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.

(The New York Times)   Obama: $1.6 trillion in taxes on the wealthy, $50 billion in short-term stimulus spending and $612 billion in recycled cuts. GOP: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. Obama: Ok...what's YOUR proposal then? GOP: *crickets*. The Party of 'No' is back, baby   (nytimes.com) divider line 456
    More: Obvious, President Obama, GOP, close election results, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, George Bush, entitlement reform, Peter R. Orszag, Dan Pfeiffer  
•       •       •

4315 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 02:29:42 PM  

whistleridge: eraser8: skullkrusher: eraser8: Debeo Summa Credo: About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years)

[citation needed]

it's from a CBO projection from a week or 2 ago

Which is what you said earlier...but, you didn't provide an actual citation. That's why I asked for one.

In fact, I'll just claim the CBO projected last week that the GDP will gain 3.8% if the top marginal rate is allowed to reset to what it was during the Clinton era. And, if all the rates remain unchanged, a new depression will set in.

I'm not going to bother to justify that claim specifically since I said the CBO made the judgment.  And, that's good enough. Right?

It is amazing how often I have this exact argument with right-leaning friends on FB. And then they go dig up whatever blog they were quoting and cite it, and I say 'nice try, but the blog doesn't cite sources either, and is written by your neighbor, not an expert in the field'. And they just. don't. understand.


you argue with your friends that a report by the Congressional Budget Office is a blog written by their neighbors?
 
2012-12-03 02:30:13 PM  

CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.


Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?
 
2012-12-03 02:30:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: eraser8: Debeo Summa Credo: About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years)

[citation needed]

CBO report #43694. There was a whole thread about it about a month ago with a link from think progress.


www.washingtonpost.com

If extending tax cuts for the wealthy would only increase GDP by 0.1%, then there is no legitimate reason to extend them. They don't need it, they don't deserve it, and the American people don't support it. Saving the money would be better overall. Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not. But if the Republicans want to defend the interests of 1% of the population against those of 99% of us, then they'll suffer for that decision.

Either the wealthy give up their tax cuts, or we all give them up. They've been coddled for way too long.
 
2012-12-03 02:31:12 PM  

eraser8: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.

Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?


wow
 
2012-12-03 02:31:31 PM  

eraser8: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.

Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?


Because they have to base their projections on what will actually happen based on current law?
 
2012-12-03 02:31:36 PM  

GAT_00: Cole went on the talk shows yesterday and said the GOP has no need to ever offer specifics.


Apart from the start of Article 1 (Legislative Branch), Section 7 (Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto) of the U.S. Constitution which clearly says "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives".

So apart from it being in their job description, seeing as they hold the majority there, APART from that, they never need to do it.
 
2012-12-03 02:32:59 PM  
Republicans declared that "the number-one job was to make Obama a one-term president", and they spent four years filibustering and fighting and whining about everything he did, in between trying to find any sort of scandal or event they could use to impeach him and drive him out of office. In that time the Republicans never offered anything, never negotiated, never compromised. But they did try to pass an incredible amount of anti-women and anti-gay laws. They didn't care about America or its citizens unless they were rich old white Christian men. All of this was to ensure Obama didn't get a second term.

And now that they failed and Obama has a second term? They're not going to change one bit, except to do everything HARDER. They've lost their minds, because they were so sure Romney would win, and America telling them to shove it and re-electing their sworn enemy made them snap. Now they see more than half the country as their enemies, and the Republicans are going to do as much damage as possible out of hatred and spite. "If we can't have it, NO ONE CAN!". And they'll double their efforts to impeach and lynch Obama on anything they can. Hell, they already biatch and whine about the condiments he puts on his hamburgers, it's only a matter of time before we get "Ketchupgate" or something.
 
2012-12-03 02:33:16 PM  

verbaltoxin: Corvus: verbaltoxin: Corvus: I like Obama getting Geithner out on this. I think Geithner is not perceived as an "Obama guy" and people in the conservative economics world as someone to listen to. He is not thought of as some "anti-business socialist" so having him run around the news shows is great.

It was great, especially the aftermath when I watched Norquist squirm and throw out that Ryan plan BS (Which as I said went unchallenged at the table). Maria Bartilomo tried to cover for his ass, by making up bullsh*t like, "taxes on dividends would go from 15 to 44%" (Yes, she said that and nobody blinked at it), but it was clear that dog wouldn't hunt.

I forget which Dem politician was there, but he was doing a good job of sticking it to Grover, and all the man could do was watch and go, "Ryan plan! Ryan plan! Obama! Taxes!" ad nauseum.

I'll say this much: though he's still a miserable little weasel, it was good to see Norquist sensing his grip is slipping.

Yeah I was listening to NPR and the had some R on and everytime they asked something like "you say you will limit deductions so does that include mortgage payments" or ANYTHING else specific it was
"Well we are still in talks so we will have to see how that works with an overall plan". They couldn't give one specific at all. And I heard some similar language with Bohner. Refused to give anything solid one what they wanted to see.

"Entitlement reform" has been revealed to be what it's meant all along. It's nothing but weightless platitudes to get the Real AmericansTM out to vote. Now the GOP is being forced to show what they meant by entitlement reform, and they're doing everything to get out of saying it means nothing. The Ryan plan was a show. It's all a show. Nobody is going to gut or privatize Social Security or Medicare. Why, and lose all those old, white people who've faithfully pulled the lever all those years, especially since they're the only demographic doing so?


No,.they would privatize social security and Medicare if they can get away with it. Paul Ryan tried to do that with his crappy Medicare plan by repeatedly denying that it's a voucher plan even though it had the fundamentals of a voucher plan and then eventually had to make it an optional thing instead of a mandatory thing to save face.

Same thing with the Fair Tax folks who had to throw in all those tax credits to lower income people to help offset the increased tax burden they would have under the fair tax.

The only reason none of this stuff is privatized and that we don't have the Fair Tax yet is that people are still smart enough to see through the BS.
 
2012-12-03 02:33:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: verbaltoxin: Corvus: I like Obama getting Geithner out on this. I think Geithner is not perceived as an "Obama guy" and people in the conservative economics world as someone to listen to. He is not thought of as some "anti-business socialist" so having him run around the news shows is great.

It was great, especially the aftermath when I watched Norquist squirm and throw out that Ryan plan BS (Which as I said went unchallenged at the table). Maria Bartilomo tried to cover for his ass, by making up bullsh*t like, "taxes on dividends would go from 15 to 44%" (Yes, she said that and nobody blinked at it), but it was clear that dog wouldn't hunt.

I forget which Dem politician was there, but he was doing a good job of sticking it to Grover, and all the man could do was watch and go, "Ryan plan! Ryan plan! Obama! Taxes!" ad nauseum.

I'll say this much: though he's still a miserable little weasel, it was good to see Norquist sensing his grip is slipping.

Are you implying that the tax on dividends wouldn't go up to 43.5% if the bush tax cuts lapsed?


There's no problem with that, so why do you care?
 
2012-12-03 02:33:25 PM  

CPennypacker: eraser8: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.

Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?

Because they have to base their projections on what will actually happen based on current law?


Then why do you not consider what will happen absent any action the status quo?
 
2012-12-03 02:34:26 PM  

un4gvn666: Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not.


Also the middle class tax cut is also a tax cut for the wealthy. The GOP is holding a tax cut for everybody hostage to protect an extra tax cut for the wealthy.
 
2012-12-03 02:34:41 PM  

CPennypacker: eraser8: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.

Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?

Because they have to base their projections on what will actually happen based on current law?


and legislatively speaking, expiration of the tax cuts IS the status quo. However, the tax rates we currently have is the status quo as far as tax rates are concerned and extending that status quo means keeping them as is but English gets really hard when you start using fancy, uncommon Latin phrases like "status quo" I suppose.
 
2012-12-03 02:35:46 PM  
Because I speak english?

status quo [kwəʊ]
n
(usually preceded by the) the existing state of affairs
[literally: the state in which]

The existing state of affairs for tax rates is due to the bush tax cuts. Ergo, the bush tax cuts are the status quo.
 
2012-12-03 02:36:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: un4gvn666: Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not.

Also the middle class tax cut is also a tax cut for the wealthy. The GOP is holding a tax cut for everybody hostage to protect an extra tax cut for the wealthy.


Very good point. EVERYONE benefits from a tax cut on lower incomes. Only the wealthy benefit from a tax cut on higher incomes.

Republicans have no leg to stand on in this debate.
 
2012-12-03 02:36:49 PM  

CPennypacker: Because I speak english?

status quo [kwəʊ]
n
(usually preceded by the) the existing state of affairs
[literally: the state in which]

The existing state of affairs for tax rates is due to the bush tax cuts. Ergo, the bush tax cuts are the status quo.


The existing state of affairs is for the tax rates to revert to their Clintonian levels.
 
2012-12-03 02:37:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No,.they would privatize social security and Medicare if they can get away with it. Paul Ryan tried to do that with his crappy Medicare plan by repeatedly denying that it's a voucher plan even though it had the fundamentals of a voucher plan and then eventually had to make it an optional thing instead of a mandatory thing to save face.

Same thing with the Fair Tax folks who had to throw in all those tax credits to lower income people to help offset the increased tax burden they would have under the fair tax.

The only reason none of this stuff is privatized and that we don't have the Fair Tax yet is that people are still smart enough to see through the BS.
...


Key clause bolded there. They can't, they couldn't, and they never will. It was all a show. If they were serious about any of this, then on day one of the first Congressional session in 2010, they've would've passed a bill cutting spending for defense authorizations in the Middle East, told the President to get his drones the f*ck outta there, and demanded that withdrawal started 1Q 2011. That would've saved billions right there. It didn't happen. They care about power for it's own sake, and once you're at that phase, you forget what you're actually supposed to do with it once you have it.
 
2012-12-03 02:37:31 PM  

CPennypacker: Because I speak english?

status quo [kwəʊ]
n
(usually preceded by the) the existing state of affairs
[literally: the state in which]

The existing state of affairs for tax rates is due to the bush tax cuts. Ergo, the bush tax cuts are the status quo.


Nah, they were temporary, so what existed BEFORE them was status quo.
 
2012-12-03 02:37:39 PM  

CPennypacker: Because I speak english?

status quo [kwəʊ]
n
(usually preceded by the) the existing state of affairs
[literally: the state in which]

The existing state of affairs for tax rates is due to the bush tax cuts. Ergo, the bush tax cuts are the status quo.


But skull has a point, the "existing state of affairs" is for these tax cuts to expire January 1.

Seems like you can go both ways with this...giggity.
 
2012-12-03 02:37:56 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: When the GOP proposes extending the status quo to avoid the fiscal cliff, as they will of negotiations fail, will the Dems then be the "party of no", subby?

Or will they be justified in stomping their feet because the GOP wont let them have their pound of flesh ransom for avoiding the supposedly horrible repercussions of the fiscal prudence otherwise known as the "cliff"?

The status quo is that all the cuts are eliminated. Are you suggesting that the Republican will propose that?

You know what I mean. Extend so that rates stay the same.

Not that I'm in favor of that, in fact as you know I'm hoping that this is all part of Obama's secret plan to intentionally go off the cliff, raise everyone's taxes and cut spending to fix our fiscal situation, while maintaining the ability to blame or share blame with the GOP.

But if he and the dems really think its critical to spend $3.7t to extend cuts for the 98%, why isn't it worth spending $4.5t to extend cuts for the 100%? Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?


If the Republicans think we should raise it for all 100%, they should propose it. Maybe Obama will sign it.
 
2012-12-03 02:39:44 PM  
Whatever, I give up. I'm sure whatever point you were trying to make about what this borrowed latin phrase means was really insightful with regards to tax rate negotiations in the US legislature.
 
2012-12-03 02:40:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: CPennypacker: Because I speak english?

status quo [kwəʊ]
n
(usually preceded by the) the existing state of affairs
[literally: the state in which]

The existing state of affairs for tax rates is due to the bush tax cuts. Ergo, the bush tax cuts are the status quo.

But skull has a point, the "existing state of affairs" is for these tax cuts to expire January 1.

Seems like you can go both ways with this...giggity.


yes but "extending the status quo" in this context clearly refers to the tax rates. It is intentional horse's arse-ry to not understand this.

/hopefully it's intentional
//painful dishonesty is better than painful stupidity... I think
 
2012-12-03 02:40:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'm in favor of that, in fact as you know I'm hoping that this is all part of Obama's secret plan to intentionally go off the cliff, raise everyone's taxes and cut spending to fix our fiscal situation, while maintaining the ability to blame or share blame with the GOP.

But if he and the dems really think its critical to spend $3.7t to extend cuts for the 98%, why isn't it worth spending $4.5t to extend cuts for the 100%? Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?


If you want to raise taxes for the 100%, then why are you biatching about Obama raising taxes for the 2%? 

Your phony concern trolling never makes any sense.
 
2012-12-03 02:41:24 PM  

GAT_00: eraser8: Tigger: You are a farking crazy person.

Which is exactly why you shouldn't be responding to him.

The whole premise of this site is responding to crazy people.


P.S. if you think you are sane, odd are you ARE one of the crazy people.
 
2012-12-03 02:42:20 PM  

skullkrusher: you argue with your friends that a report by the Congressional Budget Office is a blog written by their neighbors?


No, but I AM full of fail. I hit send before I got in the bit that read:

"/ but in this case, he probably has a point, since you can surely Google the CBO report yourself"

/ never browse the Politics tab after a seizure. I've had like 5 bizarro posts :(
 
2012-12-03 02:42:43 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: When the GOP proposes extending the status quo to avoid the fiscal cliff, as they will of negotiations fail, will the Dems then be the "party of no", subby?

Or will they be justified in stomping their feet because the GOP wont let them have their pound of flesh ransom for avoiding the supposedly horrible repercussions of the fiscal prudence otherwise known as the "cliff"?

The status quo is that all the cuts are eliminated. Are you suggesting that the Republican will propose that?

You know what I mean. Extend so that rates stay the same.

Not that I'm in favor of that, in fact as you know I'm hoping that this is all part of Obama's secret plan to intentionally go off the cliff, raise everyone's taxes and cut spending to fix our fiscal situation, while maintaining the ability to blame or share blame with the GOP.

But if he and the dems really think its critical to spend $3.7t to extend cuts for the 98%, why isn't it worth spending $4.5t to extend cuts for the 100%? Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?

If the Republicans think we should raise it for all 100%, they should propose it. Maybe Obama will sign it.


They don't at all. They're the ones who passed the irresponsible bush tax cuts in the first place.
 
2012-12-03 02:46:10 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'm in favor of that, in fact as you know I'm hoping that this is all part of Obama's secret plan to intentionally go off the cliff, raise everyone's taxes and cut spending to fix our fiscal situation, while maintaining the ability to blame or share blame with the GOP.

But if he and the dems really think its critical to spend $3.7t to extend cuts for the 98%, why isn't it worth spending $4.5t to extend cuts for the 100%? Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?

If you want to raise taxes for the 100%, then why are you biatching about Obama raising taxes for the 2%? 

Your phony concern trolling never makes any sense.


Because the tax cuts for the 98% are much much more expensive than the cuts for the 2%. We'll never be able, 2 or 4 years from now, to tell the 98% that it's now their turn to get their taxes raised. Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period and let them expire at some point when everybody's not shiatting their pants over the big bad fiscal cliff.
 
2012-12-03 02:47:35 PM  

un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: eraser8: Debeo Summa Credo: About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years)

[citation needed]

CBO report #43694. There was a whole thread about it about a month ago with a link from think progress.



If extending tax cuts for the wealthy would only increase GDP by 0.1%, then there is no legitimate reason to extend them. They don't need it, they don't deserve it, and the American people don't support it. Saving the money would be better overall. Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not. But if the Republicans want to defend the interests of 1% of the population against those of 99% of us, then they'll suffer for that decision.

Either the wealthy give up their tax cuts, or we all give them up. They've been coddled for way too long.


Where is that graph from?
 
2012-12-03 02:52:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: eraser8: Debeo Summa Credo: About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years)

[citation needed]

CBO report #43694. There was a whole thread about it about a month ago with a link from think progress.



If extending tax cuts for the wealthy would only increase GDP by 0.1%, then there is no legitimate reason to extend them. They don't need it, they don't deserve it, and the American people don't support it. Saving the money would be better overall. Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not. But if the Republicans want to defend the interests of 1% of the population against those of 99% of us, then they'll suffer for that decision.

Either the wealthy give up their tax cuts, or we all give them up. They've been coddled for way too long.

Where is that graph from?


The Washington Post.
 
2012-12-03 02:53:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period


So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?
 
2012-12-03 02:55:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-12-03 02:56:43 PM  

Jackson Herring: mrshowrules: I expressed a willingness to put the garbage out this morning. Didn't do it but I was willing.

Well you can just make Mr. How Rules do it for you anyway so who cares


WIN
 
2012-12-03 02:57:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No subby is wrong with her headline.

The article says: " his answer boils down to this: you first." so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

Besides 0bama has never said how his proposed tax cuts are going to create jobs or what he is going to do to deal with the other 90% of his reckless spending.


WTF are you talking about you dumbass? Why do you even try?

Did you not catch the part where the currently Republican majority house is suppose to come up with the budget? You do care about that thing called the Constitution right? And yet your half brained party followed by morons like yourself are not even able to complete their most basic duty. They have to rely on someone else to do their work for them. Talk about personal responsibility there eh?

I seriously wish you guys would go away and let the grownups govern so we can actually make America great again.
 
2012-12-03 02:57:58 PM  

eraser8: CPennypacker: eraser8: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.

Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?

Because they have to base their projections on what will actually happen based on current law?

Then why do you not consider what will happen absent any action the status quo?


You are technically correct, the best kind of correct. Everybody knew what Skull meant, and that's the real purpose of communication, yes?

This is quite possibly the dumbest argument on Fark, and that's saying a lot. Drop it and move on.
 
2012-12-03 02:58:06 PM  

Weaver95: Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?

the President is permitted to make suggestions. Hell, ALL of us are allowed to make suggestions on budget issues. its just that the President gets heard more often than you or I.


He is not only "permitted" to make suggestions, he is to some extent obligated to do so via Article II section 3. However I think he has already set out his recommendations, the House will just not even vote on them. The State of the Union speech if the House allows the fiscal cliff to happen will be epic. He also could use his powers to keep them in session through the end of the year.


"He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment,"  Article II section 3
 
2012-12-03 03:00:58 PM  

dejavoodoo64: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Maybe Boehner DID make an offer, but his statesmanlike words of compromise were muffled by Grover Norquist's testicles?

Well yeah it was that and the crying. It's always hard to understand what someone's saying when they cry. It was probably better for Grove that way though.



upload.wikimedia.org

♫ A lapdance knobgobbling is so much better when the stripper Republican is cryin'! ♪
 
2012-12-03 03:01:45 PM  
Good. I hope Obama hands these farkwits their own asses on a silver platter, they're going to run the country into the ground, to say nothing of their continued attempts at using religion as a basis for law.

/And my family actually stands a lot to lose from losing the child tax credit, but we all pretty much agree it would be worth it.
 
2012-12-03 03:07:13 PM  

sdd2000: Weaver95: Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?

the President is permitted to make suggestions. Hell, ALL of us are allowed to make suggestions on budget issues. its just that the President gets heard more often than you or I.

He is not only "permitted" to make suggestions, he is to some extent obligated to do so via Article II section 3. However I think he has already set out his recommendations, the House will just not even vote on them. The State of the Union speech if the House allows the fiscal cliff to happen will be epic. He also could use his powers to keep them in session through the end of the year.


"He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment,"  Article II section 3


Making them stay in session through Christmas would be trolling on a scale never been seen before. That goes beyond burning bridges. That's building a bridge out of dynamite and daring them to cross it.
 
2012-12-03 03:07:27 PM  

whistleridge: tenpoundsofcheese: No subby is wrong with her headline.

The article says: " his answer boils down to this: you first." so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

Besides 0bama has never said how his proposed tax cuts are going to create jobs or what he is going to do to deal with the other 90% of his reckless spending.

Things that are wrong with this comment:

1. I have boy parts, not girl parts
2. Your grasp of the facts at hand
3. Your spelling


You gotta be nicer to the admins, bro.
 
2012-12-03 03:07:32 PM  

Weaver95: Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?

the President is permitted to make suggestions. Hell, ALL of us are allowed to make suggestions on budget issues. its just that the President gets heard more often than you or I.


If the President doesn't make suggestions, he is accused of failing to lead so, hell yes he should make suggestions.
 
2012-12-03 03:08:20 PM  
I'm still waiting for Contract with America 2 : Electric Boogaloo
 
2012-12-03 03:10:19 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: sdd2000: Weaver95: Muta: US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 -- All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

Shouldn't the House of Representatives be the ones submitting the proposals?

the President is permitted to make suggestions. Hell, ALL of us are allowed to make suggestions on budget issues. its just that the President gets heard more often than you or I.

He is not only "permitted" to make suggestions, he is to some extent obligated to do so via Article II section 3. However I think he has already set out his recommendations, the House will just not even vote on them. The State of the Union speech if the House allows the fiscal cliff to happen will be epic. He also could use his powers to keep them in session through the end of the year.


"He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment,"  Article II section 3

Making them stay in session through Christmas would be trolling on a scale never been seen before. That goes beyond burning bridges. That's building a bridge out of dynamite and daring them to cross it.


I don't get Christmas off... why should they? I mean, I'm out earning the money that pays their salary, and they cant even be bothered to show up for work for weeks on end... then they call me the lazy one for not earning enough money to keep them living in comfort... what gives?
 
2012-12-03 03:13:56 PM  

un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: un4gvn666: Debeo Summa Credo: eraser8: Debeo Summa Credo: About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years)

[citation needed]

CBO report #43694. There was a whole thread about it about a month ago with a link from think progress.



If extending tax cuts for the wealthy would only increase GDP by 0.1%, then there is no legitimate reason to extend them. They don't need it, they don't deserve it, and the American people don't support it. Saving the money would be better overall. Whether or not the low- and middle-income tax cuts need to be extended is not in dispute: they will have a significantly negative impact on the economy if they are not. But if the Republicans want to defend the interests of 1% of the population against those of 99% of us, then they'll suffer for that decision.

Either the wealthy give up their tax cuts, or we all give them up. They've been coddled for way too long.

Where is that graph from?

The Washington Post.


Thanks. The graph in the article is not in the report, so wapo must have put it together from data in the report. Regardless, the paragraph that refers to all cuts increasing GDP by just under 1.5% and only those for the lower 98% by 1 and 1/4 percent is on page 2 of the report to which the wapo report links.

It also says that not extending the cuts for the top 2% would cost 200,000 jobs.
 
2012-12-03 03:14:34 PM  
Impasse and failure. Painting yourself into a corner would be a cakewalk compared to what the GOP has done to itself. The taxes will be increased on the top 2% one way or another; the clock is running out.
The Republicans might be able to salvage something from this self-imposed disaster by negotiating - they might even try to serve their constituents and the country - but recent history suggests they don't understand their responsibilities as elected representatives. There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 
2012-12-03 03:17:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?


If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.
 
2012-12-03 03:18:57 PM  

eraser8: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo.

Then, why doesn't the CBO use that standard? Why do they, instead, consider current law the status quo?


Well can he help it if he lives on Capitol Hill?
 
2012-12-03 03:19:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.


Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?
 
2012-12-03 03:23:55 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: Brubold: The Republicans run Congress atm

No, they run the House of Reps. They don't run the Senate.


They only STOP the Senate.

At least now, hopefully Harry fixes that.
 
2012-12-03 03:25:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.


Please, PLEASE let the Republicans vote down a bill of tax cuts for 98% of Americans after we hit the cliff. I want their asses to be mounted on the wall for it in 2014.
 
2012-12-03 03:30:58 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Better to let them all end, or extend them all for another temporary period

So it makes more fiscal sense to extend it for the 100% instead of for the 98%?

If you told me that this was all we were going to get as far as increased revenue, then extending only for the 98% is better. But we should go back to all the Clinton era rates across the board. Deferring is a better bet to get back there.

From your perspective, is it better to extend for noone than to extend for all? Because those'r looking like the options that the dems are going to get.

Are you as confident about this as you were about Romney's election?


What makes you think I believed Romney would win? I voted for Obama. I just didnt think Romney was the evil monster you guys thought he was. Which of course for fark makes me right of pat Buchanan.
 
2012-12-03 03:31:23 PM  

Tigger: SlothB77: Obama wants us to go over the fiscal cliff. He wants those large cuts to defense to go into effect. He wants the economy to crash again. When it does, he can introduce new reforms that will significantly expand the reach and power of the federal government.

You are a farking crazy person.


He's a farking ignored person. I highly recommend it.
 
Displayed 50 of 456 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report