about Obamacare costs, and you get some more credibility.

          • Carl

            Yeah? Sky Captain, I got your “entitlement” mentality right here…

          • Vagabond661

            Sounds like the solar industry.

          • jim_m

            I would say that Calvin is a pretty good example of exactly how leftists understand economics and business. The only problem is that they take this understanding and try to make it work in real life.

          • Sky__Captain

            Seeing as Carl apparently refuses to discuss entitlement reform or the costs of 0bamacare, his credibility just went to zero.

          • Carl

            heck , around here I rate in the negative numbers. Zero is a step up — lol.

          • Sky__Captain

            Well, I will admit it does appear to be your IQ.

          • 914

            At least that spike haired cartoon kid is learning at an early age that liberalism + capitalism can never = economic prosperity… Obama, not so much!!

          • jim_m

            Give it up. The dems are refusing ANY spending cuts. They won’t even discuss a reduction in the rate of spending increase! Carl is so incapable of understanding basic math that he really thinks we can solve all our problems by taxing an ever shrinking minority.

            I do have to laugh at his citation about the defense budget. Those claims are from the 70’s. Plus he thinks that we can save everything by trimming ~20% of the budget and exempting 45% of the budget (entitlements) from any scrutiny.

            Carl wants the country to go bankrupt. They the left will impose their dictatorship.

          • Carl

            jimm: “The dems are refusing ANY spending cuts.”

            From the article above: “The White House on Thursday offered House Republicans a deal that would raise $1.6 trillion in tax revenue in exchange for $400 billion in spending cuts that would “come later,” according to a top GOP aide.”

            Hey Jim, reach around and put your finger up your butt and feel around. You’ll no doubt find a light switch. Turn it on — you’ll see much more clearly.

          • Sky__Captain

            OK, you’re waaaaay over the line of civility, Carl. I suggest you retract and apologize for that one.

          • Carl

            If you or anyone else was offended I apologize.

            Glad the civility police have finally arrived.

          • Sky__Captain


            “Glad the civility police have finally arrived.”

            Hardly. I just called you on your incivility.
            If I were the “civility police” as you claim, a racist troll such as yourself would have be smacked by the Troll Hammer long ago.

          • Carl

            Waaaa! You called me a racist!

            Wasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Wuh Wuh Waaaaaaah!

          • jim_m

            The spending cuts would not have been included in the tax increases. Historically we know that when spending cuts have been promised to be made in the future they have never occurred in fact. The dem’s promise to make future cuts has been proven by their past performance to be an empty promise, a lie.

            Currently Harry Reid is talking about “getting credit” for cuts previously agreed to. That does not help. We need cuts to current spending and not the promises of future cuts to the rate of increase of future spending.

            Everyone but you seems to understand that a promise of cutting spending to be done in the future is meaningless.

        • jim_m

          that’s half trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

          That’s really nice. Too bad we have been running over $1T deficits every year! That means that under obama’s plan we will fall more than $9.5T FURTHER BEHIND.

          Even if we cut defense spending back to where it was before Afghanistan and Iraq we would only save $400B per year. That means we would still be $5.5T further behind. (plus that means actually getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yeah, I know obama promised to do that 4 years ago, but like most of his promises, it never happened.)

          Only idiots like Carl think that we can fix this without cutting entitlements.

          • Carl

            lol.. To jim half a trillion is inconsequential.

            George Bush thought the same way. That’s why two unfunded wars and an $800 Billion Bush stimulus plan ballooned the deficit that conservatives suddenly care about now.

            Where were these Tea Party rabblerousers back then on spending and the deficit? Silent, totally silent. Half a trillion here, half a trillion there – a full one trillion for the Iraq War – all unfunded.
            And you know – half a trillion is small compared to the 10 year savings we could realize by scaling back and cutting back on waste in the defense budget.

            But shhhh! Teabillies don’t talk about defense cuts — proving they aren’t serious about the deficit after all.

          • Hank_M

            “Where were these Tea Party rabblerousers back then on spending and the deficit? Silent, totally silent.”

            Not silent. They were busy giving control to the dems in the 2006 mid-term elections since the dems sounded so very concerned about the deficits. Porkbusters was also started in 2005, by conservatives, to try to put a stop to out of control pork barrel spending by congress.

            But really, at this point in time, I think it’s more important to heed the words of Barack Obama when the subject of Bush deficits are brought up.

            “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

          • jim_m

            I wonder what the Barack Obama of 2008 would have said about a President who increased the debt from $9 T to $16 T in less than 4 years?

            I think we can safely assume that back then obama would have called it “Irresponsible” and “Unpatriotic”. Funny how the left has definitions for these words that change dependent upon which party is in power. Kind of like how dissent changed from the “Highest form of patriotism” to “Sedition” on Jan 20, 2009.

          • jim_m

            I did not say inconsequential. I made the case that it is insufficient.

            There is a difference that you obviously are too dimwitted to understand. As to where the Tea Party has been on spending I would inform you that the Tea Party has been on the issue of spending from day 1. Follow the link and you will get several years worth of posts talking specifically about this subject.

            Once again we see Reagan’s prescience: “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

          • jim_m

            Carl, While you are busy denying the truth that obama has increased spending several fold over what Bush did, I will point you toward this graph using the White House’s own data. obama has spent far more than Bush, has refused to produce a budget for over 3 years, and has added more to the debt in 4 years than Bush did.

            Also it was obama’s stimulus. Bush was responsible for the TARP program, not the failed stimulus. You can’t even remember history correctly from 4 years ago. Sheesh!

          • 914


        • 914

          ” Eliminating the tax cut for those making over $250,000 generates $52 Billion a year in revenue – that’s half trillion dollars over the next 10 years.”

          Which is 1 40th of the debt Obama has created in 4 long years. That’s not even enough to pay the interest genius.

  • It’s always cuts tomorrow in exchange for more money today. And somehow, the cuts just never materialize…

  • GarandFan

    See ya at the bottom of the cliff Barry. YOU will own the coming recession.

    • jim_m

      Own it? He welcomes it. The dems believe that they can hang a recession on the GOP and that will pay off in the mid terms. Unfortunately for them it appears that the media already is not following the same song book. The media expected some negotiation and the dems are not providing it.

      • herddog505

        I wouldn’t worry if I was them. If a recession occurs, they can always blame Goldstein… er… Bush, I meant to say.

  • LiberalNightmare

    When it comes to a vote, every republican should vote present in honor of our president.

    If they want it, let them vote for it.

  • herddog505

    For your consideration:

    Barry wants to go over the cliff. He wants the country to have a financial collapse (or come very near to it) in order to fundamentally remake our various institutions (cf. FDR and the New Deal). I suggest the possibility that he’s gambling that, with MiniTru’s help, the problem will be blamed on Bush and the GOP, casting him in the role of the wise leader who, if he only gets his way, will save us all. Part of this will be sweeping away all the things – corporations, the military, certain liberties – that have caused our problems: financial distress, the unfair income distribution between “the rich” and everybody else, RAAAAACISM, etc.

    If the Bolshevik Revolution will not come to you, you must come to the Bolshevik Revolution.

    O’ course, it could also be that he’s just a typical liberal, too economically illiterate to know any better…

  • CTsOpinion

    Our arrogant petulant punk POTUS threatens to push America over the ‘Financial Cliff’ to spite the 2% of Americans already paying 50% of the taxes.

    Make no mistake Barack Obama is the one pushing America over the ‘Financial Cliff”.