Article

2012-12-11 Home Front: Politix

No breakthrough in Obama, Boehner fiscal cliff talks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2012-12-11 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Defense cuts which will further weaken America. It was the Champ's endgame strategy all along.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-12-11 02:42|| 2012-12-11 02:42|| Front Page Top

#2 Unless and until we have a political party which will cut non-defense spending by 40-75% and is prepared - really prepared - to deal with the potential short-term unrest this will cause - the country will continue to decline and may end up being destroyed.

I suspect a deal has already been reached to go off the cliff.

Boehner, the quintessential country club Republican, desires defense cuts (as many RINO's do) but cannot overtly push for them, it would be political suicide. Also, he does not wish to offend any of the groups who get the magic checks who aren't affiliated with the defense industry. Going off the cliff is the perfect fig leaf for him in both of those areas, plus he can claim he tried to protect the wealthy job creators but Obama wouldn't budge, so he can blame the next recession on someone else.

Obama, as Besoeker says, also wants to gut the defense infrastructure of this country and use the revenue so obtained to buy more votes with more entitlement/welfare/public sector jobs he can hand out as a result. When tax rates go up on everybody and the next recession occurs, he can blame the Republicans for it, saying that all the jobs lost were due to the cuts mandated by the fiscal cliff.

Going off the cliff is a win/win for these two.

So that is what will happen.

Posted by no mo uro 2012-12-11 06:35|| 2012-12-11 06:35|| Front Page Top

#3 1. Revoking the Bush era cuts for >$250k income only produces $35B to $60B per year. I don''t see how this sums to $1.6T over 10years.

2. Back in 2000, the Defense budget was about $300B. Granted that probably wasn't enough but now the Defense budget is about $700B. After the drawdown in Afghanistan, it seems we could get by on $500 without too much trouble.

3. Its a shame we can't get smart Bain types or retired Fed employees to go through the discretionary budget and get rid of the fluff. However, in many agencies (Patent and Trade, Passport and VISA office, etc.), there simply isn't much fluff.

Posted by lord garth 2012-12-11 09:43|| 2012-12-11 09:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, they are not too good at math in Washington.

Posted by JohnQC 2012-12-11 09:51|| 2012-12-11 09:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Hat tip to the brave Governor and people of Michigan as they pass the "Right to Work" legislation.

Strange is it not, "choice" is a sacred, ethical principle of freedom or entitlement... unless used in the context of... "Right to Work" ?

Posted by Besoeker 2012-12-11 09:56|| 2012-12-11 09:56|| Front Page Top

#6 B, The left ought to love the principle of "choice" since they embrace it is so many other contexts.

Posted by JohnQC 2012-12-11 10:00|| 2012-12-11 10:00|| Front Page Top

#7 I particularly enjoyed the Michigan State Police spokesman who said... "we will not allow the protests to become a Wisconsin situation".

Use of Remington-870's and #6 shot authorized as far as I am concerned.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-12-11 10:12|| 2012-12-11 10:12|| Front Page Top

#8 ..or whiff of grape. Known to work on the Paris crowds.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-12-11 10:31|| 2012-12-11 10:31|| Front Page Top

#9 youtube has some good vids of unionistas doing what they do best...I'm sure it will endear them to the avg joe in MI. As soon as MI passes the anti-CAIR legislation I will be proud of my home state again. This RTW bill was a step in right direction...

Posted by Broadhead6 2012-12-11 16:33|| 2012-12-11 16:33|| Front Page Top

#10 Use of Remington-870's and #6 shot authorized as far as I am concerned.

#6?

Really, Besoeker?

Why so small? I use bigger on seaducks and geese.

Posted by no mo uro 2012-12-11 19:52|| 2012-12-11 19:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Because the unionistas are thin-skinned?

Posted by SteveS 2012-12-11 19:56|| 2012-12-11 19:56|| Front Page Top

00:01 JosephMendiola
22:24 USN,Ret.
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
21:45 trailing wife
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:29 JosephMendiola
21:27 gorb
21:16 JosephMendiola
21:00 Mullah Richard
20:41 DarthVader
19:56 SteveS
19:53 SteveS
19:52 no mo uro
19:47 SteveS
19:43 Charles
19:26 JosephMendiola
19:23 Lowspark
19:22 JosephMendiola
19:18 tu3031
19:17 Lowspark
19:13 Pappy
19:08 Pappy
19:05 JosephMendiola
Merry-Go-Blog