The Fiscal cliff

[naplesE30]

Not a fan of attaching amendments to bills either but MM also offered a stand alone vote on the fiscal proposal.

This proposal has about as much support as BO's 2011 budget proposal.

One two three jump.

[mrsleeve]

no one wants to go on record 1st


All though (I cant believe I am gong to say this) I agree with Harry, that it should be brought up on its own merits and not attached as and amendment to something else that has little to do with it.

We all hate it when they ram shit though under the cover of something totally unrelated because its the only way they can get something to pass. This really would be no different

[naplesE30]

Interesting that the senate wont even vote on Obamas plan, when repubs call for it.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/2712...reduction-plan

[rwh11385]

Well, if you don't like what your leadership is doing, apparently you should just quit and then start writing opinion pieces about why everyone else is dumb:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501404578161613763222762.html

DeMint’s decision, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was a surprise. The South Carolinian coasted to a second term in 2010, and while he had said he didn’t intend to stand for re-election again, his abrupt retirement sent shock waves around Capitol Hill and stripped the Senate of one of its most powerful Tea Party members. DeMint quickly emerged as a general in the conservative insurgency that rose up during Barack Obama’s first term. He became a hero to anti-tax conservatives, crusading against earmarks, helping to foment the Tea Party rebellion and bucking Republican leaders who wavered from the party’s small-government principles.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/06...#ixzz2EJJ4DTwn

He became the Senate’s conservative scourge, prompting many Republicans to warn that his hard-right ideology and uncompromising approach could alienate many voters and consign the party to perpetual minority status. DeMint was undeterred by such criticisms.”I’m blasting rock, and it’s hard to be graceful,” he told TIME in 2010.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/12/06...#ixzz2EJJNva00

This is amazing.

[CorvallisBMW]

So what are the chances of a "Carbon Tax" Alla cap and trade being slipped into a deal end this over the edge nonsense???

Conservative author David Frum on a Carbon Tax:

http://us.cnn.com/2012/12/03/opinion/frum-tax-energy/index.html

[Q5Quint]

http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/

noooooooooooOOOOoooo

[mrsleeve]

So what are the chances of a "Carbon Tax" Alla cap and trade being slipped into a deal end this over the edge nonsense???

[rwh11385]

;)

No, I totally get the frustration with it. The question I ask myself when dealing with people like that are "Am I doing this to help them or simply to point out how ignorant they are being?" If it's the latter, I just let it go.

I however appreciate the discussion when it's a discussion. I've been lurking more than anything else. Education is grand ;)

Yeah, I don't think that gwb or josh will ever stop being the way they are, but the forum shouldn't be held hostage by them either. Even though the trolls ought to be ignored, it doesn't mean that facts shouldn't be discussed and the rest of us can't have a meaningful conversation. The challenge is having it over the noise of their distraction.

[ck_taft325is]

Ah, that makes more sense. The reference to two sides of an argument is what I've always heard with that analogy instead of talking about two elements of a single one.

;)

No, I totally get the frustration with it. The question I ask myself when dealing with people like that are "Am I doing this to help them or simply to point out how ignorant they are being?" If it's the latter, I just let it go.

I however appreciate the discussion when it's a discussion. I've been lurking more than anything else. Education is grand ;)

[rwh11385]

I think the "coin" he was talking about is a conversational coin that has information on one side and delivery on the other...he didn't seem to be referring to two sides of a political spectrum coin.

Ah, that makes more sense. The reference to two sides of an argument is what I've always heard with that analogy instead of talking about two elements of a single one.

[smooth]

lol - I guess if that's the consequence of refuting someone's BS I can live with it. I'm not trying to represent one side of the coin, I'm trying to discuss the issue based on the truth and reality, not made up crap rhetoric the sheep are expected to repeat.

I think the "coin" he was talking about is a conversational coin that has information on one side and delivery on the other...he didn't seem to be referring to two sides of a political spectrum coin.

[rwh11385]

lol - I guess if that's the consequence of refuting someone's BS I can live with it. I'm not trying to represent one side of the coin, I'm trying to discuss the issue based on the truth and reality, not made up crap rhetoric the sheep are expected to repeat. All gwb knows how to do is go baaaah baaah.

If he actually used facts and reason to base his arguments, I'd probably agree with him. (Assuming that calling out the GOP's stupidity and TeaBagging means I lean the other way is an ignorant assumption) All he needs to do is read NCPA to actually back himself up with intelligent points, instead of repeating whatever Drudge Report says.

Instead of bringing to the table a valid argument, he responds to Corvallis with a strawman attack - attempting to tell Corvallis what his argument is. And including references to Obama being the one to be the reason behind the country being committed to deficits, even if he doesn't apparently admit it later (or maybe he forgot?).

He could have talked about the sliding economic freedom of the US. (And the attraction of business to low-tax Singapore) Or the issues faced by countries when they drive up taxes on the wealthy. (Even if the expiration of the Bush tax cuts isn't exactly eat the rich in itself...) But the class warfare mentality of Obama is flawed, just like the OMG YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE US SOCIALIST argument from the right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578148820012847656.html

A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don't stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before.

That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010.

The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%.

Prime Minister David Cameron decided earlier this year to lower the 50% rate to 45%, meaning we may see at least some of the millionaires return to the U.K. But the figures are another reminder that incentives matter.

Politicians would love to lay the whole burden of their policies on a tiny minority of the rich, but you can't finance the welfare state on the shoulders of the 1%. That's something for the U.S. to remember as President Obama pretends he can fill a $1 trillion budget hole with tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwo...-is-universal/
Brits, Yanks And French Show Fleeing High Taxes Is Universal

We'd be a whole lot better off if the country learned to intelligently base its opinions on facts, not what pundits want them to think.

[ck_taft325is]

The bottom line is that the Republicans are literally sowing the seeds of their own defeat with this entire debacle. Even a majority of members of their own party support a "balanced" budget approach that includes letting tax rates on the top 2% go back up to 2000 levels, plus spending cuts (a larger amount of the latter than the former): http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/De...Tax-Hikes.aspx


So why on earth are Boehner and his allies in congress arguing for the opposite? Do they not care about what their own constituents want and say?

Think about it: Most Republicans in Congress signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge saying they will oppose any and all increases in revenue (taxes). Yet if they continue down their current path, they'll end up raising taxes on 100% of Americans beginning Jan. 1. Why not raise taxes on just 2% of them? Wouldn't that be more in-line with the very tax pledge they signed? And since taxes are going to go up on the 2% anyway on the first of the year, why fuck over all of America at the same time? Are they really so stupid as to say "Well if the rich have to pay more, then you ALL have to pay more! Let's see how you like that!"

It's called Zealotry. It's on both sides of the aisle and negatively effects everyone.

Much like the shit flinging a lot of people here have done ;)

GWB, where are your answers? You do a lot of martyr'ing but not a lot of answering.

Heeter, you realize you do come off like a prick? Right? I mean, I get what you're saying and appreciate the education but that's one side of the coin when trying to talk/educate/debate with a person(s).

Corvallis, TJT, etc... stop letting Heeter do all your heavy lifting.

Now me personally? I think the conflict resides in economics being stuffed into a bag of philosophy and massive knuckle headedness. That's my take on a lot of it. Less crying from the Administration about how bum a deal they got when they got the office they wanted (ironic) and waaay less white Knighting to the point of extremist zeal when it comes to a philosophical stand point.

[CorvallisBMW]

The bottom line is that the Republicans are literally sowing the seeds of their own defeat with this entire debacle. Even a majority of members of their own party support a "balanced" budget approach that includes letting tax rates on the top 2% go back up to 2000 levels, plus spending cuts (a larger amount of the latter than the former): http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/De...Tax-Hikes.aspx

According to a CBS News Poll released Monday, 66 percent of Americans say an agreement to raise the amount of money the nation can borrow should include both spending cuts and tax increases.

More than half of Republicans say the agreement should be balanced and roughly seven out of ten Democrats and independents say the same.

So why on earth are Boehner and his allies in congress arguing for the opposite? Do they not care about what their own constituents want and say?

Think about it: Most Republicans in Congress signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge saying they will oppose any and all increases in revenue (taxes). Yet if they continue down their current path, they'll end up raising taxes on 100% of Americans beginning Jan. 1. Why not raise taxes on just 2% of them? Wouldn't that be more in-line with the very tax pledge they signed? And since taxes are going to go up on the 2% anyway on the first of the year, why fuck over all of America at the same time? Are they really so stupid as to say "Well if the rich have to pay more, then you ALL have to pay more! Let's see how you like that!"

[CorvallisBMW]

so i'll assume corvallis that you want the marginal rate to go up on "millionaires" to help pay for the messiah's spending

please show us all how it does anything to lower the deficit spending this fool is commited to.

Apparently I need to break it down for you:

More $ coming in = less need to borrow = less deficit spending

See? Not exactly rocket science buddy...