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  
•       •       •

4318 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

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