Krauthammer On Fiscal Cliff Negotiations: "Republicans Ought To Simply Walk Away"

Real Clear Politics ^ | 11/29/2012 | Charles Krauthammer

[GVnana]

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal. What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House, Republicans won the house. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.

This idea -- there are not only no cuts in this, there's an increase in spending with a new stimulus. I mean, this is almost unheard of. What do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He's the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.

We had that movie a year-and-a-half ago where Paul Ryan presented a budget, a serious real budget with real cuts. Obama was supposed to gave speech where he would respond with a counter offer. And what did he do? He gave a speech where he had Ryan sitting in the front row. He called the Ryan proposal un-American, insulted him, offered nothing, and ran on Mediscare in the next 18 months.

And they expect the Republicans are going to do this again?

[DoughtyOne]

They never explain anything. I’m surprised we still have the House.

The one that ps me off to no end is entitlements.  Rs are so scared to admit they both are broke right NOW and generating debt NOW that they let Dems get away with saying they are fully funded, and wonder why no one believes them about needing reform.  In fact a Dem on CSPAN called in this morning and he said that SS should not be touched because ‘ SS takes in more money than it spends”

I do believe we need entitlement change.  (I believe you were addressing Medicare and Social Security here.  If that assumption is incorrect, please mention it.)  The type of change I would like to see does not involve folks who spent 40-50 years working under the old system, only to be told they get less and less now that they can't work any longer.  Instead it involves converting the entitlement programs into private investment driven enterprises, which over a rather short period of time returns us to solvency as the older generation dies off.  Under the new program, future retirees would see their whole lives changed through creative initiatives.

The mod asked “How about the payroll tax cut ? Should that be extended?” (didnt mention FICA or SS and how they relate to above.  He replies :”Sure”  And this guy was waiting to be plucked this election, and we probably didn't get him.  What a shame.

If Republicans are not going to bother to explain why they want to do what they propose, then screw them.  Agreed.  Hell, I did more than them by creating that video on SS and posting it to youtube

Not every rich guy >$250K is a small business owner yet if you listen to the Rs everys single one of them is a small business owner who hires employees because thats all they ever say in response to tax increase talk.  Most people know this is non-sense. Come up with something that sounds real.

We'll you're right here, but the issue of the percentage that is/isn't a small business owner, isn't the way it should be exploited.

It along with a number of other economic factors this idiot is clueless about, should be exploited to the end of outing this president for the economic 'nine year old' he is.

"We read with not a little amusement the president's proposals related to 'rich people' and how those makeing over $250,000 dollars per year are rich, and need to be taxed more.  Not everyone making over $250,000 is a small businessman, but the president failed to even address the fact that there are many small businessmen whose businesses exceed the $250,000 dollar limit by varying margins who none the less still file their taxes under a person income tax return.  This raises the glaring ignorance of the president yet again, as it relates to yet another aspect of economics."

"Does our president merely wish to cause these small businessmen to have to lay off employees, or does he want to put them out of business altogether?   Mr. President, the American public deserve better!"

"While we're pitting rich against poor, I'd like to ask folks who own a home worth $250,000 dollars, do they consider themselves to be RICH, and deserving of paying more taxes?"

"If you're in the midst of paying off your $250,000 dollar home, do you think you'll be a rich person when you have paid it off, deserving of paying more takes?"

"Mr. President, this class warfare game you're playing is beneath the dignity of this nation.  You could really use some night-school classes on Economics 101."

"Ladies and Gentlemen, that's all for now.  I'm sure we'll be back here tomorrow addressing another aspect of the clueless one's failing grasp of economic reality."

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, I’m leaning in that direction myself. There were too many valid stories of shenanigans this election cycle, to be totally closed to the idea. We must address this.

[uncommonsense]

Krauthammer started to rehabilitate his opinion with me when he said this about domestic drones:

"I don't want regulations, I don't want restrictions, I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war. The Founders had a great aversion to any instruments of war, the use of the military inside even the United States. It didn't like standing armies, it has all kinds of statutes of using the army in the country."

"A drone is a high-tech version of an old army and a musket. It ought to be used in Somalia to hunt bad guys but not in America. I don't want to see it hovering over anybody's home. Yes, you can say we have satellites, we've got Google Street View and London has a camera on every street corner but that's not an excuse to cave in on everything else and accept a society where you're always under -- being watched by the government. This is not what we want,"

"I would say that you ban it under all circumstances and I would predict, I'm not encouraging, but I am predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country,"

[snip]

"The Founders we're deeply opposed to the militarization of civil society. There is all kinds of aversions to it and this is importing it because, as you say, it's cheap, it's easy, it's silent. It's something that you can easily deploy. It's going to be, I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here, stop it now"

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Not every rich guy >$250K is a small business owner yet if you listen to the Rs everys single one of them is a small business owner who hires employees because thats all they ever say in response to tax increase talk.
Most people know this is non-sense.”
....
The proportion is higher than you might know.”

By the way, the Clinton era taxes was on income OVER $250K.
So a small business owner making say $300K sees a tax increase on the last $50K. They need to explain why this is bad.

I will not support a party who is not honest, especially when it frequently backfires. They need arguments that don't fall apart so fast. Buffet now says he wants it at $500K. So pass the extension up to 500K

One of the worst arguments for tax cuts is that it is a stimulus that will get taxpayers to spend more money. This a guaranteed losing argument.