It is true the Republicans could go after this “sacred cow” to get something they want more. But there is nothing they want more. “No new taxes” isn’t an aspect of the Republican party platform, is it now essentially their entire brand. If the Republican party supports raising taxes so a Democrat can reduce the deficit, what would be the pitch the GOP uses to win over non-religiously conservative upper middle class voters?
For GOP Tax Increases Not Just a Sacred Cow, But the Whole Farm |
| By: Jon Walker Monday July 11, 2011 10:42 am |
Obama: No Deal on Debt Ceiling Unless Republicans “Budge” on Taxes |
| By: Blue Texan Monday July 11, 2011 10:30 am |
I’m not sure he’s said this quite so clearly before this morning.
“Eat Our Peas” – Obama Pushes for Big Grand Bargain at Press Conference |
| By: David Dayen Monday July 11, 2011 9:16 am |
Whether you think the insistence on a big deal that would include cuts to entitlements is a tactic or sincerely felt, it’s clear that the President believes strongly in getting it done. He echoed Bob Dole’s comment about everybody getting in the boat so it doesn’t tip over. He is clearly willing to be unpopular among his party in order to get a deal done, which is says is a component of how to improve the economy, although not the only part. “We should eat our peas,” he said, adding that “I have a stake in John Boehner successfully persuading his caucus that this is the right thing to do. Just like he has a stake in me persuading my caucus.”
Government Aid Dissipating, Damaging Economic Performance |
| By: David Dayen Monday July 11, 2011 7:45 am |
The New York Times hits on a major reason for why the economy has struggled over the past several months. Government assistance has faded, turning the stimulus into anti-stimulus. While extended unemployment benefits will last until the end of the year, other stimulus-era programs to beef up government benefits, 20% of all compensation in the US, are slowly being pulled away, and as a result, consumer spending decreases and businesses see less sales. And it will only get worse.
Why Does the Washington Post Say “Changes” to Social Security When They Really Mean “Cuts”? |
| By: Dean Baker Monday July 11, 2011 6:32 am |
Usually it is the politicians who use euphemisms to try to conceal the impact of their policies. However, the Washington Post decided to help them along in a front page article when it twice referred to Social Security “changes” that could be part of the budget agreement.
Of course “changes” don’t reduce the deficit unless they are cuts. President Obama and the congressional leadership were discussing plans to cut Social Security. These cuts are likely to be very unpopular, so it is likely that they would rather have the public not realize that they were debating cuts to Social Security.
Early Morning Swim |
| By: Blue Texan Monday July 11, 2011 4:41 am |
- I already know it: cuts and no tax increases.
- Krugman nails it, as always.
- Willard, the job
creatorkiller. - Sign of the times.
- Gerald Ford weeps.
“What can I say? I’m not very bright” |
| By: Attaturk Monday July 11, 2011 1:30 am |
Rick Santorum takes a novel approach to why he should be elected…”I’ll sign anything as long as it is stupid”
Late, Late Night FDL: Good Life |
| By: CTuttle Sunday July 10, 2011 10:00 pm |
Sunday Late Night: What Fierce Advocacy Looks Like |
| By: Teddy Partridge Sunday July 10, 2011 8:01 pm |
We queers tried to tell you: having President Fierce Advocate on your side wasn’t a winning play.
The There’s Plenty of Money Act of 2012 |
| By: David Swanson Sunday July 10, 2011 7:08 pm |
This Act may be cited as the Start Doing Our Damn Jobs Act of 2012.


40 Comments













Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake