Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Republicans filibuster middle class tax cut. Wait... what?   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP, middle-classes, filibusters, tax cuts  
•       •       •

6097 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2010 at 5:27 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



983 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest

 
2010-12-04 08:58:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.


I think they're hoping that happens.
 
2010-12-04 08:58:22 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Ruh roh, thread has been Freedoed.

Clear out before the stench gets on you.


Ahhhh...it burns!!!!
 
2010-12-04 08:58:55 PM  
there are plenty of us who were unhappy with the spending and made it known

Rubbish.

Before there was a black democrat in the White House and since the hillbilly from Arkansas left the White House the majority of republican/conservative supporters had nothing to say about the deficit and debt. Nothing. You come out of the woodwork when there's a democrat in charge and you scurry back in the instant you're faced with actually acting on your tough talk.

The reason nobody can get any real fixes put into place regarding our spending problems is that nobody wants to be the one making the sacrifice. Nobody.

They're as split as the rest of the country.

There's no real split. There are a few people who consistently vote democrat, about 28% who consistently vote republican, and a bundle of idiots who comprise the massively ignorant majority and just vacillate between parties based on whatever ridiculous manufactured outraged they've happened to latch onto this election cycle.

You guys had two years to try your hand, it didn't work

And now you prove you're full of shiat. Your "team" has stonewalled virtually everything for two years. And while the democrats are clearly responsible for being spineless morons, it doesn't change the fact that republicans have done nothing but actively impede all progress for two years and that their supporters have rewarded them for it.

You can flap your gums about some pretend bipartisan approach all you want. At the end of the day the republicans have proven time and time again that all they care about is winning and that they're willing to burn the entire country to accomplish that goal if it means ensuring democrats don't stay in power. There can be no bipartisan solution because the republicans have proven over and over that they're willing to destroy us all if that means that democrats fail.
 
2010-12-04 08:59:25 PM  

DeltaXi65: When have a significant number of economists agreed on anything? You can point out all the polls you want, but the only poll that matters happened on November 2 and those who want to see the tax rates expire for the top wage earners lost.


By that logic, the Democrats should have been able to pass whatever they wanted for the last 2 years and no should have complained, right? Also you didn't win the senate, so tough luck getting whatever you want passed by the Congress, pal.

DeltaXi65: Really? I was under the impression that if the stimulus worked, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. At least, that's what the President said. Was that not true?


Where did the president say that?
 
2010-12-04 09:00:33 PM  

GhostFish: Mrtraveler01: FishingWithFredo:

(redacted because of the shear stupidity of it)

Did you just take out a huge book of Republican cliches before writing that doozy of a post?

Who needs a book when you can just pull them from the politics tab?


Point taken.
 
2010-12-04 09:02:16 PM  

Tor_Eckman: But Bush didn't lose because he broke a promise about taxes; he lost because he broke a promise to his core constituency and they buttfarked him for it. Like you, Obama is drawing the wrong conclusion about that event, and it will cost him any chance of re-election.

I'm not so sure. As I said, I think the best thing to do for the country is to let them all expire, and I am part of his core constituency. But that opens up an entire new line of caterwauling by Republicans about tax and spend and broken promises and how he raised taxes during a weak economy, etc, etc, etc. If it was me, I would much rather deal with the weaker OMFGWTFBBQ debt argument, which is getting old and tired.

But I'm just a guy watching Seinfeld and typing on Fark.


I agree that letting all the tax cuts expire is the best policy. If he wants to offer a middle-class tax cut as a stand-alone proposal next year, and make the Republicans fight against that, it's probably good politics. And I am to the left of his core constituency, so maybe I'm overestimating the backlash. But let me ask you, do you expect him to WIN on this issue, either legislatively or politically?
 
2010-12-04 09:02:24 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: When have a significant number of economists agreed on anything?

The stimulus worked.

Really? I was under the impression that if the stimulus worked, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. At least, that's what the President said. Was that not true?

Yes, that is not true. Being 1% off on their projections isn't too shabby. And I couldn't help but notice you never said anything about what the actual economists said. Unless for some reason you think the president is a majority of economists.


Well, 1.8%. And it may not be that shabby if you're not one of the millions of Americans who fell into that 1.8%. The actual economists didn't have to sell the stimulus to people, the President did. Since over half of all economists in the U.S. work in some kind of a government capacity, I wouldn't say the President is a majority of economists, but he (and the states) employee the majority of them.
 
2010-12-04 09:03:00 PM  

jcooli09: Actually, They're trying to raise taxes for every American taxpayer.

Someone do the math, will it be the largest tax increase ever?


Bush passed tax cuts that were set to expire in 2011.
 
2010-12-04 09:03:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.


That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?
 
2010-12-04 09:04:02 PM  

DeltaXi65: Well, 1.8%. And it may not be that shabby if you're not one of the millions of Americans who fell into that 1.8%. The actual economists didn't have to sell the stimulus to people, the President did. Since over half of all economists in the U.S. work in some kind of a government capacity, I wouldn't say the President is a majority of economists, but he (and the states) employee the majority of them.


But you asked when a majority of economists ever agreed on anything. Is this not one of those instances?
 
2010-12-04 09:05:05 PM  

jcooli09: DeltaXi65: Don't forget that the tax cut currently on the table applies to every single taxpayer in the US. Every one.

I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income..

Obviously, but I think the right wing is counting on the fact that most of their base is forgetting that.


I think most Americans are forgetting that.
 
2010-12-04 09:05:06 PM  

DeltaXi65: You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?


Yes, but it's the difference between holding the 98% hostage for the 2% and the other way around.
 
2010-12-04 09:07:40 PM  

DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: When have a significant number of economists agreed on anything?

The stimulus worked.

Really? I was under the impression that if the stimulus worked, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. At least, that's what the President said. Was that not true?

Yes, that is not true. Being 1% off on their projections isn't too shabby. And I couldn't help but notice you never said anything about what the actual economists said. Unless for some reason you think the president is a majority of economists.

Well, 1.8%. And it may not be that shabby if you're not one of the millions of Americans who fell into that 1.8%. The actual economists didn't have to sell the stimulus to people, the President did. Since over half of all economists in the U.S. work in some kind of a government capacity, I wouldn't say the President is a majority of economists, but he (and the states) employee the majority of them.


t3.gstatic.com
 
2010-12-04 09:08:24 PM  

TheOther: I agree that letting all the tax cuts expire is the best policy. If he wants to offer a middle-class tax cut as a stand-alone proposal next year, and make the Republicans fight against that, it's probably good politics.


+1
 
2010-12-04 09:08:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: Well, 1.8%. And it may not be that shabby if you're not one of the millions of Americans who fell into that 1.8%. The actual economists didn't have to sell the stimulus to people, the President did. Since over half of all economists in the U.S. work in some kind of a government capacity, I wouldn't say the President is a majority of economists, but he (and the states) employee the majority of them.

But you asked when a majority of economists ever agreed on anything. Is this not one of those instances?


I don't think so.
 
2010-12-04 09:09:00 PM  

DeltaXi65: Nor am I wrong in my economic assumptions.


You're assuming that a tax increase on people making over $250,000 a year has some discernible risk of slowing the economy. This is not only wrong, but it's so wrong that it doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.
 
2010-12-04 09:10:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Yes, but it's the difference between holding the 98% hostage for the 2% and the other way around.


So then your argument is that it's okay to hold 98% hostage to stop 2% from getting something, but it's not okay to hold 98% hostage to allow 2% to get the same thing the 98% are getting?

Come on.
 
2010-12-04 09:10:48 PM  

Msol: Good God I hope the dems have the balls to hold fast on this.


this this this this this this this this this this this this this this
and more of this
 
2010-12-04 09:12:17 PM  
I mean if we actually gave a damn about the debt/deficit. We would realize that tax cuts will put us even further in the red and should expire.

But then again this is politics we're talking about and there's no such thing as ration/reason in politics.
 
2010-12-04 09:12:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: FishingWithFredo:

(redacted because of the shear stupidity of it)

Did you just take out a huge book of Republican cliches before writing that doozy of a post?


Explain where and how what I said was "sheer stupidity." Elucidate.

This oughta be good, you wannabe Marxist you.
 
2010-12-04 09:13:08 PM  
You guys had two years to try your hand, it didn't work

Have you ever looked back at the first 2 years of Bush's term?

Bush took office with the unemployment rate at 4.2%. By December 2002, it was 6% and this was almost 2 years after the $1.34 trillion tax cut.

Reagan's term?

Reagan took office with the unemployment rate at 7.5% and by Dec 1982 is was 10.8%.

Obama took office with the unemployment rate at 7.6% and today it is 9.8%.
 
2010-12-04 09:13:09 PM  

Mithiwithi: DeltaXi65: Nor am I wrong in my economic assumptions.

You're assuming that a tax increase on people making over $250,000 a year has some discernible risk of slowing the economy. This is not only wrong, but it's so wrong that it doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.


It's not wrong, and there is no way to be sure what the effect will be until it happens. There's a lot of indirect consequences not extending the rates may have, especially on the stock market, consumer confidence and other indicators that are based on public perception. Those are difficult to project and I would rather not risk the possibility of damage.

We are in a shallow recovery right now, and Republicans would rather not play games with the tax rates and possibly jeopardize that.
 
2010-12-04 09:14:51 PM  

TheOther: Tor_Eckman: But Bush didn't lose because he broke a promise about taxes; he lost because he broke a promise to his core constituency and they buttfarked him for it. Like you, Obama is drawing the wrong conclusion about that event, and it will cost him any chance of re-election.

I'm not so sure. As I said, I think the best thing to do for the country is to let them all expire, and I am part of his core constituency. But that opens up an entire new line of caterwauling by Republicans about tax and spend and broken promises and how he raised taxes during a weak economy, etc, etc, etc. If it was me, I would much rather deal with the weaker OMFGWTFBBQ debt argument, which is getting old and tired.

But I'm just a guy watching Seinfeld and typing on Fark.

I agree that letting all the tax cuts expire is the best policy. If he wants to offer a middle-class tax cut as a stand-alone proposal next year, and make the Republicans fight against that, it's probably good politics. And I am to the left of his core constituency, so maybe I'm overestimating the backlash. But let me ask you, do you expect him to WIN on this issue, either legislatively or politically?


Oh, no. Like I said, he is in a spot and can only minimize the damage. Whatever happens, the Republican's and their "news" networks will spin it in their favor. It's a lose-lose, politically, no matter what happens. I just think the temp-extension compromise will be less damaging in the long run than letting them expire.
 
2010-12-04 09:16:02 PM  

DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Yes, but it's the difference between holding the 98% hostage for the 2% and the other way around.

So then your argument is that it's okay to hold 98% hostage to stop 2% from getting something, but it's not okay to hold 98% hostage to allow 2% to get the same thing the 98% are getting?

Come on.


Yes, considering that the 2% are getting the same thing as the other 98% are getting. Do you understand how progressive tax rates work?
 
2010-12-04 09:16:27 PM  

DeltaXi65: We are in a shallow recovery right now, and Republicans would rather not play games with the tax rates and possibly jeopardize that.



The Republicans aren't "playing games"!? I am actually laughing out loud. You sir should be a comedian.
 
2010-12-04 09:17:06 PM  

DeltaXi65: Mithiwithi: DeltaXi65: Nor am I wrong in my economic assumptions.

You're assuming that a tax increase on people making over $250,000 a year has some discernible risk of slowing the economy. This is not only wrong, but it's so wrong that it doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.

It's not wrong, and there is no way to be sure what the effect will be until it happens. There's a lot of indirect consequences not extending the rates may have, especially on the stock market, consumer confidence and other indicators that are based on public perception. Those are difficult to project and I would rather not risk the possibility of damage.

We are in a shallow recovery right now, and Republicans would rather not play games with the tax rates and possibly jeopardize that.


So you're saying that an increase on rates on taxable income will affect businesses' ability to pay tax deductible business expenses (hiring, purchasing stock and equipment). Riiiiiight.

Less sarcastically, those "indirect consequences" to which you refer are directly attributable to the Republicans creating economic uncertainty with their ludicrous claims that increasing taxes on the rich will harm the economy.

I stand by what I originally said. You're so wrong that you're not worth taking seriously.
 
2010-12-04 09:17:12 PM  
FishingWithFredo:

Uhhh....if you noticed I put parenthesizes and I personally commented commented that I redacted what you said because of sheer stupidity.

I take it you don't know what redacted means do you? ;)
 
2010-12-04 09:17:16 PM  

DeltaXi65: I don't think so.


You're wrong.
 
2010-12-04 09:19:55 PM  

DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.

That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?


Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".
 
2010-12-04 09:21:51 PM  

rohar: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.

That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".


farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2010-12-04 09:22:04 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Yes. And every small business will close up shop, and every millionaire will move out of the country. The majority of the people left in America will be those that pay no income taxes now and will not be affectedin prison.

Viola!


FTFY
 
2010-12-04 09:23:53 PM  
I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this
 
2010-12-04 09:28:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this



Or how the 80s and 90s had the same percent change in nonfarm payrolls, but the 80s had Reagan's tax cuts and the 90s had the "largest tax increase EVA".
 
2010-12-04 09:28:43 PM  

DeltaXi65: It's not wrong, and there is no way to be sure what the effect will be until it happens. There's a lot of indirect consequences not extending the rates may have, especially on the stock market, consumer confidence and other indicators that are based on public perception. Those are difficult to project and I would rather not risk the possibility of damage.


But if 67% of Americans want the tax cuts to expire for everyone or to expire on the $ 250K and over crowd then continuing them on high earners could have a negative effect also.

If I recall correctly a few weeks ago a poll showed a little over 60% of earners over $250K thought their taxes should increase.

It would appear a substantial part of the US citizens thinks they should expire over 250.
 
2010-12-04 09:30:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Yes, but it's the difference between holding the 98% hostage for the 2% and the other way around.

So then your argument is that it's okay to hold 98% hostage to stop 2% from getting something, but it's not okay to hold 98% hostage to allow 2% to get the same thing the 98% are getting?

Come on.

Yes, considering that the 2% are getting the same thing as the other 98% are getting. Do you understand how progressive tax rates work?


Yes. When I said "the same thing the other 98% are getting" I meant their having an extension of the current tax rates for their entire incomes, not simply the portion up to $250k.
 
2010-12-04 09:30:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I wonder what the right's rational is on the fact that Job creation overall last decade was and was relatively modest compared to previous decades even though we had more tax cuts?

/Grabs the popcorn to await to hear a whopper for this


I'd love to hear the answer too... I ask and all I get is the line that poor people don't create jobs.
 
2010-12-04 09:31:49 PM  

astonrickenbach: But if 67% of Americans want the tax cuts to expire for everyone or to expire on the $ 250K and over crowd then continuing them on high earners could have a negative effect also.


"continuing them" I meant continuing the tax cuts.
 
2010-12-04 09:32:01 PM  
Republicans are economic terrorists who have taken the whole country hostage.
 
2010-12-04 09:32:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: rohar: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.

That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".


farm4.static.flickr.com

I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

/ok, I was 4 when it happened so it didn't matter THAT much
 
2010-12-04 09:32:41 PM  
img535.imageshack.us
 
2010-12-04 09:33:22 PM  

elchip: Republicans are economic terrorists who have taken the whole country hostage.


So they were against terrorism before they were for it?
 
2010-12-04 09:34:46 PM  

rohar: Mrtraveler01: rohar: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.

That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

/ok, I was 4 when it happened so it didn't matter THAT much


It's sad. If the Republicans actually toned down the hypocrisy and stupid, I might be complled to support them now and then.
 
2010-12-04 09:34:48 PM  

Mithiwithi: DeltaXi65: Mithiwithi: DeltaXi65: Nor am I wrong in my economic assumptions.

You're assuming that a tax increase on people making over $250,000 a year has some discernible risk of slowing the economy. This is not only wrong, but it's so wrong that it doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.

It's not wrong, and there is no way to be sure what the effect will be until it happens. There's a lot of indirect consequences not extending the rates may have, especially on the stock market, consumer confidence and other indicators that are based on public perception. Those are difficult to project and I would rather not risk the possibility of damage.

We are in a shallow recovery right now, and Republicans would rather not play games with the tax rates and possibly jeopardize that.

So you're saying that an increase on rates on taxable income will affect businesses' ability to pay tax deductible business expenses (hiring, purchasing stock and equipment). Riiiiiight.

Less sarcastically, those "indirect consequences" to which you refer are directly attributable to the Republicans creating economic uncertainty with their ludicrous claims that increasing taxes on the rich will harm the economy.

I stand by what I originally said. You're so wrong that you're not worth taking seriously.


I am not talking about corporate tax rates and I'm also not talking about small business taxes. I am simply saying that the impact of having $700 billion less in the hands of those who will either invest or spend it and the perception that that money is going into government coffers rather than being reinvested will have on the economy is unpredictable. Because it's unpredictable, Republicans would rather not take the risk.
 
2010-12-04 09:35:05 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: Tor_Eckman: Yes. And every small business will close up shop, and every millionaire will move out of the country. The majority of the people left in America will be those that pay no income taxes now and will not be affectedin prison.

Viola!

FTFY


Phew! I'm glad I'm somewhere in the middle then. My shiv-making skills are poor, and I'm not a big fan of the surprise buttsecks.

Or the heavy denim.
 
2010-12-04 09:36:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think so.

You're wrong.


So you have a study that has been signed by 7,300 economists? Okay, let's see it.
 
2010-12-04 09:37:30 PM  

rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".


No it wasn't. Not even close.
 
2010-12-04 09:39:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: rohar: Mrtraveler01: rohar: DeltaXi65: cameroncrazy1984: DeltaXi65: I don't think anyone who understands how taxes work is forgetting that. But, again, we don't want taxes raised on anyone for any portion of their income.

And you don't want that so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up.

That's almost the exact same question I'm asking you.

You don't want to extend the tax rates for the top wage earners so much that you're willing to possibly let everyone's taxes go up?

Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me.

/ok, I was 4 when it happened so it didn't matter THAT much

It's sad. If the Republicans actually toned down the hypocrisy and stupid, I might be complled to support them now and then.


No you wouldn't.
 
2010-12-04 09:40:13 PM  

DeltaXi65: rohar: Heh, I am. This last decade was among the worst on record. Call me crazy, but maybe we should quit comming up with new ideas and go back to something that works.

Some might even call that "conservative".

No it wasn't. Not even close.


Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

/Prove it or no one will believe you
 
2010-12-04 09:41:21 PM  

astonrickenbach: DeltaXi65: It's not wrong, and there is no way to be sure what the effect will be until it happens. There's a lot of indirect consequences not extending the rates may have, especially on the stock market, consumer confidence and other indicators that are based on public perception. Those are difficult to project and I would rather not risk the possibility of damage.

But if 67% of Americans want the tax cuts to expire for everyone or to expire on the $ 250K and over crowd then continuing them on high earners could have a negative effect also.

If I recall correctly a few weeks ago a poll showed a little over 60% of earners over $250K thought their taxes should increase.

It would appear a substantial part of the US citizens thinks they should expire over 250.


It seems less likely that making no changes at all in the current tax rates would have a negative impact.
 
2010-12-04 09:41:58 PM  
DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.
 
Displayed 50 of 983 comments


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report