The Fiscal Cliff

[Pelado]

"It's hard to watch what's going on here," Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. He noted that there are two ways of governing: by leadership or by crisis. "This town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis," he said.

Which raised the obvious question: Was he saying something about the president's leadership?

Several observations ensued. "This town has gotten a lot meaner in the last few years." Relationships have deteriorated. Redistricting into safe seats hasn't helped. Neither has the explosion of money in campaigns, or the elimination of earmarks. (Negotiating one Bill Clinton budget, "I think I sold about six bridges to get there," Panetta recalled.)

Then, to Obama. "This president -- he's extremely bright, he's extremely able, he's somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country."

Next came the "but" -- without a name but with a clear message. "You have to engage in the process. This is a town where it's not enough to feel you've got the right answer. You've got to roll up your sleeves ... listening to other people, figuring out what they need ... that's what governing is all about."

Bloomberg's Al Hunt asked Panetta how Clinton would have handled the current situation differently. "We were negotiating up to the last minute in the Oval Office" before the 1995 shutdown, recalled Panetta, then Clinton's chief of staff. "Some of us were nervous that Bill Clinton was bending over backwards to try to see if he could get a deal done."

Panetta's image of being clustered in the Oval Office with all the key players -- Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, plus Clinton and Vice President Gore -- offered a vivid contrast to the current state of play, with the talks collapsed between White House and House Speaker John Boehner, and with the 11th-hour action shifted to the Senate leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell.

To some extent, the reporters in the room seemed more forgiving of the circumstances in which the president finds himself. Jackie Calmes of The New York Times noted that the Panetta-envisioned budget deal was illusory because Republicans were insistent that there be no new tax revenue. Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times observed that the White House would argue that its previous efforts at schmoozing and deal-making had gone nowhere.

"Just because you've engaged in some set of negotiations and they haven't gone anywhere, for one reason or another there's been a breakdown, is no reason to walk away from the table," Panetta said. "In this town, you've got to stay with it. You've got to stay at it."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz2hnTAaSPF

[Jeff Lebowski]

Man I am so glad you asked. There are times I wonder if you really give a dang about my opinion. I feel so good inside right now.

Fox supports my bias's usually. Especially if I avoid Hannity. In this case I think anyone with half a brain though wouldn't need to be biased to support the Fox position. Full disclosure would have you calling this a "partial shutdown" and a vacation with pay for a lot of government workers.

Thanks, but that was more of a rhetorical question.

[byu71]

Thanks, but that was more of a rhetorical question.

You just couldn't let me think you value my opinion could you?

[Jeff Lebowski]

You just couldn't let me think you value my opinion could you?

Sorry. But I already knew the answer.

[Goatnapper'96]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...#ixzz2hnTAaSPF

I recall that when I was a real young missionary it dawned on me that the goal is really not to just cry repentance to the world. Any dickhead can be a bull in a china shop when you have some nametag and a uniform stigmatizing you into a certain category. The goal is to actually get people to listen and hopefully change. Ted Cruz might really be right that Obamacare is a real bad idea, but it does no good to follow a plan that is doomed to fail. President Obama is much the same way, believing you are so right is nipple-hardening but getting something done is what really matters. They deserve each other.

Saying that I think President Obama has an endgame and that is that he wants the House in Democrat hands. I doubt he gets that wish, but I do think he is bolstering the chances of Dems in the vulnerable Senate seats. But the waters are getting so muddied I see way this crisis management ends until 2017.

[Uncle Ted]

I recall that when I was a real young missionary it dawned on me that the goal is really not to just cry repentance to the world. Any dickhead can be a bull in a china shop when you have some nametag and a uniform stigmatizing you into a certain category. The goal is to actually get people to listen and hopefully change. Ted Cruz might really be right that Obamacare is a real bad idea, but it does no good to follow a plan that is doomed to fail. President Obama is much the same way, believing you are so right is nipple-hardening but getting something done is what really matters. They deserve each other.

Saying that I think President Obama has an endgame and that is that he wants the House in Democrat hands. I doubt he gets that wish, but I do think he is bolstering the chances of Dems in the vulnerable Senate seats. But the waters are getting so muddied I see way this crisis management ends until 2017.

It is like those two Harvard grads are the same person. It wasn't all that long ago when Senator Obama was trying to tell us Obamacare Hillarycare was a bad idea... I would imagine that if Senator Cruz was president he would change his tune as well, slap a different name on it ("CruzCare"?) and be talking it up as well.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1032019

It seems that these Harvard grads are over rated.

[byu71]

I recall that when I was a real young missionary it dawned on me that the goal is really not to just cry repentance to the world. Any dickhead can be a bull in a china shop when you have some nametag and a uniform stigmatizing you into a certain category. The goal is to actually get people to listen and hopefully change. Ted Cruz might really be right that Obamacare is a real bad idea, but it does no good to follow a plan that is doomed to fail. President Obama is much the same way, believing you are so right is nipple-hardening but getting something done is what really matters. They deserve each other.

Saying that I think President Obama has an endgame and that is that he wants the House in Democrat hands. I doubt he gets that wish, but I do think he is bolstering the chances of Dems in the vulnerable Senate seats. But the waters are getting so muddied I see way this crisis management ends until 2017.

It is so nauseating to hear politicians and pundits talk about "standing on priniciples". Everybody's so called principles are not the same, so it is just inevitable if you are going to get along you are going to have to give. Especially if you are in the minority when it comes to your principle. Sure persuade over the long haul, but in the mean time try to be relevant.

I can't say for sure, but do you think we would be in this mess if the stinking principled tea partiers hadn't insisted on running the people they ran for the Senate? Heck, Harry might be on a mission right now instead of messing things up.

The blasted religious right who wouldn't vote for Romney based on principle's. Do you think they and the country would be better off with Romney as President. All of them can take there hard core principles and shove it up their butts. Including Mike Lee. I don't know about everyone else, but he has lost a lot of popularity amongst many of my conservative friends.

[Uncle Ted]

It is so nauseating to hear politicians and pundits talk about "standing on priniciples". Everybody's so called principles are not the same, so it is just inevitable if you are going to get along you are going to have to give. Especially if you are in the minority when it comes to your principle. Sure persuade over the long haul, but in the mean time try to be relevant.

I can't say for sure, but do you think we would be in this mess if the stinking principled tea partiers hadn't insisted on running the people they ran for the Senate? Heck, Harry might be on a mission right now instead of messing things up.

The blasted religious right who wouldn't vote for Romney based on principle's. Do you think they and the country would be better off with Romney as President. All of them can take there hard core principles and shove it up their butts. Including Mike Lee. I don't know about everyone else, but he has lost a lot of popularity amongst many of my conservative friends.

Another case in point... Romney is just another Harvard grad that is selling the same crap but with another name: RmoneyCare.

Of course, I am sure these Harvard grads have hedged their bets in Big Pharma on the side. They know how to make money.

[imanihonjin]

It is so nauseating to hear politicians and pundits talk about "standing on priniciples". Everybody's so called principles are not the same, so it is just inevitable if you are going to get along you are going to have to give. Especially if you are in the minority when it comes to your principle. Sure persuade over the long haul, but in the mean time try to be relevant.

I can't say for sure, but do you think we would be in this mess if the stinking principled tea partiers hadn't insisted on running the people they ran for the Senate? Heck, Harry might be on a mission right now instead of messing things up.

The blasted religious right who wouldn't vote for Romney based on principle's. Do you think they and the country would be better off with Romney as President. All of them can take there hard core principles and shove it up their butts. Including Mike Lee. I don't know about everyone else, but he has lost a lot of popularity amongst many of my conservative friends.

Did the tea partiers run some dumb candidates? Sure. However, to blame them for losing the Senate is misplaced angst. You forget that it was the tea party movement that led the charge to a republican House and without their fervor in 2010, taking over the Senate wouldn't have even been a consideration.

[byu71]

Another case in point... Romney is just another Harvard grad that is selling the same crap but with another name: RmoneyCare.

Of course, I am sure these Harvard grads have hedged their bets in Big Pharma on the side. They know how to make money.

From what I hear from the media, Romneycare is very popular in Massachuesetts. Is that because they are very liberal in that State? Does it work better on a State level? Is that evidence Obamacare might work?

[byu71]

Personally I think the hype over the Tea Parties effect in 2010 is overdone. I myself identified with the tea party. However, as the personaltiy of the tea party emerged and it's leaders emerged with their rigid positions, I found myself no longer considering myself as a tea partier. With their approval rating not even over 50% in the republican party, I guess many others feel the same way I do.

I still stand by what I said. Would you rather stick to your principles and have Harry Reid or give on them a bit and not have him? Would you rather stick by your principles and have Barak Obama or give on them and not have him?

I am almost to the point where I would like to see Beck, Hannity, Cruz, Lee and Gayle Rudzika go off and have there own "conservative" third party. Let the dems stay liberal jackasses and perhaps the republican party that is left can attract independents.

[Uncle Ted]

From what I hear from the media, Romneycare is very popular in Massachuesetts. Is that because they are very liberal in that State? Does it work better on a State level? Is that evidence Obamacare might work?

If Rmoney was elected I would suspect he would have repealed ObamaCare only to encourage states to adopted the model he put in place in Massachusetts. This would have resulted in even more money for big pharma and insurance companies since it would pretty much guarantee that they could keep their monopolies protected by state boundaries. I suspect that Harvard has a class that teaches this stuff.

[imanihonjin]

Personally I think the hype over the Tea Parties effect in 2010 is overdone. I myself identified with the tea party. However, as the personaltiy of the tea party emerged and it's leaders emerged with their rigid positions, I found myself no longer considering myself as a tea partier. With their approval rating not even over 50% in the republican party, I guess many others feel the same way I do.

I still stand by what I said. Would you rather stick to your principles and have Harry Reid or give on them a bit and not have him? Would you rather stick by your principles and have Barak Obama or give on them and not have him?

I am almost to the point where I would like to see Beck, Hannity, Cruz, Lee and Gayle Rudzika go off and have there own "conservative" third party. Let the dems stay liberal jackasses and perhaps the republican party that is left can attract independents.

I guess I largely agree on the point that the tea party has continually morphed over time. However, I don't agree that the impact of the movement has been overstated. At that time it was the principles that the movement at that time represented that caused the republicans to capture so many seats in the House and Senate. So I am not sure how they could have caved to the principles that allowed them so many gains not to only concede the gains in a vain attempt to gain elsewhere. I guess my point is, you have to take the good with the bad sometimes too.

[byu71]

If Rmoney was elected I would suspect he would have repealed ObamaCare only to encourage states to adopted the model he put in place in Massachusetts. This would have resulted in even more money for big pharma and insurance companies since it would pretty much guarantee that they could keep their monopolies protected by state boundaries. I suspect that Harvard has a class that teaches this stuff.

I heard a pundit say yesterday that Goldman Sachs will determine when and how the disagreement in Washington is settled. The sad thing is even if the dems get to run everything, big, big business will still get to call the shots.

Regardless of what the progressives say, the rich will still be the rich. If the dems have their way, the poor, lower middle class, middle class and upper middle class will all be merged downward. Eventually a very small upper middle class and upper mobility will become tougher and tougher.

When you become wealthy far beyond your needs, you can afford to be magnanimous with other people's money. A 5% raise is no big deal on the multi, multi, multi millionaire. It is a huge deal on the 1/2 to 1 millionaire.

Let's propose to confiscate anyone's wealth over $100,000 million. See how Buffet likes the government spreading his money around instead of him having the ability to do it.

[Eddie]

If Rmoney was elected I would suspect he would have repealed ObamaCare only to encourage states to adopted the model he put in place in Massachusetts. This would have resulted in even more money for big pharma and insurance companies since it would pretty much guarantee that they could keep their monopolies protected by state boundaries. I suspect that Harvard has a class that teaches this stuff.

I don't think Romney would've told the states to adopt the Mass model. I think he would've told states that if their population wants to have government involvement in health care and insurance, then their state can determine how to do that - like Mass did.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But my recollection is that Mass decided that they wanted to have a healthcare program, so Romney came up with his model. I don't think Romney was the one that wanted it - I think he was giving the voters what they overwhelmingly asked for. And I think that elected officials should consider that when making decisions. Though I admit I don't always agree with what the majority wants.