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 56
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-03 11:35:14 AM
8 votes:

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 09:37:00 AM
6 votes:
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 01:56:42 PM
4 votes:
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 11:48:19 AM
4 votes:
Maybe Boehner DID make an offer, but his statesmanlike words of compromise were muffled by Grover Norquist's testicles?
2012-12-03 11:30:42 AM
4 votes:

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 10:57:54 AM
4 votes:

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 10:49:06 AM
4 votes:
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 01:08:04 PM
3 votes:

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 12:59:21 PM
3 votes:

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 12:43:01 PM
3 votes:
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 12:41:24 PM
3 votes:

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 12:36:23 PM
3 votes:
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 12:33:06 PM
3 votes:
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 11:59:01 AM
3 votes:

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 10:20:53 AM
3 votes:
Close election? As of 15 hours ago, Obama had 4,632,588 more votes than Romney.
2012-12-03 12:53:53 PM
2 votes:
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 04:20:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:33:07 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:27 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:35 PM
1 votes:

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 02:19:43 PM
1 votes:

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 02:13:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:57:10 PM
1 votes:

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 01:54:56 PM
1 votes:

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 01:52:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:41:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:42 PM
1 votes:

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 01:38:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:33:46 PM
1 votes:
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 01:33:09 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:40 PM
1 votes:

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 01:28:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:17:51 PM
1 votes:

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 01:13:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:11:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:06:50 PM
1 votes:
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 01:03:54 PM
1 votes:

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 12:55:17 PM
1 votes:
oi50.tinypic.com
2012-12-03 12:51:34 PM
1 votes:

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.
Bf+
2012-12-03 12:48:11 PM
1 votes:
Rope a dope.
2012-12-03 12:45:55 PM
1 votes:
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 12:44:59 PM
1 votes:
i was told eliminating earmarks would solve the budget crisis. i'm outraged
2012-12-03 12:43:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:43:23 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:34 PM
1 votes:

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 12:40:19 PM
1 votes:

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 12:36:53 PM
1 votes:
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 12:16:54 PM
1 votes:
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 12:06:18 PM
1 votes:
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 11:28:43 AM
1 votes:
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 11:23:32 AM
1 votes:
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 10:42:14 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:25 AM
1 votes:
Boo hoo. Cry more.
2012-12-03 09:39:59 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:18 AM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report