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.

(CNN)   Will Republicans remember to come into work today? Will Nancy Pelosi bite anyone? Will John Boehner replace his gavel with a whiskey bottle? It's your "House of Representatives fiscal cliff vote" thread (House starts their session at noon today)   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 592
    More: Interesting, a.m. ET  
•       •       •

2145 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jan 2013 at 12:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 02:09:29 PM
Photo of the House GOP meeting this morning:

img32.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-01 02:10:52 PM
Has anyone seen the details regarding the 'permanent' AMT solution? That's sounding like a pleasant surprise, but would like to know more.
 
2013-01-01 02:12:31 PM

bharrisuc: Is anyone watching the House live stream? ( Link )

Instead of dealing with the fiscal cliff legislation, the republicans have dropped a random, un-discussed bill to further freeze the pay of federal workers. Now they are talking about naming a post offices.

CAN WE GET ON WITH IT !!111!11


Someone upthread mentioned the GOP as a petulant child.

Now they're at the dinner table pushing peas back and forth on their plate.
 
2013-01-01 02:14:45 PM

Corvus: The problem is Obama I think actually cares more about the American people than to make political gain. You seem to consider that a weakness.


That's what I think too.  From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, going off the cliff is probably the best option.  The problem is that it will have real consequences for average Americans (including me) and there is a risk of political blow back for the Democrats if we go back into a recession, particularly since the Dems will be on the defensive in the 2014 Senate elections.  I think Obama would rather get a deal that avoids the cliff but I also think he's prepared to go off of it if the Tea Party revolts again.  That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach to all of this.  There are just too many variable in play right now to say whether the current deal is the best deal or not.
 
2013-01-01 02:14:49 PM

uksocal: Does this deal create a new tax bracket? I THOUGHT the highest bracket started at 200/250, but there's now that one and the 400/450 one? In the long game, that actually could be advantageous, you've now split up the top 2% into more rational brackets.


It's only more rational if you take advantage of that new bracket to really crank up the tax rate. As it stands, we're talking the difference between 35% and 39%. Yawn. Call me when we're back to post-WW2 top rates of over 90%. Apparently the holy Job Creators did just fine even at that tax rate.
 
2013-01-01 02:15:42 PM
By the way, CBO says this will cost $3.5T (warning, PDF) over the next 10 years.

That ought to stall House GOP support.
 
2013-01-01 02:15:43 PM

tudorgurl: UPDATE: 12:21 PM - Today
Republicans Delay Fiscal Cliff Deal Vote

In a sign that the fiscal cliff deal could face an uncertain future in the House, Republican leaders delayed their planned vote on the measure and were expected to meet twice before going to the floor of the House in the late afternoon or evening.

If the House amends the bill passed by the Senate early this morning, or worse, offers a whole new bill, it could throw the seeming certainty achieved by the Senate out the window. Many observers had seen the strong bipartisan vote in the Senate -- including such conservatives as former Club For Growth head Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) -- as an encouraging sign that Tea Party House members could also hold their noses and go along.

-- Mike McAuliff

Source


Boehner: It's time for the senate to figure out a bill for me (because I suck and am too incompetent to do my job)

[Senate makes bill for Boehner]

Boehner: Yeah nevermind we don't want that bill anyway.


Holy shiat if Boehner can't get this bill through after such a lopsided vote in the senate this guy should go home and never show his face ever again.

I think the house Reps are afraid of of voting for a "tax increase" like I said before. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They put this gun up to their own heads too.
 
2013-01-01 02:15:51 PM
CBO scored the Senate passed deal. Can't link...
 
2013-01-01 02:17:40 PM

OtherLittleGuy: bharrisuc: Is anyone watching the House live stream? ( Link )

Instead of dealing with the fiscal cliff legislation, the republicans have dropped a random, un-discussed bill to further freeze the pay of federal workers. Now they are talking about naming a post offices.

CAN WE GET ON WITH IT !!111!11

Someone upthread mentioned the GOP as a petulant child.

Now they're at the dinner table pushing peas back and forth on their plate.


Which is hilarious because they had just said "I don't want to make my own dinner you make it for me!!!"
 
2013-01-01 02:19:08 PM

Corvus: Holy shiat if Boehner can't get this bill through after such a lopsided vote in the senate this guy should go home and never show his face ever again.

I think the house Reps are afraid of of voting for a "tax increase" like I said before. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They put this gun up to their own heads too.



Boehner is a waste, but if he's not re-elected speaker then who would be? Eric Cantor? Do you think Cantor would be any better? Honestly, I think he'd be worlds worse than Boehner. And as for Grover Norquist, he needs to be made irrelevant. That man has done more to ruin this country than anyone I can think of. The fact that ELECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS are afraid of this guy tells me he has WAAAAAAAAAY too much power. No one person should have that much power over our elected officials. None.
 
2013-01-01 02:21:33 PM

GAT_00: By the way, CBO says this will cost $3.5T (warning, PDF) over the next 10 years.

That ought to stall House GOP support.


Thank you!
 
2013-01-01 02:21:35 PM
 
2013-01-01 02:21:50 PM
taxes should go back to 1950 levels
 
2013-01-01 02:22:27 PM

stiletto_the_wise: uksocal: Does this deal create a new tax bracket? I THOUGHT the highest bracket started at 200/250, but there's now that one and the 400/450 one? In the long game, that actually could be advantageous, you've now split up the top 2% into more rational brackets.

It's only more rational if you take advantage of that new bracket to really crank up the tax rate. As it stands, we're talking the difference between 35% and 39%. Yawn. Call me when we're back to post-WW2 top rates of over 90%. Apparently the holy Job Creators did just fine even at that tax rate.


here is what frustrates the hell out of me. Ask any rich person which rather you have? a 3% tax increase on your top rates OR the stock market plunging because of economic uncertainty.

Any rich person with half a brain would take the 3% tax rate. I could understand if these people were doing this for selfish reasons but it's more about ideological dogma because these fights are not in the best interest of the rich.
 
2013-01-01 02:23:10 PM
yea, the House will start its "session" all right.

which one of you citizens wants to bend over first??
 
2013-01-01 02:23:38 PM

tudorgurl: Boehner is a waste, but if he's not re-elected speaker then who would be? Eric Cantor? Do you think Cantor would be any better? Honestly, I think he'd be worlds worse than Boehner.


If it means the Dems can make enough gains in the House to force legislation through, it might be worth it.  As long as the Dems control the Senate and the White House, the damage Cantor can do is limited.
 
2013-01-01 02:24:18 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Photo of the House GOP meeting this morning:

[img32.imageshack.us image 500x375]


It's not a coincidence a couple of those clown shoes look like the Arizona state flag.
 
2013-01-01 02:24:24 PM

GAT_00: By the way, CBO says this will cost $3.5T (warning, PDF) over the next 10 years.

That ought to stall House GOP support.


Yeah, this bill does have a good start on the tax side, but the spending side is atrocious. Unless you like more debt.


/one step forward, one step back.
 
2013-01-01 02:24:32 PM

Mentat: And here is Jonah Goldberg's response:  President Obama's effort to sabotage his own last-minute deal with the Senate reveals who is the real adult in the White House.


No one gives a shiat about that Pussbag
 
2013-01-01 02:24:37 PM
HERE'S A BUNCH OF CONGRESSIONAL TEATARDS PREPARING FOR TODAY'S BIG VOTE BY LICKING LARD OFF EACH OTHERS ASS CHEEKS. I'D SMACK EACH OF THEM IN THE HEAD WITH A shiat SHOVEL BUT I THINK THEY WOULD ACTUALLY ENJOY THAT.

-- Fiscal Cliff Yablonsky
 
2013-01-01 02:26:05 PM

tudorgurl: Boehner is a waste, but if he's not re-elected speaker then who would be? Eric Cantor? Do you think Cantor would be any better?


don't know. Didn't say Cantor would be better. Just saying Boehner is about the worst speaker that I have ever seen. If you can't get a majority of you own party to vote for a bill you made for them to pass (the previous budget bill) you are a failure at being a speaker of the house.
 
2013-01-01 02:26:30 PM

Mentat: tudorgurl: Boehner is a waste, but if he's not re-elected speaker then who would be? Eric Cantor? Do you think Cantor would be any better? Honestly, I think he'd be worlds worse than Boehner.

If it means the Dems can make enough gains in the House to force legislation through, it might be worth it.  As long as the Dems control the Senate and the White House, the damage Cantor can do is limited.


I hope you're right.
 
2013-01-01 02:27:14 PM

Corvus: tudorgurl: Boehner is a waste, but if he's not re-elected speaker then who would be? Eric Cantor? Do you think Cantor would be any better?

don't know. Didn't say Cantor would be better. Just saying Boehner is about the worst speaker that I have ever seen. If you can't get a majority of you own party to vote for a bill you made for them to pass (the previous budget bill) you are a failure at being a speaker of the house.


That's true. Has there ever been a more incompetent SotH?
 
2013-01-01 02:27:39 PM

Mentat: f it means the Dems can make enough gains in the House to force legislation through, it might be worth it.


Yeah, from the republican side, if they roll over on taxes while doing nothing on spending, the republican/conservative base is going to be pissed. Just might swing the balance, especially if the Dems actually do something about some entitlement reform down the road.
 
2013-01-01 02:28:38 PM

Mentat: And here is Jonah Goldberg's response:  President Obama's effort to sabotage his own last-minute deal with the Senate reveals who is the real adult in the White House.


Jonah Goldberg...*rolls eyes*.

Yeah, I'd rather take my advice from George Wallace than from Jonah Goldberg.
 
2013-01-01 02:29:36 PM

Hobodeluxe: taxes should go back to 1950 levels


If only. Like most independents, I've seen that Andy Griffith documentary series, and in that, no one paid taxes ever. That's why everyone wants to go back to that time.

Well, that and the fact that back then, "those people" knew their place.
 
2013-01-01 02:29:42 PM

Corvus: here is what frustrates the hell out of me. Ask any rich person which rather you have? a 3% tax increase on your top rates OR the stock market plunging because of economic uncertainty.

Any rich person with half a brain would take the 3% tax rate. I could understand if these people were doing this for selfish reasons but it's more about ideological dogma because these fights are not in the best interest of the rich.


Any rich person with half a brain doesn't care what their tax rate is over a certain point. If I were making $10 million a year, I don't care if my taxes are 10% or 90%--either way I'm still taking home over a million a year and living life better than 99.9% of the planet.
 
2013-01-01 02:30:47 PM

HeadLever: GAT_00: By the way, CBO says this will cost $3.5T (warning, PDF) over the next 10 years.

That ought to stall House GOP support.

Yeah, this bill does have a good start on the tax side, but the spending side is atrocious. Unless you like more debt.


/one step forward, one step back.


www.zerohedge.com
 
2013-01-01 02:30:56 PM

Rwa2play: Mentat: And here is Jonah Goldberg's response:  President Obama's effort to sabotage his own last-minute deal with the Senate reveals who is the real adult in the White House.

Jonah Goldberg...*rolls eyes*.

Yeah, I'd rather take my advice from George Wallace than from Jonah Goldberg.


It wasn't intended to be taken seriously :)
 
2013-01-01 02:31:07 PM
The good folks at Free Republic hate the deal. The Boobies is a plea to call GOP Congressmen. Other posts say to "let Ubama drive us off the cliff," that the GOP who vote for it are "sheep," and that if it passes the House, it will be because of "Rats and Rinos" working together. People believe Boehner will lose the Speakership if it passes. Also, the whole fiscal cliff is a media conspiracy, so that the media can broadcast the fact that Republicans voted for a tax hike, loose seats in Congress, and then Obama will be able to pass Amnesty and gun control.
 
2013-01-01 02:31:30 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Corvus: here is what frustrates the hell out of me. Ask any rich person which rather you have? a 3% tax increase on your top rates OR the stock market plunging because of economic uncertainty.

Any rich person with half a brain would take the 3% tax rate. I could understand if these people were doing this for selfish reasons but it's more about ideological dogma because these fights are not in the best interest of the rich.

Any rich person with half a brain doesn't care what their tax rate is over a certain point. If I were making $10 million a year, I don't care if my taxes are 10% or 90%--either way I'm still taking home over a million a year and living life better than 99.9% of the planet.


Except some of the rich think living only on a $1 Million/year is being "poor." That's how deluded some of them are.
 
2013-01-01 02:32:55 PM

quizzical: The good folks at Free Republic hate the deal. The Boobies is a plea to call GOP Congressmen. Other posts say to "let Ubama drive us off the cliff," that the GOP who vote for it are "sheep," and that if it passes the House, it will be because of "Rats and Rinos" working together. People believe Boehner will lose the Speakership if it passes. Also, the whole fiscal cliff is a media conspiracy, so that the media can broadcast the fact that Republicans voted for a tax hike, loose seats in Congress, and then Obama will be able to pass Amnesty and gun control.


Don't forget gay marriage and forced abortions for all!
 
2013-01-01 02:35:52 PM

hasty ambush: [www.zerohedge.com image 362x1500]


Exactly. Add in 4 times this much with actual spending cuts, (not 33 billion in increases) and we may actually have a good first step.

Right now, it is pretty much more of the same - rearranging the deck chairs.
 
2013-01-01 02:36:21 PM

stiletto_the_wise: Corvus: here is what frustrates the hell out of me. Ask any rich person which rather you have? a 3% tax increase on your top rates OR the stock market plunging because of economic uncertainty.

Any rich person with half a brain would take the 3% tax rate. I could understand if these people were doing this for selfish reasons but it's more about ideological dogma because these fights are not in the best interest of the rich.

Any rich person with half a brain doesn't care what their tax rate is over a certain point. If I were making $10 million a year, I don't care if my taxes are 10% or 90%--either way I'm still taking home over a million a year and living life better than 99.9% of the planet.


I don't have a link, but Businessweek interviewed Warren Buffett a while back and asked him about capital gains taxes. Paraphrasing, he pointed out that if someone offers you a really lucrative investment, your first question should not be if it will make your taxes go up.
 
2013-01-01 02:37:07 PM

quizzical: The good folks at Free Republic hate the deal.


Of course they do. It pretty much does nothing for the long term debt problem.
 
2013-01-01 02:37:29 PM

quizzical: The good folks at Free Republic hate the deal. The Boobies is a plea to call GOP Congressmen. Other posts say to "let Ubama drive us off the cliff," that the GOP who vote for it are "sheep," and that if it passes the House, it will be because of "Rats and Rinos" working together. People believe Boehner will lose the Speakership if it passes. Also, the whole fiscal cliff is a media conspiracy, so that the media can broadcast the fact that Republicans voted for a tax hike, loose seats in Congress, and then Obama will be able to pass Amnesty and gun control.


Yep, this is what I have been saying. The Republicans have two choices, don't vote for it and let taxes go up on everyone or vote for it and vote for "Obama's tax increase". Both means putting their seat in jeopardy.

This wound is totally self inflicted by the Republicans too. It would be funny if it didn't actually impact people's lives.
 
2013-01-01 02:41:43 PM

cryinoutloud: JolobinSmokin: I'm just not that worried one way or the other.
I'll barely be affected in anyway no matter what deal passes.

I'm only watching this to see if I'm going to have a job this summer. You know, everybody was freaking out about defense contractors losing their jobs--highly trained, highly paid professionals who can probably find another (well-paying) job. Meanwhile, seasonal government workers--a lot of students and poor people who work two or three jobs in a year--will probably not be hired this year because of funding hold-ups, just like they weren't a few years back, when another budget battle was going on.

Never heard a word about that, though, did you? I did, because my job was never funded and I was unemployed during the only time of the year when I make enough money to get by. Is it going to happen again? Nobody knows, because first there's this battle, then the debt ceiling coming up, before anyone even knows if they will get their money for the year. But who gives a fark? It's just people who depend on those seasonal jobs to get by or pay their college tuition, that's all. But cut those jobs, cut unemployment, cut social services, and hey, take out another loan if you can't afford college. You can always pay it back later with the super job you're going to get from our booming economy.

/fark it, I'm going on welfare. I'll probably make more money being a leech. We don't really need national parks or public lands, anyway.
//"Government jobs--they're a sure thing. Just get in with the feds--you're set. You'll be rehired year after year."


Sucks bro, I went thru that sort of thing in 2007-09.
I'm a real estate appraiser, but with the crash behind our industry, I'm bak to doing refinances, foreclosure appraisal and sales,

What I did was expand my area of expertise and I'll never have that problem again, I'm a liberal but at some point u gotta take reaponsibility for the field of work u chose.

I never lost my job since I'm self employed but I had some lean months.

Best of luck to you, think about diversifying your skill set.
 
2013-01-01 02:41:54 PM

quizzical: The good folks at Free Republic hate the deal. The Boobies is a plea to call GOP Congressmen. Other posts say to "let Ubama drive us off the cliff," that the GOP who vote for it are "sheep," and that if it passes the House, it will be because of "Rats and Rinos" working together. People believe Boehner will lose the Speakership if it passes. Also, the whole fiscal cliff is a media conspiracy, so that the media can broadcast the fact that Republicans voted for a tax hike, loose seats in Congress, and then Obama will be able to pass Amnesty and gun control.


This one is hilarious:

The Senate deal raises taxes on minimum-wage Americans because it does not address the expiration of the payroll tax cut. Under this deal, tax rates for all Americans making over $400, (not $400,000) will go up by 2%.


Yes Freepers are now complaining that something from the OBAMA STIMULUS EVIL SPENDING is going to expire!!
 
2013-01-01 02:43:20 PM

Corvus: LouDobbsAwaaaay: dumbobruni: in other news, the House of Representatives has no significance, and filibusters don't exist in the Senate.

Explain how the House or Senate, using filibusters or not using them, could stop the fiscal cliff from being enacted today, or stop the Dems from flogging the GOP with bills to cut taxes on the bottom 98% afterward. Be specific.

The problem is Obama I think actually cares more about the American people than to make political gain. You seem to consider that a weakness.


This is a non-sequitor. It rests on a Bare Assertion Fallacy and doesn't even address the question I was asking.
 
2013-01-01 02:45:13 PM
So, in Republican World, any temporary tax relief you provide is actually "raising taxes" because the tax break will eventually expire, right? And whoever had the hot "potatoe" when the tax break expires did it, right?
 
2013-01-01 02:48:17 PM

KarmicDisaster: So, in Republican World, any temporary tax relief you provide is actually "raising taxes" because the tax break will eventually expire, right?


When taken into consideration with respect to 'current policy', yes. CBO does the same thing via the baseline and alternative baseline scenarios.
 
2013-01-01 02:49:03 PM
The House Republican leadership might just be dumb enough to attempt to amend this thing. Cantor is apparently opposed to the deal.

https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/statuses/286185030303236096

https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/statuses/286185355160473601
 
2013-01-01 02:50:18 PM

Corvus: quizzical: The good folks at Free Republic hate the deal. The Boobies is a plea to call GOP Congressmen. Other posts say to "let Ubama drive us off the cliff," that the GOP who vote for it are "sheep," and that if it passes the House, it will be because of "Rats and Rinos" working together. People believe Boehner will lose the Speakership if it passes. Also, the whole fiscal cliff is a media conspiracy, so that the media can broadcast the fact that Republicans voted for a tax hike, loose seats in Congress, and then Obama will be able to pass Amnesty and gun control.

This one is hilarious:

The Senate deal raises taxes on minimum-wage Americans because it does not address the expiration of the payroll tax cut. Under this deal, tax rates for all Americans making over $400, (not $400,000) will go up by 2%.

Yes Freepers are now complaining that something from the OBAMA STIMULUS EVIL SPENDING is going to expire!!


I wonder if this is where one of the Breitbart writers got the idea that the Senate deal included $41 in tax increases for every dollar of spending cuts?

/one of my Republican-leaning friends posted a link to said Breitbart article on Facebook about an hour ago
 
2013-01-01 02:51:51 PM

House GOP consensus emerging, lawmaker says: Send #fiscalcliff bill back to #Senate w/spending cuts

- Lisa Mascaro (@LisaMascaroinDC) January 1, 2013
 
2013-01-01 02:52:57 PM
The Republicans have managed to divide by potato and ripped a hole in the fabric of the herp-derp continuum.
 
2013-01-01 02:59:08 PM

Zeno-25: The House Republican leadership might just be dumb enough to attempt to amend this thing. Cantor is apparently opposed to the deal.

https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/statuses/286185030303236096

https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/statuses/286185355160473601


Go, Eric! Stand your ground! No compromises!

(maybe after this fails Obama will be willing to shove some real socializm down neocon throats)
 
2013-01-01 03:00:20 PM

HeadLever: hasty ambush: [www.zerohedge.com image 362x1500]

Exactly. Add in 4 times this much with actual spending cuts, (not 33 billion in increases) and we may actually have a good first step.

Right now, it is pretty much more of the same - rearranging the deck chairs.


The debt and deficit are not our current problem.

I want to repeat that, for the benefit of all:

The debt and deficit are not our current problem.

They are distractions. They are distractions used by the right and center right (which is to say, every Republican, and about 80% of Democrats including the President) to create a sense of urgency. Spending needs to continue in the short-term in order to get the economy back in order. Only after that's done--only after unemployment is back below ~6%, and growth is above ~2% yearly, should we think about cutting the deficit and debt. Why, you ask?

Because if we start cutting them now by imposing huge spending cuts, in the long term the debt will increase even more due to a continued sagging economy.

But politicians on both sides only care about short-term fixes; it's one of the problems with our election system, rather than an actual problem with either party.

The ultra-far-right, and the people that vote for them, rely not on economic realities, but fear of the deficit, as if deficit spending were the worst thing ever to happen. Deficit spending is necessary in times of low economic growth or contraction. Get the economy back in order, then further raise taxes on the middle and upper classes, and start cutting spending.
 
2013-01-01 03:03:31 PM

hasty ambush: HeadLever: GAT_00: By the way, CBO says this will cost $3.5T (warning, PDF) over the next 10 years.

That ought to stall House GOP support.

Yeah, this bill does have a good start on the tax side, but the spending side is atrocious. Unless you like more debt.


/one step forward, one step back.

[www.zerohedge.com image 362x1500]


Really the system of debt is untenable for the entire world. Capitalism will crumble before we ever approach financial health. We live in a technology rich world with the most efficient means to produce goods and services that humanity has ever known and somehow it's not enough for us not to be in debt. Unless real big changes are made to the fed, treasury, and banking system we are farked.

Slightly raising taxes on the rich and some reduced spending are band-aids on gaping wounds. And cutting entitlements will only serve to create more man made poverty.
 
2013-01-01 03:03:38 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Corvus: LouDobbsAwaaaay: dumbobruni: in other news, the House of Representatives has no significance, and filibusters don't exist in the Senate.

Explain how the House or Senate, using filibusters or not using them, could stop the fiscal cliff from being enacted today, or stop the Dems from flogging the GOP with bills to cut taxes on the bottom 98% afterward. Be specific.

The problem is Obama I think actually cares more about the American people than to make political gain. You seem to consider that a weakness.

This is a non-sequitor. It rests on a Bare Assertion Fallacy and doesn't even address the question I was asking.


Probably because I was no addressing your question at all. I am addressing your overall complaint against is that he should be doing more for political gain instead of trying to help people.
 
2013-01-01 03:04:02 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: House GOP consensus emerging, lawmaker says: Send #fiscalcliff bill back to #Senate w/spending cuts
- Lisa Mascaro (@LisaMascaroinDC) January 1, 2013


And once again the GOP snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama will deploy the gun-to-the-head bill on Thursday.
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report