![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijinA Fox news reporter makes Bill O'Reilly laugh when he says that Obama has basically said he'll always negotiate with hostage-takers- metaphorical or real.
And then the reporter tries to explain to O'Reilly that no, he was dead serious when he said that.
Meanwhile, while teabaggers oppose the compromise, the conservatives who screwed us all over under Bush are enthusiastic about it:
And finally, Andrew Sullivan continues to try to make the argument that the compromise works for Obama:
My response: So, what Sullivan is saying is that tax cuts- which are over three-quarters of the total cost of the compromise- ARE good for the economy? That the Republicans have been RIGHT these past thirty years, and the more taxes are cut for the rich the better?
Because, rest assured, if the economy improves for any reason whatever after this compromise passes, that WILL be the Republican position. Democrats, under Obama's leadership, will be complicit in the tax cuts, and thus unable to oppose that position effectively.
If this argument holds water, than when Obama signs this compromise into law, he will be signing his own pink slip- and also the death warrant for any attempt to actually balance the budget before the whole system collapses.
And then the reporter tries to explain to O'Reilly that no, he was dead serious when he said that.
Meanwhile, while teabaggers oppose the compromise, the conservatives who screwed us all over under Bush are enthusiastic about it:
The Wall Street Journal: "this deal is superior to anything we could have imagined six months ago. Much credit goes to Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans for holding together against the class war attacks of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats."
And finally, Andrew Sullivan continues to try to make the argument that the compromise works for Obama:
My view is that the McConnell-Biden deal - for that's who negotiated it - is great for Obama. Why? Because it will greatly add to economic growth in the next two years, the sine qua non of survival in this economic climate; because, once the Democrats had failed to pass a budget before the election, this was the best Obama could possibly get; and because Obama - especially in his riveting press conference yesterday - took the angry and beleaguered position of doing the post-partisan best for the American people, rather than trying to score one against the GOP or for the Dems.
My response: So, what Sullivan is saying is that tax cuts- which are over three-quarters of the total cost of the compromise- ARE good for the economy? That the Republicans have been RIGHT these past thirty years, and the more taxes are cut for the rich the better?
Because, rest assured, if the economy improves for any reason whatever after this compromise passes, that WILL be the Republican position. Democrats, under Obama's leadership, will be complicit in the tax cuts, and thus unable to oppose that position effectively.
If this argument holds water, than when Obama signs this compromise into law, he will be signing his own pink slip- and also the death warrant for any attempt to actually balance the budget before the whole system collapses.
