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)   Fiscal Cliff downgraded to Fiscal Slope   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 313
    More: News, Rep. Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a.m. ET, White House announced, House Budget Committee, Vice President Joe Biden, ET Tuesday, federal deficits  
•       •       •

4519 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-01 11:24:36 PM
Somehow, I suddenly feel better about this.
 
2013-01-01 11:33:35 PM
I think I prefer "fiscal toboggan run"

/because anyone who has ever ridden one of those suckers knows that no matter how gentle the slope, you're never really in control
 
2013-01-01 11:40:06 PM
i2.cdn.turner.com

Is that little biatch about to cry again?
 
2013-01-01 11:44:57 PM
TFA "Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs," the said. "We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation's long term fiscal problems. Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt."

This is what no one will remember, and half have already probably forgotten. May the next 1-10 terms for these assholes be less derpy and rife with corruption than the last.
 
2013-01-01 11:55:49 PM
Now for Debt Ceiling Part II: The Ceiling-ening.
 
2013-01-01 11:57:10 PM
I want to see Boehner keep his speakership not because I like him but because I hate Cantor with a passion. Although a good compromise would be Bachmann as speaker and Boehner cries for the cameras again. I'd accept either scenario.
 
2013-01-01 11:57:19 PM
Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?
 
2013-01-01 11:57:42 PM
I'm of the mind that until we stop electing insane nihilists to our government, we will be farked. So... um, anyone have any good recipes for pigeon?
 
2013-01-01 11:58:22 PM
Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill

I'm too lazy to see which of those 85 are still around next cycle... I wonder how safe they are now.
 
2013-01-01 11:59:36 PM
Boehner's likely mainlining J&B at this point.
 
2013-01-02 12:00:53 AM
Don't worry, I'm sure the Republicans or whatever Southern Strategy players still afoot will still be dreaming of their next attempt to cut the social safety net in our country while driving their vision of an unsustainable polluting America into the ground. Shortly.
 
2013-01-02 12:00:58 AM
I have a PDF of the bill, but not really the time to go over it right now - is there an article that summarizes what it is that they voted on?
 
2013-01-02 12:01:33 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-02 12:01:46 AM

cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?


Which "republitards" are claiming victory?
 
2013-01-02 12:02:11 AM

Hueg_Redd: I want to see Boehner keep his speakership not because I like him but because I hate Cantor with a passion.


eric cantor is an eminently hate-able individual.

all the more reason to put him right out front and center, really. i'm pulling for him, at least.

the blubbering bohner press conference would just be gravy.
 
2013-01-02 12:02:37 AM
thank god we delayed that disaster.
 
2013-01-02 12:02:40 AM

DamnYankees: Now for Debt Ceiling Part II: The Ceiling-ening Electric Bugaloo.


/fixed
 
2013-01-02 12:03:26 AM
And the freepTards are all saying the will change their party affiliation to independent and vote third party now.

Amusing
 
2013-01-02 12:03:55 AM

whidbey: Don't worry, I'm sure the Republicans or whatever Southern Strategy players still afoot will still be dreaming of their next attempt to cut the social safety net in our country while driving their vision of an unsustainable pouting America into the ground. Shortly.


This is how I read it on the first pass...still works, I suppose.
 
2013-01-02 12:03:55 AM

EighthDay: Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill

I'm too lazy to see which of those 85 are still around next cycle... I wonder how safe they are now.


I looked up my state's reps who voted on it. The solitary Republican from Arkansas - Womack - who voted for the bill is in Northwest AR aka Wal-Mart territory. In 2010 he won reelection with >70% of the vote and in 2012 ran unopposed. Seems pretty safe. I guess he could get primaried still...
 
2013-01-02 12:03:58 AM

CanuckInCA: I have a PDF of the bill, but not really the time to go over it right now - is there an article that summarizes what it is that they voted on?


If I remember correctly, slaves now count as 3/5's of a person.

/something to that extent.
 
2013-01-02 12:04:14 AM

Markoff_Cheney: thank god we delayed that disaster.


self imposed disasters are great that way - you can really schedule your apocalypses for convenience.
 
2013-01-02 12:04:34 AM

EighthDay: Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill

I'm too lazy to see which of those 85 are still around next cycle... I wonder how safe they are now.


They'll get primaried by a ultra-derper who will lose to a Democratic potted plant.
 
2013-01-02 12:05:07 AM
I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.
 
2013-01-02 12:05:14 AM
And it will only INCREASE your Debt by $4 TRILLION over the next 10 Years.

Good Job!

Remember when the Wall came down, and that was the end of Communism?

Well, the Republican Party has revealed how Democracy may meet its end.

Ignorance, greed and wanton pandering to the withering few will take your country down.

Good Luck.
 
2013-01-02 12:05:18 AM
If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.
 
2013-01-02 12:05:43 AM
Hey, it's great they got a deal together. But Obama and the Democrats still farking bargained with the Republicans. Why? Fark'em. They won't do anything to help this country...put it all out there for everyone to see and also suffer the consequences from.
 
2013-01-02 12:06:07 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?


cdn.breitbart.com
the ones in the house. I'm sure both those who voted no and those who voted yes are equally pleased with themselves.
 
2013-01-02 12:06:17 AM
During his presser, Obama basically said that it's game-on for the debt ceiling.
 
2013-01-02 12:06:43 AM
FTA: "Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who voted yes on the fiscal cliff deal, told reporters he cast his vote because, "If you want a bill to pass, you should vote for it.""

They're learning. Be afraid, be very afraid.
 
2013-01-02 12:06:50 AM
Maybe the Republicans can derp us all into single-payer healthcare, amnesty for undocumented workers, and federally protected gay marriage during their next attempt at negotiation.
 
2013-01-02 12:07:03 AM

Flatulent_Flea: EighthDay: Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill

I'm too lazy to see which of those 85 are still around next cycle... I wonder how safe they are now.

They'll get primaried by a ultra-derper who will lose to a Democratic potted plant.


so i guess we should be asking which of the 85 have a district within derping distance of christine o'donnell.
 
2013-01-02 12:07:05 AM

Lochsteppe: an unsustainable pouting America


Not so. Pouting is a renewable energy source. It can power cities, thinktanks and campaign headquarters.
 
2013-01-02 12:07:13 AM
 
2013-01-02 12:07:16 AM
So how much got cut from the massively bloated defense budget?
 
2013-01-02 12:07:38 AM
All four reps from Kansas voted no. Probably because the Koch brothers are pissed about their capital gains taxes going up.
 
2013-01-02 12:07:49 AM

Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.


Red State is pretty good too. Headline is THE MCCONNELL TAX HIKE.
 
2013-01-02 12:07:49 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?


David Camp

"After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts," said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, "Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent. Republicans and the American people are getting something really important, permanent tax relief."

Link
 
2013-01-02 12:09:07 AM

Flatulent_Flea: EighthDay: Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill

I'm too lazy to see which of those 85 are still around next cycle... I wonder how safe they are now.

They'll get primaried by a ultra-derper who will lose to a Democratic potted plant.


Meanwhile, the Freepers are already asking who they need to primary out
 
2013-01-02 12:09:17 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.


Shut you word hold farkface.

That is unless you can come up with the buckets of posts from the day of yore when you were criticizing Bush for all the flights he took to Texas.
 
2013-01-02 12:09:58 AM

heap: Markoff_Cheney: thank god we delayed that disaster.

self imposed disasters are great that way - you can really schedule your apocalypses for convenience.


kick the can.
 
2013-01-02 12:10:32 AM

Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.


i got distracted by the 'if you want to ban guns, then i want to kill gays' post.

that isn't schadenfreude, it's whistling past the crazyhouse.
 
2013-01-02 12:10:58 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Which "republitards" are claiming victory?


I wouldn't use that epithet, but Rep. Dave Camp and Rep. Louie "Terror Babies Birther" Gohmert are doing just that, claiming its the largest tax cut in history, blah blah blah.
 
2013-01-02 12:11:11 AM

Corvus: And the freepTards are all saying the will change their party affiliation to independent and vote third party now.

Amusing


doit.jpg
 
2013-01-02 12:11:29 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?


Not until he gets a few down the hatch.
 
2013-01-02 12:11:54 AM

Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.


Seems like they've had one of those every couple of months for the last four years. I really don't see how that's sustainable. Is there some sort of Muscle Milk type of concoction that helps you build up the strength and endurance to go into a frothy walleyed aneurystic rage on demand, like a high-performance athlete? If not, I think someone should invent one. They could call it Red Bullshiat.
 
2013-01-02 12:13:17 AM

dumbobruni: Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?

David Camp

"After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts," said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, "Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent. Republicans and the American people are getting something really important, permanent tax relief."

Link


Yeah, there will be plenty on both sides who try to say they won.

I never liked the idea of the Bush tax cuts, because I knew it would bring us here. They were meant to expire for a reason and need to do so.
That aside, pushing it off another two months won't let them come up with a better solution.

"Paul Ryan voted for it-he is dead to me now. All the "ayes" are to be PURGED in the primaries! "
 
2013-01-02 12:13:25 AM
What are the odds that Boehner has a clean re-election as Speaker after violating the Hastert Rule?
 
2013-01-02 12:14:16 AM
I like how Republicans basically assume that because the tax cuts are being kept down that means that Democrats agree that taxes should always be at that exact ratio or lower now and forever more and that BUSH WAS RIGHT.

Anyone who has argued for extensions from the center-left or left argue it as a practical concern that the economy is screwed up because of demand; and while we might want to have the tax rates 4 or 5 pts higher overall the bulk of the population, doing it at this particular point in time would be dumb.
 
2013-01-02 12:14:21 AM

heap: Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.

i got distracted by the 'if you want to ban guns, then i want to kill gays' post.

that isn't schadenfreude, it's whistling past the crazyhouse.


It will be harder to kill the gheys without guns.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-02 12:14:28 AM
"Fiscal Cliff downgraded to Fiscal Slope"


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-02 12:14:32 AM

ActionJoe: Hey, it's great they got a deal together. But Obama and the Democrats still farking bargained with the Republicans. Why? Fark'em. They won't do anything to help this country...put it all out there for everyone to see and also suffer the consequences from.


Because it has to pass the house which is controlled by republicans. It's pretty obvious why.
 
2013-01-02 12:15:07 AM
Grover Norquist is also claiming victory
 
2013-01-02 12:15:25 AM
Capital gains taxes at 23.8% and a permanent inheritance tax of 40% over 10 million (for couples)? You know, if this is what losing is, it's not so bad.

/stand to benefit
 
2013-01-02 12:16:17 AM
You got that right! Even with his atrocious behavior, & smirking & laughing, Bite-Me still came out on top while Ryan looked scared & intimidated by Bite-Me. And now Ryan & the other RINO Repukes screw us again while voting to fold & capitulate once again, to that RAT bastard commie pig 0dumb0! As much as I hate 0dumb0, I wish we could put a conservative inside him and I would trade for him in an instant over any Repuke at this time. God forgive our country for having such gutless & lack of principles leadership.

ok, which farker is this?
 
2013-01-02 12:16:47 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Roll call of the vote.


Overall: 257 Aye, 167 Nay, 0 voting Present, 8 NonVoting.
By party, D: 172-16-0-3; R: 85-151-0-5.

I look forward to Cantor's challenge for the Speakership.
 
2013-01-02 12:16:53 AM

Lochsteppe: Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.

Seems like they've had one of those every couple of months for the last four years. I really don't see how that's sustainable. Is there some sort of Muscle Milk type of concoction that helps you build up the strength and endurance to go into a frothy walleyed aneurystic rage on demand, like a high-performance athlete? If not, I think someone should invent one. They could call it Red Bullshiat.


Genius. I'll steal this if you don't mind.

And yes, they work up a good froth almost semi-monthly depending on what Roger Ailes decides to put on the air.
 
2013-01-02 12:17:56 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: heap: Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.

i got distracted by the 'if you want to ban guns, then i want to kill gays' post.

that isn't schadenfreude, it's whistling past the crazyhouse.

It will be harder to kill the gheys without guns.


Kill them with kindness?
 
2013-01-02 12:18:02 AM
Can one assume that budget cuts will come during the debt ceiling discussion?
 
2013-01-02 12:18:10 AM

abb3w: I look forward to Cantor's challenge for the Speakership.


Cantor is done. Tonight was a total failure for him. Why would it fault him to the speakership?
 
2013-01-02 12:18:18 AM

Flatulent_Flea: EighthDay: Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill

I'm too lazy to see which of those 85 are still around next cycle... I wonder how safe they are now.

They'll get primaried by a ultra-derper who will lose to a Democratic potted plant.


that's certainly my hope. although were i live the ulral-derper might get in. all my political snail mail is "no new taxes" and "praise jesus" from just about all of them.
 
2013-01-02 12:18:29 AM
The package (PDF) puts off budget cuts for two months and preserves Bush-era income tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 or couples earning less than $450,000.

So, we've preserved tax cuts for the wealthy, the really wealthy, and the extremely wealthy. The ridiculously wealthy will see a tiny increase they won't notice. Not mentioned, but I believe in the bill, is that capital gains remain at a lower rate than normal income and plenty other bullshiat.

The GOP will claim this is the worst thing ever and that Democrats forced them into this horrible socialist nightmare. The Democrats will claim that this is a victory that moves us toward fiscal responsibility by making those who have more pay their fair share.

Neither is true, of course. This is yet abortion of a bill in a long line of such travesties, the result of a conservative right so completely over the edge and a pathetic left so ridiculously spineless that virtually nothing of consequence ever gets done, and when the planets align to allow a bill to finally pass, it's some middle of the road bullshiat that accomplishes nothing.

Welcome to politics in the new millennium.
 
2013-01-02 12:18:35 AM
I don't think the cuts should have been permanent, why couldn't they just be extended for another 10 years?

When the economy picks up again we all need to pitch in a little more to lower the debt. It's going to be a lot harder to raise taxes when the time comes then it would be to let a temporary reduction lapse.
 
2013-01-02 12:18:56 AM
The Conservatives are already butthurt at Boehner. This blogger says that the Republicans would be better off without Boehner and that he failed in the negotiations.
 
2013-01-02 12:19:08 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: Is that little biatch about to cry again?


I guess I'm the only one who thought Boehner was about to get breathalyzed.
 
2013-01-02 12:20:19 AM

Brontes: Can one assume that budget cuts will come during the debt ceiling discussion?


Honestly, budget cuts should wait until the economy is growing again.

Cutting the budget right now is a BAD idea.
 
2013-01-02 12:20:31 AM

Irving Maimway:
And yes, they work up a good froth almost semi-monthly depending on what Roger Ailes decides to put on the air.


these are people that label FoxNews as part of the liberal media.

with 5 minutes effort, you could probably get them convinced that Birchers are just a front for Acorn.
 
2013-01-02 12:20:44 AM

cretinbob: Uranus Is Huge!: heap: Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.

i got distracted by the 'if you want to ban guns, then i want to kill gays' post.

that isn't schadenfreude, it's whistling past the crazyhouse.

It will be harder to kill the gheys without guns.

Kill them with kindness?


We're talking about rabid, right-wing Republicans... and homosexuality. Deviant, erotic, tragic, choking-game, murder-suicides would be the order of the day.
 
2013-01-02 12:20:47 AM
On a personal level, this deal was tremendous for my families finances. Keeping the income tax rates for those under $250 and pushing the estate tax exemption up to $10M will save me huge amounts of money.

That said, this deal stinks.
 
2013-01-02 12:21:15 AM

BlueDWarrior: I'm of the mind that until we stop electing insane nihilists to our government, we will be farked. So... um, anyone have any good recipes for pigeon?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-02 12:21:57 AM
I've been watching CSPAN's call in show. Vast majority are people biatching and moaning.
 
2013-01-02 12:22:07 AM
Wow, the freepers are batshiat crazy and something scary is in their cave.
 
2013-01-02 12:22:09 AM
According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.
 
2013-01-02 12:22:26 AM

Emposter: Not mentioned, but I believe in the bill, is that capital gains remain at a lower rate than normal income and plenty other bullshiat.


A lower than Clinton era, but higher than yesterday level -- for some.

The tax on capital gains and dividends will be permanently set at 20 percent for those with income above the $450,000/$400,000 threshold. Link
 
2013-01-02 12:22:42 AM

Brontes: Can one assume that budget cuts will come during the debt ceiling discussion?


two GOP Senators are already calling for a $1 trillion cut to Medicare in exchange for a trillion increase in the limit. I wonder if that's on top of the $700 billion in cuts Obama promised (which the GOP campaigned against). their specific ways to reach that trillion only mention raising the age and having wealthy people to pay more, but those two things together only raise $50 billion in 10 years.

this should be "fun"
 
2013-01-02 12:22:50 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Text of the bill, 157 pages.

Roll call of the vote.


Delaurlo voted no. Interesting to see why
 
2013-01-02 12:23:33 AM

ActionJoe: Hey, it's great they got a deal together. But Obama and the Democrats still farking bargained with the Republicans. Why? Fark'em. They won't do anything to help this country...put it all out there for everyone to see and also suffer the consequences from.


that's been my stance but i'm told we should work with the slimy bastards. why has never been real clear. push the bastards into a corner, let America see they don't care about the country just themselves and their rich corporate guys and when 2014 comes vote them from office.
 
2013-01-02 12:23:34 AM

Funk Brothers: The Conservatives are already butthurt at Boehner. This blogger says that the Republicans would be better off without Boehner and that he failed in the negotiations.


Yeah, Boner is now a RINO. Freeperland is just.....damn......

What Boehner has NEVER understood is that B. Hussein Obama started in politics as a Bolshevik Communist AND HAS NEVER CHANGED.
Boehner has thus become B. Hussein's favorite BFF.
If the House RINOs will vote Boehner out and Jeb Hensarling in as the Speaker there would be hope, not much, but hope none the less.
Ohio voters in 2012 gave the USA B. Hussein Obama and Mega-Tan-Fan Boehner. Must be something in Ohio's water - - - .


Hope? Really?
 
2013-01-02 12:24:07 AM
About farking time. If Congress didn't act on the Fiscal Cliff, a lot of Americans were getting ready to push them off the Physical Cliff that dumber Americans kept hearing/asking about.
 
2013-01-02 12:24:13 AM

BlueDWarrior: I'm of the mind that until we stop electing insane nihilists to our government, we will be farked. So... um, anyone have any good recipes for pigeon?


Honestly, I don't understand why pigeons wouldn't be delicious.

I mean, you wouldn't want to eat them raw off the streets of New York City...but, come on: purge them for awhile and roast them while frequently basting them?  They should be pretty boss.
 
2013-01-02 12:24:20 AM

abb3w: I look forward to Cantor's challenge for the Speakership.


This has become a bit of a meme, but there's zero evidence that he will actually throw his hat in the ring. Have you seen the disaster of a caucus that Boehner has to work with? Nobody -- not even Cantor -- wants to be in charge of that right now.
 
2013-01-02 12:24:52 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Text of the bill, 157 pages.

Roll call of the vote.


Totally love the link love. I dub thee Dusk-You-n-Me Sir Linklord of Farktopia
 
2013-01-02 12:25:08 AM

DamnYankees: Tonight was a total failure for him.


By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor. That's going to make it kind of tricky for Boehner to keep even figurehead leadership. Far from impossible, but I expect a challenge.
 
2013-01-02 12:25:40 AM

DamnYankees: Cantor is done. Tonight was a total failure for him. Why would it fault him to the speakership?


I couldn't disagree more. Boehner will face the wrath of the new Congress--Cantor could have the largest block of support from those who voted no tonight, like he did. And given his district, he's not going to be primaried from the right. Boehner only got the bill passed because of the Democratic caucus.
 
2013-01-02 12:25:59 AM

shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.


Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.

Got a link?
 
2013-01-02 12:26:30 AM

abb3w: DamnYankees: Tonight was a total failure for him.

By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor. That's going to make it kind of tricky for Boehner to keep even figurehead leadership. Far from impossible, but I expect a challenge.


Democrats get to vote for speaker too.
 
2013-01-02 12:26:36 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?

Not until he gets a few down the hatch.


Can a grown man cry bourbon?
 
2013-01-02 12:26:43 AM

abb3w: By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor.


Because Boehner I'm sure let them off the hook since he knew he had the Dems votes. Many of those no votes are going to be loyal to Boehner.
 
2013-01-02 12:26:58 AM
Potted Plant for Speaker!
 
2013-01-02 12:27:04 AM
@michellemalkin
Michelle Malkin
Dear House Dems: You won. Just shut. Up. And. Vote.

*giggle*
 
2013-01-02 12:27:15 AM

red5ish: Wow, the freepers are batshiat crazy and something scary is in their cave.


but, they are good. At writing. and punctuation.

Good for the house!


I hope all THEIR needs are fulfilled. I hope they don't lose prestige or position on Washington.
I also hope that their life depended upon their vote. I can respect that. I mean, if, Bambi, in some way, threatened their lives or the lives. Of their families, sure. Ok, I'll accept that.
But, I really don't think that is the case. I think they are cowardly, greedy, little small membered, men who deserve no respect at all.
And if we continue to put up with this shiat ....so are we.
 
2013-01-02 12:27:39 AM

DamnYankees: abb3w: I look forward to Cantor's challenge for the Speakership.

Cantor is done. Tonight was a total failure for him. Why would it fault him to the speakership?



Cantor just voted against the bill, along with a majority of the House GOP. So who's in the weaker position right now -- Boehner, who had the support of less than half of the House Republicans, or Cantor, who was backed-up by a majority of his party, including the House Majority Whip?
 
2013-01-02 12:27:49 AM

12349876: abb3w: DamnYankees: Tonight was a total failure for him.

By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor. That's going to make it kind of tricky for Boehner to keep even figurehead leadership. Far from impossible, but I expect a challenge.

Democrats get to vote for speaker too.


They vote for Pelosi.
 
2013-01-02 12:27:52 AM

eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.

Got a link?


I'll go ahead and give it the prestigious Uranus is Huge! Seal of Approval, reluctantly.

It is equally meaningful.
 
2013-01-02 12:28:13 AM

CanuckInCA: I have a PDF of the bill, but not really the time to go over it right now - is there an article that summarizes what it is that they voted on?


Link
 
2013-01-02 12:28:30 AM

shower_in_my_socks: Cantor just voted against the bill, along with a majority of the House GOP. So who's in the weaker position right now -- Boehner, who had the support of less than half of the House Republicans, or Cantor, who was backed-up by a majority of his party, including the House Majority Whip?


As someone else said elsewhere, the key question in all this was did the GOP causes actually not want this bill to pass, or did they just not want to vote for it? If its the former, ya his job is toast. If the latter, he's fine. And based on the fact that this bill got the floor in the first place, I bet you its the latter.
 
2013-01-02 12:28:46 AM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Can a grown man cry bourbon?


Cry bourbon and slip the dogs of war!
 
2013-01-02 12:28:48 AM

TheOther: @michellemalkin
Michelle Malkin
Dear House Dems: You won. Just shut. Up. And. Vote.

*giggle*


Poor dears...
 
2013-01-02 12:29:05 AM
Looks like they're kicking the can down the road.

/A Romney plan
//Fine by me, cuz we'll have a few more Dems in the Senate as well as the House.
 
2013-01-02 12:29:11 AM
Every damn time I go to Freepville they are constantly begging for money to run their site. As soon as they meet their goals, they start another " Freepathon."
 
2013-01-02 12:29:40 AM

cretinbob: Freeperland is just.....damn......

Are You Going To Remain A Republican in light of today's gutless actions by both the Senate and House? This was the last straw for me; I'm done! I will be switching my party affiliation tomorrow.

----

I'll most likely be dropping party affiliation and registering Independent sometime this month.



----


Yes.

But I'm writing my conservative congressman that if Boehner continues as Speaker I will support a primary or third-party candidate against him (my congressman).

----


I think most of us tried to be team players, even after the a$$ whooping we got on election night. Switching my party affiliation is the only political power I (we) have left. The GOPe chose to fear the Left instead of us. May they reap the consequences!

----


We desperately need a third party. If you support the GOP, you support Obama and people like him. I do not support the Left -- that's why I no longer vote Republican.
You will eventually figure this out.

----

You've been one of the GOP supporters for a while. Making excuses for them.
You own this. And yes, you are on the paper list of liberal republicans that I keep near the computer, so I can keep track of all you (redacteds).


the Freep Independent - it's like a fark independent, but with mayonnaise and shredded lettuce slathered on their nipples. also nice to note that freep has their own skookum, too.
 
2013-01-02 12:30:21 AM

eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.



I know. He just tweeted that those who voted for this were supporting tax CUTS, since technically the Bush Tax Cuts sunsetted last night. But by that logic, a majority of the House GOP just voted AGAINST tax cuts since they voted against this bill.
 
2013-01-02 12:30:37 AM

Somacandra: Debeo Summa Credo: Which "republitards" are claiming victory?

I wouldn't use that epithet, but Rep. Dave Camp and Rep. Louie "Terror Babies Birther" Gohmert are doing just that, claiming its the largest tax cut in history, blah blah blah.


Wow. Farkin ridiculous.
 
2013-01-02 12:30:42 AM

twistofsin: I don't think the cuts should have been permanent, why couldn't they just be extended for another 10 years?


Permanent in Washington doesn't mean permanent.
 
2013-01-02 12:30:43 AM

DamnYankees: 12349876: abb3w: DamnYankees: Tonight was a total failure for him.

By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor. That's going to make it kind of tricky for Boehner to keep even figurehead leadership. Far from impossible, but I expect a challenge.

Democrats get to vote for speaker too.

They vote for Pelosi.


They don't have to.
 
2013-01-02 12:30:45 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.

Got a link?

I'll go ahead and give it the prestigious Uranus is Huge! Seal of Approval, reluctantly.

It is equally meaningful.


My thought, when reading the Politico story, is that Norquist was trying to remain relevant...you know, after he predicted that his coalition of dumbasses would hold.

But, since you spoke up...are you female and sexy?
 
2013-01-02 12:30:55 AM
Congratulations to Eric Cantor the new Doormat of the House.
 
2013-01-02 12:31:16 AM
If I was a Democratic congressman, I'd be throwing my support behind Bachmann for Speaker. Troll the shiat out of that election. The only drawback would be risking putting that puddle of derp third in line to the White House.
 
2013-01-02 12:31:28 AM
Son of a b***h! My Congresscritter voted against it. Buschon (IN-8) is worthless, and I wish the Democrats ran someone worth electing in 2012 because flipping this idiot in 2014 is the goal.
 
2013-01-02 12:31:31 AM

DamnYankees: 12349876: abb3w: DamnYankees: Tonight was a total failure for him.

By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor. That's going to make it kind of tricky for Boehner to keep even figurehead leadership. Far from impossible, but I expect a challenge.

Democrats get to vote for speaker too.

They vote for Pelosi.


A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.
 
2013-01-02 12:31:47 AM
Actual quote from one rep, from the NYT:
"I have read the bill and can't find the spending cuts - even with an electron magnifying glass," said Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who generally votes against budget bills.

I don't know how to categorize this: a malapropism? An eggcorn? A Bushism?
 
2013-01-02 12:31:59 AM

DeltaPunch: Nobody -- not even Cantor -- wants to be in charge of that right now.


That seems a better argument against a revolt, yes.
However, it seems to depend on the assumption that Cantor is not himself TeaParty-grade crazy.
 
2013-01-02 12:32:02 AM

Altitude5280: Every damn time I go to Freepville they are constantly begging for money to run their site. As soon as they meet their goals, they start another " Freepathon."


Sounds like they need a lobbyist. Or... you know... some form of internet welfare.

/ freeploaders.
// Get some jorbs marons!
 
2013-01-02 12:32:02 AM

12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.


I an aware.
 
2013-01-02 12:32:30 AM
For Grover Norquist, the Senate-backed fiscal cliff bill on its way to the House floor Tuesday is a tax cut that House Republicans can vote for and defend to their constituents without violating their anti-tax increase pledges.

That little puke. The only thing that matters is that the Republicans didn't violate HIS pledge.
Is he autistic or something? "The pledge....the tax pledge. Did anyone violate my tax pledge? My precious..."
 
2013-01-02 12:33:17 AM

shower_in_my_socks: eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.


I know. He just tweeted that those who voted for this were supporting tax CUTS, since technically the Bush Tax Cuts sunsetted last night. But by that logic, a majority of the House GOP just voted AGAINST tax cuts since they voted against this bill.


So, as I wrote earlier:  [m]y thought, when reading the Politico story, is that Norquist was trying to remain relevant...you know, after he predicted that his coalition of dumbasses would hold.

An interesting aside: how will Norquist explain the majority of the House GOP conference that, in rejected the Senate language,  voted AGAINST "tax cuts"?
 
2013-01-02 12:33:24 AM

DamnYankees: shower_in_my_socks: Cantor just voted against the bill, along with a majority of the House GOP. So who's in the weaker position right now -- Boehner, who had the support of less than half of the House Republicans, or Cantor, who was backed-up by a majority of his party, including the House Majority Whip?

As someone else said elsewhere, the key question in all this was did the GOP causes actually not want this bill to pass, or did they just not want to vote for it? If its the former, ya his job is toast. If the latter, he's fine. And based on the fact that this bill got the floor in the first place, I bet you its the latter.



The Teahadists are going to turn on Boehner -- they already are at Freeperville. They aren't going to turn against Cantor -- he voted AGAINST the bill. And Cantor has now sided with a majority of his party in the House. He made this into a power-play for him to take Boehner's job.
 
2013-01-02 12:33:30 AM

Paris1127: Actual quote from one rep, from the NYT:
"I have read the bill and can't find the spending cuts - even with an electron magnifying glass," said Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who generally votes against budget bills.

I don't know how to categorize this: a malapropism? An eggcorn? A Bushism?


Maybe he's into steampunk.
 
2013-01-02 12:33:54 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The tax on capital gains and dividends will be permanently set at 20 percent for those with income above the $450,000/$400,000 threshold


Not permanently set, had the expiration date removed.
There's nothing stopping Congress from changing the tax rates again at some point in the future. If things go well, and we get rid of the debt, wages are up and costs are down, go ahead.
But for 35 years "Low taxes create jobs and prosperity and blah blah blah" has been tried and clearly is a failure.
 
2013-01-02 12:34:01 AM

Paris1127: Actual quote from one rep, from the NYT:
"I have read the bill and can't find the spending cuts - even with an electron magnifying glass," said Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who generally votes against budget bills.

I don't know how to categorize this: a malapropism? An eggcorn? A Bushism?


a mobius yogi berraism.
 
2013-01-02 12:34:22 AM

eraser8: Uranus Is Huge!: eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.

Got a link?

I'll go ahead and give it the prestigious Uranus is Huge! Seal of Approval, reluctantly.

It is equally meaningful.

My thought, when reading the Politico story, is that Norquist was trying to remain relevant...you know, after he predicted that his coalition of dumbasses would hold.

But, since you spoke up...are you female and sexy?


This is the Internet.

Of course I'm female and sexy. And rich. And a genius. And hung like a Clydesdale. Wait wut?
 
2013-01-02 12:34:44 AM

12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.


Yeah.  But, traditionally, every Republican votes for the Republican candidate and every Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate.
 
2013-01-02 12:34:58 AM

eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: eraser8: shower_in_my_socks: According to Grover Nordquist, over half of the House GOP just voted against tax cuts.

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.


I know. He just tweeted that those who voted for this were supporting tax CUTS, since technically the Bush Tax Cuts sunsetted last night. But by that logic, a majority of the House GOP just voted AGAINST tax cuts since they voted against this bill.

So, as I wrote earlier:  [m]y thought, when reading the Politico story, is that Norquist was trying to remain relevant...you know, after he predicted that his coalition of dumbasses would hold.

An interesting aside: how will Norquist explain the majority of the House GOP conference that, in rejected the Senate language,  voted AGAINST "tax cuts"?


i.imgur.com

Technically, voting against a tax cut isn't the same as voting for a tax hike.
 
2013-01-02 12:35:07 AM

shower_in_my_socks: The Teahadists are going to turn on Boehner -- they already are at Freeperville. They aren't going to turn against Cantor -- he voted AGAINST the bill. And Cantor has now sided with a majority of his party in the House. He made this into a power-play for him to take Boehner's job.


They might, but the Tea Party Caucus is a minority of the GOP Caucus and Cantor isn't a member of it. There are enough of these idiots to prevent the GOP from getting majority votes without them, but they can't do anything by themselves.
 
2013-01-02 12:35:24 AM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Don't Troll Me Bro!: AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?

Not until he gets a few down the hatch.

Can a grown man cry bourbon?


No, but the crying Boehner doll can be loaded with crisp, satisfying conservative tears.
cdn.inquisitr.com
 
2013-01-02 12:35:32 AM
For all the complaining about Obama being a terrible negotiator (something I'm occasionally guilty of), the guy sure knows how to get shiat done.
 
2013-01-02 12:36:37 AM

eraser8: 12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.

Yeah.  But, traditionally, every Republican votes for the Republican candidate and every Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate.


The Dems should split their votes between Boehner and Cantor to try and force a deadlock.  For the lulz.
 
2013-01-02 12:37:16 AM

shower_in_my_socks: He made this into a power-play for him to take Boehner's job.


For $29k more per year? Wow. He must love money. I think I would pay that much not to have that job for the next year.
 
2013-01-02 12:37:46 AM

Mentat: eraser8: 12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.

Yeah.  But, traditionally, every Republican votes for the Republican candidate and every Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate.

The Dems should split their votes between Boehner and Cantor to try and force a deadlock.  For the lulz.


Not to make this exchange uncomfortable...but, you just made me excited.  Sexually.
 
2013-01-02 12:37:56 AM
Officialy the Obama Tax Cuts now....
 
2013-01-02 12:38:57 AM

cretinbob: dumbobruni: Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?

David Camp

"After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts," said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, "Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent. Republicans and the American people are getting something really important, permanent tax relief."

Link

Yeah, there will be plenty on both sides who try to say they won.

I never liked the idea of the Bush tax cuts, because I knew it would bring us here. They were meant to expire for a reason and need to do so.
That aside, pushing it off another two months won't let them come up with a better solution.

"Paul Ryan voted for it-he is dead to me now. All the "ayes" are to be PURGED in the primaries! "


Yeah, 90% of the irresponsible bush cuts made permanent and no spending cuts is a loss for America and our kids and grand kids.

But I can't see how the GOP claims this as a victory when only 15 dems voted against it.

Just an utterly awful failure by shortsighted politicians on both sides.
 
2013-01-02 12:39:13 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Don't Troll Me Bro!: AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?

Not until he gets a few down the hatch.

Can a grown man cry bourbon?

No, but the crying Boehner doll can be loaded with crisp, satisfying conservative tears.
[cdn.inquisitr.com image 475x274]


Oh that is awesome.
 
2013-01-02 12:39:26 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Emposter: Not mentioned, but I believe in the bill, is that capital gains remain at a lower rate than normal income and plenty other bullshiat.

A lower than Clinton era, but higher than yesterday level -- for some.

The tax on capital gains and dividends will be permanently set at 20 percent for those with income above the $450,000/$400,000 threshold. Link


Yes, I know. So...a lower rate than normal income. Much lower in fact. Like I said before.
 
2013-01-02 12:39:39 AM

Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.


If I had to navigate that mess of a site on a regular basis I would have a meltdown too..

So... GOPe / GOP-e... What's all that about?
 
2013-01-02 12:40:45 AM

Flatulent_Flea: Officialy the Obama Tax Cuts now....


And since they Bush cuts did technically expire, he did cut taxes not raise them, so yes, you sir are be best kind of correct.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:26 AM

eraser8: 12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.

Yeah.  But, traditionally, every Republican votes for the Republican candidate and every Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate.


Just making sure people know that the 151 Republicans that voted against this bill, a strong majority of the party, aren't going to be enough to ditch Boehner.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:32 AM

Mentat: For all the complaining about Obama being a terrible negotiator (something I'm occasionally guilty of), the guy sure knows how to get shiat done.


I know right? I would not be surprised to find out this was his plan all along. I mean the GOP is pretty damn predictable these days. It cant be difficult to anticipate what they will do and strategize accordingly.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:42 AM

DamnYankees: Many of those no votes are going to be loyal to Boehner.


I'm less confident of that than you seem to be.

DamnYankees: They vote for Pelosi.


Which in the present scenario leads on the first pass to 200-plus votes for Pelosi, 100-odd votes for Boehner, and 150-odd for Cantor.

At which point, Boehner has to try and pull in the GOP right wing faster than Pelosi can pry lose the GOP's left.

"Speaking of Republicans in the House, I've watched with interest what's happening to the revolt against Gingrich. Two problems--and I know something about revolts [having been elected minority leader when the Young Turks ran him against Charles Halleck in 1965]: Number one, you can't beat an incumbent with four candidates. You have to have one unified opponent to the incumbent. You get four, you spread the effort, there aren't enough votes. Number two, you should never challenge an incumbent party leader in the middle of a session. You should do it after an election or before--at the time the parties organize-- so you're focusing on that issue.

"That's what we did: we all agreed I would be the candidate: [Mel] Laird and [Charles] Goodell and [Don] Rumsfelt and [Al] Quie wouldn't be competing candidates, and they'd all vote for me. And we did it after the 1964 debacle when the Republicans were organizing [the new Congress], so that the only issue was whether you wanted new leadership or not. It wasn't all involved in who's gonna be for tax cuts or who's gonna be for this or that."


President Gerald R. Ford, quoted in Thomas M. DeFrank's Write It When I'm Gone

I wonder if Cantor has read that book....

12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.


Indeed.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:43 AM
come on Bachmann. you know you want to be speaker of the house.
 
2013-01-02 12:42:53 AM

cretinbob: Flatulent_Flea: Officialy the Obama Tax Cuts now....

And since they Bush cuts did technically expire, he did cut taxes not raise them, so yes, you sir are be best kind of correct.


Hell, the President Obama will have signed the biggest tax cut in United States history.
 
2013-01-02 12:43:12 AM
I don't think it can't be stated enough. But permanent in Washington-speak simply means "We don't have a set sunset date."

Anything Congress does can be undone. So if you want to re-balance the tax rates to make sense, we have to find some way (by hook or crook) to generate enough economic growth to where receipts can start to make sense given our burden, and the bulk of the population can afford the extra few pts we'd need to bend the curve back down.
(Also, I still don't what these things that we could cut that would actually put a significant dent in the deficit without screwing over an not insignificant chunk of the population... which kinda matters to people who have some semblance of empathy)
 
2013-01-02 12:43:39 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: So... GOPe / GOP-e... What's all that about?


Establishment.
Apparently these are Republicans who want to be Republicans but but don't want to be Republicans so.....

At least crazy ass liberals just want to smoke pot and hug trees.
 
2013-01-02 12:45:08 AM

abb3w: At which point, Boehner has to try and pull in the GOP right wing faster than Pelosi can pry lose the GOP's left.


Has any minority leader ever been made Speaker while Minority leader for the foreseeable future? This seems basically impossible.
 
2013-01-02 12:46:17 AM

Mentat: eraser8: 12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.

Yeah.  But, traditionally, every Republican votes for the Republican candidate and every Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate.

The Dems should split their votes between Boehner and Cantor to try and force a deadlock.  For the lulz.


They wouldnt need to. The Speaker must receive a majority of the votes. If the Republicans split their vote and the Democrats all vote Pelosi noone would receive a majority. They would have to vote again.

The winner (between Boehner and Cantor) would certainly have to neogiate a deal with the Democrats. They would deal for Boehner and that would give the Democrats major bargaining power.

So the GOP's choice is a weak uncontested Speaker Boehner or and even weaker contested Speaker Boehner.

The tea-tards may just be dumb enough to go for it.
 
2013-01-02 12:46:31 AM

12349876: Just making sure people know that the 151 Republicans that voted against this bill, a strong majority of the party, aren't going to be enough to ditch Boehner.


So he can be Majority Leader then. The Speaker of the House isn't elected by the party who holds the majority, and doesn't even have to be a member of Congress. It's everyone.
So Maybe Grover can be elected Speaker. or Big Bird.
 
2013-01-02 12:46:50 AM

Paris1127: Actual quote from one rep, from the NYT:
"I have read the bill and can't find the spending cuts - even with an electron magnifying glass," said Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who generally votes against budget bills.

I don't know how to categorize this: a malapropism? An eggcorn? A Bushism?


Technically, a derpism, but I believe the appropriate response would be "you haven't read it at all, have you?"
 
2013-01-02 12:47:33 AM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Don't Troll Me Bro!: AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?

Not until he gets a few down the hatch.

Can a grown man cry bourbon?

No, but the crying Boehner doll can be loaded with crisp, satisfying conservative tears.
[cdn.inquisitr.com image 475x274]

Oh that is awesome.


Sadly, it was just a Jimmy Kimmel thing, not a real product.
 
2013-01-02 12:49:15 AM

max_pooper:
The tea-tards may just be dumb enough to go for it.


vegas has the line as 3-to-potato for.
 
2013-01-02 12:49:20 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Don't Troll Me Bro!: AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?

Not until he gets a few down the hatch.

Can a grown man cry bourbon?

No, but the crying Boehner doll can be loaded with crisp, satisfying conservative tears.
[cdn.inquisitr.com image 475x274]

Oh that is awesome.

Sadly, it was just a Jimmy Kimmel thing, not a real product.


That's too bad. I'd throw 45 dollars at that.
 
2013-01-02 12:50:13 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.


Don't worry. that is just a line. In reality, he flew his shuttle to the construction site of a new and more powerful battle station orbiting the forest moon.
 
2013-01-02 12:51:29 AM

cretinbob: The Speaker of the House isn't elected by the party who holds the majority, and doesn't even have to be a member of Congress. It's everyone.


I guess we'll find out Thursday. There will be an insurgent challenge from the Right, I expect. If Boehner survives as Speaker. I will be impressed.

/..you know nothing of Boehner! He was born inside a jail. He was raised with scum like you. He is from the gutter too!
 
2013-01-02 12:52:27 AM

MyEnamine: DamnYankees: Now for Debt Ceiling Part II: The Ceiling-ening Electric Bugaloo.

/fixed


userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-01-02 12:53:08 AM
This deal sucked, and not adding an agreement to raise the debt ceiling within it is short-sighted as hell. The Republicans want to shred the social safety net. What's stopping them beyond the threat of the defense cuts that take effect with the sequester?

President Obama is really, really bad at negotiating. Oh well, at least he's not Mitt farking Romney.
 
2013-01-02 12:55:22 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.

If I had to navigate that mess of a site on a regular basis I would have a meltdown too..

So... GOPe / GOP-e... What's all that about?


GOP Establishment.  Freepers think that the problem with the GOP is that the power brokers push people like Mitt Romney and and don't take people like Allen West and Michelle Bachmann seriously as political players.  Their core philosophy is that true conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed by elites in DC who actually might be more of a libertarian or even be civil to a DemonKKKrap.
 
2013-01-02 12:55:30 AM

cretinbob: [quoting Freepers] "...B. Hussein Obama

..."

This is hilarious, calling up as it does the memory of Saddam Hussein, now deceased and daily-more-irrelevant historical figure. Keep farking that chicken, Freepers.
 
2013-01-02 12:55:35 AM
"They're crazy, but they're not that batshiat crazy," Democratic Representative Alcee Hastings told reporters as the Republican plan came into focus.

Don't be so sure Congressman.
 
2013-01-02 12:56:18 AM
Oh god, freeperville is a glorious nest of b*tch-fits and delicious, delicious conservative tears.

I need to get to bed, but reading their comments that are so full of prepubescent angst and rage just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
 
2013-01-02 12:57:42 AM

cretinbob: So Maybe Grover can be elected Speaker. or Big Bird.


Grover Norquist seems unlikely to be able to get majority support. Electing a fictional character might get the SCOTUS to overcome its phenomenal reluctance to treat congressional self-governance as a non-justiciable question.

Electing a Magic 8-ball, however....
 
2013-01-02 12:58:08 AM

Smelly McUgly: This deal sucked, and not adding an agreement to raise the debt ceiling within it is short-sighted as hell. The Republicans want to shred the social safety net. What's stopping them beyond the threat of the defense cuts that take effect with the sequester?

President Obama is really, really bad at negotiating. Oh well, at least he's not Mitt farking Romney.


If you were the President, how would you have forced the GOP to accept an increase in the debt ceiling?  Going over the cliff wouldn't have affected that since we pretty much hit the ceiling yesterday.
 
2013-01-02 12:58:55 AM

Kome: Oh god, freeperville is a glorious nest of b*tch-fits and delicious, delicious conservative tears.

I need to get to bed, but reading their comments that are so full of prepubescent angst and rage just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


Feels like the first time, feels like the very first time
 
2013-01-02 01:00:14 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.


THIS is your concern?
 
2013-01-02 01:02:30 AM

Kome: Oh god, freeperville is a glorious nest of b*tch-fits and delicious, delicious conservative tears.

I need to get to bed, but reading their comments that are so full of prepubescent angst and rage just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


media11.dropshots.com
 
2013-01-02 01:02:36 AM

cretinbob: At least crazy ass liberals just want to smoke pot and hug trees.


shiat. I've been smoking trees and hugging pot. I'm not too good at this.

/Now I've replied twice to cretinbob in this thread. Not stalking you, man, honest.
 
2013-01-02 01:02:58 AM
Congrats to all the tards who focused on this all holiday weekend. Your attention to derp will truly be honored in the future. Keep making America better.
 
2013-01-02 01:03:28 AM

Mentat: Smelly McUgly: This deal sucked, and not adding an agreement to raise the debt ceiling within it is short-sighted as hell. The Republicans want to shred the social safety net. What's stopping them beyond the threat of the defense cuts that take effect with the sequester?

President Obama is really, really bad at negotiating. Oh well, at least he's not Mitt farking Romney.

If you were the President, how would you have forced the GOP to accept an increase in the debt ceiling?  Going over the cliff wouldn't have affected that since we pretty much hit the ceiling yesterday.


Well, I think this deal kicking sequester down the road was a bad one. We should have dealt with the whole fiscal cliff wholesale. Put the defense cuts on the table and tell the Republicans that we'll reduce the cuts for no more obstruction on the debt ceiling and maybe a couple other things (hands off SS and Medicare, for two).

Of course, I am at a disadvantage here because I am not at all privy to what was going on in the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.
 
2013-01-02 01:04:44 AM

Mentat: Smelly McUgly: This deal sucked, and not adding an agreement to raise the debt ceiling within it is short-sighted as hell. The Republicans want to shred the social safety net. What's stopping them beyond the threat of the defense cuts that take effect with the sequester?

President Obama is really, really bad at negotiating. Oh well, at least he's not Mitt farking Romney.

If you were the President, how would you have forced the GOP to accept an increase in the debt ceiling?  Going over the cliff wouldn't have affected that since we pretty much hit the ceiling yesterday.


By forcing them to offer cuts in defence and medicare, or increased revenue. There's some serious kung fu going on.
 
2013-01-02 01:05:20 AM
 
2013-01-02 01:07:03 AM
Freeperland is eating itself:

To: JRandomFreeper"You've been one of the GOP supporters for a while. Making excuses for them."

'You own this. And yes, you are on the paper list of liberal republicans that I keep near the computer, so I can keep track of all you (redacteds)."
__________________________________________________
Like many here, I chose to deal with reality and voted for Romney. Unlike you, I saw him as a far better choice than the Marxist we had in office.
As far as owning this; this falls on the shoulders of knuckle heads like you who chose not to vote in the presidential election, or voted 3rd party. It's because of folks like you, that we're where we are now!
You are a selfrightous, unpatriotic phony! We're facing this dilema because you didn't see Obama as the real threat!


Hahahahahaha!!
 
2013-01-02 01:07:37 AM
House Speaker John Boehner couldn't hold back when he spotted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the White House lobby last Friday.

It was only a few days before the nation would go over the fiscal cliff, no bipartisan agreement was in sight, and Reid had just publicly accused Boehner of running a "dictatorship" in the House and caring more about holding onto his gavel than striking a deal.

"Go f- yourself," Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present.

Reid, a bit startled, replied: "What are you talking about?"

Boehner repeated: "Go f- yourself."
Link

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-02 01:07:44 AM

eraser8: Brontes: Can one assume that budget cuts will come during the debt ceiling discussion?

Honestly, budget cuts should wait until the economy is growing again.

Cutting the budget right now is a BAD idea.


The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!! With attitudes like yours we'll never get the budget cut, never mind the debt.
 
2013-01-02 01:11:13 AM

Yoyo: The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!!


Oh noes! It is?  This must  be stopped as soon as possible!  Wait.  No.  Huh?
 
2013-01-02 01:12:32 AM

Smelly McUgly: Well, I think this deal kicking sequester down the road was a bad one. We should have dealt with the whole fiscal cliff wholesale. Put the defense cuts on the table and tell the Republicans that we'll reduce the cuts for no more obstruction on the debt ceiling and maybe a couple other things (hands off SS and Medicare, for two).

Of course, I am at a disadvantage here because I am not at all privy to what was going on in the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.


Well, the President wanted a comprehensive deal, but the Republicans made the decision to make a strategic retreat on taxes and make the debt ceiling the 8th Waterloo of the Obama presidency.  But what you suggest doesn't really deal with the debt ceiling which is related allocated spending.  Even with steep spending cuts, we would still be running deficits and would still hit the ceiling.  I don't have a problem breaking the issue up into separate debates, but the question going forward is whether the Dems have given up any leverage by cutting this deal.  I personally don't think the Republicans are in a strong position going forward and I don't see their spin gaining much traction.
 
2013-01-02 01:12:52 AM

Smelly McUgly: not adding an agreement to raise the debt ceiling within it is short-sighted as hell.



There was no farking way the Dems are getting the debt ceiling raised without offering cuts. The GOP is going to use budget cuts to approve a debt ceiling raise no matter what happens -- whether that's now or later. Obama, Biden and the Dems did the ADULT thing and got most of what they wanted re: killing the Bush Tax Cuts without giving up a damn thing. Some say that Obama has now given up all of his leverage, but I disagree. Now the tax cut debate is finished for at least the next year or two. Obama has effectively separated tax cuts from budget cuts in the debate. Now the GOP is going to have to find something else to offer in exchange for cuts, and I doubt holding the debt ceiling hostage again is going to be enough.

We took what we could when we could, and now we get to watch a VERY unpopular House GOP hold the debt ceiling hostage again, which was inevitable.
 
2013-01-02 01:12:55 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: Freeperland is eating itself:

To: JRandomFreeper"You've been one of the GOP supporters for a while. Making excuses for them."

'You own this. And yes, you are on the paper list of liberal republicans that I keep near the computer, so I can keep track of all you (redacteds)."
__________________________________________________
Like many here, I chose to deal with reality and voted for Romney. Unlike you, I saw him as a far better choice than the Marxist we had in office.
As far as owning this; this falls on the shoulders of knuckle heads like you who chose not to vote in the presidential election, or voted 3rd party. It's because of folks like you, that we're where we are now!
You are a selfrightous, unpatriotic phony! We're facing this dilema because you didn't see Obama as the real threat!

Hahahahahaha!!


Wow. It's like a hydra-version of Ouroburos.
 
2013-01-02 01:14:12 AM

abb3w: cretinbob: So Maybe Grover can be elected Speaker. or Big Bird.

Grover Norquist seems unlikely to be able to get majority support. Electing a fictional character might get the SCOTUS to overcome its phenomenal reluctance to treat congressional self-governance as a non-justiciable question.

Electing a Magic 8-ball, however....


At least a Magic 8-ball would get the right answer 50% of the time.

Smelly McUgly: This deal sucked, and not adding an agreement to raise the debt ceiling within it is short-sighted as hell. The Republicans want to shred the social safety net. What's stopping them beyond the threat of the defense cuts that take effect with the sequester?

President Obama is really, really bad at negotiating. Oh well, at least he's not Mitt farking Romney.


The "social safety net" is already coming apart at the seams, it's just that most Americans have a shiatty comprehension of mathematics and can't see the forest for the trees. The sooner the shreds are apparent to everyone, including those who should know better but choose to ignore it, the better.
 
2013-01-02 01:14:43 AM

Yoyo: The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!! With attitudes like yours we'll never get the budget cut, never mind the debt.


Growing, but not strongly.  Keynesian theory says cuts should come when the economy is strong and deficits should be run when the economy is weak.  If we had followed that mantra after the 90's, we wouldn't even have a national debt now.
 
2013-01-02 01:15:06 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Text of the bill, 157 pages.

Roll call of the vote.


Thank you, dude.
 
2013-01-02 01:15:20 AM

LockeOak: House Speaker John Boehner couldn't hold back when he spotted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the White House lobby last Friday.

It was only a few days before the nation would go over the fiscal cliff, no bipartisan agreement was in sight, and Reid had just publicly accused Boehner of running a "dictatorship" in the House and caring more about holding onto his gavel than striking a deal.

"Go f- yourself," Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present.

Reid, a bit startled, replied: "What are you talking about?"

Boehner repeated: "Go f- yourself."



Boehner then said "I eat pieces of shiat like you for breakfast!" and then stormed off to the nearest bar.
 
2013-01-02 01:16:05 AM

shower_in_my_socks: LockeOak: House Speaker John Boehner couldn't hold back when he spotted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the White House lobby last Friday.

It was only a few days before the nation would go over the fiscal cliff, no bipartisan agreement was in sight, and Reid had just publicly accused Boehner of running a "dictatorship" in the House and caring more about holding onto his gavel than striking a deal.

"Go f- yourself," Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present.

Reid, a bit startled, replied: "What are you talking about?"

Boehner repeated: "Go f- yourself."


Boehner then said "I eat pieces of shiat like you for breakfast!" and then stormed off to the nearest bar.


Reid:  You eat pieces of shiat for breakfast?
 
2013-01-02 01:16:15 AM

System600: And it will only INCREASE your Debt by $4 TRILLION over the next 10 Years.


...compared to if we'd gone over the "cliff". This bill will reduce deficits compared to conditions on Dec 31, "...various estimates suggest by roughly $600 billion, and more with interest savings."

Link
 
2013-01-02 01:16:58 AM

Yoyo: eraser8: Brontes: Can one assume that budget cuts will come during the debt ceiling discussion?

Honestly, budget cuts should wait until the economy is growing again.

Cutting the budget right now is a BAD idea.

The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!! With attitudes like yours we'll never get the budget cut, never mind the debt.


And the 'fiscal cliff' cuts would have sent the nation, and therefore the world, into recession again.
 
2013-01-02 01:18:57 AM

Fuggin Bizzy: Freeperland is eating itself:

To: JRandomFreeper"You've been one of the GOP supporters for a while. Making excuses for them."

'You own this. And yes, you are on the paper list of liberal republicans that I keep near the computer, so I can keep track of all you (redacteds)."
__________________________________________________
Like many here, I chose to deal with reality and voted for Romney. Unlike you, I saw him as a far better choice than the Marxist we had in office.
As far as owning this; this falls on the shoulders of knuckle heads like you who chose not to vote in the presidential election, or voted 3rd party. It's because of folks like you, that we're where we are now!
You are a selfrightous, unpatriotic phony! We're facing this dilema because you didn't see Obama as the real threat!

Hahahahahaha!!


b.vimeocdn.com

/nothing changes...
 
2013-01-02 01:19:33 AM

Mentat: Smelly McUgly: Well, I think this deal kicking sequester down the road was a bad one. We should have dealt with the whole fiscal cliff wholesale. Put the defense cuts on the table and tell the Republicans that we'll reduce the cuts for no more obstruction on the debt ceiling and maybe a couple other things (hands off SS and Medicare, for two).

Of course, I am at a disadvantage here because I am not at all privy to what was going on in the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.

Well, the President wanted a comprehensive deal, but the Republicans made the decision to make a strategic retreat on taxes and make the debt ceiling the 8th Waterloo of the Obama presidency.  But what you suggest doesn't really deal with the debt ceiling which is related allocated spending.  Even with steep spending cuts, we would still be running deficits and would still hit the ceiling.  I don't have a problem breaking the issue up into separate debates, but the question going forward is whether the Dems have given up any leverage by cutting this deal.  I personally don't think the Republicans are in a strong position going forward and I don't see their spin gaining much traction.


Yeah, I don't see them actually proposing cuts to Medicare or Social Security with the debt ceiling either. They know those programs are ridiculously popular, and they know that cutting those programs would hand senior citizens back to the Democrats and result in an almost unstoppable electoral coalition. They have to try and get those cuts implemented while pinning full responsibility for the cuts on Obama, which means they can't propose anything. Since defense contractors will stop any cuts to defense spending, that leaves cutting even more non-defense discretionary spending.
 
2013-01-02 01:23:26 AM

LockeOak: Boehner repeated: "Go f- yourself." Link


Not that I don't believe it could have happened, but what's the authors' source for this? I didn't see one, did I miss something? Did one or more of the four journalists listed see it themselves?
 
2013-01-02 01:25:31 AM

DamnYankees: Has any minority leader ever been made Speaker while Minority leader for the foreseeable future? This seems basically impossible.


The usual reasons for change seem to be a change in party majority, or the departure of the sitting Speaker due to death, retirement, scandal, or leaving the House for the Senate.

However, it looks like Morris Udall at least made an attempt to unseat John William McCormack without even being Minority leader, so there's at least precedent for the attempt; possibly also McKinley's challenge to Thomas Reed. There's also the revolt against Joseph Gurney Cannon, which left him a powerless figurehead. The closest comparison might be the Speakership of William Pennington, who was a compromise candidate during the Civil War; which precedent would suggest that the speaker might be a Democrat to the furthest right of that party.

Note, I'm not claiming Cantor will win. I just think he's nuts enough to try.
 
2013-01-02 01:26:01 AM

Mentat: Yoyo: The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!! With attitudes like yours we'll never get the budget cut, never mind the debt.

Growing, but not strongly.  Keynesian theory says cuts should come when the economy is strong and deficits should be run when the economy is weak.  If we had followed that mantra after the 90's, we wouldn't even have a national debt now.


How strong is strong enough for you? The point at which the economy is strongest is the point right before it goes into recession, and then you'll claim that we can't cut spending during a recession. The problem with Keynes is that he doesn't take human nature into account. Sure, deficit spending during economic blight will lessen the effects, but the problem is that no one ever wants to pay it back during times of excess, e.g. the USA since 1948.

Post WWII was perhaps the greatest economic boom the US has ever seen, yet the federal government willfully decided to stop paying off the war debt, and that was when it would have been easy. If not now then when? If not we then whom? Certainly not congress. They've raised the ironically named "debt ceiling" every time they've been asked, although on the last occasion it was with much kicking and screaming like spoiled children Is 60 years not a long enough experiment to demonstrate that the US government is unable, either not smart enough or not powerful enough, to control the national (and by proxy the global) economy?
 
2013-01-02 01:27:23 AM

eraser8: BlueDWarrior: I'm of the mind that until we stop electing insane nihilists to our government, we will be farked. So... um, anyone have any good recipes for pigeon?

Honestly, I don't understand why pigeons wouldn't be delicious.

I mean, you wouldn't want to eat them raw off the streets of New York City...but, come on: purge them for awhile and roast them while frequently basting them?  They should be pretty boss.


I've had them before at a restaurant, two days after walking around shanghai asking myself, "Why are there no pigeons in this city?"
 
2013-01-02 01:33:10 AM

Kome: Oh god, freeperville is a glorious nest of b*tch-fits and delicious, delicious conservative tears.

I need to get to bed, but reading their comments that are so full of prepubescent angst and rage just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


This may be the final straw that breaks the back of the GOP. Either that, or we get a literal Night of the Long Knives.
 
2013-01-02 01:34:19 AM

Yoyo: How strong is strong enough for you? The point at which the economy is strongest is the point right before it goes into recession, and then you'll claim that we can't cut spending during a recession. The problem with Keynes is that he doesn't take human nature into account. Sure, deficit spending during economic blight will lessen the effects, but the problem is that no one ever wants to pay it back during times of excess, e.g. the USA since 1948.

Post WWII was perhaps the greatest economic boom the US has ever seen, yet the federal government willfully decided to stop paying off the war debt, and that was when it would have been easy. If not now then when? If not we then whom? Certainly not congress. They've raised the ironically named "debt ceiling" every time they've been asked, although on the last occasion it was with much kicking and screaming like spoiled children Is 60 years not a long enough experiment to demonstrate that the US government is unable, either not smart enough or not powerful enough, to control the national (and by proxy the global) economy?


First off, it's like obscenity:  I know it when I see it :)

As for WWII, we actually went into a recession immediately after the war because of the drop in war spending coupled with the transition from war to domestic production coupled to Truman's massive demobilization efforts.  Truman was very fiscally conservative and did his best to work off the debt, so I'm not sure what your point is.  Clinton was paying down the debt during the greatest peacetime economic expansion in American history, so that's a pretty good baseline for me.  if the economy's growing steadily, then gradually reduce spending.  That's exactly what Obama has been doing in fact.  Government has shrunk, the deficit is decreasing at 3% which is the fastest since WWII, so again, I'm not really sure what your point is.
 
2013-01-02 01:37:44 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.

THIS is your concern?


I was trying to come up with a different observation.
And it DID seem like a little bit of a valid point. I mean, the man's back home. He's done his work. He could just pad around in his boxers and ugly bathrobe for the rest of his vacation til the wife and kids get home.
 
2013-01-02 01:38:35 AM
The Defense Budget has doubled since Bush took office. That should be the next bargaining position the Dems take for the budget cut talks and inevitable Debt Ceiling hostage standoff that the House Teahadists are going to pull.
 
2013-01-02 01:39:00 AM
I can't believe they extended unemployment another 99 weeks. That's awesome news for the ne'er-do-wells.
 
2013-01-02 01:39:12 AM

Yoyo: Mentat: Yoyo: The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!! With attitudes like yours we'll never get the budget cut, never mind the debt.

Growing, but not strongly.  Keynesian theory says cuts should come when the economy is strong and deficits should be run when the economy is weak.  If we had followed that mantra after the 90's, we wouldn't even have a national debt now.

How strong is strong enough for you? The point at which the economy is strongest is the point right before it goes into recession, and then you'll claim that we can't cut spending during a recession. The problem with Keynes is that he doesn't take human nature into account. Sure, deficit spending during economic blight will lessen the effects, but the problem is that no one ever wants to pay it back during times of excess, e.g. the USA since 1948.

Post WWII was perhaps the greatest economic boom the US has ever seen, yet the federal government willfully decided to stop paying off the war debt, and that was when it would have been easy. If not now then when? If not we then whom? Certainly not congress. They've raised the ironically named "debt ceiling" every time they've been asked, although on the last occasion it was with much kicking and screaming like spoiled children Is 60 years not a long enough experiment to demonstrate that the US government is unable, either not smart enough or not powerful enough, to control the national (and by proxy the global) economy?


upload.wikimedia.org

whatutalkingboutwillis.info
 
2013-01-02 01:39:55 AM
I love that the President is going back to Hawaii to finish his vacation. "The House approved the bill? Peace-out, biatches. I'll be at the beach."
 
2013-01-02 01:40:58 AM
Well goddamnit. I was hoping they would fark-all rather than reach any kind of agreement and truly show themselves to be the useless slabs of meat they are. As it is, they've managed to dredge up some semblance of care as to what happens to us little folk, I suppose only because there are some tattered shreds of that whole "public service" curtain still in place that they want to hide behind. But no worries. I'm sure the next round will take care of any "inequities" to our continued indebtedness to masters we've never contracted with. Our children are in good hands, they can certainly assure you.
 
2013-01-02 01:41:27 AM

Gyrfalcon: Kome: Oh god, freeperville is a glorious nest of b*tch-fits and delicious, delicious conservative tears.

I need to get to bed, but reading their comments that are so full of prepubescent angst and rage just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

This may be the final straw that breaks the back of the GOP. Either that, or we get a literal Night of the Long Knives.


Can we have a Reichstag Fire and Kristallnacht too? Kristallnacht just has a much more Christmasy sound to it. I'd love to see the Capital building burn down. Plus we could blame it on the Evangelicals and use it as an excuse to deny them suffrage.

/and since literariness is dying in America, yes, this is irony.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:05 AM

fatassbastard: LockeOak: Boehner repeated: "Go f- yourself." Link

Not that I don't believe it could have happened, but what's the authors' source for this? I didn't see one, did I miss something? Did one or more of the four journalists listed see it themselves?


Typically a journalist is considered a valid source for a primary article, but this is Politico we're talking about.
 
2013-01-02 01:46:37 AM

Phoenix_M: I can't believe they extended unemployment another 99 weeks. That's awesome news for the ne'er-do-wells.


That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food.
 
2013-01-02 01:51:06 AM

Mentat: if the economy's growing steadily, then gradually reduce spending.  That's exactly what Obama has been doing in fact.  Government has shrunk, the deficit is decreasing at 3% which is the fastest since WWII, so again, I'm not really sure what your point is.


We don't just need to reduce spending during boom times, we need to start to pay back what we borrowed, i.e. run a surplus, not just borrow less. That's my point, which seems to have been lost on you.

Serious Black: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x991]

[whatutalkingboutwillis.info image 360x270]


Notice how the gross debt remains mostly level while the debt to GDP diminishes approximately linearly with time? This is because the GDP was growing constantly at the time. This was the time that the US government should have paid off the debt entirely! Notice how these graphs don't go back any earlier than 1940? I wonder what the chronic debt was then...?
 
2013-01-02 01:53:38 AM

DamnYankees: Corvus: If you want some good Schadenfreude go over to FreeRepubluc. It's a complete meltdown.

Red State is pretty good too. Headline is THE MCCONNELL TAX HIKE.


The comments on that article are staggering.
 
2013-01-02 01:54:09 AM

Gyrfalcon: Kome: Oh god, freeperville is a glorious nest of b*tch-fits and delicious, delicious conservative tears.

I need to get to bed, but reading their comments that are so full of prepubescent angst and rage just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

This may be the final straw that breaks the back of the GOP. Either that, or we get a literal Night of the Long Knives.


It takes two to make a thing go right

Link
 
2013-01-02 01:59:16 AM

Alphax: Phoenix_M: I can't believe they extended unemployment another 99 weeks. That's awesome news for the ne'er-do-wells.

That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food.


As an unemployed (i.e. only working part time and still eligible for UI payments) veteran, I wholly oppose extension of UI benefits. It's like buying $100k of life insurance, and then after collecting the policy asking for $200k instead. Just like the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, we as a nation are rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if I didn't have the UI payments coming in every week (and I needed money to live) I could find a job really quickly. Furthermore, it's not stimulative, its redistributive or inflationary.

However, since they were extended, I'm going keep riding this gravy train as long as it stays on the rails.

/anyone looking to hire an engineer?
//why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?
 
2013-01-02 01:59:28 AM

eraser8: Brontes: Can one assume that budget cuts will come during the debt ceiling discussion?

Honestly, budget cuts should wait until the economy is growing again.

Cutting the budget right now is a BAD idea.


This. Though the cuts need to happen.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:00 AM

Yoyo: As an unemployed (i.e. only working part time and still eligible for UI payments) veteran, I wholly oppose extension of UI benefits. It's like buying $100k of life insurance, and then after collecting the policy asking for $200k instead. Just like the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, we as a nation are rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if I didn't have the UI payments coming in every week (and I needed money to live) I could find a job really quickly. Furthermore, it's not stimulative, its redistributive or inflationary.


What 'bad behavior' is it rewarding?
 
2013-01-02 02:05:21 AM

Serious Black: Yeah, I don't see them actually proposing cuts to Medicare or Social Security with the debt ceiling either. They know those programs are ridiculously popular, and they know that cutting those programs would hand senior citizens back to the Democrats and result in an almost unstoppable electoral coalition.


The Republicans have to spin this as a win and in doing so acknowledge the Democrats just cut taxes for 98% of Americans, effectively surrounding their tax cut card. They already lost the "We have to stick to stop 0bama" card which was hands down the most effective in the deck for keeping the party together.

They've got nothing to offer anyone outside of an elite doner base so they're just gonna fight amongst themselves and try to get the Democrats to propose their own ideas which they're too cowardly to even stand behind.

I'm really enjoying watching these cowards flail.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:40 AM

NewportBarGuy: shower_in_my_socks: He made this into a power-play for him to take Boehner's job.

For $29k more per year? Wow. He must love money. I think I would pay that much not to have that job for the next year.


Agreed. You get paid more, but you better be damned qualified to be the speaker.
 
2013-01-02 02:08:02 AM

Yoyo: //why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?


I think they already took care of that.
 
2013-01-02 02:10:34 AM

Yoyo: /anyone looking to hire an engineer?
//why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?


What kind of engineer? Degree/diploma qualified professional or tradesman? Aerospace is about to go nuts with the boomer generation retiring, so if you're ex-Airforce of Army/Naval Aviation a half decent job should be no problem.

/"dairy cliff"?
 
2013-01-02 02:10:44 AM

Yoyo: Serious Black: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x991]

[whatutalkingboutwillis.info image 360x270]

Notice how the gross debt remains mostly level while the debt to GDP diminishes approximately linearly with time? This is because the GDP was growing constantly at the time. This was the time that the US government should have paid off the debt entirely! Notice how these graphs don't go back any earlier than 1940? I wonder what the chronic debt was then...?


upload.wikimedia.org

Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.
 
2013-01-02 02:17:35 AM

Alphax: Yoyo: As an unemployed (i.e. only working part time and still eligible for UI payments) veteran, I wholly oppose extension of UI benefits. It's like buying $100k of life insurance, and then after collecting the policy asking for $200k instead. Just like the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, we as a nation are rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if I didn't have the UI payments coming in every week (and I needed money to live) I could find a job really quickly. Furthermore, it's not stimulative, its redistributive or inflationary.

What 'bad behavior' is it rewarding?


Socializing risk while leaving reward private. Why should banks be concerned about the creditworthiness of their loans when the government will just bail them out? Why should auto companies worry about the profitability of their production lines when the government will just bail them out? Why should individuals worry about finding a job or learning new skills when they can keep getting paid for up to almost 2 years, i.e. 4 times longer than normal in the past? CSB: Last time I was on unemployment, I spent a lot of weeks looking for a technical job in my specialty without success, and towards the end I found job in a less technical and lower paying area. That motivated me to go to college, which led to me finding a job in my technical area. And like I said earlier, if I needed money, I could find a job quite quickly or simply do without the income, but why should I bother? It's the prisoner's dilemma.
 
2013-01-02 02:18:12 AM

CorporatePerson: Serious Black: Yeah, I don't see them actually proposing cuts to Medicare or Social Security with the debt ceiling either. They know those programs are ridiculously popular, and they know that cutting those programs would hand senior citizens back to the Democrats and result in an almost unstoppable electoral coalition.

The Republicans have to spin this as a win and in doing so acknowledge the Democrats just cut taxes for 98% of Americans, effectively surrounding their tax cut card. They already lost the "We have to stick to stop 0bama" card which was hands down the most effective in the deck for keeping the party together.

They've got nothing to offer anyone outside of an elite doner base so they're just gonna fight amongst themselves and try to get the Democrats to propose their own ideas which they're too cowardly to even stand behind.

I'm really enjoying watching these cowards flail.


Oh, me too. And it's pretty awesome that Obama just got over 100 Republicans in Congress to approve of the biggest revenue increase in the last 40 years:

dailydish.typepad.com

Grover must be shiatting bricks.
 
2013-01-02 02:22:25 AM

Yoyo: Alphax: Yoyo: As an unemployed (i.e. only working part time and still eligible for UI payments) veteran, I wholly oppose extension of UI benefits. It's like buying $100k of life insurance, and then after collecting the policy asking for $200k instead. Just like the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, we as a nation are rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if I didn't have the UI payments coming in every week (and I needed money to live) I could find a job really quickly. Furthermore, it's not stimulative, its redistributive or inflationary.

What 'bad behavior' is it rewarding?

Socializing risk while leaving reward private. Why should banks be concerned about the creditworthiness of their loans when the government will just bail them out? Why should auto companies worry about the profitability of their production lines when the government will just bail them out? Why should individuals worry about finding a job or learning new skills when they can keep getting paid for up to almost 2 years, i.e. 4 times longer than normal in the past? CSB: Last time I was on unemployment, I spent a lot of weeks looking for a technical job in my specialty without success, and towards the end I found job in a less technical and lower paying area. That motivated me to go to college, which led to me finding a job in my technical area. And like I said earlier, if I needed money, I could find a job quite quickly or simply do without the income, but why should I bother? It's the prisoner's dilemma.


Like I said, what 'bad behavior' is unemployment benefits rewarding?

Getting paid to do nothing? It's not that much. This theory that it's enough to keep people from looking for work is bullshiat.
 
2013-01-02 02:24:38 AM

Yoyo: Can we have a Reichstag Fire and Kristallnacht too?


Didn't you hear? Sandy Hook was Obama's Reichstag Fire
 
2013-01-02 02:31:32 AM

Dave The Slushy: Yoyo: /anyone looking to hire an engineer?
//why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?

What kind of engineer? Degree/diploma qualified professional or tradesman? Aerospace is about to go nuts with the boomer generation retiring, so if you're ex-Airforce of Army/Naval Aviation a half decent job should be no problem.

/"dairy cliff"?


Mechanical engineer by education and construction engineer by experience. As far as aerospace, Boeing is a mess and I don't speak French. I've applied with Virgin, but they want more experience in their industry than their industry is old, which leads me to believe that they're not actually hiring but advertising for employees merely as part of the smoke and mirrors to keep people plunking down hard cash for reservations on space flights that may never take off. I'll take your questions as a "no" then.

Maybe they're only calling the "dairy cliff" in corn country. I've been visiting my Mom in Kansas for Christmas and she likes to watch the local TV news.
 
2013-01-02 02:33:37 AM
Really?

The one thing that every single news organization has been talking about for the last two months, the thing that will determine our economic future and determine whether or not we fall back into a recession, the thing that affects every single one of us no matter what our income level is, doesn't merit a front page link? It deserves to be hidden in the Politics tab with the rest of the petty backbiting that everybody else is sick of?

That's a damn shame. Way to go, modmins. If this isn't front page news I'm afraid to find out what is. I guess a few more Florida stories and some celebrity nonsense will fit the bill, eh? Maybe a few more shots at guns and the Pope? Welcome to the new year, same as the old year.
 
2013-01-02 02:41:57 AM
So... in other words, in two months they'll have to argue about putting off spending cuts two more months?
 
2013-01-02 02:42:14 AM

Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.


Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-02 02:43:31 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: It deserves to be hidden in the Politics tab with the rest of the petty backbiting that everybody else is sick of?


We love you too, Adolf!
 
2013-01-02 02:43:32 AM

Alphax: Like I said, what 'bad behavior' is unemployment benefits rewarding?

Getting paid to do nothing? It's not that much. This theory that it's enough to keep people from looking for work is bullshiat.


I'm getting 20% more than full time minimum wage in my state. It's certainly enough for me to pay my bills, but then I knew I would be out of work for a while after my last job, so I budgeted accordingly when I was working to put money in savings and pay off my debts. And I didn't claim that it kept people from looking for work. I stated that it keeps people actually getting work. Furthermore, it adds inertia to the employment pool and extends the structural component of American unemployment as out of work people take more time before training for a new job outside their current expertise. Look at the duration of unemployment before and after the benefit extension and get back to me on your conclusion.

/I know. I know. Don't feed the trolls.
 
2013-01-02 02:44:31 AM

Corvus: And the freepTards are all saying the will change their party affiliation to independent and vote third party now.

Amusing


I hope they do, as that is the only way the Republicans will be able to free themselves of the Teahadist Cancers.
 
2013-01-02 02:45:21 AM
Why is it always that those who criticize unemployment insurance the most are those who use it the most? It's the same with the ancient, addled tea-baggers railing-on about wanting cuts to Social Security and Medicare while depending on those services for their own survival.

I suspect it has to do with massive self-loathing on some level.
 
2013-01-02 02:45:26 AM

Yoyo: /I know. I know. Don't feed the trolls.


Fine, I won't feed you anymore.
 
2013-01-02 02:48:39 AM
H

Yoyo:

Mechanical engineer by education and construction engineer by experience. As far as aerospace, Boeing is a mess and I don't speak French. I've applied with Virgin, but they want more experience in their industry than their industry is old, which leads me to believe that they're not actually hiring but advertising for employees merely as part of the smoke and mirrors to keep people plunking down hard cash for reservations on space flights that may never take off. I'll take your questions as a "no" then.

Maybe they're only calling the "dairy cliff" in corn country. I've been visiting my Mom in Kansas for Christmas and she likes to watch the local TV news.


Hear you on the experience side of things, unfortunately for the industry there aren't enough people with experience because a lot of the smart people 30-40 went into IT instead of aviation. I got my foot in the door with a low paying job with a lot of responsibility with a small maufacturer, jumped over to the regulator (CAANZ in this part of the world), now over to Air New Zealand's design arm - Altitude. The little bit of experience was worth it, the pay pack has doubled to NZ$100k in 5 years. And it's about to get more insane. Sucks for them, awesome for me.

Airbus also has offices in the UK, and Toulouse is actually worth learning French for.

/Hamburg is a hole though.
 
2013-01-02 02:50:06 AM

Serious Black: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x299]

Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.


The US dollar's position as the world's reserve currency allows the US to export inflation via trade deficits, and repatriation of dollars into US government bonds finances our federal budget deficit. All of these are interrelated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_deficits_hypothesis

"The twin deficits hypothesis, also called the double deficit hypothesis or twin deficits anomaly, is a concept from macroeconomics that contends that there is a strong link between a national economy's current account balance and its government budget balance.

[If] the US budget deficit goes up then either household savings must go up, the trade deficit must go up, or private investment will decrease."
 
2013-01-02 02:57:58 AM

StopLurkListen: "The twin deficits hypothesis, also called the double deficit hypothesis or twin deficits anomaly, is a concept from macroeconomics that contends that there is a strong link between a national economy's current account balance and its government budget balance.

[If] the US budget deficit goes up then either household savings must go up, the trade deficit must go up, or private investment will decrease."


That is...confusing. Is that "must" as in it will go up, or "must" as in we hope one of these goes up?
 
2013-01-02 02:59:34 AM

Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]


Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.
 
2013-01-02 02:59:34 AM
Okay, so Obama's an idiot. Actually that's not entirely accurate: he's governing like we still have a rational, functional government, and we don't.

This kind of compromise and the concessions he made should never have been made for a two-month extension. What will happen now is that the Republicans will claim that they've proven they're willing to compromise with the extension, and then in March will refuse to back down from cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The polls will wander back towards the GOP side because if the American people were God-farking stupid enough to elect them in the first place, they'll swallow bullshiat of that caliber.

And Obama will cave. Again.

And sometime in June, in between breathless reports on the Kardashian pregnancy and stories on how your 79 year-old grandfather better start thinking about being all bootstrappy and looking for a part-time job, you'll also hear a very brief soundbite about how consumer spending is down for the 1500th consecutive month. Gosh, we've been betrayed by Wall Street, who got away scot free after 2008, and abandoned and ignored by our government. I wonder why nobody wants to spend any money?
 
2013-01-02 03:01:28 AM

Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]

Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.


For reference, here's the Clinton-era memo that discussed the ramifications of paying off the federal debt entirely.
 
2013-01-02 03:01:31 AM

Yoyo: Dave The Slushy: Yoyo: /anyone looking to hire an engineer?
//why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?

Maybe they're only calling the "dairy cliff" in corn country. I've been visiting my Mom in Kansas for Christmas and she likes to watch the local TV news.


Also calling it "Dairy Cliff" in New York State but we're what, 3rd in dairy?

And yes, 'twas averted: Link
 
2013-01-02 03:02:15 AM

Bennie Crabtree: StopLurkListen: "The twin deficits hypothesis, also called the double deficit hypothesis or twin deficits anomaly, is a concept from macroeconomics that contends that there is a strong link between a national economy's current account balance and its government budget balance.

[If] the US budget deficit goes up then either household savings must go up, the trade deficit must go up, or private investment will decrease."

That is...confusing. Is that "must" as in it will go up, or "must" as in we hope one of these goes up?


It's economist-speak for "an extremely strong influence".

/if all the world's economists were placed end to end, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion
 
2013-01-02 03:09:31 AM

Yoyo: Mentat: Yoyo: The economy is farking growing!!!! Argh!!!!! With attitudes like yours we'll never get the budget cut, never mind the debt.

Growing, but not strongly.  Keynesian theory says cuts should come when the economy is strong and deficits should be run when the economy is weak.  If we had followed that mantra after the 90's, we wouldn't even have a national debt now.

How strong is strong enough for you? The point at which the economy is strongest is the point right before it goes into recession, and then you'll claim that we can't cut spending during a recession. The problem with Keynes is that he doesn't take human nature into account. Sure, deficit spending during economic blight will lessen the effects, but the problem is that no one ever wants to pay it back during times of excess, e.g. the USA since 1948.

Post WWII was perhaps the greatest economic boom the US has ever seen, yet the federal government willfully decided to stop paying off the war debt, and that was when it would have been easy. If not now then when? If not we then whom? Certainly not congress. They've raised the ironically named "debt ceiling" every time they've been asked, although on the last occasion it was with much kicking and screaming like spoiled children Is 60 years not a long enough experiment to demonstrate that the US government is unable, either not smart enough or not powerful enough, to control the national (and by proxy the global) economy?


When is really the critical question. I would say once unemployment is down to about 6%, then you start in on the cutting/tax increases for the broader base.
 
2013-01-02 03:13:44 AM

LabGrrl: Yoyo: Dave The Slushy: Yoyo: /anyone looking to hire an engineer?
//why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?

Maybe they're only calling the "dairy cliff" in corn country. I've been visiting my Mom in Kansas for Christmas and she likes to watch the local TV news.

Also calling it "Dairy Cliff" in New York State but we're what, 3rd in dairy?

And yes, 'twas averted: Link


DOUBLED to $7/gal? It's our primary export and that's what we pay!

God no wonder you lot are in debt, we stopped subsidising farmers yonks ago.
 
2013-01-02 03:15:58 AM

eraser8: BlueDWarrior: I'm of the mind that until we stop electing insane nihilists to our government, we will be farked. So... um, anyone have any good recipes for pigeon?

Honestly, I don't understand why pigeons wouldn't be delicious.

I mean, you wouldn't want to eat them raw off the streets of New York City...but, come on: purge them for awhile and roast them while frequently basting them?  They should be pretty boss.



In culinary terminology, squab is a young domestic pigeon or its meat. Usually considered a delicacy, squab is tender, moist and richer in taste than many commonly-consumed poultry meats, but there is relatively little meat per bird, the meat being concentrated in the breast. Squab is dark meat, and the skin is fatty, like that of duck. The meat is very lean, easily digestible, and "rich in proteins, minerals, and vitamins". It has been described as having a "silky" texture, as it is very tender and fine-grained. It has a milder taste than other game, and has been described as having a mild berry flavor. Squab's flavor lends itself to complex red or white wines.

Butterflied Squab with Piquillo Pepper Sauce

Ingredients

3 tablespoons canola oil
1 squab, butterflied (backbone, ribs and keel bone removed)
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
1 tablespoon unsalted butter
2 tablespoons olive oil
1 medium carrot, coarsely chopped
1 small stalk celery, coarsely chopped
1/4 large onion, coarsely chopped
2 cloves garlic, chopped
1/4 cup port
1/4 cup red wine
1/2 to 3/4 cup chicken stock
2 tablespoons creme fraiche
1 cup fresh parsley leaves, chopped
2 sprigs fresh thyme, leaves only
1 piquillo pepper, diced

Directions

Heat the canola oil in a large saute pan over medium-high heat. Sprinkle the squab with salt and black pepper and place in the pan, breast-side down. Add the butter and cook the squab until the skin is golden brown. Flip the squab, and continue to cook until medium rare. Transfer to a plate and let rest.

Drain off any excess oil from the pan, and then heat the olive oil over medium-high heat. Cook the carrots, celery and onions until lightly browned. Stir in the garlic and cook 1 minute. Increase the heat to high, and then pour in the port and red wine and cook until reduced by three-quarters, scraping up any brown bits on the bottom of the pan. Add the stock and cook until reduced by half, then stir in the creme fraiche. Strain the sauce into a bowl, and then heat gently in a small saucepan over medium heat. Once bubbling, remove from the heat and add the parsley, thyme and piquillo peppers. Taste and season with salt and freshly ground pepper.
 
2013-01-02 03:26:01 AM

Serious Black: Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]

Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.

For reference, here's the Clinton-era memo that discussed the ramifications of paying off the federal debt entirely.



That's a real hoot.

NATIONAL DEBT = GOOD!

NO NATIONAL DEBT = BAD!


You actually believe that?

Ok then. Lets run the national debt up to $40-50 trillion and spend 95% of the annual federal budget on interest payments. Wall Street has to eat, you know.

We might as well take all the tax dollars Americans pay each year, stack it all up, douse it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Every dollar spent on interest payments has been completely wasted. And you want to increase that waste.
 
2013-01-02 03:37:36 AM
Congratulations on sprinkling a handful of grit on the tracks bearing the relativistic-speeding handcart to hell called "entitlement". Spend that retirement money on Mandarin lessons.
 
2013-01-02 03:48:40 AM

Goodfella: Serious Black: Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]

Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.

For reference, here's the Clinton-era memo that discussed the ramifications of paying off the federal debt entirely.


That's a real hoot.

NATIONAL DEBT = GOOD!

NO NATIONAL DEBT = BAD!


You actually believe that?

Ok then. Lets run the national debt up to $40-50 trillion and spend 95% of the annual federal budget on interest payments. Wall Street has to eat, you know.

We might as well take all the tax dollars Americans pay each year, stack it all up, douse it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Every dollar spent on interest payments has been completely wasted. And you want to increase that waste.



IT'S CALLED "BALANCE" YOU CRAZY CRACKA. THAT's the math you can't handle, that's it's actually something you can model, not just a damn motto.
 
2013-01-02 03:49:47 AM

Yoyo: Notice how the gross debt remains mostly level while the debt to GDP diminishes approximately linearly with time?


Debt-to-GDP ratio is the only important number there. Concern about the dollar value of the debt in and of itself is basically just a result of people discussing macroeconomic issues while still stuck in a household finance mentality.
 
2013-01-02 03:50:22 AM

heap: Adolf Oliver Nipples: It deserves to be hidden in the Politics tab with the rest of the petty backbiting that everybody else is sick of?

We love you too, Adolf!


You know who ELSE loved Adolf?

/that's right: Eva Braun
 
2013-01-02 03:57:44 AM

Goodfella: Serious Black: Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]

Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.

For reference, here's the Clinton-era memo that discussed the ramifications of paying off the federal debt entirely.


That's a real hoot.

NATIONAL DEBT = GOOD!

NO NATIONAL DEBT = BAD!


You actually believe that?

Ok then. Lets run the national debt up to $40-50 trillion and spend 95% of the annual federal budget on interest payments. Wall Street has to eat, you know.

We might as well take all the tax dollars Americans pay each year, stack it all up, douse it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Every dollar spent on interest payments has been completely wasted. And you want to increase that waste.


Or, you know, it could be a parabola where having no national debt is bad, having a metric farkton of national debt is bad, and having a modest amount of national debt is good. But you go ahead with your ridiculously simplistic thinking about the world.
 
2013-01-02 04:08:49 AM
Funny thing is, now, some GOP congresscritters will have to explain to their base why they voted against preventing a middle class tax hike.
 
2013-01-02 04:24:06 AM
Checks in at RedState...

Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute new year gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Erik Ericson, lying douche, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Teabagger Lane with all the other stupid people and I want him brought right here...with a big ribbon on his head! And I want to look him straight in the eye, and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shiat he is!

/Hallelujah, holy shiat, where's the tylenol
//RedState used to be worth reading
 
2013-01-02 04:24:25 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Is that little biatch about to cry again?


It's not nice to call the person, that just suckled all the gravy from your Savior's balls. a biatch.

/Stupid Repubtards.
//AND still no significant spending cuts.
 
2013-01-02 04:26:34 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?


They all have to claim it. It left the chamber they control without being defeated. Pitiful.
 
2013-01-02 04:30:44 AM

doglover: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.

Shut you word hold farkface.

That is unless you can come up with the buckets of posts from the day of yore when you were criticizing Bush for all the flights he took to Texas.


imagemacros.files.wordpress.com

Now, you know, black-knighting your savior isn't going to make him want to split your starfish. Stop it.
 
2013-01-02 04:32:08 AM

Nullav: TFA "Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs," the said. "We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation's long term fiscal problems. Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt."

This is what no one will remember, and half have already probably forgotten. May the next 1-10 terms for these assholes be less derpy and rife with corruption than the last.


Eh, they'll see the butthurt from the TP and the legitimate concerns from the left and say "both sides are mad, so this must be the best deal!"

...And then we'll wonder why the deficit keeps going up.
 
2013-01-02 04:44:04 AM
That's racist, subby. You're a racist.
 
2013-01-02 04:57:51 AM

cretinbob: At least crazy ass liberals just want to smoke pot and hug trees.


Actually, I straight-up humped the oak tree in my backyard after doing a J. But yes, you're correct.
 
2013-01-02 05:40:39 AM

muck4doo: It takes two to make a thing go right


My name is Rob, I got a real funky concept....

coverhound.com

Love that song, BTW!
 
2013-01-02 06:03:22 AM

Mentat: As for WWII, we actually went into a recession immediately after the war because of the drop in war spending coupled with the transition from war to domestic production coupled to Truman's massive demobilization efforts.  Truman was very fiscally conservative and did his best to work off the debt, so I'm not sure what your point is.


Well it was always going to take a year or so after the war to transition back to a normal economy. The progressive fears of the reduction in wartime spending were completely unfounded and the worries that the returning servicemen wouldn't have jobs equally so. Turns out, the whole world needed stuff, we had able bodied men who needed work and factories that could be re-tooled to make anything. What resulted was a standard of living change in the majority of Americans lives which was perhaps only eclipsed by the last 10-15 years or so.....

No, it wasn't due to a 91% tax rate that few people even paid in the first place. Tiger & Rock, simpsons, etc...

Alphax: That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food


No it isn't. In order to give an unemployment check to someone, you have to take the equivalent money out of the economy somewhere else. It is only personally stimulative to the guy getting the check. In the aggregate, it is a wash.
 
2013-01-02 06:35:26 AM

o5iiawah:
No it isn't. In order to give an unemployment check to someone, you have to take the equivalent money out of the economy somewhere else. It is only personally stimulative to the guy getting the check. In the aggregate, it is a wash.


You are a damned fool without even a basic grasp of maths let alone economics. According to your theory there is no difference between all the money in a country sitting in a box and all of it being circulated .Be gone from this place.
 
2013-01-02 07:02:58 AM
Here we go again!

Problem: The government does not have enough revenue to cover expenditures.
Moronic Solution only Government could come up with: Reduce revenues.

i46.tinypic.com
Maybe we can name this revenue reduction scheme the "Obama-Boehner Debt Increase of 2013". It sure seems like the ideological follow-up to the Obama-McConnel Debt Increase of 2010.
 
2013-01-02 07:10:50 AM

Shaggy_C: Here we go again!

Problem: The government does not have enough revenue to cover expenditures.
Moronic Solution only Government could come up with: Reduce revenues.

[i46.tinypic.com image 801x414]
Maybe we can name this revenue reduction scheme the "Obama-BoehnerBiden-McConnell Debt Increase of 2013". It sure seems like the ideological follow-up to the Obama-McConnel Debt Increase of 2010.


FTFY, Shaggy. And while I'm at it, here are some Scooby Snacks:

www.petworldshop.com
 
2013-01-02 07:18:57 AM

o5iiawah: Alphax: That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food

No it isn't. In order to give an unemployment check to someone, you have to take the equivalent money out of the economy somewhere else. It is only personally stimulative to the guy getting the check. In the aggregate, it is a wash.


False. People with a lot of money aren't using it all.
 
2013-01-02 07:37:38 AM

cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?


Its only $4 trillion when compared against fully going off the fiscal cliff. Its revenue positive against a straight continuation of 2012 policies.
 
2013-01-02 07:41:01 AM

Yoyo: Alphax: Phoenix_M: I can't believe they extended unemployment another 99 weeks. That's awesome news for the ne'er-do-wells.

That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food.

As an unemployed (i.e. only working part time and still eligible for UI payments) veteran, I wholly oppose extension of UI benefits. It's like buying $100k of life insurance, and then after collecting the policy asking for $200k instead. Just like the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, we as a nation are rewarding bad behavior. Plus, if I didn't have the UI payments coming in every week (and I needed money to live) I could find a job really quickly. Furthermore, it's not stimulative, its redistributive or inflationary.

However, since they were extended, I'm going keep riding this gravy train as long as it stays on the rails.

/anyone looking to hire an engineer?
//why no news about the "dairy cliff" yet?




Word to the wise, you give a good case up there for less than involved work ethic, and you have your picture on your profile along with your profession. If I was hiring engineers, and reading this thread, I wouldn't offer a lead.

It's unlikely a future employer may stumble across it, but as this is Fark, everyone is only a step or two away from a Farker anyway.
 
2013-01-02 07:43:39 AM
I got a question to the hard core budget cutters:

If we just put Revenues at a flat US$2T and Spending at a flat US$3T, then tell me exactly what US$1T you could cut from next years budget that wouldn't cause us to immediately tail-spin into a new recession like Britian has?
 
2013-01-02 07:46:20 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?


The same ones who'll point out that Obama refusing to deal before January 1st meant that he oversaw the largest tax hike in the history of forever, and that their votes were instrumental in fixing that problem.
 
2013-01-02 07:46:51 AM

Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]

Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.

For reference, here's the Clinton-era memo that discussed the ramifications of paying off the federal debt entirely.


That's a real hoot.

NATIONAL DEBT = GOOD!

NO NATIONAL DEBT = BAD!


You actually believe that?

Ok then. Lets run the national debt up to $40-50 trillion and spend 95% of the annual federal budget on interest payments. Wall Street has to eat, you know.

We might as well take all the tax dollars Americans pay each year, stack it all up, douse it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Every dollar spent on interest payments has been completely wasted. And you want to increase that waste.

Or, you know, it could be a parabola where having no national debt is bad, having a metric farkton of national debt is bad, and having a modest amount of national debt is good. But you go ahead with your ridiculously simplistic thinking about the world.


$14 trillion in debt growing by $1-2 trillion a year is modest?

Even by your own measure of having balance your argument makes no sense.
 
2013-01-02 07:51:40 AM
do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts
 
2013-01-02 07:53:48 AM

cretinbob: dumbobruni: Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?

David Camp

"After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts," said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, "Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent. Republicans and the American people are getting something really important, permanent tax relief."

Link

Yeah, there will be plenty on both sides who try to say they won.

I never liked the idea of the Bush tax cuts, because I knew it would bring us here. They were meant to expire for a reason and need to do so.
That aside, pushing it off another two months won't let them come up with a better solution.

"Paul Ryan voted for it-he is dead to me now. All the "ayes" are to be PURGED in the primaries! "


They talk like the primaries are going to be held next week. A lot can happen in the next few months, let alone the next two years.

I just looked up my congressman, a particularly loathsome Southern Republican.

He voted "NO".

I approve.

But not for the reason he would expect.
 
2013-01-02 07:54:02 AM

SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue?


Not as a percentage of inflation. The Bush tax cuts have pushed tax revenue to near historic lows when pegged to GDP.
 
2013-01-02 07:55:36 AM

BlueDWarrior: I got a question to the hard core budget cutters:

If we just put Revenues at a flat US$2T and Spending at a flat US$3T, then tell me exactly what US$1T you could cut from next years budget that wouldn't cause us to immediately tail-spin into a new recession like Britian has?


I'd cut the more than $1 trillion in socialism spending. Duh.
 
2013-01-02 07:56:11 AM
Good... Now let's talk about gutting the bloated defense budgets.
 
2013-01-02 07:58:26 AM

Goodfella: Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Serious Black: Goodfella: Serious Black: Also, there are some people who think that paying off the federal debt entirely is a bad thing because it would remove an almost certain path to future propsperity.

Of course. People such as financial terrorists Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein who get to continue to bilk the American taxpayers for untold of billions of dollars in unnecessary interest payments on the national debt:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 522x392]

Sure, I'm a sycophant for Wall Street for suggesting some level of borrowing money is actually a good thing.

For reference, here's the Clinton-era memo that discussed the ramifications of paying off the federal debt entirely.


That's a real hoot.

NATIONAL DEBT = GOOD!

NO NATIONAL DEBT = BAD!


You actually believe that?

Ok then. Lets run the national debt up to $40-50 trillion and spend 95% of the annual federal budget on interest payments. Wall Street has to eat, you know.

We might as well take all the tax dollars Americans pay each year, stack it all up, douse it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Every dollar spent on interest payments has been completely wasted. And you want to increase that waste.

Or, you know, it could be a parabola where having no national debt is bad, having a metric farkton of national debt is bad, and having a modest amount of national debt is good. But you go ahead with your ridiculously simplistic thinking about the world.

$14 trillion in debt growing by $1-2 trillion a year is modest?

Even by your own measure of having balance your argument makes no sense.


Where in this entire conversation have I stated my opinion of what we should have done about plunging off the fiscal cliff?
 
2013-01-02 08:00:11 AM
Having everyone lose is just as good as a win. Or something. What the fark was the point of all this?
 
2013-01-02 08:00:28 AM

Alphax: o5iiawah: Alphax: That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food

No it isn't. In order to give an unemployment check to someone, you have to take the equivalent money out of the economy somewhere else. It is only personally stimulative to the guy getting the check. In the aggregate, it is a wash.

False. People with a lot of money aren't using it all.


Please stop feeding this troll.
 
2013-01-02 08:02:15 AM

SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts


This is what idiots actually believe.
 
2013-01-02 08:02:58 AM

Fart_Machine: Alphax: o5iiawah: Alphax: That would be a GOOD thing. No need to make them move their families to under the nearest bridges. It's also stimulative, as they pay rent and buy food

No it isn't. In order to give an unemployment check to someone, you have to take the equivalent money out of the economy somewhere else. It is only personally stimulative to the guy getting the check. In the aggregate, it is a wash.

False. People with a lot of money aren't using it all.

Please stop feeding this troll.


I've had him on Ignore for a long time.. just happened to look at hidden posts, and didn't want anyone to listen to such nonsense.
 
2013-01-02 08:08:46 AM

Serious Black: Biden-McConnell Debt Increase of 2013


Hmm, has a nice ring to it.
 
2013-01-02 08:11:37 AM

SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts


You mean you believe wealthy people have options in how they draw income out of their holdings? You think some of them can afford to draw no taxable income for extended periods of time? Silly man.

Just let them try it, torches and pitchforks is what they'll get. Durp.
 
2013-01-02 08:13:50 AM

Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.
 
2013-01-02 08:16:33 AM

SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.


Unlike the UK (and most other countries), you're still on the hook for US income taxes even if you leave the country. You'd have to renounce your US citizenship and the protection that it gives you before you're no longer on the hook.
 
2013-01-02 08:17:01 AM

RexTalionis: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue?

Not as a percentage of inflation. The Bush tax cuts have pushed tax revenue to near historic lows when pegged to GDP.


How will tax revenue go up when you raise taxes on the rich and they disappear?  Don't tell me you didn't read or remember the article, RexTalionis, you posted six (6) comments in the Fark Thread about it.  (Several in direct response to me in that November 28th Fark thread.)

http://www.fark.com/comments/7456543/UK-I-know-well-tax-rich-50-They ll -just-lie-back-think-of-England-The-rich-My-oh-my-but-isnt-tax-exile-l ovely-this-time-of-year&new=1#new
 
2013-01-02 08:17:03 AM

SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.


Which Galt's Gulch are they going to flee to for a small percentage increase in taxes? Your blog post makes you look even dumber.
 
2013-01-02 08:20:53 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue?

Not as a percentage of inflation. The Bush tax cuts have pushed tax revenue to near historic lows when pegged to GDP.

How will tax revenue go up when you raise taxes on the rich and they disappear?  Don't tell me you didn't read or remember the article, RexTalionis, you posted six (6) comments in the Fark Thread about it.  (Several in direct response to me in that November 28th Fark thread.)

http://www.fark.com/comments/7456543/UK-I-know-well-tax-rich-50-They ll -just-lie-back-think-of-England-The-rich-My-oh-my-but-isnt-tax-exile-l ovely-this-time-of-year&new=1#new


Again, even if you leave the US, you are still on the hook for income taxes. You would literally have to become a stateless citizen by renouncing your citizenship and all the protection and benefit that it entails before you are free of US income taxes. This is unlike the UK and most other countries, where leaving the country without renouncing one's citizenship frees you from income taxes.
 
2013-01-02 08:21:29 AM

RexTalionis: SlothB77: RexTalionis: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue?

Not as a percentage of inflation. The Bush tax cuts have pushed tax revenue to near historic lows when pegged to GDP.

How will tax revenue go up when you raise taxes on the rich and they disappear?  Don't tell me you didn't read or remember the article, RexTalionis, you posted six (6) comments in the Fark Thread about it.  (Several in direct response to me in that November 28th Fark thread.)

http://www.fark.com/comments/7456543/UK-I-know-well-tax-rich-50-They ll -just-lie-back-think-of-England-The-rich-My-oh-my-but-isnt-tax-exile-l ovely-this-time-of-year&new=1#new

Again, even if you leave the US, you are still on the hook for income taxes. You would literally have to become a stateless citizen by renouncing your citizenship and all the protection and benefit that it entails before you are free of US income taxes. This is unlike the UK and most other countries, where leaving the country without renouncing one's citizenship frees you from income taxes.


Income country earned within that country, I mean.
 
2013-01-02 08:22:52 AM

Fart_Machine: SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.

Which Galt's Gulch are they going to flee to for a small percentage increase in taxes? Your blog post makes you look even dumber.


Bolivia, obviously...

I like how a lot of these 'conservatives' are basically arguing for a return to feudalism; although in my darker moments I honestly think feudalism is the natural state of our brain-wiring and we have to actively resist it to get a functioning, representative government (which is why the oligarchs love a lazy populace).
 
2013-01-02 08:24:21 AM

SlothB77: Don't tell me you didn't read or remember the article, RexTalionis, you posted six (6) comments in the Fark Thread about it. (Several in direct response to me in that November 28th Fark thread.)


Yes. Several directed in response to you regarding whether the UK is in recession or not. You claimed there was no recession, whereas I provided evidence that the UK was in a double-dip recession during the period (soon to be triple-dip recession now that the stimulus of Olympics spending in 2012 is over and austerity measures will start again).
 
2013-01-02 08:31:13 AM

RexTalionis: SlothB77: Don't tell me you didn't read or remember the article, RexTalionis, you posted six (6) comments in the Fark Thread about it. (Several in direct response to me in that November 28th Fark thread.)

Yes. Several directed in response to you regarding whether the UK is in recession or not. You claimed there was no recession, whereas I provided evidence that the UK was in a double-dip recession during the period (soon to be triple-dip recession now that the stimulus of Olympics spending in 2012 is over and austerity measures will start again).


But the conservatives and Fark Independents(tm) tell me if you just whip the middle and lower classes hard enough then the confidence fairy will appear and give everyone high 5-figure/6-figure jobs... or something...

Are these people just mild sadists who can't get off without know someone else is suffering?
 
2013-01-02 08:34:49 AM

RexTalionis: SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.

Unlike the UK (and most other countries), you're still on the hook for US income taxes even if you leave the country. You'd have to renounce your US citizenship and the protection that it gives you before you're no longer on the hook.


There are many different ways to disappear.  The rich don't get rich by paying a lot of taxes.  They get and stay rich by finding ways to avoid them.
 
2013-01-02 08:35:57 AM
Man the Dems screwed it to the GOP on this one and then rubbed their noses in it. Holy crap.
 
2013-01-02 08:36:43 AM

12349876: DamnYankees: 12349876: abb3w: DamnYankees: Tonight was a total failure for him.

By my count, three-fifths of the GOP was right along side with Cantor. That's going to make it kind of tricky for Boehner to keep even figurehead leadership. Far from impossible, but I expect a challenge.

Democrats get to vote for speaker too.

They vote for Pelosi.

A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.


Absolute majority(50% + 1), or just the biggest number of votes? If Cantor challenges Boehner and the GOP vote is split, could a united Dem vote for Pelosi win?
 
2013-01-02 08:37:09 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.

Unlike the UK (and most other countries), you're still on the hook for US income taxes even if you leave the country. You'd have to renounce your US citizenship and the protection that it gives you before you're no longer on the hook.

There are many different ways to disappear.  The rich don't get rich by paying a lot of taxes.  They get and stay rich by finding ways to avoid them.


So? Then what's the problem, then, if you acknowledge that they're not going to pay much in taxes anyway? If the rich isn't going to pay that much in taxes in the first place, how would raising taxes lower tax revenue? Wouldn't they just do the same thing they were doing in the first place?
 
2013-01-02 08:38:57 AM
The reigning congressional strategy summarizes in one picture:

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-02 08:44:59 AM
From another article:

In a brief statement, Obama praised congressional leaders for advancing the legislation, which he said would produce $620 billion in new tax revenue.

So you guys are saying that we will actually see every single penny of the $620 billion in new tax revenue?
I don't have to worry about the fact that Congress will spend all of that $620 billion before we find out for sure what the effect of the tax hikes were?

{{bookmarking thread for posterity}}

I hope you guys are here in 2014 when the final tax year 2013 figures come in.  In between sobs for the fiscal mountain our country will be facing then, I will be able to say 'I told you so'.
 
2013-01-02 08:46:57 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.

Unlike the UK (and most other countries), you're still on the hook for US income taxes even if you leave the country. You'd have to renounce your US citizenship and the protection that it gives you before you're no longer on the hook.

There are many different ways to disappear.  The rich don't get rich by paying a lot of taxes.  They get and stay rich by finding ways to avoid them.


So let's stop them from avoiding their taxes. Our tax gap is over $500 billion a year; better and stronger income reporting requrements and a properly funded IRS could recoup at least half of that. Then we can take some of Tom Coburn's suggestions and close many of the loopholes the rich use to evade taxes like the treatment of carried interest (among others of course). That would generate much more revenue than the bill we just passed without having to raise marginal income tax rates.
 
2013-01-02 08:53:32 AM

SlothB77: From another article:

In a brief statement, Obama praised congressional leaders for advancing the legislation, which he said would produce $620 billion in new tax revenue.

So you guys are saying that we will actually see every single penny of the $620 billion in new tax revenue?
I don't have to worry about the fact that Congress will spend all of that $620 billion before we find out for sure what the effect of the tax hikes were?

{{bookmarking thread for posterity}}

I hope you guys are here in 2014 when the final tax year 2013 figures come in.  In between sobs for the fiscal mountain our country will be facing then, I will be able to say 'I told you so'.


Well maybe if we started actually collecting what was actually owed and started modifying what and how much deduction the higher end earners can take, maybe we could sort out some of our revenue issues.

(I'm still waiting for what Trillion+ we are going to cut on a yearly basis to actually get to a balanced year-to-year budged)
 
2013-01-02 08:58:26 AM

eraser8:

Politico is saying that Norquist is giving his okay to the deal.



Who the fark is he? Did you vote for him? I didn't.
 
2013-01-02 09:04:41 AM

BlueDWarrior: Well maybe if we started actually collecting what was actually owed and started modifying what and how much deduction the higher end earners can take, maybe we could sort out some of our revenue issues.


what do you expect from a Treasury headed by a tax cheat?
what do you expect from a tax code that, as of 2010, was 71,684 pages long?

Also, those deductions were passed into law by Congress.  It isn't like the rich are getting away with cheating.  Those are laws on the books.  They are perfectly legal.  The home mortgage interest deduction has been there for 100 years.  It isn't like they are some magic trick the rich just suddenly pulled out of their hat.
 
2013-01-02 09:05:36 AM
Seeing lots of posts here about how the Freepers are jumping off a cliff. Were they hoping the House to turn down the Senate's bill so that they can pay more in taxes? How patriotic of them.
 
2013-01-02 09:12:30 AM

SlothB77: BlueDWarrior: Well maybe if we started actually collecting what was actually owed and started modifying what and how much deduction the higher end earners can take, maybe we could sort out some of our revenue issues.

what do you expect from a Treasury headed by a tax cheat?
what do you expect from a tax code that, as of 2010, was 71,684 pages long?

Also, those deductions were passed into law by Congress.  It isn't like the rich are getting away with cheating.  Those are laws on the books.  They are perfectly legal.  The home mortgage interest deduction has been there for 100 years.  It isn't like they are some magic trick the rich just suddenly pulled out of their hat.


That wasn't my implication. In fact I actually felt there is some merit to looking at some kind of progressive framework to the way deductions are handled. But let's be perfectly honest: a lot of those deductions are there because Republicans hate overt welfare. A lot of poor and middle-class families can only even get within shouting distance of a high standard of living now because of the carve-outs in the tax code.

Again it just sounds like we're having to tell poor and middle-class families "Sorry the rich spent all our money, you all are going to have to learn how to live like the working class in one of the BRIC countries for the next 20 or 30 years (which is not very good honestly)."

Also the sheer size of tax code is a red-herring to me because of the nature of legalese (if you really want that game, the Republican would NEVER touch the tax code in a way that'd bring harm to the corporations that pay them off so very handsomely, so any flattening of the tax code would come out of the hides of those at 100K and under... again)
 
2013-01-02 09:19:14 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Text of the bill, 157 pages.


I wonder how I get the job of "Professional Bill Writer."

Christ, all those bullet points make my head hurt.
 
2013-01-02 09:22:15 AM

star_topology: Dusk-You-n-Me: Text of the bill, 157 pages.

I wonder how I get the job of "Professional Bill Writer."

Christ, all those bullet points make my head hurt.


Lawyers, can't live with em,... um...

how did that go again?
 
2013-01-02 09:37:35 AM
Yet the Obama's themselves are helping to raise the debt, by their lavish vacations. Vacations, that require an army of secret service agents and support equipment, a fleet of airplanes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to operate. They don't care. They don't care at all, they are getting their's while they can. And you and I are paying for it.
 
2013-01-02 09:41:01 AM

Pick: Yet the Obama's themselves are helping to raise the debt, by their lavish vacations. Vacations, that require an army of secret service agents and support equipment, a fleet of airplanes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to operate. They don't care. They don't care at all, they are getting their's while they can. And you and I are paying for it.


Geez, I wonder why
 
2013-01-02 09:43:41 AM

hugram: Pick: Yet the Obama's themselves are helping to raise the debt, by their lavish vacations. Vacations, that require an army of secret service agents and support equipment, a fleet of airplanes that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour to operate. They don't care. They don't care at all, they are getting their's while they can. And you and I are paying for it.

Geez, I wonder why


Clearly Obama should just hire his own private security firm (that'd be 3x as expensive as the Secret Service, at least)

// Cash Rules Everything Around Me
/// Somebody gotta get paid
 
2013-01-02 10:10:12 AM

Nullav: TFA "Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs," the said. "We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation's long term fiscal problems. Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt."

This is what no one will remember, and half have already probably forgotten. May the next 1-10 terms for these assholes be less derpy and rife with corruption than the last.


It's the same mentality as Starving the Beast. "If we take away all your revenue, you will be forced to stop spending so much!" No. We will just go broke faster. Likewise "If we make it really politically dangerous to avoid having this discussion then we will DEFINITELY have the discussion!" No. You will just piss down each others shorts in the 11th hour and try and explain that it's not your fault that it smells like pee.
 
2013-01-02 10:13:03 AM

SlothB77: RexTalionis: SlothB77: Fart_Machine: SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts

This is what idiots actually believe.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100191962/britains-mi ll ionaire-exodus-is-a-wake-up-call-to-barack-obamas-high-tax-america/

I thought you liberals were supposed to be smart.

Unlike the UK (and most other countries), you're still on the hook for US income taxes even if you leave the country. You'd have to renounce your US citizenship and the protection that it gives you before you're no longer on the hook.

There are many different ways to disappear.  The rich don't get rich by paying a lot of taxes.  They get and stay rich by finding ways to avoid them.


I guess we'll see, now won't we? Keep an eye on em folks, those people making 400k in income will be moving out ANY DAY NOW.
 
2013-01-02 10:15:31 AM
Meanwhile, at the NYSE:
DJIA: 13357.65; +253.51; (1.93%)

I'm sure that will come to a screeching halt when people making over 400k/year realize their income taxes are going up.
 
2013-01-02 10:22:26 AM

Yoyo: Alphax: Like I said, what 'bad behavior' is unemployment benefits rewarding?

Getting paid to do nothing? It's not that much. This theory that it's enough to keep people from looking for work is bullshiat.

I'm getting 20% more than full time minimum wage in my state. It's certainly enough for me to pay my bills,


Shocking as this seems - not everyone is you.
 
2013-01-02 10:55:36 AM

Tumunga: Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?

They all have to claim it. It left the chamber they control without being defeated. Pitiful.


Cry moar Republitard.
 
2013-01-02 10:57:37 AM

SlothB77: do people realize that raising taxes on the rich will lower tax revenue? the millionaires will disappear. what we will end up with is new spending, lower revenue and no cuts


Yes lets listen to the guy who is wrong about everything.

Your philosophy has been proven wrong time and time again, yet you still make predictions.

STFU.

President Romney laughs at you.
 
2013-01-02 11:08:34 AM
stash.reaper.fm

"What's all this fuss about the fecal cliff?"
 
2013-01-02 11:38:35 AM

Yoyo: We don't just need to reduce spending during boom times, we need to start to pay back what we borrowed, i.e. run a surplus, not just borrow less. That's my point, which seems to have been lost on you.


And here's the point lost on you:  The deficit is decreasing at 3% which is the fastest rate since WWII.  If we try to run a surplus from a trillion dollar deficit by enacting massive spending cuts, it will put the country back into a recession which will cause revenues to drop which will add to the deficit.  And we were running a surplus in the 90's which, if we had stuck with that, might have paid off much if not all of the debt by 2012 (barring factors such as 9/11 and Afghanistan and the housing bubble).
 
2013-01-02 11:53:23 AM
It kind of makes me wonder what President Obama may have accomplished with his presidency if he didnt have to stop and wipe Republican A$$ every couple of months...
 
2013-01-02 12:50:11 PM
 
2013-01-02 01:48:46 PM
It's pretty awesome that they defeated the make believe monster they created. All hail our exalted leaders!
 
2013-01-02 02:53:39 PM

Yoyo: Socializing risk while leaving reward private. Why should banks be concerned about the creditworthiness of their loans when the government will just bail them out?


You've got this completely wrong. They are not socializing the risk on each loan.

I'm Citibank. I go out and make some huge bet in the form of loans to a particular sector. They do well, I make $50 billion profit. They lose, I drop $50 billion in losses. That loss is a loss, regardless of whether there is a bailout - I don't pass those losses along in a bailout.

Let's say the losses are enough to imperil my firm. I get a bailout. Either I take a loan, which I have to pay back, or I give the government equity, so I just traded a piece of my firm (probably when its at its cheapest stock price) to get the money to stay afloat.

At no time did the government absorb that loss for me. The risk reward was entirely mine.


Why should auto companies worry about the profitability of their production lines when the government will just bail them out?

See above, same reason.

Why should individuals worry about finding a job or learning new skills when they can keep getting paid for up to almost 2 years, i.e. 4 times longer than normal in the past?

Because unemployment pays a fraction of what their job actually paid - last time I collected it, I think it was about a quarter of my usual pay. And the gap in employment affects future earnings.

It's the prisoner's dilemma.

Lolwut? That phrase does not mean what you think it means.
 
2013-01-02 03:11:00 PM

NateGrey: Tumunga: Debeo Summa Credo: cretinbob: Two more months of rope and adding almost $4 trillion to the debt isn't much of a victory, is it Republitards?

Which "republitards" are claiming victory?

They all have to claim it. It left the chamber they control without being defeated. Pitiful.

Cry moar Republitard.


Nobody crying here, Libtard. I'm just waiting until your libtard ass finally gets turned away from the teet due to the honey hole running dry.

I guess there's always Obama's pus oozing 'roid you can gnaw on, if you can get your mother off of it for a few seconds.
 
2013-01-02 03:13:31 PM

eraser8: 12349876: A speaker has to get the majority of the ENTIRE HOUSE to get elected, not just a majority of the party members.

Yeah.  But, traditionally, every Republican votes for the Republican candidate and every Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate.


Because the Pirate King is elected by popular vote...
and each pirate only votes for himself.
 
2013-01-03 11:31:16 PM

MisterRonbo: You've got this completely wrong. They are not socializing the risk on each loan.

I'm Citibank. I go out and make some huge bet in the form of loans to a particular sector. They do well, I make $50 billion profit. They lose, I drop $50 billion in losses. That loss is a loss, regardless of whether there is a bailout - I don't pass those losses along in a bailout.


I agree with you that the government is not socializing the risk on each loan. The government is socializing the risk on all the loans. The government is socializing the risk on a systemic pattern of making risky loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.

If Citi (in your example) was not totally dysfunctional then they would not have needed to be bailed out by the government. Other investors would have taken that opportunity, either before or after the reorganization that was otherwise inevitable. As long as Uncle Sam is standing by after the fact to prop up any company after actions that would otherwise result in bankruptcy, those same companies will take risks that they would not otherwise and there would be no feedback signal to other companies taking similar risky courses.
 
2013-01-03 11:52:26 PM

Yoyo:
If Citi (in your example) was not totally dysfunctional then they would not have needed to be bailed out by the government. Other investors would have taken that opportunity, either before or after the reorganization that was otherwise inevitable. As long as Uncle Sam is standing by after the fact to prop up any company after actions that would otherwise result in bankruptcy, those same companies will take risks that they would not otherwise and there would be no feedback signal to other companies taking similar risky courses.


Again, how is the loss being passed to taxpayers? The bank gets a loan (okay, at around very low interest, there's a small subsidy there), or they give up equity in exchange for a capital injection.

Yes, there is a moral hazard: you can bet the bank and know you won't go out of business.

But how - exactly - is government paying for the losses on the loans. It's not. Look at the structure of the bailouts, loans or equity, the government is not paying off the losses.

Are you not grasping this? Or are you just unwilling to admit your central point here is flat-out wrong? If you're going to tell me the losses - not the risk, the losses - are socialized, tell me how taxpayers ended up PAYING for the losses.

Difficulty: Look at the losses from the housing meltdown, look at the cost of TARP (net cost ended up around, what, $27 billion?). The dollars to cover those losses don't exist in the net bailout cost.
 
2013-01-04 12:10:18 PM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm not wild about the idea of the president flying all the way back to Hawaii to gain a few extra days of missed vacation.
Seems like a lot of Air Force One money to spend just to make a point.



The plane likely would have had to go back anyway to pick up the other Obamas. So POTUS going back with it doesn't use any more gas. Use common sense.
 
Displayed 313 of 313 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report