You can’t bargain with malevolent idiots

Filed in Delaware, National by on December 7, 2012

The President, Senator Coons, Rep. Carney – these men keep talking about the need for a “bipartisan” solution to the debt crisis. I get why they think it is important to say that they want a bipartisan solution, but I hope that they don’t think real bipartisanship is possible.

These modern Republicans are people who seriously believe that the government is bloated and what we need is another round of tax cuts to spur the economy and deliver a double dose of character building poverty to the ungrateful poor. They think any public dollar not handed to defense contractors is a dollar wasted on a hopeless parasites. They hate the President with such a white hot passion that they view ANY deal that he would agree to (regardless of how much is sells out Democratic principles) as unacceptable.

Looking at these malevolent idiots in action, I’ve become convinced that the next mid-term election is absolutely essential to returning the county to rationality and normalcy. The GOP needs to be swept from the field. When the GOP is utterly decimated, Democrats can finally stop talking about the importance of “bipartisanship.”

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (38)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dave says:

    “The GOP needs to be swept from the field. When the GOP is utterly decimated, Democrats can finally stop talking about the importance of “bipartisanship.”

    I agree that the first part (decimation) is necessary) and would be beneficial for the nation. Even so, bipartisanship is also necessary, as long as either or both parties practice partisanship as their primary objective (think Mitch McConnell’s primary objective to make Obama a one term president). When partisanship subsitutes for governance then the only way government can function is to make feeble attempts at bipartisansip because there is nothing left. Without bipartisanship, we have a penduluum swing every two to four years to the right or the left depending on the last swing. It’s no way to run a railrod. What would be better is to achieve consensus but when one is engaged in open warfare the best that can be achieved is a managed truce of some sorts or, as is evident, a two state solution. That hasn’t worked in the Middle East yet. I see no reason why it would work here.

    The enemy in government is partisanship. Bipartisanship alone cannot defeat the enemy but if we don’t even have that, we are left with instability lurching to the left or right every two to four years. Yeah, I know I am commenting as a moderate on a liberal blog, which probably relishes partisanship, but that doesn’t change the fact that good governance is a consequence of consensus.

  2. puck says:

    Dave, we’ve had 30 years of bipartisanship, which consisted of Democrats enabling Republican policies that kept going ever rightward. To restore the balance it is time for Democratic policies to be ascendant for many years, and point us back to the traditional center-left territory that has historically been our most successful economic model. If it takes some roughshod partisanship to rebalance policy to something rational, so be it. Anything less is meek acceptance of the status quo and grants undeserved victory to the failed policies of the right.

  3. pandora says:

    Puck is correct. Bipartisanship at this time means center right. That isn’t bipartisanship. That’s a world in which people like Joe Scarborough are considered important and representative of the center.

    Change that, and then we can discuss bipartisanship.

  4. jason330 says:

    In any system of dialectical inquiry, such as a court or a legislature, the parties have to agree on some things. They need to agree on rules of evidence. They have to agree to abide by the decision of the jury, or the electorate. They basically need to agree to honor the process. When the rules and traditions dictate that no party will intentionally do damage to the country in order to gain some partisan advantage – both parties need to honor those rules and traditions.

    Right now I think it is impossible to argue that the GOP is honoring the process. Therefor “bipartisanship” is simply a means for Democrats to intentionally disadvantage themselves.

  5. Dave says:

    “Right now I think it is impossible to argue that the GOP is honoring the process.”

    I agree that the GOP is not honoring the process. Even so, bi-partisanship is just rhetoric. Another way of say we’ll put away the sword for now. I’m not looking for a truce. I am looking to throw away the sword and move towards consensus.

    I also do not agree that we’ve been had 30 years of Democrats enabling Republican policies, unless you want to cherry pick policies and ignore things like the ADA, AHCA, Medicare changes since it’s inception, EIC expansion in 1995 and 1998, FACE, Extended Unemployment Compensation in 2008, et al. I’m not defending the right (nor the left) but I sure would like to understand the what you (Puck) consider the “enabling Republican policies that kept going ever rightward”. I’m not saying there have not been attempts, but you are suggesting that the there has been a 30 year pattern of rightward movement. I disagree.

    Generally Americans are centrists. A little left on some things. A little right on other things. From my vantage point there is neither a head long rush towards socialism, as claimed by the right, nor the quasi-libertarian, each person for themself, that the left claims. I see it as pretty stagnant with almost no movement left, right or (more importantly) forward in the last decade. I chalk this lack of governance up to partisanship.

  6. Kevin says:

    The country needs bipartisanship at the moment whether you think it’s the right approach or not. America needs to see that Washington can work with both parties coming together for the better of the citizens they represent. If all we get is more bickering the economy will be stagnant and there won’t be any faith in either party. If both parties can come together I firmly believe the economy will take off as there will finally be some confidence in the private sector. If you’re a business owner looking to hire more people at the moment you need confidence that the government has its act together and won’t get in your way.

  7. Roland D. Lebay says:

    @Kevin–

    If you’re a business owner looking to hire more people at the moment you need confidence that the government has its act together and won’t get in your way.

    If you’re a business owner and your business is growing, you WILL (assuming you want to grow your business) hire more people regardless of what the government does.

  8. Kevin says:

    Considering EVERYONE’S taxes will go up if there isn’t a deal before next year I’d say some business owners right now might be holding off on highering someone until they know they’ll be able to afford it instead of possibly having to lay them off if their taxes go up.

  9. Roland D. Lebay says:

    Kevin,
    Many businesses are holding off hiring & waiting for a resolution to the “fiscal cliff” bullshit. These businesses are selling goods or services for which demand is flat at best. NO ONE hires when business is not growing.

    If you’re a business owner and your demand is growing, you’ll hire people regardless of the tax implications. Take American Giant for example. Their business is growing by leaps & bounds. Bet your ass they’re hiring, even if they’re only hiring temp workers. They need more employees to keep pace w/ demand, tax implications be damned.

  10. jason330 says:

    bickering… That’s it. That’s the problem. Why can’t they just all agree that Republican economic theory makes sense? Why can’t they just stop bickering?

    Grown up.

  11. Kevin says:

    If you guys don’t think there is at least 1 business owner holding back on hiring someone until this mess is figured out then you obviously don’t understand the importance of stability in the market place. If an employer were to hire someone for a permanent position without taking into account whether they’ll have the after tax resources to pay that person then they’re probably not the wisest businessmen. You do hire more employees when your demand grows but you also need to account for an increase in taxes as well which is the point I’m trying to make.

  12. Roland D. Lebay says:

    Kevin,

    Please read the 1st sentence of my comment at 10:05 pm. Last time I checked, MANY meant more than one.

  13. jason330 says:

    ” You do hire more employees when your demand grows but you also need to account for an increase in taxes as well which is the point I’m trying to make.”

    No. You don’t. You pay taxes on PROFITS, not revenue. Taxes have no impact on hiring and firing. It is all demand.

    Turn off the Fox News and try to preserve at least a few brain cells.

  14. jason330 says:

    Nobody Has To Own It
    The real reason for bipartisan deals is so Congress can pass horrible things that the public hates and it isn’t clear who you can blame. Throw in a bunch of retiring members of Congress in a lame duck session, and you have a recipe for accountability-free democracy. Otherwise known as not democracy.

    - Duncan Black

  15. puck says:

    “Bet your ass they’re hiring, even if they’re only hiring temp workers. ”

    Another loophole that needs to be fixed – permatemps. And misclassified contractors.

  16. bamboozer says:

    The Republicans don’t think the government is “bloated, they just use that as a cover story or to get the Libertarian vote, all ten of them. Romney wanted to add 100,000 soldiers to the military, that ain’t shrinking the government, thats not balancing the budget.

  17. Kevin says:

    Let me break this down for you in a hypothetical

    Old Revenue $50,000 with a Tax rate of 20% = $40,000 in profit that you need to support your family

    Increased demand brings in $10,000 in revenue but the tax rate goes up to %25.

    You could assume that they hired a new worker and paid them the entire amount of new revenue that was brought in (10,000 isn’t much but it’s all they can afford in this scenario) and their new after tax profit is only 37,500 which is less then it was before the move. This person’s new after tax profit is less when they hire a worker then it would be if they just did the work themselves. It would be $45,000 if they just did the work instead of hiring someone so you do the math. Do you think they’re going to give someone a job and lose money that they need to support their family in the process? I don’t.

    It’s a balancing act and if you think I’m someone who spews out whatever Fox news is feeding its viewers these days then you don’t know me. Anyone with common sense on CNN or MSNBC will explain the situation just like I did in the exact same way. If Washington doesn’t work together to fix this then taxes go up on EVERYONE not just the rich in case you didn’t notice. Small business owners like the type I used in my hypothetical will see their taxes go up and the increased demand they see in their business might not be enough to make the increase in taxes they’ll see a non factor. We’re aren’t talking about a company like Dupont which brings in billions when they see their demand increased, we’re talking about a small store with 2 or 3 employees who are struggling to get by on a day to day basis.

  18. Kevin says:

    Also I should say that in my example old revenue of 50,000 should have said old profit of 50,000.

  19. puck says:

    Old Revenue $50,000 with a Tax rate of 20% = $40,000 in profit that you need to support your family

    First of all, at $50K that person’s taxes won’t go up at all under the Obama proposals. For exactly the reasons you are so ineptly describing.

    Secondly, employee compensation is deductible. Any business can give themselves a tax cut any time they want by hiring somebody. Your example conveniently leaves out the new deductions the employer would claim, even if the tax applied to him, which it doesn’t.

    And nobody makes hiring decisions based a 5% tax differential.

    It would be $45,000 if they just did the work instead of hiring someone so you do the math.

    If they can do the work themselves, that’s exactly what they should do. We are capitalists after all. But if they can’t do the work themselves then they need to hire somebody. If they still can’t make a profit, they need to think about another business model.

  20. cassandra m says:

    Can we have a new rule, please? That claimants to membership in the Party of Business need to actually prove they know something about business before embarrassing themselves.

  21. puck says:

    The political interests of “business owners” who make $50K are more aligned with wage-earners than with big business. They just don’t know it yet.

    A lot of these types of business owners were forced out of their regular jobs by their employers and illegally misclassified as independent contractors.

  22. Joanne Christian says:

    I don’t pay all my taxes on profits. Just received a $21 increase per employee to replenish the unemployment fund in the state. Notice came this past week. My profits didn’t go up, so don’t know where that number came from and what’s behind it. And we have no one on unemployment, so it’s not a re-adjustment of our risk/usage. We’re small business. Anybody else?

  23. puck says:

    The risk of becoming unemployed has certainly gone up in general, and insurance is priced on risk. It’s a risk pool, so your particular behavior doesn’t matter for pool pricing.

  24. Pencadermom says:

    Yes Joanne, I got the same letter.

  25. Davy says:

    DON’T FORGET: Many small business owners pay self-employment taxes on their profits (2012=13.3%; 2013=15.3%). Schedule K-1, baby!

  26. puck says:

    DON”T FORGET: that is what funds Social Security and Medicare. There is no “self-employment tax.”

    It would help a lot to crack down on misclassified independent contractors and put them back on their employer’s payroll.

  27. jason330 says:

    JC – Point taken. Unemployment and worker’s comp insurance are pre-profit and I agree that increases in these mandated expenses can be hard to swallow.

  28. cassandra_m says:

    The self-employed pay the full share of their SS taxes, with the same limits as the rest of US workers — up to $110,000. Schedule SE is how you report self-employment SS tax.

  29. puck says:

    Didn’t the payroll tax cuts affect only the employee share? So employers aren’t facing a cliff on payroll taxes at least, because the employer share wasn’t cut. And workers will pay more whether self employed or not.

  30. Tom McKenney says:

    You only pay self employment taxes on wages, if you take your profits as dividend you pay the divined rate. That said workman’s comp rates in Delaware are ridiculous and a much bigger deterrent to hiring than the owners tax rate.

  31. puck says:

    I ran a one-man consultancy for years. Usually after I paid taxes and paid myself enough to live on, I had money left over in the company (i.e., profit). So I made darned sure I invested in something deductible rather than paying taxes on it. Usually it was equipment or additional training and certifications for myself, which paid off nicely. Larger employers can do that too.

  32. jason330 says:

    “There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.”

    dkos comment

  33. What happened to Kevin? Did he spend the last 24 hours attending a basic math class?

  34. puck says:

    Maybe he’s gone Galt.

  35. Dana Garrett says:

    Jason’s original point is correct. Republicans have made the terms “Republican” and “bipartisanship” oxymoronic. While there is a lot to be said for competing political parties in a representative democracy, the competition should stop before to effects governance and harms the lives of substantial numbers of citizens. The Republicans have shown no political restraint in those areas. As such, they have proven themselves to be inimical to our form of government. They should be electorally swept into oblivion. Then let some other party emerge as a significant competitor but one that, unlike the Republicans, is operated by grownups.

  36. Rustydils says:

    Jason, the problem is the president is not being honest with the American people. Even if the Republicans give the president everything he is asking for, it only addresses 7 percent of the problem. It does nothing to touch 93 percent of the debt. That is why the republicans are not getting on board. It is kind of like if you fall behind on your $1000 per month mortgage payment, and you call up your mortgage company and tell them you have figured out a solution to earn more money, and now you will be able to pay them seventy dollars per month. What will their reaction be, similar to the republicans. ” Really”.

  37. Jason330 says:

    I heard Rush Limbaugh say just that this afternoon. What a coincidence.

  38. Liberal Elite says:

    @Rd “…it only addresses 7 percent of the problem. It does nothing to touch 93 percent of the debt. That is why the republicans are not getting on board.”

    And the Republican solution addresses a NEGATIVE percent of the problem. Small steps are better than backward steps, my friend.

Switch to our mobile site