Obama and the congressional democrats don't want to cut spending. They control two-thirds of the law making process. The repulicans had no leverage to force the democrats to do something they didn't want to do and had nothing to offer to entice them. There was no way republicans were going to win any spending cuts during this battle.

They have actual leverage when the debt ceiling debate comes up. They can shut down the government. This is the ground where they can fight for spending cuts, and they will. Watch.

Agree. This review nails that point.

There are very few performers who can pull off the trick of singing vocally demanding, hyperdramatic solos while a movie camera inspects their nostrils.

Oh, I forgot to mention Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. They were brilliant and entertaining. A comedic bright spot and expert characterizations which were sorely needed in an otherwise unrelentingly overwrought, boring and dreary epic.

I couldn't wait for this movie to be over. I can't believe the praise so many have heaped on it. Crowe was a disaster. His singing was truly awful. The love story was just downright silly, a committed revolutionary willing to abandon all of his beliefs and comrades after seeing a girl in the street for a few seconds? Stupid.

And don't get me started on sung through dialogue. How pointless and tedious is sung through dialogue? Really, what is more annoying than drawn out, tuneless sing talking?

The pedestrian, let-me-spell-every-plot-point-and-idea-for-you libretto was just awful as well, which would be the case with or without singing.

The one high point was Ann Hathaway's I Dreamed a Dream. Incredibly moving. In fact her story was the most compelling aspect of the whole film and it is rushed through in about five minutes. Give me a story about her trials and tribulations and leave all of the revolution and romance garbage out.

I want my two and a half hours back.

Christie should just phone up his buddy in the White House. He'll take care of it for him.

I'm not exactly sure that you've posed a question, Franco. It seemed to me you were rhetorically musing as to whether moderates believe that there is such thing as a short term loss that can lead to a long term gain. If that is a sincere question, I say of course. But I don't see how that applies here. You seem to believe it does, and you made an appeal to the authority of mathematics to discredit my position about the fiscal cliff negotiations. I asked you to lay out whether mathematics actually showed my reasoning was flawed. You demur. How am I to be persuaded by that?

So, in other words, you have no idea how game theory actually applies to this situation, if it does at all.

Dave, not funding the entitlement promises properly is just as immoral as raising taxes.

Well, I'd consider it a personal favor if you could lay out the game theory scenario in which letting the taxes raise on 100% of America ultimately redounds to the benefit of conservatives. It may be a bit much for a simpleton like me who doesn't understand the higher order mathematics at play here, but if you could show your work that led you to believe that game theory predicts this would be the correct play for republicans, I'd appreciate it.

I'm sure you've run those calculations, and you're not just spitballing and misapplying a mathematical concept that has mainly been used in matters of economics, not politics, to score a rhetorical point.

The payroll tax break was passed by Obama and the democratic congress. It was always temporary, which it needs to be unless we would like to see our unfunded entitlement liabilities get even more obscene. The payroll taxes will simply be going back to what they have been for decades, including all through the Bush presidency when the tax cuts being argued over now were passed.

Dave, raising taxes on millions of people when you can prevent it is immoral. It's also bad for the economy.

And this would have cowed the president or the congressional democrats, somehow? It would have persuaded the media to cover the issue fairly? It would have swayed millions of people who just reelected Obama on a platform of raising taxes on the rich that they were wrong?

What would voting on the exact same things they voted on before the election again after the election have accomplished exactly?

Alright, I accept those vouching for Kid. Kudos to you kidCoder for your intellectual curiosity and academic rigor. Keep it up. Apologies for doubting you, but lots of people on the internet like to play games, hence my suspicion.

The republicans had poor ground on which to fight this battle. During the debt ceiling they will have real leverage, unlike during this fight. That is where spending cuts can be won.

Umm, yes they did.

House votes to extend Bush tax cuts

House passes $60 billion in spending cuts

That didn't accomplish much.

You can come up with whatever snarky, demagogic, misleading characterization of Boehner and his efforts you like, Dave. Boehner tried what you wanted, it didn't accomplish anything. His next move was to limit the impending damage and stake out a defensible negotiating position from which he could improve whatever deal came out of the senate. The "grassroots" prevented Boehner from improving on what the senate would do.

Doing what's right and what is principled aren't necessarily the same thing.

Michael, other states may teach AP US history in different grades than New York. I don't believe any state teaches Advanced Placement courses in 8th grade. I think Kid should fess up.