"The offers that I’ve made to them have been so fair that a lot of Democrats get mad at me,’’ Obama said. “I offered to make some significant changes to our entitlement programs.

“The way they’re behaving is that their only priority is making sure that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are protected. That seems to be their only overriding, unifying theme,’’ he said."

Along with this statement, Obama made the claim that he had offered a Trillion dollars in concessions. David Gregory the NBC moderator NEVER asked Obama to PROVE with actual fugures where the $1 Trillion in cuts had come from and how Obama had been "fair" And after the interview. the 5 member NBC panel AGAIN made no attempt to challenge anything Obama had said.  The NBC intervew was a complete SHAM. ..In actuality, a lot of Obama's $1 Trillion in "Cuts" would be over 10 years, and it includes money that was NEVER SPENT, like exra money for the Iraq War....If Obama had gone on Fox news or CNBC, where the interviewers know the numbers, we would know that Obama had NOT been "fair" and his numbers do not add up...And in the interview, David Gregory asked Obama about Benghazi. Obama DUCKED the question. In the NBC panel discussion afterwards, nobody took up the Benghazi question.

Obama had given Boehner a good deal, a deal I think Boehner wanted to take but couldn't get through his caucus, which is all messed up by the TP's.  Now poor Boehner finds himself facing a fait accompli and hoping his caucus doesn't make him look bad again.  At this point he either folds his cards and goes home or ends up looking like America's bad guy.  Tough spot, you've got to feel for the guy.  Hopefully when the TP numbers drop in the new Congress he will be able to corral his House into a functioning body.

CNBC just noted that when Obama told David Gregory on NBC "Meet the Press" that he had offered $1 Trillion in spending cuts, Obama never gave any specifics as to where the $ 1 trillion came from! This is what had mentioned in my earlier blog. CNBC knows that Obama's spending "Cuts" are PHONY.

This whole manufactured crisis has been an amazing waste of energy. Just think if all the thought, media coverage, political discussions, financial calculations, and on and on could have been applied to productive benefit for the economy. Let's get some new representatives in there who want to do more than just play act in the Fiscal Cliff sitcom.

As Jack Nicholson once remarked in Prizzi's Honor " The rich would rather eat their children then part with a penny"

So here's the scenario:  we go into January with no solution.... then the Speaker of the House is re-elected to his post as Speaker. Once that happens, he is freed from worrying about the Tea Party members who have held him hostage, and he and Pres. Obama agree on a retroactive fix, dated back to January first.

America, don't panic. Just ignore this little dance in Washington... and don't let it give you agita!

Life is too short to worry about these loonies in Washington.

Let me tell you a lesson I learned quite a while back.  I went through the custody part of a divorce outside of Houston, TX in the early 90s (you may have heard of the town of Sugarland). After a multi-day trial where my soon-to-be-ex presented all kinds of witnesses and testified herself largely presenting innuendo or trivia the judge awarded equal custody (and would have given me sole custody had that been what I wanted). I made a big mistake and got back together with wife, whereupon we moved back here and, as was inevitable, went to court again. As I asked various parties about equal custody (thinking this was a liberal state and not realizing it was actually a parochial state) I was told that it depended upon the parents being able to cooperate. Sounds reasonable, right?  But the ex then created a few trivial issues about what she wanted for the child (for instance, an expensive haircut for a 5 year old) and I presented my differing opinion. That provided the court hacks with things to point to that they said showed that I would not cooperate.  So, no equal custody.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the lesson?  If two sides differ it does not mean that each side is being unreasonable and the appropriate thing is to meet in the middle. That only makes sense if both sides are being realistic, sincere, and cooperative. If you want to play politics and play games for appearance sake it is EASY to make it appear that one side or the other is not cooperative. But, keep in mind that it only works if the powers that be are biased and predisposed to accept the phony play acting "problems" as fact. In this case, Family Court in Concord, Mass was presided over by a biased judge (Edward Ginsburg) who was probably doing just what the biased state wanted. But it was play acting. The judge and the hacks were not trying to discover the truth, they were playing a dishonest game where the outcome was fixed and know. It was a charade to provide the appearance of justice (and big fees for the participants).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

But the American people are not in a similar position as Edward Ginsburg or the State of Massachusetts. They can examine, think, and question over a period of time. They can unearth whatever the truth is and then act. It's a process, it may (will) take time for reality to be clearly visible. But the verdict isn't in when the gavel comes down and the case does not close if one maneuver or two succeeds.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

So, the lesson: Compromise is only appropriate if each side has the greater good of the people as their highest priority and each side is legitimately  and sincerely trying to reach that conclusion. Otherwise, it beomes one side giving up on their values and what's best for the people.