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)   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 84
    More: Followup, Leon Panetta, nightmares  
•       •       •

8678 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 2:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 11:52:52 AM  
7 votes:
I expect any deal to be worse than the "cliff".
2012-12-30 02:29:02 PM  
6 votes:
My bet is they go over the cliff, then early next year they will pass the exact same deal that they refuse to accept now. They are going to allow taxes to go up, without voting on it, so the republicans can claim they never voted to raise taxes. Then after Jan. 1, after the automatic raises go into effect, they will pass the exact same thing they refuse to pass now, because then they can claim they voted to lower taxes.

/all politics are local
//they only care about getting re-elected back home
///not what is best for the nation
2012-12-30 02:22:27 PM  
6 votes:

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.
2012-12-30 02:34:14 PM  
5 votes:
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 02:32:44 PM  
4 votes:
'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.
2012-12-30 02:28:34 PM  
4 votes:
Obama's hand just gets stronger if the tax cuts expire.
2012-12-30 03:11:16 PM  
3 votes:

Glancing Blow: 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.


You see that's because you understand basic math and the (apparently) subtle difference between reducing the effective tax rate by X vs. reducing tax payments by X. The rest of the country regards your understanding of numbers as a form of wizardry.

The politician that phrased tax reduction in a form that sounded equitable but was actually scaled to wealth is the real (evil) genius. Had he phrased it "taxes will be reduced, but reduced more for people who pay more" which is an equivalent statement to "X% reduction in tax burden" then people would not be insulated from reality by the emotions of word choice.
2012-12-30 02:50:58 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:29:19 PM  
3 votes:
All the income under $250,000 will still be taxed at the old rate, it's the first penny over that and the rest that is over the $250,000 will be taxed at a new rate.

That is what the GOP and FOX News Channel does not want you to know.
2012-12-30 02:19:34 PM  
3 votes:
I still haven't found anyone with some authority explain exactly *why* this fiscal cliff would be such an enormous disaster.
2012-12-30 01:04:50 PM  
3 votes:
I'm not holding my breath on any deal.

I'll be in my fully-stocked bunker until the Cliff is over.
2012-12-30 05:54:29 PM  
2 votes:
I must be getting old because I am pretty sure, holiday booze aside, I HEARD Richard M. Nixon say

"...as of (whatever o'clock) I will RESIGN the presidency"

NOT "retire" ......RESIGN - and in disgrace

I also remember, vividly, my mother doing some sort of happy dance at the time

I should call her to let her know history will apparently be, for some, he "retired" - she's old and
needs the laugh
2012-12-30 04:20:26 PM  
2 votes:

A. Snatchfold: So you're absolutely fine with the knowledge that the GOP is creating this fiscal mess?


Out of curiosity, what do you believe "this fiscal mess" is? Because your definition would have to be strangely and specifically tailored to be blamed on one party only.

Kuroshin: The "cliff" was a Tea Party construct, so yes, it is all on one Party.


The House passed the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269-161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it. The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74-26. 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it. It was signed by a Democratic President.

Mrtraveler01: It's fine to live within ones means, it's batshiat insane to think you can do that while simultaneously cutting taxes.


Sure you can, easily. We just choose not to. Now the fact that we cut taxes while already living well above our means and simultaneously going even deeper into our spending binge is quite insane.  But unfortunately completely rational since we, as a nation, have no understanding of money.
2012-12-30 02:42:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:35:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:26:48 PM  
2 votes:
Today:

Graham: "A deal is near!"
White House: "It is?"

Tomorrow:

Graham: "We had a deal but the White House ruined it! Its all their fault!"
White House: "We did? It is?"
Media dutifully stenographs: "Graham Says White House Scuttled Deal To Save Us From Financial Ruin, White House Denies, Both Sides Are Still Bad"
2012-12-30 02:20:52 PM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: 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.

Graham says he thinks the bill needs 60% of the Senate GOP to back it to get a tenth of the House GOP to vote for it, assuming that all the Democrats vote for the deal.

Every single part of this is absurd and I think unlikely.


I don't foresee a resolution occurring in enough time. If all budgetary bills must originate in the House and if this one originates in the Senate then I think we'll see what we saw a few months ago when another budgetary bill was originated in the Senate. They allowed it to come up for a vote in the House because they knew it couldn't be passed. The House only needs to accuse Obama of trying to bypass the Constitution and suddenly this becomes a discussion about who did what and not the fiscal cliff.
2012-12-30 02:20:49 PM  
2 votes:
Graham seems to be one of the few in the old guard that seems to understand that the GOP really needs to change if it intends to survive.

/seems is the active word in that sentence.
2012-12-30 02:19:11 PM  
2 votes:

iheartscotch: A republican congratulated Obama on something?

How bad could it be?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together ... mass hysteria!


Yeah, but it's not a congratulations. He congratulated him for getting a "political victory", that's like saying "oh, you won this round but we'll get you next time".
2012-12-30 02:18:46 PM  
2 votes:

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


Like this obviously.

0.tqn.com
2012-12-30 02:13:25 PM  
2 votes:
It's going to be a crappy deal that screws over most taxpayers.

But hey, credit for getting it done? Oh well.
2012-12-30 11:15:56 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-12-30 09:39:32 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Do_wacka_Do: To all of you arguing over which side has the best plan. Neither side gives a God damn about the country, this is about power, both sides are assholes. Nothing they come up with will help the country and the people.

Both sides are equally bad, you say? Which way should I vote? A former Republican who is too embarrassed to be called that anymore?


He didn't actually say that both sides are equally bad, just that both are assholes - which is true. Case in point - Obama has spent the majority of his political career infringing on the rights of homosexuals, as he personally believes they are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. He is an asshole.
2012-12-30 06:43:27 PM  
1 votes:

Do_wacka_Do: To all of you arguing over which side has the best plan. Neither side gives a God damn about the country, this is about power, both sides are assholes. Nothing they come up with will help the country and the people.


Both sides are equally bad, you say? Which way should I vote? A former Republican who is too embarrassed to be called that anymore?
2012-12-30 05:45:19 PM  
1 votes:
To all of you arguing over which side has the best plan. Neither side gives a God damn about the country, this is about power, both sides are assholes. Nothing they come up with will help the country and the people.
2012-12-30 05:35:53 PM  
1 votes:

06Wahoo: 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.

Funny, here is the way I see it.

Democrats would rather everyone pay higher taxes than lowering taxes for everyone.

But keep playing your class warfare games. Unemployment remains high, and when small businesses and farms that are barely scraping by have higher taxes to pay, we'll see what direction unemployment goes.


Actually, remember that taxes are on PROFITS not on income. If they actually reinvest in their companies it's an expese that is a deduction. While, yes, it will mean lower profits. It will actually mean corporate growth as the value of the company increases. ECON 101 stuff people, learn it. Besides what company would say "I dont want that extra $1m in profit if I have to pay 200k taxes on it." really? If that is the case they deserve to go under for bad management.
2012-12-30 05:27:28 PM  
1 votes:

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. 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.


Nixon retired from the presidency to avoid indictment. I don't see that happening here, and the Electoral College put in their votes. The House only gets to decide if and only if there is no candidate with a majority of EC votes. Now go crawl back under your bridge and actually read the Constitution, and not listen to the pundits who shout out their fw: fw: fw: BS as being real.
2012-12-30 04:53:42 PM  
1 votes:

06Wahoo: Democrats would rather everyone pay higher taxes than lowering taxes for everyone.


And how does lowering taxes pay our bills?  You do realize that we are already not paying the bills we've already racked up, right?  That much of our current budget is just obligations we're already committed to?

Or do you think we should just default as a nation?  Be an entire nation of deadbeats?  That's what you're suggesting.
2012-12-30 04:40:04 PM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: True, theoretically we could balance the budget and cut taxes, if we cut federal programs so much that they're practically worthless

back to late-90s levels, defense to a level to fulfill actual defense needs, and stopped subsidizing things that (at best) don't have any positive effect on the national interest.

FTFY.

Mrtraveler01: Which is exactly why "Small Government Conservatives" love this idea.


I have heard of these mythical creatures, but have yet to meet one. All the people I have ever heard call themselves "conservative" want a big, repressive government.
2012-12-30 04:36:42 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: So now you hate the poor in Middle class would be the chant from the left.


It would? I don't think so. The line of thinking is that you don't raise taxes on the Middle Class during a down period in the economic cycle. You can raise taxes on them when the economy starts growing and booming again like the GOP were too damn stupid to do back in the mid 2000's.

david_gaithersburg: The Tea party has proposed restring the tax rates with the condition that spending be reduced


Does this include Defense spending. Because from what I've gathered, the GOP and Tea Party have done whatever it takes to protect Defense from any budget cuts.

Which is why I can't take them seriously when they talk about how concerned they are about the budget.
2012-12-30 04:23:29 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: ure you can, easily. We just choose not to.


True, theoretically we could balance the budget and cut taxes, if we cut federal programs so much that they're practically worthless.

Which is exactly why "Small Government Conservatives" love this idea.
2012-12-30 04:05:59 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Mrtraveler01: david_gaithersburg: 47 is the new 42: 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.

.
Correct, and he has blocked every bill the house has approved and passed on to the Senate.

And when those biills keep getting rejected, does the GOP House actually work with the Democrats and try to find a compromise? No, they just sit and biatch about the fact that the Democrats in the Senate won't rubberstamp whatever garbage the GOP can come up with.

.
One man, Reid, has refused to let the Senate vote on the Bills. What is he afraid of? He should let democracy proceed. This country is not Reid's personal dictatorship.


They're not going to rubberstamp the GOP's bills from the House.

In a saner time, a House bill would be combined with a Senate version of the same bill, details would be ironed out, both sides would walk away with the majority of what they wanted from that bill and it'd get passed into law by the President.

In these days, the House expects the Senate to simply rubberstamp their derp-bills and refuses to negotiate with the Dem-controlled Senate to get a compromise bill. Newsflash: The House has to work with the Senate and when you don't, nothing happens.
2012-12-30 03:56:03 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: 47 is the new 42: 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.

.
Correct, and he has blocked every bill the house has approved and passed on to the Senate.


I love how you ignored the portion of the quote that you quoted from the OP. I had even conveniently emboldened, underlined, and made it bigger for you.

You have also ignored the fact that Republicans in the current Senate have abused the filibuster by using it on nearly everything thus making it near impossible to pass anything without 60 votes, and sometimes even using it on their own farking bill: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican-Kentucky) filibustering his OWN BILL

It's not the Democrats that are the problem; It's the Republicans.
2012-12-30 03:54:05 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire:

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.



If we go over the cliff, will that create a budget surplus? Because I seem to recall reading that we'll still have a budget deficit - just a smaller one. So I think our debt will still continue to grow - only at a slower pace than if a Comprimise is reached.
2012-12-30 03:46:56 PM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: 47 is the new 42: 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.

.
Correct, and he has blocked every bill the house has approved and passed on to the Senate.


And when those biills keep getting rejected, does the GOP House actually work with the Democrats and try to find a compromise? No, they just sit and biatch about the fact that the Democrats in the Senate won't rubberstamp whatever garbage the GOP can come up with.
2012-12-30 03:46:54 PM  
1 votes:
The point of all this is to pass something that farks over everybody who isn't rich at the very last second so that nobody has any time to protest what they are doing since you're all out partying for New Years.

Yet another manufactured "crisis".
2012-12-30 03:45:45 PM  
1 votes:
So if the Grover Owned Party obstructs things until sequestration happens, and then hurry to make a deal after taxes have gone up, just so they can behave according to the letter (but not the spirit) of their pledge...

...does this give them MORE or LESS leverage for negotiations afterwards?
2012-12-30 03:44:56 PM  
1 votes:
Funk Brothers:
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.

Wow, so you're just incredibly stupid then... Congress was the ones who set the deadline for the tax cuts to expire you farking moron. They raised the rates on themselves. Obama didn't have to do shiat. He's just using the GOP's innate ability to turn every bill into a major clusterfark as a way to leverage them into creating a tax package that he ran on and 60% of the American people want to see passed. Plus, these taxes he will cut will be on the first $250,000 FOR EVERYONE.

/I swear I'm doing my best to avoid berating you for the dumbest farking part of your statements in this thread where our highest court should be consulting cases from foreign governments as precedent. I mean.... come on, you can't be that stupid.
2012-12-30 03:43:06 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: A. Snatchfold: 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?
So this wasn't a result of years of stupid on all party's part- just the recent cast members of the GOP who refuse to be seen as the one's who raised taxes on the rich. Well let's just get out the guillotine, roll a few heads, and watch that deficit magically cure itself if that's all it would take to fix this mess.

Needs more unicorns and rainbows, just to be sure.


The "cliff" was a Tea Party construct, so yes, it is all on one Party.  Additionally, the GOP is the only Party that has negotiated in bad faith for over a decade, so yes, it is all on one Party.

It's just coincidence that the GOP stepped on their dicks so hard that the Democrats are benefiting from this mess.  The Democrats have been (and appear still to be) incompetent, but this reality we're living in?  All down to the GOP machinations.

/not a Democrat
2012-12-30 03:37:27 PM  
1 votes:

47 is the new 42: 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.


.
Correct, and he has blocked every bill the house has approved and passed on to the Senate.
2012-12-30 03:29:57 PM  
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: 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.


i42.photobucket.com
You went from merely overextending yourself into the realm of surreal magic on this one. I for one give you a hearty thumbs-up.
2012-12-30 03:29:44 PM  
1 votes:

CruJones: Am I the only one who doesn't give a Fark? They'll come to some compromise at the last minute, or in a few weeks. It's like a professional sports lockout. And no amount of handwringing will change the ultimate deal. It is what it is, and will be.


I've got my popcorn, my financial house is in order: let's give these rapids a ride. Still expecting watered down, politically correct version, bubble wrapped so nobody gets hurt- and a higher debt ceiling so noone bumps their widdle head this time around.
2012-12-30 03:25:17 PM  
1 votes:
I love how Chained-CPI basically ass rapes everyone. That's really a nice plan they have there. As if non-core CPI isn't artificially toned down already from those VOLATILE food and energy numbers that no one really has to ever worry about.

But we can't touch defense. No way. No how. But we can cut veterans benefits. Super! Really nice guys. Thanks.
2012-12-30 03:24:46 PM  
1 votes:
Am I the only one who doesn't give a Fark? They'll come to some compromise at the last minute, or in a few weeks. It's like a professional sports lockout. And no amount of handwringing will change the ultimate deal. It is what it is, and will be.
2012-12-30 03:19:41 PM  
1 votes:

skinink: Obama was re-elected on November 2nd, so all of them had just about two whole months to avert this, but they haven't. Jerks.


All of our fiscal problems started on November 2nd?
2012-12-30 03:16:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


Pretty much this. And a deal pretty likely to happen, because nobody actually gives a fark about the deficit, and won't until interest rates start killing us.

But I expected as much as soon as they created it. Congress doesn't create future deadlines for getting stuff done because they actually intend to go through with it.
2012-12-30 03:13:57 PM  
1 votes:
Please stop responding to the obvious trolls.
2012-12-30 03:12:30 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Look, everyone. This guy is touting French Judicial rulings as something America should be bound by. Isn't that cute? Because we're talking about a 75% tax rate. Right, folks?

Dude, they are not going to suck your dick.
2012-12-30 03:07:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:06:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:05:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:59:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:59:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:57:48 PM  
1 votes:
It's a damned good thing this site doesn't ban people for being trollbait.
2012-12-30 02:55:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:53:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:00 PM  
1 votes:
It just sucks, and as usual, the working and the middle class will take it in the ass, yet again.
2012-12-30 02:49:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:49:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:47:25 PM  
1 votes:
t2.gstatic.com

USA rules! USA rules! USA rules!
2012-12-30 02:46:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:45:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:45:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:39:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:37:26 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:36:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:57 PM  
1 votes:

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Obama's hand just gets stronger if the tax cuts expire.


My thought as well. Because the House couldn't agree to raise taxes on the rich, everybody's taxes went up, including the rich. I don't think they thought their clever plan through.
2012-12-30 02:31:12 PM  
1 votes:
Silly Fark headlines that misrepresent the content of the linked articles are tolerable if we're reading about a Kardashian or teachers having sex with students, but this fiscal cliff thing is a little more important than that.
2012-12-30 02:29:54 PM  
1 votes:
I see nothing in that article but wishful thinking and more deflection of blame toward the Senate for the House GOP's failure to act.
2012-12-30 02:29:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


Over in 2.
2012-12-30 02:28:19 PM  
1 votes:
oh lindsey graham, you coy minx...
2012-12-30 02:26:36 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Part of me is okay with this.

The rest of me, not so much. Our society doesn't set its mind on "what you can do for your country", it thinks of the exact opposite. We can't afford all the stuff we want right now, even if we jack the rate up on the rich. Everyone would have to contribute more. This won't happen.
2012-12-30 02:23:55 PM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: TFA does not include Graham congradulating Obama on a deal. I am disappoint in headline.


He did on FOX News Sunday. He said "my hat is off to the president" for getting a deal.

The GOP are farked. The teabagger faction is at war with establishment GOP, and they both hate moderate Republicans.
2012-12-30 02:23:32 PM  
1 votes:

ggecko: iheartscotch: A republican congratulated Obama on something?

How bad could it be?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together ... mass hysteria!

Yeah, but it's not a congratulations. He congratulated him for getting a "political victory", that's like saying "oh, you won this round but we'll get you next time".


Perhaps he should have said,

" Next time Obama, next time...mrrreeeeoooow"

And then flew off in his flying car thing.
2012-12-30 02:19:42 PM  
1 votes:

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


THIS. You know Obama will sell us out before making those assholes pay for causing this mess.
2012-12-30 02:19:38 PM  
1 votes:
I don't think Moose and Squirrel make any income, so they won't be affected by this.
KIA
2012-12-30 02:16:22 PM  
1 votes:
No.
2012-12-30 02:09:24 PM  
1 votes:
Nice how on the one hand the politicians proclaim America the best Country in the World, then on the other hand they do everything to run the country like they couldn't give a shiat. Obama was re-elected on November 2nd, so all of them had just about two whole months to avert this, but they haven't. Jerks.
2012-12-30 02:09:24 PM  
1 votes:
this thread...how the fark does it work?
2012-12-30 01:52:11 PM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: TFA does not include Graham congradulating Obama on a deal. I am disappoint in headline.


Or, you know, any actual indication that there's a deal.
2012-12-30 12:27:39 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Graham says he thinks the bill needs 60% of the Senate GOP to back it to get a tenth of the House GOP to vote for it, assuming that all the Democrats vote for the deal.

Every single part of this is absurd and I think unlikely.
2012-12-30 12:07:46 PM  
1 votes:
TFA does not include Graham congradulating Obama on a deal. I am disappoint in headline.
2012-12-30 12:05:13 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Yeah, but there may be Republicans who would neither vote for it nor filibuster it. That way it passes so they don't get blamed for not having a deal but they don't have the "yes" vote on their records.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report