Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama doesn’t want to avoid the “fiscal cliff”;
he wants to politicize it

Democrats and the media may be trying to make Grover Norquist a fall guy in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, but at least that fan of small government gets what’s going on, telling Aaron Task of Yahoo! Finance:

I didn’t think this was case three weeks ago but do now think [President] Obama has decided to drive country over the fiscal cliff and blame the Republicans. . . . I spoke with people today — not are only there no [private] meetings going on, there are none planned . . . .

No meetings planned?  But, aren’t meetings one way opposing parties resolve their differences?  Well, the president for “the first time in days” did talk with Boehner by phone.  And Republican leaders do want to sit down with the president to talk specifics, but no meeting appears forthcoming.

If President Obama and Democrats really wanted to get something done, he would be working on an offer to counter that Speaker Boehner put forward instead of criticizing and taunting Republicans in public fora.

But, I would wager the Democrats will present no counteroffer this week.

And with Obama’s apparent unwillingness to meet with Republicans to work out a compromise, it’s not just Grover Norquist who thinks Obama is trying to blame the GOP.   Even an AP reporter gets the president’s game:  “Presidential aides have even encouraged speculation that Obama is willing to let the economy go over the ‘fiscal cliff’ if necessary and gamble that the public blames Republicans for any fallout.”*

LIke Charles Krauthammer said, the president’s stance on these negotiations is all about playing politics and not about governing the country.

Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

*Now, who was that politician who was “trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.

Share

18 Comments

  1. I’ve had enough hyperbole. Bring the fiscal cliff on. It’s not going to end the economy. We can do with a lot less Government spending. It’s up over 50% since 2008. A lot of good that did us.

    Comment by David — December 6, 2012 @ 6:42 am - December 6, 2012

  2. I don’t think Obama is serious about anything other than playing golf and preening about being the smartest man in the room.

    At this point I would say congress should cut Obama out of the loop but the democrats in congress don’t have those kind of balls and Boehner doesn’t either.

    The irritating thing is that when the country jumps off the fiscal cliff Obama and the media are going to lay all things that go wrong in the lap of the GOP.

    Comment by Just Me — December 6, 2012 @ 8:01 am - December 6, 2012

  3. In the end, Boehner really has nothing—not just on the fiscal cliff, where Obama’s leverage is obvious thanks to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but also when it comes to the debt limit, which Obama can make disappear like the bad dream it is. Like any good negotiator, Boehner is of course trying to turn that nothing into something. But that’s no reason the administration should do his work for him. “

    Comment by Passing By — December 6, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - December 6, 2012

  4. Actually, Passing By, it’s the administration that’s trying to get Boehner to do its work for them.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 6, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - December 6, 2012

  5. Actually PB, Boehner has huge leverage if he wants it. But it’s quite unclear if you are trying to engage in intelligent discussion, or instead, merely parroting left-wing publications as a kind of performance art, perhaps, or because you think repetition might make their claims true?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - December 6, 2012

  6. ILC, or he’s just an idiot; incapable of original thought or coherent self-expression.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - December 6, 2012

  7. Of course Boehner has leverage. Republicans still control the House and that is where budget bills originate. Pass a budget and send it to the Senate. Show how it can be done without raising taxes. They’re sure to pull in some Democrat votes. Then let Obama and the Democrats in the Senate argue about bipartisanship.

    Comment by David — December 6, 2012 @ 1:10 pm - December 6, 2012

  8. Well said, David. Well said.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 6, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - December 6, 2012

  9. The future of the GOP, and America, is in Boehner’s hands. So far, the signs are mixed: he hasn’t completely caved into Obama yet, but neither is Boehner making an aggressive case for lower spending, which is what we reaaaaaally need.

    As Ed Morrissey and Michael Barone point out: This is a spending crisis, not a revenue crisis. What was better for the economy (i.e., comparatively less bad) in Clinton’s fiscal policy was the much-lower spending levels.

    Boehner ought to take the cliff; then when (or if!!! lol) Obama comes looking to tweak taxes in 2013, use that to hold out for more spending cuts. But Boehner doesn’t listen to me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2012 @ 1:39 pm - December 6, 2012

  10. Agreed, ILC.

    Obama and the rest of the Obama Party shrieked about the alleged $4 trillion “cost” of the Bush tax cuts.

    So after the cliff hits, taxes go up, and Obama starts screaming, Boehner and the House Republicans should calmly push out a bill that creates $4 trillion in immediate spending cuts, tie a tax reduction to it, and force Obama to veto it.

    Then they can hammer him with “Obama won’t cut your taxes because he won’t cut his spending”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2012 @ 2:15 pm - December 6, 2012

  11. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

    LOL!

    In my entire political life, I’ve never known the Republicans to be right about anything. I’ve never known the Republicans to do anything that wasn’t explicitly about consolidating Republican political power or give-aways for the rich…. but oooooooookay. You’re warning us. You’re such good warners. Remember when you warned us about 9-11, the Iraq War, and the financial crisis? Remember just last month when Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa were in play? Oh yeah, these Republicans can practically read the future!

    Comment by Levi — December 6, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - December 6, 2012

  12. Actually, Levi, Republicans warned you about the abuses at Fannie and Freddie and how they could precipitate a financial crisis, and you and your fellow Obamunists screamed and pissed yourself that there was nothing wrong and that you wanted more risky loans and securitization of them.

    So not only are you a desperate and malicious liar, you’re clearly unhinged and delusional.

    But that’s what happens when you create a religion around Barack Pbama and worship Barack Obama as your Lord and Messiah.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - December 6, 2012

  13. One more thing, folks: Levi is running away from a thread where he admitted that, because he opposes any regulation and inspection of abortion clinics, that he wants millions of women to get sick and/or die from unlicensed, un-inspected abortion clinics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2012 @ 5:18 pm - December 6, 2012

  14. Oh shoot North, here we are again! Look, I promise I’m working up a response to this for you, so just sit tight. I really don’t want you to think I’m running away, because I so enjoy our conversations.

    Stick around buddy, you’ll be very impressed with what I write. I think you may even find my arguments quite convincing!

    Comment by Levi — December 7, 2012 @ 12:53 am - December 7, 2012

  15. That’s a lie, Levi.

    And all that demonstrates is that you regularly post lies.

    Therefore, since you regularly post lies, your statements should be taken as such.

    Game, set, match – you lose.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 7, 2012 @ 2:12 am - December 7, 2012

  16. Well at least we now know where Levi got his 10% of debt lie from.

    So he can’t even come up with original lies.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 7, 2012 @ 9:20 am - December 7, 2012

  17. Oh another truth Levi won’t admit.

    President Bush made it possible for Barack Obama to attack Libya.

    So President Bush’s work in Libya was cheaper, and more successful and cost less lives than Obama’s. Kind of like how deaths have skyrocketed in Afghanistan under Obama’s ‘leadership’.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 7, 2012 @ 9:23 am - December 7, 2012

  18. And he flees to another thread.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 7, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - December 7, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.