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

(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  
•       •       •

4321 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 12:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-03 09:23:18 AM  
Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for the wealthy, though not by raising rates.

Oh, well since they've expressed willingness, it's all good then. I mean, how can you possible expect them to go all the way to doing something, after using up all that goodwill and energy to express willingness? Why does Obama refuse to work with them, when they're trying so hard to help the ri- er, the country?
 
2012-12-03 09:33:07 AM  
emboldened by a clear if close election to a second

It wasn't that close of an election. It was no Roosevelt vs. Landon but it wasn't a Hayes vs. Tilden affair, either.
 
2012-12-03 09:37:00 AM  
The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.
 
2012-12-03 09:39:43 AM  
The party of no ideas except text cuts for rich of course and corporations and anybody who outsources labor to another country
 
2012-12-03 09:39:59 AM  

whistleridge: Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for the wealthy, though not by raising rates.

Oh, well since they've expressed willingness, it's all good then. I mean, how can you possible expect them to go all the way to doing something, after using up all that goodwill and energy to express willingness? Why does Obama refuse to work with them, when they're trying so hard to help the ri- er, the country?


I expressed a willingness to put the garbage out this morning. Didn't do it but I was willing.
 
2012-12-03 09:41:13 AM  

mrshowrules: whistleridge: Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for the wealthy, though not by raising rates.

Oh, well since they've expressed willingness, it's all good then. I mean, how can you possible expect them to go all the way to doing something, after using up all that goodwill and energy to express willingness? Why does Obama refuse to work with them, when they're trying so hard to help the ri- er, the country?

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


You may be on to something there. I think I'm going to express a willingness to go to work today, but stay home and collect my paycheck anyway. Score!
 
2012-12-03 10:19:12 AM  

whistleridge: mrshowrules: whistleridge: Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for the wealthy, though not by raising rates.

Oh, well since they've expressed willingness, it's all good then. I mean, how can you possible expect them to go all the way to doing something, after using up all that goodwill and energy to express willingness? Why does Obama refuse to work with them, when they're trying so hard to help the ri- er, the country?

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

You may be on to something there. I think I'm going to express a willingness to go to work today, but stay home and collect my paycheck anyway. Score!


One rule for them, another rule for us.
 
2012-12-03 10:20:25 AM  
Boo hoo. Cry more.
 
2012-12-03 10:20:53 AM  
Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.
 
2012-12-03 10:24:30 AM  

RexTalionis: Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.


Yeah, but how many of those were from people making $50,000/yr. or more? You know, Real People.
 
2012-12-03 10:25:39 AM  
Clearly this is all a distraction for the fact that Democrats have never passed a budget!! Lazy farks.
 
2012-12-03 10:30:40 AM  

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
 
2012-12-03 10:36:33 AM  
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 10:38:08 AM  
I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.
 
2012-12-03 10:38:55 AM  
Raharu: The party of no ideas except text cuts for rich of course and corporations and anybody who outsources labor to another country

Here we have somebody who is so far removed from actually contributing anything, from actually carrying some of the burden, that the very concepts of "taxes" and "tax cuts" are just a vague abstract notions to ridicule the rich with. People who actually pay taxes don't confuse them with textses
 
2012-12-03 10:42:14 AM  

kmmontandon: RexTalionis: Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.

Yeah, but how many of those were from^white people making $50,000/yr. or more? You know, Real People.


Blacks, Hispanics or Asians making $50K+ don't count.
 
2012-12-03 10:43:22 AM  
Cole went on the talk shows yesterday and said the GOP has no need to ever offer specifics.
 
2012-12-03 10:48:31 AM  
Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick....
 
2012-12-03 10:49:06 AM  
Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement programs beyond what was on the table last year. Until Republicans offer their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his.

Sounds like Obama has finally learned Rule #1 of negotiating: Don't negotiate against yourself.

About time.
 
2012-12-03 10:57:54 AM  

gilgigamesh: Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement programs beyond what was on the table last year. Until Republicans offer their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his.

Sounds like Obama has finally learned Rule #1 of negotiating: Don't negotiate against yourself.

About time.


I really don't think the GOP gets it: Obama is not going to sweat this. He doesn't need to, and he knows it. Instead, he's going to take his Christmas vacation, he's going to go play golf, and if a deal doesn't happen, oh well. He gets a lot of the cuts he wants anyway, and if there's any fallout it's going to fall on the GOP.

It's the same as the Clinton impeachment: they were soooo sure they had him, but then they got killed, his approval ratings stayed at record highs and 20 years later it's the judgment of history that they were being petty tools. And that's what will happen now as well.

Prediction: GOP comes up with a pathetically not-sufficient 'compromise' at the 11th hour, Obama says no. The fiscal cuts happen. The economy dips for little, but nothing serious. 3 years from now, the economy has added 8 to 9 million jobs. And 6 years from now, the GOP tries to claim credit for it, the same as they try to claim the Clinton budget for Gingrich now.
 
2012-12-03 11:08:53 AM  

whistleridge: Prediction: GOP comes up with a pathetically not-sufficient 'compromise' at the 11th hour


Here's one rumor. Link
 
2012-12-03 11:14:45 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: whistleridge: Prediction: GOP comes up with a pathetically not-sufficient 'compromise' at the 11th hour

Here's one rumor. Link


They've categorically rejected extending the middle class cuts without the top cuts too. There's no way they let that through.
 
2012-12-03 11:23:32 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Congress has the power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
 
2012-12-03 11:28:43 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-03 11:30:42 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 11:32:15 AM  

Tigger: You are a farking crazy person.


Which is exactly why you shouldn't be responding to him.
 
2012-12-03 11:35:14 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 11:35:44 AM  

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. He knows that we can't fix our severely damaged finances by continuing to have a defense budget that is ten times bigger than that of the next biggest military on Earth.


FTFY

The right acts like this is a video game, with cheat codes. Of course it's easy to win. You just auto-upgrade all your cities to the top of the tech tree, then give yourself a cash bonus afterwards. Upkeep costs don't exist, because you'll just punch in a new code every five or six turns and presto! new money!
 
2012-12-03 11:40:35 AM  

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.


I agree.

crashchords.com
 
2012-12-03 11:48:19 AM  
Maybe Boehner DID make an offer, but his statesmanlike words of compromise were muffled by Grover Norquist's testicles?
 
2012-12-03 11:51:48 AM  

BKITU: 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.

I agree.

/  [crashchords.com image 72x48]


Yes, that was the point.
 
2012-12-03 11:59:01 AM  

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.


Putting aside the fact you are detached from reality, if this is true, why is the GOP letting have his way?
 
2012-12-03 12:06:15 PM  

GAT_00: Dusk-You-n-Me: whistleridge: Prediction: GOP comes up with a pathetically not-sufficient 'compromise' at the 11th hour

Here's one rumor. Link

They've categorically rejected extending the middle class cuts without the top cuts too. There's no way they let that through.


Trying to follow the logic here. They plan on giving up one thing the White House has offered and getting nothing in return. Then turn around and use the debt ceiling as a hostage again when groups like the chamber of commerce are urging republicans to make a deal on the debt ceiling.

Sure go ahead and piss off the voters and your supporters. Good plan.
 
2012-12-03 12:06:18 PM  
Well it was all planned out compromise of all these automatic cuts go into effect and they cut deep into defense spending. there was never any plan to actually honor the agreement because dumbshiats figured they'd win the election and are now being all pissy about it. Please Republicans go right ahead and continue to be obstinate, uncompromising, and then spend all your time talking about rape and the evil gay conspiracies. Nail that coffin shut.

You know they'll have to flinch eventually.
 
2012-12-03 12:07:39 PM  

sammyk: Trying to follow the logic here.


Well there's your problem.
 
2012-12-03 12:16:05 PM  

sammyk:

Sure go ahead and piss off the voters and your supporters. Good plan.


it's all they've got right now. according to the GOP spreadsheets, Obama was supposed to be gone. Romney was the chosen one, HE was supposed to be in the white house. they never planned on Romney actually losing.
 
2012-12-03 12:16:54 PM  
It is kind of smart, assuming they can get the Dems can get the narrative in the paper. Either:

1.) The Republicans put out a bill that their base will like, but the entire rest of the country will hate and the Dems can use it to hang the Republicans with for the rest of this process

2.) The Republicans put out a bill that is closer to being a real bill, after which they'll all be called RINOs by their base and depress their own base's turnout for the next House election

There doesn't seem to be a 3rd alternative
 
2012-12-03 12:32:58 PM  
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.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 12:33:06 PM  
Obama's not being hard enough on them. He should demand an immediate lay-down on any pending White House appointments, passing a gay-marriage bill, and filibuster reform before the GOP is even allowed to sit at the table and plead their case on fiscal policy.
 
2012-12-03 12:33:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.


Close unspecified loopholes is a tax plan now?
 
2012-12-03 12:36:23 PM  
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?
 
2012-12-03 12:36:53 PM  
FTA: When he crafted a stimulus spending program to bolster the economy shortly after taking office, Mr. Obama devoted roughly a third of the money to tax cuts that he assumed Republicans would like. They did not. Likewise, his framework for universal health care included free-market elements that he thought Republicans would embrace. They did not.

My favorite part of TFA. The Times' eternal penchant for understatement still amuses me.
 
2012-12-03 12:37:30 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 12:38:43 PM  

mrshowrules: whistleridge: Republicans erupted in outrage, though they produced no specific alternative. Instead, they noted they had expressed newfound willingness since the election to increase tax revenue by limiting deductions for the wealthy, though not by raising rates.

Oh, well since they've expressed willingness, it's all good then. I mean, how can you possible expect them to go all the way to doing something, after using up all that goodwill and energy to express willingness? Why does Obama refuse to work with them, when they're trying so hard to help the ri- er, the country?

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


A newfound willingness? Was that a change from "when the n****r burns in hell" to "when he eats the peanuts outta my shiat"?
 
2012-12-03 12:38:51 PM  

Fart_Machine: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.

Close unspecified loopholes is a tax plan now?


It's sort of like how those crazy purge diets cleanse your body of unspecified toxins
 
2012-12-03 12:39:12 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.


So... No budget then?
 
2012-12-03 12:39:26 PM  
I hope this is the first of many instances of the GOP getting a good taste of the President's biatch-slapper now that his reelection days are behind him.
 
2012-12-03 12:40:19 PM  

bwilson27:
So... No budget then?


the GOP's fall back position is to dig in their heels and say no to everything. they don't have a plan for Obama getting re-elected.
 
2012-12-03 12:40:26 PM  
Chuck Norris? Check

No David Frum? Check
 
2012-12-03 12:41:24 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.


From his Op-Ed of this morning:

"So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that's a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things - raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it's not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position - and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn't work."

Sounds like the same complaint from the rest of the Democratic camp.
 
2012-12-03 12:41:26 PM  

Jackson Herring: Fart_Machine: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.

Close unspecified loopholes is a tax plan now?

It's sort of like how those crazy purge diets cleanse your body of unspecified toxins


it has echinacea

clears the bad humors
 
2012-12-03 12:41:34 PM  

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


The President can propose anything he wants as an idea. The Speaker of the House theoretically has control of the agenda so that's why the negotiating part is over there. The actual introduction of the bill in the House will be the final agreement---- its supposed to happen after the agreement is reached so as to streamline the process--everyone will know what is coming down the pipe. At least until the Senate gets a hold of it.
 
2012-12-03 12:41:57 PM  

bwilson27: 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.

So... No budget then?


Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!
 
2012-12-03 12:42:39 PM  
This shiat is so much like dealing with my psycho ex-husband, I'm practically having flashbacks. I spent 12 years in family court with that shiathead. His motto was, "Whatever it is that you want, no matter what it is, the answer is No." That was his entire game plan. Except for the part where he'd keep me in court until I gave him exactly what he wanted.

/I won in the end. My "country" will never recover from it, though.
 
2012-12-03 12:42:41 PM  
I hope they don't reach a compromise. The fiscal cliff needs to happen. Pushing it off into the future just means we're going to be facing a larger cliff.

Actually, fark it. We're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point, might as well ride out the borrow and consume scheme as long as we can.
 
2012-12-03 12:43:01 PM  
surplus?
Tax cuts for the rich
Deficit?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Iraq?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Afghanistan?
Tax cuts for the rich
High unemployment?
Tax cuts for the rich
Day that ends in Y
Tax cuts for the rich
 
2012-12-03 12:43:23 PM  

Weaver95: they don't have a plan for Obama getting re-elected.


Actually their "Let's Elect Romney" strategy worked very well for the President's re-election.
 
2012-12-03 12:43:25 PM  

Arkanaut: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.

From his Op-Ed of this morning:

"So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that's a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things - raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it's not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position - and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn't work."

Sounds like the same complaint from the rest of the Democratic camp.


didn't Romney try the same smoke and mirrors bullshiat? you'd figure the GOP would learn it's lesson....
 
2012-12-03 12:43:31 PM  
this is only one the first page and i already remeber why i don't venture into this tab.. god america is so stupid
 
2012-12-03 12:44:59 PM  
i was told eliminating earmarks would solve the budget crisis. i'm outraged
 
2012-12-03 12:45:27 PM  
B-b-b-but bipartisanship!!!

/anyone who believed THAT talking point should look into that sandbox in Florida
 
2012-12-03 12:45:55 PM  
Who wants to email Boehner's office asking they actually offer specifics as a citizen and voter?

Hell, maybe just email every GOP rep asking for specifics, as concerned constituents.

I'd hate to think the GOP reps are only getting "YEAH! Stand your farking ground!!" (whatever the fark that may be) emails from supporters.
 
2012-12-03 12:47:00 PM  

bwilson27: bwilson27: 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.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!


Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.
 
2012-12-03 12:47:25 PM  
Use the bully pulpit, Luke.
 
2012-12-03 12:48:09 PM  

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.


IF that is what Obama wants - then the GOP should do everything in their power to thwart him. Or is that too subtle a strategy for you to grasp?
 
Bf+
2012-12-03 12:48:11 PM  
Rope a dope.
 
2012-12-03 12:49:00 PM  

spif: bwilson27: bwilson27: 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.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!

Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, dude.
 
2012-12-03 12:50:46 PM  
Where's that farking weasel Paul Ryan, their supposed numbers guy?
 
2012-12-03 12:51:34 PM  

Rattlehead: Where's that farking weasel Paul Ryan, their supposed numbers guy?


He's not giving specifics, but he's got a great plan... Trust him.
 
2012-12-03 12:51:54 PM  

JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.


This this this and this. It's the oldest trick in the book -- make your opponent negotiate against himself.
 
2012-12-03 12:52:02 PM  

spif: bwilson27: bwilson27: 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.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!

Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.


Lot's of people watch Fox.
 
2012-12-03 12:52:50 PM  
Nice to know the GOPs oath to a petulant man chid named Grover takes precedence over the American people.
 
2012-12-03 12:52:54 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: surplus?
Tax cuts for the rich
Deficit?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Iraq?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Afghanistan?
Tax cuts for the rich
High unemployment?
Tax cuts for the rich
Day that ends in Y
Tax cuts for the rich



encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Whats that, Lassie? You say the rich need more tax cuts?
 
2012-12-03 12:53:09 PM  

Weaver95: didn't Romney try the same smoke and mirrors bullshiat? you'd figure the GOP would learn it's lesson....


But they're RIGHT. They know they're right, in their heart of hearts. If they can just cut taxes one more time, if they can just get those poors to get their skin in the game, if they can just end entitlements once and for all, everyone (not dead of starvation or disease) will see how well the Republicans can govern once they've destroyed the government.
 
2012-12-03 12:53:51 PM  

bwilson27: Rattlehead: Where's that farking weasel Paul Ryan, their supposed numbers guy?

He's not giving specifics, but he's got a great plan... Trust him.


He was going to sit down in a bipartisan fashion and figure out how to magically make all the numbers work - remember?

But now, since the usurpur was re-elected, Ryan has gone into hiding, and will keep his budget magic to himself. The country totally f'ed itself on that one
 
2012-12-03 12:53:53 PM  
Republicans have said they're open to eliminating certain tax credits but won't name which because then they can rail against any Obama suggests as either too small to matter and/or unfairly burdening the rich. They will continue to do so until Obama brings up the big ticket items like the EITC or the home mortgage deduction, where they will say "you're twisting our arm, but we can agree to that." Then they can run on how Democrats jacked up taxes on the poor and middle class and how they will restore these popular credits if reelected.

Everyone's experienced it before: someone comes to you with a problem and vetoes every solution that you suggest that doesn't result in you taking a hit, that way you volunteered instead of being forced into it.
 
2012-12-03 12:55:14 PM  
Heh... I love how the GOP insists on pushing the same agenda that lost them the Presidential election, as if these unspecified "loopholes" and tax increases/spending cuts that will primarily effect the middle classes and the poor will suddenly be acceptable to the American people if it's Boehner talking about them instead of Romney.

These farking plutocrats have no shame what-so-ever.
 
2012-12-03 12:55:17 PM  
oi50.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-03 12:56:03 PM  

Weaver95: Arkanaut: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.

From his Op-Ed of this morning:

"So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that's a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things - raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it's not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position - and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn't work."

Sounds like the same complaint from the rest of the Democratic camp.

didn't Romney try the same smoke and mirrors bullshiat? you'd figure the GOP would learn it's lesson....


Ahh hahahaha, oh you!
 
2012-12-03 12:56:32 PM  
The mystery loophole closures will soon be revealed, once they do some research into which of their donors it won't impact.
 
2012-12-03 12:57:16 PM  
"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Senator Jim DeMint, R, 2009

"If we're able to stop Obama on [spending cuts and tax increases], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Senator Jim DeMint, R, 2012

/Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
 
2012-12-03 12:57:54 PM  
Here's a hint, no deal will be made. Some stuff will happen, but not until after we've fallen off the 'fiscal cliff.' That has been the plan all along. At the end of the day the fiscal cliff will feel like when you accidentally scuff the bottom of your shoe on the floor as you're walking and half-trip. IOW, you won't notice it.
 
2012-12-03 12:59:09 PM  

Grungehamster: Republicans have said they're open to eliminating certain tax credits but won't name which because then they can rail against any Obama suggests as either too small to matter and/or unfairly burdening the rich. They will continue to do so until Obama brings up the big ticket items like the EITC or the home mortgage deduction, where they will say "you're twisting our arm, but we can agree to that." Then they can run on how Democrats jacked up taxes on the poor and middle class and how they will restore these popular credits if reelected.

Everyone's experienced it before: someone comes to you with a problem and vetoes every solution that you suggest that doesn't result in you taking a hit, that way you volunteered instead of being forced into it.


www.hostingbytes.us
 
2012-12-03 12:59:21 PM  

Arkanaut: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.

From his Op-Ed of this morning:

"So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that's a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things - raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it's not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position - and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn't work."

Sounds like the same complaint from the rest of the Democratic camp.


Nobody wants to introduce Entitlement Reform. Try getting elected after you just cut programs that benefit most of your voting public. So neither the Democrats or Republicans will introduce those cuts. The Problem is, the Republicans have been running on Entitlement reform so they need to introduce those reforms they want. The President ran on Higher taxes and he already introduced those taxes to the budget talk
 
2012-12-03 12:59:35 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.


if we do, everyone will blame the republicans anyways. Ok, i was catching up on rush limbaugh monologues over the weekend and that is what he was saying. i really was kind of just shooting first and aiming second with that one today. its a monday.
 
2012-12-03 01:03:31 PM  
Whatever. Just, whatever. Forget everything that every economist has said about both raising taxes and cutting programs. That's too logical.

Republicans probably swallow the pill that President Obama won. Twice. And negotiations with him isn't going to put them out of a job. Leadership isn't always proving your side is right--it's often about admitting your side was wrong.
 
2012-12-03 01:03:54 PM  

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.


I have a non-crazy version of this to contribute to the thread:

Obama doesn't mind hitting the fiscal cliff. As the boss of the executive, he's been planning for every contingency, and his departments will be ready to deal with it if it actually hits. He's been working with people in the government to make sure no one is caught off-guard and things go, if not as well as he'd like, then at least relatively smoothly. He's been making sure the economy won't crash over this, at least.

So he doesn't have to worry. While the GOP have put literally every last one of their political eggs in the basket where he caves, he's made sure that he'll be (legitimately) viewed as doing exceptionally well with a bad situation created entirely by the GOP.
 
2012-12-03 01:04:43 PM  
If you talk about the marginal utility of additional after tax income for high income households and they look at you as if you just had their college economics professor's head grafted to your shoulder. And promptly fall asleep.

I haven't paid too close attention to the tax rates and brackets, but have they been adjusted for inflation in the past 15-20 years? It's more a problem for six figure jobs, since most of you guys have been stuck with sub-inflation wage growth, but that guy making $300k this year might have a job that would have only paid $200k before inflation adjusted him above that $250k tax bracket.

/I know you don't get wishes by rubbing on a Gini Index.
 
2012-12-03 01:05:14 PM  
This is the SAME plan Obama ran on and got elected on. Serious it's annoying how much the press pretends this is both sides fault so they don't looked bias.

The constitution says it's HOUSE's job to make the budget. They have no plan but Obama does and their are crying that he has not done what they want yet.

The press should be ripping the Republicans for this bullshiat.
 
2012-12-03 01:05:19 PM  

the_geek: Here's a hint, no deal will be made. Some stuff will happen, but not until after we've fallen off the 'fiscal cliff.' That has been the plan all along. At the end of the day the fiscal cliff will feel like when you accidentally scuff the bottom of your shoe on the floor as you're walking and half-trip. IOW, you won't notice it.


Oh, I believe we will feel it. And quite well. I imagine they will dip their toe in it, just too see how bad it is
 
2012-12-03 01:05:21 PM  

meat0918: Who wants to email Boehner's office asking they actually offer specifics as a citizen and voter?

Hell, maybe just email every GOP rep asking for specifics, as concerned constituents.

I'd hate to think the GOP reps are only getting "YEAH! Stand your farking ground!!" (whatever the fark that may be) emails from supporters.


But.... what if they respond? My GOP rep is Mitch McConnell. The horror!!!!
 
2012-12-03 01:06:08 PM  

the_geek: Here's a hint, no deal will be made. Some stuff will happen, but not until after we've fallen off the 'fiscal cliff.' That has been the plan all along. At the end of the day the fiscal cliff will feel like when you accidentally scuff the bottom of your shoe on the floor as you're walking and half-trip. IOW, you won't notice it.


Yes, but in this case, finally, the melodramatic media and 'omfg cliff' narrative is working to the President's advantage and not the GOP.

They're already being pressured by their donors to make a deal asap, and with the media hyping things up into a frenzy, that adds pressure from the remnants of the Middle and business.

In the end, the cliff will happen and most won't notice...until 2013.
 
2012-12-03 01:06:15 PM  

JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.


I'm beginning to think they feel wronged by 'murika and have decided to go all Timotey McVeigh on it.
 
2012-12-03 01:06:17 PM  

Il Douchey: Raharu: The party of no ideas except text cuts for rich of course and corporations and anybody who outsources labor to another country

Here we have somebody who is so far removed from actually contributing anything, from actually carrying some of the burden, that the very concepts of "taxes" and "tax cuts" are just a vague abstract notions to ridicule the rich with. People who actually pay taxes don't confuse them with textses


You certainly live up to your name don't you.
 
2012-12-03 01:06:50 PM  
Taxes are like admission to Six Flags. A ticket costs the same for everyone. However, if you would like to skip all of the lines and dictate how things are run, you will have to rent out the park; and that costs a lot more money.
 
2012-12-03 01:06:55 PM  

keylock71: Heh... I love how the GOP insists on pushing the same agenda that lost them the Presidential election, as if these unspecified "loopholes" and tax increases/spending cuts that will primarily effect the middle classes and the poor will suddenly be acceptable to the American people if it's Boehner talking about them instead of Romney.

These farking plutocrats have no shame what-so-ever.


They need another rally. A "Cut Entitlements to Protect Tax Cuts for the Rich" rally. I'd just like to see who would show up.
 
2012-12-03 01:07:20 PM  
Allright, so who is playing the role of Newt in this drama? I've seen a production of this before...
 
2012-12-03 01:07:43 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: surplus?
Tax cuts for the rich
Deficit?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Iraq?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Afghanistan?
Tax cuts for the rich
High unemployment?
Tax cuts for the rich
Day that ends in Y
Tax cuts for the rich


"Who pledged his loyalty?
The Warmaster.
Whom did we serve in faith?
The Warmaster.
From whom did we take our name?
The Warmaster.
Who was denied to us?
The Warmaster.
But whom shall we remake?
The Warmaster.
And who shall lead us to victory?
The Warmaster."
-Black Legion Catechism
 
2012-12-03 01:08:04 PM  

TimonC346: And negotiations with him isn't going to put them out of a job.


No, that's the problem. It likely would.

Unless the GOP does something about the teabaggers and the MOAR CONSERAVTIVE WINS ELECTING mindset, anyone who negotiates with Obama opens themselves up to being sniped in their primary. And reelections are a prime motivation for politicians, so...yeah. I have little hope of compromise.
 
2012-12-03 01:08:12 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-03 01:09:26 PM  

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.


Depends on what you mean by "going over". The economy won't crash on Jan 1st, even if the Republicans and the Democrats can't come to an agreement. If you just mean that Obama wants to reach that point, it wouldn't be entirely crazy (as others are calling you) but it could hurt the markets in the short run. But yes, from the legislative point of view, the Democrats' position become much stronger come Jan 1st because they would be proposing tax cuts compared with standing policy, which would be much more palatable.
 
2012-12-03 01:09:58 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.


How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?
 
2012-12-03 01:10:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?


psh! you and your FACTS!
 
2012-12-03 01:11:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?


He does not read
 
2012-12-03 01:11:30 PM  
FTFAAmid demands from Republicans that President Obama propose detailed new spending cuts to avert the year-end fiscal crisis, his answer boils down to this: you first.

Using the "you first" approach to leadership, that is so strong dude!  But then if he truly had a mandate...
 
2012-12-03 01:12:41 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.


Subject-verb agreement, dumbass. Learn it.
 
2012-12-03 01:12:53 PM  

JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.


It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.
 
2012-12-03 01:13:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?


It's not a proposal that specifically does not say what 10lbs wants it to.
 
2012-12-03 01:13:24 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.


Hey the "0" stands for how many times "President" Obama has lost to republicans, or was it the number of times he's started a war, or maybe the number of Terrorist attacks on US soil since his administration begin?

I Always forget so you'll have to help me out!
 
2012-12-03 01:13:29 PM  

Brubold: JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.

It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.


If you ignore those very words being in the headline and the ones in the proposal, I guess.
 
2012-12-03 01:14:16 PM  
7qex3bp

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.


Don't forget the Black Helecopters, the UN shock troops on their ICLEI-approved bicycles taking away all our guns, replacing the Dollar with the Amero, and the FEMA Death Camps. It's all there man.
 
2012-12-03 01:14:20 PM  

cryinoutloud: This shiat is so much like dealing with my psycho ex-husband, I'm practically having flashbacks. I spent 12 years in family court with that shiathead. His motto was, "Whatever it is that you want, no matter what it is, the answer is No." That was his entire game plan. Except for the part where he'd keep me in court until I gave him exactly what he wanted.

/I won in the end. My "country" will never recover from it, though.


I can relate though I wasn't married to my slump-buster gone awry, thank the heavens. I may as well be an abusive deadbeat dad drug addict that never has a stable job and is near homeless as that's pretty much how I get treated. It's all personal bs attacks I ever get while she continues to use the kid as a weapon/bargaining chip.

You can't battle that kind of crazy with logic, but you can sure as hell piss em off when you take money away from them. Child support reevaluation shall soon be near....

Anyhow, when one can draw too many parallels between those types of scenarios and the current situation in Congress, it's pretty damn sad no matter how you look at it. It's like the debt is the child of both sides, and the Republicans are the angry and batshiat "babymama/daddy" that tends to win with their shenanigans because the system is farked.

/And send my regards to your ex for continuing to give the courts reasons to hate dads.
//My country will be just fine and dandy in 14 years when the sanctions no longer apply and all involved are no longer legally required to entertain the grotesquely porcine homonculette.
 
2012-12-03 01:14:26 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.


And you wonder why you have such a poor social standing.
 
2012-12-03 01:14:38 PM  

sprawl15: TimonC346: And negotiations with him isn't going to put them out of a job.

No, that's the problem. It likely would.

Unless the GOP does something about the teabaggers and the MOAR CONSERAVTIVE WINS ELECTING mindset, anyone who negotiates with Obama opens themselves up to being sniped in their primary. And reelections are a prime motivation for politicians, so...yeah. I have little hope of compromise.


So you can negotiate, give Obama some of what he wants, lose your primary, and open the door for a Democratic representative in that district. Or, you can not negotiate and hand Obama everything he wants on a silver platter, lose your primary for caving to Obama, and open the door for a Democratic representative in that district.

The long game, indeed.
 
2012-12-03 01:15:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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.


Oh so then the Republicans are lying then when they have been attacking his plan? Because according to you he has no plan. So then you are calling all these Republicans liars?
 
2012-12-03 01:15:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?


It's a very "blah" Proposal.
 
2012-12-03 01:15:55 PM  
haha libs we were only playing up the bipartisanship bullshiat so that you had to do what Romney said when he won. we weren't planning on the black guy winning again so it's business as usual now suck it libs
 
2012-12-03 01:16:17 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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.


Obama ran on increasing taxes, that is what he submitted

tenpoundsofcheese: 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.


He never said he was cutting taxes. I think you need more coffee. Come back when you wake up
 
2012-12-03 01:16:25 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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


Well, tax cuts don't create jobs. That isn't their purpose and anyone who says otherwise is either full of sh*t or just ignorant enough to believe it. Glad you finally admit that.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:46 PM  

Tiberius Gracchus: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: so as is typical, 0bama does not have a specific proposal only campaign slogans.

How on earth is that NOT a specific proposal?

It's not a proposal that specifically does not say what 10lbs wants it to.


Oh yes, my bad. Please proceed, 10lbs.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:53 PM  

kmmontandon: RexTalionis: Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.

Yeah, but how many of those were from people making $50,000/yr. or more? You know, Real People.


The GOP doesn't think people who make 50k are real. $1,000,000+ is their threshold. The only people poorer than that whom the GOP care about are fetuses.
 
2012-12-03 01:16:59 PM  

JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.


yeah it's like

Obama: here's what I want,what do you want?

GOP: You tell us what you will give us

Obama: no this is the part of a negotiation where you make a counter offer

GOP: You make it for us

Obama: fark it let's go over the cliff.
 
2012-12-03 01:17:26 PM  

sprawl15: TimonC346: And negotiations with him isn't going to put them out of a job.

No, that's the problem. It likely would.

Unless the GOP does something about the teabaggers and the MOAR CONSERAVTIVE WINS ELECTING mindset, anyone who negotiates with Obama opens themselves up to being sniped in their primary. And reelections are a prime motivation for politicians, so...yeah. I have little hope of compromise.


I guess there never was any nobility in politics--the fact that these guys doing their jobs in the most efficient and rational possible way could put them out of a job speaks pretty strongly about the Republican party.
 
2012-12-03 01:17:40 PM  

Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.


Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.

So far, they're pushing the same failed bullshiat that Romney was pushing and was rejected by the American people.

What loopholes are the GOP planning to close? Which deductions?

The GOP are in no position to make demands. Tax rates for upper incomes are going up one way or the other. They can either get some of what they want or go back to the their constituents and explain to them why they let tax rates go up on all Americans in order to protect the tax rates of the wealthiest Americans.

Should be easy... It's not like the public blames t he GOP for the fiscal stand off by a margin of 2-1 or anything like that.
 
2012-12-03 01:17:44 PM  

digistil: 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.

And you wonder why you have such a poor social standing.


You are of course assuming that 10 pounds of its not cheese is even remotely self-aware socially, And not a shill or simply delusional.
 
2012-12-03 01:17:51 PM  

too-old: tenpoundsofcheese: 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.

He never said he was cutting taxes. I think you need more coffee. Come back when you wake up


Best part of this is his post is so typical of the teahadists: if Obama cuts taxes, he's evil. If Obama doesn't cut taxes, he's evil.
 
2012-12-03 01:18:47 PM  

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.


And the problem with that is?
 
2012-12-03 01:19:15 PM  

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.


It will never get that far. We'll go over the cliff, some of the Republicans will panic or see an opportunity, and we'll get a deal hashed out before the end of February. Then they can go back and reinstate the funds and tax cuts.

It has nothing to do with the reach and power of the federal government, though. That's just a Rushism.
 
2012-12-03 01:20:25 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.


THE US CONSTITUTION:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


Why do you and Republicans hate the constitution and want Obama to ignore it?
 
2012-12-03 01:20:40 PM  

Tyee: FTFAAmid demands from Republicans that President Obama propose detailed new spending cuts to avert the year-end fiscal crisis, his answer boils down to this: you first.

Using the "you first" approach to leadership, that is so strong dude!  But then if he truly had a mandate...


Still trying, huh? Bless your heart.
 
2012-12-03 01:21:48 PM  

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.


Sounds to me like the GOP should quit behaving like chickensh*t children and start compromising, then. The ball's in their court.
 
2012-12-03 01:22:20 PM  
Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!
 
2012-12-03 01:22:41 PM  
Look like the right wing trolls are coming back from licking their wounds from the "Romney landslide" they told us was going to happen.
 
2012-12-03 01:22:58 PM  

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 need to go tell the nurse you palmed your meds Instead of taking them before she read your post and revokes your Internet privileges again.
 
2012-12-03 01:23:17 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!


Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?
 
2012-12-03 01:24:10 PM  

Corvus: Why do you and Republicans hate the constitution and want Obama to ignore it?


Anyone can come up with a budget, it just has to be introduce in the House. Obama has put out tons of budgets, the Republicans just mention he hasn't because they haven't seen one they like
 
2012-12-03 01:24:20 PM  

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.


"Obama is going to declare himself dictator!"

"Any day now ..."

"Just you wait ..."

"You'll be sorry ..."

"He's gonna take your guns ..."

"Soon moose-lambs will run 'Merika ..."

"Shirea Law for all of us! ..."

"Boy, are you gonna look stupid!"

... and so forth.
 
2012-12-03 01:24:25 PM  
i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 01:24:32 PM  
I know this is the GOP we're talking about here, but at this point I just can't see how they think digging their heela in and throwing obstructionist tantrums will make them look any better to the voting populace.
 
2012-12-03 01:24:43 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no? how can we make it worse?

Liberals: you're kidding right?


fixed that for you.
 
2012-12-03 01:25:01 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!


shiat and run shill like typing detected.
 
2012-12-03 01:25:40 PM  
We should just go over the cliff... it's better than setting a precedent of negotiating with legislative terrorists.
 
2012-12-03 01:26:12 PM  

Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?


I have the GOP plan right here.

blogs.kansas.com

Counter that Libtard!
 
2012-12-03 01:26:16 PM  

Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?


Better: The GOP won the House. ORIGINATE A BILL TO RAISE REVENUE, like the Constitution says you should, you pasty, ignorant little derpfactories. Have the Chair of the House Admin Committee write it all fancy-like, just to keep her busy.

// it's right there, just before the part that says you can pray to whichever flavor of Jesus goes down smoothest
// is this why they're not gonna waste a lot of time reading that silly piece of paper again?
 
2012-12-03 01:26:21 PM  

Jim_Callahan: 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.

I have a non-crazy version of this to contribute to the thread:

Obama doesn't mind hitting the fiscal cliff. As the boss of the executive, he's been planning for every contingency, and his departments will be ready to deal with it if it actually hits. He's been working with people in the government to make sure no one is caught off-guard and things go, if not as well as he'd like, then at least relatively smoothly. He's been making sure the economy won't crash over this, at least.

So he doesn't have to worry. While the GOP have put literally every last one of their political eggs in the basket where he caves, he's made sure that he'll be (legitimately) viewed as doing exceptionally well with a bad situation created entirely by the GOP.


the right kinda sees it as a tear it down to build it back up strategy. The fiscal cliff is one way to kind of tear down the old, prejudiced, antiquated institutions in this country and then rebuild the country with new, enlightened, fairer institutions.

For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.
 
2012-12-03 01:26:57 PM  
I'm hoping that Nancy Pelosi can pull off the manuever that puts the middle class tax cut extension up for a vote. Let the farking Republicans vote no, or lose their hostages. Either way, things will look so much better after 2014 when the GOP clown show achieves permanent minority status.
 
2012-12-03 01:27:40 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah! It is your congressional obligation to propose a revenue plan.

GOP: Cut entitlements!

Liberals: What entitlements?

GOP: Banghazi!

Liberals: Huh?

GOP: Why haven't you offered us a plan?

Obama: I did...

GOP: BENGHAZI!!!!!


FTFY
 
2012-12-03 01:27:55 PM  

firefly212: We should just go over the cliff... it's better than setting a precedent of negotiating with legislative terrorists.


yeah first thing they'll do is come running back for that 98% offer with the 4 trillion in spending cuts
 
2012-12-03 01:28:01 PM  

Brubold: JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.

It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! It is like you did not even pay attention the last four years. Every time President Obama met the Republitards half way they took what they liked out of his proposal, attacked what they did not, and demanded more then ever had a right to get. Obama then caved on almost everything to get the few things that were non-negotiable to him.

No, President Obama should not meet the Republitards half way, hell even this proposal is way too moderate. He should be demanding 1.6 trillion in new tax revenu a year instead of over 10 years. He should demand that we close the deficit through tax increase right here and right now. No entitlement reform, no program cuts, 1.6 trillion in new tax revenue next year.
 
2012-12-03 01:28:05 PM  

nmemkha: 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.

"Obama is going to declare himself dictator!"

"Any day now ..."

"Just you wait ..."

"You'll be sorry ..."

"He's gonna take your guns ..."

"Soon moose-lambs will run 'Merika ..."

"Shirea Law for all of us! ..."

"Boy, are you gonna look stupid!"

... and so forth.


Remember way back in the 2004 election when Bush was supposed to claim Martial Law so he didn't have to worry about the election? Funny how every President wants to be a dictator
 
2012-12-03 01:28:17 PM  

SlothB77: For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.


www.blogforarizona.com
 
2012-12-03 01:28:28 PM  

too-old: Corvus: Why do you and Republicans hate the constitution and want Obama to ignore it?

Anyone can come up with a budget, it just has to be introduce in the House. Obama has put out tons of budgets, the Republicans just mention he hasn't because they haven't seen one they like


Which branch of government is it according to the Constitution to come up with the budget?


I am not saying anyone can't do it. But who's RESPONSIBILITY is it?

Answer me that.
 
2012-12-03 01:28:46 PM  

kmmontandon: RexTalionis: Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.

Yeah, but how many of those were from people making $250,000/yr. or more? You know, Real People.


FTFY
 
2012-12-03 01:28:57 PM  

Brubold: JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.

It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.


I'm guessing you haven't looked very hard if that's all you've seen so far.

FTFA: Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement programs beyond what was on the table last year.

The entitlement reforms and spending cuts from last year's negotiation are on the table. That's a far cry different from NO reforms / cuts.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:12 PM  

Raharu: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

shiat and run shill like typing detected.


JSA's problem is still in the campaign... "how about no?" isn't a piece of legislation, a solution, or a proposal for a method leading to a solution... it isn't even an idea... they ran with it as a campaign, and got their collective asses handed to them, but they've been so married to just being intransigent contrarians that they don't know how to be anything else any more. Between their reckless spending, tax cuts are the solution to every problem mentality, and total lack of negotiations in the first four years (ya, the dems still remember your counter offer to Obamacare... Dems conceded, negotiated away public option, and gave up tons... and got jack shiat for it), I think the GOP has simply forgotten how to negotiate, how to govern, and how to lead.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?

I have the GOP plan right here.

[blogs.kansas.com image 431x438]

Counter that Libtard!


Cool lets raise tax rates to where they were under Reagan.
 
2012-12-03 01:29:55 PM  
For Christmas, I wish someone would go over to Drudge and grab a screenshot of the 54 Trees headline and change it to Uppity.
 
2012-12-03 01:30:22 PM  
Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit. Apparently Obama's supporters want to give Obama a 'blank-check' to do whatever he pleases without being questioned. Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts.

Completely unacceptable.

Yet...these points are ignored by dems/libs.

/It's Bush's fault
 
2012-12-03 01:30:53 PM  

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.

/I'm really tired of, yet amazed by this Grover dude
//Sounds like he has the power to create a Groverstown somewhere and host a mass suicide
///Or a Waco after Texas secedes
 
2012-12-03 01:31:01 PM  

too-old: Remember way back in the 2004 election when Bush was supposed to claim Martial Law so he didn't have to worry about the election? Funny how every President wants to be a dictator


The difference is Bush actually passed a bill that would have allowed him to do that. So I would say it's a bit different.
 
2012-12-03 01:31:11 PM  

Raharu: The party of no ideas except text cuts for rich of course and corporations and anybody who outsources labor to another country


There. For the rich.

;)

Raharu: You certainly live up to your name don't you.


GRAMMAR NAZIS, UNITE!!!
 
2012-12-03 01:31:18 PM  

ferretman: Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit. Apparently Obama's supporters want to give Obama a 'blank-check' to do whatever he pleases without being questioned. Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts.

Completely unacceptable.

Yet...these points are ignored by dems/libs.

/It's Bush's fault


2.1/10
 
2012-12-03 01:31:31 PM  

ferretman: Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit. Apparently Obama's supporters want to give Obama a 'blank-check' to do whatever he pleases without being questioned. Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts.

Completely unacceptable.

Yet...these points are ignored by dems/libs.

/It's Bush's fault


dafuq did i just read?
 
2012-12-03 01:31:42 PM  
That article does a nice job of showing where we're at politically and how we got there.

Both sides are bad. So ..... ???
 
2012-12-03 01:31:51 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?

I have the GOP plan right here.

[blogs.kansas.com image 431x438]

Counter that Libtard!


You mean the plan that was Proposed by President Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker proposed, enacted, and implemented the hard parts. Which caused Carters defeat and almost got the Federal Reserved placed under direct Congressional control? That plan? The one that allowed Ronald Reagan to take credit for an improving economy, when the reality is he had very little to do with it? That one?

Seriously you need to study out history more.
 
2012-12-03 01:31:55 PM  
here's the new tenpoundsofcheese kit, a la skinnyhead

i.imgur.com

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.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 01:32:01 PM  
Thanks alot, "president" Hussein Edward Butt
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-12-03 01:32:22 PM  

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.


HAAAAAAahahaahhahaha. I shall now farky thee as a comedien. Doesn't even matter if you really believe this or not, if you're trolling or not, that's FUNNY.
 
2012-12-03 01:32:38 PM  

Hobodeluxe: firefly212: We should just go over the cliff... it's better than setting a precedent of negotiating with legislative terrorists.

yeah first thing they'll do is come running back for that 98% offer with the 4 trillion in spending cuts


And we should let them... frankly, it's what the markets expect. They lost the election, so they don't get to call the shots... they can do nothing but be petulant babies (tax increase for everyone), they can accede to the president's demands (tax increase for 2%), or they could come to the table like grown ups (tax increase for 2%, but substantial entitlement reforms). Right now it seems like the first two are the only options because the GOP simply doesn't know how to negotiate... they view it as ideologically unpure.
 
2012-12-03 01:33:06 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.


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
 
2012-12-03 01:33:09 PM  

SlothB77:

For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.


for those of you who might not otherwise be aware, this is straight outta freerepublic.com and Rush Limbaugh. the latest GOP conspiracy theory is that Obama (and the Democrats) are going to steal 401k plans/funds and nationalize the banking system. it's pure scare tactic bullshiat of course, but it's one of the leading dittohead talking points for the week.
 
2012-12-03 01:33:24 PM  

ferretman: Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit. Apparently Obama's supporters want to give Obama a 'blank-check' to do whatever he pleases without being questioned. Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts.

Completely unacceptable.

Yet...these points are ignored by dems/libs.

/It's Bush's fault


No. They are not saying that. They are saying the Republicans have not even purposed anything yet. All they have done is saying Obama has to come up with a budget they want or they refuse to even talk.

The Republicans haven't done one thing except saying "That's not good enough" and demanded Obama to do everything.

The press keeps asking them what their position is on these different cuts and the refuse to answer where their cuts or going to come from or where their revenue will come from or even what the numbers are.
 
2012-12-03 01:33:31 PM  

Cletus C.: That article does a nice job of showing where we're at politically and how we got there.

Both sides are bad. So ..... ???


false equivalency strawman
 
2012-12-03 01:33:34 PM  
I'm trying to figure out a way where this doesn't result in decades-safe Republican Congressional seats turning blue in 2014. I'm no wizard though.
 
2012-12-03 01:33:46 PM  
I'm not so sure the Democrats will be able to pass a new set of Obama tax cuts for only the poor/middle class if we go over the cliff. What's to stop the Republicans from simply reintroducing the exact same Bush Tax Cuts for everyone including the top 2%, slapping a new name on it, and holding their breath and doing nothing until the dems agree to pass it?
 
2012-12-03 01:34:07 PM  

ferretman: . Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts

.

So...you want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid, rather than raising taxes on rich people?

Or are you saying something else?
 
2012-12-03 01:34:07 PM  

Corvus: I am not saying anyone can't do it. But who's RESPONSIBILITY is it?


The House, and nobody is arguing that.

Everyone does have a voice in it though.
The last Debt negotiations the Senate proposed quite a few budgets. Then the House took it and did whatever they wanted to it
 
2012-12-03 01:34:35 PM  

Weaver95: SlothB77:

For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.

for those of you who might not otherwise be aware, this is straight outta freerepublic.com and Rush Limbaugh. the latest GOP conspiracy theory is that Obama (and the Democrats) are going to steal 401k plans/funds and nationalize the banking system. it's pure scare tactic bullshiat of course, but it's one of the leading dittohead talking points for the week.


That's really nothing new. My idiot teabagger co-worker has been throwing that out at the annual 401K meeting since 2009. He wants to be able to invest his 401K money in gold.
 
2012-12-03 01:35:46 PM  
I'm not so sure going over the fiscal cliff will be that bad. It'll definitely hurt is in the short term, but the CBO seems to think we'll be even better off in 2022 than if we solve this crisis.

I don't know why. Ask them. They're the economists. They used graphs and stuff!!

/and now I'm sure I'm gonna have to dredge up that document so I can cite it
 
2012-12-03 01:35:56 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Cletus C.: That article does a nice job of showing where we're at politically and how we got there.

Both sides are bad. So ..... ???

false equivalency strawman


obfuscation
 
2012-12-03 01:36:15 PM  

Corvus: This is the SAME plan Obama ran on and got elected on. Serious it's annoying how much the press pretends this is both sides fault so they don't looked bias.

The constitution says it's HOUSE's job to make the budget. They have no plan but Obama does and their are crying that he has not done what they want yet.

The press should be ripping the Republicans for this bullshiat.


Are you stating that now the phantom horse race is over, the corporate-owned media should dare question their betters?

I think you give them too much credit.
 
2012-12-03 01:36:17 PM  

ferretman: Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit. Apparently Obama's supporters want to give Obama a 'blank-check' to do whatever he pleases without being questioned. Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts.

Completely unacceptable.

Yet...these points are ignored by dems/libs.

/It's Bush's fault


I don't think he should have a blank check, but right now he's the only guy at the negotiating table. The GOP is in booster seats at the kids table screaming no and crying about the lack of apple juice. If they want to come to the table with a serious offer about how to reform entitlements, since the president's proposal deals mostly with the revenue side of things, I would very much welcome that. So far though, just screaming and sippy-cups full of apple juice, not a proposal on entitlement reform.
 
2012-12-03 01:36:23 PM  

CorporatePerson: I'm not so sure the Democrats will be able to pass a new set of Obama tax cuts for only the poor/middle class if we go over the cliff. What's to stop the Republicans from simply reintroducing the exact same Bush Tax Cuts for everyone including the top 2%, slapping a new name on it, and holding their breath and doing nothing until the dems agree to pass it?


Because they have less to lose than the Republicans. More Democrats don't give a shiat about all tax rates going up and they want the defense cuts.

Many Democrats I know want none of the cuts over the additional tax cuts.
 
2012-12-03 01:36:40 PM  

ferretman: Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit.


What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
 
2012-12-03 01:36:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?

Better: The GOP wonretained the House. ORIGINATE A BILL TO RAISE REVENUE, like the Constitution says you should, you pasty, ignorant little derpfactories. Have the Chair of the House Admin Committee write it all fancy-like, just to keep her busy.

// it's right there, just before the part that says you can pray to whichever flavor of Jesus goes down smoothest
// is this why they're not gonna waste a lot of time reading that silly piece of paper again?

 
2012-12-03 01:37:01 PM  

verbaltoxin: I'm trying to figure out a way where this doesn't result in decades-safe Republican Congressional seats turning blue in 2014. I'm no wizard though.


Obama caves on Dec. 31st. That's the only way.
 
2012-12-03 01:37:06 PM  

SlothB77: For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.


It isn't quite identical to doubling down on Social Security. My folks both died before they were 66. Neither of them saw very much of their Social Security contributions (mom was on disability for about 9 months). Under the 401k system, presumably I would have inherited a reasonable chunk of change (their untouched Social Security). On the other side, it is an insurance thing, and their unused contributions helped to make the system more secure overall.
 
2012-12-03 01:38:24 PM  

too-old: Corvus: I am not saying anyone can't do it. But who's RESPONSIBILITY is it?

The House, and nobody is arguing that.

Everyone does have a voice in it though.
The last Debt negotiations the Senate proposed quite a few budgets. Then the House took it and did whatever they wanted to it


And I am not arguing what you are pretending I am arguing. I never said no one can't come up with the budget. But my point is that it's the houses RESPONSIBILITY to do it and them attacking Obama for not doing their job is BS.

Then why is the GOP saying it's Obama responsibility to come up with the budget?
 
2012-12-03 01:39:17 PM  
So, the french cheese log has returned!

And in fine form.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:31 PM  

tbhouston: this is only one the first page and i already remeber why i don't venture into this tab.. god america is so stupid


*on
*remember
 
2012-12-03 01:39:42 PM  

Corvus: CorporatePerson: I'm not so sure the Democrats will be able to pass a new set of Obama tax cuts for only the poor/middle class if we go over the cliff. What's to stop the Republicans from simply reintroducing the exact same Bush Tax Cuts for everyone including the top 2%, slapping a new name on it, and holding their breath and doing nothing until the dems agree to pass it?

Because they have less to lose than the Republicans. More Democrats don't give a shiat about all tax rates going up and they want the defense cuts.

Many Democrats I know want none of the cuts over the additional tax cuts.


Hell, I'll go further. I WANT all of the tax cuts rescinded, including the ones that affects me. Increasing revenue benefits me in the long run more than the money benefits me in the short run.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:43 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Weaver95: SlothB77:

For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.

for those of you who might not otherwise be aware, this is straight outta freerepublic.com and Rush Limbaugh. the latest GOP conspiracy theory is that Obama (and the Democrats) are going to steal 401k plans/funds and nationalize the banking system. it's pure scare tactic bullshiat of course, but it's one of the leading dittohead talking points for the week.

That's really nothing new. My idiot teabagger co-worker has been throwing that out at the annual 401K meeting since 2009. He wants to be able to invest his 401K money in gold.


lol, let him... let's see how well he does with a market rife with scams. Personally, I think the FTC should get out of regulating that market and let it be caveat emptor of idiot doomsday conservatives. Let them experience the unregulated "free" markets they opine for without understanding information asymmetry.
 
2012-12-03 01:39:49 PM  

too-old: Corvus: I am not saying anyone can't do it. But who's RESPONSIBILITY is it?

The House, and nobody is arguing that.


Really? No one is arguing that?

You are saying NO REPUBLICAN has been saying it's Obama's job to come up with this budget? You are saying NO Republican is saying that now?
 
2012-12-03 01:40:27 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!


Ah yes, cognitive dissonance boy arrives on cue.
 
2012-12-03 01:40:30 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


I'm shaking my head disapprovingly
 
2012-12-03 01:41:01 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: verbaltoxin: I'm trying to figure out a way where this doesn't result in decades-safe Republican Congressional seats turning blue in 2014. I'm no wizard though.

Obama caves on Dec. 31st. That's the only way.


Ha! Congress doesnt on work New Year's Eve! That's a good one. They have a whole month so they will work what 5-6 days max to get this sorted?
 
2012-12-03 01:41:05 PM  

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?


They did. The House proposed extending the Bush Tax cuts through this year, which the Senate passed and the President signed. Now the President has signaled that he won't sign (and the Senate won't pass) a new extension that goes above $250k.

Now the House GOP is between a rock and a hard place. If they accede to higher rates on the wealthy, Grover will kick them in the nuts and threaten to run teatards against them in '14. If they don't they get blamed for farking over the middle class and lose the House in '14. Heads the Dems win -- tails the GOP lose.
 
2012-12-03 01:41:14 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


But do you identify as male or female (or neither)? In the 21st century, no one cares what caliber you're packing, and TransNation has led me to believe that your parts are correlated with, not derivative from, your gender.

// r =.737120628
 
2012-12-03 01:41:54 PM  

Rwa2play: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Ah yes, cognitive dissonance boy arrives on cue.


People should stop saying "cognitive dissonance" at every opportunity if they don't know what it means.
 
2012-12-03 01:41:56 PM  

sammyk: hen turn around and use the debt ceiling as a hostage again when groups like the chamber of commerce are urging republicans to make a deal on the debt ceiling.


Hey, it worked in Blazing Saddles.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 01:42:00 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Hell, I'll go further. I WANT all of the tax cuts rescinded, including the ones that affects me. Increasing revenue benefits me in the long run more than the money benefits me in the short run.


Yep, and your not alone. From what I hear (which I know isn't scientific) but many on the left want us to get rid of it all or do Obama's plan almost none I hear want to take the Republican deal. On the other hand it seems to me the "fiscal conservative" republicans are afraid of the Defense cuts and rise in revenue.
 
2012-12-03 01:42:02 PM  

Corvus: Then why is the GOP saying it's Obama responsibility to come up with the budget?


Because they can blame him for the entitlement reform. That can't have that hanging on their neck like an albatross. You must think I am Republican or something.

Corvus: But my point is that it's the houses RESPONSIBILITY to do it and them attacking Obama for not doing their job is BS.


It's negotiation, This is how our f*cked up politics work
 
2012-12-03 01:42:41 PM  

Tyee: FTFAAmid demands from Republicans that President Obama propose detailed new spending cuts to avert the year-end fiscal crisis, his answer boils down to this: you first.

Using the "you first" approach to leadership, that is so strong dude!  But then if he truly had a mandate...


He already put his plan out there. He's not going to make the Republicans' counter-proposal for them.
 
2012-12-03 01:42:44 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.


Well to end that 90% of reckless spending he is ending the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and removing the Bush tax rates for the top 1%. There you go, the reckless spending is gone.
 
2012-12-03 01:44:32 PM  

Dr Dreidel: But do you identify as male or female (or neither)? In the 21st century, no one cares what caliber you're packing, and TransNation has led me to believe that your parts are correlated with, not derivative from, your gender.

// r =.737120628


Wouldn't it be the other way around? Your gender is correlated with, not derivative from, your plumbing? I mean, I'm a dude and happy to be such, but there are definitely individuals running around out there with the same pipes but opposite view of their gender, right?
 
2012-12-03 01:44:54 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Tyee: FTFAAmid demands from Republicans that President Obama propose detailed new spending cuts to avert the year-end fiscal crisis, his answer boils down to this: you first.

Using the "you first" approach to leadership, that is so strong dude!  But then if he truly had a mandate...

He already put his plan out there. He's not going to make the Republicans' counter-proposal for them.


True. If Republicans have a problem with higher taxes for the wealthy, phantom spending cuts sometime soon somewhere and more money for the Solyndras they need to pony up.
 
2012-12-03 01:45:02 PM  

Corvus: Really? No one is arguing that?

You are saying NO REPUBLICAN has been saying it's Obama's job to come up with this budget? You are saying NO Republican is saying that now?


You really need a nice cup of Earl Gray Tea and settle down, because I have no idea why you are so wound up.

The Republicans want a proposal, they got one. The Republicans are also trying to get him to negotiate with himself. Obama said no. Now the ball in in the Republicans court. Let watch
 
2012-12-03 01:45:05 PM  

CorporatePerson: I'm not so sure the Democrats will be able to pass a new set of Obama tax cuts for only the poor/middle class if we go over the cliff. What's to stop the Republicans from simply reintroducing the exact same Bush Tax Cuts for everyone including the top 2%, slapping a new name on it, and holding their breath and doing nothing until the dems agree to pass it?


Nothing, really, except the Party of Fiscal Responsibility now gets to argue in favor of bigger deficits and more borrowing.
 
2012-12-03 01:47:42 PM  

Corvus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Hell, I'll go further. I WANT all of the tax cuts rescinded, including the ones that affects me. Increasing revenue benefits me in the long run more than the money benefits me in the short run.

Yep, and your not alone. From what I hear (which I know isn't scientific) but many on the left want us to get rid of it all or do Obama's plan almost none I hear want to take the Republican deal. On the other hand it seems to me the "fiscal conservative" republicans are afraid of the Defense cuts and rise in revenue.


I work in defense, and I'm honestly not bent out of shape over the fiscal cliff. My Republican boss is, of course, but I've patiently explained and re-explained how these cuts are not likely going to affect us, and if they do, they won't be as painful as they seem. But while I like the guy, he's been hard-programmed to believe the hype. Such is life.
 
2012-12-03 01:47:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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.


Here is the budget you say does not exist. Click on the right for each section in detail.

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
 
2012-12-03 01:48:08 PM  

whistleridge: Dr Dreidel: But do you identify as male or female (or neither)? In the 21st century, no one cares what caliber you're packing, and TransNation has led me to believe that your parts are correlated with, not derivative from, your gender.

// r =.737120628

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Your gender is correlated with, not derivative from, your plumbing? I mean, I'm a dude and happy to be such, but there are definitely individuals running around out there with the same pipes but opposite view of their gender, right?


BAH! Yeah, I fell prey to the "gender/sex" trap.

// you should probably add "gender/sex trap" to the list of things you shouldn't GIS
// I'm just guessing, though
 
2012-12-03 01:48:55 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.


You're an idiot.
 
2012-12-03 01:49:00 PM  

qorkfiend: CorporatePerson: I'm not so sure the Democrats will be able to pass a new set of Obama tax cuts for only the poor/middle class if we go over the cliff. What's to stop the Republicans from simply reintroducing the exact same Bush Tax Cuts for everyone including the top 2%, slapping a new name on it, and holding their breath and doing nothing until the dems agree to pass it?

Nothing, really, except the Party of Fiscal Responsibility now gets to argue in favor of bigger deficits and more borrowing.


Not to mention that a clear majority of Americans are against that course of action, but I guess that doesn't matter much anymore when you have dipshiat Republicans holding political office in this country.
 
2012-12-03 01:49:10 PM  

too-old: Corvus: Really? No one is arguing that?

You are saying NO REPUBLICAN has been saying it's Obama's job to come up with this budget? You are saying NO Republican is saying that now?

You really need a nice cup of Earl Gray Tea and settle down, because I have no idea why you are so wound up.

The Republicans want a proposal, they got one. The Republicans are also trying to get him to negotiate with himself. Obama said no. Now the ball in in the Republicans court. Let watch


Because you are putting words in my mouth.

Are the Republicans saying it's Obama's responsibility to come up with a budget proposal? You said no one is doing this. So are they not doing this?
 
2012-12-03 01:49:31 PM  

keylock71: Brubold


keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.
 
2012-12-03 01:50:27 PM  
10 quatloos says randomwhargarble and ten Pounds of its not cheese don't post again.
 
2012-12-03 01:50:37 PM  

EighthDay: Brubold: JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.

It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.

I'm guessing you haven't looked very hard if that's all you've seen so far.

FTFA: Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement programs beyond what was on the table last year.

The entitlement reforms and spending cuts from last year's negotiation are on the table. That's a far cry different from NO reforms / cuts.


From what I've read the entitlement cuts are a promise for the future. They aren't actually in the proposal. Which means they don't mean anything.
 
2012-12-03 01:51:09 PM  

too-old: The Republicans want a proposal, they got one. The Republicans are also trying to get him to negotiate with himself. Obama said no. Now the ball in in the Republicans court. Let watch


And they are saying it's Obama responsibility to come up with a budget for them, which you just said no one is doing.

I don't care what side of the political spectrum you are but if you are making shiat up to protect what the GOP is doing it doesn't matter to me. Stop trying to be perceived ad balanced when they are full of shiat.
 
2012-12-03 01:51:26 PM  

Corvus: Are the Republicans saying it's Obama's responsibility to come up with a budget proposal? You said no one is doing this. So are they not doing this?


I have absolutely no clue what you are arguing about anymore. Take a 10 minute break or something
 
2012-12-03 01:51:27 PM  

Corvus: Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?


Grover Norquist was Diane Rehm's guest on her show on NPR this morning, and he was asked this question. His response was "The Republicans in the Congress have not only put something down, they've passed the Ryan plan, which is a real budget with real reform that actually got votes. The President's budget is one that every single Democrat voted against and every single Democrat in the Senate voted against. It's not serious." (link, relevant part starts about 44:30)

So in effect, he's saying the Republican plan in the Ryan budget. Yes, the Ryan who is notably not the VP-elect right now.

Also, that "President's budget" he's talking about this past May's Senate vote on a budget put forward by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that allegedly used Obama's numbers. It wasn't a real budget proposal; it was crafted as a straw man by a Republican and the vote was forced by the same Republican, and it was voted down 99-0. So a man like Norquist takes that and goes around saying that Obama's budget received no Democratic support.
 
2012-12-03 01:51:53 PM  

Raharu: 10 quatloos says randomwhargarble and ten Pounds of its not cheese don't post again.


Yeah they don't seem to do well about hearing the other side of their arguments do they?
 
2012-12-03 01:52:11 PM  

Brubold: Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.


The fact that we're even talking about deficits at all, to say nothing of cuts to basic social services at a time of multi-year recession and high unemployment is itself an extraordinary compromise. Link
 
2012-12-03 01:52:19 PM  

Corvus: tenpoundsofcheese: 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.

Here is the budget you say does not exist. Click on the right for each section in detail.

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013


lol, that's as pointless as trying to convince them that tectonic plates exist, that we can run out of oil, or that math can help you learn things. They don't believe in reality, and they aren't interested in government.
 
2012-12-03 01:52:38 PM  
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"?
 
2012-12-03 01:52:44 PM  

Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.


Two problems:
1) The Republicans lost the most recent election, and lost badly. They have no ground to stand on in this negotiation, because Obama has taken the position a clear majority of Americans support.

2) The Republicans during the Clinton era were not mindless ignorant reactionaries (at least not to this extent), and they did not oppose every legislation put in front of them, including their own previous policies, because Clinton was not black.

This reality is not that one.
 
2012-12-03 01:54:14 PM  

too-old: Corvus: Are the Republicans saying it's Obama's responsibility to come up with a budget proposal? You said no one is doing this. So are they not doing this?

I have absolutely no clue what you are arguing about anymore. Take a 10 minute break or something


Holy shiat you said this:

too-old: Corvus: I am not saying anyone can't do it. But who's RESPONSIBILITY is it?

The House, and nobody is arguing that.


Do you not know what you said?

You said the Republicans aren't arguing that Obama is responsible to come up with their budget plan. So I asked if you really wanted to double down on and now you seem to be back peddling or trying to not actually answer something I have asked you about 3 times already.
 
2012-12-03 01:54:56 PM  

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"?


I dunno, lets ask the people which actions they favor to determine if this is the case.

www.washingtonpost.com

oh
 
2012-12-03 01:55:00 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-03 01:55:31 PM  

firefly212: Corvus: tenpoundsofcheese: 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.

Here is the budget you say does not exist. Click on the right for each section in detail.

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013

lol, that's as pointless as trying to convince them that tectonic plates exist, that we can run out of oil, or that math can help you learn things. They don't believe in reality, and they aren't interested in government.


sure. I know I won't change his mind but I don't want people in the thread to believe he has a real point. The "ignore these people and they go away" doesn't work. It didn't work for climate change deniers and not for birthers. Other people start believing if you leave them unchallenged.
 
2012-12-03 01:55:42 PM  

Corvus: Raharu: 10 quatloos says randomwhargarble and ten Pounds of its not cheese don't post again.

Yeah they don't seem to do well about hearing the other side of their arguments do they?


They Are not paid to have opinions, just to post the talking points.
 
2012-12-03 01:56:11 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah![Laughs and points]


FTFY
 
2012-12-03 01:56:34 PM  

Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.

Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.


That's all well and good...but, the GOP hasn't offered anything. They've demanded that the president negotiate with himself.

The president has decided not to do that and has given the Republicans an opportunity to make an offer.

So, given those facts, how, specifically, is the president wrong in this case?
 
2012-12-03 01:56:42 PM  
Negotiation requires that both parties start at what they want then work towards a compromise. This bullshiat the Republicans and their dumbshiat defenders where "you should start negotiations at what I want then try to work some of what you want into that" is not only lazy, but not negotiating at all. Obama laid out what he wanted. Now is the time for the Republicans to lay out what they wanted. Once that is done, then the sides can work towards a middle.

Until then, Republicans just look like petulant children demanding that someone keep throwing things out there until what they want is guessed at. It's like deciding where to eat dinner with people that start with "I don't know where I want to go, so just keep naming crap and I will say no until I hear something I like".
 
2012-12-03 01:56:58 PM  

eraser8: Rwa2play: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Ah yes, cognitive dissonance boy arrives on cue.

People should stop saying "cognitive dissonance" at every opportunity if they don't know what it means.


Well he does do that on occasion; so what part of it isn't true?
 
2012-12-03 01:57:04 PM  

flux: Grover Norquist was Diane Rehm's guest on her show on NPR this morning, and he was asked this question. His response was "The Republicans in the Congress have not only put something down, they've passed the Ryan plan, which is a real budget with real reform that actually got votes. The President's budget is one that every single Democrat voted against and every single Democrat in the Senate voted against. It's not serious." (link, relevant part starts about 44:30)

So in effect, he's saying the Republican plan in the Ryan budget. Yes, the Ryan who is notably not the VP-elect right now


Right I have also seen Republicans ask if this is true by reporters and they have run away from this.

Has Bohner said this is their official plan? Cause last I heard he said there was no plan just certain general ideas they wanted.
 
2012-12-03 01:57:10 PM  

Brubold: JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.

It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway. From what I've seen so far his proposal has no entitlement reform and didn't add any spending cuts.


Ya, just like when Obama met them halfway on health care reform, met with them repeatedly, scrapped the public option... and look at all the help that got him from the GOP. Considering it was their frickin idea he was implementing, they still fought him tooth and nail at every step, even after he offered tons of concessions with no reciprocation. Dems aren't interested in playing that game again... we saw how the GOP was disingenuous previously, how they attacked Democrats for being anti-Medicare every time Dems cut waste... and we're not gonna go down that road again.
 
2012-12-03 01:57:25 PM  

un4gvn666: Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.

Two problems:
1) The Republicans lost the most recent election, and lost badly. They have no ground to stand on in this negotiation, because Obama has taken the position a clear majority of Americans support.

2) The Republicans during the Clinton era were not mindless ignorant reactionaries (at least not to this extent), and they did not oppose every legislation put in front of them, including their own previous policies, because Clinton was not black.

This reality is not that one.


The Republicans have no ground? See it's that kind of thinking that's the problem. It's the old Obama, "I won" nonsense. The Republicans run Congress atm so they have plenty of ground. If/when Obama gets off his pedestal and realizes this, things will run much more smoothly.

I'm not saying the Republicans aren't being just as obstinate but a good leader leads the way.
 
2012-12-03 01:57:52 PM  

flux: Corvus: Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?

Grover Norquist was Diane Rehm's guest on her show on NPR this morning, and he was asked this question. His response was "The Republicans in the Congress have not only put something down, they've passed the Ryan plan, which is a real budget with real reform that actually got votes. The President's budget is one that every single Democrat voted against and every single Democrat in the Senate voted against. It's not serious." (link, relevant part starts about 44:30)

So in effect, he's saying the Republican plan in the Ryan budget. Yes, the Ryan who is notably not the VP-elect right now.

Also, that "President's budget" he's talking about this past May's Senate vote on a budget put forward by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that allegedly used Obama's numbers. It wasn't a real budget proposal; it was crafted as a straw man by a Republican and the vote was forced by the same Republican, and it was voted down 99-0. So a man like Norquist takes that and goes around saying that Obama's budget received no Democratic support.


He pulled that Ryan plan bullsh*t on Meet the Press too. Naturally David Gregory didn't call him on it, but neither did the Democrats at the table. They didn't bring up Sen. Sessions doing some strawman flaying either.

I swear the Dems let every golden opportunity to control their message fall through their laps. They've been damn lucky to have someone like Barack Obama be the President. We'd be looking at McCain's second term if Clinton had gotten the nom.
 
2012-12-03 01:58:19 PM  

eraser8: So, given those facts, how, specifically, is the president wrong in this case?


Duh, he is black.
 
2012-12-03 01:59:49 PM  

Corvus: flux: Grover Norquist was Diane Rehm's guest on her show on NPR this morning, and he was asked this question. His response was "The Republicans in the Congress have not only put something down, they've passed the Ryan plan, which is a real budget with real reform that actually got votes. The President's budget is one that every single Democrat voted against and every single Democrat in the Senate voted against. It's not serious." (link, relevant part starts about 44:30)

So in effect, he's saying the Republican plan in the Ryan budget. Yes, the Ryan who is notably not the VP-elect right now

Right I have also seen Republicans ask if this is true by reporters and they have run away from this.

Has Bohner said this is their official plan? Cause last I heard he said there was no plan just certain general ideas they wanted.


Hmm, that makes me wonder if Norquist and the House GOP are running cross messages here. Maybe the Ryan plan isn't the official one? If so then I bet Norquist is going to get a few, nasty phone calls this week.
 
2012-12-03 01:59:54 PM  

verbaltoxin: He pulled that Ryan plan bullsh*t on Meet the Press too. Naturally David Gregory didn't call him on it, but neither did the Democrats at the table. They didn't bring up Sen. Sessions doing some strawman flaying either.


What I have seen is this:

Press: So you have no budget?

GOP: No we have the Ryan Plan

Press: Ok so then you support X in the Ryan plan?

GOP: Oh no, we don't actually support what's in the Ryan plan but we support the general concepts.

That is what I have seen. They use to pretend they have a plan but then they run away from any of the details of it.
 
2012-12-03 02:00:47 PM  

Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.


Well, you let me know the GOP is interested in honestly compromising instead of what they've been doing and continue to do even after getting their asses handed to them in a Presidential election.

The Administration and Democrats have compromised and tried to work with the GOP in the last four years and what did it get them?

The GOP has amply demonstrated they have no interest in the middle classes and poor Americans and will put them in a worse financial situation in order to protect the wealthiest Americans from being part of any kind of austerity.

The GOP has become an "insurgent outlier" and as such, there's no point in giving in to anything they want since they will just reject it and demand more while claiming the Administration refuses to compromise, as they did the last time we went through this.

This is a problem entirely of the GOP's making. They were refusing to work with this president before he was even sworn in. They stated it proudly. It backfired on them.
 
2012-12-03 02:01:01 PM  

Infernalist: They're already being pressured by their donors to make a deal asap, and with the media hyping things up into a frenzy, that adds pressure from the remnants of the Middle and business.

In the end, the cliff will happen and most won't notice...until 2013.


Don't think the democrats want a deal either. Everyone is going to wait until after the deadline before flinching. In the end, the cliff will happen and most won't notice...ever.
 
2012-12-03 02:01:59 PM  

Brubold: The Republicans run Congress atm


No, they run the House of Reps. They don't run the Senate.
 
2012-12-03 02:02:01 PM  

Rwa2play: eraser8: Rwa2play: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Ah yes, cognitive dissonance boy arrives on cue.

People should stop saying "cognitive dissonance" at every opportunity if they don't know what it means.

Well he does do that on occasion; so what part of it isn't true?


No, he doesn't. That guy lives in a fantasy world. He's completely divorced from reality.

People who live in a fantasy world DO NOT suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by the gap between what someone wants to believe and what's actually true. If a person assumes his imaginary world is true, he is NOT suffering from cognitive dissonance.
 
2012-12-03 02:02:33 PM  

Dr Dreidel: whistleridge: Dr Dreidel: But do you identify as male or female (or neither)? In the 21st century, no one cares what caliber you're packing, and TransNation has led me to believe that your parts are correlated with, not derivative from, your gender.

// r =.737120628

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Your gender is correlated with, not derivative from, your plumbing? I mean, I'm a dude and happy to be such, but there are definitely individuals running around out there with the same pipes but opposite view of their gender, right?

BAH! Yeah, I fell prey to the "gender/sex" trap.

// you should probably add "gender/sex trap" to the list of things you shouldn't GIS
// I'm just guessing, though


You sound...confused. Are you trying to tell us something about your gender vs your anatomy? It's ok, you can be honest with us here. This is a safe place...
 
2012-12-03 02:02:38 PM  

verbaltoxin: Hmm, that makes me wonder if Norquist and the House GOP are running cross messages here. Maybe the Ryan plan isn't the official one? If so then I bet Norquist is going to get a few, nasty phone calls this week.


Look above is what I have seen. Maybe it's not right, but I personally not seen them defiantly say the Ryan is their position.


Also I think it's pretty bad when the plan is from a guy running as VP and LOST and they say that's what the American people want. The Ryan plan is very unpopular that's why the run from it when asked about it.
 
2012-12-03 02:03:14 PM  

Brubold: I'm not saying the Republicans aren't being just as obstinate but a good leader leads the way.


He is. The GOP needs to follow or get out of the way. That's how it works.
 
2012-12-03 02:03:48 PM  

Brubold: un4gvn666: Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.

Two problems:
1) The Republicans lost the most recent election, and lost badly. They have no ground to stand on in this negotiation, because Obama has taken the position a clear majority of Americans support.

2) The Republicans during the Clinton era were not mindless ignorant reactionaries (at least not to this extent), and they did not oppose every legislation put in front of them, including their own previous policies, because Clinton was not black.

This reality is not that one.

The Republicans have no ground? See it's that kind of thinking that's the problem. It's the old Obama, "I won" nonsense. The Republicans run Congress atm so they have plenty of ground. If/when Obama gets off his pedestal and realizes this, things will run much more smoothly.

I'm not saying the Republicans aren't being just as obstinate but a good leader leads the way.


Republicans control only one house of Congress, and their hold on it is slipping more and more.

A good leader also does what's right. There is no legitimate reason to do what Republicans are asking and maintain tax rates on the wealthy at current levels. Not a single reason. If they won't budge on that issue, everyone's taxes go up, and they'll be to blame. The American people have expressed as such.

Again, no, Republicans have no ground from which to negotiate, and if they keep this up, I look forward to one party rule in 2014.
 
2012-12-03 02:03:49 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-03 02:03:52 PM  

Corvus: verbaltoxin: He pulled that Ryan plan bullsh*t on Meet the Press too. Naturally David Gregory didn't call him on it, but neither did the Democrats at the table. They didn't bring up Sen. Sessions doing some strawman flaying either.

What I have seen is this:

Press: So you have no budget?

GOP: No we have the Ryan Plan

Press: Ok so then you support X in the Ryan plan?

GOP: Oh no, we don't actually support what's in the Ryan plan but we support the general concepts.

That is what I have seen. They use to pretend they have a plan but then they run away from any of the details of it.


This....is awesome. They seriously don't know what the f*ck to do. Black is white, the Moon is the Sun at night; it's Heaven and Hell for the GOP.
 
2012-12-03 02:05:08 PM  

Corvus: verbaltoxin: Hmm, that makes me wonder if Norquist and the House GOP are running cross messages here. Maybe the Ryan plan isn't the official one? If so then I bet Norquist is going to get a few, nasty phone calls this week.

Look above is what I have seen. Maybe it's not right, but I personally not seen them defiantly say the Ryan is their position.


Also I think it's pretty bad when the plan is from a guy running as VP and LOST and they say that's what the American people want. The Ryan plan is very unpopular that's why the run from it when asked about it.


Blood for the blood god, man. Skulls for the skull throne. Even if they have to cleave their own to do it.
 
2012-12-03 02:05:15 PM  

Corvus: Has Bohner said this is their official plan? Cause last I heard he said there was no plan just certain general ideas they wanted.


I don't believe Boehner has confirmed this. But this is the only solid answer I've heard to the questiom from anyone, and whether Norquist is the GOP's deranged puppetmaster or just an increasingly-irrelevant lobbyist, he has enough sway that it's worth nothing. And it would be consistent with the GOP's general attitude towards compromise to just slap the Ryan budget down on the table again and say "here's our fuggin' plan."
 
2012-12-03 02:05:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?


[citation needed]
 
2012-12-03 02:07:27 PM  

flux: Corvus: Has Bohner said this is their official plan? Cause last I heard he said there was no plan just certain general ideas they wanted.

I don't believe Boehner has confirmed this. But this is the only solid answer I've heard to the questiom from anyone, and whether Norquist is the GOP's deranged puppetmaster or just an increasingly-irrelevant lobbyist, he has enough sway that it's worth nothing. And it would be consistent with the GOP's general attitude towards compromise to just slap the Ryan budget down on the table again and say "here's our fuggin' plan."


Just like always they want it both ways. They want their unpopular plan to be their position but they want to pretend they don't actually support it. That's why they pretend it's Obama responsibility (which it is not) to come up with their budget so they can blame their plan on Obama.
 
2012-12-03 02:08:39 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?


*facepalm.jpg*
 
2012-12-03 02:08:58 PM  

qorkfiend: ferretman: Interesting that the Obama supporters are for Congress to relinquish their power at being able to limit the budget deficit. Apparently Obama's supporters want to give Obama a 'blank-check' to do whatever he pleases without being questioned. Also, included with the Senate/Obama proposal is a 4 year deference on any 'entitlement' cost cuts.

Completely unacceptable.

Yet...these points are ignored by dems/libs.

/It's Bush's fault

dafuq did i just read?


Bush GOOD! Obama BAD!
 
2012-12-03 02:09:15 PM  

Weaver95: didn't Romney try the same smoke and mirrors bullshiat? you'd figure the GOP would learn it's lesson....


It's not that they were trying to sell a turd. It's that nobody was adequately describing the peanuts.
 
2012-12-03 02:09:40 PM  

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?

*facepalm.jpg*


It's your own fault you don't have nitwits ignored, or at least highlighted in a fabulous shade of pink.
 
2012-12-03 02:10:18 PM  

Brubold: un4gvn666: Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.

Two problems:
1) The Republicans lost the most recent election, and lost badly. They have no ground to stand on in this negotiation, because Obama has taken the position a clear majority of Americans support.

2) The Republicans during the Clinton era were not mindless ignorant reactionaries (at least not to this extent), and they did not oppose every legislation put in front of them, including their own previous policies, because Clinton was not black.

This reality is not that one.

The Republicans have no ground? See it's that kind of thinking that's the problem. It's the old Obama, "I won" nonsense. The Republicans run Congress atm so they have plenty of ground. If/when Obama gets off his pedestal and realizes this, things will run much more smoothly.

I'm not saying the Republicans aren't being just as obstinate but a good leader leads the way.


A good leader doesn't allow the nation to get held hostage by ideological extremists fighting for millionaires. Negotiating with them when their whole position is to protect 1% of the country at the expense of everyone else... that's not leadership, that's the lame-ass non-functional middle of the road that he took the first four years... I'd rather my taxes go up than give those f#$kers any more unearned power.
 
2012-12-03 02:10:52 PM  

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?


no, the status quo is that they're all extended. That's what "status quo" means. If the cuts are not extended and some or all rates are raised, then that becomes the status quote.
 
2012-12-03 02:11:48 PM  

Weaver95: Arkanaut: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.

From his Op-Ed of this morning:

"So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that's a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things - raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it's not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position - and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn't work."

Sounds like the same complaint from the rest of the Democratic camp.

didn't Romney try the same smoke and mirrors bullshiat? you'd figure the GOP would learn it's lesson....


Much like math and science, they don't believe in learning. That's just a slippery slope to compromise, which as we all know is the devil's frothy playpen.
 
2012-12-03 02:11:59 PM  
Fartbongo hasn't passed a budget in 4 years, but is responsible for reckless spending?
 
2012-12-03 02:12:05 PM  

skullkrusher: no, the status quo is that they're all extended.


Someone should alert President Obama and the Congress that they're wasting a whole lot of time on a settled issue.
 
2012-12-03 02:12:45 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-03 02:13:06 PM  

limeyfellow: Well to end that 90% of reckless spending he is ending the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and removing the Bush tax rates for the top 1%. There you go, the reckless spending is gone.


What you call "Reckless spending" 10poundsofcheese calls "Necessary massive spending for a greater 'mur'ka tehmarrow."
 
2012-12-03 02:13:07 PM  

aug3: Fartbongo hasn't passed a budget in 4 years, but is responsible for reckless spending?


Trying to find logic in a conservative argument will only lead to splitting headaches and excessive alcohol consumption.
 
2012-12-03 02:13:41 PM  

skullkrusher: no, the status quo is that they're all extended. That's what "status quo" means. If the cuts are not extended and some or all rates are raised, then that becomes the status quote.


No.

The status quo is that the law is executed as it's currently written. That means the expiration of all tax cuts.

Extending ANY of the tax cuts would be an alteration of the status quo.
 
2012-12-03 02:13:55 PM  

Tenga: For Christmas, I wish someone would go over to Drudge and grab a screenshot of the 54 Trees headline and change it to Uppity.


if we only we could find something we could cut.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:01 PM  

Hobodeluxe: [i208.photobucket.com image 520x390]


I like how most of Obama's boat is black...
 
2012-12-03 02:14:07 PM  

un4gvn666: skullkrusher: no, the status quo is that they're all extended.

Someone should alert President Obama and the Congress that they're wasting a whole lot of time on a settled issue.


status quo doesn't mean "settled". It doesn't mean the state of affairs of X is done or not done. It just refers to the current state of affairs. In this case, those are Bush tax cuts. If they are allowed to expire in whole or in part, the status quo would change.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:41 PM  

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?

*facepalm.jpg*


About 1.5% in GDP gain if we extend all cuts (cost $4.5t over ten years), about 1.25% in GDP gain if we extend for only earnings under $250k (cost $3.7t over ten years. Cost per hundredth of a percent gain in near term GDP: tax cuts for below $250k: about $30b, above $250k, about $32b.

All numbers per the CBO. Why do you guys put your heads in the sand and ignore reality when it conflicts with your preconceived views. Do you actually want to remain ignorant, or is it simply a team over country situation?
 
2012-12-03 02:15:24 PM  

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


[citation needed]
 
2012-12-03 02:15:31 PM  

eraser8: skullkrusher: no, the status quo is that they're all extended. That's what "status quo" means. If the cuts are not extended and some or all rates are raised, then that becomes the status quote.

No.

The status quo is that the law is executed as it's currently written. That means the expiration of all tax cuts.

Extending ANY of the tax cuts would be an alteration of the status quo.


read what he said. "extending the status quo" - quite clearly referring to the tax rates as they are. Allowing the status quo to continue as the tax law is written (expiration at the end of this year) WOULD result in higher rates.
Philip intentionally misread that.
 
2012-12-03 02:15:56 PM  

ghare: qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: Particularly when th dollar for dollar impact on the economy of cuts for the 98% and he 2% aren't very different?

*facepalm.jpg*

It's your own fault you don't have nitwits ignored, or at least highlighted in a fabulous shade of pink.


Oh, he's a fabulous shade of pink alright, but remains below my threshold for ignore.
 
2012-12-03 02:17:40 PM  

whistleridge: Dr Dreidel: whistleridge: Dr Dreidel: But do you identify as male or female (or neither)? In the 21st century, no one cares what caliber you're packing, and TransNation has led me to believe that your parts are correlated with, not derivative from, your gender.

// r =.737120628

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Your gender is correlated with, not derivative from, your plumbing? I mean, I'm a dude and happy to be such, but there are definitely individuals running around out there with the same pipes but opposite view of their gender, right?

BAH! Yeah, I fell prey to the "gender/sex" trap.

// you should probably add "gender/sex trap" to the list of things you shouldn't GIS
// I'm just guessing, though

You sound...confused. Are you trying to tell us something about your gender vs your anatomy? It's ok, you can be honest with us here. This is a safe place...


I'm not going to give any clues to my identity, but I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences could come up with a better summation of the differences between gender and sex than a white man who hasn't lived that life.

// I'd hope for Selma Hayek to explain the differences, preferably using her own "visual aids"
 
2012-12-03 02:18:27 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:18:51 PM  

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
 
2012-12-03 02:19:41 PM  

SlothB77: For example, 401Ks. 401Ks benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. We go over the fiscal cliff, then we nationalize 401Ks. Or we make it mandatory employers have to give every employee a 401K. We mandate that 3% of every person's salary go into a 401K and that goes into an account the government administers and then they pay it out to you when you retire. That is an example. Sounds just like doubling down on social security to me, but that is what people are throwing out there.


You are literally regurgitating Limbaugh talking points. He said this last Thursday.

You should be ashamed of yourself, oh and did Fark ever hide all those Nate Silver articles?

Republicans are morons.
 
2012-12-03 02:19:43 PM  

verbaltoxin: Hmm, that makes me wonder if Norquist and the House GOP are running cross messages here.


I think so. I won't be the first on Fark to say this, but the way this is playing out makes it seem like there's no one at the helm of the GOP. As Speaker of the House, Boehner is the closest thing Republicans have to any kind of captain right now, but it seems like he's flailing. The fiscal cliff deadline after last year's stalled negotiations seems to reveal a GOP long-game that depended entirely on Obama losing the election to the Republican candidate. But that didn't happen. And now Boehner, McConnell et al. seem to be engaging in tactics that only made sense before the election because Obama's second term was not a contingency they had planned for and they don't know what else to do.
 
2012-12-03 02:19:57 PM  

Corvus: flux: Corvus: Has Bohner said this is their official plan? Cause last I heard he said there was no plan just certain general ideas they wanted.

I don't believe Boehner has confirmed this. But this is the only solid answer I've heard to the questiom from anyone, and whether Norquist is the GOP's deranged puppetmaster or just an increasingly-irrelevant lobbyist, he has enough sway that it's worth nothing. And it would be consistent with the GOP's general attitude towards compromise to just slap the Ryan budget down on the table again and say "here's our fuggin' plan."

Just like always they want it both ways. They want their unpopular plan to be their position but they want to pretend they don't actually support it. That's why they pretend it's Obama responsibility (which it is not) to come up with their budget so they can blame their plan on Obama.


They want the WH to be responsible for defining any specificity in the cuts to entitlements. Nobody wants to touch this part of it so it just won't get done. Everyone has gotten used to kicking hard decisions down the road, so the general public will accept the gentle lies being told to us.

Geithner has said SS is off the table - which is fine I doubt the R's want to deal with that hand grenade.

The R's will budge on the tax rate for the richest 2% - the exact amount won't matter as the revenue generated from this won't be enough to make a large enough impact on the game.

We have a spending and federal budget problem that is much bigger than more taxation on the wealthy can overcome - this is the truth of the matter. I guess as long as the interest payments don't get too big, we can ignore that little reality. But, they will, as long as we continue to pile on the debt, eventually financing the debt itself will become the #1 budget item.

Consider this an entitlement to the VERY rich. These are the guys who laugh at the 1%. As far as they are concerned, they love the kabuki show we have going on right now.

Debt ceiling will be next up to bat.
 
2012-12-03 02:19:58 PM  

skullkrusher: read what he said. "extending the status quo" - quite clearly referring to the tax rates as they are.


My point is that extending the tax rates as they're currently set IS NOT extending the status quo. It is, in fact, a divergence from the status quo..

Whatever will occur if absolutely nothing is done is pretty much the definition of maintaining the status quo.  And, doing absolutely nothing will return the country to Clintonian levels of taxation.
 
2012-12-03 02:20:01 PM  

JerseyTim: The Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want Obama to negotiate against himself. They're not going to offer counter proposals, they're only going to feign outrage at everything Obama does.


Image from when Obama didn't / did visit the troops in Germany. Both choices, of course, meant bad news for Obama.

i301.photobucket.com

Four years ago.

If the Republicans are going to repeat plays from a losing play-book, the Democrats are going to just sit back and let them play them all.
 
2012-12-03 02:21:11 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:21:56 PM  

eraser8: My point is that extending the tax rates as they're currently set IS NOT extending the status quo. It is, in fact, a divergence from the status quo..


this is even too pedantic for me... the status quo - our current tax brackets - will change in the absence of legislation extending them. Our current tax brackets are still the status quo so extending the status quo would require legislation.
 
2012-12-03 02:23:17 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-03 02:23:21 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:24:27 PM  
Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo. How can we argue about what actually matters if we get hung up on crap like this? The tax cuts expiring may be the law as it currently stands, but it is not the status quo.
 
2012-12-03 02:25:21 PM  

eraser8: Which is what you said earlier...but, you didn't provide an actual citation. That's why I asked for one.


no I didn't. First time I've mentioned the CBO projection here

eraser8: 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?


use the google, my man.
 
2012-12-03 02:25:28 PM  

spif: Geithner has said SS is off the table - which is fine I doubt the R's want to deal with that hand grenade.


Didn't Geithner - a Bush appointee, remember - also say that the current tax rates are unsustainable?

Jesus. If you'd told me in 2003 that a Bush appointee was gonna say that within a decade, I'd have licked your palm just so I could trip balls, too.
 
2012-12-03 02:25:50 PM  

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?


www.patentspostgrant.com

His numbers are technically correct, the report exists, but his point is off. It looks bad when you do stuff like this.
 
2012-12-03 02:25:57 PM  

CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo. How can we argue about what actually matters if we get hung up on crap like this? The tax cuts expiring may be the law as it currently stands, but it is not the status quo.


You should've maintained the status quo of you shutting your whore mouth!
 
2012-12-03 02:26:07 PM  
I would say Obama already looks wiser this time. He is running this like a campaign, which he should have been doing 4 years ago. I guess at least he learned.
 
2012-12-03 02:26:42 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo. How can we argue about what actually matters if we get hung up on crap like this? The tax cuts expiring may be the law as it currently stands, but it is not the status quo.

You should've maintained the status quo of you shutting your whore mouth!


I maintained the status quo with your mom last night
 
2012-12-03 02:27:34 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.


Read through the report. Don't see what you're claiming.

Can you provide a page number?
 
2012-12-03 02:28:15 PM  

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Now we're arguing about what "status quo means?" Come on. Extending the bush tax cuts for eveyone maintainins the status quo. How can we argue about what actually matters if we get hung up on crap like this? The tax cuts expiring may be the law as it currently stands, but it is not the status quo.

You should've maintained the status quo of you shutting your whore mouth!

I maintained the status quo with your mom last night


status ho, amirite?
 
2012-12-03 02:28:16 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-03 02:28:41 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-03 02:28:47 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-03 02:29:36 PM  

skullkrusher: You should've maintained the status quo...


God, I hate Status Quo...

2.bp.blogspot.com

: )
 
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.
 
2012-12-03 03:32:16 PM  

un4gvn666: 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.


Team over country. I'd expect no less.
 
2012-12-03 03:33:07 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 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.


Was it hard to pull the lever for Obama with both hands full of all the water you carry for the right?
 
2012-12-03 03:34:26 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 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. delusional


Because forced abortions, the end of Medicare and Social Security, and increased borrowing to pay for more military excursions and lower taxes for rich people do not, a monster, make.
 
2012-12-03 03:35:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: un4gvn666: 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.

Team over country. I'd expect no less.


That "country" you're referring to agrees with me. Please see: Election, 2012.
 
2012-12-03 03:35:53 PM  

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: spif: bwilson27: bwilson27: 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.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!

Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.

Lot's of people watch Fox.


1.865 million viewers in primetime (number taken from your article) divided by 314,877,334 people in America is still less than one percent. It's actually just a bit more than half a percent.
 
2012-12-03 03:39:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: 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.


My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.
 
2012-12-03 03:40:46 PM  

DeaH: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: spif: bwilson27: bwilson27: 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.

So... No budget then?

Who put these people in? Who is responsible for Boehner being there? The Tea Party? Which was started by who? Yeah, you got it; Fox news.
Thanks Fox!

Lol, because the 1% or so of the population that actually watches this channel has that much impact on the system.

Lot's of people watch Fox.

1.865 million viewers in primetime (number taken from your article) divided by 314,877,334 people in America is still less than one percent. It's actually just a bit more than half a percent.


And just think, that half-a-percent has been able to take control of 1 out of the 2 viable political parties in our country. Stunning to think about.
 
2012-12-03 03:41:10 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.


I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though
 
2012-12-03 03:42:53 PM  

skullkrusher: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though


What do they have to lose really? Even if it pisses off the wealthy who back them what are they going to do, vote Democrat?
 
2012-12-03 03:43:19 PM  

skullkrusher: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though


They will alienate Grover Norquist and everyone that thinks like him, aka most of the teahadists, and will then be primaried out of office in 2014. That's why they haven't proposed this (admittedly reasonable) counter-offer to start with.

Not that I'm complaining, since splitting the vote between a teatard and an establishment Republican might give Democrats back the House, and shiat can finally get done again in this country.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:13 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.


Let's hypotheticlly say the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses to accept the administration proposal. This isn't hard to envision considering that they were almost willing to cause a default with the debt ceiling stuff last year.

The dems have two options. Extend for all (costing us $4.5t as opposed to the $3.7t you want to spend) or go over the cliff. Which would you prefer?
 
2012-12-03 03:47:57 PM  
Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link
 
2012-12-03 03:48:16 PM  

skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though


That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.
 
2012-12-03 03:49:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.


that won't end well for them
 
2012-12-03 03:52:53 PM  

jst3p: skullkrusher: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

What do they have to lose really? Even if it pisses off the wealthy who back them what are they going to do, vote Democrat?


the intransigence is really bad for them for obvious reasons - if they are gonna allow us to go over the cliff for tax cuts on the top 2% that ain't gonna play well.
However, if they propose higher end tax cut but push that cut off up a bit, they can come out looking ok even if BO rejects the offer (though I don't think he would depending on where the cut off is).
In the long run, that's probably the best deal for the country too - again pending this hypothetical new cutoff compromise I just made up
 
2012-12-03 03:53:31 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.

that won't end well for them


assuming the WH doesn't accept it of course
 
2012-12-03 03:55:24 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I think the GOP's only option is to propose a compromise on the point at which taxes go up. Suggest it start at $500,000 (or something) and make BO fight it if he wants. I'd imagine he'd accept though

That's not the way they went.

However, Republicans led by Boehner object to any increase in tax rates, even for higher levels of income earned by 2% of Americans.

Instead, the counter-offer Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including raising an unspecified amount of revenue by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.

that won't end well for them


I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

The Dems are the ones who want to carve out a specific group in their extension of cuts, the GOP would extend for all right now of given the opportunity.
 
2012-12-03 03:56:25 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Obama's not being hard enough on them. He should demand an immediate lay-down on any pending White House appointments, passing a gay-marriage bill, and filibuster reform before the GOP is even allowed to sit at the table and plead their case on fiscal policy.


you should see his (lack of) veto record
 
2012-12-03 03:57:10 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

Let's hypotheticlly say the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses to accept the administration proposal. This isn't hard to envision considering that they were almost willing to cause a default with the debt ceiling stuff last year.

The dems have two options. Extend for all (costing us $4.5t as opposed to the $3.7t you want to spend) or go over the cliff. Which would you prefer?


Go over the cliff. It seems you don't have a firm grasp at what that means, but that is because "fiscal cliff" is a poor term to describe it, it is more like a fiscal slope. You see the pain isn't instant. It can be averted in the days immediately afterward by congress passing bills to undo the damage, all of it. But the Senate and Obama will get to craft the legislation and then dare the GoP to vote against it. And I would bet dollars to donuts that it wont include tax cuts for the very wealthy. I actually see this as the most likely course of action because this way the incumbant Republicans don't have to compromise with Obama and raise taxes on the wealthy directly, which would get them replaced by Tea-bagging 'Mehrikans! 

The whole "fiscal cliff" was a huge gamble on both sides. Both sides knowing that whoever took the White House wins the game. The GoP choose poorly.
 
2012-12-03 03:58:29 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?


for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.
 
2012-12-03 03:59:02 PM  
$1.6 trillion in taxes on the rich!? Isn't the defecit only $1.3 trillion?

Oh, I see what you did there. You saw that the tax increase on the "rich" wasn't really going to have any impact on the deficit at all. so you projected it out tfor ten years to make it start to look like real money.

nice try Times/subtard

We need to axe all the bush cuts AND raise rates on EVERYBODY. but that will never happen.

So lets just make a token attack on the rich to make the proles feel good.

And you sheeple are just gonna eat it up and say thank you.
 
2012-12-03 03:59:35 PM  

skullkrusher: I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but by raising the threshold for the rate increases.

 
2012-12-03 04:01:42 PM  

skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.



They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.
 
2012-12-03 04:04:25 PM  

fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.


45% at $1 Million and 49% at $1 Billion sounds good to me:

Link
 
2012-12-03 04:07:47 PM  

mrshowrules: Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link


Bullet Points:

1) End Medicare as we know it
2) Convert Medicaid to a block grant, effectively ending Medicaid as we know it
3) Cut compensation for federal employees and cut funding to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

These are the reforms that Republicans believe are "absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt".

They also outright refuse to accept higher tax rates, "in order to protect small businesses and our economy", instead generating revenue by closing loopholes and deductions, with no details whatsoever.

Please proceed, Republicans.
 
2012-12-03 04:08:12 PM  

fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.


yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth
 
2012-12-03 04:08:19 PM  

skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


Yeah, raise the threshold and that difference between $4.5t and $3.7t that you astutely pointed out gets smaller. Instead of a pound of flesh from the rich, the dems will get a few ounces of flesh.
 
2012-12-03 04:08:52 PM  

jst3p: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

45% at $1 Million and 49% at $1 Billion sounds good to me:

Link



Sure, then they could technically extend the tax cuts for all existing brackets and claim victory.
 
Bf+
2012-12-03 04:09:19 PM  

mrshowrules: Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link


wow.just.wow.
/Thanks!
 
2012-12-03 04:09:44 PM  

skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth


Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?
 
2012-12-03 04:10:50 PM  

skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth



Great. Problem solved. I assume that their salaries will be going to us now. Will they be sending their checks to Fark or to each Farker directly?
 
2012-12-03 04:11:39 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.

Yeah, raise the threshold and that difference between $4.5t and $3.7t that you astutely pointed out gets smaller. Instead of a pound of flesh from the rich, the dems will get a few ounces of flesh.


raise the threshold and I think (almost) everyone is happy. GOP can walk away with a partial victory, Dems can walk away with a partial victory. No one has the appearance of capitulation beyond the norm necessary for functioning government.
Yay!
 
2012-12-03 04:11:42 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: 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.

My apologies for the assumption. Before now the only people who were so disjointed from reality that they thought tax cut extension for all was actually possible at this point were delusional Romney supporters.

If a deal isn't reached EVERYONE's taxes go up. The Democrats propose tax cuts for 98%. If the Republicans don't vote for it they get fooked in the mid-terms, some theorize that Tea Baggers might even primary them. I don't see a scenario where everyone gets a tax cut.

Let's hypotheticlly say the GOP sticks to its guns and refuses to accept the administration proposal. This isn't hard to envision considering that they were almost willing to cause a default with the debt ceiling stuff last year.

The dems have two options. Extend for all (costing us $4.5t as opposed to the $3.7t you want to spend) or go over the cliff. Which would you prefer?

Go over the cliff. It seems you don't have a firm grasp at what that means, but that is because "fiscal cliff" is a poor term to describe it, it is more like a fiscal slope. You see the pain isn't instant. It can be averted in the days immediately afterward by congress passing bills to undo the damage, all of it. But the Senate and Obama will get to craft the legislation and then dare the GoP to vote against it. And I would bet dollars to donuts that it wont include tax cuts for the very wealthy. I actually see this as the most likely course of action because this way the incumbant Republicans don't have to compromise with Obama and raise taxes on the wealthy directly, which would get them replaced by Tea-bagging 'Mehrikans! 

The whole "fiscal cliff" was a huge gamble on both sides. Both sides knowing that whoever took the White House wins the game. The GoP choose poorly.


And as I said, the GOP house can continue to pass bills retroactively extending the cuts for all in January as well. The dems will have to reject them, saying "we're not going to let the 98% have their tax cut unless the rich pay at Clinton era rates".

Which would you prefer? We go back to Clinton era rates for all indefinitely, or full extension for a couple or four years? Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?
 
2012-12-03 04:12:44 PM  

eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth

Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?


No, I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face. There's always hope that reason and the instinct of political self-preservation wins the day, however.
 
2012-12-03 04:13:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?



Yes.
 
2012-12-03 04:13:19 PM  

fracto: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth


Great. Problem solved. I assume that their salaries will be going to us now. Will they be sending their checks to Fark or to each Farker directly?


Drew ain't getting a cut of this
 
2012-12-03 04:14:01 PM  

skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,


Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.
 
2012-12-03 04:14:16 PM  

fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.


can't agree on that.
Making everyone else pay more is gonna do bad juju for the economy. If we gotta push the fiscal cliff out another year or 2, that's better than going over it
 
2012-12-03 04:14:59 PM  

un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.


skullkrusher: I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face.

 
2012-12-03 04:15:39 PM  

fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.


Yes.
 
2012-12-03 04:17:32 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.

Putting aside the fact you are detached from reality, if this is true, why is the GOP letting have his way?


They do whatever they are told to do. Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, etc...choose your name. You really think the largest economy and military in the world is actually being entrusted to a bunch a people elected by common citizens?

DOnt forget about FEMA, the secret government.

/might be trollin
//might actually believe that stuff
 
2012-12-03 04:18:11 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And as I said, the GOP house can continue to pass bills retroactively extending the cuts for all in January as well. The dems will have to reject them, saying "we're not going to let the 98% have their tax cut unless the rich pay at Clinton era rates".


Two things:

Someone just won an election and part of his schtick was "raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans" so he has support on this issue.

If we do "go over the fiscal cliff" Americans think two things: It is bad and it is the fault of the GoP.

The GoP simply does not have the leverage. They are playing chicken. The Dems are in one of these:

www.personal.psu.edu

And here comes the GoP:

brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com

To imply that they are on equal footing is completely wrong.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:38 PM  

jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.


Hell yes.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:48 PM  
The people that are struggling to buy food and shelter should not have to sacrifice for the people that are struggling to find that perfect $5000 shower curtain for their 5th beach house...
 
2012-12-03 04:19:17 PM  

skullkrusher: un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.

skullkrusher: I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face.


Gotcha. I agree.
 
2012-12-03 04:19:19 PM  

skullkrusher: eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth

Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?

No, I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the face. There's always hope that reason and the instinct of political self-preservation wins the day, however.


I'm guessing most Republicans are more concerned by the possibility of a primary challenge than they are from losing the general. So, that sense of political self-preservation, I suspect, would push them away from an agreement rather than towards one.
 
2012-12-03 04:20:15 PM  

eraser8: skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: I just don't see why they'd cave. Unlike many situations where we reach a stalemate, it seems to me the GOP has the logically higher ground here. If we can afford $3.7t in additional tax cuts over 10 years, why can't we afford $4.5t? If its so important to save the 1.25% in additional GDP growth by extending the lower 98%, why isn't the incremental .2 or .25% (and 200,000 jobs) not worth saving?

for starters, $4.5T is greater than $3.7T.

I think you can get around a good bit of the negative impact on GDP growth but raising the threshold for the rate increases.


They could suggest new tax brackets with a higher rates. I think that could be popular.

yeah I think leaving current rates as is with a new bracket starting at $500k or so that charge Clinton era rates on the margin could allow everyone to come away with their precious pride intact AND set us on a course to some fiscal sanity without doing too much damage to economic growth

Do you really think there's much chance of an agreement to create a new tax bracket?


Especially considering once you hit "incomes" that high, what you're actually getting into are of the "cap gains + salary = BAZILLIONS AND BAZILLIONS OF CURRENCIES" stripe. When your yearly earnings are that astronomical, you weren't just getting direct deposits twice a month.

Which is why the only way I'd accept new brackets like that are if we had some kind of "standard deduction-esque" way of handling it. If your salary + cap gains from this year are over $5m, you get a standard deduction equal to median salary, and the rest is taxed at the bracketed rates for income. (I'm forgiving on the details.)

Something so that someone who makes 90% of their earnings through cap gains (but only $1 salary, LOLs) doesn't get to hide behind the same low rate that helps my folks retire earlier.
 
2012-12-03 04:20:20 PM  

un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.



Fear. They know they will carry the blame among many. A not insignificant number of Dems would rather they go up for everyone anyway, those that don't will blame the Repubs. For the Repub base any increase is bad. The best they can hope for is partial victory that they can spin the hell out of to their base. Any way this goes down will probably hurt them more than it will hurt the Dems, it should be all about damage control at this point.

Unless they 'unskewed' the data about where the blame will fall, then they certainly wouldn't concede in their moment of triumph.
 
2012-12-03 04:21:15 PM  

jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.


I actually agree with you guys that we need to go back to Clinton era rates. But that's my preference over raising it for only the 2%, as it raises over 5x the revenue.

My question was more aimed at those who would prefer the Obama proposal of extending for the 98%, under the hypothetical assumption that that was off the table and you had to choose between all or none get extended.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:46 PM  

skullkrusher: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

can't agree on that.
Making everyone else pay more is gonna do bad juju for the economy. If we gotta push the fiscal cliff out another year or 2, that's better than going over it



I agree that it would hurt the economy. I think it would be better in the long run to end them though. I would prefer to keep them around for a while longer where they are doing the most good (lower/middle incomes) but given a choice between ending the cuts and kicking the can down the road for the next few decades, I would say to end them now.
 
2012-12-03 04:24:03 PM  

fracto: un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.


Fear. They know they will carry the blame among many. A not insignificant number of Dems would rather they go up for everyone anyway, those that don't will blame the Repubs. For the Repub base any increase is bad. The best they can hope for is partial victory that they can spin the hell out of to their base. Any way this goes down will probably hurt them more than it will hurt the Dems, it should be all about damage control at this point.

Unless they 'unskewed' the data about where the blame will fall, then they certainly wouldn't concede in their moment of triumph.


Judging by the way they've been touting retaining the House as an overall success, I'd wager they haven't learned a damn thing, and will continue attempting to negotiate from a position of perceived strength while the country sets them on fire for it.
 
2012-12-03 04:26:20 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: And as I said, the GOP house can continue to pass bills retroactively extending the cuts for all in January as well. The dems will have to reject them, saying "we're not going to let the 98% have their tax cut unless the rich pay at Clinton era rates".

Two things:

Someone just won an election and part of his schtick was "raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans" so he has support on this issue.

If we do "go over the fiscal cliff" Americans think two things: It is bad and it is the fault of the GoP.

The GoP simply does not have the leverage. They are playing chicken. The Dems are in one of these:



And here comes the GoP:



To imply that they are on equal footing is completely wrong.


We'll see. Obama wants: a) extension for the 98%, b) extension of unemployment benefits, c) stimulus spending/avoidance of fiscal cliff cuts to social spending, and d) raising of the debt ceiling. GOP wants a) tax cuts for 100%, and b) avoidance of fiscal cliff cuts to defense spending. They might be willing to give on a) if Obama agrees to entitlement reform.

GOPs hand isnt as bad as you think, IMO.
 
2012-12-03 04:26:33 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

I actually agree with you guys that we need to go back to Clinton era rates. But that's my preference over raising it for only the 2%, as it raises over 5x the revenue.

My question was more aimed at those who would prefer the Obama proposal of extending for the 98%, under the hypothetical assumption that that was off the table and you had to choose between all or none get extended.


I realize I am not answering your question exactly but my preference:

Get the top 2% back to Clinton level rates today.

Slowly (over 5 years or so) let the other brackets expire. It is my understanding that we are in a slow and fragile economic recovery. Tax increase on the middle class and lower, if I read correctly, could be damaging to that. But eventually we all need to pay more.

And get rid of capital gains rate.
 
2012-12-03 04:27:43 PM  

un4gvn666: fracto: un4gvn666: skullkrusher: GOP can walk away with a partial victory,

Anything involving compromise with Obama on raising taxes on the wealthy will be seen as capitulation. That's been the modus operandi of the GOP for 4 years. Why would it change now? Don't try to tell me they've learned their lesson.


Fear. They know they will carry the blame among many. A not insignificant number of Dems would rather they go up for everyone anyway, those that don't will blame the Repubs. For the Repub base any increase is bad. The best they can hope for is partial victory that they can spin the hell out of to their base. Any way this goes down will probably hurt them more than it will hurt the Dems, it should be all about damage control at this point.

Unless they 'unskewed' the data about where the blame will fall, then they certainly wouldn't concede in their moment of triumph.

Judging by the way they've been touting retaining the House as an overall success, I'd wager they haven't learned a damn thing, and will continue attempting to negotiate from a position of perceived strength while the country sets them on fire for it.



That is probably true. It's sad, because I think their refusal to negotiate is bad for the country. I would much rather see an exchange of ideas where we would theoretically get the best answer for the country.
 
2012-12-03 04:28:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: GOPs hand isnt as bad as you think, IMO.


It is possible.
 
2012-12-03 04:29:21 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: We'll see. Obama wants: a) extension for the 98%, b) extension of unemployment benefits, c) stimulus spending/avoidance of fiscal cliff cuts to social spending, and d) raising of the debt ceiling. GOP wants a) tax cuts for 100%, and b) avoidance of fiscal cliff cuts to defense spending. They might be willing to give on a) if Obama agrees to entitlement reform.


He wont get it all but he will get a) one way or the other. I would bet money on it.
 
2012-12-03 04:30:39 PM  

Brubold: keylock71: Brubold

keylock71: Brubold: It would help if Obama had even started to meet them halfway.

Bullshiat. It's the GOP that needs to move closer to Obama's position.


Actually both sides should be willing to negotiate. It's what used to make our government work. It's what got us into such great shape during Clinton's time in office for instance. At least regarding the deficit anyway.


Negotiation is about finding a middle ground between the competing proposals. You can't negotiate until both sides have made an initial proposal. Obama made his; the GOP's only response has been, "How about NO?"

They are doing this because if they set their goalpost, we will be able to see how far they give in to reach an agreement. They want to be able to claim they were the victors who gave up nothing when Obama caved. It worked during Obama's first term.

Since the GOP has not yet made an initial proposal, there is no halfway to meet them at. There is no political or logical reason for Obama to modify his proposal until the GOP takes a starting position. Like maybe doing their job and originate a bill to create revenue.
 
2012-12-03 04:32:28 PM  

un4gvn666: mrshowrules: Here's the GOP counter-proposal

Link

Bullet Points:

1) End Medicare as we know it
2) Convert Medicaid to a block grant, effectively ending Medicaid as we know it
3) Cut compensation for federal employees and cut funding to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

These are the reforms that Republicans believe are "absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt".

They also outright refuse to accept higher tax rates, "in order to protect small businesses and our economy", instead generating revenue by closing loopholes and deductions, with no details whatsoever.

Please proceed, Republicans.


Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

/Republicans don't want to end America's problems, they want them to become greater and greater so they can continue having a reason to hate and rage and cry
//the true terrorists are no longer in the Middle East
 
2012-12-03 04:35:49 PM  

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

I actually agree with you guys that we need to go back to Clinton era rates. But that's my preference over raising it for only the 2%, as it raises over 5x the revenue.

My question was more aimed at those who would prefer the Obama proposal of extending for the 98%, under the hypothetical assumption that that was off the table and you had to choose between all or none get extended.

I realize I am not answering your question exactly but my preference:

Get the top 2% back to Clinton level rates today.

Slowly (over 5 years or so) let the other brackets expire. It is my understanding that we are in a slow and fragile economic recovery. Tax increase on the middle class and lower, if I read correctly, could be damaging to that. But eventually we all need to pay more.

And get rid of capital gains rate.


Dont get me started on cap gains/dividend tax rate. Suffice it to say I'd agree that they be taxed as ordinary income only of the corporate income tax rate were eliminated or drastically reduced.

Re phasing out of the cuts for lower earners over 5 years, I would be totally on board with that, if you could guarantee me that it'd happen. However, practically speaking I don't trust Dems to let taxes go up each year for the middle class, while rates for the rich stay the same higher rates they went to in 2013. It'd never fly.
 
2012-12-03 04:39:07 PM  

un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.


Can we throw in some punitive damages as well? It's really the only way to change their behavior.
 
2012-12-03 04:40:12 PM  

un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.


so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.
 
2012-12-03 04:43:07 PM  

TheNewJesus: The people that are struggling to buy food and shelter should not have to sacrifice for the people that are struggling to find that perfect $5000 shower curtain for their 5th beach house...


Yes but unless there are Americans out there buying $5000.00 shower curtains the struggling Americans will have no idea what they are struggling for. They need the rich Americans as role models otherwise they will just stumble about wallowing in their poverty. 

Poor Americans need rich Americans far more than they need food and shelter.
 
2012-12-03 04:44:26 PM  

skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.


Maybe it's about "The Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we all need to pay a little more"?
 
2012-12-03 04:44:40 PM  

skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.


"Soaking" them is letting them off easy. Way too easy.
 
2012-12-03 04:45:49 PM  

skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.



No, it's about fixing what we see as a broken tax code. Some action is better than none, and ending all the temporary cuts is better than extending all of them.
 
2012-12-03 04:45:58 PM  

jst3p: skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.

Maybe it's about "The Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we all need to pay a little more"?


even if it takes money out of the hands of people and an economy which can ill afford it but hey, at least rich people are paying more in taxes so it's all good?

Sorry, no. Terrible, terrible idea.
 
2012-12-03 04:47:51 PM  

skullkrusher: jst3p: skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.

Maybe it's about "The Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we all need to pay a little more"?

even if it takes money out of the hands of people and an economy which can ill afford it but hey, at least rich people are paying more in taxes so it's all good?

Sorry, no. Terrible, terrible idea.



Yes. it is a terrible idea, but the premise of the question was between that and something worse, so terrible it is.
 
2012-12-03 04:48:55 PM  

fracto: skullkrusher: jst3p: skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.

Maybe it's about "The Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we all need to pay a little more"?

even if it takes money out of the hands of people and an economy which can ill afford it but hey, at least rich people are paying more in taxes so it's all good?

Sorry, no. Terrible, terrible idea.


Yes. it is a terrible idea, but the premise of the question was between that and something worse, so terrible it is.


extending the cuts for all is not worse than letting them expire for all by any stretch
 
2012-12-03 04:53:28 PM  
And now... We have a plan.

You can all officially drop the "Party of no" line now.
 
2012-12-03 04:54:35 PM  
Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.
 
2012-12-03 04:56:31 PM  

skullkrusher: fracto: skullkrusher: jst3p: skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.

Maybe it's about "The Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we all need to pay a little more"?

even if it takes money out of the hands of people and an economy which can ill afford it but hey, at least rich people are paying more in taxes so it's all good?

Sorry, no. Terrible, terrible idea.


Yes. it is a terrible idea, but the premise of the question was between that and something worse, so terrible it is.

extending the cuts for all is not worse than letting them expire for all by any stretch



I disagree. I think that there will never be a time where the idea is more palatable than now. When we recover the narrative will be that they should be permanent because we did just fine without the extra revenue. I think that if we extend the cuts we will be stuck with them forever.

The middle and lower class don't have the lobbying power to make them permanent so I think that is less of an issue in the long term. Raising taxes on the poor and middle class is all about 'skin in the game' and the '47%'. Republicans will agree to raise taxes on the middle and lower income groups, it has been part of their narrative and they have already shown willingness with the payroll tax.
 
2012-12-03 04:56:55 PM  

skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.


It's not at all about "soaking the rich." It's about letting the Bush-era tax cuts, which were introduced as temporary, expire on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Their tax rates return to what they were before during the period of this country's largest economic expansion.

Soaking the rich would be imposing a Reagan-era tax rate on the wealthy in addition to letting the Bush cuts expire.
 
2012-12-03 04:59:22 PM  

k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.


Oopie doopy. Honestly, that plan is as much of a non- starter as the dem plan. Not only do they not detail how they are going to eliminate loopholes, they are proposing to LOWER the top rate.

Seems like its a "fark you Obama, we can be ridiculous too" offer.
 
2012-12-03 04:59:32 PM  

k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.



The article doesn't mention which loopholes and exemptions they will cut. Did they specify?
 
2012-12-03 05:03:46 PM  

k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.


So the new offer is yes to tax increases and spending cuts but no raising the debt ceiling.

Farking assholes...maybe we should just jump off the damn cliff then.
 
2012-12-03 05:04:46 PM  

fracto: I disagree. I think that there will never be a time where the idea is more palatable than now. When we recover the narrative will be that they should be permanent because we did just fine without the extra revenue. I think that if we extend the cuts we will be stuck with them forever.


raising taxes across the board in a time where we are just limping out of the largest recession in the GD is the opposite of palatable timing. There are signs of progress in economic growth but I think not giving that growth time to gain traction is a horrible idea at this time. We all like to laff about the Laffer Curve but if we take all that money out of the hands of the consumers, we could very well wind up collecting less revenue than we would otherwise.

fracto: The middle and lower class don't have the lobbying power to make them permanent so I think that is less of an issue in the long term. Raising taxes on the poor and middle class is all about 'skin in the game' and the '47%'. Republicans will agree to raise taxes on the middle and lower income groups, it has been part of their narrative and they have already shown willingness with the payroll tax.


I would imagine this counter proposal does just that by limiting deductions. Again, a terrible terrible idea at this time
 
2012-12-03 05:05:34 PM  

Mrtraveler01: k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.

So the new offer is yes to tax increases and spending cuts but no raising the debt ceiling.

Farking assholes...maybe we should just jump off the damn cliff then.



Without knowing which deductions they propose cutting, it is impossible to say that this is a good deal.
 
2012-12-03 05:05:50 PM  

Graffito: skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.

It's not at all about "soaking the rich." It's about letting the Bush-era tax cuts, which were introduced as temporary, expire on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Their tax rates return to what they were before during the period of this country's largest economic expansion.

Soaking the rich would be imposing a Reagan-era tax rate on the wealthy in addition to letting the Bush cuts expire.


if you follow the discussion, you'll see that they find allowing the cuts expire for everyone would be worthwhile if it means the rich would have to pay more in taxes. That is just foolish.
 
2012-12-03 05:07:45 PM  

fracto:

The article doesn't mention which loopholes and exemptions they will cut. Did they specify?


You can read the letter for yourself:

Boehner's Letter

There are a few things he points out in there as specifics...reforming Federal Employee compensation and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Just want to throw out there, I think it is very typical for both sides to leave out specific cuts b/c those are the areas that need to be negotiated between the parties. The idea is to put out your plan for revenue and what your targets are for spending cuts....plus the fact that we all know Medicare and SS need some kind of reform before they are bankrupt. So it is not super specific, but points in a number of directions where the discussions may begin concerning necessary cuts.
 
2012-12-03 05:08:24 PM  

skullkrusher: raising taxes across the board in a time where we are just limping out of the largest recession in the GD is the opposite of palatable timing.


I think that's why the Democrats plan is to only let it expire for the top 2% and not just because they hate the rich. Because they're more equipped to handle a tax increase now compared to the lower class.

Stop making sense!
 
2012-12-03 05:09:13 PM  

fracto: Mrtraveler01: k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.

So the new offer is yes to tax increases and spending cuts but no raising the debt ceiling.

Farking assholes...maybe we should just jump off the damn cliff then.


Without knowing which deductions they propose cutting, it is impossible to say that this is a good deal.


I think the fact that they're saying that raising the debt ceiling is a no-go proves that they're just wasting time.
 
2012-12-03 05:09:31 PM  

fracto: Mrtraveler01: k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.

So the new offer is yes to tax increases and spending cuts but no raising the debt ceiling.

Farking assholes...maybe we should just jump off the damn cliff then.


Without knowing which deductions they propose cutting, it is impossible to say that this is a good deal.


It reads like something from a Romney/Ryan campaign speech, and we know how well that worked out for them.
 
2012-12-03 05:10:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: raising taxes across the board in a time where we are just limping out of the largest recession in the GD is the opposite of palatable timing.

I think that's why the Democrats plan is to only let it expire for the top 2% and not just because they hate the rich. Because they're more equipped to handle a tax increase now compared to the lower class.

Stop making sense!


I don't think congressional or administration Democrats hate the rich. Most of those in power are rich themselves. It's just the Democrats around these parts that I ain't so sure about ;)
 
2012-12-03 05:10:58 PM  

randomjsa: And now... We have a plan.

You can all officially drop the "Party of no" line now.


The Romney-Ryan plan.

They're still "The Party of NO".
 
2012-12-03 05:20:07 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I wonder if the President has heard of Paul Krugman? Cause he has done nothing but biatch about the Republican plan, I guess he saw one.


Ok. What is it?
 
2012-12-03 05:24:40 PM  

Graffito: TheNewJesus: The people that are struggling to buy food and shelter should not have to sacrifice for the people that are struggling to find that perfect $5000 shower curtain for their 5th beach house...

Yes but unless there are Americans out there buying $5000.00 shower curtains the struggling Americans will have no idea what they are struggling for. They need the rich Americans as role models otherwise they will just stumble about wallowing in their poverty. 

Poor Americans need rich Americans far more than they need food and shelter.


Wow you are sooo high right now aren't you? We don't all aspire to be idiots that are so privileged they can waste money in pornographic fashion.
 
2012-12-03 05:35:12 PM  

sammyk: Trying to follow the logic here. They plan on giving up one thing the White House has offered and getting nothing in return.


They're getting something in return. They're getting a whole lot of their constituents a tax break extension, which is normally something that they like, but since they're not also getting a tax break for the rich people, then for some reason it just takes all of the fun out of it for them, so they feel cheated.
 
2012-12-03 05:35:44 PM  

randomjsa: And now... We have a plan.


She found it for you.

i48.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 05:36:17 PM  

k1j2b3: Here is the counter-offer:

Republican Offer

I am sure you won't like it b/c it actually does something about unsustainable growth in Medicare and falling $$ for SS. There is also an $800B increase in 'revenue'...that should make you happy.


Jesus Farking Christ.

Do the Republicans support the Erskine-Bowles plan or not?
If they support only parts of it, which parts do they support?

I propose that the local constabulary tase Bohner every time he says he supports something that he voted against. He's the one who killed Erskine-Bowles in the first place.
 
2012-12-03 05:37:33 PM  
You all laugh at randomjsa, but he'll show you!

i48.photobucket.com

/my words
//mark them
 
2012-12-03 05:57:45 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I propose that the local constabulary tase Bohner every time he says he supports something that he voted against


Much simpler this way.
 
2012-12-03 06:33:09 PM  

BKITU: 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.

I agree.

/  [crashchords.com image 72x48]


(skipped: comment references ignored user 'SlothB77')
 
2012-12-03 07:34:10 PM  

TheNewJesus: Graffito: TheNewJesus: The people that are struggling to buy food and shelter should not have to sacrifice for the people that are struggling to find that perfect $5000 shower curtain for their 5th beach house...

Yes but unless there are Americans out there buying $5000.00 shower curtains the struggling Americans will have no idea what they are struggling for. They need the rich Americans as role models otherwise they will just stumble about wallowing in their poverty. 

Poor Americans need rich Americans far more than they need food and shelter.

Wow you are sooo high right now aren't you? We don't all aspire to be idiots that are so privileged they can waste money in pornographic fashion.


Your sarcasm meter may need adjusting.
/just sayin' I'm on your side.
 
2012-12-03 08:08:59 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!


We wouldn't be in this mess if Bush hadn't gone into hiding on 9/11/2001.


See, that's how you sound when you make an irrelevant and pointless complaint about "liberals."
 
2012-12-03 08:24:43 PM  
It has likely been said before in this very thread but the Republican party WANTS the economy to tank. They don't give a crap about American workers or their economic troubles. They want to WIN! Win at any cost. The same could be said for most Democratic party candidates though. A politicians desire to win is inversely proportional to the amount of crap he gives about his constituents.

I get it. There is the odd idealist that maintains those ideals in spite of the money. But they are few and far between. Listing a few here will not change anything. Idealists that are tamed by reality would be best but they apparently do not exist. They need to be the majority. Right now they are not. Right now we have an "Us Vs. Them" mentality when it comes to political process. It has to end.

There is enough practical intelligence in the system that these problems can be solved but they hate the labels too much. Both sides want to win so badly that they forget that serving the people is their main purpose. In fact, serving the people has been off their radar for a long long time. Serving themselves is their main interest.

I am a Canadian so I get blasted by American media on an almost unstoppable and daily basis. If you go down, Canada goes down with you since you are our biggest customer. We have to find a way to take special interest money out of politics. Corporate money, lobbyists and their like do not represent what people need to get by on a reasonable basis. Decent wage, affordable healthcare and a place to call their own. With some honest work that should be the norm but it is not.
 
2012-12-03 08:31:28 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.


Can't handle the truth, huh? He,s actually 100% correct....
 
2012-12-03 09:10:22 PM  
I don't know if it's been said, but the article and its sources make the comparison to Bush in 2005 trying to restructure social security.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the GOP have a majority in both houses and the executive at the time?

And, if so, how the hell is that any kind of comparison to make?
 
2012-12-03 09:50:04 PM  

OlderGuy: 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.

Can't handle the truth, huh? He,s actually 100% correct....


8/10

You gets points off for piggybacking.
 
2012-12-03 09:52:43 PM  

skullkrusher: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

can't agree on that.
Making everyone else pay more is gonna do bad juju for the economy. If we gotta push the fiscal cliff out another year or 2, that's better than going over it


So IOW your response is "Let's pass it off to the next generation becuase we, the GOP, put ourselves in this box and there's no way out that won't be painful for us."
 
2012-12-03 10:28:58 PM  

Rwa2play: skullkrusher: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

can't agree on that.
Making everyone else pay more is gonna do bad juju for the economy. If we gotta push the fiscal cliff out another year or 2, that's better than going over it

So IOW your response is "Let's pass it off to the next generation becuase we, the GOP, put ourselves in this box and there's no way out that won't be painful for us."


next generation of what? Goldfish?
 
2012-12-03 10:30:44 PM  
Obama should aerial-pamphlet the Capitol with leaflets detailing his plan, and then film Boehner, McTurtle, and the rest indignantly insisting "we're still waiting for a plan while the Presisn't is on the campaign trail *single emo tear*" as the leaflets fall about their illiterate partisan fanatical ears.
 
2012-12-03 11:19:08 PM  
I own Jupiter.
 
2012-12-03 11:57:16 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: surplus?
Tax cuts for the rich
Deficit?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Iraq?
Tax cuts for the rich
War in Afghanistan?
Tax cuts for the rich
High unemployment?
Tax cuts for the rich
Day that ends in Y
Tax cuts for the rich


Borrowing that for a photoshop.
 
2012-12-04 04:42:59 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Corvus: randomjsa: Obama: Here's a train wreck in the making

GOP: How bout no?

Liberals: The party of NO! Waaah!

Who won the election. Where is the GOP plan?

I have the GOP plan right here.

[blogs.kansas.com image 431x438]

Counter that Libtard!

  


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-04 06:17:45 AM  

OlderGuy: 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.

Can't handle the truth, huh? He,s actually 100% correct....


I was thinking this too, the best time to push an agenda is during a crisis. Heck, even the people surrounding him have made this gesture in the past.
 
2012-12-04 10:24:24 AM  

fracto: skullkrusher: jst3p: skullkrusher: un4gvn666: jgbrowning: fracto: Debeo Summa Credo: Is making the rich pay more worth making everyone else pay more?


Yes.

Yes.

Hell yes.

so it is all about "soaking the rich" even if you have to cut off your nose to do it? That's pretty lame.

Maybe it's about "The Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we all need to pay a little more"?

even if it takes money out of the hands of people and an economy which can ill afford it but hey, at least rich people are paying more in taxes so it's all good?

Sorry, no. Terrible, terrible idea.


Yes. it is a terrible idea, but the premise of the question was between that and something worse, so terrible it is.


So here we have a perfect example with whats wrong wit American politics. Its no longer about finding a good solution, candidate, etc...its about selling the people the lesser of 2 evils. A shiatty deal is a shiatty deal, even if its less shiatty than the other option.
 
Displayed 456 of 456 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report