[Charles Henrickson]

[Brandonmark]

My Hero!

[Salgak]

And given his pettiness. . . I can see Obama giving us all a final “F*ck You!” by letting it happen when he loses.

The fact that it will make the Democrats radioactive for decades to come is irrelevant: it’s all about HIM.

Then he’ll just retire to his Hawaiian palace, smoke “choom” all day, and be “Bathhouse Barry” at the local hangouts. .

[upchuck]

Thanks for including the indentation in your post. Many FReepers neglect/don’t know how to do that and their post doesn’t make sense as a result.

[onyx]

VOTE THE MARXIST OUT!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC TONIGHT.

[Sacajaweau]

Now you know why they were extended ONLY until the end of the year....leverage.

Clever or stupid?????

[SampleMan]

The rememdy?

On Nov. 7, President elect Romney announces that he, the House, and the new Republican majority Senate will be retroactively cancelling the tax increases in January. Meanwhile, non-defense cuts can remain in place.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”According to the Washington Post and administration officials, President Obama is willing to take the country right off the fiscal cliff for short term political gain - with or without reelection.
Freed from the political and economic constraints that have tied his hands in the past, Obama is ready to play hardball with Republicans, who have so far successfully resisted a deal to tame the debt that includes higher taxes, Obama’s allies say.
In the days after the November election, the tables will be turned: Taxes are scheduled to rise dramatically in January for people at all income levels, and Republicans will be unable to stop those automatic increases alone.
If he wins reelection, Obama may finally be able to dictate the terms of a bipartisan debt-reduction deal. And if he loses to Republican Mitt Romney, Obama could make sure that tax rates rise before he hands over the keys to the White House on Inauguration Day in late January.”

Republicans got themselves into this position, playing this game of chicken.

1) Knowing the tax cuts expire at the end of Os first term they (Republican House and McConnel) last year insisted on a debt limit increase deal that included certain delayed budget cuts that they are now claiming are catastrophic, to take place at the same time as the tax increases. ( I am skeptical that these cuts are anywhere near that bad.) They apparently thought this would be a great election issue.

2) The prior R minority leadership in congress (2009 to 2010 under Pelosi/Reid congress) , same people as now, saw it as a great victory to get Obama to extend all those tax cuts in late 2010, the middle of Obama’s term. So thanks to that he has used that as a major talking point against Romney and others which wouldnt have sounded so good now if he ‘won’ and got taxes went up. I always said that that was the last thing O wanted at that point, taxes to go up before his (re-)election.
It would be truly ironic if this ends in Obama being able to keep taxes going up after his re-election when he doesnt have to worry about another.

Finally:

a) If O wins then he will not give in on taxes this time, he has the upper hand.

b) Even if MR wins he still has to get an extension through the Senate and he wont have 60, in fact Reid may still be Senate leader. And apparently he wants to reverse the automatic budget cuts that Rs like Ryan called a major historic victory just last year at the same time.

[bert]

Blah blah blah..... Obama is already a lame duck.

Harry Reid has the power. He will be the driver of the bus going over the cliff. At present, he is probably dithering and won’t know what to do for several weeks.

[bert]

Blah blah blah..... Obama is already a lame duck.

Harry Reid has the power. He will be the driver of the bus going over the cliff. At present, he is probably dithering and won’t know what to do for several weeks.

If he loses the Senate, it can all be undone right a way.