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.

(Political Wire)   Said one prominent Republican about plunging off the fiscal cliff: "It's a shiat show. Tax rates are going to go up on everyone, and we're going to get the blame"   (politicalwire.com) divider line 84
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3368 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Dec 2012 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-12-29 09:57:02 AM
10 votes:
I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.

1) Rather than attempt to negotiate with Democrats, Bush decided to pass his tax cuts through reconciliation, which required the tax cuts expire in 2010 unless they paid for themselves. (These cuts were extended 2 years as part of a deal between Congress and Obama after the 2010 Midterms in exchange for extending payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and a few recurring issues like the doc fix for the same period.)

2) Republicans decided that despite negative real interest rates on t bills that they would hold the debt ceiling hostage, and claimed they would let the government default if Obama did not cut the budget (that Congress had passed) significantly. Ultimately they signed an agreement for a major across the board cut unless both parties could come up with a compromise that both parties would agree to.

3) The supercommittee failed to come up with a solution, and in the subsequent negotiations have refused to budge an inch on taxes, even when Democrats offered pretty severe entitlement cuts (the equivalent sacred cow for their side.) Even when their own Speaker offered to only raise marginal tax rates on millionares (while also extending estate tax and capital gains tax cuts that would primarily benefit them) their own party revolted against the idea, despite a majority of Republicans agreeing that the original tax increases on the rich Obama proposed are acceptable.

They led us here every step of the way, and are now complaining that they'll get blamed if Democrats don't swerve in this game of chicken that they proposed and have been playing for the last four years.
2012-12-29 09:42:18 AM
6 votes:
Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.
2012-12-29 10:07:48 AM
5 votes:

o5iiawah: jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.

Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for. Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - just reductions in a proposed rate of increase. Instead of a 9Tn deficit over the next 10 years, we'd be faced with a 7.4Tn deficit over the next 10 years. New revenue, meanwhile makes up maybe a trillion or two more but Obama's still asked for half a Trillion in public works stimulus. Also, keep in mind we're going to be back here in 10 years saying that the interest in the debt has swallowed any gains that these cliff negotiations had achieved. One party is sort of serious about new revenue. The other party doesn't give a shiat about spending.

If I vow to cut 10,000 worth of spending out of my budget next year, I dont do so by purchasing a $150,000 Ferrari instead of a $160,000 Lamborghini


Why does Obama need to 'offer' the spending cuts? Can't Boehner propose said cuts? Oh, thats right; because the cuts Republicans want are extremely unpopular, and Republicans want political cover for forcing unpopular cuts to entitlements by blaming the cuts on Obama because he 'proposed' them.

And here you are blaming Obama for not walking into that trap.
2012-12-29 10:00:17 AM
5 votes:

Grungehamster: I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.


Because the powers that be don't blame them either. I'm gonna quote form a great EK article:

Twitter has been rather amused by Starbucks' plan to solve the fiscal cliff by scrawling "come together" on every peppermint mocha and salted caramel latte sold in the Beltway. But I want to take the project a bit more seriously. But the specific sentiment - what you might call the ideology of "come togetherism" - is, ironically, one of the big reasons that nothing in Washington ever seems to get solved and that the two sides never seem to come together.


I don't think you can look at the last three years and say the White House hasn't tried to come together with the Republicans.

I also don't think you can look at the last three years and say the Republicans have tried to come together with the White House.

The check on that sort of behavior is blame. If Republicans are being intransigent and the American people want compromise, then, in theory, the Republicans will get blamed. And that does seem to be happening: The GOP polls terribly, and they lost the 2012 election.

But at the elite level - which encompasses everyone from CEOs to media professionals - there's a desire to keep up good relations on both sides of the aisle. And so it's safer, when things are going wrong, to offer an anodyne criticism that offends nobody - "both sides should come together!" - then to actually blame one side or the other. It's a way to be angry about Washington's failure without alienating anyone powerful. That goes doubly for commercial actors, like Starbucks, that need to sell coffee to both Republicans and Democrats.

That breaks the system.
It hurts the basic mechanism of accountability, which is the public's ability to apportion blame. If one side's intransigence will lead to both sides getting blamed, then it makes perfect sense to be intransigent: You'll get all the benefits and only half the blame.
2012-12-29 09:35:35 AM
5 votes:
The american people's complete lack of sympathy for their situation should indicate something to them, but I know they won't get it.
2012-12-29 10:58:37 AM
4 votes:

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.
2012-12-29 10:20:42 AM
4 votes:
We're blaming the Republicans because they're the ones at fault. They forced the creation of the "fiscal cliff", they caused us to lose a notch of credit rating for the first time, they're been doing everything they can to make this recovery as slow as possible, now they refused to negotiate something less severe for Jan 1.

We're blaming you because you are to blame, Republicans.
2012-12-29 10:10:53 AM
4 votes:

mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!


Actually the poorest people will get hit the hardest on the marginal level. The lowest tax bracket is going to disappear completely, so there is a 5% increase on every dollar made up to $8,700(single)/$17,400(married), the same amount for every dollar made up to $35,350/$70,700, 3% on every dollar made up to $388,350, and 4.6% on every dollar made after that. Add in an extra 2% FICA for every dollar earned up to $106,800 and as far as earned income is concerned the most marginal people will be hardest hit, not even going into the cuts to benefits we can expect.

There are the estate and capital gains rates to consider that will hit upper income individuals harder, but "I don't make enough to see my taxes increase!" is incorrect unless you don't earn income at all.
2012-12-29 10:03:51 AM
4 votes:
All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.
2012-12-29 10:00:42 AM
4 votes:
The GOP put themselves into this position by making the Bush tax cuts temporary. They thought they could make it a perpetual election winning issue. Too bad for them!
2012-12-29 09:46:36 AM
4 votes:
Why the absolute flying fark are we babbling about tax increases instead of the broadaxe of spending reductions that's going to be driven through the government across the board, instead of smartly, selectively, precisely cutting away the parts that do the least damage and are the least necessary?

That's the real farking 'fiscal cliff'.
2012-12-29 09:34:44 AM
4 votes:
As well you should. Maybe you'll be reasonable the next time. And when that doesn't happen, maybe people will wise up and finish what they started in 2012.
2012-12-29 11:26:21 AM
3 votes:

Serious Black: Infernalist: Serious Black: Infernalist: Do you all remember that 'open session meeting' that the GOP offered to Obama and he took? And then sat in front of the GOP House and openly TOLD them that they were painting themselves into a corner by pretending like he was the Devil or some murdering communist? That they would find it 'very' hard to actually compromise down the road if they didn't start acting more sensible and get back to the business of governing?

That was back in...2010, I think. Or 2009.

And here we are, with that very same reality staring them in the face and they have the unmitigated gall to act surprised.

They don't care. People like Tim Huelskamp literally believe they are on a holy crusade for God. The true believers are completely convinced that the Democrats are casuing America's apocalypse. Losing to Obama and the Democrats only makes them more hardened in their fight against evil because it brings the apocalypse that much closer in their eyes.

So, it's a religious delusion. Isn't there a requirement clause about 'sound mind' when operating in government?

I don't think so, sadly. Besides, good luck convincing anybody in our court system that religious beliefs are a psychological disorder.


I personally think that when we question candidates about their motivations in governing, we should mentally replace 'God' or 'Jesus' with 'the aliens' and then evaluate their motivations for governing.

"Abortion is immoral because the aliens say so."

"Sex is an evil according to the book written by the aliens."

"These crimes are happening because the aliens are angry at our pride."

"We must honor the aliens in this country or we shall fall from grace."
2012-12-29 11:14:14 AM
3 votes:

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.


That's the most frustrating part of politics, and it's not new or unique to America. How the hell do you have a debate about, say, healthcare reform, if the public at large doesn't understand the difference between a single payer system and a private system with a public option (hell, I still hear people saying that "Obamacare" nationalizes hospitals so they can make the rich pay for all the poor people)? How do you discuss a potential Medicare overhaul when the public (and some of the candidates even) have no clue what seperates a defined benefits plan ("this is what care we will pay for") from a premium support plan ("this is how much money towards your care you receive").

Republicanism is supposed to safeguard against this: the public at large might not understand the issues well enough to have an informed opinion on them, but they should have a say in who does decide these things. The problem is that those who study these things enough to know what the pros and cons of each are often outgunned by populist rabblerousers who argue that you know more in your gut than anyone who studied a subject could ever learn with their brain.
2012-12-29 11:04:56 AM
3 votes:

Fubar: Don't they have some rule that no bill will be introduced unless it has majority republican support? What happens if Boehner breaks that rule?


Well it's a 'rule' in the sense it's something Boehner came up with for cover in situations like this where he's scared to death to offend the 20 or so Tea Party idiots in his caucus...but it's not a real rule. And hell, they've been breaking plenty of their own rules lately when it suits them.

The bottom line is this bill would pass easily. It would have massive Dem support, and there are GOP House members who have said they would vote for it. It's a maintaining of the status quo and NOT voting on it leads to a tax increase.

When you stop to think about this, it's just farking amazing. There's a bill to keep taxes at their current rate for something like 98% of Americans. A rate dictated by a GOP President. Not voting on the bill means a tax increase. And they won't farking vote on it!
2012-12-29 10:11:48 AM
3 votes:
Thanks to gerrymandering, virtually all those repub Congressional seats are secure. Sure they've lost the White House for the forseeable future, but their personal jobs are safe. So why compromise? The American people will suffer, but the American people deserves to suffer. You had the gall to reelect the black guy for four more years? This'll teach you, slaves! Incredibly their personal constituents, who will suffer along with the rest of us and maybe more so, will support them in this victory of ideology over common sense. Go figure.
2012-12-29 10:01:09 AM
3 votes:

Karac: The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K.


This was Obama's proposal, not Boehner's. The GOP rejected this offer. Remember, the GOP "Plan B" was to only raise taxes on people with incomes over $1,000,000, and they rejected even that.
2012-12-29 09:59:22 AM
3 votes:

o5iiawah: Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for.


The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K. And that's not even mentioning the fact that the Dick knows he'd never be able to get enough votes to get that plan passed.

Negotiations in bad faith do not count as honest offers.
2012-12-29 09:55:53 AM
3 votes:

jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.


Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for. Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - just reductions in a proposed rate of increase. Instead of a 9Tn deficit over the next 10 years, we'd be faced with a 7.4Tn deficit over the next 10 years. New revenue, meanwhile makes up maybe a trillion or two more but Obama's still asked for half a Trillion in public works stimulus. Also, keep in mind we're going to be back here in 10 years saying that the interest in the debt has swallowed any gains that these cliff negotiations had achieved. One party is sort of serious about new revenue. The other party doesn't give a shiat about spending.

If I vow to cut 10,000 worth of spending out of my budget next year, I dont do so by purchasing a $150,000 Ferrari instead of a $160,000 Lamborghini
2012-12-29 09:38:02 AM
3 votes:
If you'd freaking agreed to just allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and agreed to cut back defense spending just a bit, none of this would have mattered in the first place! This is entirely due to your party's constant refusal to behave rationally. Of course your party is going to get the blame---everyone knows that this situation was totally avoidable and that Obama offered you some outstanding deals that you turned down because you and your mouth-breathing constituents think that reverting to Clinton-era tax levels for the top 2% is SOCHALIZM LOL.

/farking idiots, man
2012-12-29 01:00:31 PM
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: On a more fundamental level he ignores the root cause of unemployment being our new love of free trade agreements. Great for Wall Street, fantastic for CEOs, not so great for the US job picture.

Corporations are real happy with the current US unemployment picture.


Hershey is relocating a large portion of their chocolate-making industry to Mexico. Ostensibly they say it's to be closer to the cocoa production (though Hershey, PA was originally chosen since it was close to the milk sources). However, I'm willing to bet $10 that Hershey will end up paying their workers about $0.30 an hour, be able to deliver their product to the US without paying tariffs, and won't lower the price of their end product one damn cent.
2012-12-29 12:42:51 PM
2 votes:

stoli n coke: Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one


Agreed. Because the only people in the community who benefit from educating our children are the children themselves. There are NO benefits from an educated population felt ANYWHERE else.
2012-12-29 12:08:48 PM
2 votes:

Mercutio74: Tommy Moo: What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.

That doesn't take into account the effect of economic policy on the private sector. I think it's clear why unemployment spikes in a recession and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.

In addition, you seem to think these same rfid chips will also merchandise new stock, re-merchandize stock that was handled by customers, transport clothing back from changing rooms to the racks and be there to try and upsell customers to "just buy both, they look amazing on you".

Plus, there will literally be years, perhaps decades, where people will still prefer to use credit as opposed to actual money in their accounts... how will the rfid sort that out?


On a more fundamental level he ignores the root cause of unemployment being our new love of free trade agreements. Great for Wall Street, fantastic for CEOs, not so great for the US job picture.

Corporations are real happy with the current US unemployment picture.
2012-12-29 11:25:55 AM
2 votes:

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


Email him and tell him the good news: There are ten times as much budget cuts as in his example. He should be ecstatic.

Then, tell him that any retard that assumes simply cutting spending is a solution without getting a second job with more revenue is delusional.

Then, tell him that anyone that tries to compare micro and macro economics is a goddamn idiot because there is nothing about governmental economics that makes sense when comparing it to the "kitchen table".

Then, tell him that he is sending you emails over a system that was cultivated and built with large scale help from the government.

Then, delete the email and set up a spam filter to send any future emails from him to the trash.

------------------------------------
My solution may or may not be the best one.
2012-12-29 11:18:28 AM
2 votes:

Into the blue again: Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.

Man, I must be tired. Simple and perfect response.


There's more--the budget cuts are low by a factor of ten because it was shifted down nine decimal places instead of eight. I could almost believe that's an accident. Almost.
2012-12-29 11:10:16 AM
2 votes:

EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend


Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.
2012-12-29 11:09:52 AM
2 votes:

Shrugging Atlas: Fubar: Don't they have some rule that no bill will be introduced unless it has majority republican support? What happens if Boehner breaks that rule?

Well it's a 'rule' in the sense it's something Boehner came up with for cover in situations like this where he's scared to death to offend the 20 or so Tea Party idiots in his caucus...but it's not a real rule. And hell, they've been breaking plenty of their own rules lately when it suits them.

The bottom line is this bill would pass easily. It would have massive Dem support, and there are GOP House members who have said they would vote for it. It's a maintaining of the status quo and NOT voting on it leads to a tax increase.

When you stop to think about this, it's just farking amazing. There's a bill to keep taxes at their current rate for something like 98% of Americans. A rate dictated by a GOP President. Not voting on the bill means a tax increase. And they won't farking vote on it!


That unofficial rule is the backbone of the GOP's strength. Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith. They simply cannot have a vote on a bill where half of the GOP votes for it and the other half votes against it. It's unimaginable for them because then...they're in disagreement with each other. That means, one group is wrong and has to be purged. But which side? Both sides are going to think that they're the pure GOP, so...The knives come out.

That's why boehner ran from the Plan B vote when he realized he wasn't going to get a united GOP vote for it.
2012-12-29 10:59:32 AM
2 votes:

Kibbler: DamnYankees: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?

I think you've put your finger on it.  The modern state of the GOP is:

1) A large majority of them put themselves into the "severely conservative" camp, into the "gubbmint too big" camp, into the "must slash spending" camp, into the "income tax is EVIL" camp.

2) A majority even of Republicans want taxes on the top 1% to go up.

This has kept the party stuck in an infinite loop.  There is no resolution of these wildly-contradictory positions.


That's the problem with 'demonization'.

You can portray your opponents as ignorant, stupid, rancid, misguided, deluded... whatever... and excuse away having to make a deal with them.

However, if you convince your constituents that your opponents are evil minions of Satan, how can you later justify compromising with the hellspawn?
2012-12-29 10:25:19 AM
2 votes:

Karac: o5iiawah: Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for.

The best offer Boehner has proposed is not renewing the increases for people making $400,000, a damn sight higher than Obama's $250K. And that's not even mentioning the fact that the Dick knows he'd never be able to get enough votes to get that plan passed.

Negotiations in bad faith do not count as honest offers.


Obama's initial offer was 250K but he upped it to 400K AND actually agreed to the Social Security changes. Boehner's best offer was only raising taxes on those making more than $1,000,000 and that never went up for a vote because he knew he didn't have the votes of Republicans to support even that.

Also (and this isn't directed at you), this "cut the rate of growth" argument is rather stupid when the rate of growth is cut below the rate of inflation and doesn't account for population growth. Real per capita spending gets cut by these proposals: I hear people saying we should go back to Clinton era spending levels in gross terms if we're going back to Clinton era tax rates, but if the population has grown 10% since then and inflation has been about 34% (once compounded) a cut of that magnitude would be devastating as anyone with an ounce of macroeconomic familiarity knows.
2012-12-29 10:20:11 AM
2 votes:
If you look at the current fiscal situation and find any blame in Obama, then you are either high as a kite or functionally retarded.
2012-12-29 10:05:36 AM
2 votes:

DubyaHater: I'm waiting to see how much physician reimbursement will be cut from Medicare. Instead of destroying it outright, lawmakers have made it almost financially impossible for doctors to accept Medicare. If the 29% cut goes through, the fun begins. Good job guys. Good job.
/not a physician
//knows a few nervous physicians however


Nervous physicians don't mean anything, to be honest. They will continue to accept medicare.

Doctors are tradesman like any other. They don't like it when they face a possible cut in profits. But they are doing fine and will hardly be bankrupted by lower medicare payments.
2012-12-29 09:52:04 AM
2 votes:

TheBigJerk: [i75.photobucket.com image 640x512]


That story always amazed me. He tells it as though it was a wise lesson from his father, but when I heard him tell all I thought was "wow, this dad seriously farked up his kid".
2012-12-29 09:50:32 AM
2 votes:
i75.photobucket.com
2012-12-29 09:38:46 AM
2 votes:
Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?
2012-12-29 09:37:19 AM
2 votes:

bborchar: The american people's complete lack of sympathy for their situation should indicate something to them, but I know they won't get it.


What lack of sympathy. You need to remember that something like 97% of Congressmen were re-elected. Their voters do support them, at least in their minds.
2012-12-29 09:36:08 AM
2 votes:
Nevermind the fact this is the same farker that's ok with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring for everyone but not ok with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring just for the rich.

/Can't explain that
2012-12-29 09:24:58 AM
2 votes:
Boohoo.
2012-12-29 08:26:34 PM
1 votes:

Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Oh, and for lesson 2: after you clean up the mess, you'd most likely biatch to the city that they need to spend money to fix their sewer system.


Also, you know what you need to do to clean up shiat of that magnitude? SPEND SOME farkING MONEY!
2012-12-29 06:28:49 PM
1 votes:
Republicans built everything around the trickle down theory. Tax Cuts, Protecting the Rich, Deregulation, Letting Wall Street do whatever they want, Killing Unions, Crapping on the poor. Ever tried to rebrand as Job Creators when people got wise to it

Now everyone knows that not only its baloney, they know thats all the Republicans have to offer. If we go over the cliff we were put in that direction by the GOP. Im sick of them breaking stuff and expecting the Democrats to fix it.

Always felt that trickle down was a huge insult..Here is your pittance lower person! Its basically getting pissed on by the rich and saying thank you
2012-12-29 04:54:27 PM
1 votes:

Fuggin Bizzy: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.


That came up on my facebook feed this morning... this ensued:
him:  I think one of the biggest challenges to a discussion about the fiscal situation in the US is that we mere mortals can't comprehend billions and trillions of dollars...this is a very simple way of framing the issue in terms that make more sense...

me: terms that are simpler and easier to comprehend, certainly, but unfortunately do not adequately reflect the reality of the situation. The finances of a sovereign state that provides the world's primary reserve currency cannot be directly compared to a household budget.

me: ...unless you're in a mafia family running a protection racket, and then it starts to converge a bit. But still. Comparing the federal budget to a household budget as a simplification tool actually only clouds the issue further.

him: Simple, yes. But how do you justify any reality where the national debt has swelled from 30% of GDP to 80% of GDP in the past 10 years? There's a big problem and spending is at its core.

 http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=nYBzs4tjiYE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv %3D nYBzs4tjiYE
The Economist explains: The fiscal cliff

me:
That is a clear and concise video, and is definitely recommended viewing for anyone who doesn't have the time to follow political drama on a daily basis.

That's a great explanation of what's going on politically right now, but let's get back to your central thesis: "There's a big problem and spending is at its core." At first glance, this seems intuitive, especially following a statement such as "the national debt has swelled from 30% of GDP to 80% of GDP in the past 10 years." However, it's pretty loaded with assumptions, so let's break it down:
1. There is a big problem.
2. Spending is at the core of that problem.
In regards to #1: what, precisely, is the problem caused by our current abnormally high debt-to-gdp ratio? The usual complaint about this is inspired by the experience of the late 70's and early 80's, when the so-called "bond vigilantes" drove yields obscenely high. A three month t-bill, for example, yielded an annualized 14% in 1981. At that rate, continued borrowing IS a terrible idea, as there aren't many options where government spending will result in an increase in GDP (and thus government revenues) that will exceed the additional cost of interest on that debt. However, we are not in that situation. The cost of borrowing money right now is minuscule in absolute terms and in fact negative after adjusting for inflation - to quote Futurama, people are shouting "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" at us louder than they ever have before. The market for US treasuries is larger and more liquid than it ever has been. We are not at risk of exceeding the demand for our debt, even with the current elevated spending levels, which are primarily a response to a fiscal crisis to begin with (that whole housing collapse business) The primary risk to the cost of borrowing money right now is purely political: Congress has the capacity to force us into a selective default via the debt ceiling. If that should happen, we would have a problem, but that is purely a politically instigated crisis, and is unrelated to the magnitude of our debt or the ratio of our debt to gdp. So is there a big problem? If there is, it's mostly that Congress cannot get their shiat together and act in ANY capacity. They can't do what the Democrats believe is the right answer, they can't do what the mainstream Republicans think is the right answer, and they can't do what the subset of Republicans that are referred to as the Tea Party think is the right answer.
In regards to #2: assuming, for a moment, that the growth of the debt-GDP ratio is, in and of itself, a big problem, it is quite a leap from there to "spending is at its core." It is not a trivial math problem, and here's why: the variables are neither independent, nor is their relationship easily defined. Reducing government expenditure unwisely may reduce GDP resulting in a higher debt/GDP ratio even if it slows the growth of the debt. Increased spending, if done stupidly, may increase the growth of the debt more than it stimulates GDP, likewise resulting in an unfavorable outcome. This is why the fiscal cliff is a big deal - not because it cuts, but because it cuts stupidly (and intentionally so). Not because it raises taxes, but because it raises taxes stupidly. So by and large, people agree we ought not let that happen. Then what should we do instead? Republicans generally say, in one form or another, cut spending and engage in stimulative tax-cutting. Democrats generally say, in one form or another, increase taxes and engage in stimulative spending. Either one of these, if properly performed, CAN work, however, what we've actually been doing for the past 12 years is cutting taxes AND increasing spending AND, worst of all, both getting progressively more pissed off at the other side because of it. The risk of the cost of our debt becoming unsustainable is much more remote and manageable (via deliberate inflation, in the worst case scenario) than the risk we've created politically of torpedoing the entire thing through spite for each other via the debt ceiling.
So, am I saying you're wrong? Not entirely. We probably should reduce our spending, in a careful and controlled fashion. I just think that these persistent extreme simplifications (comparisons between national and household finances, unqualified "spending is the problem") are doing everybody a disservice and distract from the real nature of the problems.


I'm still waiting for a response.
2012-12-29 04:01:30 PM
1 votes:

stoli n coke: carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.


At the very least, childless people, people with kids going to private school, and people with adult children should not have to pay school taxes.

Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one?

As it stands, you catch a lot of breaks from people subsidizing your child. Don't act like the world owes it to you.


childless people, no.

if you have children, people paid your way - in some shape or form - time to return the favor. if you have children, doesn't matter if the children are out of the house, you got help you need to return the help.

if you have children, whether you go to private school or not, you need to help. if anything, someone in a position to put their kids in private school is in a better position to help than someone who is too broke to put their kids in private school.

everybody needs to help.

if anybody gets an out - it's the childless, NOT the rich (the private schoolers).
2012-12-29 03:02:54 PM
1 votes:

Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.


It might even be a good idea to take out a bit more debt in the short-term in order to retrain for a higher-paying job. Focus on their "personal infrastructure" if you will.
2012-12-29 02:27:25 PM
1 votes:

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


"Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend [the U.S. budget is] a household budget..."

This is a sure sign the person speaking is an uninformed moran.
2012-12-29 02:21:28 PM
1 votes:
I'm comfortably middle class. My tax rates are going up, and I don't care. The teahadists are finally getting what they've always claimed to want (we're actually going to do something about the deficit/out-of-control spending), but they and their Republican bed mates are pissed and writhing and poised to suffer more electoral losses.

Hypocrisy pointed up? Yep. Lies underscored? Yep. Sure enough, the president is a ni-BONG. And yes, it matters to these shiatstains. You got what you wanted. Why u mad, tho?

Bonus schadenfreude: The taxes of people more wealthy than me are going up more. Suck it, Richie Riches.
/fark Republicans
2012-12-29 01:59:37 PM
1 votes:
1. This would mean that it's probably time to get a second job to BRING MORE REVENUE INTO YOUR HOUSEHOLD! Because cutting spending can only go so far.

2. THE DEBT CEILING DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!!

I think whoever made this (below) needs to be punched simultaneously in the face and the groin.

duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com
2012-12-29 01:19:42 PM
1 votes:

AurizenDarkstar: Tommy Moo: Infernalist: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

I

If you have children, the child credit goes away. It was part of the Bush tax plan that the democrats in the Senate refuse to extend

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.

I agree with the sentiment of 'too many kids', but we're not overpopulated. A few cities might have some congestion, but the nation itself is far from overpopulated.

What is 8% unemployment, other than 8% too many workers? There's more to overpopulation than traffic congestion. The ideal population is one where every person is necessary. Not to mention that when you take into account that approximately 10% of all workers are unnecessary, either working corporate jobs they got due to nepotism or government jobs that were made up for the sole purpose of disguising unemployment, the real figure is something like 15% too many workers. Plus, with automation replacing more and more sectors, it's going to get even worse. Soon you will buy clothes with RFID chips in the tags that automatically debit your bank account when you walk out with them. The nation's 10 million retail employees will get dumped onto the dole. This doesn't mean that they are horrible or lazy. Most of them want to work, but there are too many workers for the future economy.

I'm sure you have a solution to this problem? I'm wagering a 'final' one, perhaps?

Because that is the only way we would deal with your specious overpopulation argument. The only decision would be who would be 'dealt with'.


Not this shiat again. Always with the godwinning. I just offered one in this very thread: end subsidies of child rearing. Also: educate the women of the world and promote family planning. Not giving birth to as many people isn't the same thing as rounding up existing people and killing them. By your logic, every person who potentially could be born that isn't has been "killed." So you're a murderer for not siring as many children as possible, or using your womb as a permanent carousel if you're a woman.
2012-12-29 01:04:03 PM
1 votes:
images2.dailykos.com
2012-12-29 01:00:44 PM
1 votes:
Tax rates are going to go up on everyone, and we're going to get the blame"


its because you deserve the blame, Jackoff. eventually, being a cock blocker catches up with you.
2012-12-29 12:45:26 PM
1 votes:

stoli n coke: carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.


At the very least, childless people, people with kids going to private school, and people with adult children should not have to pay school taxes.

Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one?

As it stands, you catch a lot of breaks from people subsidizing your child. Don't act like the world owes it to you.


Whine more, you selfish little prick. You don't get go pick and choose what aspects of society your taxes go toward.

Don't like paying higher taxes for better schools? Move the 'fark' out of the district and into the boonies.
2012-12-29 12:40:24 PM
1 votes:
It looks like the GOP has finally managed to underestimate the intelligence of the average American.
2012-12-29 12:33:19 PM
1 votes:

carterjw: Tommy Moo: EnviroDude: mat catastrophe: ...

Good. We are overpopulated. It's time for the government to stop subsidizing child rearing. Make people confront the full cost of raising a kid, so more will choose to have zero or one instead of three or four. You could lower marginal rates to compensate, but I'm sick of paying taxes to raise other people's contributions to global warming and unemployment.


You remind me of this friend who was telling me how his dog should count as a dependent the way my kid did, since it costs money to raise, and it's a choice to have a kid just like it is to have a pet... Yeah, because those are the same things at all.

I think it's pretty reasonable that everyone subsidize the future of humanity a little. Even those who don't think their own genes should be part of it.



At the very least, childless people, people with kids going to private school, and people with adult children should not have to pay school taxes.

Why should a 60 year old couple have to pay a 2-thousand dollar a year property tax hike just because idiots just had to vote in a bond to build a new high school 15 years after they built the last one?

As it stands, you catch a lot of breaks from people subsidizing your child. Don't act like the world owes it to you.
2012-12-29 12:25:44 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-12-29 12:07:47 PM
1 votes:
It's totally unfair! You spend four solid years negotiating in bad faith, filibustering for the sake of filibustering, even filibustering your own goddamn bills, and doing everything in your power to prevent meaningful legislation from passing...

Then when you fail to pass a bill to prevent a tax increase, everyone acts like it's all your fault!

I bet the Jews/the liberal media/Obama did this!
2012-12-29 12:06:39 PM
1 votes:

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


Ah yes, the household budget analogy. I'd like to add on to it.

If the household budget is really that out of whack, I would recommend getting a better job and telling the guy who's been living almost rent-free on your couch for the past decade to nut up and start paying rent.
2012-12-29 11:59:25 AM
1 votes:
So the party that has staked out a no taxes and reduced spending platform do define themselves is about to increase taxes through inaction and is currently fighting spending cuts that they already agreed to.

img.photobucket.com
2012-12-29 11:53:46 AM
1 votes:

Lupine Chemist: It seems obvious that the GOP wants to go off before reaching a deal. That way they can say they voted to lower taxes rather than raise them to get to the same deal. It's freaking retarded, but that's why.


If that's the case, it seems that Obama would be in a very good position to get 98% of what he wants. The GOP will already be blamed for the cliff and will be in even less of a position to negotiate, especially with Boehner bungling the whole "Plan B" nonsense and essentially sending congress home for Xmas with so many days left to negotiate.

It'll be even worse if the house comes back and decides they need a more teabaggish speaker... it'll be a hole the GOP never digs itself out of.

I hope there's people at Fox shiatting their pants. Unleashing the tea party upon the political process was supposed to be like a biological attack. I don't think they planned on it essentially eliminating the efficacy of an entire branch of government while leaving a Dem in charge of the white house.
2012-12-29 11:44:22 AM
1 votes:
It seems obvious that the GOP wants to go off before reaching a deal. That way they can say they voted to lower taxes rather than raise them to get to the same deal. It's freaking retarded, but that's why.
2012-12-29 11:38:26 AM
1 votes:

Mercutio74: TV's Vinnie: You get blamed because it IS your fault, you cretins! Stop it with your posturing and slobbering Pete Peterson's & Grover Norquist's knob and think about America for once in your damned lives!

They are thinking about America. They're thinking about how nice it's been to get paid by America to either do nothing or cause harm depending on the issue. And they'd like to CONTINUE getting paid for that, so that why they have to try and shift blame to the "other guys".



Yep. They're thinking about doing their best to not piss off the teabaggers who voted for them, so they get to keep their jobs.

Can't say I blame them. There aren't many jobs that pay six figures a year without requiring you to do some actual work.

Congressional Republicans are six figure welfare queens.
2012-12-29 11:38:22 AM
1 votes:
Republicans are going to get blamed for higher taxes in every scenario.  But only in the going over the cliff scenario do they credit for reducing spending.
2012-12-29 11:38:18 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: o5iiawah: jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.

Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for. Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - just reductions in a proposed rate of increase. Instead of a 9Tn deficit over the next 10 years, we'd be faced with a 7.4Tn deficit over the next 10 years. New revenue, meanwhile makes up maybe a trillion or two more but Obama's still asked for half a Trillion in public works stimulus. Also, keep in mind we're going to be back here in 10 years saying that the interest in the debt has swallowed any gains that these cliff negotiations had achieved. One party is sort of serious about new revenue. The other party doesn't give a shiat about spending.

If I vow to cut 10,000 worth of spending out of my budget next year, I dont do so by purchasing a $150,000 Ferrari instead of a $160,000 Lamborghini

If this is the GOP stance, why is Boehner not asking for any of this?


It's not the GoP stance. It's the conservative think tanks stance. The ONLY spending cuts the GOP has put forth are:
1) Defund Planned Parenthood
2) Kill off NPR and PBS

Repealing Obamacare ain't a spending cut, in fact, it would add 400 Billion in Obamacare medicare savings to our existing UNEMPLOYMENT driven deficit.

It's getting easier and easier to see who the consumers of Drudge report, Newsmax and Prison Planet really are.
2012-12-29 11:29:28 AM
1 votes:
republicans: "we're going to get the blame"

www.newlaunches.com

You get blamed because it IS your fault, you cretins! Stop it with your posturing and slobbering Pete Peterson's & Grover Norquist's knob and think about America for once in your damned lives!
2012-12-29 11:12:11 AM
1 votes:

Infernalist: Do you all remember that 'open session meeting' that the GOP offered to Obama and he took? And then sat in front of the GOP House and openly TOLD them that they were painting themselves into a corner by pretending like he was the Devil or some murdering communist? That they would find it 'very' hard to actually compromise down the road if they didn't start acting more sensible and get back to the business of governing?

That was back in...2010, I think. Or 2009.

And here we are, with that very same reality staring them in the face and they have the unmitigated gall to act surprised.


They don't care. People like Tim Huelskamp literally believe they are on a holy crusade for God. The true believers are completely convinced that the Democrats are casuing America's apocalypse. Losing to Obama and the Democrats only makes them more hardened in their fight against evil because it brings the apocalypse that much closer in their eyes.
2012-12-29 11:07:32 AM
1 votes:

starsrift: Why the absolute flying fark are we babbling about tax increases instead of the broadaxe of spending reductions that's going to be driven through the government across the board, instead of smartly, selectively, precisely cutting away the parts that do the least damage and are the least necessary?


Not many people know about the details of those other cuts. Defense contractors are going to get butchered, and states like Florida and California with high percentages of defense contract firms are going to lose a ton of jobs.  One of my friends has hopped around defense contracts for the past decade and had to take a lower-paying non-defense job recently so as not to be at risk.
2012-12-29 11:03:26 AM
1 votes:

Karac: Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]

Here's your response to dear old dad: any person who made $21,700, and owed $142,000 would not get told to just cut spending. They'd get told to get a second job and raise revenue.


Man, I must be tired. Simple and perfect response.
2012-12-29 11:01:18 AM
1 votes:

Into the blue again: You cannot argue with stupidity. My father sent this to me. I cannot even begin to try to explain the debt ceiling to him. This is why the GOP will keep control of the house, perfect gerrymandering.
[duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com image 850x1133]


Oh, and for lesson 2: after you clean up the mess, you'd most likely biatch to the city that they need to spend money to fix their sewer system.
2012-12-29 10:50:54 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Since when are conservatives a minority of the GOP?


I think you've put your finger on it.  The modern state of the GOP is:

1) A large majority of them put themselves into the "severely conservative" camp, into the "gubbmint too big" camp, into the "must slash spending" camp, into the "income tax is EVIL" camp.

2) A majority even of Republicans want taxes on the top 1% to go up.

This has kept the party stuck in an infinite loop.  There is no resolution of these wildly-contradictory positions.
2012-12-29 10:50:20 AM
1 votes:

The Jami Turman Fan Club:

The plan Obama suggested in 2011 would allow the national debt to increase 6 trillion over 10 years instead of 13. While it would be nice to get it a lot lower than that, it's a hell of a lot better than a kick in the teeth.


While our current deficits are in the $1.5 trillion range, so, give a second here, . . . 4 moar years and fark you I'll be in Hawaii?
2012-12-29 10:46:33 AM
1 votes:
Party of personal responsibility strikes again.
2012-12-29 10:42:19 AM
1 votes:
This is what you get when your idea of "negotiation" is to slap every single offer out of the other person's hand, and then throw yourselves a parade about how awesome you are at your jobs.
2012-12-29 10:41:19 AM
1 votes:

jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.


I came in here to rant about something, but I'll just go with a "this." Worthless sacks of shiat. Monitor THIS, why don't you?
2012-12-29 10:40:09 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: jayhawk88: Good, you worthless sacks of shiat. You chose to try and use the worst financial crisis in a generation solely for political gain, while the people you supposedly serve, suffered. Bad enough when you all are simply incompetent or selling your services to the highest bidder, but to actively try and make things worse, just to make the sitting President look bad, is evil and unforgivable. You all deserve to lose everything in your life that gives you any kind of financial security, I hope each and every one of you finds yourself alone and desperate on the streets.

Boehner already agreed to most of the tax increases Obama has asked for. Obama meanwhile hasn't offered a penny of spending cuts - just reductions in a proposed rate of increase. Instead of a 9Tn deficit over the next 10 years, we'd be faced with a 7.4Tn deficit over the next 10 years. New revenue, meanwhile makes up maybe a trillion or two more but Obama's still asked for half a Trillion in public works stimulus. Also, keep in mind we're going to be back here in 10 years saying that the interest in the debt has swallowed any gains that these cliff negotiations had achieved. One party is sort of serious about new revenue. The other party doesn't give a shiat about spending.

If I vow to cut 10,000 worth of spending out of my budget next year, I dont do so by purchasing a $150,000 Ferrari instead of a $160,000 Lamborghini


Don't you have some teeth to clean, Phil?
2012-12-29 10:26:57 AM
1 votes:

Shrugging Atlas: lexslamman: All because the mainline GOP is too cowardly to stand up to the conservative minority in their party.

Exactly this.


Yeah...no. Look at what's happened over the past two election cycles, where any establishment GOP candidate who breathed the 'compromise' word got bushwhacked by Teatards screaming sozulizm. There's no 'standing up' when all it gets you is voted out of office.

OTOH, voters are increasingly turned off by the Teatards in the GOP, and last month they lost 8 seats to the Dems.

Good times, eh?
2012-12-29 10:15:22 AM
1 votes:

Grungehamster: I really don't see where these people see they aren't liable for more than half the blame.

1) Rather than attempt to negotiate with Democrats, Bush decided to pass his tax cuts through reconciliation, which required the tax cuts expire in 2010 unless they paid for themselves. (These cuts were extended 2 years as part of a deal between Congress and Obama after the 2010 Midterms in exchange for extending payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and a few recurring issues like the doc fix for the same period.)

2) Republicans decided that despite negative real interest rates on t bills that they would hold the debt ceiling hostage, and claimed they would let the government default if Obama did not cut the budget (that Congress had passed) significantly. Ultimately they signed an agreement for a major across the board cut unless both parties could come up with a compromise that both parties would agree to.

3) The supercommittee failed to come up with a solution, and in the subsequent negotiations have refused to budge an inch on taxes, even when Democrats offered pretty severe entitlement cuts (the equivalent sacred cow for their side.) Even when their own Speaker offered to only raise marginal tax rates on millionares (while also extending estate tax and capital gains tax cuts that would primarily benefit them) their own party revolted against the idea, despite a majority of Republicans agreeing that the original tax increases on the rich Obama proposed are acceptable.

They led us here every step of the way, and are now complaining that they'll get blamed if Democrats don't swerve in this game of chicken that they proposed and have been playing for the last four years.


Four?!
2012-12-29 10:05:36 AM
1 votes:
An aggregate site links to Buzzfeed citing Some Guy.

This is important.
2012-12-29 10:03:39 AM
1 votes:
I'm waiting to see how much physician reimbursement will be cut from Medicare. Instead of destroying it outright, lawmakers have made it almost financially impossible for doctors to accept Medicare. If the 29% cut goes through, the fun begins. Good job guys. Good job.
/not a physician
//knows a few nervous physicians however
2012-12-29 09:56:09 AM
1 votes:
I love how Republicans biatch about 'deficit spending' and now that that is about to be resolved in dramatic form, its a bad thing.
2012-12-29 09:50:01 AM
1 votes:

bborchar: The american people's complete lack of sympathy for their situation should indicate something to them, but I know they won't get it.


The American people are blaming them, and I'll bet money that if we go off the cliff, the Republicans will lost the House in 2014.
2012-12-29 09:43:04 AM
1 votes:

mat catastrophe: HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!


Does this mean you're going to "Go Galt" on us?

/Contrary to what you may think, you won't be missed
2012-12-29 09:41:15 AM
1 votes:

astonrickenbach: Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?


98%, but that's close enough.
2012-12-29 09:40:43 AM
1 votes:
HAHA! I'M POOR AS HELL SO MY TAX RATES DON'T GO UP.

SUCK IT, MIDDLE CLASS ASSHOLES! THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!
2012-12-29 09:40:21 AM
1 votes:

astonrickenbach: Didn't Boner say in 2011 he got everything in the deal he wanted?


He did. He stayed speaker. As far as I can tell Boehner doesn't really have any other negotiating stances he cares about.
2012-12-29 09:37:03 AM
1 votes:
You shiat the bed. You get to sleep in it. You bet it all on Willard and lost.
2012-12-29 09:36:01 AM
1 votes:
You were the fark nuts that voted for them. Of course you'll get the blame.
2012-12-29 09:22:11 AM
1 votes:
You got blamed when you enacted them and you'll get blamed when you let them expire.

Maybe if you learned how to spin like the other guys this wouldn't be a problem.

also, let them expire
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report