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

(Washington Post)   Boehner aborts Plan B, Plan C is to go home for Christmas   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Boehner, christmas, Harry M. Reid, GOP leaders, House Speaker, Eric Cantor  
•       •       •

10303 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:19 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



484 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-20 10:58:13 PM  
Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.
 
2012-12-20 11:03:34 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.


No one could be both Speaker and rooted in reality these days.  So basically Boener's timing for ascending to the speakership just sucked.

But that doesn't change the fact that he speaks really douchey in his press conferences.
 
2012-12-20 11:04:01 PM  
Wow I spent all my energy and vitriol on two redlit threads. GOP is farked beyond all hope. To be honest I'm kind of scared of what is going to happen to the economy if nothing is done.
 
2012-12-20 11:11:08 PM  

1.bp.blogspot.com
"Oh I'm the Speaker, the Speaker is me
And I say that I'm through with planning Plan B
Whiskey is good, so pour me some whiskey
Whiskey whiskey whiskey whiskey whiskey"

4.bp.blogspot.com
"I cannot control my alcoholism or the House Republicans..." *sob*

 
2012-12-20 11:15:54 PM  
Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!
 
2012-12-20 11:16:32 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.




Worse than whats his apname before Pelosi?
 
2012-12-20 11:21:18 PM  
Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?
 
2012-12-20 11:21:54 PM  
I thought I'd seen it all when the Soviet Union collapsed. Now, the Republican party.
 
2012-12-20 11:22:20 PM  
Does this mean we won't have another dozen headlines with this same unbelievably shiatty joke?
 
2012-12-20 11:22:29 PM  
That's it. We're Boehned
 
2012-12-20 11:22:29 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-20 11:22:53 PM  
Good. Stay there.
 
2012-12-20 11:24:42 PM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


because to hear the GOP tell it that would mean economic Armageddon
 
2012-12-20 11:24:52 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!


This is the winter of their discount tent!
 
2012-12-20 11:25:00 PM  
Eric cantor has been like a snake in the grass, waiting for boehner to fark hisself. He got his wish
 
2012-12-20 11:25:24 PM  
Takes ball, goes home.

awildduck.com
 
2012-12-20 11:26:17 PM  
So all of you on the left who were raging at Obama for compromising, this is why I told you to relax.  The GOP is farking clown shoes.  The Democrats are united and have made several good faith compromises that they can show the people (including a tax cut bill that's passed the Senate), but the Tea Baggers are prepared to sink the ship out of spite.  Boehner has no control over them and now the knives are truly coming out.  All Obama has to do is sit back and wait.  If he can peel off enough GOP support to prevent a filibuster and push through a deal in the House, he doesn't need Boehner anymore.  If he can't, then he can sit back while we go over the cliff, let the GOP take the blame and then reset the terms after the first of the year.
 
2012-12-20 11:26:25 PM  
thedcam.com
 
2012-12-20 11:27:45 PM  
Was a legitimate plan?
 
2012-12-20 11:28:49 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.


How quickly they forget......

the-american-journal.com

t0.gstatic.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

images.sodahead.com

4.bp.blogspot.com



/The Adulterer laughs in your general direction.
 
2012-12-20 11:30:03 PM  
Did he cry? I don't think I've ever seen a grown man bawl as much as he does
 
2012-12-20 11:31:20 PM  
Looks like.....

*PUTS ON SUNGLASSES*

....... Boehner pulled out.

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
 
2012-12-20 11:31:50 PM  
oh, he's crying. Knee-crawling drunk, too...
 
2012-12-20 11:32:00 PM  
i933.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-20 11:32:08 PM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?
 
2012-12-20 11:32:15 PM  
Must admit I got a kick out of the author's use of the Speakers full name.

John A. Boehner

How did anybody ever take this guy seriously?

Are we all getting shiat on because John A. Boehner got picked on one too may times in public school?

Is that why he has a hard-on for defunding public education?

Was three questions enough?
 
2012-12-20 11:33:33 PM  
There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!
 
2012-12-20 11:33:46 PM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.

How quickly they forget......

/The Adulterer laughs in your general direction.


Naah. He's a disgusting human being but he was able to get bills passed.

Boehner is a disgusting human being that can't get bills passed.

For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.
 
2012-12-20 11:33:50 PM  
Honestly, did we really think this would end any differently? Boehner has no control over his fellow House Republicans. This has happened every time they've gone to the negotiation table. Boehner offers something, his party balks at it, negotiations fall through. You may as well bet on another "kick the can down the road" vote, as that's the only thing that they might agree on.
 
2012-12-20 11:33:55 PM  
There are not enough clown shoes in existence to accurately explain this magnitude of absurdity.
 
2012-12-20 11:34:08 PM  
Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession. Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now? And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I
 
2012-12-20 11:34:29 PM  
If there was ever a time to dust off the ole EPIC FAIL meme.........
 
2012-12-20 11:34:31 PM  

foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?


HOW ABOUT BOTH?! For fark's sake....
 
2012-12-20 11:35:19 PM  
Abandon all hope,
ye who gee oh pee
 
2012-12-20 11:35:50 PM  
He can't work on it until after tomorrow just in case the Mayans were right and he has to explain himself to Ronald Regan and Republican Jesus.
 
2012-12-20 11:35:51 PM  
This is the guy who today accused Obama of being unwilling to stand up to his own party.

www.soul-amen.com
 
2012-12-20 11:36:09 PM  
and the Obvious question:

How in the hell do you ever suggest a plan like this unless you are 100% sure you have the votes. Because if you don't it makes your position much much weaker. Your position now is "I need Democrat support even in the house to pass it".
 
2012-12-20 11:36:33 PM  

sonnyboy11: Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?


We have to raise taxes and cut spending or else we'll go over the cliff which will result in us raising taxes and cutting spending.
 
2012-12-20 11:36:47 PM  
Clearly, this just shows how unwilling Obama is to compromise.
 
2012-12-20 11:37:19 PM  
I bet John Boner's cheeks flushed from orange to darker orange.
 
2012-12-20 11:37:39 PM  

Rann Xerox: Looks like.....

*PUTS ON SUNGLASSES*

....... Boehner pulled out.

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!


No he shrank under the pressure.

/is it cold in here?
//shrinkage
 
2012-12-20 11:38:04 PM  

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.

How quickly they forget......

[the-american-journal.com image 350x230]

[t0.gstatic.com image 277x182]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 330x270]

[images.sodahead.com image 350x232]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 620x465]

/The Adulterer laughs in your general direction.


I. WILL. EAT. YOUR. SOUL.
media.salon.com
 
2012-12-20 11:38:08 PM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


Looks like that's what's probably going to happen.
 
2012-12-20 11:38:11 PM  
I can only come up with two possible explanations for how the GOP is handling this:

1. They think that the next election cycle is too far away for it to matter that Obama currently has his highest approval rating since we killed bin Laden, and that a majority of Americans will blame the GOP if we go over the fiscal cliff.

2. Potato.
 
2012-12-20 11:38:13 PM  
Looks like the Republicans are going to be blamed for higher taxes. How perfect is that?

We need to go thru tough times to start paying down the debt, might as well take down the Republicans at the same time.

/or, y'know, they could just compromise like big boys
//starting with extending the tax rates for 98% of Americans, if Boehner would just let it come to a vote
 
2012-12-20 11:38:31 PM  
Wait, he was actually trying to get Republicans to go for the tax hike?
Actually?
 
2012-12-20 11:38:49 PM  
Can you imagine the hell this poor bastard went through in grade school- little Johnny boner Nya nya nya!
 
2012-12-20 11:39:08 PM  

Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!


Watching Eric Cantor run away from the press tonight would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so great.  You never want to say never in politics, but it sure feels like the GOP screwed themselves tonight.  If I were Obama, I would make another offer to Boehner (by choice, not because he's forced to) and see if they can get enough votes to push something through.  Otherwise, cut Boehner out and see if Obama can get the votes himself.

And we've barely begun the gun control fight :)
 
2012-12-20 11:39:17 PM  
From Politico:

"Things were so bad for Speaker John Boehner Thursday night, support for his Plan B tax bill so diminished, the limits of his power with his own party laid bare, that he stood in front of the House Republican Conference and recited the Serenity Prayer.

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Boehner nearly cried."
 
2012-12-20 11:39:19 PM  
Come on troll boy. Make 'em stay through Christmas. You know you want to....
 
2012-12-20 11:39:38 PM  

Mega Steve: Did he cry? I don't think I've ever seen a grown man bawl as much as he does


Is anyone else concerned that the man who is two heartbeats away from the presidency cries more often than a fourth-grade schoolgirl?
 
2012-12-20 11:39:54 PM  

Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!


He can't even take Obama's deal, because he can't deliver votes on it.

At this point, Obama is better off going around him and working with Pelosi to reach out to whatever small sliver of sane moderates are left in the GOP to strike a deal that will get them to join the Democrats to get enough vote to pass the House. I know moderate sane Republicans are all but an extinct species, but there have to be some defense hawks from military districts who are shiatting bricks right now about now.
 
2012-12-20 11:40:31 PM  
Hmmm...I'm not one for conspiracy theories (well, that's not true, but it sounds better this way), but what if....WHAT IF....once Boohooner found out Super Grover supported his plan he felt the need to withdraw it, because he knows the GOP is about to eat Grover for Christmas dinner?
 
2012-12-20 11:40:44 PM  
Why can't we herd all of the House and Senate back in there (yes, I know, herding cats) and chain lock the doors until they figure something workable out, while they're dropped down to minimum wages for a year?

Oh yeah, that's right... Because it's all Obama's fault...

We're completely farked, either way...
 
2012-12-20 11:41:19 PM  

Mentat: So all of you on the left who were raging at Obama for compromising, this is why I told you to relax.  The GOP is farking clown shoes.  The Democrats are united and have made several good faith compromises that they can show the people (including a tax cut bill that's passed the Senate), but the Tea Baggers are prepared to sink the ship out of spite.  Boehner has no control over them and now the knives are truly coming out.  All Obama has to do is sit back and wait.  If he can peel off enough GOP support to prevent a filibuster and push through a deal in the House, he doesn't need Boehner anymore.  If he can't, then he can sit back while we go over the cliff, let the GOP take the blame and then reset the terms after the first of the year.


I think you're right. In fact I think the 400k number he threw out there was a trap. He didn't honestly believe it would make it out of the Senate and I don't think he gives a crap if he ruffles some Dem feathers. They took it hook line and sinker. They refused the compromise on the tax rates, even refused the offer on social security and they have been drooling over that one. Plan B took it even farther to the extreme and they can't even get that out of the house.

We are going over the cliff. Everyones taxes are going to go up. Those fat cat defense contractors that support the republicans are looking at steep cuts. And on and on and on. By the time the new congress gets inaugurated they are going to have the entire planet pressuring them to get a farking deal done.

Make no mistake though. There is a civil war between establishment republicans and the tea party and it's a shooting war. The TP set Boehner up to fail just as much as the Whitehouse.

/not good for America at all
 
2012-12-20 11:41:50 PM  
And in case anyone thinks I'm taking joy in this, going over the cliff will probably fark me, as in "Holy shiat I'm middle aged and have to change careers".  But if that's what it takes to restore sanity to the government and the GOP and to break the power of the Tea Party, maybe that's what we have to do.
 
2012-12-20 11:41:51 PM  

sonnyboy11: Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession.

Yes.

Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?
Umm no. Republicans want to cut entitlements democrats want taxes to go up on the rich, that's why a deal can't be made the recession is the. part putting pressure on making a deal.

And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I

I think you missing the spending component of the "fiscal cliff". it is not only tax cuts but big cuts in defense and non-defense spending which will impact the economy.
 
2012-12-20 11:41:54 PM  

Jackson Herring: Does this mean we won't have another dozen headlines with this same unbelievably shiatty joke?


wait until the BONER BEGINS PREPARATION H jokes two weeks from now
 
2012-12-20 11:42:05 PM  
If "Plan B" had passed the House and gotten vetoed, Boehner could've at least pretended they tried and then attempted to pin the blame on Obama and the Senate. But failing to pass it at all exposes them as a bunch of incompetents. I don't see any other option but for a few Republicans (in very safe seats) to side with the Democrats on the Senate bill in order to avoid political suicide.
 
2012-12-20 11:42:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: sonnyboy11: Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?

We have to raise taxes and cut spending or else we'll go over the cliff which will result in us raising taxes and cutting spending.


So in short, this is all a buncha nonsense. Good. Let's go over the damn cliff already! Whatever it takes to get the wealthy back to paying their fair share.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:00 PM  

doyner: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.

No one could be both Speaker and rooted in reality these days.  So basically Boener's timing for ascending to the speakership just sucked.

But that doesn't change the fact that he speaks really douchey in his press conferences.


Then serve your farking country and denounce the members of your party for their role in diving off the fiscal cliff, or be called out as a failure.
 
2012-12-20 11:43:37 PM  
I thought that was an Onion article. What an asshole.
 
2012-12-20 11:44:14 PM  
This is pretty amazing. JB's proposal only raised taxes on millionaires, literally, and the baggers told him to stuff it. Incredible.
 
2012-12-20 11:44:22 PM  
The latest entry to
img191.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-20 11:44:33 PM  
Try Plan 9, Boner. The one where the brain-dead zombies are supposed to rule the world.

"You people of Earth are idiots!"
 
2012-12-20 11:44:34 PM  

Mentat: Watching Eric Cantor run away from the press tonight would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so great. You never want to say never in politics, but it sure feels like the GOP screwed themselves tonight. If I were Obama, I would make another offer to Boehner (by choice, not because he's forced to) and see if they can get enough votes to push something through. Otherwise, cut Boehner out and see if Obama can get the votes himself.


I think it will help a deal to be reached actually. It will force Boehner to compromise because he MUST have Dem votes to pass any bill in the house.

Democrats believe they can pass a bill in the house ALREADY, but Boehner won't let it come up for a vote. They think they could get it passed now already so you point doesn't make sense.
 
2012-12-20 11:45:17 PM  
Also, as I understand it, Fiscal Cliff is really more of a Fiscal Steep Grade. I wonder if it would push off the next debt limit crisis.
 
2012-12-20 11:45:29 PM  

enry:
For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.


You know who else got shiat done?
 
2012-12-20 11:45:38 PM  
To quote Jennifer Rubin (a conservative): "House R's humiliate their speaker, hand Obama a sword and discredit their ability to govern.. what's the encore?"
 
2012-12-20 11:45:46 PM  

i48.tinypic.com

"I made a poop!"

 
2012-12-20 11:45:52 PM  
Dear Mr. President,

Either invoke Article II Section 3 and make those martherfarkers celebrate in the Capitol or APPOINT EVERYBODY!

Sincerely,
A. Voter
 
2012-12-20 11:46:00 PM  

InmanRoshi: I know moderate sane Republicans are all but an extinct species, but there have to be some defense hawks from military districts who are shiatting bricks right now about now.



Problem is, even if there are moderate Republicans left, they've been blackmailed into sticking with the party, or they'll face a teabagger in their next primary.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:12 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.


well...yeah, I mean he is kinda bad at his job...but to be fair, he's gotta somehow ride heard on the GOP, which is a party that's almost completely delusional at this point.  he's gotta be the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind/crazy people who wanna give more money to rich people.  so i'm not sure just how much blame to put on him.
 
2012-12-20 11:46:36 PM  
How can you be so obtuse?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 11:46:40 PM  

Smackledorfer: doyner: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.

No one could be both Speaker and rooted in reality these days.  So basically Boener's timing for ascending to the speakership just sucked.

But that doesn't change the fact that he speaks really douchey in his press conferences.

Then serve your farking country and denounce the members of your party for their role in diving off the fiscal cliff, or be called out as a failure.


He's too busy painting Obama with his own sins:

"I'm convinced the president is unwilling to stand up to his own party," Boehner said at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

The ironing is delicious.
 
2012-12-20 11:47:04 PM  

sonnyboy11: Dusk-You-n-Me: sonnyboy11: Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?

We have to raise taxes and cut spending or else we'll go over the cliff which will result in us raising taxes and cutting spending.

So in short, this is all a buncha nonsense. Good. Let's go over the damn cliff already! Whatever it takes to get the wealthy back to paying their fair share.


Well, the House will either eat shiat or own the recession. Not a great prognosis.
 
2012-12-20 11:47:10 PM  

thornhill: To quote Jennifer Rubin (a conservative): "House R's humiliate their speaker, hand Obama a sword and discredit their ability to govern.. what's the encore?"


That's the sanest sh*t I've seen come out of that chick's mouth in ever. IN EVER!
 
2012-12-20 11:47:25 PM  

i48.tinypic.com

"PENIS WENT THERE!"

 
2012-12-20 11:47:33 PM  

Corvus: Mentat: Watching Eric Cantor run away from the press tonight would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so great. You never want to say never in politics, but it sure feels like the GOP screwed themselves tonight. If I were Obama, I would make another offer to Boehner (by choice, not because he's forced to) and see if they can get enough votes to push something through. Otherwise, cut Boehner out and see if Obama can get the votes himself.

I think it will help a deal to be reached actually. It will force Boehner to compromise because he MUST have Dem votes to pass any bill in the house.

Democrats believe they can pass a bill in the house ALREADY, but Boehner won't let it come up for a vote. They think they could get it passed now already so you point doesn't make sense.


I'm not sure where we're in disagreement.
 
2012-12-20 11:48:03 PM  
Cantor promised Boehner that he could deliver the votes .... just like Littlefinger promised Ned Stark he would deliver the Gold Cloaks.
 
2012-12-20 11:48:33 PM  

sonnyboy11: Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession. Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now? And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I


First of all, it's not a fiscal cliff, more of a fiscal slope that gets steeper each month into 2013. People will get smaller paychecks starting Jan. 1 (they won't lose their jobs right away), spending cuts will be the biggest pain first. Doctors will shun Medicaid and Medicare patients beginning immediately, defense contractors probably won't lay people off wholesale at the beginning, but it could happen if programs start getting chopped pretty quick. Lots of other areas where spending will dry up will be affected too.

I am not sold on the fact that we will actually dip back into a recession even if there's no movement for an entire year. It may be a wasted year as far as GDP growth is concerned, but it's not going to even last a full year.

If a deal isn't done come Jan. 1, taxes are going up on everyone. It becomes much easier for Obama/ Democratic Senators to start throwing out bills to cut taxes and watch the GOP burn as they shoot them down out of spite. Also, both parties will probably cave fairly quickly on spending measures for health care/defense.

This will all be resolved around the time of the Super Bowl at the latest and any tax cut is likely to be retroactive to Jan. 1 if we go over the slope.
 
2012-12-20 11:48:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Problem is, even if there are moderate Republicans left, they've been blackmailed into sticking with the party, or they'll face a teabagger in their next primary.


The Tea Party is an anchor.  Boehner already tried to cut them loose by taking away key committee assignments.  Now other Republicans have to step up and put them in their place.
 
2012-12-20 11:49:01 PM  

foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?


Something about the economy needing money injected into it and the private sector not being willing to do so and Europe and Japan showing us what happens when the government doesn't do it in situations like this?

I dunno, like history or something.
 
2012-12-20 11:49:13 PM  

InmanRoshi: Cantor promised Boehner that he could deliver the votes .... just like Littlefinger promised Ned Stark he would deliver the Gold Cloaks.


which...technically...littlefinger DID do.  He just neglected to mention which side they'd be on when they showed up.
 
2012-12-20 11:49:32 PM  

Corvus: sonnyboy11: Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession.
Yes.

Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?
Umm no. Republicans want to cut entitlements democrats want taxes to go up on the rich, that's why a deal can't be made the recession is the. part putting pressure on making a deal.

And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I
I think you missing the spending component of the "fiscal cliff". it is not only tax cuts but big cuts in defense and non-defense spending which will impact the economy.


Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?
 
2012-12-20 11:49:50 PM  

BionicCrab: This is pretty amazing. JB's proposal only raised taxes on millionaires, literally, and the baggers told him to stuff it. Incredible.


This is really it -- the GOP provided clear proof that they rather see everyone pay more in taxes than just millionaires. House members in safe districts are going to be ok come 2014, but it could end up being a very awkward cycle for Republicans running statewide.
 
2012-12-20 11:49:52 PM  

foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?


Taking spending as a percentage that would be quite appropriate yes.
 
2012-12-20 11:49:58 PM  

InmanRoshi: Cantor promised Boehner that he could deliver the votes .... just like Littlefinger promised Ned Stark he would deliver the Gold Cloaks.


Scorpion and the Frog
 
2012-12-20 11:51:42 PM  

NewportBarGuy: thornhill: To quote Jennifer Rubin (a conservative): "House R's humiliate their speaker, hand Obama a sword and discredit their ability to govern.. what's the encore?"

That's the sanest sh*t I've seen come out of that chick's mouth in ever. IN EVER!


She is really ripping into the GOP tonight:

Unfortunately his caucus has rendered Boehner a nonplayer in any future fiscal negotiation because he can no longer speak for his conference. Perhaps Boehner should quit and let the House GOP stew and watch as the country grabs pitchforks and torches to come after the tax-hikers. This is a party acting like a minority party, or worse, like petulant teenagers.

The world of Heritage Action Network, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and the other all-or-nothing hard-liners in the conservative media have encouraged and will delight in this sort of fiasco. That said, the fault lies with the spineless members who think they'll escape blame if they don't vote for any measure. That is folly, not to mention political cowardice. To govern is to choose, and they apparently can do neither.
 
2012-12-20 11:52:03 PM  

Irving Maimway: foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?

Something about the economy needing money injected into it and the private sector not being willing to do so and Europe and Japan showing us what happens when the government doesn't do it in situations like this?

I dunno, like history or something.


Favorited.

Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.
 
2012-12-20 11:52:08 PM  
Speaker of the house
Doling out the charm
Ready with a handshake
And an open palm
Tells a saucy tale
Makes a little stir
Customers appreciate a bon-viveur

Glad to do a friend a favor
Doesn't cost me to be nice
But nothing gets you nothing
Everything has got a little price!

Speaker of the house
Keeper of the zoo
Ready to relieve 'em
Of a sou or two
Watering the wine
Making up the weight
Pickin' up their knick-knacks
When they can't see straight
Everybody loves a landlord
Everybody's bosom friend
I do whatever pleases
Jesus! Won't I bleed 'em in the end!
 
2012-12-20 11:52:25 PM  

enry: For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.


You clearly don't remember the healthcare reform wrangling. Half the fault was Obama's for not pushing forward on his own, but she should get a lot of flack for the bill being reduced to the husk it is now.
 
2012-12-20 11:52:52 PM  
Oh and I can't believe I'm the first.

www.dialbforblog.com
 
2012-12-20 11:53:22 PM  
So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

Boehner shouldn't even want the job any longer. The teabaggers set him up, then left him out to hang. He should be thinking "fark them".

If the tea party installs one of their own as speaker, any remaining charade of Republican willingness to negotiate will evaporate. Boehner may be a terrible leader, but he's not a complete wingnut. If they vote a tea party wingnut into the job, it might result in their losing the house in the 2014 mid-terms.

/Here's hoping
//We are almost certainly going over the cliff. Now, the Repubicans are going to get all of the blame.
///Popcorn
 
2012-12-20 11:53:53 PM  

RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?


eric cantor?
 
2012-12-20 11:54:10 PM  

doyner: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.

No one could be both Speaker and rooted in reality these days.  So basically Boener's timing for ascending to the speakership just sucked.

But that doesn't change the fact that he speaks really douchey in his press conferences.


SilentStrider: Worse than whats his apname before Pelosi?


Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: How quickly they forget......
[pics of laughing Gingrich]
/The Adulterer laughs in your general direction.


enry: Naah. He's a disgusting human being but he was able to get bills passed.

Boehner is a disgusting human being that can't get bills passed.

For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.


MaudlinMutantMollusk: I. WILL. EAT. YOUR. SOUL.


No, he really is the worst.
Not just in incompetence, but also in sheer evil and willingness to corrupt the process without a hint of shame nor conscience.
 
2012-12-20 11:54:10 PM  

sonnyboy11: Corvus: sonnyboy11: Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession.
Yes.

Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?
Umm no. Republicans want to cut entitlements democrats want taxes to go up on the rich, that's why a deal can't be made the recession is the. part putting pressure on making a deal.

And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I
I think you missing the spending component of the "fiscal cliff". it is not only tax cuts but big cuts in defense and non-defense spending which will impact the economy.

Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?


People lose jobs, state budgets get worse due to increased unemployment and lower taxes. Fed gov has to make up the difference, negating most of the savings, at least in the short run.
 
2012-12-20 11:54:11 PM  

sonnyboy11: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?


Take away politics for a minute.  Defense cuts represent a significant amount of spending that's suddenly going to go away.  Not reallocated, gone.  That's going to have an economic effect.  One of the straw men that conservatives use regarding the Great Depression is that it was war spending that got us out of the Depression, not the New Deal.  But by every measure, New Deal spending and defense spending had the same effect on the economy.  From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:14 PM  
Worst. Speaker. Ever.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:30 PM  

sonnyboy11: Corvus: sonnyboy11: Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession.
Yes.

Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?
Umm no. Republicans want to cut entitlements democrats want taxes to go up on the rich, that's why a deal can't be made the recession is the. part putting pressure on making a deal.

And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I
I think you missing the spending component of the "fiscal cliff". it is not only tax cuts but big cuts in defense and non-defense spending which will impact the economy.

Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?


The Cuban, Mexican, and Canadian Armies are at our borders! What do you think will happen if we don't spend 7x the amount of the rest of the entire world on our military? Duh.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:10 PM  

Weaver95: RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

eric cantor?


Never, ever, say that again!
 
2012-12-20 11:56:18 PM  

InmanRoshi: Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!

He can't even take Obama's deal, because he can't deliver votes on it.

At this point, Obama is better off going around him and working with Pelosi to reach out to whatever small sliver of sane moderates are left in the GOP to strike a deal that will get them to join the Democrats to get enough vote to pass the House. I know moderate sane Republicans are all but an extinct species, but there have to be some defense hawks from military districts who are shiatting bricks right now about now.


Pelosi does not have the power to call anything to a vote. If Boehner even thought about sided with dems and trying to get enough votes from moderate republicans he would have a revolt on his hands and lose the speakership. Then again the teaparty just buried a dagger in his back so it looks like a republican civil war is on.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:38 PM  
www.akawilliam.com

We are so boned.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:47 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: You clearly don't remember the healthcare reform wrangling. Half the fault was Obama's for not pushing forward on his own, but she should get a lot of flack for the bill being reduced to the husk it is now.


Pelosi accomplished a hell of a lot more in her two years as Speaker than Boehner has.  She would have accomplished a lot more if not for the Senate.  Where Obama was at fault was in negotiating with himself before the negotiations began.  At the time, he still believed the GOP were rational actors.  He clearly doesn't believe that anymore.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:48 PM  
In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:09 PM  

Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.


Let's not forget that this is only a week or so after Mitch McConnell maneuvered himself into threatening to filibuster his own bill.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:23 PM  

Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.


From the perspective of jobs, defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs relative to several other forms of domestic spending. It's capital intensive, not labor intensive.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:37 PM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: enry: For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.

You clearly don't remember the healthcare reform wrangling. Half the fault was Obama's for not pushing forward on his own, but she should get a lot of flack for the bill being reduced to the husk it is now.


That is completely not true.

The Affordable Care Act got watered down because Obama and Reid refused to use reconciliation until the very end. They could have had the whole thing wrapped up before the summer recesses, but instead they let Max Baucus play pussy foot with Olympia Snowe all summer in the Finance Committee, then they wasted another month or so trying to get Blue Dog Senators onboard.
 
2012-12-20 11:57:45 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Weaver95: RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

eric cantor?

Never, ever, say that again!


hey, if we're gonna implode the country we might as well do it right.
 
2012-12-20 11:58:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.

From the perspective of jobs, defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs relative to several other forms of domestic spending. It's capital intensive, not labor intensive.


But the proposal isn't to reallocate the money, its to eliminate it entirely.
 
2012-12-20 11:58:55 PM  

Gosling: In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.


Ughhhhhh.... I don't want to see another election for at least a decade.
 
2012-12-20 11:59:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.


This would also be a good idea, They're fighting him on the Cabinet too, so might as well hang some recess appointments on them to drive home the point of who farking won.
 
2012-12-20 11:59:46 PM  

Lost Thought 00: But the proposal isn't to reallocate the money, its to eliminate it entirely.


Right, but that wasn't the point he made. Not all domestic spending is equal with regards to jobs.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:10 AM  
Going over this "cliff" means small across the board budget cuts. when we should be talking about 40-50 percent cuts, especially to the military (the world can learn to survive without us -including Japan) but also including social security in a way that pays it to those who already paid in, while phasing it out for everyone else.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:11 AM  

Gosling: demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.

This would also be a good idea, They're fighting him on the Cabinet too, so might as well hang some recess appointments on them to drive home the point of who farking won.


but then the GOP won't want to ever make a deal with Obama ever....oh, right.  well then f*ck it, he should do what you guys said.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:28 AM  

incendi: Clearly, this just shows how unwilling Obama is to compromise.


Within a year you'll hear conservatives saying that Boehner made such significant concessions in his counteroffer that the Republican party couldn't support it, so that is proof that Obama didn't compromise enough if Democrats would still vote for his offer.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:37 AM  
But because it also would have permitted tax rates to rise for about 400,000 extremely wealthy families, conservatives balked, leaving Boehner (Ohio) humiliated and his negotiating power immeasurably weakened.

Couldn't even make it out of the House. You sir are a complete failure.

But go ahead, blame it on Obama. I know you will.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:38 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.

From the perspective of jobs, defense spending is the least effective way to create jobs relative to several other forms of domestic spending. It's capital intensive, not labor intensive.


You're right, but again, that's too long term for what we're talking about.  We're talking about a sudden and significant spending cut and in the immediate term, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on but rather that it's not being spent.
 
2012-12-21 12:01:09 AM  

images.politico.com

I SUCK AT MY JOB DICK

 
2012-12-21 12:01:22 AM  

Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.


That's not right at all. Spending it on infrastructure produces more longterm economic activity than defense spending. Taking Hurricane Sandy as an example, if we spent $6 billion or so on a sea wall that could prevent flooding to Lower Manhattan, that would prevent future huge economic losses when Lower Manhattan floods. Or just think of all the economic activity that can occur thanks to a bridge or highway.
 
2012-12-21 12:02:57 AM  

thornhill: BionicCrab: This is pretty amazing. JB's proposal only raised taxes on millionaires, literally, and the baggers told him to stuff it. Incredible.

This is really it -- the GOP provided clear proof that they rather see everyone pay more in taxes than just millionaires. House members in safe districts are going to be ok come 2014, but it could end up being a very awkward cycle for Republicans running statewide.


The operating theory in the GOP right now may be:

1) Presidents own the economy.

2) Parties in opposition to the President typically do well in off-year elections, especially in a second term.

That would seem to indicate continuing a strategy of deliberately tanking the economy, even though that failed in this year's election.

And it might actually work, depending on how desperate the electorate is in 2014.

Add to that the fact that every GOP member has a group of lunatics back in his or her home district looking for an excuse to primary them and run with someone slightly to the right of Franco, and you've pretty much got the recipe for the situation we're in right now.
 
2012-12-21 12:03:32 AM  
Nelson.jpg
 
2012-12-21 12:03:45 AM  

RobertBruce: Going over this "cliff" means small across the board budget cuts. when we should be talking about 40-50 percent cuts, especially to the military (the world can learn to survive without us -including Japan) but also including social security in a way that pays it to those who already paid in, while phasing it out for everyone else.


Social safety nets are a good thing. They can help provide long term care for those that have eaten too many lead paint chips, like yourself.

We got ya bro.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:16 AM  

Mentat: We're talking about a sudden and significant spending cut and in the immediate term, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on but rather that it's not being spent.


Fair point. Full disclosure: I work in defense. The big wigs and their lobbyists are wailing about the end of the world, and it's in their interest to do that, but it really isn't the end of the world.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:19 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Also, as I understand it, Fiscal Cliff is really more of a Fiscal Steep Grade. I wonder if it would push off the next debt limit crisis.


No, it would still leave a deficit of roughly 560 Billion for 2013 alone.
 
2012-12-21 12:04:49 AM  

thornhill: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.

That's not right at all. Spending it on infrastructure produces more longterm economic activity than defense spending. Taking Hurricane Sandy as an example, if we spent $6 billion or so on a sea wall that could prevent flooding to Lower Manhattan, that would prevent future huge economic losses when Lower Manhattan floods. Or just think of all the economic activity that can occur thanks to a bridge or highway.


Once again, we're arguing about different time scales.  I absolutely agree that in the long term, domestic spending is better because it represents an investment that will generate greater returns than what we put in.  But in the immediate term, a sudden loss of government spending is going to have a negative economic impact.  RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent, only that it's being spent.  If that happens, it's going to have an immediate negative economic effect.
 
2012-12-21 12:05:07 AM  

thornhill: The Affordable Care Act got watered down because Obama and Reid refused to use reconciliation until the very end. They could have had the whole thing wrapped up before the summer recesses, but instead they let Max Baucus play pussy foot with Olympia Snowe all summer in the Finance Committee, then they wasted another month or so trying to get Blue Dog Senators onboard.


You may be right (I certainly remember the whole Olympia Snowe saga), but it was also the House Democrats that sunk many of the more ambitious proposals. Pelosi failed to get them to shut up and line up at the critical junctures, and they had to peel back more and more.

Americans love nothing more than success. If they had passed a big, ambitious healthcare act with a government option and all the other bells and whistles, those Blue Dogs that got wiped out in 2010 probably would have stood a better chance.

But that's a hypothetical, so meh...
 
2012-12-21 12:06:57 AM  

Mentat: You're right, but again, that's too long term for what we're talking about. We're talking about a sudden and significant spending cut and in the immediate term, it doesn't matter what it's being spent on but rather that it's not being spent.


The jobs lost in defense contracting will be hard to replace. They are incredibly well-paying jobs. The pain will be there, but we can't justify the level of defense spending we have based upon what we can do with a smaller force.

All cuts are painful in some way. I'd rather we do it there than cutting Medicare Part D or food stamps.

The very same people who complain about the government meddling in business simply won't get out of the way of government reducing their influence in the economy through arms dealing. Propping up a bloated defense industry is ok, but bailing out the auto industry with a one time investment is evil.

This is why I'll never understand their economic message. It's just pants on head retarded.
 
2012-12-21 12:07:16 AM  
Tonight's abandonment of Plan B just shows Obama is a very bad negotiator.
 
2012-12-21 12:07:26 AM  

RobertBruce: Going over this "cliff" means small across the board budget cuts. when we should be talking about 40-50 percent cuts, especially to the military (the world can learn to survive without us -including Japan) but also including social security in a way that pays it to those who already paid in, while phasing it out for everyone else.


Fark that. Just get rid of the $##% cap!
 
2012-12-21 12:07:45 AM  
Has there been a weaker Speaker of the House in my lifetime (since Reagan)? This guy can't get anything done with his party so polarized in the House. This was a chance for Republicans to at least try and take control of the narrative regarding who is responsible for middle-class taxes rising if we go off the cliff, and they scuttled it because half of them are stump dumb.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:22 AM  
Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?
 
2012-12-21 12:09:23 AM  

Weaver95: Gosling: demaL-demaL-yeH: Seriously, Mr. President, fill all of the empty federal benches and hang it on the Republicant's.

This would also be a good idea, They're fighting him on the Cabinet too, so might as well hang some recess appointments on them to drive home the point of who farking won.

but then the GOP won't want to ever make a deal with Obama ever....oh, right.  well then f*ck it, he should do what you guys said.


I thought it was the Senate that had to be in recess for the POTUS to make recess appointments.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:26 AM  
I do appreciate the responses guys. Thanks. It's not that I have not been paying attention. But these "alarms" get sounded all the time and, as I have gotten older, experience tells me anytime someone (or some political party) is trying to ram something through on the Hill, it's to satisfy a specific agenda. And it's rarely something in the best interests of the majority. Again, appreciate the insight.
 
2012-12-21 12:09:43 AM  

Funk Brothers: Tonight's abandonment of Plan B just shows Obama is a very bad negotiator.


Why? He can wait for the new year and make a deal with the Republicans retroactively when they have even less leverage than they do now, which is basically none.
 
2012-12-21 12:10:57 AM  
Thank God for the Tea Party. Who else is going to stand up for the multi-billionaires?
 
2012-12-21 12:11:42 AM  
But it would have allowed taxes to rise by about $300 billion over the next decade compared with current law.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding by the author. Under current law, the tax cuts expire, and spending cuts go into effect.

It would "allow taxes to rise by $300 billion over the next decade" relative to an extension of 2012 policy. NOT current law.
 
2012-12-21 12:11:48 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-21 12:12:26 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


They were not bad (save for a few decisions...which decisions depends on who you ask). However, jumping 20 years in single bound is not the best of ideas.
 
2012-12-21 12:12:56 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


Because EVERYONE benefitted economically. You know, Socialism.
 
2012-12-21 12:13:17 AM  

Carn: Why?


I think he was kidding. But you're absolutely right. The Senate passed an extension of the <$250K tax cuts back in July. They can pass those again and force the GOP to make a decision. Cut taxes for 98% of Americans or vote against tax cuts - and at the same time vote against their entire political philosophy for the last 30 years.
 
2012-12-21 12:14:11 AM  

Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?


Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:06 AM  

sonnyboy11: Again, appreciate the insight.


i48.tinypic.com

"I'm surrounded by crazy people! Michele Bachmann actually believes the sh*t that vomits from her mouth! How am I supposed to make these people see reason? It's like herding f*cking cats! In fact, that would probably be a whole helluva lot easier!"

 
2012-12-21 12:16:12 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naivete, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


Because the president was a black Democrat.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:46 AM  

Mentat: sonnyboy11: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Take away politics for a minute.  Defense cuts represent a significant amount of spending that's suddenly going to go away.  Not reallocated, gone.  That's going to have an economic effect.  One of the straw men that conservatives use regarding the Great Depression is that it was war spending that got us out of the Depression, not the New Deal.  But by every measure, New Deal spending and defense spending had the same effect on the economy.  From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.


That's not entirely true. Money that is spent on weapon systems does not have the same positive effect on the economy. Compare building an fighter to building a road, for example. In both cases, you get benefits of the pay going to workers and spending on materials. But with the fighter, the benefits stop there. The road, on the other hand, provides ongoing economic benefits to everyone who uses it long after it is built.

That's not to say that that you can't waste money on a useless road, or that you don't get some benefits from security provided by a fighter. But currently we have plenty of fighters, and an aging and often inadequate infrastructure in many other areas.
 
2012-12-21 12:16:48 AM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


Apparently we can because that is precisely what's going to happen.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:14 AM  
Obama's offering this guy a lifeline by trying to give him cover with an increase to $400k and chained CPI on social security...

All Obama has to do is wait for the "cliff" to happen and then come back and say "OK, how about tax cuts for everyone making under $250k, huh? Maybe I'll give back half the automatic Pentagon cuts, too.. You gonna go on record voting against tax cuts and military spending, Republican House members? Hmmm...

I think Boehner wants to take the deal today, but his constituency, and many House republicans, are cray-cray and he knows it.
 
2012-12-21 12:18:15 AM  
I miss the old fark counter that said every thread was even politically.
 
2012-12-21 12:19:13 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-21 12:20:38 AM  

sammyk: I thought it was the Senate that had to be in recess for the POTUS to make recess appointments.


Either house, really.

Which reminds me: pro forma sessions are something we ougnt to take care of at some point. Those are the things where every three days, a chamber comes in and holds a bullshiat 5-minute session to prevent an official recess from taking place and preventing recess appointments from happening. (Currently, you have to be out for three days to be in official recess.)
 
2012-12-21 12:20:46 AM  

Zasteva: That's not entirely true. Money that is spent on weapon systems does not have the same positive effect on the economy. Compare building an fighter to building a road, for example. In both cases, you get benefits of the pay going to workers and spending on materials. But with the fighter, the benefits stop there. The road, on the other hand, provides ongoing economic benefits to everyone who uses it long after it is built.

That's not to say that that you can't waste money on a useless road, or that you don't get some benefits from security provided by a fighter. But currently we have plenty of fighters, and an aging and often inadequate infrastructure in many other areas.


We're not in disagreement on any of this.  But again, we're talking about different time frames.  Rachel Maddow showed a graph tonight that showed projected growth figures for the next two quarters.  If we go off the cliff, growth will go from 3.1% (3Q2012) to 2% (4Q2012) to -3.9% (1Q2013).  That's the time frame we're talking about.
 
2012-12-21 12:21:23 AM  
Say what you want about Tom Delay... but he would not have put up with this sh*t. Republican rank and file would be waking up to horse heads.
 
2012-12-21 12:22:26 AM  
Make light of Boehner all you like, but the fact is that he probably does want to compromise, and is in reality an OK guy, but his party is loaded with radical fundamentalists now. Nobody is going to be able to work with the mindless radicals, and, as has been said, the GOP is now doomed.
 
2012-12-21 12:22:57 AM  

InmanRoshi: Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!

He can't even take Obama's deal, because he can't deliver votes on it.

At this point, Obama is better off going around him and working with Pelosi to reach out to whatever small sliver of sane moderates are left in the GOP to strike a deal that will get them to join the Democrats to get enough vote to pass the House. I know moderate sane Republicans are all but an extinct species, but there have to be some defense hawks from military districts who are shiatting bricks right now about now.


Pelosi doesn't want a deal. The only deal she wants would raise taxes to a point that would sink the future of the Democratic party in order to not make entitlement cuts. Her entire plan was premised on Republicans going over the cliff and taking the blame for it. There is no going around Boehner at this point. There is NO proposal that can pass both houses of congress.
 
2012-12-21 12:23:31 AM  

Mentat: We're not in disagreement on any of this. But again, we're talking about different time frames. Rachel Maddow showed a graph tonight that showed projected growth figures for the next two quarters. If we go off the cliff, growth will go from 3.1% (3Q2012) to 2% (4Q2012) to -3.9% (1Q2013). That's the time frame we're talking about.


It's going to be a bloodbath. Short-term investments are going to implode. YEEE HAAAW!

On a positive note, gasoline might break below $3!
 
2012-12-21 12:23:52 AM  

cloakandbadger: Say what you want about Tom Delay... but he would not have put up with this sh*t. Republican rank and file would be waking up to horse heads.


Indeed. He'd have 'em convinced he'd rape their dogs and run over their daughters.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:05 AM  
kg2095: That's the face of someone who has seen Newton naked.

Awwww, man... I did NOT need that mental image

/I mean... just..... GAaahhhh!
 
2012-12-21 12:24:19 AM  
I'm starting to think that my coworkers decision to move his 401k into bonds and cash on December 1st wasn't so crazy. What does anyone figure, a 5% drop in the NYSE tomorrow?

/still think their monied overlords will put a gun to their political heads and tell them to make it happen
 
2012-12-21 12:24:38 AM  
Boehner could have been a winner by championing a compromise. Tea Party 'over lords' would have used their Super Pac(s) money and found another GOP zombie to do their bidding. It's better to go out vindicated, strong and in control. Rather than a weak 'puppet' not taking responsibility. Sad day.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:21 AM  

Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.


So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.
 
2012-12-21 12:25:51 AM  

Mentat: thornhill: Mentat: From the perspective of the economy, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent so long as it's being spent.  Long term, obviously, it would be better to reallocate to domestic spending, but that's not the issue with the fiscal cliff.

That's not right at all. Spending it on infrastructure produces more longterm economic activity than defense spending. Taking Hurricane Sandy as an example, if we spent $6 billion or so on a sea wall that could prevent flooding to Lower Manhattan, that would prevent future huge economic losses when Lower Manhattan floods. Or just think of all the economic activity that can occur thanks to a bridge or highway.

Once again, we're arguing about different time scales.  I absolutely agree that in the long term, domestic spending is better because it represents an investment that will generate greater returns than what we put in.  But in the immediate term, a sudden loss of government spending is going to have a negative economic impact.  RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter where the money is being spent, only that it's being spent.  If that happens, it's going to have an immediate negative economic effect.


Heh, could have saved myself my earlier post if I had seen this first.

Yes, the impact will be negative. Potentially a lot of high paying defense contractor jobs lost. A short term stimulus in other areas could make up for some of that. Plus, there isn't really a shortage of high tech jobs (at least not for people like software engineers), so a good number of those people will just get snapped up by private industry that is having trouble hiring good people.

Regardless it seems like we won't have to speculate about it much longer.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:02 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Carn: Why?

I think he was kidding. But you're absolutely right. The Senate passed an extension of the <$250K tax cuts back in July. They can pass those again and force the GOP to make a decision. Cut taxes for 98% of Americans or vote against tax cuts - and at the same time vote against their entire political philosophy for the last 30 years.


Even better, you don't have the Bush tax cuts anymore, since they expired.

You now have the Obama tax cuts.

If the Republicans were thinking at all they'd realize that.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:36 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.


Boehner is a little better as Speaker of the House than this guy was:

upload.wikimedia.org

Theodore_M._Pomeroy
 
2012-12-21 12:26:39 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: kg2095: That's the face of someone who has seen Newton naked.

Awwww, man... I did NOT need that mental image

/I mean... just..... GAaahhhh!


The fat censors automatically.
 
2012-12-21 12:27:26 AM  
Honestly, can we stop feeling sorry for Boehner and his pack of rabid ferrets now? The guy should lead his idiots out of the darkness, Bruce Campbell style. Or just give in...
 
2012-12-21 12:27:54 AM  
Serenity prayer ftfw. I seriously loled, then shared it with my bartender for a double-lol. That's how AA folks say "Fark this shiat! I'm OUT!"
 
2012-12-21 12:29:04 AM  
i.imgur.com
You mean that our taxes will go up after all?  You and your stupid Tea Party idea!
 
2012-12-21 12:30:08 AM  

RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

Boehner shouldn't even want the job any longer. The teabaggers set him up, then left him out to hang. He should be thinking "fark them".

If the tea party installs one of their own as speaker, any remaining charade of Republican willingness to negotiate will evaporate. Boehner may be a terrible leader, but he's not a complete wingnut. If they vote a tea party wingnut into the job, it might result in their losing the house in the 2014 mid-terms.

/Here's hoping
//We are almost certainly going over the cliff. Now, the Repubicans are going to get all of the blame.
///Popcorn


All I can think of is West Wing after John Goodman's cameo (not to spoil too much.) Long story short, a Speaker they ideologically disagreed with but at least understood comity and decorum lost his gig thanks to the White House, and got replaced with an asshat who disagreed with them AND was willing to play chicken at every turn/purposely screw up intense negotiations to make the other party look bad for expecting good faith from this guy.

Believe it or not, we haven't seen how much BS you can pull off if you completely want to make Congress a fustercluck. And considering they have single digit approval ratings, its not like they're worried about losing public support.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:35 AM  

NewportBarGuy: On a positive note, gasoline might break below $3!


I got gas for 2.93 today (with 3 cents off shopping card). Even though I could only put 5.5 gallons in because I saw stations not too far away at 3.29. I assume they're all up there by now.
 
2012-12-21 12:30:41 AM  
If I was Boner, I would have said 'f+ck it, do whatever you want'. That way, when and if the economy collapses, the American people can place all blame on the black feller, the repub party is destroyed (which it is already) and Americans will finally create a true nationalist party.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:45 AM  
On his way to pay his respects to Inouye, Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said he had "no clue" what was happening with Plan B. Asked whether he planned to vote for it, he said again: "I have no clue."

That about sums it up for the GOP.

COMALite J: No, he really is the worst.
Not just in incompetence, but also in sheer evil and willingness to corrupt the process without a hint of shame nor conscience.


Wow... is that video completely legit? Because if it is, man... what a load of bollocks.
 
2012-12-21 12:36:14 AM  

Tyranicle: If I was Boner, I would have said 'f+ck it, do whatever you want'. That way, when and if the economy collapses, the American people can place all blame on the black feller, the repub party is destroyed (which it is already) and Americans will finally create a true nationalist party.


[quizzical_dog.jpg]
 
2012-12-21 12:36:26 AM  

12349876: I assume they're all up there by now.


Why assume? :)
 
2012-12-21 12:36:55 AM  

Mentat: So all of you on the left who were raging at Obama for compromising, this is why I told you to relax.  The GOP is farking clown shoes.


The Teabaggers are the ones who are the ball-lickers. The Democrats are gonna maintain our social safety net while they watch and cry like little whiny biatches. Once we get to Washington and find those Tea Party farks who is holding up progress... we're gonna make them eat our bills, then shiat out our bills, and then eat their shiat that's made up of our bills that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you Senate GOP motherfarks are next.

Love,

Jay and Silent Bob.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:15 AM  

fatassbastard: 12349876: I assume they're all up there by now.

Why assume? :)


Because I'm not worried about buying gas for a while now my tank is full.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:36 AM  

BeSerious: Wait, he was actually trying to get Republicans to go for the tax hike?
Actually?



Yep. Big Money doesn't want the instability that might be brought on by going over this cliff, and have said as much. They've been urging the GOP to make a compromise. But Boehner has about as much control as a special ed teacher responsible for 50 mentally disabled students running loose in a Lazer Tag arena.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:18 AM  

Crafty Bernardo: Obama's offering this guy a lifeline by trying to give him cover with an increase to $400k and chained CPI on social security...

All Obama has to do is wait for the "cliff" to happen and then come back and say "OK, how about tax cuts for everyone making under $250k, huh? Maybe I'll give back half the automatic Pentagon cuts, too.. You gonna go on record voting against tax cuts and military spending, Republican House members? Hmmm...

I think Boehner wants to take the deal today, but his constituency, and many House republicans, are cray-cray and he knows it.


Agreed, and now it looks like the only way to get a deal is with the Democrats leading the charge with a handful of defecting moderate Republicans. That means at the very least they'll probably take out the chained CPI to obtain a unified Democratic Caucus.
 
2012-12-21 12:39:49 AM  

angryjd: Pelosi doesn't want a deal. The only deal she wants would raise taxes to a point that would sink the future of the Democratic party in order to not make entitlement cuts. Her entire plan was premised on Republicans going over the cliff and taking the blame for it. There is no going around Boehner at this point. There is NO proposal that can pass both houses of congress.



They'll make an end run and go through the Republicans by force, however, they have to wait until the next Congress is seated. New Senate rules, more Democrats, and Pelosi can force a vote on the issue if she has a majority of the votes, which will only take 17 Republicans.

We will go over the cliff...for less than a month. Before February 1st, order will have been restored. This is all going according to schedule.
 
2012-12-21 12:45:11 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!


You have been very funny lately. You are now favorited as "funny for a shellfish"
 
2012-12-21 12:45:34 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: New Senate rules


Wait, what's in the pipeline with regards to these?
 
2012-12-21 12:46:15 AM  
The Republican'ts are blowing their best remaining opportunity to handle this with any amount of leverage. Once we go over the cliff, people will be screaming at them, and they'll have to accept way worse terms (for them) than they can get now. This is the royally screwed, catch-22 situation we all knew they would be in when the automatic cuts and tax increases were originally set up. Likewise, the Dems should just continue to troll them while looking reasonable, offering them slightly better terms knowing full well that the teabaggers won't let the GOP take ANY deal.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:27 AM  

sonnyboy11: Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.

So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.


It isn't just that. It is that the cuts, by design to incentivise a compromise, are inefficient as all hell. So expect more jobs lost than a controlled 10% cut would have AND 'good' money turned bad as programs cost 90% of what they used to but deliver 80% of the results. Our budgets are bloated, but they aren't random, and the bloat isn't going to be what gets cut.

You won't see the overpriced backscatters get sold off by tsa, you will see them kept in a garage or left unmaintained while agents get fired. I know, fark the tsa, but double fark the massive spending on mediocre toys. The political will that bought them isn't taking the cut here. The employees likely havw less voice than the machines.

And so on throughout both the defense department AND the "entitlements".

Only a foolish libertarian would want the cuts over a compromise. The kind who just wants to watch the gov burn and doesn't give a shiat about consequences.
 
2012-12-21 12:47:48 AM  

Grungehamster: incendi: Clearly, this just shows how unwilling Obama is to compromise.

Within a year you'll hear conservatives Bob Woodward saying that Boehner made such significant concessions in his counteroffer that the Republican party couldn't support it, so that is proof that Obama didn't compromise enough if Democrats would still vote for his offer.


FTFY
 
2012-12-21 12:48:32 AM  
I'm largely concerned about the cliff because it's going to SERIOUSLY eff up NSF grants. It's only a small cut, but *Because* of the way the NSF structures its grant, my advisor basically explained it's going to *halve* the available grant money. =/.

At least there's plenty of TA positions. As long as he gets enough money to keep research going, I'll be alright....
 
2012-12-21 12:49:58 AM  

LouisXIII: sonnyboy11: Dusk-You-n-Me: sonnyboy11: Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now?

We have to raise taxes and cut spending or else we'll go over the cliff which will result in us raising taxes and cutting spending.

So in short, this is all a buncha nonsense. Good. Let's go over the damn cliff already! Whatever it takes to get the wealthy back to paying their fair share.

Well, the House will either eat shiat or own the recession. Not a great prognosis.


Let's party like it's 1937!
 
2012-12-21 12:51:02 AM  

This Face Left Blank: The Teabaggers are the ones who are the ball-lickers. The Democrats are gonna maintain our social safety net while they watch and cry like little whiny biatches. Once we get to Washington and find those Tea Party farks who is holding up progress... we're gonna make them eat our bills, then shiat out our bills, and then eat their shiat that's made up of our bills that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you Senate GOP motherfarks are next.

Love,

Jay and Silent Bob.


7.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com
 
2012-12-21 12:51:14 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Cry havoc! And let slip the cuts to war!


It's expensive being world police.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:55 AM  
test
 
2012-12-21 12:53:05 AM  
Wow, the TP'ers and the rest of the Republicans must be incredibly stupid.
Now Obama, the Dems, and everyone else in the country knows that they're incapable of making even the smallest overtures at compromise, even after Obama made some very reasonable offers to meet in the middle. Either the Democrats will just find a few moderate Republicans (if such a thing exists) and barter for votes to get their plan passed ASAP and in the process probably get more of what they want than with Obama's last offer, or they will go over the cliff. At that point everyone will know that the Republicans are completely responsible for it, and the Dems will be able to negotiate from the standpoint of lowering taxes. Just watch how popular Republicans become if they try and stall tax cuts on everyone in the name of arguing for tax cuts on $250k+ earners.
 
KIA
2012-12-21 12:58:13 AM  
Options:

A) It's not a cliff, it's a speed-bump. Going over it isn't going to cause lasting damage, so just do it.

B) It's a cliff, but we just can't see a way to cut spending nor raise taxes so kick the can out about 6 months and let someone else worry about it.

C) Eh, let's keep spending until we go bankrupt and don't have any control over what gets cut, we have to cut it all, so full steam ahead.

D) Take a handful of Farkitol, wake up in February and look for your shadow.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:12 AM  

Smackledorfer: sonnyboy11: Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.

So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.

It isn't just that. It is that the cuts, by design to incentivise a compromise, are inefficient as all hell. So expect more jobs lost than a controlled 10% cut would have AND 'good' money turned bad as programs cost 90% of what they used to but deliver 80% of the results. Our budgets are bloated, but they aren't random, and the bloat isn't going to be what gets cut.

You won't see the overpriced backscatters get sold off by tsa, you will see them kept in a garage or left unmaintained while agents get fired. I know, fark the tsa, but double fark the massive spending on mediocre toys. The political will that bought them isn't taking the cut here. The employees likely havw less voice than the machines.

And so on throughout both the defense department AND the "entitlements".

Only a foolish libertarian would want the cuts over a compr ...


Would you be able to better define the term "cuts" as it is used in your statement here and give some specifics? The last part of your statement doesn't really explain it. And why they are inefficient? It sounds a compelling argument. And if this comes off as lazy, I can certainly go find more details on my own. But it seems like you may have info immediately at hand.
 
2012-12-21 01:02:40 AM  

Arcturus72: Why can't we herd all of the House and Senate back in there (yes, I know, herding cats) and chain lock the doors until they figure something workable out, while they're dropped down to minimum wages for a year?

Oh yeah, that's right... Because it's all Obama's fault...

We're completely farked, either way...


Welllll...Obama can. He has the right to call the Congress into a special session. It doesn't happen often, and it seems the last time it was done was in 1948 by Harry S. Truman. I imagine it isn't done is because it would likely piss off a lot of congress critters, at a time where every drop of political capital needs to be nurtured and spent wisely.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:07 AM  

NukeEuropeNow: enry:
For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.

You know who else got shiat done?


Clinton?

/What'd I win
 
2012-12-21 01:05:49 AM  
I think I'm actually okay with the fiscal cliff and taxes going up now. I sort of see it like the movies where the hero takes the villain over the edge of the building with him. If I go down, you're going down...and I don't really have that far to go, so....enjoy!
 
2012-12-21 01:06:41 AM  

Crafty Bernardo: Obama's offering this guy a lifeline by trying to give him cover with an increase to $400k and chained CPI on social security...

All Obama has to do is wait for the "cliff" to happen and then come back and say "OK, how about tax cuts for everyone making under $250k, huh? Maybe I'll give back half the automatic Pentagon cuts, too.. You gonna go on record voting against tax cuts and military spending, Republican House members? Hmmm...

I think Boehner wants to take the deal today, but his constituency, and many House republicans, are cray-cray and he knows it.


Good. Maybe he can tack on a check for $300 per person for stimulus. Just for the lulz.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:49 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: The Jami Turman Fan Club: New Senate rules

Wait, what's in the pipeline with regards to these?


Elimination of hand-wave filibusters. Also, simple majority to begin debate, not a super majority. Basically the R's will have to stand up there and talk. They'll have to pick their battles a little more carefully, because once you sit down (or fall down) you don't get to talk again, and once everyone has had their say... simple majority to pass, no cloture vote required.
 
2012-12-21 01:09:24 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: Let's not forget that this is only a week or so after Mitch McConnell maneuvered himself into threatening to filibuster his own bill.


He didn't just threaten it. According to current rules (no talking filibuster) McConnell DID filibuster his own bill. It even woke McCaskill up
link
 
2012-12-21 01:11:09 AM  

Gosling: In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.


THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
 
2012-12-21 01:11:36 AM  
I've come to the conclusion that the teabaggers WANT a total collapse of government.

They seriously want it.  I'm not joking.

Many of them have been stockpiling guns and supplies and foodstuffs (just look at the things that are for sale on right wingnut websites) since the Clinton administration.  And, I think it would give them a perverse sort of thrill to be proved right...even if they are the ones almost wholly responsible for the collapse.

The major question I have is whether the Republican party will do what's right and tell its large contingent of lunatics to get lost (thereby relegating the party to minority status for a generation) or whether they'll say, "fark it" and take us down with them.
 
2012-12-21 01:14:45 AM  

Gawdzila: Wow, the TP'ers and the rest of the Republicans must be incredibly stupid.
Now Obama, the Dems, and everyone else in the country knows that they're incapable of making even the smallest overtures at compromise, even after Obama made some very reasonable offers to meet in the middle. Either the Democrats will just find a few moderate Republicans (if such a thing exists) and barter for votes to get their plan passed ASAP and in the process probably get more of what they want than with Obama's last offer, or they will go over the cliff. At that point everyone will know that the Republicans are completely responsible for it, and the Dems will be able to negotiate from the standpoint of lowering taxes. Just watch how popular Republicans become if they try and stall tax cuts on everyone in the name of arguing for tax cuts on $250k+ earners.


Makes me believe the recent overtures from Obama to reach a solution were never much more than an exercise to help shore up the position of Democrats. Kind of a "hey- we tried to compromise!". There was little chance the Repubs were ever going to compromise. And they were so set in that course of action, now we can easily blame them for any negative outcome to all this. Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.
 
2012-12-21 01:14:58 AM  

Fecal Conservative: Gosling: In a parliamentary system, we'd be calling new elections right about now.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS


Keep in mind that we had "new" elections just six weeks ago.
 
2012-12-21 01:15:03 AM  

eraser8: I've come to the conclusion that the teabaggers WANT a total collapse of government.

They seriously want it.  I'm not joking.

Many of them have been stockpiling guns and supplies and foodstuffs (just look at the things that are for sale on right wingnut websites) since the Clinton administration.  And, I think it would give them a perverse sort of thrill to be proved right...even if they are the ones almost wholly responsible for the collapse.

The major question I have is whether the Republican party will do what's right and tell its large contingent of lunatics to get lost (thereby relegating the party to minority status for a generation) or whether they'll say, "fark it" and take us down with them.


And knowing how our system of Disaster Capitalism works these days, the rich leading this rabble probably stand to profit immensely somehow.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:19 AM  
i90.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-21 01:17:50 AM  

sonnyboy11: Smackledorfer: sonnyboy11: Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.

So because we are worried some defense contractors would lose their jobs, we should just stay the course and let government ram something through to help save them? I'm sorry but that's not a good reason. I lost my job this past year and had to retrain and re-adjust my skills to get back into the job market doing something at the salary I desire. I'm sorry for all these defense contractors who are paid handsomely and might lose their jobs- but tough situation. They're educated and they'll be fine. And I'm not saying I want the economy overall to suffer or want to see a massive increase in unemployment. But defense spending needs to be cut, even if pain is felt by us all in the short term.

It isn't just that. It is that the cuts, by design to incentivise a compromise, are inefficient as all hell. So expect more jobs lost than a controlled 10% cut would have AND 'good' money turned bad as programs cost 90% of what they used to but deliver 80% of the results. Our budgets are bloated, but they aren't random, and the bloat isn't going to be what gets cut.

You won't see the overpriced backscatters get sold off by tsa, you will see them kept in a garage or left unmaintained while agents get fired. I know, fark the tsa, but double fark the massive spending on mediocre toys. The political will that bought them isn't taking the cut here. The employees likely havw less voice than the machines.

And so on throughout both the defense department AND the "entitlements".

Only a foolish libertarian would want the cuts over a compr ...

Would you be able to better define the term "cuts" as it is used in your statement here and give some specifics? The last part of your statement doesn't really explain it. And why they are inefficient? It sounds a compelling argument. And if this comes off as lazy, I can certainly go find more details on my own. But it seems like you may have info immediately at hand.


Afaik it is ten percent across the board, each dept, etc. This means immediate instead of winding down (firing instead of reducing staff by attrition - which means training new hires sooner too, and programs stopped midway instead of finishing and replanned for the future, etc).

Everyone I know in the gov (im federal fyi), even the folks who support cuts steeper than the cliff and vote dem, say the abruptness and inability to control how they go down will be a mess.

Bear in mind many gov agencies have already been operating on budgets not guaranteed for the past year as it is.

Personally I am not high enough up to know exactly how things will be, and gov employees gossip as bad as restaurant employees, but I know enough about budgeting to know you don't haphazardly slash budgets. You do not pick ten percent of every leaf on a tree to cut, you prune the branches in an intelligent manner.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:08 AM  
There should be a sitcom titled 'Oh Boehner !'
 
2012-12-21 01:19:58 AM  

Modguy: Arcturus72: Why can't we herd all of the House and Senate back in there (yes, I know, herding cats) and chain lock the doors until they figure something workable out, while they're dropped down to minimum wages for a year?

Oh yeah, that's right... Because it's all Obama's fault...

We're completely farked, either way...

Welllll...Obama can. He has the right to call the Congress into a special session. It doesn't happen often, and it seems the last time it was done was in 1948 by Harry S. Truman. I imagine it isn't done is because it would likely piss off a lot of congress critters, at a time where every drop of political capital needs to be nurtured and spent wisely.


Better yet, Truman did it to the "Do-Nothing Congress."

/Which would make it a vicious backhand.
//Quit messing with the background, Drew. It takes forever to load.
 
2012-12-21 01:20:49 AM  

sonnyboy11: Gawdzila: Wow, the TP'ers and the rest of the Republicans must be incredibly stupid.
Now Obama, the Dems, and everyone else in the country knows that they're incapable of making even the smallest overtures at compromise, even after Obama made some very reasonable offers to meet in the middle. Either the Democrats will just find a few moderate Republicans (if such a thing exists) and barter for votes to get their plan passed ASAP and in the process probably get more of what they want than with Obama's last offer, or they will go over the cliff. At that point everyone will know that the Republicans are completely responsible for it, and the Dems will be able to negotiate from the standpoint of lowering taxes. Just watch how popular Republicans become if they try and stall tax cuts on everyone in the name of arguing for tax cuts on $250k+ earners.

Makes me believe the recent overtures from Obama to reach a solution were never much more than an exercise to help shore up the position of Democrats. Kind of a "hey- we tried to compromise!". There was little chance the Repubs were ever going to compromise. And they were so set in that course of action, now we can easily blame them for any negative outcome to all this. Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.


Well since republicans are too stupid to call the bluff we will never know.

Or we could look at the last four years and see tha Obama isn't a socialist devil and has been willing to compromise in the past moreso than republicans....
 
2012-12-21 01:24:50 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: //Quit messing with the background, Drew. It takes forever to load.


I thought Fark had shiat itself.
 
2012-12-21 01:26:32 AM  

robodog: I'm starting to think that my coworkers decision to move his 401k into bonds and cash on December 1st wasn't so crazy. What does anyone figure, a 5% drop in the NYSE tomorrow?

/still think their monied overlords will put a gun to their political heads and tell them to make it happen


It's going to be bad. Check out the pre-market/futures on CNBC's website.Those are PRIOR to the start of the trading day.

/on phone, no linky
 
2012-12-21 01:28:03 AM  
So far, the only thing they Mayans have impacted is the load time of this page. Big image is a bad idea, Drew.
 
2012-12-21 01:28:46 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Modguy: Arcturus72: Why can't we herd all of the House and Senate back in there (yes, I know, herding cats) and chain lock the doors until they figure something workable out, while they're dropped down to minimum wages for a year?

Oh yeah, that's right... Because it's all Obama's fault...

We're completely farked, either way...

Welllll...Obama can. He has the right to call the Congress into a special session. It doesn't happen often, and it seems the last time it was done was in 1948 by Harry S. Truman. I imagine it isn't done is because it would likely piss off a lot of congress critters, at a time where every drop of political capital needs to be nurtured and spent wisely.

Better yet, Truman did it to the "Do-Nothing Congress."

/Which would make it a vicious backhand.
//Quit messing with the background, Drew. It takes forever to load.



From Wikipedia:
"The 80th Congress was nicknamed the "Do Nothing Congress" by President Harry Truman. The Congress opposed many of the bills passed during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. They also opposed most of Truman's Fair Deal bills. Yet they passed many pro-business bills. During the 1948 election Truman campaigned as much against the "Do Nothing Congress" as against his formal opponent, Thomas Dewey."

LOL, where have I heard that one before?
 
2012-12-21 01:32:23 AM  

sonnyboy11: Makes me believe the recent overtures from Obama to reach a solution were never much more than an exercise to help shore up the position of Democrats.


Maybe or maybe not. Obama is a couple steps ahead of the game, no doubt, but it also seems like he genuinely values bipartisanship to the point where he took flak for the number of compromises he made in his first term. I don't think he would have made an offer he wouldn't have signed. That said, the fact that Obama was willing to change his offer so much more than Boehner does give the Dems a lot more credibility when it comes to making efforts at compromise to avoid the cliff.
 
2012-12-21 01:32:32 AM  

Mentat: demaL-demaL-yeH: //Quit messing with the background, Drew. It takes forever to load.

I thought Fark had shiat itself.


Goddamned Mayans
 
2012-12-21 01:32:46 AM  

Mentat: I thought Fark had shiat itself.


Its all so brown....
 
2012-12-21 01:33:10 AM  
By the way, I continue to be frustrated at all of the people who WANT to go over the cliff. As was mentioned upthread, budgets are bloated, but they aren't random. These cuts will ripple out and you will feel the effects soon.

/asshats in the House GOP ruining my investments...
//farking asshats
 
2012-12-21 01:40:26 AM  

fatassbastard: COMALite J: No, he really is the worst.
Not just in incompetence, but also in sheer evil and willingness to corrupt the process without a hint of shame nor conscience.

Wow... is that video completely legit? Because if it is, man... what a load of bollocks.


Yes, it's legit. This is also why the Republican Party would do very well to never, ever, mention the word "Teleprompter" ever again.

Keep in mind what it shows that even Ben Swann didn't notice (or at least didn't comment on): Bœhner didn't show a hint of shame at what he did. He did it without a moment's hesitation.

Contrast this with the unfortunately much more well known similar situation with the DNC and their party platform vote on symbolic language referencing God and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Same basic scenario (though without having to resort to kidnapping and false imprisonment of two whole States' worth of delegates as well as the leader of the opposition, and having earlier prevented the seating of a third State's delegates, all to stack the vote in the Party bosses' favor): they needed a two-thirds supermajority (note: that means that for each and every "Nay" vote, there must be a bare minimum of two "Aye" votes! More than that if it's a voice vote to get past the "absolutely no question" threshold), but the actual vote couldn't even be said to result in a clear simple majority by voice vote. Also, in both cases, the "results" were pre-scripted on the teleprompter.

If it was close to twice as loud for the "Ayes" but the chair couldn't tell if it was truly at least twice as numerous, the proper parliamentary procedure is to call for a show of hands or some other more accurate means of tabulating the vote (e.g. roll call). Neither Speaker Bœhner at the RNC nor Mayor Villiarosa at the DNC did this, yet the Mayor did at least show hesitation and unwillingness to falsify the vote. He called for a repeat of the voice vote three times, and was clearly torn because he knew that it couldn't even be said to be a clear simple majority, let alone a two-for-one (two-thirds) supermajority. Unfortunately, he finally knuckled under to the party bosses and read the script like a good boy. I'd've had a lot more respect for him had he stood his ground and done a role call or some such, or simply declared the obvious, that they did not have a two-thirds supermajority, and the motion to amend the platform did not carry. I still respect that he at least showed that he had a conscience, even if he squelched it in the end when it really counted.

Contrast Bœhner and the RNC. First off, while this was a Party rule and not a Platform change, in the grand scheme of things, this was a far more important vote. The DNC one was merely symbolic. This one has actual far-reaching ramifications from now on, as Swann pointed out.

But more importantly, the RNC bosses resorted to subtrefuge to prevent much of the opposition from participating in the vote, and even then they couldn't even muster a clear simple majority, let alone 2:1 (two-thirds) supermajority! Yet Bœhner didn't even hesitate. No calls for recounts from him! No, he just barreled on ahead, reading the pre-scripted results and pre-scripted (and false) claims of lack of objections, and passed the rule change that forever disenfranchises all grassroots movements from power in the GOP!

About the objections: when the vote is called, you can clearly hear shouts of "Objection!" and "Point of Order!" Yet, simultaneous with this, there erupted a seemingly spontaneous cry of "U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!" that drowned out those shouts. Coincidence? No! We have actual testimony from delegates that they were previously instructed to shout "U.S.A.!!" right after the voice vote results were announced! It was not spontaneous!

Why would they be instructed to do that? Because under parliamentary procedure, if the Chair hears either of those things shouted from the floor by even one delegate, he must immediately suspend everything until the objection has been heard and resolved! The shouts of "U.S.A.!!"gave Bœhner probable cause to claim that he heard those objections!

In short, what we see here is the Speaker of the U.S. Congress House of Representatives, arguably the most powerful directly elected person in the entire nation, pervert the parliamentary procedure process for a major rule change vote. He did that to his own Party's delegates!

This brings up a vital question: if he's willing to do that at his own Party's convention without a moment's hesitation nor even a twinge of shame, how can we be sure that he would never do, or even has never done, likewise in Congress!? Have bills been passed to the Senate or even to the President for signature that the majority voted against? Have bills been prevented from passage that the majority voted for!? Only he knows for sure, but now we have powerful reason to suspect that this may well be the case.
 
2012-12-21 01:48:57 AM  

Mentat: Corvus: Mentat: Watching Eric Cantor run away from the press tonight would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so great. You never want to say never in politics, but it sure feels like the GOP screwed themselves tonight. If I were Obama, I would make another offer to Boehner (by choice, not because he's forced to) and see if they can get enough votes to push something through. Otherwise, cut Boehner out and see if Obama can get the votes himself.

I think it will help a deal to be reached actually. It will force Boehner to compromise because he MUST have Dem votes to pass any bill in the house.

Democrats believe they can pass a bill in the house ALREADY, but Boehner won't let it come up for a vote. They think they could get it passed now already so you point doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure where we're in disagreement.


A) h doesn't have to make a new offer. They are pretty sure the current offer can pass.
B) Bohner is not letting it come up for a vote. He controls what can be voted on, and even if something can pass he can make it so it doesn't get a vote. There is no " cut Boehner out " because he controls the votes.

In past times Speakers of the house would let votes on bills they didn't like but thought they could pass but not this congress.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:12 AM  
Technically the House has passed a plan.  Any chance of Reid combining it with the Senate bill that has passed, and using reconciliation to essentially force the House to accept the Senate plan?
 
2012-12-21 01:52:29 AM  

sonnyboy11: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?


Well if you pull 50 billion out of spending it comes out of the economy, it comes out of someone's pockets. You don't get that?

Not saying I am against it but that's the way it goes.
 
2012-12-21 01:53:07 AM  

quickdraw: Mentat: I thought Fark had shiat itself.

Its all so brown....


All the Fark is brown
on the Earth's last day
I just tried to post
And the lag said nay
 
2012-12-21 01:57:25 AM  

Corvus: A) h doesn't have to make a new offer. They are pretty sure the current offer can pass.
B) Bohner is not letting it come up for a vote. He controls what can be voted on, and even if something can pass he can make it so it doesn't get a vote. There is no " cut Boehner out " because he controls the votes.


I didn't say Obama has to work with Boehner, I said that he can if he wants to continue promoting an imagine of bipartisanship.  The point is that he has the choice now.  And Pelosi still has the option of a discharge petition if they could get enough GOP defectors.  Granted, it's not likely to happen, but what do the Democrats have to lose at this point?  If nothing else, it's one more "we tried to compromise" event.
 
2012-12-21 01:58:15 AM  

Mentat: quickdraw: Mentat: I thought Fark had shiat itself.

Its all so brown....

All the Fark is brown
on the Earth's last day
I just tried to post
And the lag said nay


lol
 
2012-12-21 01:59:50 AM  

FishyFred: robodog: I'm starting to think that my coworkers decision to move his 401k into bonds and cash on December 1st wasn't so crazy. What does anyone figure, a 5% drop in the NYSE tomorrow?

/still think their monied overlords will put a gun to their political heads and tell them to make it happen

It's going to be bad. Check out the pre-market/futures on CNBC's website.Those are PRIOR to the start of the trading day.

/on phone, no linky


Linky.

S&P's at -20, and DJIA only -170 instead of the -200 it was earlier tonight, so it looks like we open roughly where we opened this Monday.

Unless the Speaker discreetly told everyone to get short ahead of a thinly-traded holiday week, he has some explaining to do. Judging from the surge in the last few minutes of trading today, it doesn't look like he told anyone. He needs to gain control of his caucus or he needs to be replaced by someone who can. He may not be answerable to the taxpayers or the RNC, but he should be answerable to the Street.
 
2012-12-21 02:01:57 AM  

quizzical: So far, the only thing they Mayans have impacted is the load time of this page. Big image is a bad idea, Drew.


and somebody has to be 'that guy', (i think it's just my turn) but isn't the thingee taking forever to load aztec, not mayan?
 
2012-12-21 02:02:25 AM  
Where, I wonder, are all the fark independents (real and trademarked) who spent the last year pointing out that Obama is bad not because of bad ideas, but because he couldn't force the republicans to work with him through the magic of the bully pulpit?

Will they show up in any of these threads to explain how Obama is supposed to compromise with republicans who can't even pass their own bill?
 
2012-12-21 02:08:57 AM  
Amazing. I really am enjoying watching Fartbongo push the repubs off the cliff.
 
2012-12-21 02:11:54 AM  

heap: quizzical: So far, the only thing they Mayans have impacted is the load time of this page. Big image is a bad idea, Drew.

and somebody has to be 'that guy', (i think it's just my turn) but isn't the thingee taking forever to load aztec, not mayan?


My Central American contacts say it is Aztec.
 
2012-12-21 02:12:03 AM  

Mentat: Corvus: A) h doesn't have to make a new offer. They are pretty sure the current offer can pass.
B) Bohner is not letting it come up for a vote. He controls what can be voted on, and even if something can pass he can make it so it doesn't get a vote. There is no " cut Boehner out " because he controls the votes.

I didn't say Obama has to work with Boehner, I said that he can if he wants to continue promoting an imagine of bipartisanship.  The point is that he has the choice now.  And Pelosi still has the option of a discharge petition if they could get enough GOP defectors.  Granted, it's not likely to happen, but what do the Democrats have to lose at this point?  If nothing else, it's one more "we tried to compromise" event.


The Senate has already passed a bill. They are not letting a vote on it in the house because they are afraid it is going to pass. So I don't see why there needs to be some new bill because it would be the same thing.

Bohener is saying "Obama and the Senate has done nothing" but the reality is if the House approved the Bill that the senate already passed it would be over. Making a new bill has nothing to do with it, and cutting Boehner is impracticable because basically they have already tried and can't get a vote.
 
2012-12-21 02:12:36 AM  

sugardave: foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?

HOW ABOUT BOTH?! For fark's sake....


In less than 250 posts of discussion (some of them just pictures) Fark has been able to come up with a solution that has evaded politicians for years.

/Well done Farkers!
//Fark you politicians!
 
2012-12-21 02:18:00 AM  
I will not be surprised if Boehner isn't rellected speaker of the house. The man is an absolute joke. The tea party nuts have crippled congress.
 
2012-12-21 02:21:43 AM  
remember when the GOP were so cocky about setting this whole thing up, because they knew, KNEW they would retake the white house and the senate? remember when the scoffed at those silly libs who chose to believe math, while the GOP knew, KNEW that the numbers where really on their side? Then the way those teaparty candidates said what they actually meant about things like rape, and how romney laid out what they really think about "the 47%"?

and here we are. sitting and staring at the house of cards the GOP has built, and watching the dawning realization come across their faces as the reality of the situation starts to sink in. They bought their own bullshiat, and now they can't give it back.
 
2012-12-21 02:26:22 AM  

midpoint:
My Central American contacts say it is Aztec.


then it makes perfect sense by not making sense.

log_jammin: remember when the GOP were so cocky about setting this whole thing up, because they knew, KNEW they would retake the white house and the senate? remember when the scoffed at those silly libs who chose to believe math, while the GOP knew, KNEW that the numbers where really on their side? Then the way those teaparty candidates said what they actually meant about things like rape, and how romney laid out what they really think about "the 47%"?

and here we are. sitting and staring at the house of cards the GOP has built, and watching the dawning realization come across their faces as the reality of the situation starts to sink in. They bought their own bullshiat, and now they can't give it back.


i'm not sure how, but on more than one occasion i've heard people complaining about Obama having engineered the fiscal cliff situation.

don't worry, reality won't sink in - why would it, when you can just retcon it into something more convenient.
 
2012-12-21 02:40:11 AM  

heap: don't worry, reality won't sink in - why would it, when you can just retcon it into something more convenient.


I meant for the party "leadership". the rank and file will still chant and yell about whatever they are told to, and the tea bagger congressmen will throw tantrums about how the rich should not have a one cent tax increase.

But I think the leadership is starting to see their monster has turned against them and has them backed into a corner. They of course wont ever admit to that, but we know they know. and it amuses the hell out of me.
 
2012-12-21 02:40:26 AM  
Electing Republicans in 2012... not since Waterworld has so much money been invested in this magnitude of failure

i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-21 02:40:38 AM  
Yay, 0.5% GDP growth in 2012, here we come!

Could have been 3%, but you know, we gotta be all austere like England because that's working great for them.
 
2012-12-21 02:44:54 AM  

Mentat: And in case anyone thinks I'm taking joy in this, going over the cliff will probably fark me, as in "Holy shiat I'm middle aged and have to change careers".  But if that's what it takes to restore sanity to the government and the GOP and to break the power of the Tea Party, maybe that's what we have to do.


Meh. I've been in that mode since 2008, when my well-paying job evaporated...

I still have some assets in the bank, my car is in good running condition, and I've really cut back on buying stuff that I don't need. I'll be OK...
 
2012-12-21 02:51:30 AM  
How can boner possibly not resign at this point? I don't get why/how he hangs on.
 
2012-12-21 02:52:19 AM  
I can't wait until we go off the cliff like thelma and louise. immediately afterward, obama can give tax cuts to the middle class, and republicans will be powerless to stop him (because they can't vote against a tax cut for their constituency).

excited!
 
2012-12-21 03:09:50 AM  

log_jammin: But I think the leadership is starting to see their monster has turned against them and has them backed into a corner. They of course wont ever admit to that, but we know they know. and it amuses the hell out of me.


it's been a tiger-by-the-tail situation for awhile now, but i'm left wondering just how long leadership in the GOP will remain....leadership in the GOP.

the lack of anyone else more able to make legislative sausage with the coalition-of-the-spiteful is about his only saving grace at this point.
 
2012-12-21 03:13:30 AM  
Sequestration will lead to the unemployment of many of my coworkers. The cuts are not targeted at inefficiencies, they are across the board, meaning they are sloppy and cause carnage.
 
2012-12-21 03:15:26 AM  
I haven't seen a Boehner this sad since my wedding night. BA-DA-BING!
 
2012-12-21 03:18:34 AM  

Rann Xerox: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.
This man is bad at his job.

Boehner is a little better as Speaker of the House than this guy was:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 520x600]
Theodore_M._Pomeroy


How do you figure? Pomeroy didn't do anything. I wish we were so lucky with Boehner.
 
2012-12-21 03:19:56 AM  

heap: it's been a tiger-by-the-tail situation for awhile now, but i'm left wondering just how long leadership in the GOP will remain....leadership in the GOP.

the lack of anyone else more able to make legislative sausage with the coalition-of-the-spiteful is about his only saving grace at this point.


I don't know man. This is uncharted waters for my little brain. I haven't the foggiest how this all plays out, for the budget or the GOP.
 
2012-12-21 03:22:39 AM  

foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?


Stop throwing logical stuff like that out there.

Raising taxes will not generate more tax revenue for the government. History has shown higher taxes have caused people to hide their money in tax shelters, invest overseas, and not invest much here. That equals low tax revenue for the government and makes that pie much smaller for the morons in DC to redistribute money. Keep taxes low and stop spending so damn much.

/mmm pie
 
2012-12-21 03:30:56 AM  

ShawnDoc: Technically the House has passed a plan. Any chance of Reid combining it with the Senate bill that has passed, and using reconciliation to essentially force the House to accept the Senate plan?


The House would have to re-pass any changed bill. There's no way the existing House bill is getting through the Senate with a lot of revisions, let alone getting signed by the President. IIRC, the main advantage of budge reconciliation is that it only requires a simple majority of the Senate.

The real answer is that we're almost certainly going over the cliff. I've believed that since the election. I never for a minute though Boehner had the votes to pass anything. Tonight's vote just proved the truth of this.

The reason we're going over the cliff is because there aren't anywhere near enough Republicans in the House who will vote for a tax increase - even an increase of just a few points - even if it's only on the wealthiest 1%. They'd rather have the taxes rise automatically in order to give them political cover, even though their refusal may result in a TREMENDOUS cost to the nation's economy. It's a rather small bit of political cover versus the cliff, they've clearly chosen the cliff.

A large majority of House Republicans have just proven themselves to be the opposite of patriots. For the sake of some political cover, they've purposefully decided to severely damage the financial health of the nation. Cowards to a man.
 
2012-12-21 03:31:10 AM  
It's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, except the death of the GOP.  Which is something, I guess.
 
2012-12-21 03:36:56 AM  

Shrinkwrap: Sequestration will lead to the unemployment of many of my coworkers. The cuts are not targeted at inefficiencies, they are across the board, meaning they are sloppy and cause carnage.


Republicans don't see the difference.

Keep in mind that I am not a Democrat.
 
2012-12-21 03:41:15 AM  

MaliFinn: Electing Republicans in 2012... not since Waterworld has so much money been invested in this magnitude of failure

[i208.photobucket.com image 750x600]


No, everyone in both parties owns this charles foxtrot. The Dems are being just as inflexible and stupid. Now everybody gets to eat a shiat sandwich and like it.

/you as a people who elected this collection of grabass you see in the White House and in Congress are getting exactly the government you deserve
 
2012-12-21 03:49:26 AM  
Has anyone noticed that his name, Boehner, is almost like Boner? HAHAHAHA!!

OMG! Some comedian is gonna make a ton of money when that put that in their act. HAHAHA!
 
2012-12-21 03:51:03 AM  

hdhale: MaliFinn: Electing Republicans in 2012... not since Waterworld has so much money been invested in this magnitude of failure

[i208.photobucket.com image 750x600]

No, everyone in both parties owns this charles foxtrot. The Dems are being just as inflexible and stupid. Now everybody gets to eat a shiat sandwich and like it.

/you as a people who elected this collection of grabass you see in the White House and in Congress are getting exactly the government you deserve


Show your work. How are both parties being equally inflexible?
 
2012-12-21 03:53:01 AM  

slimkibbles: Keep taxes low and stop spending so damn much.


As business owners know, you have to spend money to make money.
The U.S. is not a household trying to pay off its credit cards; we don't have a fixed salary like a working family does. It is a business trying to expand: our income depends on our economic growth. We need to stimulate growth with spending, and we need to pay for that stimulus in part with spending cuts, yes, but also with taxes. Obama's plan contains both. While it's true that taxes can sometimes drive people to hide money, reciting that mantra like it is some kind of inevitable law of the universe is silly. It is NOT always true under every possible circumstance. Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed, despite all the doomsday speeches and hand-wringing from the conservatives. Plus, the austerity route is exactly the way that Europe has gone, and it hasn't helped their financial situation. This sort of blanket argument for lowering taxes and spending is just too simplistic to be correct. Taken to extremes, it hurts the middle class and decreases their discretionary spending power which ends up hurting big businesses.
 
2012-12-21 03:56:11 AM  

hdhale: /you as a people


Not "We, the People", eh?

Don't let your arsehole stain our doorknob on your way out.

Well ... bye.
 
2012-12-21 04:06:13 AM  

hdhale: The Dems are being just as inflexible and stupid.


That's a laugh.
Aside from the fact that Obama has modified his offer far more than Boehner (and even his plan got shot down by Repubs), Obama was elected while running on exactly the fiscal platform he offered up. I guess Republicans are all about letting the people decide when it comes to banning gay marriage, but don't have two f*cks to give for the people when it comes to fiscal policy.
 
2012-12-21 04:07:02 AM  
"Instead, Cantor has taken on a behind-the-scenes role. Where a year-and-a-half ago he ferried the conservatives' message to Boehner, drilling home the idea that a plan involving raising taxes could never get enough votes to pass, now he shuttles in the opposite direction, arguing Boehner's case for tax hikes to often-dubious caucus members. Publicly, he issues statements of support; privately, he counsels unity."

Link

LOL. What "often-dubious caucus members" may look like:

threatqualitypress.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-21 04:10:33 AM  

hdhale: No, everyone in both parties owns this charles foxtrot. The Dems are being just as inflexible and stupid. Now everybody gets to eat a shiat sandwich and like it.


Put down the crack pipe.

The President just won an electoral landslide running on the platform of tax increases for those making over $250K. You don't have to like it, but that's the fact jack.

Even after winning another four years, along with netting more seats in both the House and Senate, the President has been negotiating with the Republicans in good faith. Why? I don't know, I'd tell them to get farked, but Obama actually went well past 1/2 way towards their position. He moved from $250K to $400k, he also accepted cuts to social programs, he didn't have to do any of that. The Bush tax cuts will automatically expire on January 1. Obama has an automatic win on January 1, yet Obama is still negotiating, still giving ground.

Exactly what ground have the Republican given?

Now, the Republican House can't even pass their own farking bill? A bill purely designed to provide political cover, a bill the President would never sign? They couldn't pass THAT?

The problem is not in both parties. The President is not being inflexible. The voters have made their intent clear, even with the voters mandate the President is negotiating, the Republicans are not. Even if they were, the Republican House wouldn't pass any reasonable middle ground legislation.

The dysfunction is overwhelmingly in the Republican party, over-Farking-whelmingly.  Any other interpretation is a drug-addled hallucination.
 
2012-12-21 04:11:37 AM  

Smackledorfer: hdhale: MaliFinn: Electing Republicans in 2012... not since Waterworld has so much money been invested in this magnitude of failure

[i208.photobucket.com image 750x600]

No, everyone in both parties owns this charles foxtrot. The Dems are being just as inflexible and stupid. Now everybody gets to eat a shiat sandwich and like it.

/you as a people who elected this collection of grabass you see in the White House and in Congress are getting exactly the government you deserve

Show your work. How are both parties being equally inflexible?


Well, the Democrats aren't giving the Republicans every goddamn thing they want, just most of it. They should compromise by giving the Repubs more than they even asked for and accepting a shiat sandwich in return.
 
2012-12-21 04:13:38 AM  
Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Let the Sequestration begin. I'm good with that.

When the next House and Senate are seated, Obama should offer up a new bill that cuts taxes for everyone making less than $250,000/year, still has some responsible cuts to Defense (even the Pentagon is for some cuts to their budget) but protects social programs. It should be carefully crafted to specifically mention raises for military personnel, protecting Social Security and Medicare for the poor, disabled and elderly, etc. This bill would also include scaling tax increases on those making more than $1,000,000/year, up to a top tax rate of 70% (up from ~39%, where they will be after the Bush cuts sunset).

The GOP will of course balk at this, despite it being popular with most Americans. Obama can then offer up a compromise, once the media has gone out of their way to paint the economy as ready to tank due to Republicans refusal to work with the President, and the GOP is on the ropes. The compromise? Same bill, but the top tax rate is lowered to 60% on those making more than $1,000,000/year.

I love political theater, and the next couple of months should prove to be very entertaining, indeed. It's time to make the GOP squirm, and make it clear to all what the Tea Party really is: A bunch of toadies only looking out for millionaires.
 
2012-12-21 04:13:40 AM  
Why do people keep electing these asshats?
 
2012-12-21 04:22:31 AM  
I know it'd be crossing a dangerous line of concentrating power in the Executive branch, but at what point does "obstructionism" cross the line to treason? Isn't there some law on the books the DOJ could use to drag some of these congresscritters before a judge for knowingly allowing the country as a whole to be damaged for the sake of their political agenda?
 
2012-12-21 04:30:11 AM  

MmmmBacon: It's time to make the GOP squirm, and make it clear to all what the Tea Party really is: A bunch of toadies only looking out for millionaires.


The Tea Party is the GOP's Frankenstein, the millionaires who built it no longer control it. Fox News created the first artificial lifeform in the form of the Tea Party Patriot. It is completely impervious to logic, reason and exists only for confrontation with Liberals. They made it to see only in black and white, any shade of gray only enrages it.

Even the US Chamber of Commerce has, although begrudgingly, endorsed Obama's plan. Stocks are already falling overseas tonight on the uncertainty, big business has been urging the GOP leadership to get something done. And they can't. Any member of the Tea Bag contingent in the House seems to be far more afraid of being burned as a RINO than of even a global economic collapse.

They endanger the whole world, and America's security, by playing games with the economy over ideas that the sensible on both sides of the aisle have already dismissed. They're un-American assholes and petty little tyrants.
 
2012-12-21 04:32:52 AM  

TheJoe03: Why do people keep electing these asshats?


In the House of Representatives? Largely, it's gerrymandering.

There were move votes for Democratic House members than Republicans this past elections, yet Republics retained control of the House. Some nations fix this by electing party slates, then seating members based on how many votes each party receives. We don't, we suffer severe gerrymandering.

I'd like to see districts assigned by random, computer drawn maps, randomly reselected once a decade. It wouldn't be completely fair, but it would be a lot more fair than the purposeful gerrymandering we have today.

Rachel Maddow: Republican Gerrymandering
 
2012-12-21 04:38:55 AM  
My federal agency has already put out the word that due to sequestration, there may be furloughs. They want to kiss ass on millionaires while the common folks starve in the streets...just because Boehner can't negotiate or persuade. Why is he even in politics?
 
2012-12-21 04:42:24 AM  

gideon: Maybe it's my naiveitae, but can someone, in a logical fashion, explain to me why the economic practices of 1992 to 2000 were bad?


The problem is with the fiscal cliff is that it cuts the deficit too quickly and will probably damage the economy as a result.

It's actually what the Tea Party wanted, except that it cuts Defense spending as well as domestic spending. It's like Hoover all over again.

www.ecommcode2.com
 
2012-12-21 04:43:12 AM  

EmmaLou: My federal agency has already put out the word that due to sequestration, there may be furloughs. They want to kiss ass on millionaires while the common folks starve in the streets...just because Boehner can't negotiate or persuade. Why is he even in politics?



Boehner is an ass of extreme magnitude, but you can't fault him for not being able to reason with the angry Tea Party mob in the House. Nobody can. Cantor is trying, I guess he speaks retard the best, and even he doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Somebody needs to start coming up with some pics of these Tea Baggers going down on their pages, it's time for some real political nut twisting.
 
2012-12-21 04:58:00 AM  
Boehner should go home for Christmas and don't come back to Washington.
 
2012-12-21 05:04:22 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Boehner is an ass of extreme magnitude, but you can't fault him for not being able to reason with the angry Tea Party mob in the House. Nobody can. Cantor is trying, I guess he speaks retard the best, and even he doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Somebody needs to start coming up with some pics of these Tea Baggers going down on their pages, it's time for some real political nut twisting.


The funny thing is that Cantor doesn't really have much of anything in common with the average tea bagger. Cantor is an upper class high-finance Jewish guy. Prior to the tea party, he really only seemed to give a fark about high wealth individuals. He's a poster boy for Club for Growth, not the tea party. His wife had a high paying no-show job with a big New York bank, one that received a lot of TARP funds.

The upper class high-finance demo of the tea party has to be small, the Jewish demo? A lot smaller Cantor's got as much in common with the average tea bagger as Obama does. My guess is that he only went all tea baggy to avoid a primary challenge, probably just riding the wave ever since.

Waves do crash, I have to wonder if the 2014 mid-terms are going to be a tea bagger massacre.
 
2012-12-21 05:07:46 AM  
Hey Tea Baggers!...


com·pro·mise[kom-pruh-mahyz] Show IPA noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing. noun 1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands. 2. the result of such a settlement. 3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house. 4. an endangering, especially of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity. You work for us. Nut up and stop blocking political progress because you are bitter about the election results. The majority of us don't want you working for us, and the more you continue to be a hindrance to progress, the more likely we are to vote your stupid asses out in 2014.

Just saying.
 
2012-12-21 05:20:09 AM  

RandomRandom: Insatiable Jesus: Boehner is an ass of extreme magnitude, but you can't fault him for not being able to reason with the angry Tea Party mob in the House. Nobody can. Cantor is trying, I guess he speaks retard the best, and even he doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Somebody needs to start coming up with some pics of these Tea Baggers going down on their pages, it's time for some real political nut twisting.

The funny thing is that Cantor doesn't really have much of anything in common with the average tea bagger. Cantor is an upper class high-finance Jewish guy. Prior to the tea party, he really only seemed to give a fark about high wealth individuals. He's a poster boy for Club for Growth, not the tea party. His wife had a high paying no-show job with a big New York bank, one that received a lot of TARP funds.

The upper class high-finance demo of the tea party has to be small, the Jewish demo? A lot smaller Cantor's got as much in common with the average tea bagger as Obama does. My guess is that he only went all tea baggy to avoid a primary challenge, probably just riding the wave ever since.

Waves do crash, I have to wonder if the 2014 mid-terms are going to be a tea bagger massacre.


The Atlantic article I linked earlier seems to say that Cantor tried to harness the Tea Party for his own political gains, and sort of created, or helped create, this mess before giving up on trying to turn a bunch of crazies into their own bona fide power bloc. I don't think they're too happy with him upstairs at the GOP.
 
2012-12-21 05:29:53 AM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


Because socialism?
 
2012-12-21 05:33:26 AM  

RandomRandom: hdhale: No, everyone in both parties owns this charles foxtrot. The Dems are being just as inflexible and stupid. Now everybody gets to eat a shiat sandwich and like it.

Put down the crack pipe.

The President just won an electoral landslide running on the platform of tax increases for those making over $250K. You don't have to like it, but that's the fact jack.

Even after winning another four years, along with netting more seats in both the House and Senate, the President has been negotiating with the Republicans in good faith. Why? I don't know, I'd tell them to get farked, but Obama actually went well past 1/2 way towards their position. He moved from $250K to $400k, he also accepted cuts to social programs, he didn't have to do any of that. The Bush tax cuts will automatically expire on January 1. Obama has an automatic win on January 1, yet Obama is still negotiating, still giving ground.

Exactly what ground have the Republican given?


They haven't given up any ground at all. For twenty years, they've pledged to never vote for a tax increase on anyone under any circumstances. With John Boehner pulling this bill, we know for sure that at least a majority of his caucus is still holding to that plege and refusing to vote for tax increases on anyone under any circumstances. And this is even though three out of four self-identified Republicans say such a pledge is a bad idea. We also have Mitch McConnell filibustering a bill that he personally took to Harry Reid for a vote because he didn't want it to be put to an up-or-down vote. And that doesn't even account for the debt ceiling shenanigans that happened last summer or the numerous insane attempts of state legislatures to nullify federal laws that have been affirmatively declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Merriam-Wester defines insurgency as "the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency." Similarly, insurgent is defined as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially a rebel not recognized as a belligerent."

It's time to face reality. It's time to stop mincing words. The Republican Party as constitutied in Congress and many state legislatures today is an insurgency. They are trying to kill the federal government and the country.
 
2012-12-21 05:39:40 AM  

Serious Black: It's time to face reality. It's time to stop mincing words. The Republican Party as constitutied in Congress and many state legislatures today is an insurgency. They are trying to kill the federal government and the country.



But if we're a legitimate democracy, we have a way to shut that whole thing down, right?

Seriously? What's left? Is there some point where they break the law in their shenanigans? Have they broken them already? Can we do ABSCAM again?
 
2012-12-21 05:51:07 AM  

Corvus: and the Obvious question:

How in the hell do you ever suggest a plan like this unless you are 100% sure you have the votes. Because if you don't it makes your position much much weaker. Your position now is "I need Democrat support even in the house to pass it".


that shouldn't be an issue! Every bill does NOT have to pass on party lines!
 
2012-12-21 05:54:46 AM  

GungFu: How can you be so obtuse?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x557]


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-21 06:03:11 AM  

06wildcat: Doctors will shun Medicaid and Medicare patients beginning immediately, defense contractors probably won't lay people off wholesale at the beginning, but it could happen if programs start getting chopped pretty quick. Lots of other areas where spending will dry up will be affected too.


nonsense.
 
2012-12-21 06:20:31 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Serious Black: It's time to face reality. It's time to stop mincing words. The Republican Party as constitutied in Congress and many state legislatures today is an insurgency. They are trying to kill the federal government and the country.


But if we're a legitimate democracy, we have a way to shut that whole thing down, right?

Seriously? What's left? Is there some point where they break the law in their shenanigans? Have they broken them already? Can we do ABSCAM again?


I don't think there is sadly, especially not with how SCOTUS has neutered corruption rules for legislators.

I think the best-case scenario for crushing this insurgency is probably for Obama to call for a clean hike of the debt ceiling. He's already done a form of that by calling for the McConnell provision to be made permanent, but I'm almost certain he would ask for a clean hike in lieu of of that. When the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling and we hit it, Obama should refuse to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional and let the GOP off the hook. He's also done that by saying he does not believe the 14th Amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Instead, he should make interest obligations the first priority to pay from tax withholding, and he should direct other federal agencies to shut down and direct state contributions to end based on his priorities with the remaining incoming funds from tax withholding. This would almost certainly trigger a market collapse that, if left to continue for long enough, would cause a worldwide recession and push countries to start looking for a new reserve currency since they couldn't buy US bonds. As long as President Obama continually reiterated that he does not have the power to violate the debt ceiling and issue new bonds to reopen the government, the public would surely break against the GOP and force them to do what Obama wants.
 
2012-12-21 06:23:55 AM  
Aside from my own personal taxes going up, the fiscal cliff will also mean that the grants that I need to do science for the next three years will also be canceled. This isn't money for salaries for scientists (though it is so I can hire field technicians), but also for the equipment and overhead needed to do these studies. It was a study on the impacts of sea levels to heavily utilized natural resources.

This makes me incredibly nervous and sad.
 
2012-12-21 06:25:28 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: enry: For all the misguided hate on Pelosi, she really got stuff done.

You clearly don't remember the healthcare reform wrangling. Half the fault was Obama's for not pushing forward on his own, but she should get a lot of flack for the bill being reduced to the husk it is now.


Yeah I remember it. But she still got it to pass, and thay was my point.

Also why I said misguided hate rather than just hate.
 
2012-12-21 06:28:16 AM  
Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.
 
2012-12-21 06:29:01 AM  

Thunderpipes: Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.


How is he holding the middle class hostage?
 
2012-12-21 06:31:57 AM  

gulogulo: Aside from my own personal taxes going up, the fiscal cliff will also mean that the grants that I need to do science for the next three years will also be canceled. This isn't money for salaries for scientists (though it is so I can hire field technicians), but also for the equipment and overhead needed to do these studies. It was a study on the impacts of sea levels to heavily utilized natural resources.

This makes me incredibly nervous and sad.


taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.
 
2012-12-21 06:32:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.


preview.turbosquid.com
 
2012-12-21 06:34:27 AM  
Here's what will happen:

Everyone will posture and make deals to serve themselves, and the American public will pay for it.

In the end, nothing will be done except through smoke and mirrors, just like always. All we will do is kick the can down the road, AGAIN. And we will continue our descent into abyss.

Who was it (de Toqueville?) who said democracy won't work because eventually they figure out they can vote themselves the treasury?

Look to Greece. That's where we are headed. Look to California, they are almost already there.

Rewarding failure and inprofligance is the new American way. Why work if Uncle Sucker will steal from your neighbor to give you the same crap?

Now is the time that a whole new generation of people get to learn what is meant by "out years". This budget deal will do nothing now BUT YOU JUST WAIT, it will totally turn around in the out years. Uhm-hmmm.

I say take the cliff. Anything we pass at this point will just be worse. It will be a different version of the same cliff, but with payola to the critters on top.

Take the cliff. Call your representative and demand that he take the cliff.
 
2012-12-21 06:36:51 AM  

relcec: gulogulo: Aside from my own personal taxes going up, the fiscal cliff will also mean that the grants that I need to do science for the next three years will also be canceled. This isn't money for salaries for scientists (though it is so I can hire field technicians), but also for the equipment and overhead needed to do these studies. It was a study on the impacts of sea levels to heavily utilized natural resources.

This makes me incredibly nervous and sad.

taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.


Or (hear me out) we could radically broaden the tax base so that a lot of people can actually get a tax cut and a few people who have been lucky duckies avoiding taxes so far get a small tax hike. Why not use a transaction tax?
 
2012-12-21 06:39:56 AM  

relcec: taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.


I'm not rich. In fact, on my salary, I am not even middle class. And I don't even mind the taxes as much as I do the cuts to important things like..conserving our natural resources. How dare I want shiat, right?
 
2012-12-21 06:40:22 AM  

SevenizGud: Look to Greece. That's where we are headed.


Greece fails to collect over 30% of its tax burden because tax avoidance is the national sport. We are nothing like Greece.
 
2012-12-21 06:42:18 AM  

Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!


He was prepared to accept Pelosi's old plan, but she suddenly was not. Not that any of this matters.

When Clinton balanced the budget, it was because he had a republican congress. No one ever really remembers who was in congress and writing laws after the fact, they just remember who the president was when things are either good or go to shiat.

All this bickering between Rs and Ds is emblematic of a greater problem. The tax hikes requested were going to cover new spending and we still don't have a legit budget. If you spend like a drunken salor you have to pay that bill and bumming a few bucks off the rich guy ain't going to cut it for long.
 
2012-12-21 06:43:37 AM  
And when Boehner says that now the President and the Senate needs to figure it out, what does that even mean?

Is he pretending that they can pass a bill without the house? Is he trying to pretend the Senate has not already passed a bill which they have? Or is he just being butthurt because he lost and pretending the dumbass political stunt he failed out was trying to actually accomplish something?

It makes no sense.
 
2012-12-21 06:44:16 AM  
There is no abyss.  We're doing fine.  This is a crisis which was made up by the Republican party, who now refuse to fix their made-up crisis.  It is time to sit back and drink a glass of eggnog.  Happy holidays!
 
2012-12-21 06:44:39 AM  

Serious Black: relcec: gulogulo: Aside from my own personal taxes going up, the fiscal cliff will also mean that the grants that I need to do science for the next three years will also be canceled. This isn't money for salaries for scientists (though it is so I can hire field technicians), but also for the equipment and overhead needed to do these studies. It was a study on the impacts of sea levels to heavily utilized natural resources.

This makes me incredibly nervous and sad.

taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.

Or (hear me out) we could radically broaden the tax base so that a lot of people can actually get a tax cut and a few people who have been lucky duckies avoiding taxes so far get a small tax hike. Why not use a transaction tax?


dude, you may be a little to wrapped in all this. you just called republicans a rebel treasonous faction in so many words, for not extending bush tax cuts.
bush tax cuts that don't come close to bringing in enough revenue for the federal government to function.

and who the f*ck doesn't get tax cuts? the average family in the united states, the middle class if you will, doesn't pay jackshiat. they don't pay close to what is necessary.

an average family sitting at the median household income, that has two kids, and a mortgage
pays around a 2% income tax. 2%. wtf. that is the middle class.
they pay almost nothing. that's a big reason why we have no money. you know this. wtf is going on here?
 
2012-12-21 06:47:31 AM  

gulogulo: relcec: taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.

I'm not rich. In fact, on my salary, I am not even middle class. And I don't even mind the taxes as much as I do the cuts to important things like..conserving our natural resources. How dare I want shiat, right?


you want stuff, but don't want to help pay for it. you are biatching about taxes. you are part of the problem. if people like you weren't all around me they wouldn't even be contemplating whatever it is you like that they are contemplating cutting.
chose one, cool stufff, or tax cuts.
 
2012-12-21 06:48:04 AM  

jaybeezey: When Clinton balanced the budget, it was because he had a republican congress. No one ever really remembers who was in congress and writing laws after the fact, they just remember who the president was when things are either good or go to shiat.


Actually no the tax rates Clinton passed was the first year in office when there was a democrat congress. The Republicans stood up and said the budget was going to destroy America. Only at the midterms were the republicans but those tax rates were already locked in and spending went UP when those Republicans got in.


Please stop the BS revisionist BS, because it's not true. Democrats passed the tax increases which Republicans said would destroy the economy (it didn't) and when Republicans got in SPENDING WENT UP.
 
2012-12-21 06:48:36 AM  

relcec: you just called republicans a rebel treasonous faction in so many word


He probably said that because it's true.
 
2012-12-21 06:54:30 AM  

PonceAlyosha: relcec: you just called republicans a rebel treasonous faction in so many word

He probably said that because it's true.


why don't you people want the bush tax cuts to be sunset? you've been biatching about them nonstop for a decade. what is wrong with all of you?
 
2012-12-21 06:54:57 AM  

jaybeezey: Corvus: There is almost nothing that gives me more joy than watching the GOP screw themselves over.

How can he not take Obama's deal now? He can't get the votes to pass his own deal in the Republican house.

GOP you suck!!!

He was prepared to accept Pelosi's old plan, but she suddenly was not. Not that any of this matters.

When Clinton balanced the budget, it was because he had a republican congress. No one ever really remembers who was in congress and writing laws after the fact, they just remember who the president was when things are either good or go to shiat.

All this bickering between Rs and Ds is emblematic of a greater problem. The tax hikes requested were going to cover new spending and we still don't have a legit budget. If you spend like a drunken salor you have to pay that bill and bumming a few bucks off the rich guy ain't going to cut it for long.


How about making the rich guys actually pay a reasonable tax rate for their income, to pay off wars that Bush refused to put on the books at all? I make about $70,000/year, and I pay a much higher percentage of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney (for example) does. That is extremely wrong.

Fox News and many Right-wing pundits talk about going back to a simpler time, like the 50's, when everything was so much better. I agree with those douchebags in that regard, because in the 50's the top Federal tax rate was 90%, not less than 35% as it is now!
 
2012-12-21 06:56:41 AM  

Serious Black: Insatiable Jesus: Serious Black: It's time to face reality. It's time to stop mincing words. The Republican Party as constitutied in Congress and many state legislatures today is an insurgency. They are trying to kill the federal government and the country.


But if we're a legitimate democracy, we have a way to shut that whole thing down, right?

Seriously? What's left? Is there some point where they break the law in their shenanigans? Have they broken them already? Can we do ABSCAM again?

I don't think there is sadly, especially not with how SCOTUS has neutered corruption rules for legislators.

I think the best-case scenario for crushing this insurgency is probably for Obama to call for a clean hike of the debt ceiling. He's already done a form of that by calling for the McConnell provision to be made permanent, but I'm almost certain he would ask for a clean hike in lieu of of that. When the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling and we hit it, Obama should refuse to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional and let the GOP off the hook. He's also done that by saying he does not believe the 14th Amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Instead, he should make interest obligations the first priority to pay from tax withholding, and he should direct other federal agencies to shut down and direct state contributions to end based on his priorities with the remaining incoming funds from tax withholding. This would almost certainly trigger a market collapse that, if left to continue for long enough, would cause a worldwide recession and push countries to start looking for a new reserve currency since they couldn't buy US bonds. As long as President Obama continually reiterated that he does not have the power to violate the debt ceiling and issue new bonds to reopen the government, the public would surely break against the GOP and force them to do what Obama wants.


Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like assuming your opponents are more compassionate than you are.. I'd call that a bad bet.
 
2012-12-21 06:57:20 AM  

relcec: Serious Black: relcec: gulogulo: Aside from my own personal taxes going up, the fiscal cliff will also mean that the grants that I need to do science for the next three years will also be canceled. This isn't money for salaries for scientists (though it is so I can hire field technicians), but also for the equipment and overhead needed to do these studies. It was a study on the impacts of sea levels to heavily utilized natural resources.

This makes me incredibly nervous and sad.

taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.

Or (hear me out) we could radically broaden the tax base so that a lot of people can actually get a tax cut and a few people who have been lucky duckies avoiding taxes so far get a small tax hike. Why not use a transaction tax?

dude, you may be a little to wrapped in all this. you just called republicans a rebel treasonous faction in so many words, for not extending bush tax cuts.
bush tax cuts that don't come close to bringing in enough revenue for the federal government to function.

and who the f*ck doesn't get tax cuts? the average family in the united states, the middle class if you will, doesn't pay jackshiat. they don't pay close to what is necessary.

an average family sitting at the median household income, that has two kids, and a mortgage
pays around a 2% income tax. 2%. wtf. that is the middle class.
they pay almost nothing. that's a big reason why we have no money. you know this. wtf is going on here?


It's possible to give a lot of people a (admittedly small) tax cut while increasing revenue to the government by a decent amount if you expand the tax base from $14 trillion to $1 quadrillion. And it would certainly be a lot more fair than the byzantine system we have today with child tax credits, mortgage interest deductions, health insurance exemptions, preferential rates for dividends, and tends of thousands of pages solely used to define what counts as income and what doesn't.
 
2012-12-21 07:01:14 AM  
alright, I give up. you all may now go on biatching about the possibility you might actually have to pay a little closer to an appropriate tax rate for all that government you constantly demand.
you are all extremely selfish assholes.
 
2012-12-21 07:05:16 AM  

relcec: alright, I give up. you all may now go on biatching about the possibility you might actually have to pay a little closer to an appropriate tax rate for all that government you constantly demand.
you are all extremely selfish assholes.


Happy holidays, darling!  It's the darkest day of the year, and we made it through.  Congratulations to all of us, we made it!  It all gets brighter from here.  You could look it up.
 
2012-12-21 07:10:16 AM  

relcec: gulogulo: relcec: taxes have to go up. can't you see that? we are in this predicament because people like you want shiat, but do not want to pay taxes in the first place.

I'm not rich. In fact, on my salary, I am not even middle class. And I don't even mind the taxes as much as I do the cuts to important things like..conserving our natural resources. How dare I want shiat, right?

you want stuff, but don't want to help pay for it. you are biatching about taxes. you are part of the problem. if people like you weren't all around me they wouldn't even be contemplating whatever it is you like that they are contemplating cutting.
chose one, cool stufff, or tax cuts.


What do you mean? Do you have problem reading? I pay taxes. I'm not biatching about paying for shiat at all. I'm biatching about unilateral cuts
 
2012-12-21 07:10:43 AM  

sonnyboy11: Someone please help me out here with a non-partisan assessment of the situation. As I understand it, if we go over this so called "fiscal cliff" we run the chance of going into another recession. Is this chance of recession the only real reason not to strike some kind of deal now? And how likely is it we would slip into this possible recession if tax rates are left alone?

I


Basically, this has a few effects:

1) Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety, putting all taxes back to where they were during the Clinton years.
2) $600 billion worth of cuts (over 10 years) to social programs and $600 billion worth of cuts (over 10 years) to defense spending.

The side effect:

3) A number of jobless benefits extensions will expire, meaning a lot of people who have been long term unemployed due to recession will see their benefits cease.

There are also a number of tax credits in #1 that will expire and hurt the poor and middle class a bit more, plus the payroll tax holiday will expire, so what you pay into Social Security and Medicare will go up by $0.02 on the dollar. Your take home pay is about to get a little lighter.

I'm not sure this is going to cause a massive recession, but it will certainly hurt in the short term.
 
2012-12-21 07:11:23 AM  

relcec: alright, I give up. you all may now go on biatching about the possibility you might actually have to pay a little closer to an appropriate tax rate for all that government you constantly demand.
you are all extremely selfish assholes.


**checks most recent LES**

My last federal tax withholding: 24.81% of my gross income.
State withholding: 5.96%.
FICA: 5.62%.

Grand total: 36.39% of my gross income is going to government.

And if you go with the payments for the full year, it's still 29.13%.

/I don't expect much of a refund off of that
 
2012-12-21 07:11:34 AM  
reclec arguing for higher taxes, Serious Black suggesting Obama shut down federal agencies and trigger a worldwide recession...I know I'm not drunk, but this thread is making me feel like I am.
 
2012-12-21 07:14:19 AM  

Serious Black: SevenizGud: Look to Greece. That's where we are headed.

Greece fails to collect over 30% of its tax burden because tax avoidance is the national sport. We are nothing like Greece.


Let's consider for a moment that the rich are playing games by funneling money into the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and corporations are holding money overseas so they don't have to pay. I'd say the analogy is pretty close with the exception of the Greek tax dodging strategy is not answering the doorbell when their tax collectors come around.
 
2012-12-21 07:18:25 AM  

Corvus: And when Boehner says that now the President and the Senate needs to figure it out, what does that even mean?


I noticed that too. Most pathetic buck passing I've ever seen.
 
2012-12-21 07:18:35 AM  

gulogulo: Aside from my own personal taxes going up, the fiscal cliff will also mean that the grants that I need to do science for the next three years will also be canceled. This isn't money for salaries for scientists (though it is so I can hire field technicians), but also for the equipment and overhead needed to do these studies. It was a study on the impacts of sea levels to heavily utilized natural resources.

This makes me incredibly nervous and sad.


Yeah I'm really worried about this too. =(

And yes, reclec has reading issues, since you said, in multiple places, you weren't pissed about the tax increases.
 
2012-12-21 07:18:41 AM  
Honestly, I don't give a fark anymore... I've been hovering just above the poverty line since 2006 or so.
It's obvious the GOP doesn't give a shiat about people like my family and they're going to do everything they can to make sure the wealthiest Americans never have to contribute anything towards recovery, and what they really want is for the avarice and excesses of the wealthy elite to be paid for by the poor and the middle classes.

I blame this entire mess on the GOP and I will never vote for any asshole with an (R) after their name again. Period.

As far as the poor, persecuted wealthy elite, fark them, too.
 
2012-12-21 07:29:21 AM  

Felgraf: reclec has reading issues


FTFY
 
2012-12-21 07:29:43 AM  
I'd call it the Keystone Kongress but the Kops usually had a common goal.
 
2012-12-21 07:31:32 AM  
I've heard more than once that the 'do-nothing Congress' of Truman's time passed 10 times as many bills as this one.
 
2012-12-21 07:34:21 AM  

Alphax: I've heard more than once that the 'do-nothing Congress' of Truman's time passed 10 times as many bills as this one.


www.politicalruminations.com
 
2012-12-21 07:38:14 AM  

Mentat: shower_in_my_socks: Problem is, even if there are moderate Republicans left, they've been blackmailed into sticking with the party, or they'll face a teabagger in their next primary.

The Tea Party is an anchor.  Boehner already tried to cut them loose by taking away key committee assignments.  Now other Republicans have to step up and put them in their place.


Go ahead and bash the tea party but they are a revolution that progressives hate. During the revolutionary war you tea party-like bashers were the crown's loyalists trying to stop freedom. You big govt, kill the revenue makers (you call them the rich) progressives are the reason we're in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are the progressives and have been for decades.
 
2012-12-21 07:41:16 AM  

tkwasny: Mentat: shower_in_my_socks: Problem is, even if there are moderate Republicans left, they've been blackmailed into sticking with the party, or they'll face a teabagger in their next primary.

The Tea Party is an anchor.  Boehner already tried to cut them loose by taking away key committee assignments.  Now other Republicans have to step up and put them in their place.

Go ahead and bash the tea party but they are a revolution that progressives hate. During the revolutionary war you tea party-like bashers were the crown's loyalists trying to stop freedom. You big govt, kill the revenue makers (you call them the rich) progressives are the reason we're in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are the progressives and have been for decades.


Lol
 
2012-12-21 07:45:17 AM  

tkwasny: You big govt, kill the revenue makers (you call them the rich) progressives are the reason we're in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are the progressives and have been for decades.


Is this performance art?
 
2012-12-21 07:46:04 AM  

log_jammin: tkwasny: You big govt, kill the revenue makers (you call them the rich) progressives are the reason we're in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are the progressives and have been for decades.

Is this performance art?


I thought so. I gave a robust laugh.
 
2012-12-21 07:49:52 AM  

log_jammin: Is this performance art?


I think it may be a new form of mime.  Behold, the new Marcel Marceau.  Happy solstice, dear.
 
2012-12-21 07:50:47 AM  

tkwasny: Go ahead and bash the tea party but they are a revolution that progressives hate. During the revolutionary war you tea party-like bashers were the crown's loyalists trying to stop freedom. You big govt, kill the revenue makers (you call them the rich) progressives are the reason we're in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are the progressives and have been for decades.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-21 07:52:27 AM  

gulogulo: Thunderpipes: Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.

How is he holding the middle class hostage?


Same way he said the Pubs are, except the pubs aren't holding them hostage in exchange for punishment.

Obama sucks.
 
2012-12-21 07:53:03 AM  
fark Them All
 
2012-12-21 07:53:42 AM  

keylock71: Honestly, I don't give a fark anymore... I've been hovering just above the poverty line since 2006 or so.
It's obvious the GOP doesn't give a shiat about people like my family and they're going to do everything they can to make sure the wealthiest Americans never have to contribute anything towards recovery, and what they really want is for the avarice and excesses of the wealthy elite to be paid for by the poor and the middle classes.

I blame this entire mess on the GOP and I will never vote for any asshole with an (R) after their name again. Period.

As far as the poor, persecuted wealthy elite, fark them, too.


Maybe if you actually, you know, worked hard instead of wanting handouts, your family would be in better shape? Always someone more poor than you. Maybe you should be punished, stripped of your iPad and have everything given to them. Not fair you have some money.
 
2012-12-21 07:54:51 AM  
The South - Proudly Serving as the Turd In America's Punchbowl since 1861.
 
2012-12-21 07:59:34 AM  

Thunderpipes: Maybe if you actually, you know, worked hard instead of wanting handouts, your family would be in better shape? Always someone more poor than you. Maybe you should be punished, stripped of your iPad and have everything given to them. Not fair you have some money.


www.troycitydesign.com

I'm self-employed, teach part-time and have another part time job. I work six days a week, putting in 40-50 hours. I receive nothing in the form of "handouts". Every dollar I make is a dollar I hustled for, sometimes employing sub-contractors when I'm lucky enough to get a big enough contract requiring them. I work within my community and all my clients are small businesses.

In short, shove your ignorant bullshiat up your ass.
 
2012-12-21 08:01:47 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.com
Is there any question now why he chose the "Corvette" of gavels?
 
2012-12-21 08:04:00 AM  
So...the teabaggers are revolting?
 
2012-12-21 08:05:34 AM  

Thunderpipes: Maybe if you actually, you know, worked hard instead of wanting handouts, your family would be in better shape? Always someone more poor than you. Maybe you should be punished, stripped of your iPad and have everything given to them. Not fair you have some money


Ahh .. .isn't that cute, another special little snowflake who believes he deserves a cookie because he gets up in the morning and goes to work like the rest of us.

Sorry you wanted to spend several trillion dollars needlessly blowing up brown skin people, who had nothing to do with 9/11 so you could feverishly stroke your flaccid impotent shaft to tactical pron on the Military Channel and put a meaningless trite bumper sticker on your car, but I'm afraid the check is due. Time to cough up like the rest of us.
 
2012-12-21 08:11:13 AM  

RandomRandom: So who's going to be the new Speaker of the House?

Boehner shouldn't even want the job any longer. The teabaggers set him up, then left him out to hang. He should be thinking "fark them".

If the tea party installs one of their own as speaker, any remaining charade of Republican willingness to negotiate will evaporate. Boehner may be a terrible leader, but he's not a complete wingnut. If they vote a tea party wingnut into the job, it might result in their losing the house in the 2014 mid-terms.

/Here's hoping
//We are almost certainly going over the cliff. Now, the Republicans are going to get all of the blame.
///Popcorn


Christ. I hadn't even thought about that. Having a Tea-Party Speaker might actually nail the coffin shut on the GOP's congressional election chances in two years. Assuming we all live that long.
 
2012-12-21 08:12:07 AM  
The Mayan Apocolypse wasn't a calendar but rather a horoscope for John Boehner, because his career is facing a political apocolypse.
 
2012-12-21 08:19:35 AM  
I'm glad the republican party, disastrous threat to the security and well-being of the nation that it is, is finally falling completely apart, I just wish they hadn't waited until right before a whole bunch of menacing and less-than-optimal fiscal changes kicks in during a shaky economic period.

Guess these scumbags couldn't help but leave that one last upper-decker on their way to the dustbin of history....
 
2012-12-21 08:19:50 AM  
I have to wonder if we might see a significant chunk of republicans/so-called 'rinos' defect. How many would have to to give the democrats the majority in the house?
 
2012-12-21 08:20:09 AM  
Guys, Boehner is honestly a decent guy compared to the rest of his party. It's that farking shiatweasel Cantor that is constantly poisoning the well. Consider what you just saw: Boehner was willing to raise taxes on millionaires. Who would have considered such a thing months ago? This might not be enough to please the Democrats, but at least he is trying to take small steps in that direction.
 
2012-12-21 08:20:49 AM  

CowboyUpCowgirlDown: [thedcam.com image 450x292]


I would imagine that to be very cold.
 
2012-12-21 08:23:33 AM  
greedy, old. people.
 
2012-12-21 08:26:16 AM  
None of you really thought there would be a deal before Christmas did you? Neither party wants that. This is all political theater at its best. American's love drama. If they had a thousand years to come up with a plan to avert this fiscal nosedive they would wait until the last day and the last hour.

Just from a negotiating stand point no body makes a deal until the have to make a deal. If you make the deal early your constituents think you could have gotten more by staying in negotiations longer. So no deal happens until the clock runs out.

The deal will be struck after Christmas and it won't get signed until after new years.
 
2012-12-21 08:26:41 AM  

jaybeezey: He was prepared to accept Pelosi's old plan, but she suddenly was not.


That doesn't really map out well.

Are you talking about the plan from two years ago? Some things have happened in the meanwhile that changed the negotiating landscape. If it was a good deal then, Boner should have taken it.

img.photobucket.com

RIP SPEAKER CLOWNSHOES
November 17, 2010 - December 20, 2012

 
2012-12-21 08:27:12 AM  

InmanRoshi: Ahh .. .isn't that cute, another special little snowflake who believes he deserves a cookie because he gets up in the morning and goes to work like the rest of us.


It's just the same old bullshiat the GOP and its supporters have been shoveling since the 80s... If you're not financially well-off, it's your fault for not working hard enough, and you're just a leech wanting "handouts" from the government.

These ignorant assholes really think only Republicans or "conservatives" (They're not conservatives, they're radical regressive plutocrats, but that's for another discussion) work hard and contribute to society.

It's the kind of small-minded, black and white thinking I've come to expect from these mental midgets.
 
2012-12-21 08:30:20 AM  
I heard on Lawrence O'Donnell his only hope now is to sweeten the deal for the Dems so much he can get all of their votes and then try to cobble together enough Reps to pass something. That'd be funnier than hell to watch. Not to mention good for the country if we had a viable option to governing and could finally get past the teabagger shiatstain blotch on our collective shorts.
 
2012-12-21 08:31:19 AM  
If you tank the economy, you fark wits, we'll all want to revolt against the rich

/PS, I'm not an American
 
2012-12-21 08:35:42 AM  

keylock71: InmanRoshi: Ahh .. .isn't that cute, another special little snowflake who believes he deserves a cookie because he gets up in the morning and goes to work like the rest of us.

It's just the same old bullshiat the GOP and its supporters have been shoveling since the 80s... If you're not financially well-off, it's your fault for not working hard enough, and you're just a leech wanting "handouts" from the government.


Which is kinda funny, considering ..........

stangzine.com
 
2012-12-21 08:37:46 AM  

Taylor Mental: I heard on Lawrence O'Donnell his only hope now is to sweeten the deal for the Dems so much he can get all of their votes and then try to cobble together enough Reps to pass something. That'd be funnier than hell to watch. Not to mention good for the country if we had a viable option to governing and could finally get past the teabagger shiatstain blotch on our collective shorts.


And if he thought negotiating with Obama was hard, wait till he has to negotiate with someone who has a big hairy set of ten pound balls like Nancy Pelosi.
 
2012-12-21 08:38:34 AM  

DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?


That would work.  If we also had Clinton levels of spending.
 
2012-12-21 08:39:33 AM  
I am outraged that the congresscritters are getting a paid holiday on christmas eve! They should work like the rest of the federal employees. Those welfare queens.
 
2012-12-21 08:40:27 AM  

Frogfoot: This is all political theater at its best.


In the minds of the 'baggers maybe. I don't think Boehner volunteered to play Pagliacci.

/as he would want to avoid being typecast...
 
2012-12-21 08:40:54 AM  

SlothB77: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

That would work.  If we also had Clinton levels of spending.


Maybe next time, we shouldn't simultaneously go to war and cut taxes.
 
2012-12-21 08:47:31 AM  
 
2012-12-21 08:59:01 AM  
Just saw that Boehner's office put out a statement to distance himself from the negotiations, saying that now it was up to Obama to work with Harry Reid on coming up with the legislation necessary to fix this mess. All revenue bills must originate in the House, and Reid and Obama are on the same page on what Democrats are willing to give up to avert the cliff. This "don't blame me, I already did my part" line doesn't work if you've refused to pass anything besides that Ryan budget almost a year ago (which voters pretty obviously rejected seeing the polls that even Republicans saw the election as a referendum on the tax debate).

He's going to put out a statement that Obama and Reid were dragging their tails and that the fiscal cliff is the result of Democrats being unable to reign in their caucus any minute now, I'm sure.
 
2012-12-21 09:02:34 AM  

tkwasny: Mentat: shower_in_my_socks: Problem is, even if there are moderate Republicans left, they've been blackmailed into sticking with the party, or they'll face a teabagger in their next primary.

The Tea Party is an anchor.  Boehner already tried to cut them loose by taking away key committee assignments.  Now other Republicans have to step up and put them in their place.

Go ahead and bash the tea party but they are a revolution that progressives hate. During the revolutionary war you tea party-like bashers were the crown's loyalists trying to stop freedom. You big govt, kill the revenue makers (you call them the rich) progressives are the reason we're in this mess. Both Republicans and Democrats are the progressives and have been for decades.


You have to really, really try to get everything completely backwards like that.
 
2012-12-21 09:03:03 AM  

Tommy Moo: Guys, Boehner is honestly a decent guy compared to the rest of his party. It's that farking shiatweasel Cantor that is constantly poisoning the well. Consider what you just saw: Boehner was willing to raise taxes on millionaires. Who would have considered such a thing months ago? This might not be enough to please the Democrats, but at least he is trying to take small steps in that direction.


That's the point. Boehner is completely ineffective and can't control his own party.
 
2012-12-21 09:04:27 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.

This man is bad at his job.


This.
 
2012-12-21 09:05:16 AM  

InmanRoshi: Taylor Mental: I heard on Lawrence O'Donnell his only hope now is to sweeten the deal for the Dems so much he can get all of their votes and then try to cobble together enough Reps to pass something. That'd be funnier than hell to watch. Not to mention good for the country if we had a viable option to governing and could finally get past the teabagger shiatstain blotch on our collective shorts.

And if he thought negotiating with Obama was hard, wait till he has to negotiate with someone who has a big hairy set of ten pound balls like Nancy Pelosi.


LOL, they hate her. Mostly because, as a grandmother, she has years of experience quelling the disputes of petulant children.
 
2012-12-21 09:06:27 AM  

Tommy Moo: Guys, Boehner is honestly a decent guy compared to the rest of his party. It's that farking shiatweasel Cantor that is constantly poisoning the well. Consider what you just saw: Boehner was willing to raise taxes on millionaires. Who would have considered such a thing months ago? This might not be enough to please the Democrats, but at least he is trying to take small steps in that direction.


That's going to be "Speaker Shiatweasel" in a few weeks.
 
2012-12-21 09:08:01 AM  

Krieghund: Rann Xerox: Darth_Lukecash: Worse. Speaker. Of. The. House. Ever.
This man is bad at his job.

Boehner is a little better as Speaker of the House than this guy was:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 520x600]
Theodore_M._Pomeroy

How do you figure? Pomeroy didn't do anything. I wish we were so lucky with Boehner.


[Thats_The_Joke.jpg]
 
2012-12-21 09:11:07 AM  
Isn't it the job of the Majority Leader to get all GOP votes in line?

When the fark did the Speaker of the House become the Speaker of the Republican Party?

God forbid he should try to put together a plan that a Republican and Democrat majority will vote for.
 
2012-12-21 09:11:20 AM  
GOP: F*ck the country, I gotta get to the Bahamas for my vacation.
 
2012-12-21 09:14:12 AM  
So, all this "fiscal cliff" talk means that if these assholes in Congress fail to come to an agreement, we get to throw them over a cliff and replace them with sane people, right?
 
2012-12-21 09:14:14 AM  

Irving Maimway: foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?

Something about the economy needing money injected into it and the private sector not being willing to do so and Europe and Japan showing us what happens when the government doesn't do it in situations like this?

I dunno, like history or something.


so, the spending levels from a different time period won't work during the present, but the tax levels from a different time period will work during the present?

You wanna know why Clinton balanced the budget with Clinton-era tax rates?  Because of the Clinton-era spending rates.

You can't have Clinton-era tax rates, but spending levels far in excess of the Clinton-era spending rates and expect the same fiscal results Clinton achieved.
 
2012-12-21 09:14:17 AM  
Will the media call the resulting recession Obama's recession? 

no
 
2012-12-21 09:14:44 AM  

gulogulo: Thunderpipes: Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.

How is he holding the middle class hostage?


By asking Congress to extend the middle class tax cuts, I guess.

Link
 
2012-12-21 09:18:55 AM  
Ah, the Trolls.  Happy solstice to those who reside under bridges!  Come on up to the bright side.  We have coffee cake.
 
2012-12-21 09:19:01 AM  

SlothB77: Irving Maimway: foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?

Something about the economy needing money injected into it and the private sector not being willing to do so and Europe and Japan showing us what happens when the government doesn't do it in situations like this?

I dunno, like history or something.

so, the spending levels from a different time period won't work during the present, but the tax levels from a different time period will work during the present?

You wanna know why Clinton balanced the budget with Clinton-era tax rates?  Because of the Clinton-era spending rates.

You can't have Clinton-era tax rates, but spending levels far in excess of the Clinton-era spending rates and expect the same fiscal results Clinton achieved.


Cool, so gut defense.
 
2012-12-21 09:19:54 AM  
The point of Plan B was to fashion a parachute for Republicans for January. As it stands, if the new year arrives with no deal in place, Obama will have the upper hand. The full expiration of the Bush tax cuts will make the budget baseline more favorable, turning any change in taxes into a tax cut. And Obama, who is highly popular, will be able to attack Republicans, who are highly unpopular, for their insistence on keeping taxes low for the rich, which is highly unpopular, at the cost of raising taxes on the middle class, which is also highly unpopular.  Link

After Jan 1st, Obama's $1.2T tax hike becomes Obama's $3.8T tax cut. Boom.
 
2012-12-21 09:20:09 AM  

EnviroDude: Will the media call the resulting recession Obama's recession?
no


It really is Obama's fault that the House Republicans rejected Speaker Boehner's plan.
 
2012-12-21 09:20:47 AM  
Hah. As much as I hate how impotent the legislate is today, I cannot helping to revel in Boehner's leadership failure. The man needs to go as long as Cantor is not his replacement. Eric is only in it for Eric.
 
2012-12-21 09:22:39 AM  

gulogulo: Thunderpipes: Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.

How is he holding the middle class hostage?


TP is a notorious troll best ignored.
 
2012-12-21 09:22:41 AM  

SlothB77: Irving Maimway: foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?

Something about the economy needing money injected into it and the private sector not being willing to do so and Europe and Japan showing us what happens when the government doesn't do it in situations like this?

I dunno, like history or something.

so, the spending levels from a different time period won't work during the present, but the tax levels from a different time period will work during the present?

You wanna know why Clinton balanced the budget with Clinton-era tax rates?  Because of the Clinton-era spending rates.

You can't have Clinton-era tax rates, but spending levels far in excess of the Clinton-era spending rates and expect the same fiscal results Clinton achieved.


Yeah, it was awesome how clinton waged the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without driving up the deficit. That's how you do it Obummer!
 
2012-12-21 09:23:09 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The point of Plan B was to fashion a parachute for Republicans for January. As it stands, if the new year arrives with no deal in place, Obama will have the upper hand. The full expiration of the Bush tax cuts will make the budget baseline more favorable, turning any change in taxes into a tax cut. And Obama, who is highly popular, will be able to attack Republicans, who are highly unpopular, for their insistence on keeping taxes low for the rich, which is highly unpopular, at the cost of raising taxes on the middle class, which is also highly unpopular.  Link

After Jan 1st, Obama's $1.2T tax hike becomes Obama's $3.8T tax cut. Boom.


which is the part the GOP doesn't seem to understand - Obama is the popular one here, and the public seems to understand that the GOP are being right proper bastards and on the WRONG side of this debate.  oh the rank and file True Believers are still clueless of course, but they aren't the majority in this country.  everyone else knows the Republicans are on the losing side of this debate.
 
2012-12-21 09:23:48 AM  
I'm not sure why Boehner is taking the rap for this one. I blame the teatards and the teatards who elected them.
 
2012-12-21 09:23:52 AM  
Wow... I guess this shows how important the future of the US is to the GOP. fark it, let them eat cake, we've got holiday plans for Christmas.
 
2012-12-21 09:24:40 AM  
It would be awesome if this entire debacle lead to a union between normal, non-crazy republicans and democrats versus the tea party derpers. Probably not going to happen but it sure would be cool.
 
2012-12-21 09:25:19 AM  

Resin33: Why would cuts in defense spending be a bad thing? I think too much is spent on defense already and am all in favor of cuts in that area. Where is the negative component?

Because the defense industry employs a lot of people. People who are educated and paid very handsomely. A lot of white collar people would lose their jobs, which will be a bigger impact to the economy than all the construction workers who lost their jobs in 2008.


Also defence contractors spread their manufacturing bases around the country to encompass as many electoral districts as possible to make it slightly harder for representatives to vote against defence spending. Pretty much anything built for the military is built across a dozen states and then shipped around instead of mass produced and assembled for less money in one place.
 
2012-12-21 09:25:41 AM  

EnviroDude: Will the media call the resulting recession Obama's recession? 

no


when did Obama become the leader of the Republican party...?
 
2012-12-21 09:28:55 AM  
Speaker Boehner and Eric Cantor,

The failed policies that your party continues to support are what has brought our country to the plutocracy that it has become. A tax structure that favors the so called "job creators" and punishes the middle class, stripping workers of protections, and failure to monitor and regulate financial giants as they have driven the economy into the toilet are policies that you continue to support and even praise.

The giant corporations are sitting on untold hundreds of millions of dollars that they move to offshore protections and refuse to use to employ or help American workers. Just as your party methodically dismantles all social safety nets, programs and protections for American workers.

You refuse to acknowledge that the American taxpayers are your constituents and you refuse to do anything to help the majority, your only concern are the wealthy and your corporate masters as this serves your purposes and personal gain is the driving force behind the majority of the political parties in this country now.

The backbone of this country has been crushed, the taxpayers have been robbed and lied to about YOUR wars and your policies of protecting the wealthy robber barons. The disparity of wealth that hasn't been seen since the last Depression was avoidable and it's unconscionable and I believe it was by design of the last administration and your party.

We've been robbed by the war machine, by the Wall Street companies and the friends of the Republicans that stole our money and continue to in overseas conflicts that profit the dishonest.

As you continue to protect and represent the disproportionately wealthy and privileged at the expense of the vast majority of Americans I think you will start to see more of these unruly crowds of the Americans that you can't stand to see prosper.

Enjoy your revolution, you were directly involved in creating it. My regards.
 
2012-12-21 09:29:02 AM  
I see Johnny boy handed in his resignation last night.
 
2012-12-21 09:29:06 AM  

shastacola: I'm not sure why Boehner is taking the rap for this one. I blame the teatards and the teatards who elected them.


Like it or not, they're his teatards. He must have known that the only thing they'd vote for is a bill that they drafted themselves and even then would hem and haw as to whether the cuts go deep enough, and ultimately likely reject that.

What he could have done instead is try to find a middle ground that most, if not all, of the house Dems would vote for and then try to find the 20 or so GOP reps he'd need to make the vote pass by the skin of it's teeth. Instead, he put together a package that might garner some support from his party but would not get either Dem or teabagger votes.
 
2012-12-21 09:29:33 AM  

SlothB77: Irving Maimway: foreman3: DarkSkyForever: Now... just stay with me here... now why can't we just let tax rates rise back to Clinton levels?

Or, why not just go back to Clinton Spending Levels?

Something about the economy needing money injected into it and the private sector not being willing to do so and Europe and Japan showing us what happens when the government doesn't do it in situations like this?

I dunno, like history or something.

so, the spending levels from a different time period won't work during the present, but the tax levels from a different time period will work during the present?

You wanna know why Clinton balanced the budget with Clinton-era tax rates?  Because of the Clinton-era spending rates.

You can't have Clinton-era tax rates, but spending levels far in excess of the Clinton-era spending rates and expect the same fiscal results Clinton achieved.


There's also not the same tax base or growth in the economy right now. So no you can't have the same spending levels. Google "Japan lost decade" or go look at how those monetary policies are working in the UK right now.
 
2012-12-21 09:31:28 AM  

Thunderpipes: Weird how Obama is holding the middle class hostage, all to punish people who create jobs.

But that is what Democrats do. Punishing successful people to no gain is worth more than doing the right thing.


imageshack.us
 
2012-12-21 09:32:23 AM  

EnviroDude: Will the media call the resulting recession Obama's recession? 

no


No,  they will be called the Obama Tax Cuts.

It will stick in the craw of Republicans for years and possibly generations to come.
 
2012-12-21 09:33:18 AM  

shastacola: I'm not sure why Boehner is taking the rap for this one. I blame the teatards and the teatards who elected them.


The teahadists are certainly behind it, but Boehner's insistence that he should abandon negotiations, pass a bill in the House that had no chance of passing the Senate or be signed into law to show up the President, and then fail to gain enough votes in a stacked GOP-controlled House, and THEN decide, "fark it, I'm going home," might have something to do with this mess. Boehner made a huge boneheaded gamble and is going to pay a steep political price for this. I'll be shocked if he's still Speaker in 30 days.
 
2012-12-21 09:36:08 AM  

Dog Welder: shastacola: I'm not sure why Boehner is taking the rap for this one. I blame the teatards and the teatards who elected them.

The teahadists are certainly behind it, but Boehner's insistence that he should abandon negotiations, pass a bill in the House that had no chance of passing the Senate or be signed into law to show up the President, and then fail to gain enough votes in a stacked GOP-controlled House, and THEN decide, "fark it, I'm going home," might have something to do with this mess. Boehner made a huge boneheaded gamble and is going to pay a steep political price for this. I'll be shocked if he's still Speaker in 30 days.


do you really think he'll lose his job over this?  I've given up trying to figure out what the Republicans are trying to do.  they seem to have no real leadership (given their goals, that's probably good for the rest of us tho).
 
2012-12-21 09:36:23 AM