The Spectacle Blog
Excuse me for somewhat re-hashing Joseph Lawler’s earlier item on the breakdown of negotiations over the debt ceiling, but I felt there was a need for at least one honest headline about what’s really happening here.
Go look through all the reporting on this story and see if you can find anyone describing the impasse in terms of Democrats refusing to compromise. No, the liberal media are slavishly repeating the Democrats’ accusation that the problem is with those stubborn right-wing Republicans. Ace of Spades is fed up:
The media of course has been slanting this story all along.
They claim the Republicans “won’t agree” to a debt limit increase. What they mean is that Republicans won’t agree to a debt limit increase on the Democrats’ terms.
Funny, they never report the corollary: That Democrats refuse to agree to a deal on the Republicans’ terms.
Seems both sides are bargaining here but only one is called out for not simply agreeing to the other’s opening position.
Now the Democrats have made it clear what they want.
What they always want.
What they always have wanted.
What they always will want. …
They want tax increases.
Democrats are insisting on higher taxes — or else! — and the liberal media, knowing that higher taxes are unpopular, are helping Democrats obfuscate the issue and shift the blame to Republicans. I don’t know what difference one honest headline will make, but I figured somebody had to try.
View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/23/democrats-refuse-to-compromise
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The End of the Castros?
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 10:31PM
The Republicans said everything is on the table, however, they have a strange definition for the word everything because everything is not on the table. They insist that taxes are not on the table. The Democrats said everything is on the table and everything means everything which includes taxes.
Now you are arguing that if the Republicans don't get their definition of the word everything that means the Democrats aren't compromising.
RT| 6.23.11 @ 11:10PM
Utter BS. To say something is on the table means that you would consider a compromise with it OR without it. The Democrats are not willing to compromise on tax increases. Even knowing it would destroy the economy and cause revenues to drop they still can't do without their tax increases.
The Republicans need to stand firm and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. The financial pain will be huge. But that's what it will take to get the attention of voters. We simply cannot keep spending and borrowing the way we have been. The very survival of our nation is at stake.
Mike | 6.24.11 @ 12:32AM
Raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. This is classic Keynesian theory. However, when the recession is over, congress will have to cut spending and raise revenue in order to reduce deficit spending and bring the debt down to 40% of GDP.
Economist across the political spectrum agree on this.
lydia | 6.24.11 @ 8:55AM
One compromise could be that all revenue from increased taxes must be applied to decreasing the deficit.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
DREd| 6.24.11 @ 2:56AM
Democrats, in general, don't want to cut social services, right? But they're willing to, as long as there is also an increase in taxes on the wealthy. Republicans only want to cut social services. Is it really that hard to figure out who isn't compromising?
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.24.11 @ 6:16AM
What's the problem? Democrats want to RAISE TAXES. And, then they want to SPEND more money. That's why they're called: TAX and SPEND Liberals. Because, that's what they are. The same goes for: WEAK ON DEFENCE and SOFT ON CRIME. That's what they are. Name something they have done, since Jan. 2009, that WASN'T about TAXING and SPENDING.
This isn't Rocket Science. In fact, it's really quite simple. Cut EVERYTHING by 10%, across the board. American families have to make CUTS, all the time. WE THE PEOPLE can't print money. WE THE PEOPLE cannot CONFISCATE MONEY, from our neighbors. We can only, CUT our Expenditures, or go broke.
Seeing as how the Government is already BROKE, it's only common sense that they have to CUT WAY BACK on their spending.
Does ANYONE read History, anymore? If we do not LEARN from it. We are DOOMED to repeat it.
10%.
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 10:34PM
One compromise could be that all revenue from increased taxes must be applied to decreasing the deficit.
blackwatch| 6.23.11 @ 11:53PM
How about we bring in $1 more revenue for every $5 in cuts??
The cuts happen first and the tax revenue increase is created by cutting the corporate tax rates to 12% for all funds repatriated from over seas.
Next generate more revenue by opening up the country to mineral and oil/gas extraction and HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!!!
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 12:36AM
blackwatch,
Google what happened when corporate money was repatriated in 2005. Interesting reading. Depressing, buy interesting.
David W| 6.24.11 @ 2:54AM
And do you really believe that any increase in taxes would go to paying down the deficit/debt? Do you really? Any increase in taxes will go to pay for more government spending (whether Democrats or Republicans are involved).
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 8:41AM
David,
You may be correct in your assessment. However, if the Republicans and the Democrats act as you predict, the markets will increase the interest rate on borrowing and, at some point, simply stop lending. I think, in spite of the Kabuki theater, both parties know this.
Every budget plan, from the liberal Progressive Cause plan to the conservative Ryan plan, recognizes thAt massive cuts and taxes increases now will damage our fragile economy. They lay out long term plans to reduce the deficit and bring the debt down to 40 % of GDP.
Conservative View| 6.23.11 @ 10:51PM
THE IMPORTANCE OF TAX INCREASES
OR
IT AINT ABOUT TAXES AT ALL.
And it is not about taxes, it is about social change. Our Fearless Leader has intended from the outset to bring down the rich, and bring up the poor. Unfortunatly you cant make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor. He believes, truly believes, from each according to his ability to each according to his need. The fact that it has never worked in history doesn't bother him at all.
Why are the Democrats so insistant on raising taxes? They continue to believe that the gap between rich and poor is theirs to close, and that they MUST close it. It is beyond an article of faith with them, it is their entire relegion. The government is an instrument of social change, and all law (and reason) is subordinate to that cause. The Republicans believe that goverment exists only to govern. It is up to society to make its' own changes.
What we have here is a culture clash, and to lose this battle may well end a culture. Neither side can afford to back down. Neither side can afford to give up the fight.
So will we have a budget deal? I seriously doubt it. There isn't enough blood on the floor yet. The kicking, screaming, and eye gouging has started, but not the true blood letting. That will come at the end of July, the start of August, as both sides try to sell to the American people that the other side is killing America.
I believe that the Republicans will win in the end. There is a new wind blowing through the middle class of America, and it is from the middle class that Democracy gets its' power. Call it the Tea Party, or a rebellion, the result is the same. The middle class of America will not stand for a Government intent on spending more. Obama and the Democrats are likely to lose this one, even with the media on their side.
But the blood letting hasn't started, the slanders are still slight, the knives have not given way to cannon fire. Come the end of July we will know. If taxes are raised the Democrats and Marxism is the new foundation of America. If the Republicans win, Atlas didn't shrug, he pulled the hammer out from behind his toga.
DREd| 6.24.11 @ 3:01AM
Taxes our at the lowest level they've been in 50 years. Most American's have seen their income go down, but the richest among us are earning more and more. We're in a ton of debt. Raising the highest marginal tax rate by a few percentage points isn't going to do a goddamn thing in terms of creating social change. The rich are still going to be rich. But it will increase government revenue, and help (along with spending cuts) reduce the deficit.
Conservative View| 6.24.11 @ 8:40AM
"Taxes are (our) at the lowest level they've been in 50 years."
That is an interesting statistic. Could you please let me know where you found that bit of data? Are you refering to only personal income taxes, or corporate taxes, or both? Is this before or after the "Bush tax cuts?"
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 10:24AM
Taxes, in my post, refers to total federal revenue divided by GDP. This year federal taxes would consume about 14.8% of GDP (last year it was 14.9%). The last time it was lower than that was 1950.
Conservative View| 6.24.11 @ 11:00AM
DRed:
Your reply doesn't say that taxes are lower, it only says that the revenue derived from taxes is lower. There are a great many reasons for this, the first of which is of course, we have taxed companies and individuals out of the country. It is very possible that raising taxes will actually reduce the amount of revenue obtained. Revenue does not equate to tax rate, but only to funds received from taxes. Two different things entirely.
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 12:45PM
Federal income tax rates have steadily gone down as well. If you think taxes in America are high, what are they high in comparison to?
Conservative View| 6.24.11 @ 1:39PM
my pay check
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 9:03AM
Conservative View,
From Theodore Roosevelt to Barak Obama, our country has enacted a "progressive agenda." Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican "Trust Buster" reigned in the excesses of monopolies. Child labor laws, pure food and drug legislation and work safety laws followed. Further reforms came with the New Deal and the Great Society. Were there problems and excesses along the way? Yes. Are we a better society today because of these reforms? I believe so. Some do not. They are arguing for repealing federal child labor laws, for eliminating collective bargaining right, for getting rid of social security and for curbing the most fundamental right in a democratic republic - the right to vote. And, they are arguing for this because they want to take back their country. True, they want to take the country back to the Gilded Age. Great time for Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. Not so great for women, children, industrial workers, Blacks.
Conservative Bob| 6.24.11 @ 9:58AM
BS.... Show me where anyone is talking about ending child labor laws. Show me where people are talking about ending work safety laws. Who exactly is talking about repealing Taft Hartley or Robinson Patman. The only Talk I hear of curtaining 'collective bargaining" is in sector unions and there should be no such thing a public employee union, period.
We have generations of people in this country who have lived off of government assistance for generations never work or producing anything, just taking. We have flush more than 4 trillion down the war on poverty rat hole and have accomplished nothing but created a dependant class of people who reliably vote dem.
Before you get on you horse and tell me I am only for corporate well fair. Let me stop you. I want the government to stop picking winner and losers. Cut all subsidies.
Why it is ‘fair’ that I must work from January through mid June for absolutely nothing, so that perfectly able bodied people can spend their whole life not working? Why is it right for you to spend the fruits of my labor to the benefit of someone else so that you feel better?
As to “curbing the right to vote” do you mean requiring people to show picture ID so that only legal votes are cast. You cannot rent a DVD or get on an airplane without showing ID how is voting less important. Why is it important to you to allow illegal voting? Can’t win if you don’t cheat?
Conservative View| 6.24.11 @ 10:39AM
Mike:
Your well written commit begs a question; is it the function of a Government to enact social change for the population as a whole, or is it the function of government to level the playing field for the individual? The socialist agenda deals with the population as a whole. It forces social change. I grant you in a heartbeat that some of the social changes demanded by our government have been positive. You mentioned women and blacks. Still, however, the question remains. What is more important; individual rights, 0r social rights?
Example: Mr. Adam starts a resturant buisness. He put his own money, time, energy and effort into his buisness. Now, Mr Adam is not a nice guy. He doesn't like Blacks. Perhaps his neck is just a little bit red. None the less, his company, his money, his sweat, hard work. Now, whos rights are the greater? The population of Blacks, or his? This is an impossible question for our society. Certainly Blacks have the right to sit at the lunch counter. But what about Mr. Adams' rights? Doesn't he have the right, however misplaced, to decide who comes into his resturant?
Right now our Country is faced with this problem, social rights vs. individual rights. The Consertive within me says individual rights must trump social rights. However misplaced, however horrid Mr. Adams' ideas might be, it is his resturant.
This issue is comming to a head. Do we spend money we don't have to further social rights, or do we conserve what little money we have and protect individual rights? Is there a middle ground when the country is out of money?
I respect anyone with a contrary view that is well expressed. I don't have a realistic answer to these questions. All I can do is move on an ideal, the ideal that the reason and only reason for government is to govern. It is not the function of a government to force social change. That is the function of society.
Nite| 6.23.11 @ 11:04PM
Only an idiot would raise taxes in a recession with so many people out of work. Democrats never saw a tax that they did not like. Guess it is more redistribution of our wealth.
dc| 6.24.11 @ 9:11AM
Classic leftist trollery from Dred and Mike (the "oh I'm so reasonable" socialist, just trust me with all of your money and I promise I won't put you in concentration camps, at least not right away).
IF the Demon party were trotting out "we must increase taxes" as a clever new solution to peculiarly difficult economic times, there might be some shred of an argument amongst the frothing-at-the-mouth leftists. But in reality, the left's universal solution, for every economic situation, no matter what, is "raise taxes." The "rich," of course, know this, which is why they are not now investing in this country. Which is why IPOs have moved overseas. Which is why small businesses (also "rich" by Il Duce Nero's calculations) can't or won't expand.
The truly devious lie within all of this is that, through the EPA and through Maobamacare, the Demons have ALREADY increased taxes, immediately in the former case, prospectively in the latter. So tax increases have already gotten up and over the table, and putting more on the table means yet more burdens on productive citizens and enterprise.
Of course, that's the whole point: tear down the doers, destroy private initiative, subsume most/all productive activity under the government thumb (See, e.g., Mussolini's policies in 1920s Italy), and slowly but surely tax, ration, and then destroy industry, energy, wealth--and the biggest wet dream goal of the left--people.
Seen through the lens of the ultimate goal, the Demons' "negotiating" tactics are very transparent. The only question is whether the Republican leadership has the cahones to call them out on it, tell them to pass their own effing budget and see how it flies with the American voting public. I am not optimistic. Buy guns, land, and metal.
martin j smith| 6.24.11 @ 8:16AM
OK Socialists want to Raise taxes, we want to lower them and a perfect compromise is to do neither. But with regard to spending there can be no compromise--
CUT
Now here is they deal with any ' NEGOTIATIONS" WITH SOCIALISTS: As I have said elsewhere--They are not interested in expand our economy and reviving the private sector. IF YOU THINK FOR ONE NANO SECOND OTHERWISE FORGET ABOUT IT. Its about 2012 and their determination to destroy the private sector and ultimately have a ONE PARTY SYSTEM.
Oldefarte| 6.24.11 @ 12:45PM
Robert, of course this is the natural result of these non-negotiations, since Democrats will never agree to relinquish their DRUNKEN SAILOR WITH A STOLEN CREDIT CARD booty from taxiation that is used by them to support their indigent consituents. Taxes are simply what defines Democrats. A Democrat without taxes is a DUCK WITHOUT WATER!!!!!!!!!!!
air max 2009 | 6.25.11 @ 2:24AM
I see this blog, the feeling is very reasonable.
I agree with the author's point of view, I think it is right
air max 90 | 7.1.11 @ 11:35PM
I dont comment on many websites that I come across but I felt I couldn’t pass up the opportunity with this one. Nice post. I can only wonder what you will be posting in the future.
air max 95 | 7.28.11 @ 5:28AM
I see this blog, the feeling is very reasonable.
I agree with the author's point of view, I think it is right
Where art thou jobs| 8.10.11 @ 9:55PM
So the 8 years that Bush had in office with the lowering of taxes created jobs?
So we should lower them further...so that jobs will begin to form again?
So the record breaking profits that corporations are making will trickle down to our economy?
No, for all of the above. Sorry to burst the bubble but less government and more privatization is the opposite direction in which we should be heading. The government should work better, not be smaller. Boehner and company want privatization because that's where the money is; however you'll only see that money if your one of their poloticians or CEO's.
Our government needs reconstructive surgery, not breast reduction.
Anonymous we stand
yisong| 10.30.11 @ 10:15PM
single row four point contact ball slewing bearing . http://www.1stbearaing.com