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  
•       •       •

4313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 12:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 02:03:52 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

: )
 
Displayed 50 of 456 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report