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.

(RedState)   Last month: if Obama is re-elected, this country will drive over a fiscal cliff. This month: what cliff?   (redstate.com) divider line 174
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, Krugman Agrees, Paul Krugman, Speaker Boehner, lame duck  
•       •       •

3208 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 11:33:42 AM  

MugzyBrown: I find it amusing that you, a "fiscal conservative", have a stated preference for a large deficit over a smaller deficit. What sort of absurd sense does that make?

When did that happen? Ever?


You just said it, sunshine!

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

 

Conservatives won't be in favor of things that decrease the deficit if it leaves a deficit.
 
2012-11-12 11:34:02 AM  
If the US did nothing else but spend $2T in infrastructure starting today, you would grow the economy, create jobs and raise amazing revenue. In 10 years you would be in a position to balance the budge and have $2T of infrastructure to boot.

Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.
 
2012-11-12 11:35:58 AM  

qorkfiend: You just said it, sunshine!

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

Conservatives won't be in favor of things that decrease the deficit if it leaves a deficit.


No, I didn't. I want zero deficit.

This fiscal cliff thing is nothing but BS. It just gets us back to Bush level idiotic deficits instead of Obama level idiotic deficits.
 
2012-11-12 11:36:31 AM  

Paul Baumer: qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: How is the 'fiscall cliff' a GOP plan? It has in it most of what I've heard democrats talk about since 2004. End the 'Bush tax cuts' and cuts in military spending.

Because they're the ones who made sequestration part of the deal, after they turned down Obama's $4 trillion spending cuts because it contained $1 trillion in tax increases.

The fact that the fiscal cliff happens to reflect what a fiscal conservative should actually look like is just a bonus. It will be entertaining to hear all you right-wing "fiscal conservatives" argue in favor of greater deficits, greater debt, and more spending.

They were SO GODDAM SURE they were going to win both the Presidential election and the Senate they walked away from a better offer than they are going to get this time. The schadenfreude, it soothes.


This. This entire week since the election has been...fun.
 
2012-11-12 11:36:58 AM  

Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.


Hey look, everybody, Cletus C. is baaaaaaaaaaaaaccckkk!!!

Oh, and I'm 100% confident he's happier inheriting the Obama economy than he was inheriting the Bush economy. Wouldn't you agree?

And this word "cliff"...it doesn't mean what you think it does. The word itself was a GOP invention to scare the prolls. The reality is more like a gentle slope with months and months to hammer out a budget to avoid driving up unemployment. Meanwhile the revenues just keep pouring in.

Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?
 
2012-11-12 11:37:07 AM  

Cletus C.: bwilson27: Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.

Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.

It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem. If he gets those tax increases watch that revenue get sucked into morass of federal spending.

Republicans just keep defending those rich folk, drawing a line six feet in front of the Obama line.

Four more years of the same ol' crap. And Bush.


So what is the solution? Tax cuts for millionaires and less spending on social welfare?
 
2012-11-12 11:37:27 AM  
A visualization of the CBO analysis of letting the "fiscal cliff" happen vs. the time honored approach of kicking that can just one last time, this time we mean it, really.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-12 11:37:34 AM  

MugzyBrown: If the US did nothing else but spend $2T in infrastructure starting today, you would grow the economy, create jobs and raise amazing revenue. In 10 years you would be in a position to balance the budge and have $2T of infrastructure to boot.

Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.


Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?
 
2012-11-12 11:38:43 AM  

Dr Dreidel: CPennypacker: Dog Welder: It's really more of a fiscal speed bump, to be honest.

When Reagan enacted a bunch of tax cuts and reforms, they didn't work immediately and he told everyone to stay the course.

How would this be any different?

The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't

Which is why the oft-cited $4T cuts/$1T taxes applies over 10 years. Even if we passed a grand bargain tomorrow, those cuts likely wouldn't start for another year or two, and even then would probably be more in the form of ending, combining and re-baselining programs, while the new revenues (sorry, every dollar over $250k in salary) would start in 2014ish.

You don't think new revenues would be $1T in a year, do you?


I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete. We should spend more.
 
2012-11-12 11:39:05 AM  
Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.

Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?


Zero to Negative...
 
2012-11-12 11:40:33 AM  

Stone Meadow: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Hey look, everybody, Cletus C. is baaaaaaaaaaaaaccckkk!!!

Oh, and I'm 100% confident he's happier inheriting the Obama economy than he was inheriting the Bush economy. Wouldn't you agree?

And this word "cliff"...it doesn't mean what you think it does. The word itself was a GOP invention to scare the prolls. The reality is more like a gentle slope with months and months to hammer out a budget to avoid driving up unemployment. Meanwhile the revenues just keep pouring in.

Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?


Never left, Stoney.
 
2012-11-12 11:43:20 AM  

Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?


Ooh, now that's bold (delusional). Can we hold you to this statement?
 
2012-11-12 11:44:29 AM  

CPennypacker: I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete.


When is that?
 
2012-11-12 11:45:02 AM  

CPennypacker: Dr Dreidel: CPennypacker: The fact is:
1) We NEED to cut spending.
2) We NEED to raise taxes.

Period. Grover Norquist be damned.

Not right now we don't

Which is why the oft-cited $4T cuts/$1T taxes applies over 10 years. Even if we passed a grand bargain tomorrow, those cuts likely wouldn't start for another year or two, and even then would probably be more in the form of ending, combining and re-baselining programs, while the new revenues (sorry, every dollar over $250k in salary) would start in 2014ish.

You don't think new revenues would be $1T in a year, do you?

I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete. We should spend more.


I think that's startlingly close to what I said.

// though I don't think we should spend more, exactly
// more like a retargeting
// I think the recovery is underway, so let's not fark with it too much one way or another
// remember the "12 million jobs in the next 4 years" estimate?
 
2012-11-12 11:45:16 AM  

CPennypacker: Dr Dreidel: CPennypacker: Dog Welder:

I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete. We should spend more.


THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."
 
2012-11-12 11:45:20 AM  
Part of me really does have a lot of hope that Obama's gonna show a lot of spine these next 4 years. Remember, he's been accidentally recorded saying to others 'wait until I'm re-elected, then we'll make it happen'. Now he doesn't have to appease anyone for re-election, now he just has to get enough Dems and Repubs to play ball so that bills are passed. And the current split of the GOP's values show that he could easily get that if the moderate GOP decides to give the finger to the far right GOP.

And again, the Dems and Obama literally have to do nothing... the ball's completely in the GOP's hands, all eyes are on them now. If they double down, all Obama has to do is have a press conference, point at the GOP, and do this:

www.reactionface.info

Obama's approval rating is 53% right now. Congress approval ratings are maybe in the low 20's... they're the ones that have something to prove.
 
2012-11-12 11:45:20 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Hobodeluxe: Dems have the leverage. they can let the Bush tax cuts expire. then put up a bill to restore them for the less than 250k/yr. if the GOP balks then it's on them

ftfm stupid tags lol


The Democrats also need to put a thumb on the narrative -- they need to stop the spread of phrases like "ending the cuts [or raising taxes] for people making over $200,000", and replace them with "extending the cuts on the first $200,000 of income, for everyone."
 
2012-11-12 11:45:22 AM  

MugzyBrown: Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.

Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?

Zero to Negative...


How many of those nations have their debt primarily owned by their citizens? Part of the issue the IMF has been running into is that the interest flows out of the national economy and retards growth. That isn't really the case with the US.
 
2012-11-12 11:45:45 AM  

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: oh, the Dems cheat like motherfarkers but I don't it's so bad that they let Canadians vote!
At least not Canadians like Merc. That boy ain't right.

It's true... out of force of habit, the Dems only allow dead Canadians to vote.

The only good Canadian is a dead Canadian.

/RIP John Candy

Watch it, you... we burned the White House once. Next time we'll... oh fark it... once the NHL owners get their shiat together, we'll just go back to quietly watching hockey.


hehe

/love Canadians
 
2012-11-12 11:45:57 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I don't think we should cut any domestic spending until the recovery is complete.

When is that?


I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?
 
2012-11-12 11:46:16 AM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: You just said it, sunshine!

MugzyBrown: I don't think conservatives would be in favor of tax increases that leave a large deficit.

Conservatives won't be in favor of things that decrease the deficit if it leaves a deficit.

No, I didn't. I want zero deficit.

This fiscal cliff thing is nothing but BS. It just gets us back to Bush level idiotic deficits instead of Obama level idiotic deficits.


Yes, that's what I said. You want zero deficit, and are entirely unwilling to entertain any ideas about deficit reduction that do not zero out the deficit.

Plan to cut the deficit in half? Not worth it, since the deficit won't be zero. So, you clearly prefer - and are advocating for - the status quo of large deficits over any plan that results in smaller deficits. And you call yourself a fiscal conservative! Hilarious.
 
2012-11-12 11:46:37 AM  

MugzyBrown: Not true at all. The IMF has a working paper out that shows countries with developed economies and high debt experience a zero negative 'multiplier". Guess who fits into those categories.

Do those countries also experience dry rain and have honest politicians?

Zero to Negative...


I figured, but "bon mot" reminds me of "cinnabon" and now I'm hungry.
 
2012-11-12 11:49:23 AM  

Cletus C.: Stone Meadow: Cletus C.: Going over the fiscal cliff would be an awful way for Obama to start his second term.

He already has enough to deal with, inheriting the Obama economy.

Hey look, everybody, Cletus C. is baaaaaaaaaaaaaccckkk!!!

Oh, and I'm 100% confident he's happier inheriting the Obama economy than he was inheriting the Bush economy. Wouldn't you agree?

And this word "cliff"...it doesn't mean what you think it does. The word itself was a GOP invention to scare the prolls. The reality is more like a gentle slope with months and months to hammer out a budget to avoid driving up unemployment. Meanwhile the revenues just keep pouring in.

Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?

Never left, Stoney.


I notice you didn't address the central issue: there is no cliff. Care to take another swing at it?

GoldSpider: Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?

Ooh, now that's bold (delusional). Can we hold you to this statement?


Yeah, that was a little overabundant. While the budget won't be "balanced", we will be on the right track to getting it there instead of hemorrhaging red ink. Besides, I'm firmly in the Keynesian camp, so to me keeping the economy going is more important right now than ending the deficit.
 
2012-11-12 11:49:47 AM  

Blue_Blazer: THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."


The federal government can't become a permanent make-work program.
 
2012-11-12 11:50:11 AM  

Blue_Blazer: Cletus C.: bwilson27: Cletus C.:

Ha. Bush again. Bush still. Bush always.

Shut up, Cletus C, you cock.

It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem. If he gets those tax increases watch that revenue get sucked into morass of federal spending.

Republicans just keep defending those rich folk, drawing a line six feet in front of the Obama line.

Four more years of the same ol' crap. And Bush.

So what is the solution? Tax cuts for millionaires and less spending on social welfare?


I don't think anyone ever bought the tax cuts for millionaires idea as a solution. Even Romney.

The solution will sound quite familiar to realists. Military spending will increase. Not because we need a larger military or more high-tech weapons but because there are bases and defense contractors in districts of powerful politicians.

There will not be less spending on social welfare. It will continue to grow.

The fight over tax increases will paralyze Congress, once again.

They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.

If the economy shows strong growth a lot of the problems will resolve themselves. If it continues at the current rate or goes the other direction there's trouble ahead. A familiar and tiring story.
 
2012-11-12 11:51:14 AM  

Sliding Carp: Hobodeluxe: Hobodeluxe: l

The Democrats also need to put a thumb on the narrative -- they need to stop the spread of phrases like "ending the cuts [or raising taxes] for people making over $200,000", and replace them with "extending the cuts on the first $200,000 of income, for everyone."


OMFG thank you! Do they really think people can't understand the phrase? I hear everybody using "tax cuts for people making less than $250k" and I want to stab myself in the ear. Is there some good reason they say it that way? It's the money that is taxed, not the person. They need to rephrase it as simply "taxes on income under $250k for everybody, and taxes for income over $250k for everybody" and stop talking about it in a way that makes it sound like the
 
2012-11-12 11:51:26 AM  

Stone Meadow: Yeah, that was a little overabundantexuberant.


FTFM
 
2012-11-12 11:52:41 AM  

Cletus C.: They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.


The fiscal cliff is a gimmick.

a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Send a gimmick to catch a gimmick.
 
2012-11-12 11:53:38 AM  

GoldSpider: Blue_Blazer: THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."

The federal government can't become a permanent make-work program.


I didn't say permanent, I said don't start cutting while the recovery is making progress. If unemployment gets to say 5% or something, then I'd be willing to talk about cutting spending, but even then it might be too soon. I'd rather have some national debt than a 2nd recession.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:00 AM  

Arkanaut: Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.

Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.
Or because they don't want their defense contractor donors to lose out.


Repeated for emphasis. It's not a government handout when it goes to a defense department moochers contractors.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:19 AM  

CPennypacker: I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?


Not a fan of open-ended timetables; look where that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to set a GDP growth or unemployment goal, I'm listening. Too many things are established as "temporary" (Bush tax cuts anyone?) and find a way to become permanent.
 
2012-11-12 11:54:36 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Cletus C.: They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.

The fiscal cliff is a gimmick.

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 359x222]

Send a gimmick to catch a gimmick.


We are in agreement.
 
2012-11-12 11:55:37 AM  

GoldSpider: Blue_Blazer: THIS. Things are moving forward, there's no need to get all penisy and start cutting jobs, which is really what it means to cut "spending."

The federal government can't become a permanent make-work program.


No one's suggested it should. What has been suggested is a large infrastructure repair program, since we have a few people out of work and a few thousand miles of road that could use some repairs. Only a moron would decide that keeping people out of work and leaving the roads in poor repair is the preferable option.
 
2012-11-12 11:56:20 AM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?

Not a fan of open-ended timetables; look where that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to set a GDP growth or unemployment goal, I'm listening. Too many things are established as "temporary" (Bush tax cuts anyone?) and find a way to become permanent.


How about unemployment below 5%?
 
2012-11-12 11:57:56 AM  

Blue_Blazer: I didn't say permanent, I said don't start cutting while the recovery is making progress. If unemployment gets to say 5% or something, then I'd be willing to talk about cutting spending, but even then it might be too soon. I'd rather have some national debt than a 2nd recession.


The problem is when the politicians start referring to these spending items as "essential". Once that word becomes engrained with the public, then it's impossible to de-fund such "essential" programs.
 
2012-11-12 11:58:23 AM  

Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?


Aww jebus shooting coffee out your nose is painful. I have seen some deluded posts but this one takes the cake.
 
2012-11-12 12:00:16 PM  

Cletus C.: Dr Dreidel: Cletus C.: They'll work out some half-assed solution to head off the automatic cuts, relying on fantasy gimmicks and self-serving proclamations.

The fiscal cliff is a gimmick.

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 359x222]

Send a gimmick to catch a gimmick.

We are in agreement.


First thing I thought of when I read your post. And since I'm working from home today (thanks, Veterans!), Demolition Man will be up next on the quadruple-feature.

// currently watching Green Lantern, because Ryan Reynolds is dreamy
// taking suggestions (but only movies I've seen. I do still need to work in between farking) for more
 
2012-11-12 12:00:44 PM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: I dunno, but its not now. Let's come back to it, how about that?

Not a fan of open-ended timetables; look where that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Want to set a GDP growth or unemployment goal, I'm listening. Too many things are established as "temporary" (Bush tax cuts anyone?) and find a way to become permanent.

How about unemployment below 5%?


I'm not so sure... employment being a trailing indicator and all, there might be a chance of accidentally creating an economic bubble. But if you do want to concentrate on unemployment, perhaps it's time to start giving away tax credits for middle class job creation and/or create some kind of program that allows citizens to upgrade their education for jobs with requirements that are under-represented among the current crop of unemployed.
 
2012-11-12 12:01:21 PM  

qorkfiend: No one's suggested it should. What has been suggested is a large infrastructure repair program, since we have a few people out of work and a few thousand miles of road that could use some repairs. Only a moron would decide that keeping people out of work and leaving the roads in poor repair is the preferable option.


I'm all for beefing up infrastructure spending. The problem is that you can't take (just rectally-retrieving a number) a million people who used to work in office, manufacturing, foodservice, etc. jobs and plug them into construction jobs.
 
2012-11-12 12:03:04 PM  

GoldSpider: Blue_Blazer: I didn't say permanent, I said don't start cutting while the recovery is making progress. If unemployment gets to say 5% or something, then I'd be willing to talk about cutting spending, but even then it might be too soon. I'd rather have some national debt than a 2nd recession.

The problem is when the politicians start referring to these spending items as "essential". Once that word becomes engrained with the public, then it's impossible to de-fund such "essential" programs.


Don't really care about that concern. We should not be cutting spending RIGHT NOW FULL STOP. You can bring this back up in a couple years when people can say "we've recovered" instead of saying "we're in a tepid recovery." Should be interesting to see what it takes for Republicans to say it.
 
2012-11-12 12:03:09 PM  

qorkfiend: Yes, that's what I said. You want zero deficit, and are entirely unwilling to entertain any ideas about deficit reduction that do not zero out the deficit.


I didn't say that. I just said this fiscal cliff scenario is a puppet show to no effect.
 
2012-11-12 12:06:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You mean that problem Congress is facing that is of Congress' own making? The one that they now have to pass SOMETHING to fix - and something good, too. Obama's using the veto-o-nator on any stopgaps - or else everyone sees higher taxes? The one that will likely result in the GOP capitulating on one or more parts of party dogma (now that they're "open to revenues")?

That's less a "cliff" and more the politico-rhetorical equivalent of falling into bed with every starlet from every time period that you've ever had so much as a crush on looking her very best in that sexy little number, just waiting to fulfill whatever desire you have.

Obama may not get everything he wants, but it'll only be because he's tired at that point.

// I'm not really this optimistic, but every time I follow a course of action in my head, it ends with "big Obama win"
// so I can't wait to see what amazing derpjitsu the GOP pulls out to make the FAIL that much...failier


If the cuts are fully extended for another year or two, will you deem that a "big Obama win?"

The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.
 
2012-11-12 12:08:17 PM  

MugzyBrown: I didn't say that. I just said this fiscal cliff scenario is a puppet show to no effect.


I wouldn't say that there has been no effect. Setting the stage for it via Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling triggered a downgrade of the nation's credit rating.

Now the recent "fiscal cliff" talking point in the run up to the election was primarily a scare tactic to keep the Republican base good and riled up but now that the election is passed I expect that congressional Republicans will play nice rather than risk the ire of their corporate owners.
 
2012-11-12 12:10:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.


Good luck getting that through the Senate.
 
2012-11-12 12:11:32 PM  
I think it was telling that during the debates President Obama as much as came out and said "sequestration, what sequestration?".
 
2012-11-12 12:12:25 PM  

Cletus C.: It comes down to the same shiat. Obama thinks taxing rich people more is the panacea for all the country's problem.


It comes down to the same shiat. You lying to make yourself feel better.

Well that, and (apparently) willful ignorance.

Obama has NEVER said taxing the rich will solve our problems. You just NEED to believe that because you are morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

Not a surprise.
 
2012-11-12 12:12:43 PM  

Saiga410: Stone Meadow: Can you say "balanced budget" by the end of his term?

Aww jebus shooting coffee out your nose is painful. I have seen some deluded posts but this one takes the cake.


Yeah, that was hyperbole on my part, and sorry about the nose. Point being that with revenues much closer to spending after sorting the 'cliff', our economy will be in far better shape four years from now than had Romeny/Ryan enacted their catastrophe. Not balanced, of course, but in much better shape.
 
2012-11-12 12:13:08 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Good luck getting that through the Senate.


Also, the Senate has already passed a bill extending tax cuts for the middle class. The House is sitting on it. If all rates are raised, the House GOP will be the ones perceived as holding the 98% hostage in favor of the 2%.
 
2012-11-12 12:13:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If the cuts are fully extended for another year or two, will you deem that a "big Obama win?"

The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

/as I've said before, that would be a good thing for the country over the long term....so I'm hoping he has the guts to let it happen. However I'd bet they all get extended for some finite period of time.


Right now, things are a bit wild in the House. The GOP has to find its shiat quickly, because moderates are signaling...moderation. They have to start whipping votes against extension and for whatever crazy bullshiat they'll likely pass as an opening salvo, and fast. The next 3 weeks will be very interesting.

The GOP has no reason to cave...right now. Like I said, once their first draft hits the news, we may both have a different assessment. The GOP may do the math, and find (like most economists) that we simply can't cut-the-deductions our way into $1T in revenues. Then again, the GOP may do "teh maff" and find that more tax cuts will solve our problems and if we end Medicare, it saves like $4T right there.
 
2012-11-12 12:15:14 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Debeo Summa Credo: The GOP has no reason to cave right now. They simply pass a bill in December calling for all the cuts to be extended. Obama can sign or choose to let taxes hike across the board.

Good luck getting that through the Senate.


The dems control the senate. It is Obama by proxy. If he wants it passed in the senate it will be.

Do you seriously think the senate would defy Obama on this issue?
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report