December 8th, 2012

If we’re serious about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy – and if we’re serious about protecting middle-class families – then we’re also going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay higher tax rates. That’s one principle I won’t compromise on.

I’m curious: are there any important principles he is willing to compromise on?

Boehner:

There are a lot of things that are possible to put the revenues that the president seeks on the table. But none of it’s going to be possible [if] the president insists on his position, insists on ‘my way or the highway.

I’m no expert on previous negotiations between presidents and Congress, but I’m curious whether any of you can answer this question: is it usual for presidents dealing with a House controlled by the opposing party to take such an uncompromisingly hard line? Or does “compromise” usually mean, you know, compromise?

Of course, earlier presidents were constrained by the fact that if they took unreasonably inelastic positions they would be blamed if the consequences of non-agreement were dire. Obama has no such fear; he knows the blame will fall on the Republicans, especially if the MSM has anything to say about it (and it will, it will).

I would like to see these “meetings” televised on national tv so we can find out who is lying and who is not. Why cannot this be done? That would be much more worth watching that the crap that is on tv now! Don’t we have the right to know the truth?

A cri de coeur that I predict will remain unanswered. Then again, if the negotiations were to be televised, how many people would actually pay attention?

The incumbent’s claim to expertise fame (as opposed to rock-star fame) is that of a community organizer. Community organizers, practically by definition, are the polar opposite of compromisers. They agitate what are more often than not nonnegotiable demands.

I’m not going to suggest that the incumbent is treating the presidency like a community organizer — that’s a slightly different topic for another day — but I am suggesting that the incumbent has no experience whatsoever compromising on anything. There’s certainly no evidence of that in his brief U.S. Senate career of which I’m aware. [I wonder what it’s like meeting Michelle Antoinette in the middle with respect to marriage differences?]

The other factor is that when the enemy is eating itself alive (that’s the “R” side, for any of you in Rio Linda), now is the time to kick hard and show no mercy. In this regard, he’s doing exactly what his side in a true take-no-prisoners war ought to be doing, since to the “D” side it truly is a war to the death — to the utter extinction of any and all non-collectivist thought. And so in this regard, the incumbent is definitely being competent, much to our side’s distinct disadvantage.

The thing about the Left is that they are cowards. It seems they have given up the socialist and communist revolution, but at the cost of not being able to kill or die for any of their goals. They just make you do the dying or use proxy allies like the islamo terrorists to do the dirty deeds.

It is amazing the lies Obama is getting away with–one barely knows where to start;

He is not “protecting the middle class”. What hogwash. He is raising taxes on them. The Democrats have redefined the middle class as “The Rich” (i.e., those making over $178K as owners of SMEs), and redefined “The working Class” and the middle class. He is “protecting” union people and the “47%”. When “the rich” pay most of the taxes and the bottom half pay none, indeed some get money back, how can anyone make this claim about :their fair share. It is just open communist hogwash. It is clear that the American people feel that they are entitled to the wealth of people more successful than they are.

Research” They are shutting down the tevatron and gutting NASA. They are gutting the DoD, which has been the source of much of our technology advance. That have put in a disastrous change to our patent laws. They are wasting enoumous sum on climate research and “alternate energy, all of which is motivated by the most hideous designs on power centralization and the corrupt patronage system of the Democrat political machine. None of this so-called “research” is going to help us, and, moreover, no one is talking about decreasing it.

It is just absurd. He demagoguery put forward the exact opposite of the truth. THe GOP absolutely refuses to call him or the MSM on it.

The electorate actually buys it.

Beyond that, I have never seen in my life “the rich” so demonized by an POTUS. IT is just open communism. I never thought I would see this borad acceptance of this claptrap.

Like the “War on Women” it is nothing but agit-prop, and of the vilest and most transparent sort, yet it seems to be taking with. One despairs when one contemplates the ignorance and callowness of the American Voter.

This country has fallen so low that one wonders if the simplest truth made be uttered in public, let alone discussed.

The democrats are destroying the economy and our competitiveness, and they make it look like the Democrats are “protecting the rich”

“I would like to see these ‘meetings’ televised on national tv so we can find out who is lying and who is not. Why cannot this be done? That would be much more worth watching that the crap that is on tv now! Don’t we have the right to know the truth?”

Watching sausage being made. Even if 100 percent on the up-and-up, not something one ^really^ wants to watch (like “the crap that is on tv now”).

I’m like Tesh. In the battle of words it helps me to include a few figures. Here’s what Obama is demanding in tax increases on the “wealthy.” ($200,00 -$250, 000 and up depending on marital status.):

“•Raise $1.6 trillion (Over ten years) by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire.
•Raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends and eliminate deductions for top earners.
•Reinstate the estate tax back to its 2009 level.
•Extend the two percent payroll tax cut for working Americans or replace it with a tax credit. (This isn’t a tax increase.)
•Patch the alternative minimum tax to exclude middle income earners.”

Here’s what he is offering in cuts:
“•Delay defense spending cuts of nearly $55 billion for one year.
•Delay another $55 billion in cuts to social programs, including reduced payments to Medicare providers.
•Commit to cutting $400 billion in entitlement programs over the next year.
•Extend unemployment benefits. (This is a cut?)
•Invest another $50 billion in infrastructure and a mortgage assistance program.” (This is more spending!)

He calls this balanced? $1.6 trillion in tax increases over ten years balanced by promises (yes, promises) of $510 billion in spending cuts to be passed sometime in the next year. But then he includes a tax cut that further increases the deficit in Social Security and $50 billion in new spending.

This is the historical game played by the democrats. To wit: “We gotta raise taxes right now. Spending cuts can come later.” (Much later, if at all.)

The amount raised by this tax increase (roughly $168 billion) will raise enough new revenue to fund the government for roughly 17 days. (At the present spending rate of $10 billion per day.) The promised cuts (if the happen – roughly $51 billion/year) will fund the government for 5 days. 22 days of funding. Well, I admit, it’s a start. But it would be much more balanced if there were $168 billion per year in real cuts in spending. (Not cuts in planned increases.)

This is neither balanced nor will it have much affect on on the deficit. This is class warfare dressed up as fairness because Obama wants it.

The top 2% pay about 41% of all income taxes. If that isn’t progressive fairness, then I would like to know what is.

Fighting over tax rates is foolish. Someone who can pay his accountant to avoid tax on a 35% marginal rate can pay his accountant to avoid tax on a 45% rate just as easily. But it makes for a good soundbite.

Talking on blogs and “preparing”—each in his/her own way—are not mutually exclusive activities, you know. And I don’t see too many people here (if any) indicating that they think that “the current trend of change will not continue.”

So I’m really not sure what your point is, except to demonstrate the superiority of your politically apocalyptic thinking.

I’d trade increasing taxes 50% on everyone for doing away with payroll deductions. Make people swipe their debit card to fund this government monthly and the entire psychology would undergo the equivalent of a shift in the Earth’s magnetic poles.

During times like these people must maintain perspective and remind themselves that “as ye sow, so shall ye reap” is still true. More economic pain and suffering will come especially to those who allow themselves to become victims.

If the wheels come off again as in 2008, there is likley to be so much displacement that nobody will escape blame, not any politician, the MSM, or the people who casually elected the Progressives. We should accept that Obama will continue to play the politics of envy and division because that is his heritage and strength. He will blame everybody except government and his constituants.

It is time to move on and concentrate on combating Progressive nonsense in our own spheres of influence, and prepare for the interim elections.

An important thing that people can do is take responsibility for their own situations. Our politicians traded the 2008 liquidity crisis for balooning monetary risk, and the math just doesn’t work. People should act today to avoid as much pain as possible as the failing economic policies continue until the next shock.

Be conservative, live well within your means, avoid leverage, accumulate productive assets, diversify your investments domesticaly and geographically in the world’s more investment friendly markets.

During a mega-trend economic slide such as we are experiencing, smart people prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and remain flexible.

Inkraven sez, “Fighting over tax rates is foolish. Someone who can pay his accountant to avoid tax on a 35% marginal rate can pay his accountant to avoid tax on a 45% rate just as easily. But it makes for a good soundbite.”

I bet Inkraven is in one of the lower income quintiles and does not have nor need a CPA. He clearly does not understand what raising taxes on capital gains and dividends portends, nor does he grasp the capping of deductions. He thinks there are and always will be IRS loopholes for the “rich” to exploit.

He thinks like the lady who cleans for me once in a while (paid in cash, thank you, no CPA needed by her): “What’s the big deal? Raising the rate from 35% to 39.6% is only a few %”. Just another Obama voter.

The televised negotiations would be tv theater, but likely not substantive. Everyone would be grandstanding, while the real negotiations took place out of view. Not much changes in DC.

Obama has invested everything in getting higher rates. Not just higher effective rates with fewer deductions for higher income fellow citizens (we need to stop callin g them “the rich”, like “the other’); it’s pure aesthetics. Like the public finance version of windmills. Fine, give him that in exchange for just about everything else.

Or maybe he really wants these higher tax rates automatically with the hope that he can pin them on the Republicans. That would explain his negotiating position; he believes he has the upper hand. And, frankly, he does.

DC, I think you’re missing the point. Fighting over tax rates is stupid because there’s no evidence that raising tax rates does anything to raise tax revenues, in fact, it’s likely to lower them. If you’re goal is to make “the rich pay there fair share”, don’t incentivize them to shelter their income from the tax man. On a side not, the thought that a family with an income of $250k/year is rich is pretty ridiculous. A family with that much income lives in a marginally nicer house in a marginally nicer neighborhood and drives a marginally nice car than a family with $150k/year in income. If they have a vacation home, it’s probably a time share. Their certainly not flying in their private jet to a lavish vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. The only people making $250k/year who have access to that type of lifestyle are high government officials.

@DC – you would be horribly wrong. It’s not only that it’s a few percent on the marginal rate, but that it won’t even make a shadow of a dent in the massively increased spending. Like I said, it’s a soundbite to make the lower classes feel better. You would also note that the 250k+ bracket voted heavily blue, both in 2008 and 2012, so obviously they’re OK with paying higher taxes (in public anyway, because privately they know they won’t be largely affected).

You might also notice there’s been a downward creep in the presidential dog whistles with regards to where to direct the class warfare hatred. First we had “millionaires and billionaires”, now we’ve moved down to this magic 250,000 number.

@ucfengr – $250k can be “rich”, it just depends on where. 250k in flyover country goes a lot farther than 250k in Manhattan.

There is some confusion here about “fighiing over tax rates”. Inkraven and ucfengr are talking about Obama fighting to raise them while Don Carlos is talking about Republicans fighting to keep them from being raised.

But Obama *knows* it won’t accomplish anything substantive to raise tax rates only on the wealthy. It is all about class warfare politics.

Very truly, Obama is not going to compromise on taxes, and should the republicans give him what he says he wants on taxes, he will find something else on which he will not compromise (like raising the debt ceiling without congressional approval).

I believe our glorious leader does not want a solution to this “fiscal cliff” crisis — he wants to milk the crisis for everything he can get (never let a good crisis go to waste), and then plunge right over the cliff. And the reasons are very simple.

If there is a resolution to the current crisis, he will get “increased revenue” from 2% of the population, and possibly some targeted cuts for which he will receive the credit/blame.

If there is not a resolution, come January:

1) he gets “increased revenue” from 53% of the population, and gets to “blame” those mean republicans;

2) he gets across the board spending cuts, most especially from defense, and again gets to “blame” those mean republicans;

3) because of the spending cuts, he gets to campaign for targeted expenditures in order to reward his supportersstimulate is “green” friends” aid those (public employees, ethanol producers, etc) that were hurt by the sending cuts; and

4) because the tax increases hit the middle class, he gets to start campaigning for fundamental “tax reform” (i.e., replace all or part of the income tax with hidden taxes like a “value added tax” (VAT) or, even more likely, a carbon tax).

Considering all of that, I think we are certain to plunge right off this “fiscal cliff.”

The approach our leader is taking, with all of the fearful talk about a “fiscal cliff,” does not come from the teachings of Saul Alinsky. It is a page taken from southern floklore — the “fiscal cliff” is Br’er Rabbit Barack’s “briar patch” — it’s right where he wants to be!

Inkraven, there’s no place in the US where $250k/year qualifies as “rich”. That’s not to say you won’t have a comfortable lifestyle with that level of income, depending on where you live, but you’re not going to be wintering in Jackson Hole or Aspen, or summering on the Vineyard. Unless you’re a high government official, you’re not going to have a driver or a private plane. You’re going to struggle to send one of the kids to an Ivy without some sort of scholarship. IOW, not rich.

Several analyses have pointed out that the “rich”–actually the high earners who have W2 income instead of the actual wealthy with their cap gains–live disproportionately in blue states. As has been pointed out, $250k isn’t “rich”, and, schadenfreudenly speaking, it’s even less “rich” in a blue state than in a red state due to much higher costs of living.
To the extent some of these high earners go Galt toward the end of the year, their state income taxes will drop. The mortgage deduction is proportionally more important in blue states with their higher housing prices and losing that is a bigger hit than a couple of points on the marginal rate.
Before I can feel triumphant, or continue giggling meanly, I have to figure out how many of those affected voted for Obama. More than likely they didn’t, but were outvoted by the Free Stuff constituency.

db – Exactly. BO is only playing politics with this, because that is all he knows how to do. He has never run anything in his life, even after 4 years as POTUS.

Richard Aubrey – I’m in the bluest state (CA) but of course I didn’t vote for BO. It wouldn’t have made any difference anyway. I’m not $250k but I’m doing pretty well. Luckily my house is mostly paid off so losing the mortgage deduction wouldn’t hurt much, just the state tax deduction. And I wouldn’t mind losing that if it actually helped to improve the situation for the whole country. But not just paying more taxes to go off the cliff anyway.

I have a niece working for the LAUSD. I frequently ask her if she’s still getting paid in US currency.
She says she is, and I guess I believe her. But she voted for zero and Brown and all the dems and doesn’t see any possibility of a connection with the looming difficulties. If things go wrong, her opinion masters will tell her whom to blame, and that’s almost as good as having a job and getting paid in US currency and everything.

This entire ‘debate’ in DC is a charade. The republicans are not serious, they are, with a few exceptions, merely posturing. And, we all know Team BHO is not in the least serious about reducing the debt/deficits. We know that they know raising the tax rate on the top earners will raise a pitiful amount of revenue compared to the Obama annual deficits. We don’t have a revenue problem, we all know we have a spending problem. We all know this is the case.

Meanwhile, the Ds in DC and in the state houses of the blue states, are either supremely stupid, or they know exactly what they are doing: taking the country into the ditch and setting up the mother of all depressions in order to put into place their centralized utopia. They know. They know. Its all going according to plan.

It is ridiculous — all that is going on! That any single person believes a thing that Obama says when there is 3 1/2 years of examples in which what he does has zero connect to what he does, or says he plans to do, just screams that they don’t care.

This business of Obama arguing with Boehner and the Repubs insisting that he raise tax rates on “the rich” (never mind that so few people are paying enough attention to recognize that people or couples or Subchapter S cos. who make over $250,000 are so far from the top 2%, it’s not even funny!

The current argument, in which Boehner has said, “OK, we’ll find revenue from those “rich” but we do it in the form of closing loopholes, limiting deductions, etc. which is meant with a great big OBAMA “NO!” It’s going to be MY way — raise tax rates. It’s a joke and makes them all a bunch of keystone cops!

To me, it’s a whole lot of wasted blather so similar to the argument about same sex marriage: the gay and lesbian population insist on having the word “marriage” apply to them despite the fact that they know it is so troubling to so many other Americans. They also know that very few people object to civil unions at this point in history, and fewer want to deny any rights that would deny same sex couples those of married heterosexual couples. Marriage, civil union. Achieves the same thing. And the obscene amount of money, animosity that has poured forth as a result of both sides insisting it be their way is nauseating.

More so is Obama acting like the Repubs are still refusing him increased tax revenue from the “rich” if it doesn’t result from raising tax rates. And most absurd is the MSM poised to emphatically echo Obama no matter how phony his position is.

And there has been very, VERY little news informing the public that Obama has, since winning election, doubled the amount of money he is demanding for more spending, and Lord knows what he is cooking up re: carbon taxes, climate change, rewards to special interest groups like Unions and personal injury lawyers, more entitlements, reducing the power of the military, ad infinitum while keeping everyone’s focus on this grade school like squabble over “raising interest rates” vs. closing loopholes, and limiting deductions.

Further, Obama’s bid to borrow take unto himself the power of raising the debt limit so he can spend and spend until he has to borrow again and spend again all the while printing more money — to spend — until he can no more. But if he has the “power of the purse” he can just keep raising that ceiling, permitting his spending and borrowing to his heart’s content. Debit remaining after he’s out of office is not his problem! And so begins exactly what we all feared should this man have a second term when he will be accountable to no voter ever again. If he acted like a “King” before, just wait.

My real problem is, though I fear the untold amount of damage he will inflict upon this country, I fear more the no. of voters and citizens who have swallowed his Kool-Aid, are ignorant of reality, economics, and truly believe in the injustice and unfairness he has drummed into their heads, the devisiveness and hate he has raised, and the animosity he will leave behind, not to mention so many people certain that the “rich” and the “govt.” OWE them. And they should do whatever they have to to get their due.

Thinking about such a future is one of the few times I am glad that I was unable to have children.

“is it usual for presidents dealing with a House controlled by the opposing party to take such an uncompromisingly hard line? Or does “compromise” usually mean, you know, compromise.
On the radio today they were talking about how Obama’s stance now is 180 degrees from where it was in the last negotioation about the debt. Back in July, he had meetings, he was willing to talk with Boener and he was not in the driver’s seat.
But now with the Republicans in disarray and with Boener laying down the imperial law to those that disagree with him, Obama understands that he doesn’t really have to give up anything. The leader of the Republican house has not even brought a “knife to a gun fight”.
So if there was a competent leader in the house, one might expect some compromise. But like a fearful child with a bully, Boener will give up all our “lunch money” and tell us what a good boy he is

This is entirely political theater on Obama’s part but it has a purpose.

Krauthammer is correct but incomplete when he states that this is about damaging the GOP. Obama’s purpose in this is more specific than simply damaging the GOP.

Obama seeks to damage the GOP in the public’s mind by assigning them all the blame for the higher tax rates on the middle class, that will result when the Bush tax cuts expire. He seeks to further cement in the public’s mind that the Republican’s goal is to protect the rich. Which is partially true and somewhat for valid reasons, but the uninformed and economically illiterate, who’ve already bought into Obama’s meme, will simply see Republican’s refusal to allow “the rich to pay their fair share” as confirmation of Obama’s meme.

And the MSM has and will greatly assist him in the public accepting that meme.

Where does that lead? To Obama’s goal of course, which is the 2014 elections. Obama needs the democrats to regain control of the House. It’s critical and strategically necessary, if he’s to extend and deepen his ‘fundamental transformation’ of America.

is it usual for presidents dealing with a House controlled by the opposing party to take such an uncompromisingly hard line? Or does “compromise” usually mean, you know, compromise?

its not usual, but then again, most leaders do not necessarily wish the end of the system they aspired to.

there is a huge section of literary work from the leaders of an admired system that does cover this and the reasons behind it, and where one would know such application.

Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder
“Left-Wing” Communism in Germany The Leaders, the Party, the Class, the Masses
By Lenin

he writes to show how the leftism practiced by the frankfurt school was part of an infantile disorder.
particluarly looking at the frankfurt school pamplet:
The Split in the Communist Party of Germany
(The Spartacus League) (note league means communist the way progressive, fabian, etc does)

“… Politically, the transitional period [between capitalism and socialism] is one of the proletarian dictatorship….”

“The opposition have chosen another road. They are of the opinion that the question of the rule of the Party and of the dictatorship of the Party is merely one of tactics.
In any case, rule by the Party is the ultimate form of any party rule. Fundamentally, we must work for the dictatorship of the proletarian class. And all the
measures of the Party, its organizations, methods of struggle, strategy and tactics should be directed to that end.

Accordingly, all compromise with other parties, all reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle which have become historically and politically obsolete, and any policy of manoeuvrings and compromise must be emphatically rejected.”

“Specifically proletarian methods of revolutionary struggle must be strongly emphasized.

New forms of organisation must be created on the
widest basis and with the widest scope in order to enlist the most extensive proletarian circles and strata to take part in the revolutionary struggle under the leadership of the Party.

A Workers Union, based on factory organisations, should be the rallying point for all revolutionary elements. This should unite all workers who
follow the slogan: Get out of the trade unions!

It is here that the militant proletariat musters its ranks for battle. Recognition of the class struggle, of the Soviet system and of the dictatorship should
be sufficient for enrollment.

All subsequent political education of the fighting masses and their political orientation in the struggle are the task of the Party, which stands outside the Workers Union….

We can (and must) begin to build Socialism not with imaginary human material, not with human material invented by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. That is very “difficult,” it goes without saying, but no other approach to the task is serious enough to warrant discussion.

from Distant Neighbors: Japanese Russian relations under Brezhnev and Andropov – page 135

because such writings have not made any secret of the fact that russia views compromise (Kompromiss) or Concession (ustupka) as a “diplomatic tactic”, some western observers rightly observe that in reality russians “Do not regard any compromise as a permanent solution”.

two western observers, bryant Wedge, and cyril muromchew, wrote that since principals are inviolable for the Russians, no concessions are permissible. therefore, the Russian equivalent for compromise is to be found in bartering, especially when quantitative values are involved. any concessions have to be on a quid pro quo basis.

in conclusion, wedge and muromchew wrote:
“when the soviets do seem to make a concession they make every attempt to point out that their basic position has not changed, and all the correct principals have been preserved”

since people are loath to read large posts the rest goes on to point out that when the issues are things in which they can work from both sides, they focused on mutuality. vzaimnost…

but, and this is VERY KEY, upon those things that are fundemental to the beliefs and the example of such, like economics and certain military positions, they would refuse to back down at all.

ultimately what your watching is not what most think they are watching. they are watching the president exercise control over the other party and make one party. ie. the other party has no choices but to do what he wants. period. this is the key step for Gliechshaltung. now that society is on his side, the press is on his side, white women are on his side against their mates, races are against white men as the scapegoats, the economics is about to get bad (and outcomes in control of the power base), and so on and so on… he needs them to fold… or be crushed if they refuse.

once this happens, then you will see everyone run for the doors like a bon fire was lit… from there on, no one has any alternative representation and so on one wants to be on the wrong side.

the point is bigger than anyone realizes…
since most don’t realize were we are in this game, having never experienced it and their ideas acting as a smoke screen… (lots of things are counter intuitive, and so if you rely on your ideas, without that knowledge, your going to fall into the same intuitive holes!!!!!!!!!!!!! experience teaches what is counter intuitive… the rejection of experience turns every bad intuition into a social land mine of damage in the civil war)

Obama is saying… You want ANY seat at the table in the near future, then you better fold and come with me. if not, then i will show you that your choice is irrelevant in terms of changing the future, but on the whole, only relevant to telling everyone whose side your on.

you either sit at the table happy and eat whether you like it or not, or you sit at the table unhappy and eat whether you like it or not, but at least we know where you stand and what we have to do about you.

Artfldgr: I think it’s been said on this blog, and on many other blogs and in many other articles on the right, that Obama’s unwillingness to compromise comes from two sources. The first is that he knows he won’t be blamed for the negative consequences. And the second is that he really doesn’t mind the negative consequences. It’s win-win for him, he thinks: if things go well he gets credit, if they go poorly the Republicans get the blame, and people look to government (and the Democrats, and him) for more help.

Some combination of those two things gives him the strength to refuse to compromise. I’m well aware of that, and that the situation is very unusual and perhaps unique in terms of US presidents who have come before him (for example, even FDR was stopped when he tried court-packing). So I know why Obama feels empowered to do this.

My question was a different one, and more about history: had another president ever taken such a hard line with a House controlled by the opposite party?

ultimately what your watching is not what most think they are watching. they are watching the president exercise control over the other party and make one party. ie. the other party has no choices but to do what he wants. period. this is the key step for Gliechshaltung. now that society is on his side, the press is on his side, white women are on his side against their mates, races are against white men as the scapegoats, the economics is about to get bad (and outcomes in control of the power base), and so on and so on… he needs them to fold… or be crushed if they refuse.

once this happens, then you will see everyone run for the doors like a bon fire was lit… from there on, no one has any alternative representation and so on one wants to be on the wrong side.

the point is bigger than anyone realizes…

I don’t know where you’ve been for the last month in terms of your reading, but that is exactly and precisely what a huge segment of the right has been saying (and thinking, including me) ever since the election. So, people do realize.

You continually make the strange error of thinking nobody sees this. Plenty do (in fact, we’re seeing a small taste of it right now in willingness of some of the Congressional Republicans to cave to Obama). The only part of what you write here that many (if not most??) people on the right are unaware of are the details of how these things played out in Soviet times. The rest has been fairly clear, at least as a strong possibility, since the election. That’s why the right has been so devastated by it. And that’s why people are focusing on cultural changes (education, media, entertainment etc.) as the only possible way out.

Granted, some people on the right don’t see it that way and think we’ll come roaring back in 2016. But I think that group is a small minority. The real argument on the right is whether there is anything we can do that can reverse these trends over the long haul, or not—and if so, what. And from my reading, there isn’t really too much argument about the “what,” because most people seem to think it’s trying to do something about those Big Three—education, media, and entertainment—and the messages they send.

“they are watching the president exercise control over the other party and make one party. ie. the other party has no choices but to do what he wants. period.”

Of course they have a choice. They choose not to exercise it because it would offend those whose financial support for the Republican party is the largest. The Republican leadership is protecting the financial status quo. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they’re doing this primarily because they believe that the political survival of their party requires it. To win elections requires the financial leverage that money provides.

Were that not their motivation, Boehner could easily take the ‘raise taxes on the rich’ off the table by immediately agreeing to them, which then places the cuts on the table.

By taking raising taxes on the rich off the table, Boehner could then credibly state; no cuts, no deal and make that characterization irrefutable because he pulls the ‘rug’ out from under Obama by taking away Obama’s meme.

Obama can play political theater with the fiscal cliff for the reasons neo just stated. Republicans can ‘do nothing’ because Obama is threatening their financial base and they’re convinced that, to stay politically viable, they must have that financial base.

What both they and their big donors don’t see is that every incremental ‘compromise’ with Obama, brings closer the day when they won’t have any money to donate because Obama plans to implement changes that will result in continual redistribution of their wealth.

Obama understands, as few supporters of socialism do, that socialism, in time must become communistic. It must because when it runs out of “other people’s money” i.e. their income, it turns to their assets (by raising the death tax) to continue the ‘shell game’ that natural economic laws show socialism to be…

Most traditional “fictional” literature, classics and poetry are eliminated. Nothing long, only short pieces Children will read what’s described as “informational texts,” government reports, computer manuals and technical bulletins. There will be more “reading” in science and math classes. The focus will be on computer literacy with little, if any, actual “writing.” Cursive penmanship is already being phased out. Supposedly all this will make children more college ready.

Of the 50 states, 46 have agreed, as well as D.C.

Was there a vote of the people or the legislatures? No.

The Obama administration said you have to participate to get the grants. The money was part of Obama’s stimulus plan.

the Bill Gates Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave more than $100 million to develop the plan, and it’s parceled out to publishers, public television, George Soros’ “Center for American Progress,” universities, school districts and even teachers’ unions.

Think back to just before Obama’s first presidential election.

Remember, his telling a cheering crowd, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

“most people seem to think it’s trying to do something about those Big Three—education, media, and entertainment—and the messages they send.” neo-neocon

That may well be true. But while its certainly needed, it’s fatally incomplete. Until we have a really tough, Balanced Budget Amendment, we will not be able to stop the growth in entitlements and the growth of our dependency class.

The only way to stop a representative democracy’s susceptibility to Tocqueville’s dictum; “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” is to cut off Congress’ ability to bribe the public by Constitutionally limiting America to having to live within its economic means.

Prior generations understood the need for fiscal sustainability but the Gramscian march of the last 50 years has changed that.

Clearly, we do not currently have the votes needed or the political consensus to achieve that amendment and we may never have it but there is no other option for fiscal sustainability.

Fiscal collapse into sovereign bankruptcy is now mathematically unavoidable.

When that occurs, the struggle will be between the advocates of liberty and a return to fiscal sanity and those who wish to sell their heritage for the false promise of socialistic security.

That conflict will be settled at the ballot box. Which does not bode well for America.

1984 looms on the not too distant horizon. By 2084 we shall most probably have it.

“Children will read what’s described as “informational texts,” government reports, computer manuals and technical bulletins.”

Oh good, that will be a monumental failure. Just as M. Obama’s school lunch program is turning out to be.

99.9% of children are not in the least interested in those things. They will not pay attention, nor do their homework and the outcry from parents will be deafening when they see what their children are being ‘taught’.

It’s encouraging to see that degree of ideological tone deafness upon Obama’s part. Children are not robots, nor can they be made to be without the degree of oppression N. Korea employs.

America is far from ready for that, Obama’s hubris is leading him to really overplaying his hand. This will do more to alienate liberals than almost anything else he could do.

Counter-intuitively, this is an outstanding development. If American liberals ever do awaken, (before its too late) it won’t be due to conservative efforts, it will be because the left crossed a bridge too far.

I agree that it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. The problem however is that the cultural battle has already been fought and won, by the left. The 2012 election and the opinions of the young demographic, confirm that regrettable fact.

Demography is destiny, when cultural trends support it.

Obama IMO, intends to run the table and in his ideological hubris shall lead us into a very dark place. America is not going to like its coming depression nor the foreign ‘adventures’ that await us.

But in four years he will exit the stage and leave us with the consequences of his ‘policies’. At that point, it will be hard to rationally sustain the memes he and the democrats have used.

But man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. So the question is, will enough Americans in 2016 put aside their pride, face the consequences of their prior choices and willingly if reluctantly pay the price for their choices or will they rationalize once again and demand, that convenient scapegoat ‘the rich’ pay the cost?

The Mayans were right, as it turns out, when they predicted the world would end in 2012. It was just a select world: the G.O.P. universe of arrogant, uptight, entitled, bossy, retrogressive white guys. MAUREEN DOWD

Actually; now might be the time for some. Money is cheap now and if you are going to repay your fixed rate loan in a high inflation environment….. which, hopefully, will be taking in money at current [inflated /ing] prices / rates….

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. Read More >>