PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Boehner Extends Olive Branch on 'Fiscal Cliff'


Donger
11-07-2012, 03:34 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49731550

House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.

"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.

The Ohio Republican spoke a day after the president's clear re-election victory. He said conditions on higher taxes would include a revamped tax code to make it cleaner and fairer, fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.

The speaker noted that during one-on-one budget talks with the president in the summer of 2011, Obama had "endorsed the idea of tax reform and lower rates, including a top rate of lower than 35 percent," the present top rate.

"We're closer than we think to the critical mass needed legislatively to get tax reform done," he said.

Boehner did not specify what loopholes House Republicans might consider trimming. Nor did he take questions.

His comments were generally along the lines of proposals by vanquished Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that also were vague on specifics.

Still, the speaker's comments signaled a willingness to enter into talks. He suggested Congress could use its upcoming lame-duck session to get the ball moving on such a compromise.

"We can't solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight...This is going to take time," he said.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 03:39 PM
Now that the right has been slapped down he has no choice but to try to work with the left. I have zero hope that things can be turned around but both parties put their toe on the line and the right was soundly defeated. I hope they try to get something fucking done. Two parties and no choice~

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 03:43 PM
Good to see.

This needs to be a sea change in how our politics work.

DaFace
11-07-2012, 03:44 PM
Skeptical, but optimistic. Hopefully the 2nd term will be a little less pissy than the first, but that's on Obama as much as anyone.

Donger
11-07-2012, 03:45 PM
Skeptical, but optimistic. Hopefully the 2nd term will be a little less pissy than the first, but that's on Obama as much as anyone.

Indeed. At least Obama doesn't have Rahm around any longer.

kaplin42
11-07-2012, 03:50 PM
Skeptical, but optimistic. Hopefully the 2nd term will be a little less pissy than the first, but that's on Obama as much as anyone.

And with no chance of being elected again, he can actually work instead of trying not to fuck up so bad that he ruins his re-election chances.

But I totally agree that both sides need to come to the middle and make something happen that is going to fix our financial situation. But sides are going to have give in to compromise.

jiveturkey
11-07-2012, 03:52 PM
This is a good sign.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 03:52 PM
Now that the right has been slapped down he has no choice but to try to work with the left. I have zero hope that things can be turned around but both parties put their toe on the line and the right was soundly defeated. I hope they try to get something ****ing done. Two parties and no choice~

Boehner is a traitor who has made back door deals with the WH. He's a big govt republican.

kaplin42
11-07-2012, 04:05 PM
Boehner is a traitor who has made back door deals with the WH. He's a big govt republican.

LOL. Please tell me you are just trolling.

If not, this is everything that is wrong with the GOP. Someone actually tries to reach across the aisle and get something done for the good of the country, and because it doesn't align with the agenda of "fuck that nigger" it means he's a traitor.

This is how fail the Pubs have become.

ChiefsandO'sfan
11-07-2012, 04:06 PM
Will Obama meet him half way is the Question.

mnchiefsguy
11-07-2012, 04:15 PM
Good to see.

This needs to be a sea change in how our politics work.

Obama is going to have to change and meet the R's in the middle for this to work.

He cannot walk in and demand what he wants and simply say "I won."

Mr. Flopnuts
11-07-2012, 04:17 PM
I've been very impressed with every politician I've heard from in the last 16 hours or so. I hope their follow through as half as good as their delivery. I'm not counting on it however.

La literatura
11-07-2012, 04:22 PM
Will Obama meet him half way is the Question.

Obama is going to have to change and meet the R's in the middle for this to work.

He cannot walk in and demand what he wants and simply say "I won."

Both have to meet in the middle. It almost happened summer 2011. This time, a deal needs to happen, and both sides coming away saying the other side flinched will be completely unacceptable.

alnorth
11-07-2012, 04:38 PM
Boehner is a traitor who has made back door deals with the WH. He's a big govt republican.

Boehner's really got no choice. If they don't work out a deal, the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama's not running for re-election, and the dems will probably point to some middle-class tax cut that the house rejected when they run in 2014.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 04:38 PM
LOL. Please tell me you are just trolling.
Whatsomatta, you can't tolerate a different opinion than yours? You must be a liberal or progressive then.

If not, this is everything that is wrong with the GOP.

In your opinion.

Someone actually tries to reach across the aisle and get something done for the good of the country, and because it doesn't align with the agenda of "**** that ****er" it means he's a traitor.

That can also apply to Obama reaching across the aisle as well. You just want the reach to be one way— Obama's way. That's called One Party Rule which is never good. As for the good of the country, that's your opinion too. What you think is good may not be what I think is good. What is good or bad is a matter of opinion—not fact. I say spending needs to be cut. Obama's feet should be held to the fire on that. I'd say that even if Mitt won.

This is how fail the Pubs have become.

In your opinion. If that were true, the Pubs would not have held the House and they did. That's where all spending bills must originate. That's also the People's House. The Presidential branch is not the People's House. That's per the Constitution.

Remember what Madison said about the House in Federalist Paper 58. I posted it earlier:

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788

My guess is, you'd probably call James Madison, who wrote that a "troll" too.

alnorth
11-07-2012, 04:39 PM
Obama is going to have to change and meet the R's in the middle for this to work.

He cannot walk in and demand what he wants and simply say "I won."

Obama met them past the middle during the budget negotiations. The republicans responded by saying, essentially "no, we demand your complete and unconditional surrender, give us everything we want".

Swanman
11-07-2012, 04:41 PM
Indeed. At least Obama doesn't have Rahm around any longer.

I think Rahm was a big problem in the first couple of years of Obama's first term. From what I read, Rahm basically advised him that since the Dems had Congress, he didn't need to reach across the aisle. Terrible advice that bit him square in the ass in the second 2 years. Now is a potential fresh start to leave all that bullshit behind.

htismaqe
11-07-2012, 04:42 PM
Both have to meet in the middle. It almost happened summer 2011. This time, a deal needs to happen, and both sides coming away saying the other side flinched will be completely unacceptable.

It almost happened in summer 2011 but there was an election coming closely behind.

That fact that they're doing it now, directly after the election, gives me hope that they'll actually get it done this time.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 04:42 PM
Boehner's really got no choice. If they don't work out a deal, the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama's not running for re-election, and the dems will probably point to some middle-class tax cut that the house rejected when they run in 2014.
I disagree. I think both sides need to make some compromise —not just one. Why does the middle-class need a tax cut anyway? I say cut spending first. Then taxes can be discussed after that. Spending NEVER makes it to the cutting board —EV'R. That's what needs to change. Not just the tax side.

The fact still is, Boehner has made back door deals with Obama. He's a big spending big govt Republican.

La literatura
11-07-2012, 04:42 PM
It almost happened in summer 2011 but there was an election coming closely behind.

That fact that they're doing it now, directly after the election, gives me hope that they'll actually get it done this time.

They have no choice. There are only 53 days to act.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 04:46 PM
I am just sick and tired of seeing Democrats and some left-leaning Independents say the House Rs must now "work with the President" because he won the election. They don't have to do anything. They can demand Obama cooperate too, since they are in charge of spending. Such people have little respect for the Constitution.

Donger
11-07-2012, 04:47 PM
I think Rahm was a big problem in the first couple of years of Obama's first term. From what I read, Rahm basically advised him that since the Dems had Congress, he didn't need to reach across the aisle. Terrible advice that bit him square in the ass in the second 2 years. Now is a potential fresh start to leave all that bullshit behind.

The actual quote was: "Fuck 'em. We've got the votes."

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 04:48 PM
Obama met them past the middle during the budget negotiations. The republicans responded by saying, essentially "no, we demand your complete and unconditional surrender, give us everything we want".

They were elected as a check and balance. That's the way it's suppose to work.

And by the way, the out of control spending by govts is worldwide. It's no wonder the global economy is a mess in most places.

Brock
11-07-2012, 04:48 PM
Why does the middle-class need a tax cut anyway?

You'll find out when the middle class does their taxes next year and find that they have to pay thousands instead of getting a refund. They don't have it to pay.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 04:50 PM
You'll find out when the middle class does their taxes next year and find that they have to pay thousands instead of getting a refund. They don't have it to pay.

So, like I said cut spending first then give a tax cut. You never save more than you spend. That's a natural law.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 04:51 PM
I agree with alnorth, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire and the R's have to show some kind of face that they are willing to "work for the better of the country". I don't care, as long as they start talking and acting, this pissing match has gone on too long.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 04:57 PM
I agree with alnorth, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire and the R's have to show some kind of face that they are willing to "work for the better of the country". I don't care, as long as they start talking and acting, this pissing match has gone on too long.

Yeah, except you like some others only blame one side. You want it your way too.
Let me tell you, Obama winning does not mean the People's House has to do squat first. They control the purse not the WH. It's Obama's move.

Donger
11-07-2012, 04:59 PM
I agree with alnorth, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire and the R's have to show some kind of face that they are willing to "work for the better of the country". I don't care, as long as they start talking and acting, this pissing match has gone on too long.

Not a thing from Obama, eh?

greg63
11-07-2012, 05:00 PM
I feel sooooo much better. :rolleyes:

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:01 PM
Not a thing from Obama, eh?

I didn't say anything about it one way or another on this thread, but yes, I do think Obama needs to stroll to the middle as well, I just don't think its quite as long of a walk as the other side has to make.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:01 PM
Not a thing from Obama, eh?

It's their way of framing the whole issue to set up the Republicans. The way Obama has all along. They just want their way too.
They did not win the House. They need to get over it. We have divided govt.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:03 PM
I didn't say anything about it one way or another on this thread, but yes, I do think Obama needs to stroll to the middle as well, I just don't think its quite as long of a walk as the other side has to make.

And there you have it.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:03 PM
And there you have it.

Indeed, there it is.

Donger
11-07-2012, 05:05 PM
I didn't say anything about it one way or another on this thread, but yes, I do think Obama needs to stroll to the middle as well, I just don't think its quite as long of a walk as the other side has to make.

Okay, thanks. I wouldn't agree with your assessment on the length of the walk, however.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:06 PM
Look, the answer to most of our problems resides more with congress—not the president.
People don't know their own form of govt anymore. So the main attention gets put on the presidential race.
Unfortunately, it was never intended to be that way. Presidents aren't supposed to craft legislation. Wilson usurped that. Now it's expected.
Nor was partisanship considered a bad thing. It flushes out bad legislation.

The Democrats did NOT win the House which holds the power of the purse. So Obama, based on his enumerated powers set in the Constitution is the one who needs to walk across first.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:11 PM
Okay, thanks. I wouldn't agree with your assessment on the length of the walk, however.

That's understandable because I'm sure we see the prolonged stalemate in different terms as well. Who's walk actually ends up being longer, once again, I don't really care, I just want to see some action, the last two years, from POV have been very childish from the Reb. side. No doubt, you think the President is responsible for being a bully. Who gives a shit, just do something.

HemiEd
11-07-2012, 05:13 PM
Indeed. At least Obama doesn't have Rahm around any longer.

Yeah, he is Chicago's problem now and he makes the local nightly news around here unwatchable.

I am calling it now, he will be a 2016 Democratic candidate for President. Maybe even Jesse Jackson Jr. You just can't have enough of the Chicago politicians.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Here's another thing, the Democrats did not work with the Republicans when they passed healthcare by shoving it down this country's throat, despite the "good of the country" once they controlled congress. Despite it being very unpopular too. Not only that they passed it without reading it. Pelosi said we had to pass it first to find out what's in it. That's not good for the country either. They lost their seats for that too.

So all of you saying the Rs must now compromise first, are projecting what you have done on the Rs.
Spare us your high and mighty for the "good of the country." That healthcare bill would have benefitted from partisan debate to flush out the worst parts.

What a bunch of phoneys. You just want your way too.

Donger
11-07-2012, 05:14 PM
That's understandable because I'm sure we see the prolonged stalemate in different terms as well. Who's walk actually ends up being longer, once again, I don't really care, I just want to see some action, the last two years, from POV have been very childish from the Reb. side. No doubt, you think the President is responsible for being a bully. Who gives a shit, just do something.

Well, considering that a deal was at hand and Obama then pressed for more, yeah, Obama was a bully. This could have been solved but Obama fucked it up.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Now that the right has been slapped down he has no choice but to try to work with the left. I have zero hope that things can be turned around but both parties put their toe on the line and the right was soundly defeated. I hope they try to get something fucking done. Two parties and no choice~

And the left wonders why the right has no interest in working with them. Soundly defeated? Kiss my ass, you guys won by the skin of your ass and only because idiots like Mordouck and Akin couldn't stop saying 'rape' every time they spoke.

The right should still tell the left to !@#$ itself after the stunts you guys pulled from 2008-2010. The President has no choice but to work with the Right at this point either, but leave it to the standard screaming O-bots to claim some kind of national mandate.

I hope Boehner and the rest of them waste another 2 years of this guy's term. It's the only chance we have at actually recovering. Hell, it's not like he's going to so much as propose a budget anyway.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:16 PM
Look, the answer to most of our problems resides more with congress—not the president.
People don't know their own form of govt anymore. So the main attention gets put on the presidential race.
Unfortunately, it was never intended to be that way. Presidents aren't supposed to craft legislation. Wilson usurped that. Now it's expected.
Nor was partisanship considered a bad thing. It flushes out bad legislation.

The Democrats did NOT win the House which holds the power of the purse. So Obama, based on his enumerated powers set in the Constitution is the one who needs to walk across first.

That's rich. The criticism during the campaign has been "Obama shows no leadership", but once they lose and say, "OK, lead" and now the President isn't a factor.

The problem with your points is that they are stuck in a strict constuctionist view that refuses to acknowledge changes have been made since the late 1700s. Maybe you think that's a crime, so be it. Politics aren't played on strict constructionist view, they're played out on whether they think the public will blame them or congratulate them, and if it is blame, they're going to look for someone to pass it on to.

It has little to do with how much someone was paying attention in their civics class.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:16 PM
Well, considering that a deal was at hand and Obama then pressed for more, yeah, Obama was a bully. This could have been solved but Obama ****ed it up.

See, everything's back to normal!

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:16 PM
And the left wonders why the right has no interest in working with them. Soundly defeated? Kiss my ass, you guys won by the skin of your ass and only because idiots like Mordouck and Akin couldn't stop saying 'rape' every time they spoke.

The right should still tell the left to !@#$ itself after the stunts you guys pulled from 2008-2010. The President has no choice but to work with the Right at this point either, but leave it to the standard screaming O-bots to claim some kind of national mandate.

I hope Boehner and the rest of them waste another 2 years of this guy's term. It's the only chance we have at actually recovering. Hell, it's not like he's going to so much as propose a budget anyway.

:clap:

But Boehner won't. He was already making back door deals with the WH and pandering publically to the right.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 05:17 PM
Here's another thing, the Democrats did not work with the Republicans when they passed healthcare by shoving it down this country's throat, despite the "good of the country" once they controlled congress. Despite it being very unpopular too. Not only that they passed it without reading it. Pelosi said we had to pass it first to find out what's in it. That's not good for the country either. They lost their seats for that too.

So all of you saying the Rs must now compromise first, are projecting what you have done on the Rs.
Spare us your high and mighty for the "good of the country." That healthcare bill would have benefitted from partisan debate to flush out the worst parts.

What a bunch of phoneys. You just want your way too.

Oh...I guess that has been covered already.

This.

The Democrats are reaping what they sowed. They stormed into office in 2008 and put their boots to throats. They weren't interested in compromise then and instead passed the worst piece of legislation ever written because they had to do something before the clock struck midnight.

All we got then was "We won, deal with it". Yeah, well the R's still control the House and don't rightly give a shit if not one single thing gets passed over the next two years.

Deal with it.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:17 PM
Yeah, he is Chicago's problem now and he makes the local nightly news around here unwatchable.

I am calling it now, he will be a 2016 Democratic candidate for President. Maybe even Jesse Jackson Jr. You just can't have enough of the Chicago politicians.

I don't think so, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Latin showdown.

alnorth
11-07-2012, 05:18 PM
Not a thing from Obama, eh?

How about the incredibly generous deal filled with entitlement cuts he offered last time? Obama offered $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax. Not good enough? That is "not a thing from Obama?"

The Mother of All No-Brainers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html)

La literatura
11-07-2012, 05:20 PM
Here's another thing, the Democrats did not work with the Republicans when they passed healthcare by shoving it down this country's throat, despite the "good of the country" once they controlled congress. Despite it being very unpopular too. Not only that they passed it without reading it. Pelosi said we had to pass it first to find out what's in it. That's not good for the country either. They lost their seats for that too.

So all of you saying the Rs must now compromise first, are projecting what you have done on the Rs.
Spare us your high and mighty for the "good of the country." That healthcare bill would have benefitted from partisan debate to flush out the worst parts.

What a bunch of phoneys. You just want your way too.

The Healthcare bill did go through partisan debate. Do you honestly not remember the summer of townhall meetings?

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:20 PM
Here's another thing, the Democrats did not work with the Republicans when they passed healthcare by shoving it down this country's throat, despite the "good of the country" once they controlled congress. Despite it being very unpopular too. Not only that they passed it without reading it. Pelosi said we had to pass it first to find out what's in it. That's not good for the country either. They lost their seats for that too.

So all of you saying the Rs must now compromise first, are projecting what you have done on the Rs.
Spare us your high and mighty for the "good of the country." That healthcare bill would have benefitted from partisan debate to flush out the worst parts.

What a bunch of phoneys. You just want your way too.

Umm, it was unpopular for very different reasons. The left thought it didn't go far enough, wanted the single payer. Civil Rights legislation wasn't "popular" either. Sometimes things do have to be shoved down throats, sorry.

alnorth
11-07-2012, 05:21 PM
It's their way of framing the whole issue to set up the Republicans. The way Obama has all along. They just want their way too.
They did not win the House. They need to get over it. We have divided govt.

Man, a lot of people have just completely forgotten about last year, when the liberals in the house were screaming bloody murder, and lots of dems felt betrayed by Obama during the budget negotiations.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 05:21 PM
Umm, it was unpopular for very different reasons. The left thought it didn't go far enough, wanted the single payer. Civil Rights legislation wasn't "popular" either. Sometimes things do have to be shoved down throats, sorry.

Oh, we're back to that one.

Nancy has taught you well.

Donger
11-07-2012, 05:22 PM
See, everything's back to normal!

Not aware of what Woodward's book goes over, I take it?

alnorth
11-07-2012, 05:23 PM
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama cut it to 2:1, saying "hey, I offered you 3:1 before the election, and you decided to take your chances. I won, you lost, now the deal is 2 for 1. Take it, or the Bush tax cuts expire and I go make my case directly to the people."

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:24 PM
That's rich. The criticism during the campaign has been "Obama shows no leadership", but once they lose and say, "OK, lead" and now the President isn't a factor.

Uhm, I said nothing about leading. I cited the role of the House under our Constitution. It lists Obama's powers. He doesn't get to do what the House gets to do.



The problem with your points is that they are stuck in a strict constuctionist view that refuses to acknowledge changes have been made since the late 1700s.

That's what I like about it. Frankly, that's not even an argument....since the Constitution is a document from that era and I don't see any Amendment for what you're recommending. You just want to continue to assert that it's old fashioned. Sorry, liberty is not 1700's. That's so 1000 BC.


Politics aren't played on strict constructionist view, they're played out on whether they think the public will blame them or congratulate them, and if it is blame, they're going to look for someone to pass it on to.

In other words you want to trash the Constitution. I got it. This is usual for the left because it restrains power...and that's what you're all about. You realize of course you're making an argument for one man rule. That's called dictatorship.


It has little to do with how much someone was paying attention in their civics class.
It has everything to do with it since the document was designed to prevent this very thing which our Framers called tyranny. We now see what petty tyrants you guys are by demanding the power of the purse which you DO NOT have and are jealous of. That was anticipated too. Not bad for a bunch of 18th century wise men who knew to distrust power.

Donger
11-07-2012, 05:24 PM
How about the incredibly generous deal filled with entitlement cuts he offered last time? Obama offered $3 of cuts for every $1 of tax. Not good enough? That is "not a thing from Obama?"

The Mother of All No-Brainers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html)

You'll forgive me if I'm not very quick to take such a partisan report very seriously.

And, I was stating that there hasn't been anything from Obama. I was asking Holy if he/she didn't expect Obama to offer anything.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:24 PM
Oh, we're back to that one.

Nancy has taught you well.

:ZZZ:

alnorth
11-07-2012, 05:26 PM
You'll forgive me if I'm not very quick to take such a partisan report very seriously.

The author of the story is a republican, and the deal is a matter of record. This is not a made-up tale from neverland, the president offered $3 cuts to $1 taxes, the GOP said no, its all cuts or nothing, and then they decided to gamble on being able to beat Obama.

They lost that gamble, and now I bet the deal will be worse. Good job, tea party.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:27 PM
Uhm, I said nothing about leading. I cited the role of the House under our Constitution. It lists Obama's powers. He doesn't get to do what the House gets to do.





That's what I like about it. Frankly, that's not even an argument....since the Constitution is a document from that era and I don't see any Amendment for what you're recommending. You just want to continue to assert that it's old fashioned. Sorry, liberty is not 1700's. That's so 1000 BC.




In other words you want to trash the Constitution. I got it. This is usual for the left because it restrains power...and that's what you're all about. You realize of course you're making an argument for one man rule. That's called dictatorship.



It has everything to do with it since the document was designed to prevent this very thing which our Framers called tyranny. We now see what petty tyrants you guys are by demanding the power of the purse which you DO NOT have and are jealous of. That was anticipated too. Not bad for a bunch of 18th century wise men who knew to distrust power.

This is exacly why people don't like to engage you. I state things as they are, and you come back with "So, you want to trash the Constitution?".

Yes, because I described what cynicism in politics is, I want to trash the Constitution. Thanks for making that leap for me, where are my matches.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:28 PM
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama cut it to 2:1, saying "hey, I offered you 3:1 before the election, and you decided to take your chances. I won, you lost, now the deal is 2 for 1. Take it, or the Bush tax cuts expire and I go make my case directly to the people."

The silver lining of having those cuts expire, is that maybe the middle-class will wake up from their stupor, fed by the media ( including Fox) that too much govt is too expensive to support. That's one way to reverse our course.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:29 PM
Not aware of what Woodward's book goes over, I take it?

Nope.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:29 PM
This is exacly why people don't like to engage you. I state things as they are, and you come back with "So, you want to trash the Constitution?"
No I stated things as they are. You want to alter the truth. People can't deal with the truth.

Yes, because I described what cynicism in politics is, I want to trash the Constitution. Thanks for making that leap for me, where are my matches.

You made the argument for it being so 1700'ish and citing "living document" points that. Not me.

I made a "Separation of Powers argument, devised by the framers of the Constitution to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. " (wiki)

Brock
11-07-2012, 05:31 PM
The silver lining of having those cuts expire, is that maybe the middle-class will wake up from their stupor, fed by the media ( including Fox) that too much govt is too expensive to support. That's one way to reverse our course.

The problem has always been withholding. People should have to write a check every month, so they can see just what they're having taken from them.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:32 PM
The problem has always been withholding. People should have to write a check every month, so they can see just what they're having taken from them.

I think that's another very good and valid point. Having been self-employed I see that.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:35 PM
No I stated things as they are. You want to alter the truth. People can't deal with the truth.



You made the argument for it being so 1700'ish. Not me.

No, you changed my argument to that. Whether you agree with the laws that have been written since the Constitution, they have had to withstand their challenges, if they came, to being "constitutional". So, whether you agree or disagree, with say, the "War Powers Act" is immaterial to whether it has been challenged and if it withstood that challenge. If it either hasn't been challenged or withstood such challenges, then it is deemed to be "constitutional". That's the only point I'm making. How government was intended and how it has evolved are two different beasts. You want to have a philosophical debate nobody else cares about , that's the problem.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:37 PM
No, you changed my argument to that.
You may not have mentioned but that was the response that fit. I don't have to cite you verbatim, especially when you omitted more relevant points. I brought that in, because it should be in there. That was why I disagreed. Additionally, you are projecting since I also mentioned nothing about leading...but about who had the power to do what when you responded. I just brought it back to my point. K?

banyon
11-07-2012, 05:41 PM
Given that Boehner and Mcconnell said that their #1 priority was defeating Barack Obama and not the economy or the American people, it is good to see that, now that they have failed in their top priority, they will have time to look at doing things a different way.

banyon
11-07-2012, 05:42 PM
The problem has always been withholding. People should have to write a check every month, so they can see just what they're having taken from them.

I think you have a point, but

We don't have the enforcement apparatus to ensure the checks are mailed.

Think about a collection agency for 300+ million people.

aturnis
11-07-2012, 05:42 PM
I am just sick and tired of seeing Democrats and some left-leaning Independents say the House Rs must now "work with the President" because he won the election. They don't have to do anything. They can demand Obama cooperate too, since they are in charge of spending. Such people have little respect for the Constitution.

That'll work well for them in 2016...

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:42 PM
You may not have mentioned but that was the response that fit. I don't have to cite you verbatim, especially when you omitted more relevant points. I brought that in, because it should be in there. That was why I disagreed. Additionally, you are projecting since I also mentioned nothing about leading...but about who had the power to do what when you responded. I just brought it back to my point. K?

That's fair.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 05:51 PM
Boehner is a traitor who has made back door deals with the WH. He's a big govt republican.

I am no fan but it is what it is. The American people have made their decision so he will have to deal with those in power rather he likes it or not. I have been pretty clear on my feelings. At this point gridlock will no longer be tolerated. Go to fucking work and get something done. Work with in the reality of the situation. Pouting and throwing a fit will not work. A bad plan is better than no plan~

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:51 PM
That'll work well for them in 2016...

It worked for them in 2010 and they were not unseated in 2012. Your point?

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 05:52 PM
That'll work well for them in 2016...

If Obama does what he did for the last 4 years and the Rs do what they did for the last 2 years, they have the White House in a walk in 2016.

Incumbent inertia along with a gender gap made worse by an uncharacteristically charismatic D and a bunch of very stupid Rs is why Obama won this thing.

You folks still don't get that Dear Leader's agenda does not sit well with independents.

If the Republicans do nothing more than obstruct over the next few years, they'll still be just fine when the Democrats have to find themselves a new charismatic young messiah to run with the baton.

And if the Republicans can get a young, energetic candidate of their own like Rubio up to speed in time, what the House does over the next 4 years will be immaterial.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 05:53 PM
I am no fan but it is what it is. The American people have made their decision so he will have to deal with those in power rather he likes it or not. I have been pretty clear on my feelings. At this point gridlock will no longer be tolerated. Go to fucking work and get something done. Work with in the reality of the situation. Pouting and throwing a fit will not work. A bad plan is better than no plan~

God love the left...

"Please government...do SOMETHING!!!"

Typical.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:55 PM
I am no fan but it is what it is. The American people have made their decision so he will have to deal with those in power rather he likes it or not.

That's the argument I was making just that the WHs doesn't hold the power of the purse. The Republicans hold power in the House which has the power of the purse.

I have been pretty clear on my feelings. At this point gridlock will no longer be tolerated. Go to ****ing work and get something done. Work with in the reality of the situation. Pouting and throwing a fit will not work. A bad plan is better than no plan~
Personally, I like the gridlock. There are others that do too.

However, what I proposed was that Obama walk across the aisle first and not the House. Because that's how it's been set up since day one. Nor do I think the House has to make the longest walk. I say cut spending first, not tinker with taxes. That's the real problem. Just because Obama won does not mean the left gets to have their own way either.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 05:56 PM
God love the left...

"Please government...do SOMETHING!!!"

Typical.

lickspittles

and they want to rest of us to be lickspittles too.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 05:59 PM
God love the left...

"Please government...do SOMETHING!!!"

Typical.

I'm sorry DJ, what private enterprise were you expecting to step in and do this work?

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:01 PM
lickspittles

http://www.ornithology.com/images/BabyBirds_Miller_061705.jpg

I love gridlock. I've always preferred Gridlock, even when a Republican was in office.

Give me a moderate President and then give him a House and Senate from the other side of the aisle. I would honestly prefer a moderate Democrat in the oval office with a Republican legislative branch.

Give me gridlock so the business community can breath. It's just reg after reg after reg and you end up with paralysis in the private sector because everyone is terrified that the next regulation bottoms them out.

Do NOTHING. And do it for 2 years so we can get our damn feet under us. Let us operate under a steady set of rules for a little bit so we can see where we go.

But no, the squawking baby birds like RedNeckRaider are begging for the government to come save us from....well who knows? Something. Just do something.

It's just unreal to me that people see the world this way.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:04 PM
Give me a moderate President and then give him a House and Senate from the other side of the aisle. I would honestly prefer a moderate Democrat in the oval office with a Republican legislative branch.

I like that set up a lot too. Jealously over each branches power is the way it was designed.

This election, the people voted for divided govt. That's the message. Not Obama won. Not he gets first dibs or his way because he has a mandate.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:04 PM
I'm sorry DJ, what private enterprise were you expecting to step in and do this work?

I'm expecting private enterprise to be allowed to so some work first, then we'll figure out if/how the government can supplement.

I know my firm is getting torched right now. Every 6 months another reg comes down that changes how we have to practice. And if it's not practice, it's how we hire. It's an unbelievably toxic business climate.

Moreover, I love your nebulous use of the term 'this work'. "This work" is going to be done by the producers in this nation, not the government. What will ultimately get us going again is job creation in the private sector and that will only come when businesses feel comfortable in what they're allowed to do.

Right now it's impossible.

"This work" is a myth. Government needs to just get the !@#$ out of the way for a bit and see what we have.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 06:06 PM
God love the left...

"Please government...do SOMETHING!!!"

Typical.

I am embarrassed by the choice our country made. If you have ever read a word from me you know I am far from the left. I am very proud to say the shit stain in office did not get my vote. I am also proud that my home state and the state I live in now tried to vote this administration out of office. It is what it is these assholes work for us so get to fucking work. The cold hard facts are we have two parties and no choice~

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 06:08 PM
That's the argument I was making just that the WHs doesn't hold the power of the purse. The Republicans hold power in the House which has the power of the purse.


Personally, I like the gridlock. There are others that do too.

However, what I proposed was that Obama walk across the aisle first and not the House. Because that's how it's been set up since day one. Nor do I think the House has to make the longest walk. I say cut spending first, not tinker with taxes. That's the real problem. Just because Obama won does not mean the left gets to have their own way either.

There is nothing about this post I disagree with...sadly that is not what Obama has in mind~

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 06:08 PM
I'm expecting private enterprise to be allowed to so some work first, then we'll figure out if/how the government can supplement.

I know my firm is getting torched right now. Every 6 months another reg comes down that changes how we have to practice. And if it's not practice, it's how we hire. It's an unbelievably toxic business climate.

Moreover, I love your nebulous use of the term 'this work'. "This work" is going to be done by the producers in this nation, not the government. What will ultimately get us going again is job creation in the private sector and that will only come when businesses feel comfortable in what they're allowed to do.

Right now it's impossible.

"This work" is a myth. Government needs to just get the !@#$ out of the way for a bit and see what we have.

OK, so if gridlock is gridlock, what does it matter which party is where and if they are liberal, moderate or conservative? I mean, gridlock means nothing is getting done, which is what most believe has happened the last two years. By that rationale, business should be booming. Believe it or not we do elect officials to government to go to work for us in the form of governing.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:08 PM
I am embarrassed by the choice our country made. If you have ever read a word from me you know I am far from the left. I am very proud to say the shit stain in office did not get my vote. I am also proud that my home state and the state I live in now tried to vote this administration out of office. It is what it is these assholes work for us so get to fucking work. The cold hard facts are we have two parties and no choice~

Then that's where we disagree.

They don't work for us. They never have. Political parties exist for the purpose of winning elections and that is it. Neither side of the aisle works for you or works for me - they work for themselves.

And that's why it's best to just get them stuck. Whatever they do, whenever they do it, it's just another politician trying to win another term.

I want them doing next to nothing and letting us work for us.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 06:10 PM
Then that's where we disagree.

They don't work for us. They never have. Political parties exist for the purpose of winning elections and that is it. Neither side of the aisle works for you or works for me - they work for themselves.

And that's why it's best to just get them stuck. Whatever they do, whenever they do it, it's just another politician trying to win another term.

I want them doing next to nothing and letting us work for us.

Would you agree there are two parties and no choice?

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:12 PM
OK, so if gridlock is gridlock, what does it matter which party is where and if they are liberal, moderate or conservative? I mean, gridlock means nothing is getting done, which is what most believe has happened the last two years. By that rationale, business should be booming. Believe it or not we do elect officials to government to go to work for us in the form of governing.

Do you think it's mere coincidence that unemployment is slowly recovering? That consumer confidence is slowly coming back?

Gridlock is largely why the economy has slowly come back around. And if you start to get these guys spinning again, they'll just pilot it right back into the mountain.

Like I said - I'm in partial agreement with you on that front. I don't care which party is in power and where, I just want them getting in each other's way and beating the hell out of each other to accomplish anything. That's really the only time there is enough discussion to craft a decent proposal. Or kill anything that isn't strong enough to withstand significant scrutiny.

Otherwise it's "We have to pass it so we know what's in it..."

Pass.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:14 PM
I just want them getting in each other's way and beating the hell out of each other to accomplish anything. That's really the only time there is enough discussion to craft a decent proposal. Or kill anything that isn't strong enough to withstand significant scrutiny.

Yup! :clap:

Good point about gridlock and recovery. Never thought of it that way. The left can't allow that analysis though. Only govt saves the economy.
However, you can't rule out the QEs either but that's Bernanke. It could also be another bubble in the works.

HolyHandgernade
11-07-2012, 06:16 PM
Do you think it's mere coincidence that unemployment is slowly recovering? That consumer confidence is slowly coming back?

Gridlock is largely why the economy has slowly come back around. And if you start to get these guys spinning again, they'll just pilot it right back into the mountain.

Like I said - I'm in partial agreement with you on that front. I don't care which party is in power and where, I just want them getting in each other's way and beating the hell out of each other to accomplish anything. That's really the only time there is enough discussion to craft a decent proposal. Or kill anything that isn't strong enough to withstand significant scrutiny.

Otherwise it's "We have to pass it so we know what's in it..."

Pass.

OK. I don't completely agree, but obviously we have different points of view. I would argue that the stimulus headed off a depression and helped start turning things around. I know you'll disagree, so you don't have to tell me why, I'm just stating I don't think its quite that simple.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:16 PM
Would you agree there are two parties and no choice?

I'm not quite that cynical, but close.

I think that Republicans are, as a platform, more stringent with their spending and tend to favor anti-inflationary monetary policies. I think Democrats are, as a platform, more 'generous' with government spending and are far less concerned with inflation than they are keeping the 'spending power' gap from widening further.

In the end, I prefer the more conservative spenders in the legislative branch as they are more insulated and therefore more able to make those hard decisions.

But in the end, the purpose of political parties does not change - to elect politicians. And they're going to continue to try to do that above all else.

There's a choice, but ultimately it's not the government that we need to turn to either way. The more marginalized the government is, the better.

HMc
11-07-2012, 06:21 PM
I'm not quite that cynical, but close.

I think that Republicans are, as a platform, more stringent with their spending and tend to favor anti-inflationary monetary policies. I think Democrats are, as a platform, more 'generous' with government spending and are far less concerned with inflation than they are keeping the 'spending power' gap from widening further.

In the end, I prefer the more conservative spenders in the legislative branch as they are more insulated and therefore more able to make those hard decisions.

But in the end, the purpose of political parties does not change - to elect politicians. And they're going to continue to try to do that above all else.

There's a choice, but ultimately it's not the government that we need to turn to either way. The more marginalized the government is, the better.

How does the military spending tie in with that philosophy?

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:21 PM
OK. I don't completely agree, but obviously we have different points of view. I would argue that the stimulus headed off a depression and helped start turning things around. I know you'll disagree, so you don't have to tell me why, I'm just stating I don't think its quite that simple.

That's standard Keynesianism to prevent things from becoming a depression by making it a recession instead with govt spending. There are times it does not work though. So I think we got a depression anyway. I think this dragged things out this time. The main problem is that any recovery from this model creates another artificial stimulus or boom which will bust. This is what the Austrian School of Economics calls the business cycle of boom and bust. It stems from Keynesian stimulus. At some point the currency has to go bust. It will too.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 06:23 PM
I'm not quite that cynical, but close.

I think that Republicans are, as a platform, more stringent with their spending and tend to favor anti-inflationary monetary policies. I think Democrats are, as a platform, more 'generous' with government spending and are far less concerned with inflation than they are keeping the 'spending power' gap from widening further.

In the end, I prefer the more conservative spenders in the legislative branch as they are more insulated and therefore more able to make those hard decisions.

But in the end, the purpose of political parties does not change - to elect politicians. And they're going to continue to try to do that above all else.

There's a choice, but ultimately it's not the government that we need to turn to either way. The more marginalized the government is, the better.
It is snake handling baptists or let the government solve all my problem shitbags. Call me cynical but I do not see a choice with either way. I will always vote anti left but understand the right is not much better~

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:24 PM
How does the military spending tie in with that philosophy?

There are Republicans ( conservatives, libertarian and some moderates ) that do feel military cuts are needed; that we don't need to save the world or dominate it with wars of choice. It's a certain faction that's turned it into the War Party. And who have influenced others. Grover Norquist wanted military cuts and Ron Paul just back to 2006 levels which created an uproar. War does hurt an economy. There were economic problems due to Vietnam, particularly from the inflation used to fund it.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 06:28 PM
There are Republicans ( conservatives, libertarian and some moderates ) that do feel military cuts are needed; that we don't need to save the world or dominate it with wars of choice. It's a certain faction that's turned it into the War Party. War does hurt an economy. There were economic problems due to Vietnam, particularly from the inflation used to fund it.

Just post a by country military spending chart and maybe people will understand how silly we are. I will not support a dime being cut from our troops. There is however an entire industry built on war leeching off our tax dollars~

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:28 PM
How does the military spending tie in with that philosophy?

As the line item in their budget where they are inclined to spend more liberally.

The certainly place a higher priority on military spending, there's no question there. They still espouse a platform with a smaller overall budget.

They don't always adhere to it, but they did when Clinton was in office. A Conservative legislature will remain conservative on spending when a Liberal president is in office (but not with an R in office). Meanwhile a liberal legislature will pass large budgets and a conservative President, unless he's a very very good one, will pass them for cheap political points (see: Bush 43).

You could not give me a better setup than another Bill Clinton in the White House and another Newt Gingrich led Republican Party going out there trying to keep him in check. It was a perfect alignment of interests and disagreements and it worked perfectly to keep both sides constantly giving/taking.

The worst thing the Republicans ever did was turn on Bill Clinton. Then again, I think Romney was exceptionally similar to Clinton in how he'd have run things and could never understand the absolute hatred that came from the Left towards him.

That's why I want them to do very little - they can't help but kill whatever Golden Goose they have. It's just the nature of a system that encourages the power-hungry to rise to the highest levels.

DJ's left nut
11-07-2012, 06:33 PM
Just post a by country military spending chart and maybe people will understand how silly we are. I will not support a dime being cut from our troops. There is however an entire industry built on war leeching off our tax dollars~

I agree and have said several times here in DC - military spending cuts need to be on the table.

Put an R in the White House and they wouldn't be. Put D's in the Legislature and an R in the White House and they still wouldn't be.

Put a D in the White House and Ds in the legislature and you'll get them cut severely and the money spent on entitlements and/or social projects doomed to fail.

Put the D in the White House and Rs in the legislature and you might get it done, especially if it's a moderate D that will give on key R issues in exchange. And if you do get it done, you'll see that money banked for a surplus.

Nobody will ever convince me that the Clinton/Gingrich model isn't as close to ideal as this nation will get.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:36 PM
Just post a by country military spending chart and maybe people will understand how silly we are. I will not support a dime being cut from our troops. There is however an entire industry built on war leeching off our tax dollars~

I said military not troops. Yeah, they're part of that but I am not talking about taking things away from them that they need so they don't get hurt. That does not mean defense, it means the military build up around the world. It has to have cuts and 2006 levels is not drastic. The Rs wanted to increase it.

RedNeckRaider
11-07-2012, 06:38 PM
I said military not troops. Yeah, they're part of that but I am not talking about taking things away from them that they need so they don't get hurt. That does not mean defense, it means the military build up around the world. It has to have cuts and 2006 levels is not drastic. The Rs wanted to increase it.

If you read my post I was not accusing you of anything...just pointing out our outrageous spending on things not related to our troops~

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:38 PM
If you read my post I was not accusing you of anything...just pointing out our outrageous spending on things not related to our troops~

k

KC native
11-07-2012, 07:53 PM
Do you think it's mere coincidence that unemployment is slowly recovering? That consumer confidence is slowly coming back?

Gridlock is largely why the economy has slowly come back around. And if you start to get these guys spinning again, they'll just pilot it right back into the mountain.

Like I said - I'm in partial agreement with you on that front. I don't care which party is in power and where, I just want them getting in each other's way and beating the hell out of each other to accomplish anything. That's really the only time there is enough discussion to craft a decent proposal. Or kill anything that isn't strong enough to withstand significant scrutiny.

Otherwise it's "We have to pass it so we know what's in it..."

Pass.

ROFL The economy is slowly recovering because we had a severe financial crisis. Our current recovery is very similar to other recoveries after credit crises. Step away from the talking points.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 08:01 PM
Just post a by country military spending chart and maybe people will understand how silly we are. I will not support a dime being cut from our troops. There is however an entire industry built on war leeching off our tax dollars~

What do you mean cut from our troops?

BigRedChief
11-07-2012, 08:10 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49731550

House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

Boehner said House Republicans are asking Obama "to make good on a balanced approach" that would including spending cuts and address government social benefit programs.

"Let's find the common ground that has eluded us," Boehner said while congratulating the president on winning a second term.

The Ohio Republican spoke a day after the president's clear re-election victory. He said conditions on higher taxes would include a revamped tax code to make it cleaner and fairer, fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.

The speaker noted that during one-on-one budget talks with the president in the summer of 2011, Obama had "endorsed the idea of tax reform and lower rates, including a top rate of lower than 35 percent," the present top rate.

"We're closer than we think to the critical mass needed legislatively to get tax reform done," he said.

Boehner did not specify what loopholes House Republicans might consider trimming. Nor did he take questions.

His comments were generally along the lines of proposals by vanquished Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that also were vague on specifics.

Still, the speaker's comments signaled a willingness to enter into talks. He suggested Congress could use its upcoming lame-duck session to get the ball moving on such a compromise.

"We can't solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight...This is going to take time," he said.You really think that was an olive branch?:hmmm:

mlyonsd
11-07-2012, 08:18 PM
It will be interesting to see how the president works after the election.

Does the false rhetoric that raising taxes on only a few solve our problems continue or does he really want to fix things?

Mr. Kotter
11-07-2012, 09:08 PM
The question is, does Boehner mean it? We will see, I guess.

Mr. Kotter
11-07-2012, 09:11 PM
It will be interesting to see how the president works after the election.

Does the false rhetoric that raising taxes on only a few solve our problems continue or does he really want to fix things?

Tax hikes...should be across the board. Everyone. Eliminate that GOP B.S. talking point of "47% pays nothing!"

Then we can make real progress by bringing back Reagan/90s Era tax rates, that clearly (by historical example) allow for real economic growth and expansion.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 09:19 PM
You really think that was an olive branch?:hmmm:

Yeah, I don't see it either.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

In other words, "We are going to blame you when you don't agree with us."

greg63
11-07-2012, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I don't see it either.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

In other words, "We are going to blame you when you don't agree with us."

The Republican Party has been neutered. Obama will slap them on butt and they'll say "Thank you sir, may I have another!" The Republican Party and conservatism are officially dead.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:29 PM
Tax hikes...should be across the board. Everyone. Eliminate that GOP B.S. talking point of "47% pays nothing!"

Then we can make real progress by bringing back Reagan/90s Era tax rates, that clearly (by historical example) allow for real economic growth and expansion.

Tell you what, you eliminate people in some cases getting more in refunds than anything they ever paid and we can talk tax hikes.

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 09:37 PM
Tell you what, you eliminate people in some cases getting more in refunds than anything they ever paid and we can talk tax hikes.

Not going to happen. Bush cuts are gone, if anything a slight reduction in etc, if at all. Like I said, the party that takes the etc from the poor is going to have hell to pay in the polls.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:44 PM
If these idiots had any fucking clue, and I mean BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE, they would enact something that stimulates the economy without fucking us over in taxes.

But how? It's really not that hard, it just takes a basic understanding of economics and how to grow tax revenues effecitvely.

1. Get the Fed off the "keep interest rates as low as we can" train. By doing this they continue to drive up the costs of real goods that everyone uses like you know, energy and food! Let the $ strengthen some and bring down these costs on everyone thuse providing a form of a hidden tax break

But, but, Pete, that means interest rates would go up and people would quit borrowing.
Ok, fair argument, semi-bunk but fair, but there is an answer to that as well.

2. Cut taxes across the board but eliminate tax loopholes.

Now, what would all that do?

It would put more money in the pockets of everyone at every corner, from taxes to cost of living thus offsetting the impacts of higher interest rates and elimination of tax loopholes.

That is how you grow tax revenues. Make it easier for people to spend. Generate tax revenue via increased consumer spending and not increased taxes.

Everyone benfits from this scenario, poor and rich alike. Gas is cheaper, food is cheaper, taxes are lower. The higher interest rates and elimination of tax loopholes will only affect people who can afford to be impacted by them anyway so there is your progressive "tax the rich" angle.

Most lowerclass and lower-middle class people aren't in a position to be impacted by higher rates or losing tax deductions they never had to begin with. But they do benefit from the lower costs of good and lower taxes.

Middle and Upper class will feel a slight pinch on the higher rates and loss of tax deductions but that gets offset by lower cost of living and lower taxes

Seniors benefit from higher interest rates by earning more on their savings, plus they benefit from lower cost of living and taxes.

The balance point is how much in higher rates can be tolerated? Is it worth 1%-2% in higher rates if it means gas at $2 a gallon and lower food costs? Is a mortgage with a higher rate worth less money taken out of your paycheck plus lower gas and food costs?

I think an even moderate amount in increased interest rates is rather paltry compared to the increased disposable income they would also provide.


The point is to grow the tax base. Not tax the existing base more.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:44 PM
Yeah, I don't see it either.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

In other words, "We are going to blame you when you don't agree with us."

Well, you just had, in this very thread, people from your side of the aisle saying Obama should lead, so I don't understand what your problem is with that. Barbour was on tv tonight say they passed a budget more than once but Reid blocked it. Why didn't Obama place a call to Reid then?

petegz28
11-07-2012, 09:45 PM
Not going to happen. Bush cuts are gone, if anything a slight reduction in etc, if at all. Like I said, the party that takes the etc from the poor is going to have hell to pay in the polls.

Bush tax cuts knocked the lowest tax payers off the tax table. So not extending them will be a tax increase on the poor. I know the Left's talking points like to pretend that isn't true but it is.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:56 PM
The Republican Party has been neutered. Obama will slap them on butt and they'll say "Thank you sir, may I have another!" The Republican Party and conservatism are officially dead.

We've heard that before and that didn't happen. Keep dreamin'! They have the power of the purse in the House. That's nuthin' to diss.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:01 PM
Well, you just had, in this very thread, people from your side of the aisle saying Obama should lead, so I don't understand what your problem is with that. Barbour was on tv tonight say they passed a budget more than once but Reid blocked it. Why didn't Obama place a call to Reid then?

When your opposition leader says, "Mr. President, this is your moment. We want you to lead" it comes off as just slightly insincere and mostly just dickish.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 10:02 PM
When your opposition leader says, "Mr. President, this is your moment. We want you to lead" it comes off as just slightly insincere and mostly just dickish.

Like I said, some of your own colleagues agree with it. Guess that's dickish too.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:03 PM
When your opposition leader says, "Mr. President, this is your moment. We want you to lead" it comes off as just slightly insincere and mostly just dickish.

That's a cop out and a half. The President should lead because he is the President.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:06 PM
Like I said, some of your own colleagues agree with it. Guess that's dickish too.

That's a cop out and a half. The President should lead because he is the President.

Its one thing when your supporters say it. When your opposition does, it's kind of like taunting.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:19 PM
Its one thing when your supporters say it. When your opposition does, it's kind of like taunting.

That's partisan crap. Then again, Leftis ilk such as you never like it when you're called out to back up your mouth from someone outside your utpoian circle.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:26 PM
That's partisan crap. Then again, Leftis ilk such as you never like it when you're called out to back up your mouth from someone outside your utpoian circle.

OK, you really think John Boehner wants Obama to lead? No, Boehner wants to lead him. His slightly over-the-top statement--"This is your moment!" (:rolleyes:)--is him being a bit of a prick.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 10:38 PM
OK, you really think John Boehner wants Obama to lead? No, Boehner wants to lead him. His slightly over-the-top statement--"This is your moment!" (:rolleyes:)--is him being a bit of a prick.

The man was just re-elected President. This IS his moment. You're a typical fucking Lib that doesn't want to do the tough work to back up your tough talk.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 10:58 PM
The man was just re-elected President. This IS his moment. You're a typical ****ing Lib that doesn't want to do the tough work to back up your tough talk.

You're acting like a naive child.

BigRedChief
11-07-2012, 11:18 PM
I think Obama comes up with a written plan. If fact its already written. He has a news conference in a week or two to announce it.

If Nate Silver was tracking this, I'd say it was a 93% probability.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 11:33 PM
You're acting like a naive child.

ROFL
You're the one whining about Bohener


You're a fucking idiot. I've had about all I can with you. You are a fucking toolbag. You bitch about Boehner saying "this is your moment" then turn around call someone else a child? You started this whole thing by whining like a sissy girl because someone called out Obama to lead and that someone wasn't one of your group-think kin. OMG, a non-democrat called out Obama to be a leader!!!! And all you can do is bitch about it and then have the nerve to call someone else a child. Seriously, go fuck yourself with steak knife.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 11:36 PM
Its one thing when your supporters say it. When your opposition does, it's kind of like taunting.

:deevee:

Big bad Obama shouldn't be called out by his opposition. That's like you know, tough and all. He is such a great leader and you like him so much that you run to his aide like his mommy because the guy from the other team called him out. For heaven's sake what is this world coming too when your competition calls you to the carpet to do your job!!!!

J Diddy
11-07-2012, 11:38 PM
:deevee:

Big bad Obama shouldn't be called out by his opposition. That's like you know, tough and all. He is such a great leader and you like him so much that you run to his aide like his mommy because the guy from the other team called him out. For heaven's sake what is this world coming too when your competition calls you to the carpet to do your job!!!!

Not so much. This isn't going to all be on Obama if nothing happens to be honest probably the opposite.

petegz28
11-07-2012, 11:44 PM
Not so much. This isn't going to all be on Obama if nothing happens to be honest probably the opposite.

That's not my argument. I am talking about cosmobama whining because Boehner said "this is your moment".

And actually it will fall on Obama and the Dems. He got away with the blaming Bush for 4 years. After 8 if shit ain't getting done it's going to fall on the President and his party who has controlled the majority of the 3 for the majority of his Presidency. In other words, his excuses won't get the Dems past another 4 years unless the Repubs totally and I mean grossly fuck shit up which will be very hard to do unless they gain the Senate in 2014.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 11:48 PM
ROFL
You're the one whining about Bohener


You're a ****ing idiot. I've had about all I can with you. You are a ****ing toolbag. You bitch about Boehner saying "this is your moment" then turn around call someone else a child? You started this whole thing by whining like a sissy girl because someone called out Obama to lead and that someone wasn't one of your group-think kin. OMG, a non-democrat called out Obama to be a leader!!!! And all you can do is bitch about it and then have the nerve to call someone else a child. Seriously, go **** yourself with steak knife.

I'm not bitching about it, and I didn't bring it up. Someone posted about this "Olive Branch" and several agreed how wonderful it was. I didn't see it that way. Like I said, seemed more snarky to me than sincere.

Also, you're a psycho.

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 11:49 PM
:deevee:

Big bad Obama shouldn't be called out by his opposition. That's like you know, tough and all. He is such a great leader and you like him so much that you run to his aide like his mommy because the guy from the other team called him out. For heaven's sake what is this world coming too when your competition calls you to the carpet to do your job!!!!

Tilt-Tilt-Tilt-Tilt-Tilt

cosmo20002
11-07-2012, 11:55 PM
That's not my argument. I am talking about cosmobama whining because Boehner said "this is your moment".

And actually it will fall on Obama and the Dems. He got away with the blaming Bush for 4 years. After 8 if shit ain't getting done it's going to fall on the President and his party who has controlled the majority of the 3 for the majority of his Presidency. In other words, his excuses won't get the Dems past another 4 years unless the Repubs totally and I mean grossly **** shit up which will be very hard to do unless they gain the Senate in 2014.

Behind closed doors:
Obama - "How about this?"
Boehner - "No. No. No. No. No. No."

To the public:
Boehner - "C'mon Mr. President, LEAD US! Olive branch!"

petegz28
11-07-2012, 11:58 PM
Behind closed doors:
Obama - "How about this?"
Boehner - "No. No. No. No. No. No."

To the public:
Boehner - "C'mon Mr. President, LEAD US! Olive branch!"

More like:

Boehner: Mr. President we have to disucss these issues
Obama: After my pick-up game

Bohener: Mr. President we still have to discuss these issues
Obama: After my 18 holes

Boehner: Mr. President we still need to discuss these issues
Obama: After I get back from taking Michelle to dinner in NY

Boehner: Mr. President are we ever going to discuss these issues?
Obama: Yes! Right after I get back from Hawaii

Bohner: Mr. President we are out of time, you know where we stand
Obama: Why didn't you come to me about this earlier?

Obama to the public:
The Republicans just don't want to talk about these things!

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 12:02 AM
More like:

Boehner: Mr. President we have to disucss these issues
Obama: After my pick-up game

Bohener: Mr. President we still have to discuss these issues
Obama: After my 18 holes

Boehner: Mr. President we still need to discuss these issues
Obama: After I get back from taking Michelle to dinner in NY

Boehner: Mr. President are we ever going to discuss these issues?
Obama: Yes! Right after I get back from Hawaii

Bohner: Mr. President we are out of time, you know where we stand
Obama: Why didn't you come to me about this earlier?

Obama to the public:
The Republicans just don't want to talk about these things!

...and this is why you lost.

greg63
11-08-2012, 05:20 AM
We've heard that before and that didn't happen. Keep dreamin'! They have the power of the purse in the House. That's nuthin' to diss.

Speaking as a conservative I hope your right.

blaise
11-08-2012, 06:08 AM
When your opposition leader says, "Mr. President, this is your moment. We want you to lead" it comes off as just slightly insincere and mostly just dickish.

Yeah, I mean who needs a President to lead?

blaise
11-08-2012, 06:11 AM
Behind closed doors:
Obama - "How about this?"
Boehner - "No. No. No. No. No. No."

To the public:
Boehner - "C'mon Mr. President, LEAD US! Olive branch!"

Yeah, it's a shame that all of the government's problems are being caused by Republicans. And what's really a shame is it takes away from any good news about the economy which should be credited to Obama.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 08:05 AM
Speaking as a conservative I hope your right.

I am. He's boxed in. Just hope the Rs doing it respectfully.

King_Chief_Fan
11-08-2012, 09:30 AM
...and this is why you lost.

he didn't lose,,,,,the country lost

VAChief
11-08-2012, 09:44 AM
More like:

Boehner: Mr. President we have to disucss these issues
Obama: After my pick-up game

Bohener: Mr. President we still have to discuss these issues
Obama: After my 18 holes

Boehner: Mr. President we still need to discuss these issues
Obama: After I get back from taking Michelle to dinner in NY

Boehner: Mr. President are we ever going to discuss these issues?
Obama: Yes! Right after I get back from Hawaii

Bohner: Mr. President we are out of time, you know where we stand
Obama: Why didn't you come to me about this earlier?

Obama to the public:
The Republicans just don't want to talk about these things!

Boehner: Great, this won't cut into my 36 holes, daily quart of scotch or daily orange tint maintenance.

Amnorix
11-08-2012, 10:26 AM
LOL. Please tell me you are just trolling.

If not, this is everything that is wrong with the GOP. Someone actually tries to reach across the aisle and get something done for the good of the country, and because it doesn't align with the agenda of "fuck that ****er" it means he's a traitor.

This is how fail the Pubs have become.


That's the Tea Party for you. Our way or FUCK OFF YOU UNPATRIOTIC NEO-CON SOCIALIST MARXIST COMMUNIST!!!

There's no room for negotiation or compromise. The whole concept doesn't even work in our form of government, but don't tell them that.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 10:27 AM
The balance point is how much in higher rates can be tolerated? Is it worth 1%-2% in higher rates if it means gas at $2 a gallon and lower food costs? Is a mortgage with a higher rate worth less money taken out of your paycheck plus lower gas and food costs?


Bad news, Pete - those things are gone.

The only thing that's kept inflation reasonable is wide-scale under-employment. If/when the country gets back to a full-employment situation, inflation is going to pretty well hammer us all.

There's just been way too much cheap money in the system for way too long, along with way to much fiat currency pumped into the economy. Once we hit full employment, the costs of goods is going to skyrocket.

It's not going to be hyperinflationary levels, I don't think. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the 10-12% levels of the late 70s/early 80s. In that regard, unemployment actually helped Obama somewhat. Unemployment hurts the 10% that don't have jobs whereas the inflation will smoke everybody.

vailpass
11-08-2012, 10:29 AM
He got elected; promised to lead. Let's see what obama's got.

patteeu
11-08-2012, 10:32 AM
That's the Tea Party for you. Our way or **** OFF YOU UNPATRIOTIC NEO-CON SOCIALIST MARXIST COMMUNIST!!!

There's no room for negotiation or compromise. The whole concept doesn't even work in our form of government, but don't tell them that.

You voted for Mitt Romney partially because you recognized that he'd be more capable of working with the other side than the incumbent, no? Do you blame that all on the GOP?

Edit: I misread what you were saying.

donkhater
11-08-2012, 10:35 AM
ther right calls Boehner a traitor and the left says that's what's wrong with the current politcal system.

You want to know what's REALLY wrong with the current politcal system?

When we are running a $1+ trillion budget deficit and $100 billion in buget cuts and a slight uptick in taxes is considered a 'fiscal cliff'

I call it a lame-ass first step in the right direction.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 10:40 AM
ther right calls Boehner a traitor and the left says that's what's wrong with the current politcal system.

You want to know what's REALLY wrong with the current politcal system?

When we are running a $1+ trillion budget deficit and $100 billion in buget cuts and a slight uptick in taxes is considered a 'fiscal cliff'

I call it a lame-ass first step in the right direction.

I'm glad somebody's with me on this one.

As I have read more and more about this fiscal cliff, I'm thinking "fuck it - let it come!"

Sure, it's gonna cost me a little money (though some if it will be offset by eliminating the marriage penalty). But so be it - we aren't going to have much say in the matter.

Bring on the goddam cliff. And when we hit the ground, keep freakin' digging. I feel like the sheer magnitude of the problem we're facing right now is being ignored by everybody in charge.

oldandslow
11-08-2012, 10:43 AM
Not gonna happen. It is in no elected official's best interest for the us to go over the cliff.

jiveturkey
11-08-2012, 10:45 AM
I thought that it was $600 billion in immediate cuts?

I too have thought that it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen but that might be a short sighted view. How will it effect a weak employment scene? How will it effect investments?

Austerity hasn't worked very well in Europe.

HemiEd
11-08-2012, 10:45 AM
He got elected; promised to lead. Let's see what obama's got.

No thanks, please no.

donkhater
11-08-2012, 10:46 AM
Not gonna happen. It is in no elected official's best interest for the us to go over the cliff.

THIS ISN"T A CLIFF!!!!!!!

Will it hurt? Yes. But that's what you get when you tie your economy to the federal government.

It's a lesson that needs to be learned. Often times, the most educational lessons are the most painful.

HemiEd
11-08-2012, 10:47 AM
Not gonna happen. It is in no elected official's best interest for the us to go over the cliff.

Exactly, they are all, always running for re-election.

DJ's left nut
11-08-2012, 10:47 AM
Not gonna happen. It is in no elected official's best interest for the us to go over the cliff.

Of course it isn't.

But rarely do an elected official's best interests and the Nation's best interests truly intersect. At best they are occasionally tangentially related.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 10:48 AM
I thought that it was $600 billion in immediate cuts?

I too have thought that it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen but that might be a short sighted view. How will it effect a weak employment scene? How will it effect investments?

Austerity hasn't worked very well in Europe.

Depends on what you mean by austerity. Sure it's painful but if it clears things, including markets, in the long term it pays off. They have a bad case of entitlement mentality over there from years of democratic socialism.

donkhater
11-08-2012, 10:49 AM
I thought that it was $600 billion in immediate cuts?

I too have thought that it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen but that might be a short sighted view. How will it effect a weak employment scene? How will it effect investments?

Austerity hasn't worked very well in Europe.

You might want to check out exactly what people are considering austerity. It's not the drastic cutting that you think it is.

What we're talking about here is living in 2012-2013 on ~2004 revenue. It's difficult to catagorize that as austerity.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 10:51 AM
Bad news, Pete - those things are gone.

The only thing that's kept inflation reasonable is wide-scale under-employment. If/when the country gets back to a full-employment situation, inflation is going to pretty well hammer us all.
That's right. Again, the middle and lower classes will be hurt the most.

There's just been way too much cheap money in the system for way too long, along with way to much fiat currency pumped into the economy. Once we hit full employment, the costs of goods is going to skyrocket.

It's not going to be hyperinflationary levels, I don't think. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the 10-12% levels of the late 70s/early 80s. In that regard, unemployment actually helped Obama somewhat. Unemployment hurts the 10% that don't have jobs whereas the inflation will smoke everybody.


It's already begun...but will get worse. Fasten your seat belts. I've been hoarding some goods for months.

jiveturkey
11-08-2012, 10:51 AM
You might want to check out exactly what people are considering austerity. It's not the drastic cutting that you think it is.

What we're tlking about here is living in 2012-2013 on ~2004 revenue. It's difficult to catagorize that as austerity.
I double checked and it is only about $100 billion in cuts.

It winds up reducing the deficit by close to $600 billion and that's mainly from increased taxes across the board.

In my quick search it looks like the Wall Street Journal is predicting a 4% decline in GDP and 2 million jobs lost. We would be voluntarily putting ourselves back into recession. That can't be an easy call to make.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 10:51 AM
...and this is why you lost.

And this is why you didn't win a sweep, have any coat tails or get a mandate. Nothing changed with this election.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 10:53 AM
Boehner: Great, this won't cut into my 36 holes, daily quart of scotch or daily orange tint maintenance.

ROFL I thought there was a tax on tanning salons?

vailpass
11-08-2012, 10:56 AM
No thanks, please no.

I hear you but the guy was elected; I want him to do well for the sake of the country. Rooting for the Potus to fail is like rooting for my driver to crash.

I'd like to see obama grow from his last 4 years, to find himself and the strength it takes to lead and form consensus. To replace his instinct to evade and avoid with courage and conviction. To buckle down and work with an "America first" attitude that he conveys and instills into all Americans.

I don't have confidence this will occur as he has shown no sign of being able to do so to date, but it is a new term and I'm going to watch and wait.

donkhater
11-08-2012, 10:56 AM
I double checked and it is only about $100 billion in cuts.

It winds up reducing the deficit by close to $600 billion and that's mainly from increased taxes across the board.

In my quick search it looks like the Wall Street Journal is predicting a 4% decline in GDP and 2 million jobs lost. We would be voluntarily putting ourselves back into recession. That can't be an easy call to make.

That's because it takes leadership.

Raise your hand if you think just raising taxes is gong to change ANYTHING about the negative trajectory of this nation, other than speed it up.

I thought so.

Doing nothing is going to catch up and end up hurting a hell of a lot worse. In fact, we may be past that point where any action will matter. A lame-duck president is the PERFECT leader to attempt this. But there is NO way Obama will even think about it, because he just not wired that way and apparently neither is half of the electorate.

donkhater
11-08-2012, 10:58 AM
For the time being, I would settle for the Senate to pass a budget. Sounds like a reasonable first step, No?

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 11:03 AM
For the time being, I would settle for the Senate to pass a budget. Sounds like a reasonable first step, No?

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives.

The Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills.

The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_originate_in_the_house_of_representatives


You saw that happen when Reid refused to pass the budgets by the House. If Obama was leading he could have made a call to Reid to compromise. Then they turn around and blame the Republicans and some people eat that kind of partisan crap up like dog food. Alinsky would be proud.

Chocolate Hog
11-08-2012, 04:27 PM
Booo

tiptap
11-08-2012, 04:47 PM
Just for the record so you all understand, Patty Murray of Washington State was in charge of the Democratic Senate Races. She now has 16 women there on the Democratic side. Senator Murray is on record to just walk through the January deadline and start from there. She now has numbers that she helped win to filibuster any attempt to do otherwise. That is the fire wall.

HemiEd
11-08-2012, 04:50 PM
I hear you but the guy was elected; I want him to do well for the sake of the country. Rooting for the Potus to fail is like rooting for my driver to crash.

I'd like to see obama grow from his last 4 years, to find himself and the strength it takes to lead and form consensus. To replace his instinct to evade and avoid with courage and conviction. To buckle down and work with an "America first" attitude that he conveys and instills into all Americans.

I don't have confidence this will occur as he has shown no sign of being able to do so to date, but it is a new term and I'm going to watch and wait.

So you are of a mind that he actually wants to do what is right?

greg63
11-08-2012, 10:13 PM
I am. He's boxed in. Just hope the Rs doing it respectfully.

Agreed. I really think that Obama sees himself more as a king appointed by divine right rather than a President elected by the populous despite his obvious landslide victory. He's unfettered and unhinged after shredding the constitution in his first term there will be nothing to stand in his way in his second term to keep him from tossing it into the Presidential fireplace altogether.

cosmo20002
11-08-2012, 10:16 PM
And this is why you didn't win a sweep, have any coat tails or get a mandate. Nothing changed with this election.

Yeah, Election Day was really tough on the Ds.

Brock
11-08-2012, 10:18 PM
Agreed. I really think that Obama sees himself more as a king appointed by divine right rather than a President elected by the populous despite his obvious landslide victory. He's unfettered and unhinged after shredding the constitution in his first term there will be nothing to stand in his way in his second term to keep him from tossing it into the Presidential fireplace altogether.

You sound like an insane person. Seriously.

CoMoChief
11-08-2012, 10:24 PM
The last thing this country needs is a fucking POS Obama that doesn't have to worry about re-election. Get ready for a gun grab!

greg63
11-08-2012, 10:42 PM
You sound like an insane person. Seriously.

...Merely stating my opinion. I cannot help, nor do I care how it comes a crossed to you or anyone else.

Brock
11-08-2012, 10:43 PM
...Merely stating my opinion. I cannot help, nor do I care how it comes a crossed to or anyone else.

Your paranoia amuses me.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 10:44 PM
...Merely stating my opinion. I cannot help, nor do I care how it comes a crossed to or anyone else.

How did you come to the opinion that he views himself as a King?

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 10:46 PM
The last thing this country needs is a ****ing POS Obama that doesn't have to worry about re-election. Get ready for a gun grab!

I expect great things

greg63
11-08-2012, 10:49 PM
Your paranoia amuses me.

I'm glad.

greg63
11-08-2012, 10:50 PM
How did you come to the opinion that he views himself as a King?

He seems, to me, to have no regard for the constitution.

Mr. Kotter
11-08-2012, 10:51 PM
Agreed. I really think that Obama sees himself more as a king appointed by divine right rather than a President elected by the populous despite his obvious landslide victory. He's unfettered and unhinged after shredding the constitution in his first term there will be nothing to stand in his way in his second term to keep him from tossing it into the Presidential fireplace altogether.

Dude, seriously....life it too short. Get real, or seek help from a medical professional, soon. That, or read THIS (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266305) thread.

Brock
11-08-2012, 10:53 PM
He seems, to me, to have no regard for the constitution.

"seems" is a weasel word. post up some evidence.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 10:55 PM
He seems, to me, to have no regard for the constitution.

I assume because of his use of executive order?

greg63
11-08-2012, 11:01 PM
"seems" is a weasel word. post up some evidence.

Well, to me, the fact that he shoved Obama Care through congress, changing the rules in the Senate, to do so and as "law" is seen by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional being ratified there as a "tax" is really all I need to view him the way that I do. Do I have my facts wrong?

Mr. Kotter
11-08-2012, 11:02 PM
Well, to me, the fact that he shoved Obama Care through congress, changing the rules in the Senate, to do so and as "law" is seen by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional being ratified there as a "tax" is really all I need to view him the way that I do. Do I have my facts wrong?

Sleep it off, man....seriously. I know what I'm talking about, here. Heh.

greg63
11-08-2012, 11:05 PM
Sleep it off, man....seriously. I know what I'm talking about, here. Heh.

I take it by your dismissive response that you really have nothing substantial to add to conversation.

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 11:08 PM
Well, to me, the fact that he shoved Obama Care through congress, changing the rules in the Senate, to do so and as "law" is seen by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional being ratified there as a "tax" is really all I need to view him the way that I do. Do I have my facts wrong?
The people elected the representatives who voted it through congress. What laws did he change in the senate?

I don't know what you're saying about the Supreme Court?

greg63
11-08-2012, 11:14 PM
The people elected the representatives who voted it through congress. What laws did he change in the senate?

I don't know what you're saying about the Supreme Court?

It is my understanding that the rules regarding the majority needed to pass legislation were changed in the Senate in order get it passed.

It was challenged in the Supreme Court and ratified as a tax, not a law.

Mr. Kotter
11-08-2012, 11:17 PM
Well, to me, the fact that he shoved Obama Care through congress, changing the rules in the Senate, to do so and as "law" is seen by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional being ratified there as a "tax" is really all I need to view him the way that I do. Do I have my facts wrong?

Okay...Obamacare came after 16 YEARS of intransigence from the healthcare industry to address concerns raised in 1993 to fix it by Clinton were rebuffed by the industry, "we'll fix it ourselves!" They didn't.

Senate Rules? You mean like the un-precedented use of Filibusters by the GOP to stall, side-track, or stop legislation the Tea-Party doesn't approve of?

And by the Supreme Court, do you mean the endorsement of the law by a majority that included 3 conservative appointed justices, and in accordance with previous "close" decisions....such as the 5-4 Citizens United decision that the far right celebrate as "victory" for the very wealthy, and their own cause?

Your "facts" are perspective, at best; or, from my personal observations...shaped mostly by FOX and RWNJ talk radio.

Just own it, man; least then, you are trying to stake-out principled ground. Lame as it may be....

J Diddy
11-08-2012, 11:18 PM
It is my understanding that the rules regarding the majority needed to pass legislation were changed in the Senate in order get it passed.

It was challenged in the Supreme Court and ratified as a tax, not a law.

I have googled and googled and all that I came up with is that it requires a supermajority to repeal it. Perhaps that is what you are thinking.


In terms of the language, it doesn't matter. What it is is the same before the SC heard the case. All they did was rename it. This had no bearing on the law, the only bearing it had was political. It gave the R's the ability to say he raised taxes. Which they did.

greg63
11-08-2012, 11:27 PM
Okay...Obamacare came after 16 YEARS of intransigence from the healthcare industry to address concerns raised in 1993 to fix it by Clinton were rebuffed by the industry, "we'll fix it ourselves!" They didn't.

Senate Rules? You mean like the un-precedented use of Filibusters by the GOP to stall, side-track, or stop legislation the Tea-Party doesn't approve of?

And by the Supreme Court, do you mean the endorsement of the law by a majority that included 3 conservative appointed justices, and in accordance with previous "close" decisions....such as the 5-4 Citizens United decision that the far right celebrate as "victory" for the very wealthy, and their own cause?

Your "facts" are perspective, at best; or, from my personal observations...shaped mostly by FOX and RWNJ talk radio.

Just own it, man; least then, you are trying to stake-out principled ground. Lame as it may be....

None of what you just wrote changed my perspective or the facts in my mind. I do own it, like I said it is my opinion and I ask no one to like or agree with it. However, I will express my opinion and you are free to do with it as you will.

Brock
11-08-2012, 11:30 PM
Well, to me, the fact that he shoved Obama Care through congress, changing the rules in the Senate, to do so and as "law" is seen by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional being ratified there as a "tax" is really all I need to view him the way that I do. Do I have my facts wrong?

Are you sure that's what happened?

greg63
11-09-2012, 05:53 AM
Are you sure that's what happened?

Pretty sure.

patteeu
11-09-2012, 08:01 AM
It is my understanding that the rules regarding the majority needed to pass legislation were changed in the Senate in order get it passed.

It was challenged in the Supreme Court and ratified as a tax, not a law.

The rules weren't changed. The democrats just used them in a novel and unwise way (unwise in the sense that it exacerbated the problems the President was already having with those pesky Republicans).

patteeu
11-09-2012, 08:02 AM
Senate Rules? You mean like the un-precedented use of Filibusters by the GOP to stall, side-track, or stop legislation the Tea-Party doesn't approve of?

That's not a rule change either.