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.

(Huffington Post)   Boehner puts his foot down, vows no tax hikes to avert fiscal cliff, ask Smithsonian if they have Nero's fiddle as he has plans for it come January   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 209
    More: Fail, Boehner, Nero, Smithsonian, Ohio Republican, obama, tax cuts expire, Park Ave, federal deficits  
•       •       •

1629 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Nov 2012 at 9:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-15 09:09:59 AM
"We shall defend rich people's money to the end of time!"

Good job, Boehner. You're awesome.
 
2012-11-15 09:25:11 AM
Lets ask the guy who literally wrote the book on Capitalism what HE thinks about progressive taxes:


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" 

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-15 09:26:58 AM
The same Boehner who was just talking about the need to raise revenue. Huh. Well, that didn't last long.
 
2012-11-15 09:36:07 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: The same Boehner who was just talking about the need to raise revenue. Huh. Well, that didn't last long.


Surely you didn't expect it to.
 
2012-11-15 09:40:58 AM
People are already looking at the GOP as responsible for us falling over the fiscal cliff. If they think they're going to show the President who's boss, they might want to remember what happened during the government shutdown under Clinton.
 
2012-11-15 09:41:47 AM
He doesn't have to raise taxes, he just has to let the Bush tax cuts expire and then support a new middle class tax cut. Ta da!
 
2012-11-15 09:41:58 AM
Fifty-six percent of Americans think taxes should be increased on households earning $250,000 a year or higher to help lower the deficit, while 37 percent say taxes should not be raised on those households.

This is why you fail
 
2012-11-15 09:42:00 AM
Its either make loud noises about ZERO compromise or the teabaggers show him the door.

I honestly don't know how anything will get done with this House.
 
2012-11-15 09:42:36 AM

oldernell: God Is My Co-Pirate: The same Boehner who was just talking about the need to raise revenue. Huh. Well, that didn't last long.

Surely you didn't expect it to.


He didn't and don't call him Shirley!
 
2012-11-15 09:43:22 AM
DO IT BOEHNER!
 
2012-11-15 09:44:27 AM
It's time to start re-branding this as the Tea Party Cliff.
 
2012-11-15 09:45:43 AM

vernonFL: Lets ask the guy who literally wrote the book on Capitalism what HE thinks about progressive taxes:


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" 

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 203x248]


These people base their governing philosophy on an imaginary Reagan, why wouldn't they base their economic philosophy on an imaginary Smith?
 
2012-11-15 09:46:04 AM
Without Obama's signature, everybody's taxes go up and a lot of politically unpopular cuts are made to the military. Boehner painted himself into this corner when he released the hostages during the debt ceiling deal, and now Obama's going to make him squeal like a pig.
 
2012-11-15 09:47:48 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: He doesn't have to raise taxes, he just has to let the Bush tax cuts expire and then support a new middle class tax cut. Ta da!


I have a feeling this is what's going to happen. They'll keep staring at each other, the 11th-hour deal (brokered by "Republican" Democrats and the 5 or 6 Republicans that can safely make a deal) will fail, we'll "go over the cliff" for about 3 weeks in January, and Odin help the GOP if there's not a deal in place by the SoTU.

I suspect Boehner's face will have yellowy streaks on it around that time.

// from the egg on it
// he'll look like a Bugs Bunny omelette!
 
2012-11-15 09:47:58 AM
No one actually thought that the Republicans were suddenly going to, I don't know, attempt to work with the President for the good of the country, did they?

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-15 09:48:13 AM
"We won't allow you to let only some of the tax cuts expire, we're going to make you let them all expire."
 
2012-11-15 09:48:52 AM

lemurs: Without Obama's signature, everybody's taxes go up and a lot of politically unpopular cuts are made to the military. Boehner painted himself into this corner when he released the hostages during the debt ceiling deal, and now Obama's going to make him squeal like a pig.


withfriendship.com
 
2012-11-15 09:50:15 AM
restraint.org
 
2012-11-15 09:50:18 AM

oldernell: God Is My Co-Pirate: The same Boehner who was just talking about the need to raise revenue. Huh. Well, that didn't last long.

Surely you didn't expect it to.


No, no, it's just that the paper I picked up one hour ago said:

"Relations between the Democrats and Republicans have thawed considerably since the election. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, last week said higher revenue would be necessary to avoid the fiscal cliff, a marked shift from the party's pre-election position."

Hah.
 
2012-11-15 09:50:44 AM
talkingpointsmemo.com

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
 
2012-11-15 09:55:11 AM
Well, the GOP gave us the debt ceiling fiasco... they gave us the Sequester requirements... and now, they're going full Thelma-and-Louise.

Not like I can lose much respect for the Teabagger/GOP at this point, but actively holding any potential respect from even getting close, keeping it at bay like this... takes skill.
 
2012-11-15 09:55:33 AM

lemurs: Without Obama's signature, everybody's taxes go up and a lot of politically unpopular cuts are made to the military. Boehner painted himself into this corner when he released the hostages during the debt ceiling deal, and now Obama's going to make him squeal like a pig.


Sequestration really was a brilliant political move.
 
2012-11-15 09:56:22 AM

vernonFL: Lets ask the guy who literally wrote the book on Capitalism what HE thinks about progressive taxes:


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" 

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 203x248]


Is this an early picture of a beardless Karl Marx?
 
2012-11-15 09:56:30 AM

vernonFL: Lets ask the guy who literally wrote the book on Capitalism what HE thinks about progressive taxes:


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" 

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 203x248]



That quotes mostly about progressive taxation, but the ending of tax cuts for the rich is not even about contributing more in proportion. Asking for tax increases on the rich balances out their lack of dependence on entitlements and ensures all brackets contribute something towards deficit reduction. The idea that Obama is asking the rich to give up more than poor people (who depend on programs that will be cut more) is silly. I think the administration is selling this whole thing wrong.
 
2012-11-15 09:57:53 AM
Whatever, John. See you in '14. But don't be thinking that 2014 is going to be 2010 part Deux, Electric Boogaloo - because it isn't.
 
2012-11-15 10:11:57 AM
A natural reaction to Obama putting his foot down on base broadening. I would say a little of A and a little of B but the two morans in the room want to piss at each other.
 
2012-11-15 10:12:01 AM
"Forgive me for noting that conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less."
 
2012-11-15 10:12:09 AM
It's not like the overwhelming democratic victory in which only gerrymandering saved the house for the GOP was a mandate or anything.

Seriously if you care about the farking deficit then talk about increasing revenue and decreasing expenses otherwise shut the fark up. The mandate by the voters was a plea to end obstructionism. When it comes to the senate and house people voted against the GOP not for Obama.
 
2012-11-15 10:14:07 AM

vernonFL: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"


Which we do currently.
 
2012-11-15 10:16:42 AM
If we go off the fiscal cliff, the tax rate goes up by 50% for the poor and 10% for the rich.
 
2012-11-15 10:19:21 AM
Same old shiat in Washington, D.C.

The end game seems to be make the other guy take the blame. This will not end well for anybody.
 
2012-11-15 10:19:57 AM

TheGreatGazoo: If we go off the fiscal cliff, the tax rate goes up by 50% for the poor and 10% for the rich.


How do you figure? (Not snark, I just want more info)
 
2012-11-15 10:20:05 AM

skullkrusher: vernonFL: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Which we do currently.


But to be fair, is it historically and unreasonably low.
 
2012-11-15 10:21:42 AM

TheGreatGazoo: If we go off the fiscal cliff, the tax rate goes up by 50% for the poor and 10% for the rich.


Then the Dems can submit a bill to lower taxes on the poor, and watch the GOP rage-puke over the choice of answering to their constituents as to why they supported a Democratic bill, or answering to their constituents as to why they refuse to lower taxes.
 
2012-11-15 10:22:48 AM

jso2897: Whatever, John. See you in '14. But don't be thinking that 2014 is going to be 2010 part Deux, Electric Boogaloo - because it isn't.


I sure hope not.

I'm still digesting the fact that Democrats got more votes in House elections, yet they hold 30 fewer seats.

I hope Obama/Dems use the awesome ground game they developed for 2012 to good effect in 2014, because they're going to need it to take the house given that you can get more votes yet still be more than two dozen seats down.
 
2012-11-15 10:25:32 AM

jasimo: I sure hope not.

I'm still digesting the fact that Democrats got more votes in House elections, yet they hold 30 fewer seats.

I hope Obama/Dems use the awesome ground game they developed for 2012 to good effect in 2014, because they're going to need it to take the house given that you can get more votes yet still be more than two dozen seats down.


Apparently, if the Dems gain about 2% more popularity, the gerrymandering becomes far less effective. I think this is a plausible development because the GOP are looking to continue from the same playbook that got them from '10 to '12. As long as the Dems can keep the media attention on the obstructionist congress, there could be a lot of seats changing hands in '14.
 
2012-11-15 10:25:33 AM
Boehner forgets that Obama now has the upper hand, since he no longer needs to be re-elected. Obama could let the Bush tax cuts expire, then introduce his own. When the R's object to the whole thing because of the lack of tax cuts for the wealthy, they look like the bad guys.
 
2012-11-15 10:27:17 AM
the fiscal cliff wouldn't exist without the GOP. this a problem entirely of their making.
 
2012-11-15 10:28:51 AM
The most important thing everyone should know about the fiscal cliff is that the GOP is freaking out about spending cuts.
 
2012-11-15 10:31:44 AM

skullkrusher: vernonFL: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Which we do currently.


Yes, we do and should have progressive taxation (which is at or near historical lows, but that's a separate issue). As far as deficit reduction measures go, we will have to cut social programs significantly as well, and in much greater proportion to any new revenues (see Republican's current stance). Asking the rich, who do not depend anywhere near as much on these programs to contribute more in income taxes is not asking for more in proportion, it's asking for the rich to contribute (somewhat) equal in proportion to the other deficit reduction measures. I would argue that in terms of contribution to their lifestyle, it's not even close to the effects that the cuts will have.
 
2012-11-15 10:31:57 AM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: vernonFL: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

and

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

Which we do currently.

But to be fair, is it historically and unreasonably low.


"The top 5 percent, those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $154,643, earned 31.7 percent of the nation's income and paid 58.7 percent of the taxes. Those in the top 10 percent made at least $112,124. They earned 43.2 percent of the nation's income and paid 70.5 percent of the taxes.

The income cutoff for the top 25 percent in 2009 was $66,193. Folks with that income or higher earned 65.8 percent of the nation's income, and paid 87.3 percent of the taxes. To be in the top half of all taxpayers, one had to make $32,396. That group's share of total earnings was 86.5 percent and its share of taxes was 97.7 percent." - Politifact

We can talk about efficiency and what we want to achieve while avoiding unintended consequences but I think "unreasonable" is pretty subjective. In any case, quoting Smith in this context doesn't make much sense since we clearly do tax wealthier people at a greater proportion than their proportion of income. That's not to say that we shouldn't do something to increase revenues from the upper tier of taxpayers, I just don't find the "fair share" arguments or Adam Smith invocations particularly compelling in this context
 
2012-11-15 10:34:38 AM

neritz: Boehner forgets that Obama now has the upper hand, since he no longer needs to be re-elected. Obama could let the Bush tax cuts expire, then introduce his own. When the R's object to the whole thing because of the lack of tax cuts for the wealthy, they look like the bad guys.


Somewhere along the line the GOP simply lost any ability to do this kind of math, even for self preservation. Their hatred of Obama burns so bright, they can't see anything else. Hopefully Obama starts to use this to his advantage, instead of pitifully trying to get them to not hate him so much. There's no point.
 
2012-11-15 10:36:59 AM

moocifer: Yes, we do and should have progressive taxation (which is at or near historical lows, but that's a separate issue). As far as deficit reduction measures go, we will have to cut social programs significantly as well, and in much greater proportion to any new revenues (see Republican's current stance). Asking the rich, who do not depend anywhere near as much on these programs to contribute more in income taxes is not asking for more in proportion, it's asking for the rich to contribute (somewhat) equal in proportion to the other deficit reduction measures. I would argue that in terms of contribution to their lifestyle, it's not even close to the effects that the cuts will have.


we don't really have true progressive taxation as long as investment income is given relatively favorable tax treatment.
 
2012-11-15 10:37:00 AM

oldernell: God Is My Co-Pirate: The same Boehner who was just talking about the need to raise revenue. Huh. Well, that didn't last long.

Surely you didn't expect it to.


I actually did. Dems seemed more open to spending cuts in a way they weren't two years ago, and Repubs seemed more open to revenue increases in a way they weren't two years ago. It seemed like they were going to craft something everyone would hate, but would save us from the cliff and could be modified later.

I almost believed Congress would work again.
 
2012-11-15 10:37:35 AM

skullkrusher: "The top 5 percent, those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $154,643, earned 31.7 percent of the nation's income and paid 58.7 percent of the taxes. Those in the top 10 percent made at least $112,124. They earned 43.2 percent of the nation's income and paid 70.5 percent of the taxes.

The income cutoff for the top 25 percent in 2009 was $66,193. Folks with that income or higher earned 65.8 percent of the nation's income, and paid 87.3 percent of the taxes. To be in the top half of all taxpayers, one had to make $32,396. That group's share of total earnings was 86.5 percent and its share of taxes was 97.7 percent." - Politifact

We can talk about efficiency and what we want to achieve while avoiding unintended consequences but I think "unreasonable" is pretty subjective. In any case, quoting Smith in this context doesn't make much sense since we clearly do tax wealthier people at a greater proportion than their proportion of income. That's not to say that we shouldn't do something to increase revenues from the upper tier of taxpayers, I just don't find the "fair share" arguments or Adam Smith invocations particularly compelling in this context


To me, "unreasonability" involves looking at the situations and what's reasonable could change depending on economic trends, state of the economy, etc. The fact of the matter is for more than a decade wealth has been concentrating itself into fewer hands and those hands being people that were already wealthy to begin with.

You're one of the more reality-based conservatives on here, so I know you get this. But unless a country that depends on capitalist principles has a broad and moneyed middle class, that's a recipe for disaster. The very wealthiest Americans, who it can be argued benefit more from being in America than people in the middle class, can afford to pay far, fair more in taxes without their lifestyle being effected in any discernable way.

Now, couple that with the fact that the US could definitely benefit from supporting the middle class (and growing it) and I think the way forward is clear.
 
2012-11-15 10:38:28 AM

jasimo: jso2897: Whatever, John. See you in '14. But don't be thinking that 2014 is going to be 2010 part Deux, Electric Boogaloo - because it isn't.

I sure hope not.

I'm still digesting the fact that Democrats got more votes in House elections, yet they hold 30 fewer seats.

I hope Obama/Dems use the awesome ground game they developed for 2012 to good effect in 2014, because they're going to need it to take the house given that you can get more votes yet still be more than two dozen seats down.


Boehner's Congressional district (OH-8) is safely gerrymandered. I am familiar with the district, though I live in the adjacent 10th. IIRC, he's won every election since 1990 with 60-70% of the vote. Have fun storming the castle!
 
2012-11-15 10:41:47 AM

skullkrusher: "The top 5 percent, those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $154,643, earned 31.7 percent of the nation's income and paid 58.7 percent of the taxes. Those in the top 10 percent made at least $112,124. They earned 43.2 percent of the nation's income and paid 70.5 percent of the taxes.

The income cutoff for the top 25 percent in 2009 was $66,193. Folks with that income or higher earned 65.8 percent of the nation's income, and paid 87.3 percent of the taxes. To be in the top half of all taxpayers, one had to make $32,396. That group's share of total earnings was 86.5 percent and its share of taxes was 97.7 percent."


Does that include all types of income or just earned income?
 
2012-11-15 10:42:14 AM

Mercutio74: To me, "unreasonability" involves looking at the situations and what's reasonable could change depending on economic trends, state of the economy, etc. The fact of the matter is for more than a decade wealth has been concentrating itself into fewer hands and those hands being people that were already wealthy to begin with.


so reasonable in terms of economic impact? I can get behind that. I thought you were making a "fairness" argument.

Mercutio74: You're one of the more reality-based conservatives on here, so I know you get this. But unless a country that depends on capitalist principles has a broad and moneyed middle class, that's a recipe for disaster. The very wealthiest Americans, who it can be argued benefit more from being in America than people in the middle class, can afford to pay far, fair more in taxes without their lifestyle being effected in any discernable way.

Now, couple that with the fact that the US could definitely benefit from supporting the middle class (and growing it) and I think the way forward is clear.


we do need the "wealthy" to pay more. What they should pay and what constitutes "wealthy" is up for debate. I think the President's proposal as it currently stands is not "reasonable" if we're using your above definition as I understand it. I think the GOP plan is utterly unreasonable by that same metric. Well, whatever the fark that plan is
 
2012-11-15 10:44:51 AM

ghall3: skullkrusher: "The top 5 percent, those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $154,643, earned 31.7 percent of the nation's income and paid 58.7 percent of the taxes. Those in the top 10 percent made at least $112,124. They earned 43.2 percent of the nation's income and paid 70.5 percent of the taxes.

The income cutoff for the top 25 percent in 2009 was $66,193. Folks with that income or higher earned 65.8 percent of the nation's income, and paid 87.3 percent of the taxes. To be in the top half of all taxpayers, one had to make $32,396. That group's share of total earnings was 86.5 percent and its share of taxes was 97.7 percent."

Does that include all types of income or just earned income?


AGI included wage and investment income minus certain reductions like IRA contributions, FSAs, etc
 
2012-11-15 10:45:09 AM

Parthenogenetic: jasimo: jso2897: Whatever, John. See you in '14. But don't be thinking that 2014 is going to be 2010 part Deux, Electric Boogaloo - because it isn't.

I sure hope not.

I'm still digesting the fact that Democrats got more votes in House elections, yet they hold 30 fewer seats.

I hope Obama/Dems use the awesome ground game they developed for 2012 to good effect in 2014, because they're going to need it to take the house given that you can get more votes yet still be more than two dozen seats down.

Boehner's Congressional district (OH-8) is safely gerrymandered. I am familiar with the district, though I live in the adjacent 10th. IIRC, he's won every election since 1990 with 60-70% of the vote. Have fun storming the castle!


Boehner himself may be fairly safe - but if enough of his buddies lose, he become Speaker of Nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report