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)   Holy Fiscal Cliffitude, Batman. Lindsey Graham congratulated Obama on Fox News Sunday for getting a deal done. Is this the end of our long national nightmare? Will our taxes go up? What about Moose and Squirrel?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 167
    More: Followup, Leon Panetta, nightmares  
•       •       •

8668 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 2:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-30 02:32:46 PM
Obama has already said that he will veto any proposal, even his own proposal.
 
2012-12-30 02:33:00 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I can't believe that just this one time, we can't drop partisan politics and just make a nice deal that will save us from plunging into the abyss. It's bad enough that most of the major companies have fled to other climes to pay their workers shiat wages and no benefits, so work is hard to find , and the jobs you CAN find are crap that don't pay. Now, we are looking at taxing everyone at a higher rate, when the economy is in a steady depression, and unemployment is high. One would like to think that we elected these people to actually, I don't know, HELP the constituents they represent, and let go of the political line they drive on all the time. Taxing me more when i don't have much now isn't really helping me.


A partisan deal is a "win" for Obama, the "cliff" will be viewed as his loss as the wealthy won't place the blame on The GOP for giving in.I know- totally stupid but come election day, there will be those who remember this mess as belong to the POTUS.
 
2012-12-30 02:34:14 PM
From a commentary I read yesterday:

"So when we hear that the federal government hasn't balanced its books in more than a decade, it seems sensible to demand a return to that kind of balance in Washington as well. But that would actually be a huge mistake.

History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
"

I don't think we should be worrying about balancing the budget right now. This is a totally self-inflicted tragedy by the Congress.
 
2012-12-30 02:35:34 PM

Funk Brothers: Mrtraveler01: Bit'O'Gristle: Taxing me more when i don't have much now isn't really helping me.

Unless you make over $250,000 you wouldn't have had to worry about being tasked if the GOP and Dems would have come to an agreement.

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Let me repeat:

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Unless you make over $250,000, I don't see how anyone can vote for the GOP in their best interests.

The reason why raising taxes over $250,000 is that it is excessive and not fair for those making under $250,000. It creates envy and class warfare. Besides that money should be going to creating jobs and helping the economy, not paying down our debt. The French court ruled that François Hollande's 75% tax on millionaires is unconstitutional just a few days ago. If Obama gets his way, Conservatives and Tea Party folks must fight this tax in the court. It will eventually go up to the Supreme Court who will rule it unconstitutional.


Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?
 
2012-12-30 02:35:49 PM

NewportBarGuy: I'm racking my brain for the GOP votes they need. I think Graham is saying he'll vote for it, but that's still 50-50 based upon how they treated Dole's UN treaty. You can probably get Scott Brown, because he wants Kerry's seat. You can count on Snowe and Collins. Who else?

Who else is not batsh*t crazy? I honestly can't think of anymore votes. Saxby Chambliss said something a few weeks ago, but he got his peter stepped on. Can they actually get 60 votes? F*cking filibuster rule is retarded. Especially since they don't have the stones to actually make them filibuster the goddamn thing.


Luger as a going away fark you to the tea party
 
2012-12-30 02:36:51 PM

Funk Brothers: Mrtraveler01: Bit'O'Gristle: Taxing me more when i don't have much now isn't really helping me.

Unless you make over $250,000 you wouldn't have had to worry about being tasked if the GOP and Dems would have come to an agreement.

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Let me repeat:

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Unless you make over $250,000, I don't see how anyone can vote for the GOP in their best interests.

The reason why raising taxes over $250,000 is that it is excessive and not fair for those making under $250,000. It creates envy and class warfare. Besides that money should be going to creating jobs and helping the economy, not paying down our debt. The French court ruled that François Hollande's 75% tax on millionaires is unconstitutional just a few days ago. If Obama gets his way, Conservatives and Tea Party folks must fight this tax in the court. It will eventually go up to the Supreme Court who will rule it unconstitutional.


I'm going to reserve scoring until I see if you get any bites.

But on the surface?  That's beautiful.  Very classy and well-crafted.  You're getting bonus points, regardless of hook rate.
 
2012-12-30 02:37:26 PM
On Friday. Laura Ingraham was subbing for O'Reilly and came up with every talking point in the book, even with her GOP guests who said they should accept a deal with Obama.

"but but but, the Democrats have not come up with a budget!!!!"

That's because the GOP led House blocked everything, you dolt!
 
2012-12-30 02:38:12 PM

Jake Havechek: 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.'

-- Mitch McConnell


You made your bed, farkos, now lie in it.


Obama could still be an one term President or not finish out his second term. I remember Nixon not finishing out his second term because he retired from the Presidency. Congress still has to certify the Electoral College votes this week and if the House Republicans succeed, Boehner will be sworn in on January 20th.
 
2012-12-30 02:38:22 PM
The sequestration and reverting tax rates does not have the global impact of limiting the debt ceiling. The recovery to-date has not been uniform across states in either rate of recovery or reasons for recovery. I have problems with both Republican and Democrat proposals.

The Republic $900 billion savings ($90 billion a year for ten years) is problematic unless one knows specifically what loopholes and reform is being proposed. Second, such proposals are notoriously difficult to assess since the legislation for the specifics will not be proposed for a minimum of six months, which is typical for tax-related legislation. I would prefer to know the specifics now, so that I might let my opinion be known to the congress.

The Democrat plan is neither progressive nor uniformly applied to all taxpayers. It appears to ignore two facts: 1) an across the board cut or increase favors or impacts those at the highest bracket: 20% of 35% is greater than 20% of 15%; and 2) the focus on income is misleading since it is not earnings being spoken about, but rather taxable income - if I earn $5 million in dividends my taxable income is $1 million.

A uniform tax cut would be something like no taxes on the first $N dollars of income, or a reduction of N% for all brackets.

Personally, and I'm not trolling nor seeking flames, I would like to see corporate taxes eliminated and all income from whatever source fully taxed.
 
2012-12-30 02:39:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: Bit'O'Gristle: Taxing me more when i don't have much now isn't really helping me.

Unless you make over $250,000 you wouldn't have had to worry about being tasked if the GOP and Dems would have come to an agreement.

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Let me repeat:

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Unless you make over $250,000, I don't see how anyone can vote for the GOP in their best interests.


The GOP want to be remembered as refusing to give in. In the end, the voter will blame The Administration under which this fiscal mess occurred (it would be a worn out joke inserting B-b-b- Bush here) and the few key players in the GOP who are willingly committing political suicide in the process.
 
2012-12-30 02:41:44 PM

Jake Havechek: On Friday. Laura Ingraham was subbing for O'Reilly and came up with every talking point in the book, even with her GOP guests who said they should accept a deal with Obama.

"but but but, the Democrats have not come up with a budget!!!!"

That's because the GOP led House blocked everything, you dolt!


.
Wut? Reid is now a Republican? Well, that's news.
 
2012-12-30 02:42:03 PM

Funk Brothers: Jake Havechek: 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.'

-- Mitch McConnell


You made your bed, farkos, now lie in it.

Obama could still be an one term President or not finish out his second term. I remember Nixon not finishing out his second term because he retired from the Presidency. .


No, Nixon resigned on national television. In disgrace. That is a matter of historical fact.
 
2012-12-30 02:42:13 PM
Forgetting to mention- noone willing wants to see taxes go up as all are effected. Likewise noone wants to be seen as voluntarily raising taxes taxes on the wealthy as that, for the GOP, is tantumont to political suicide. better to just fight the good fight, go over the cliff and say you did your best.
 
2012-12-30 02:44:27 PM

Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?


It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.
 
2012-12-30 02:45:08 PM
The GOP farked up.

People like me may have to tighten their belts. So farking what? I've done it before and can do it again.

If you think I feel an ounce of pity for the rich and huge corporations, you can think again.
 
2012-12-30 02:45:37 PM

Jake Havechek: Funk Brothers: Jake Havechek: 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.'

-- Mitch McConnell


You made your bed, farkos, now lie in it.

Obama could still be an one term President or not finish out his second term. I remember Nixon not finishing out his second term because he retired from the Presidency. .

No, Nixon resigned on national television. In disgrace. That is a matter of historical fact.


Nixon also violated ethics by placing unauthorized wiretaps on phonelines, was caught, and had no choice but to leave.
 
2012-12-30 02:46:38 PM

Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.


Correct me if I'm wrong, if you're clearing $250,000 per year, every year, you have nothing to biatch about, so fark off.
 
2012-12-30 02:47:25 PM
t2.gstatic.com

USA rules! USA rules! USA rules!
 
2012-12-30 02:47:45 PM

clowncar on fire: Mrtraveler01: Bit'O'Gristle: Taxing me more when i don't have much now isn't really helping me.

Unless you make over $250,000 you wouldn't have had to worry about being tasked if the GOP and Dems would have come to an agreement.

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Let me repeat:

The GOP would rather have everyone pay higher taxes than letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich.

Unless you make over $250,000, I don't see how anyone can vote for the GOP in their best interests.

The GOP want to be remembered as refusing to give in. In the end, the voter will blame The Administration under which this fiscal mess occurred (it would be a worn out joke inserting B-b-b- Bush here) and the few key players in the GOP who are willingly committing political suicide in the process.


So you're absolutely fine with the knowledge that the GOP is creating this fiscal mess?
 
2012-12-30 02:48:09 PM

Jake Havechek: Nixon resigned... That is a matter of historical fact.


Agree to disagree.
 
2012-12-30 02:49:14 PM
These teabagger idiots need to learn, for once and for all, that ''trickle down/supply side" economics does not work, and will never work.
 
2012-12-30 02:49:18 PM

Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.


Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?
 
2012-12-30 02:49:45 PM

Jake Havechek: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Correct me if I'm wrong, if you're clearing $250,000 per year, every year, you have nothing to biatch about, so fark off.


Sorry, but the Tea Party disagrees even if it benefits them in the way PPACA is trying to do. I'm hoping that Conservatives will take the matter to the courts even if those are not making over $250,000 a year.
 
2012-12-30 02:49:58 PM

ZAZ: I expect any deal to be worse than the "cliff".


Our country is bankrupt. It's all about looting now. You are spot on correct. Not one member of any elected federal body has a plan to make America better. Brace yourself and enjoy the show. But don't tell me the ending.
 
2012-12-30 02:50:16 PM

Bontesla: Coming on a Bicycle: I still haven't found anyone with some authority explain exactly *why* this fiscal cliff would be such an enormous disaster.

GIS


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficit_or_Surplus_with_Alternative _ Fiscal_Scenario.png

That doesn't convince me.
 
2012-12-30 02:50:35 PM
Bontesla: Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?

It's French, you wouldn't understand.
 
2012-12-30 02:50:36 PM

TomD9938: Jake Havechek: Nixon resigned... That is a matter of historical fact.

Agree to disagree.


No, I'll agree to that Nixon resigned in disgrace in order to avoid answering to his crimes, and then that asshole Ford pardoned him.
 
2012-12-30 02:50:58 PM

Bontesla: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?


I sincerely hope you're not actually taking him seriously.
 
2012-12-30 02:52:00 PM

Bontesla: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?


French 75% income tax struck down by constitutional council (BBC)

I'm using a link from the BBC instead of Fox News.
 
2012-12-30 02:52:00 PM
It just sucks, and as usual, the working and the middle class will take it in the ass, yet again.
 
2012-12-30 02:52:07 PM

AirForceVet: lordjupiter: this thread...how the fark does it work?

Like this obviously.


That trick *never* works!
 
2012-12-30 02:52:36 PM

Infernalist: Bontesla: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?

I sincerely hope you're not actually taking him seriously.


Let him go, he's on a roll.
 
2012-12-30 02:53:42 PM

Funk Brothers: Jake Havechek: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Correct me if I'm wrong, if you're clearing $250,000 per year, every year, you have nothing to biatch about, so fark off.

Sorry, but the Tea Party disagrees even if it benefits them in the way PPACA is trying to do. I'm hoping that Conservatives will take the matter to the courts even if those are not making over $250,000 a year.


So you're in favor of the Teatards wasting even more Federal funds on a wild goose chase that has no merit?

Seriously, that's all it amounts to.  Just wasting tax dollars for the SCOTUS to rule that yes indeed, Congress does have the power to establish taxes as they see fit.

I mean, I know you're trolling, but that's really a bit much.
 
2012-12-30 02:54:54 PM
Lindsay Lohan wasn't in Batman? wtf?
 
2012-12-30 02:55:17 PM

Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?

French 75% income tax struck down by constitutional council (BBC)

I'm using a link from the BBC instead of Fox News.


And as we all know, France uses the US Constitution and SCOTUS in the operation of their country.  France is just another US state that doesn't appear on the flag, like Jesusland.
 
2012-12-30 02:55:22 PM

Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Would you mind posting the specific section you're referring to?

French 75% income tax struck down by constitutional council (BBC)

I'm using a link from the BBC instead of Fox News.


It doesn't say what you think it says:

In its ruling on Saturday, the Constitutional Council said the new tax rate "failed to recognise equality before public burdens" because, unlike other forms of income tax, it was to be applied to individuals rather than households.

It wasn't struck down because it unfairly targeted the rich. It was struck down because it targeted individuals instead of households.

/playing along
 
2012-12-30 02:55:39 PM

computerguyUT: Let's see...higher taxes means more money to the Guvmint.
Um.....I don't see our esteemed leaders' incentive to change a damn thing.

Oh that's right, there are still those of you out there that think the government gives a flying fark about you.
Suckers.


imageshack.us
 
2012-12-30 02:57:00 PM

Kuroshin: Funk Brothers: Jake Havechek: Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.

Correct me if I'm wrong, if you're clearing $250,000 per year, every year, you have nothing to biatch about, so fark off.

Sorry, but the Tea Party disagrees even if it benefits them in the way PPACA is trying to do. I'm hoping that Conservatives will take the matter to the courts even if those are not making over $250,000 a year.

So you're in favor of the Teatards wasting even more Federal funds on a wild goose chase that has no merit?

Seriously, that's all it amounts to.  Just wasting tax dollars for the SCOTUS to rule that yes indeed, Congress does have the power to establish taxes as they see fit.

I mean, I know you're trolling, but that's really a bit much.


No Congress is not establishing taxes as they see fit, they are being forced by Obama to raise taxes on a certain income by a certain time frame. It's an abuse of the Executive Branch. Obama is not Congress. Obama is being the bully here.
 
2012-12-30 02:57:39 PM

Coming on a Bicycle: I still haven't found anyone with some authority explain exactly *why* this fiscal cliff would be such an enormous disaster.



1. It'll lower government spending so far that it'll put us into a recession.
2. A number of really stupid laws that Congress keeps putting off instead of fixing will go into effect. Medicare will stop paying enough for doctors and the AMT will hit lots of middle-income Americans, to name two.

If you want some massive search for 'authority', feel free to do one.
 
2012-12-30 02:57:48 PM
It's a damned good thing this site doesn't ban people for being trollbait.
 
2012-12-30 02:59:23 PM

Funk Brothers: No Congress is not establishing taxes as they see fit, they are being forced by Obama to raise taxes on a certain income by a certain time frame. It's an abuse of the Executive Branch. Obama is not Congress. Obama is being the bully here.


How the fark is the House being forced into anything? They can pass anything they want, nobody's stopping them. If they'd pass something, we'd have a point to negotiate from.
 
2012-12-30 02:59:24 PM

Funk Brothers: Bontesla: Why would raising taxes on income over 250 be unconstitutional?

It discriminates households depending on their income bracket. It's unfair and in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I hope if the tax rate rises on those making more than $250,000 a year gets taken up on the courts. The justices should be looking at the Constitutional Council of France's ruling recently.


Solution: move to France. This is about as dumb as getting rid of vagrancy laws because they only apply to poor people, age of consent laws because they discrimnate against some adult's sexual preferences, or speed limits because they only apply to people who go faster then the posted speed. ALL law is discrimintory. Life sucks- get over it. Sucks that 5% of my wages- or 10-20% of a minimum wage earner's-- is spent on fuel for my car. Should we insist that people who earn over 250k pay $250 or more every time they fill up so that the cost is applied equally? They are being asked to pay more because, purportionately, they do not feel the same pain as those under 250K.

But you are right though- the law is discriminatory, but not on those who could easily afford the increase but by those who are overburden by the taxes they currently pay. To be fair- they would have to pay far more than they are being asked to even begin to feel the pinch.
 
2012-12-30 02:59:45 PM
they are being forced by Obama to raise taxes on a certain income by a certain time frame.

It worked in the Clinton years.

But back then, most people had a job, so the GOP biatched about a "labor shortage". So after George W Bush was elected, he gave companies reasons to move their factories to China and India.
 
2012-12-30 03:02:21 PM
autismdad1966.files.wordpress.com

cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2012-12-30 03:02:37 PM
New Rule: you must use past rulings by France's Constitutional Council as a framework to base any argument regarding U.S policy.
 
2012-12-30 03:05:00 PM
well it's after 3 on Sunday and I haven't heard of them striking a deal just yet. So let's jump off the cliff.
 
2012-12-30 03:06:17 PM

Hobodeluxe: well it's after 3 on Sunday and I haven't heard of them striking a deal just yet. So let's jump off the cliff.


It's just a reversion to mostly Clinton policies, so why not?

I can be frugal, can you, Donald Trump?
 
2012-12-30 03:07:28 PM

Hobodeluxe: well it's after 3 on Sunday and I haven't heard of them striking a deal just yet. So let's jump off the cliff.


I won't be sure of a deal not happening for certain until they count down to 0 in Times Square tomorrow night.

But the magic 8-ball says "Uncertain. Try again later."
 
2012-12-30 03:10:12 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Coming on a Bicycle: I still haven't found anyone with some authority explain exactly *why* this fiscal cliff would be such an enormous disaster.


1. It'll lower government spending so far that it'll put us into a recession.
2. A number of really stupid laws that Congress keeps putting off instead of fixing will go into effect. Medicare will stop paying enough for doctors and the AMT will hit lots of middle-income Americans, to name two.

If you want some massive search for 'authority', feel free to do one.


On the bright side- we'll be paying only what can afford (living within our means) and having a surplus to pay of the debt.

This will require that most of the tax breaks we've enjoyed the last few years expire (2% increase on income tax but more revenue from the wealthies on their investments). Less pocket money, less government projects will mean recession and a projected 1-1.5% increase in unemployment the first year.
 
2012-12-30 03:10:54 PM

david_gaithersburg: Jake Havechek: On Friday. Laura Ingraham was subbing for O'Reilly and came up with every talking point in the book, even with her GOP guests who said they should accept a deal with Obama.

"but but but, the Democrats have not come up with a budget!!!!"

That's because the GOP led House blocked everything, you dolt!

.
Wut? Reid is now a Republican? Well, that's news.


Reid's in the Senate.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report