*Just look at Nixon, he went way left of his supporters.*

Nixon and Clinton both championed policies [Clean Air Act, Welfare reform] that their opposition would never have been able to do on their own. They were opportunists extraordinaire who did what they had to do to obtain and hold power [opening China, executing mentally deficient criminals on the eve of important primaries].

Oddly, both were also corrupt and criminal to the point of being removed.

Responsibility is clearly equal, in that each side is very set on a set of principals to appease their own base. Like any issue now, nothing will be accomplished until you have a "meltdown" type dead line. Literally nothing will get even remotely accomplished until you hit that melt down mode. Much now is driven by the markets. As soon as you have a huge sell off, panic spreads, because so many now are invested in the markets (via pensions, 401K's, ext). So when the meltdown hits, you usually get some the two sides to come together and pass something (simply look at the last debt ceiling debate). Albeit nothing of any real substance ever is passed. Usually just a measure to pump more $$$'s into the system to prop up the house of card markets, and kick the can down the road further.

Yes, John, they're equally responsible for setting up this certain failure of the Super Committee. And they're using some really perverted rationale to feel that they've established plausible deniability of responsibility for the cuts.
-
However, on the same day the automatic cuts take effect, January 1, 2013, the Bush tax cuts will expire. Add to that Obama's threat yesterday to veto any attempt to eliminate the automatic cuts and the Republicans are now scrambling. Does anyone else feel like a pawn in a game of chess between two groups of people who only represent the interests of someone other than the pawns?

Richard, I was replying to your comment, "If you look at the Republicans who have been elected POTUS (Nixon,Reagan,Bush 1 and 2)..." and not talking about every candidate for the office throughout history. We don't know for certain how Humphrey or any other losing candidate would have governed had they been elected. Just look at Nixon, he went way left of his supporters. If you read the comments of kiowamohican and histories of Nixon's policies, this would not have been any surprise to you to learn that a great number of Nixon's policies and iniatives were, indeed, liberal.

I agree, Mr. E.!

Yet another reason for term limits in government. It's way past time to clean house in Washington, get rid of everyone and start fresh!

poobah-Nixon the Greatest American Liberal?
That's really total nonsense-What would you call the two guys, Humphrey and McGovern that he ran against? You should worry less about who the Republicans run and worry more about the misfit liberal left wing fruitcakes
the Democrats embrace.

UPDATE: I encourage you to read the editorial, "Superfailure: Gridlock stalls deficit committee" published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today - URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/sup....

YOU may want to respond to the POLL as to "blame for the failure." When I read the results of the poll earlier this morning, they were: Democrats 31% - Republicans 37% - Both parties are equally at faulty 32%. What do YOU think?

Here we go... John W. Eyster

And just a note on Krugman; for Eyster, and all those who are so impressed by academic qualifications. If you truly want to a REAL economist..Someone who actually has advanced degrees in, and is not just some hack playing lip service to a political agenda, you should read more what a guy like Glenn Hubbard has to say. Krugman can't even hold a candle to this guy...Krugman is just a media hype guy that is not even considered to be a top 100 mind of economics. It's amazing how guys the media hypes often then become the leading "expert" in the field.
.
Take for example Stephen Hawkins. A very good mind in quantum physics, but most in that field will tell you he's not even among the top 20 leading minds. He's just been hyped up by the media, as the most brilliant mind in the world, and become the household name. Much is the case with Krugman as well..The true great minds are often guys very few even know of (outside their field). As the true great ones don't go seeking out publicity, and flaunting all the credentials, and qualifications. It's simply a given to those who follow their work. The ones who are always promoting themselves, and their accolades, are almost uncannily the ones who truly know the LEAST!

poobah:
Glad you pointed that out. Nixon was one of the most liberal Presidents we have ever had, and one of the worse Presidents of the modern era. Not only was his regime cunning, disingenuous, and corrupt as ever, you had the implementation of every alphabet soup agency in his MEGA expansion of the federal governments role into EVERYTHING. To this day many of the Nixon created agencies plague this country. We have the highest %age of incarceration of ANY modern country, because of the social policies Nixon left us.
.
You are also correct about the GOP. It's just a awful party, that is no better then anything the Democrats are putting out. Ron Paul being the one exception. However; he is so written off by the GOP power brokers, that in many of the debates they have given him as little as 1-2 minutes when the others are are getting 20-30 minutes of air time. Even guys polling at less then 1% get more air time then Paul. Paul is really the only candidate that truly understands economics, and the HUGE role the FOMC is playing in this whole thing. The others all just play lip service, and speak in talking points to play to the base. While also sticking hard line to these preposterous social stances on issues, to play to the far right Christian base.

Didn't Paul Ryan turn down a chance to be on the Supercommittee last July or wasn't he really invited? It didn't really matter though because most of us knew the committee was doomed to failure from the start. Maybe, Ryan knew this too. How are your stocks performing on Wall Street? How is the unemployment problem being abated in Wisconsin and the nation? Are your local taxes going down? Are you happy about being an average American whose buying power diminishes daily? But it is good to remember that this is the season of Thanksgiving. We must consider our condition prayerfully and know that not all the turkeys are on our family dining tables, many reside in Washington, D.C. This holiday would it be better to cook a goose?

Richard said, "If you look at the Republicans who have been elected POTUS (Nixon,Reagan,Bush 1 and 2)they are all farther right and you're right none of the Republicans currently running are that far right."
-
That's just total nonsense, Richard! Nixon is offer referred to as America's Greatest Liberal. Look at his policies! Santorum and Bachmann are off the charts to the right - absolute religious fanatics. Huntsman and Romney are the only center-right candidates left standing and they'll surely be weeded out. I'm not sure if Ron Paul fits in any characterization. Gingrich is so squishy it's hard to tell where he is on any given day - but somewhere between Bachmann and God, if it's possible to squeeze in between them. And Cain is so irrelevant as to not worry about characterizing.

poobah-We had a right center candidate last time in McCain and you can see how well that worked. If you look at the Republicans who have been elected POTUS (Nixon,Reagan,Bush 1 and 2)they are all farther right and you're right none of the Republicans currently running are that far right. My hope is there's a dark horse out waiting to run. You never know.

Well, Richard, I think America knew who they were electing when they elected Obama. One of the more liberal politicians in the Senate and someone who aligned himself with many progressive issues. Once in office, and after wasting 18 months trying to get just ONE Republican on-board with his healthcare reform, he immediately shifted to the center, just as Bill Clinton did. It worked for Clinton - he was re-elected, but then again, Clinton was always more center than Obama. Obama would not enjoy the same results as Clinton did winning his second term if not for such a weak group of opponents. The Republicans have really blown a golden opportunity to nominate a center-right candidate. Instead, as usual, the party elite control the nominating process and look for far-right fringe fanatics who pray and fast while awaiting God speaking to them and telling them the country needs them to run for President. The Republicans have one candidate, Buddy Roemer, that I think could defeat Obama, but he will never get past the nominating process. This is kind of a reversal of fortunes - it was always the Democrats who shot themselves in the foot when presented with golden opportunities. Seems the Republican party, by allowing themselves to be hijacked by the fantatical Christian faction, has now accepted that role.

poobah-I read your post a couple times and wanted to comment to you. I think you are completely right on everything you said. I would like to add though that this country is center right. Obama can not govern from the far left as you've stated-it is too radical of an agenda for 60-70% of Americans.

The only thing about this committee that is worth the news is that it has done NOTHING. Yep the same old crap...and really, what did we expect.
This is once again a disastrous failure of our elected officials.
Vote against them all.

Krugman peddling again??? Give it up.

And the left wanted this committee to fail from the minute it was conceived, because then they can gut the defense budget, which has been their goal forever, without being culpable.

"Can you John, or anyone, name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity."
.
Third Eye:
That's pretty much the checkmate statement. You gain prosperity via economic GROWTH. It doesn't matter how much you raise taxes, OR cut spending for that matter, if you do not have economic growth. You can look at the recent example in Greece where austerity measures have done both huge tax increases and spending cuts. The country is in such a downward spiral of negative growth now, that none of the austerity measures will have any effect on saving them. All the central bank bailouts of them, are simply prolonging the inevitable collapse. The same thing is about to happen in Italy, and then Spain. After that France, and most of the EU will collapse, along with the Euro. The US is just lagging behind the bankrupt EU, as we have implemented the same insane deficit spending in the name of "stimulus" the past decade or so.
.
What will eventually happen is the debt will simply be monetized by central banks. That, of course, is all ready happening to some degree (QE1 -2). When continued downgrades come, interest rates on treasuries will rise, and debt service will eat into more and more of social programs. When interest rates get high enough, you'll have a point of no return. Where you simply have to print mass amounts of currency to service your debt, and pay all your social obligations. That is when everything will go to hell, as all confidence becomes lost, and the currency becomes practically worthless..

Maybe not, don't know Gary but doubtful at best. But you can Hope all you like.
You can hope in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills up first. Could someone please forward that to our curret president? Thanks?

Gary, didn't know asking people why they don't stand by their positions was an argument? But since it offends you I tend to think I'm on to something, perhaps hitting close to home maybe...

Once again, RAF, your brilliant argument about taxes.
I can only marvel at the breadth and depth of your cleverness.
You really have something there.

Obama has sold out progressives once again under the guise of setting up an election year showdown with Republicans that he only hopes picks up some votes for himself but otherwise does not succeed. Obama wants many of these cuts but doesn't want to own them, so he can now blame them on the Republicans. It gives him his election year sound byte of blaming the failure on the Republican reluctance to increase taxes on the wealthy. If not for such pathetically weak Republican presidential candidates Obama would have paid the price for it come November 2012. With little chance of taking the House in 2012, and continued deadlock, these cuts will probably stand and I think Obama is content with that. The only way I see some agreement that prevents cuts is if the Republicans cave into their defense contractor buddies, desert Norquist en masse and pass some tax increases in return for preservation of defense spending. In any event, shame on Obama for deserting his progressive base.

Of course John would agree with a proponant of the Keynesian theory.
Eliminating the Bush tax cuts would be, at this time, an increase in taxes. (An adjustment in the tax code as President Obama likes to call it).
Furthermore it would not only "tax the rich". At the time the Bush tax cuts were enacted an average middle class income saved over $3,000 in taxes (I was one of them).
Can you John, or anyone, name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity.

John if you think taxes are too low why aren't you paying more than you do now? If you think the Bush cuts were wrong why didn't you continue to pay at the old rate?

For those that are interested, the left's esteemed Krugman's peace prize was for international trade not national or government budgets.

John, how many of the public workers will continue to go to work when the Govt stops paying them. Is this a POSITIVE result of failure?

Thank you, Paul Ryan!

U.S. Rep. Ryan: Comments on the House of Representatives’ vote on a balanced budget amendment
11/18/2011

WASHINGTON, DC - Following the House of Representatives’ vote on H.J. Res. 2, Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan offered the following statement:

“I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes. Spending is the problem, yet this version of the Balanced Budget Amendment makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished. Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this Amendment.”

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article...

"There's nothing more permanent than a temporary committee" ~ Ronald Reagan

Krugmans model has been tested. All of the EU has embraced his "Noble award winning" model of economics over the past decade or so. Look at the results..The EU is on the verge of a debt COLLAPSE. Greece has all ready fallen. Italy and Spain are the verge of collapse. Krugman, and his like, are proven failures of their pseudo Keynesian based economic policy. Soon we will see the devastating results of embracing these economic models. In that we are very near a global financial debt related currency collapse, unlike anything the world has ever seen.
.
On the positive, it is indeed GREAT news that the super committee accomplished nothing. All though that result was obvious, it has helped tank the markets today. Which is great news when you are in completely short.